Direction of Government

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the direction in which I will lead our country. I come before this House having visited each of the regions and nations of the UK over the past six weeks, and Ukraine on the occasion of the 35th anniversary of its independence. The UK’s steadfast support has helped sustain Ukraine’s resolve over the past four and a half years, and particularly so in the last two. That was the achievement of my predecessor, and as he stands down from this place, I want to pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). He has given this country a lifetime of public service, particularly for those fighting for justice. When he delivered in this House on his promise to the Hillsborough families and everyone involved in the Hillsborough law campaign, it was a moment that I will never forget. His leadership took our party from one of its worst defeats to its best victories, and created a platform to change this country for the better. We will use it well, and we wish his family the very best for the future. The position that my right hon. and learned Friend took on Ukraine, building on the work of his predecessors as Prime Minister, is one that I will not change, whatever the threats that we face. We do not seek escalation, but instead will stand firm in providing what help we can to enable Ukraine to defend itself from this illegal invasion. Britain’s defence starts in Ukraine, and the defence of our nation will always be my first priority. On public safety, I know that the whole House will wish to join me in expressing our deepest condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough, who were killed in the line of duty on the A66. We will do our best to support the Middlesbrough community, which is hurting and grieving right now, and we hear the call from the Members of this House who represent it for a discussion about investment in policing and police numbers. I know that I also speak for the whole House in expressing my profound shock and horror at the devastating scenes on the Nepal-China border. My sympathies are with all those affected, including the families and loved ones of those missing in this appalling tragedy. The Foreign Secretary is doing everything he can to support the Nepalese Government and British nationals in the region. This is what the climate crisis looks like. We have just ourselves experienced what is likely to have been the hottest summer on record. This Government will meet the climate challenge, and I can confirm to the House that I will attend COP31 in Turkey in November. I will build on the work of my predecessor in other areas. When I visited Dover in early August, staff from Border Force and HM Coastguard told me that extra police numbers on French beaches were beginning to deliver real results. I can report to the House today that that has continued throughout the last month, with the numbers arriving over the summer halved on last year, making this year, to date, the lowest for crossings since 2021. Tomorrow, when I welcome President Macron to the UK on the occasion of the opening of the exhibition of the Bayeux tapestry, I will thank him for the co-operation that has enabled us to prevent more than 48,000 people from crossing. Where it is right to do so, I will build on what has been achieved. However, where necessary, I will not hesitate to make changes. One of the first things that I did after taking office was to review the plans to relieve pressure on prison places with the Lord Chancellor, who will provide a full update to the House following my statement. We took an early decision to exempt rape, grooming and serious child sex offences, and to fast-track work to see whether we could go further, after hearing the calls from the family of PC Andrew Harper and many others. As a result, we are now confirming that anyone convicted of manslaughter, death by dangerous driving or indecent assault will not see any change in their prison term. We will find additional prison places by deporting more foreign national offenders and finally grasping the nettle on an issue that the House has ignored for too long: indefinite imprisonment for public protection sentences—a now abolished policy, but one which to this day keeps people behind bars despite having already served more than their sentences. None of this is easy, but I did what I always do: apply my values to a challenging situation and a care for people, which I spoke about in Downing Street. I believe the public will support me in recognising the clear difference between those who have served their time and more, and those who have not. We will bring forward legislation soon, but we can find a solution to end this injustice that balances public safety and basic fairness, and I urge colleagues on both sides of the House to help us do that. This is politics done differently: problem solving over point scoring. It is what the country needs, it is what the public want more of, and it will characterise my time in office. I was pleased to begin cross-party talks over social care in the summer, and I thank the leader of the Liberal Democrats and the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) for the spirit in which that endeavour began. I wish the latter well as he leaves the Opposition Front Bench. When it comes to the biggest issues facing the country—the economy and the cost of living crisis—people are looking for much more substantial change, as promised in our manifesto, and that is what I will bring. Britain is not where any of us would wish it to be. Things are not working as they should. Life is too expensive and too hard for too many. That is why this Government’s first moves were to give businesses and people a little breathing space. On tax, in my first week in office we cut VAT on electricity bills and cut business rates for pubs, social clubs and live music venues. We reinstated the £2 cap on bus fares for the whole of 2027. These measures will provide some relief. They were funded by reprioritising within Government, as the bedrock of our approach will be grounded in fiscal responsibility. But in the long term, lifting growth and living standards will require much more.

Who wrote this?

What I bring back to the House after 10 years away is a clear diagnosis of what has gone wrong. Let me lay it out clearly, particularly for the right hon. Gentleman, since he asked. From the 1980s, this country took a series of wrong turns. Political power was centralised, economic power privatised and the country deindustrialised. Austerity followed, hollowing out councils and depriving them of the agency to act to reverse any of it, and then Brexit compounded the damage, ushering in a decade of low growth and stalled regeneration. [Interruption.] Change begins with honesty, and I am not hearing much of it this afternoon. Unless we are blunt about what went wrong, we will not turn things around. Far from “taking back control”, the combination of those policies took control out of the hands of communities up and down Britain. For 40 years, too many places have been drifting. Too many British high streets tell the story of this decline. People yearn to see them restored to what they once were, as the Communities Secretary and I heard on our visit to Ilkeston in the summer, but they see no hope if we continue on the same path with a failed economic model, which does not trickle down much to places like theirs and instead allows wealth to be extracted and siphoned out. Britain’s water industry stands as a leaking monument to that approach—a country run in the private rather than public interest. That is now abundantly clear to voters of all parties, including the Conservative party. The Government I lead will be relentless in giving people and places what they were promised 10 years ago: ownership and control. From that control over their destiny comes change and growth. I say this with confidence. [Interruption.] I do, and let me explain why. It is backed by a decade of personal experience of turning around one of the UK’s former industrial heartlands and turning it into the fastest growing city region in the country, bucking the low-growth trend. It has given me a clear theory of growth and I will apply it to all parts of the UK, learning from what has been achieved in Greater Manchester. For a long time the country did not have ambitions for its regions outside of London. It even talked of the “managed decline” of Liverpool. It took the devolution of power out of this place to allow our big city regions the ability to set new ambitions for themselves. Now, I want every single place across our regions and nations to be able to do the same, creating the conditions for good growth in every postcode. In that spirit, I was glad to meet the Liberal Democrat leader of Cornwall council, with my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), on my recent visit. I know, like many rural economies across the UK, that Cornwall lacks a basic level of infrastructure, which in turn harms growth and holds back living standards and life chances, and I heard the cross-party call for a devolution deal. I understand concerns in this House about the potential emergence of a two-tier England—those with devolved power and those without—and I will not ignore them. So, I have asked No. 10 North to begin work with Cornwall council and its six MPs on a devolution deal with or without an elected mayor. I today extend the same offer to all parts of England without devolved power. The First Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) will today write to every Member of this House setting out how they can engage No. 10 North in the service of the places they represent. I extended the same offer to the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales, and the First and Deputy First Ministers of Northern Ireland when I met them over the summer. As they rightly pointed out, their situations are different, but there is interest in what a local model of devolution could look like in each of the home nations, and we will discuss that with them at a special meeting of the National Economic Council next month. This Government will oversee the biggest redistribution of power this country has seen. In July, we published a statement on the next stage of English devolution. It will include powers long requested by mayors, such as: post-16 technical education; employment support; and fiscal devolution, starting with the ability to set an overnight visitor levy to commence towards the end of the financial year 2027-28. The driving force behind it all will be No. 10 North. It will oversee the rewiring of the British state, the rebuilding of resilience in our communities and the reindustrialisation of our regions. The creation of No. 10 North was one of the first acts of this Administration and I believe that in time it will be seen as one of its most significant. It is a clear answer to the question with which this country has long wrestled: who, in government, drives growth? My theory of growth requires it to be driven with the full authority of the very centre of Government, in close partnership with HM Treasury. No. 10 North has been set up with that full focus; the single front door on which regions can knock to get quicker, joined-up decisions from Whitehall, and through which power and resources will be passed to them. Resources will include human resources. This is because a state that has grown too large at the national level now needs to redirect civil service capacity regionally and locally, repairing the damage of austerity and making the service of place the state’s first priority. We can already see what is possible. I am glad No. 10 North was able to stand behind Mayor Richard Parker when he took urgent action in August to prevent the collapse of bus services across the west midlands, and I congratulate Mayor Steve Rotheram who this weekend, after four decades of deregulation, will see the first buses return to public control in the Liverpool city region. Taking back control of essential services such as transport is an enabler of a more productive economy, because it allows local areas to grab hold of the levers of power for themselves. But driving growth demands we go further. It is taking far too long for businesses to get grid connections and they are being quoted prohibitively expensive sums of money if they try to bring those dates forward, as I heard on my visit to a farm near Truro. Household energy bills are the highest in Europe, and the cost of energy is impacting business and inward investment. Too many areas have seen water supplies disrupted this summer due to a lack of reservoir capacity. Our tourism industry is damaged by too many sewage spills. [Interruption.] “Why?” the Opposition say. It is a question they should ask themselves. This summer has shown us very clearly that water companies are failing to rise to the climate challenge. It cannot go on. Later in the year, our 10-year plan for Britain will set out plans for stronger public control over these essentials, making them work for people and places again. Alongside that, we will empower all areas to expand the public housing stock, building on the first allocations from the social and affordable homes programme announced by the Communities Secretary last week. Bringing forward the biggest council home building programme since the post-war period is the Labour way to get the welfare bill down, as is reforming our education system, so that it balances academic and technical, and offers a path in life for all young people. Michael Gove calls this “bringing back stupid”, when in fact, for too many young people written off by his reforms, it is bringing back hope. Allowing mayors to shape technical pathways and provide work placements for young people, building back into colleges and schools from the needs of the regional economy, is the way to support more young people into work. So is prioritising more accessible, community-based mental health services, as we announced in the summer. That will be a major part of our response to the forthcoming Milburn report, which will follow its publication in the autumn. For it to work, a more intentional approach to the reindustrialisation of Britain is required. We will support all parts of the country to take more public control over investment strategy, learning from the Greater Manchester model of a consolidated good growth fund drawn from their own funds, prudent loan borrowing and fragmented budgets held by Government bodies. We will back local industrial strategies—a policy of the Theresa May Government I am happy to revive—by identifying priority sectors and developing the triple-helix approach to economic development by entwining business, academia and Government behind the plan. This is the way we will build a pro-business culture and an innovation-led economy in all parts of the UK, finally capturing the long-term benefits of the invention that is in the DNA of our nation, backing our start-ups and scale-ups to stay in the UK where they were founded. When I stood outside Downing Street six weeks ago, I said that Britain needs a circuit breaker after a decade of turbulence, negativity, point scoring and divisive politics. This is what I have outlined today: a clear, coherent and credible approach to growth that can unlock a feeling of positivity and possibility in every postcode in Britain. Our job here is to make it real by taking a place-first rather than a party-first approach. It starts with reasserting basic standards for Britain—that this is a country where no one sleeps rough and no community is blighted by an illegal waste tip—and, from there, working together to build a new sense of optimism around the country. We can make this next decade better than the last. We can lift the prospects of all our people and places. We can put more power into every postcode. We can let Britain believe again. We can bring back hope. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Can I welcome the Prime Minister to his place at the Dispatch Box and take this, my first opportunity to congratulate him on becoming Prime Minister? He has been in office for 43 days, during which I have learned how he puts the milk in his tea and exactly what he thinks about pork scratchings, but I have not had the pleasure of asking him any questions. We are all grateful that he has finally found time to come to Parliament to answer some. It is only fair to be gentle with someone on their first day at work, so I am only going to ask the Prime Minister a few very simple but very serious questions. I hope that he can provide me with some simple and serious answers. I genuinely wish him well as he seeks to live up to the dignity and importance of the role. I was pleased to see him in Ukraine over the summer, continuing the Conservatives’ world-leading support for Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression. That being said, I am also very relieved to see that he has not brought his guitar with him today. His predecessor stood at that Dispatch Box two years ago sounding very triumphant, having just won a landslide victory. What went wrong? Where is he now? Gone. That job is not as easy as it looks from the outside. Labour MPs have not explained why they got rid of him. [Interruption.] They are laughing, but they have not explained it. We on this side of the House understand that the country’s problems will not be solved by lofty promises alone. In the end, the Prime Minister will be judged on what he actually delivers. This is a very different job from being Mayor of Greater Manchester—a job where he did not have to pick winners and losers, make difficult trade-offs, or have to worry about our national security. He does now. A Government’s first and most important duty is keeping the country safe. The last Prime Minister and his Chancellor left an enormous hole in Britain’s defence budget. We know that because the current Chancellor quit as Defence Secretary over that black hole, saying that it could put British troops at risk. He said that there could be an attack by Russia on NATO as soon as 2030, and that not funding the defence investment plan reduces the readiness of our forces. Let me ask the Prime Minister very clearly: will he provide the funding that his own Chancellor said was necessary to keep British troops safe? That means 3% by the end of this decade. Keeping this country safe also means defending our borders. The Prime Minister mentioned boat crossings, but we must be honest: boat crossings have not gone down because of anything that Labour has done. [Interruption.] They have not. We have to be honest. Boat crossings are down across all of Europe, and have been down for much longer. Let us be honest: the problem is still not solved. The Prime Minister will have seen the extraordinary scenes in Ceuta over the summer, in which more than 70,000 people tried to cross into Europe. Many of those people would like to end up in the UK. This is not just a British problem; it is a growing global problem. Even Denmark is starting to send illegal migrants to other countries as a deterrent. That is exactly like the Rwanda scheme that the Conservatives put in place and Labour scrapped. We now hear that the Home Secretary is thinking about reviving a Rwanda-style scheme, so can the Prime Minister tell me—yes or no—if that is the plan? Next, the Prime Minister must keep British people safe from dangerous criminals. It was interesting to hear the comments in his statement about early release. Before the summer, I sat with women who had experienced some of the most horrific crimes imaginable, and the perpetrators of those crimes were about to be let out of prison early. The Prime Minister told those women that it was too difficult to keep their perpetrators in jail. Then he changed his mind. The family of PC Andrew Harper appealed to the Prime Minister not to release his killers early. Again, the Prime Minister told them that it was a non-starter. Then he changed his mind. The Conservatives told the Government to create new spaces in the existing prison estate, and to get foreign-born criminals out of our jails. The Government said that we were wrong, but now they are doing both. The Prime Minister has had five different positions on early release in six weeks, putting the victims through hell with his indecision. Will he now set out a timeline for his promise to get more foreign national prisoners out of British prisons? As well as keeping the country safe, the Prime Minister’s next big challenge will be making people in this country feel richer. The biggest mistake that Labour has made in office so far, and there have been quite a few to choose from, is that it has crushed our economy under the weight of nearly £70 billion in new taxes. The Prime Minister was not here for that, so I will give him the list: the jobs tax, the family farm tax, the family business tax, taxes on pensioners, taxes on workers and taxes on businesses. That is £3,500 a year for every working family. He says that he cares about the cost of living; Labour’s taxes have made that worse. Those taxes have cost people their jobs—thousands of jobs in oil and gas, and thousands of jobs in industry across our country. The recruitment market for new graduates is the worst it has ever been. There are 50% fewer vacancies than last year, which was already the worst on record. If the Prime Minister does not change course, he too, like every other Labour Prime Minister, will leave office with unemployment higher than it was when he came in. Can he guarantee, here and now, on the Floor of the House, that there will be no more tax rises in the autumn Budget? The year is 2026, yet the Prime Minister said in his statement that everything has gone wrong since the 1980s. He is still complaining about Margaret Thatcher. I am 46 years old, Mr Speaker—I may not look it, but I am. He is talking about a woman who became Prime Minister before I was born. He is living in the past, and he wants to take us back to the 1970s. We Conservatives are for the future, not the past. That is the difference between them and us. His ideas are all about more Government control, more spending, more tax and more politicians. The Conservatives want people to keep more of their own money. We want businesses to grow, invest, expand and create more jobs. That is the difference between the Labour party and the Conservative party. His diagnosis is completely wrong. His theory of growth is completely wrong. He thinks that if the Government spend more money, we will all get richer, but that is not how this works. Companies are not leaving our shores because there is not enough government. Another difference between us is in dealing with the ballooning welfare bill. Up and down this country, hard-working people are fed up of going to work and paying for their neighbours to sit at home with mild health conditions that do not stop them working. They are fed up of hearing, as we did this summer, that working in Boots is not good for your mental health—ridiculous. We are on the side of those hard-working, fed-up people. I ask the Prime Minister: will he stand up to his Back Benchers in a way that his predecessor never could and cut the benefits bill? It is a simple question. The Prime Minister engineered it so that he could have as long a summer holiday as possible, so he should be ready with some answers. I am even hearing rumours that he does not want to do Prime Minister’s questions next week, but it is my job to ask him serious questions, and it is time for him to start answering. [Interruption.] I know Labour Members do not like hearing the questions, but they are going to hear them. It is my job to speak on behalf of all the people out there who want to know what he has planned, and it is time for him to start answering some serious questions. Governing is hard, but the country needs the Prime Minister to succeed. Where it is in the national interest, I will help him. He may find that Conservative votes come in handy when Labour MPs are too scared to do the right thing. Britain faces many serious challenges to our national and economic security. There are difficult decisions to make, and they will show whether the Prime Minister is serious about governing. On defence, his own Chancellor said that 3% spending was needed to keep British troops safe; now, apparently, he does not believe that. On illegal migration, Labour scrapped the Rwanda scheme; now it appears to be considering a Rwanda-style scheme of its own. On prisons, the Prime Minister said that dangerous criminals could not be exempted from early release, and then he changed his mind. This country cannot afford a Government swerving all over the place. Labour has already tried government by U-turn, and it does not work. If he wants to be different from his predecessor, and wants to live up to the optimistic vision that he is painting, he is going to have to start taking this job seriously. That is not what we heard from the Prime Minister today, but that is what the Conservatives are offering.

I thank the right hon. Lady for the welcome that she gave me and her kind words; I appreciate the tone of some of what she had to say. I do want to try to work with her across the Floor of the House where we can. She mentions my summer. I notice that she spent hers travelling all the way to Rome to be told by the Italian Prime Minister not to do a deal with Reform. If she had called me, I would have told her that and saved her the trip. The right hon. Lady was right to start with Ukraine, as I did. I mentioned the work of previous Prime Ministers in setting the right tone. Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak—everybody played a role in setting that tone, and it has been carried on by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). It is a very challenging situation, but I was there to send a very clear message that with a change of Prime Minister there does not come any change in Britain’s approach. I hope that I speak for the vast majority of Members of this House in making that completely plain. The right hon. Lady said that the job of Prime Minister is different from the job of Mayor of Greater Manchester. I can vouch that I know that now, after six weeks in the role. She was wrong, though, to say that in that role I did not have to worry about national security. I did. Within two weeks of taking office, I had to deal with the appalling terrorist attack at the Manchester Arena. I send all my best wishes to those who gathered last night at the Heaton Park synagogue to remember our friends who lost their lives and the incredible efforts of Rabbi Daniel Walker and others to hold the attackers at the door. We all send them our very best wishers and reaffirm again, hopefully from all sides of the House, that antisemitism is a scourge that we should work together to remove from our society. The right hon. Lady mentions defence. She is right to, because it is a changing and challenging world in which we live, but I say to her directly: I appointed this Chancellor of the Exchequer precisely because of his commitment to the defence of our realm and the arguments that he has made. He will set out at the spending review the path to honouring our international commitments in full, as I said that we would when I was before the steps of Downing Street. Those listening at home will find it hard to accept what the right hon. Lady said about the boat crossings, which are significantly down—halved on last year. She said that had nothing to do with anything that this Government have done. That is plainly not the case. I heard an Opposition spokesperson on the radio this morning trying to find any excuse to justify the numbers going down—the weather and all kinds of things. Can they not just accept that the action that we are taking is making progress? That includes the co-operation with the French that I mentioned. The Home Secretary and I will continue to look at all measures, and will be relentless in making sure that we continue to make progress, but the Conservatives would do well to recognise that significant progress has indeed been made. On the early release of prisoners, I do not think there is any moral high ground for any party in this House. The Justice Secretary will shortly make a statement and lay out the timeline for the return of foreign national offenders. I hope that we can work together on the question of imprisonment for public protection sentences. Too often, issues in this House just get left. I left 10 years ago worried about this issue, and I come back to find that it is not resolved. Social care was something that I spoke about a lot when I left. I come back, and it is not resolved. We have to do better, don’t we? We have to find more ways of working across the House and not just leave issues unresolved with all the harm that that causes. On growth, I cut tax twice in my first week. I say to the right hon. Lady that I am committed to bringing down the welfare bill not through crude cuts but in a way that provides the right support for people—particularly young people—whom, in my view, the education system has let down. The right hon. Lady mentioned the 1980s, the legacy of which, I have to say to her, we are still struggling to reverse. It is the reason why—[Interruption.] Well, let us have the argument in this House. Why are people paying such high water bills, while the infrastructure is crumbling before our eyes? Why are energy bills in this country the highest in Europe? Why do Opposition Members represent constituencies where, year after year, bus services have been cut and the fares have gone up? They know the truth of what I am saying. Let us have some honesty so that we can deal with these issues properly. The right hon Lady raised an ideological point. I noticed that yesterday she appointed a new shadow Cabinet, with a new shadow Chancellor—the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith); I welcome him to his position—who I believe was the author of the mini-Budget. [Interruption.] I think at least half the shadow Cabinet supported the Liz Truss Government. The right hon. Lady said that I have been in my position for 43 days. Well, may I turn that around? In six days, this Government will have outlived the Truss Government, and we will be here for a lot, lot longer. I will work with the right hon. Lady where I can—we should make that commitment to each other today—but I will still point out where she is wrong. We will not take lectures when the country is moving in the right direction. You can see that on the economy, on small boat crossings and on the cost of living. We will continue to do that to turn this country around.

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

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

I and my fellow Committee Chairs look forward to welcoming the Prime Minister to the Liaison Committee very soon so that we can drill into his agenda in more detail. I was pleased by the announcements over the summer on housing, which in London is really holding people back. One of the many challenges is releasing public land that was previously used for education or health, for example, for building on. Will he undertake to put a rocket under the release of that land where appropriate to best deliver housing?

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

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and I welcome him to his place. I associate myself with the condolences that he has sent to the family and friends of the police officers killed on the A66 and with his comments on the disaster on the Nepal-China border. I wished each of the Prime Minister’s predecessors well, but given how that went for them perhaps he would prefer that I did not bother this time. I sincerely hope that he can turn things around, and quickly, because we all know how fed up people are. We hear it all the time. Every year, it gets harder to make ends meet, waiting lists seem to go up, more and more things seem broken, and the populists and extremists are eager to keep things that way so they can profit from it. Everything the Prime Minister has described in his statement would be possible only if we fundamentally change the way we do politics in our country. Growing the economy, cutting the cost of living, fixing our public services, restoring people’s trust: those are things that every new Prime Minister has talked about. Yet they failed because they stuck to a broken political system; a system that makes it impossible to really change things for the better. The reason so much is broken in our country and can never be fixed is partly that our political system concentrates too much power in the wrong hands—in Westminster, in Whitehall and in big multinational companies. I think the Prime Minister gets some of that, judging by what he has been saying. There are so many more problems in our political system: too much power in the hands of social media barons who interfere in our politics and crypto billionaires who use donations to buy influence; and too little power in the hands of our people. Britain’s political system too often rewards corruption and leaves everyone else feeling powerless. Our great country is being held back, and it will only be free to thrive again if we put real power in people’s hands. We have been campaigning on that for decades and the Prime Minister has written about it. His decision over the summer to finally start cross-party talks on social care—talks I have been desperate to start for years and which Conservative and Labour Prime Ministers promised but failed to deliver—is a welcome step in the right direction. There is, however, a lot more work to do, and more fundamental change is needed to make our politics work for the people we serve. Will the Prime Minister start that work today? Listening to the calls of over 170 Members on the Opposition Benches and on his own, will he launch a national commission to change politics so that we can fix our country?

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

Yes!

Okay, Northern Ireland—[Interruption.] Scotland. My apologies. There are models elsewhere that we can follow. Can anyone say, with water in England, that the money that is siphoned out in salaries and dividends is justifiable when the system could not provide a basic service to people this summer? When sewage spills out on to our beaches and into our lakes, can anyone justify that? I am surprised that there is not more recognition of that from the Conservative party. Thirty years of privatisation has not left the system in a good state. Changing some of those big things will require the different approach that the right hon. Gentleman calls for. I was pleased that he came, while on his holiday, to the cross-party talks on social care. I give him a commitment that I will keep them going until Louise Casey reports next year with her options. I hope, even then, that we might be able to find a consensus option that we take forward. I do not want to leave this position without having put all my political capital into solving this issue. As Health Secretary 16 years ago, I could not defend leaving people to lose everything they had worked for, but often only getting in return care that was sub-standard and not good enough. I know from my own family experience that that cannot carry on any longer. Nor can we defend the poverty pay for those people who care for other people’s parents and give everything of themselves to those roles. We owe it to millions out there to fix that. This is a test for this Parliament—what remains of it—to see if we can do that. I will work with the right hon. Gentleman to do that. On the right hon. Gentleman’s suggestion of a national commission, there is a democracy taskforce working out of the Cabinet Office and I could certainly involve him in the work that that is doing. I am interested in political reform. I am interested in looking at how we restore trust in politics. I am prepared to look at all those issues—alongside the voting system, too—and I think he knows that. I believe that this Parliament needs to be a circuit breaker for the country. I do not believe we can carry on as we are. We are losing the trust and faith of the public. We need to act together to turn it around, and I look forward to working with him, precisely on that theme.

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

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

I call the Father of the House.

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

I thank the Father of the House for what he said about Ukraine. I saw the sincerity with which he said it, and I appreciate it. It was important for me to make the journey last week. I know it was appreciated by President Zelensky, and he asked me to relay to this House and beyond how much he and the Ukrainian people appreciate the support that we have provided. We will continue to do so for as long as it takes. On meeting our defence commitments and bringing down the welfare bill, I cannot defend a position where too many people in their 20s are on benefits, but what I say is, “Why is that the case?” I do not believe we have an education system that is setting up all young people for success. There is more that we can do to give young people work-related opportunity at 16, and there is more support we can provide for their mental health. Those are the approaches that we can take, I hope with cross-party support, to set our young people up for life, invest in their success and bring down the welfare bill in a sustainable way.

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

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

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

I say to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) that I am probably not renowned for spending much time on farms—I am more likely to be found in the northern quarter of Manchester—but I was on a farm in Cornwall in the summer, precisely to engage and understand the issues that they are facing. I heard very clearly the issues that have been presented by this very difficult summer for farmers up and down the country. I will focus on farming because, for me, farming and food production are part of this country’s sovereign production and manufacturing capacity, which we will need to strengthen in the years to come. We will need to depend upon it, and therefore we need to strengthen it more. That is a clear commitment. To give the hon. Gentleman some sign that I mean what I say, I did not go empty handed to Colwyn farm. I took a commitment to allow more flexibility over Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs funding, so that areas that previously could not be used for grazing can be used for that, and to funding to build reservoir capacity on farms, so that summer ’27 will hopefully be less painful than summer ’26. That is my commitment. I look forward to working with him to improve measures for farming.

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

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

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

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

I congratulate the Prime Minister on taking office and thank him profoundly for his tribute to the Cleveland police officers, PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough, who were so tragically killed on 22 August. My constituents, and indeed constituents across Teesside, welcomed his remarks in the past week on support for Cleveland police, and I look forward to the Home Secretary’s statement later today. The Prime Minister’s remarks on greater public control of public service and public utility provision are most welcome, and I look forward to discussing the nature of that public control in more detail in the coming weeks and months. One core aspect of that is the continued waste of public funds through the continued use of outsourcing to provide core public services. I trust that he will engage with key stakeholders who have provided yet more evidence that it makes complete economic sense to insource provision of our services. Does he agree that we must ensure that the new public interest test does its job of economic transformation and delivers, as we promised, the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation?

I thank my hon. Friend. I was really distressed by what I saw in his community following the tragic death of our two police officers, and the seven lives lost in total. I know it has sent shockwaves through the community. I know from my previous role about the unfairness in police funding—or that is how it is felt in some parts of the country—and I know he and his colleagues feel that. We do need to look at that question as part of the Home Secretary’s wider police reform programme. On the second part of my hon. Friend’s question, the manifesto commits us to the largest wave of insourcing in a generation, and my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State is overseeing that work. Taking one example that I mentioned in my statement, if we bring in employment support, often delivered through outsourced contracts, and put it under the control of mayors and combined authorities, who can spend that funding through the community, voluntary and social enterprise sector, I personally believe that money would achieve far greater results than it currently does.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place and thank him for his statement. I particularly agree with what he was saying about social security and tackling the drivers of the high rates of young people not in education, employment or training. If I may, I direct him to a report by the Work and Pensions Committee that came out just before the recess specifically on that point. My question relates to the middle east. I know he has made reference in the past to the importance of being able to hold Israel to account. What does he think is the appropriate action that we and our partners can take not only in ensuring humanitarian aid and access, but in relation to the unlawful settlements? On so many occasions, the law has been broken, and there is a real danger that the Palestine state will not be viable if we carry on in this way.

I thank my dear friend for her question, and I will certainly look up the Select Committee report. In answer to her point about the middle east, before I became Prime Minister, I issued a statement saying that I thought we needed to look again at the approach that we had taken, and to be clear about our values and what we believe is right.