Welcome to the Liaison Committee on Monday 15 December 2025. This is the Committee made up of Chairs from the Committee Corridor in Parliament, representing the Select Committees. We are delighted to have our session with the Prime Minister—welcome, Prime Minister.

Thank you.

Prime Minister, it has been a very tragic weekend. I wondered if you wanted to say anything about what happened in Sydney.

I will take that opportunity, if I may—thank you, Chair. It was an appalling antisemitic terror attack that took place yesterday, and I am sure I speak for the whole Committee, the whole House and, in fact, the whole country in saying that our thoughts are with those affected by this attack. It has impacted not just on Australia, but across the globe, and it has impacted on Jewish communities here in the United Kingdom, who I know feel even more insecure today than they did before. Yesterday, I was in touch with the Australian Prime Minister. I was also in touch with the CST and the Home Office, and I had a call with the Chief Rabbi last night, partly out of reassurance, but also to talk about our plans for Hanukkah events taking place here in the United Kingdom, and to make sure that every consideration is given to the security of those events. This is clearly not an isolated incident. These incidents are chillingly focused on some of the holiest days in the Jewish calendar, and of course we have in our minds Heaton Park, here in the United Kingdom in October. I want to reassure our Jewish communities here in the United Kingdom that we will take every step that we can—use all of our powers—to make sure they are safe and secure, as they should be in the United Kingdom. We will continue our discussions after the session today.

Thank you very much, Prime Minister. I know that the thoughts of all of Parliament are with the victims and those affected. Today, we are focusing on two issues, and I want to kick off on the issue of standards in public life. I turn to Alberto Costa MP.

Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, Prime Minister; thank you for coming before the Committee. This year, as you know, marks 30 years since the establishment of the seven principles of public life, also known as the Nolan principles. You are familiar with those principles, which underpin the “Ministerial Code” for which you are responsible. Is that correct?

Yes, that is right. We strengthened the “Ministerial Code” to directly put the Nolan principles in the code itself.

Indeed. In the foreword to the “Ministerial Code”, which was updated in October this year—I have a copy here—you state: “This Code sets out the higher standards that the British people expect and that ministers must now follow. It enshrines the commitment we all make, on entering the service of this nation, to uphold the Seven Principles of Public Life.” Your words—is that correct?

Yes.

Thank you. By necessity, I will refer to very recent examples to assist you, Prime Minister, in demonstrating to this Committee how you have acted in accordance with the Nolan principles or relevant codes. The first such example occurred on 11 December, only four days ago. You posted on your personal X social media account: “Catching the bus shouldn’t cost the earth. That’s why we are capping bus fares at £3 and investing in new buses and stops.” Your words—is that correct, Prime Minister?

That’s right.

But X readers added context to clarify your comment. They said: “Important reminder that a £2 cap was introduced by the Tories in 2023. Labour have since risen this by 50%.” Prime Minister, which of the Nolan principles do you consider to have followed in publishing your X post?

Let me just deal with the substance of that, if I may, because the £2 cap was put in place and it came to an end in December ’24, with no funding for it to continue—therefore, that was the end of that scheme. What we then put in place was a new scheme for a £3 cap on bus fares, which I am really pleased that we have been able to do. That is what I was drawing attention to, not only in the post that went up on X, but also in the visit that I took part in last week. The scheme that was introduced by the last Government—I acknowledge that—came to an end. So that was the end of that capping scheme. What we then put in place was a further capping scheme.

Let me turn to ministerial statements to the House and standards expected. The “Ministerial Code”, at paragraph 1.6.b, states: “Ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments and agencies.” Paragraph 9.1 states: “When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament.” And paragraph 9.3 states: “Every effort should be made to avoid leaving significant announcements to the last day before a recess.” Prime Minister, are you familiar with these three extracts from your own “Ministerial Code”?

Yes.

Thank you. Only a few days ago, on Wednesday 10 December, on a point of order, the hon. Member for Harrow East, in respect of the police settlement and the local government settlement, said: “Normally there is a debate held about both of these matters, or at least a statement given on the Floor of the House, so that Members are able to ask questions on the settlements. I understand it seems to be the Government’s intention to put out a written ministerial statement on the last day of Parliament and not to give us”—that is, MPs across the House—“an opportunity to challenge.” Mr Speaker responded: “I do take this matter seriously, and the House should hear that. A WMS is not the answer on matters so serious, and those on the Treasury Bench should have heard that point. We should not shy away from this House; in fact, we should always come to the House first—I cannot say it more than I do.” And this is the salient point: “Once again, I suggest that at some point the ministerial code needs to be changed if people are not going to take it seriously”—people being your Ministers. Given Mr Speaker’s response to that point of order, can you tell this Committee why your Ministers are failing to follow the Nolan principle of accountability, which requires that they submit themselves to scrutiny for their public decisions?

Well, I do take this seriously and regularly discuss it with the Speaker. He raises his concerns with me, and we usually try to address the concerns that he has flagged with us. And I am always happy to do so. That is an ongoing discussion, so that there is the scrutiny that is needed of the statements that have to be made.

When Ministers fail to update the House and answer questions from MPs, which part of the “Ministerial Code” is being upheld?

Well, it is not just the “Ministerial Code”; it is the role of Parliament, which almost sits above the “Ministerial Code”. Mr Speaker feels this very strongly—that we are accountable to Parliament.

Do you feel this very strongly, Prime Minister?

Yes, I do, and that is why I regularly discuss it with the Speaker. He will usually flag with me where he has concerns, as I would expect him to, and then we go through those and try to make sure they are not—

Were you aware of this point of order, raised last week?

I was, yes.

Thank you. I will now refer to a further contemporary example. I understand that this coming Thursday, the last day before the forthcoming parliamentary recess, your Government, Prime Minister, intends to publish a progress report on the Grenfell inquiry by way of a written ministerial statement. Given Mr Speaker’s comments and your confirmation that you are aware of that point of order, and as Head of Government, why are you permitting this lack of upholding standards? Given the important progress report on the Grenfell inquiry and other statements that I understand will be made on Thursday, what are you going to do about that?

I will happily have a look at the proposed written ministerial statement on Thursday and discuss it with the Speaker.

Thank you. Paragraph 1.6.c of the “Ministerial Code” states: “It is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity.” Prime Minister, you are of course familiar with that paragraph of your “Ministerial Code”. Is that correct?

Yes.

Thank you. Again, to refer to a recent example and to assist you in showing how you comply with the extract from the “Ministerial Code”, I would like to turn to last week’s Prime Minister’s questions, when the Leader of the Opposition asked you “how many extra teachers” there are since your Government took office. Fullfact.org, a neutral website, only a few days ago published that the PM “claimed that the number of teachers in England is ‘more than when the Conservatives left office’.” It added: “This isn’t supported by the latest school workforce census figures, which show a fall, not a rise.” Can you tell the Committee which Nolan principle underpinned your answer?

What I was putting before the House was the fact that we are committed to recruiting an additional 6,500 new teachers, and we have record numbers of trainees coming into the system, and therefore that number is going up. If you look at secondary schools and further education colleges, the number of teachers has gone up. That is absolutely clear; that is what our commitment was. In relation to primary schools, the number of pupils has gone down pretty dramatically, in terms of the birth rate. Therefore, the sheer number of teachers at primary level has gone down, because less teachers are needed because the birth rate has gone down. Just for completeness, the focus in our plan for change and then our manifesto was on 6,500 new teachers for secondary schools, specialist schools and colleges, and that is the number I was referring to.

Thank you very much. Can I now turn to the issue of written parliamentary questions and standards? I know that my colleague, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre, as Chair of the Procedure Committee, has issued calls for evidence to her Committee’s new inquiry. Paragraph 9.8 of your “Ministerial Code” states: “Ministers should, where possible, provide full and timely responses to written parliamentary questions, ministerial correspondence and select committee reports.” Once again, can I ask you to confirm to the Committee that you are familiar with that paragraph of the “Ministerial Code”?

Yes.

Thank you. Can you explain why your Government are failing to provide timely responses to WPQs, as obligated under the standards outlined by your own “Ministerial Code”?

Well, we do our level best to comply, of course. I think the Procedure Committee is looking into this, which we welcome. We will study carefully the findings and any recommendations that are made.

Thank you. Paragraph 1.6.d of the “Ministerial Code” states that Ministers “should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest”. Are you satisfied that the responses that are currently being made are in compliance with the high standards you have set your Government?

Yes, but obviously, if the Procedure Committee in due course sets out its findings and any recommendations, I would want to study them to see whether we can improve in any way.

Prime Minister, it is an indisputable fact that political staff in No. 10 have been briefing against serving Cabinet Ministers. You and I both sat on the Opposition Benches while we had to watch the painful spectacle of political advisers briefing under Johnson and a litany of Tory Prime Ministers. Given that your record, when it comes to Ministers, shows that you have acted very decisively and without favour in applying the “Ministerial Code”, could you explain, given your responsibility for setting and upholding standards across Government, what steps you have taken to establish the facts and how you will ensure that No. 10 political staff act in accordance with the “Ministerial Code”, the special advisers’ code and the Nolan principles?

Let me say, to start with, that briefing against Cabinet Ministers is completely unacceptable, whether that is from No. 10 or anywhere else. I have made that repeatedly clear to my staff and to the Cabinet, and have put in place a number of procedures, where there have been such allegations, to give me a level of assurance that it has not happened in relation to direct briefings against Ministers and members of the Cabinet. I have been really clear and consistent on this with my staff, my team and the Cabinet, and have put in place procedures, when there are allegations, to assure myself of what the situation is.

On the subject of leaks, Prime Minister, last week, the Treasury Committee had the Chancellor in front of us. She was very cross about the information that was in the Financial Times article on 13 November by George Parker, a renowned political journalist. She was clear that that was a leak, and she said: “I am absolutely categorical that that was not an authorised briefing. It was incredibly damaging and frustrating. That is why we have a leak inquiry. It was not ‘briefing’ that was signed off by me or any of my Ministers or officials. It was unacceptable.” If it was not Ministers or officials in the Treasury, there is a danger that it could have been a leak from No. 10. Do you think there was a leak from No. 10 Downing Street about the Budget?

In relation to that incident, there is a leak inquiry going on—

We know, yes; the Chancellor announced it.

So that will go wherever the evidence takes it.

Do you think there was a leak from No. 10?

I have no reason to think there was a leak from No. 10.

But if there were a leak from No. 10, what would you do?

I would take action, and I have taken action. It is very difficult with leaks to get to the source of the information.

You would take action—

Where that has happened in the past, I have taken action that has led to the removal of individuals.

So you would go as far as removing an individual if they were found to have leaked the Budget?

Obviously, I will wait for the inquiry, but the inquiry will go wherever the evidence takes it. There is nothing to inhibit where it will go, and I will take appropriate action if there is a finding.

The report in the FT was very clear. It talked about an official source, and Mr Parker is a journalist who would have sourced that story, so that is a very big concern.

Oh, look, I will get to the bottom of these leaks. In any organisation, they are intolerable. I took the same action when I was head of the Crown Prosecution Service. There is a leak inquiry. It can go wherever the evidence will take it, and if it comes to a conclusion, I will act on it.

Okay, so you are going to be ruthless with whoever has done this, if they are found.

I want to stop these leaks.

There is a separate code of conduct governing standards for special advisers—it is called the “Code of Conduct for Special Advisers”. You are, of course, familiar with this document, aren’t you?

I am.

Thank you. Paragraph 13 of the “Code of Conduct for Special Advisers” states that “briefing on purely party political matters must be handled by the Party machine.” For the purposes of this code, can you confirm that Labour party leadership speculation is a purely party political matter?

No, I’m not sure I can; it seems to be pretty rife. [Laughter.] In terms of the code, I know exactly where it should be dealt with, but I can say hand on heart that none of it comes from me or is encouraged by me.

Well, we will come back to that. I just wanted to confirm that Labour party leadership speculation is a purely party political matter in accordance with the code.

I think the code is dealing with political briefings of a political nature, which have to come through the party, obviously, and cannot come through the civil service. I think wider speculation is not necessarily a code issue.

Paragraph 15 of the code—just to help you, Prime Minister—goes further: “Special advisers must not take public part in political controversy… They must observe discretion and express comment with moderation, avoiding personal attacks”. You are very familiar with the code. I would like to refer to an interview that you gave to Sky News last month. For the purpose of assisting you, Prime Minister, I will just recap that interview. Referring to alleged leaks about Wes Streeting, you were asked: “You say that was unauthorised. That makes it sound like you have lost complete control of your Downing Street operation. Why don’t you sack the person who was responsible for attacking one of your colleagues?” You responded: “First, let me be absolutely clear that any briefing against Ministers is completely unacceptable. That’s not a new position for me. It’s a position I have adopted ever since I became Prime Minister… I’ve been talking to my team today. I’ve been assured that no briefing against Ministers was done from No. 10.” The interviewer asked: “You are saying it didn’t come from Downing Street?” You responded: “I’ve been assured”—second time—“it didn’t come from Downing Street.” Who gave you that assurance?

I had assurance from within Downing Street on a number of different levels—

Who gave you that assurance?

Different people in my team.

Who gave you that assurance?

Different levels in my team. I am not going to—

Can you please tell us who gave you that assurance?

Were they officials or special advisers who were giving you assurance? Just give us a flavour.

Special advisers. I am not going to name members of staff, but I will add this: I did not just take everything at face value; I looked at other bits of evidence to assure myself about what I was then saying publicly to the media.

Thank you. That interview ended as follows: “If it didn’t come from Downing Street, where did it come from, and will you sack the person who is responsible?” You responded: “Well, I will absolutely deal with anybody responsible for briefing against Ministers” and—this is the salient point—“I’ve always said that is the standard that I expect, and that is the standard I will enforce.” Although you just answered a moment ago to the Chair that you have taken action and you have removed individuals, can you just confirm for this Committee that in the example that I have cited, when you said that you would enforce a standard, what standard did you enforce in respect of this example?

I can only take action where I have a clear finding that somebody has breached a relevant duty or standard. When I have had that, I have acted accordingly. That is not something new to me as Prime Minister. It is what I did as Leader of the Opposition and as Director of Public Prosecutions.

Thank you. Can I turn to another issue that you rightly regularly raised when you were Leader of the Opposition—namely, your frequent criticism of previous Administrations’ alleged cronyism and the way in which public appointments were undertaken? Only last month, Prime Minister, you profoundly regretted your own involvement in the appointment process for the chair of the Independent Football Regulator. In your own letter to your independent ministerial adviser, you said: “In retrospect, it would have been better if I had not been given the note or confirmed that I was content with the appointment. This was an unfortunate error for which I express my sincere regret.” Sir Laurie, in his response, stated: “It is regrettable, as you say in your letter, that despite the recusal we agreed in Autumn 2024 concerning the Football Governance Bill, you were asked to confirm that you were content with the proposed appointment.” Can you give this Committee an update on the progress of your internal review that you said to Sir Laurie would take place to ensure this breach in standards does not happen again?

First, can I say that David Kogan was first approached for this role by the previous Government—I therefore reject the cronyism allegation, which I do not think should rightly be put in his case—and then endorsed by the cross-party Committee? He was headhunted by the previous Government because of his suitability for the role, appointed by this Government and endorsed by the cross-party Committee. I had recused myself in relation to the Bill. The decision to appoint was for the DCMS Minister. That is set out in the legislation, in the statute, so I knew full well it wasn’t my decision. As it happens, a note was put before me to say that is what was going to happen and to ask whether I was content. The independent adviser took the view, which I agree with, that it would have been better if that note had never been put before me—in other words, if the recusal had meant I did not even get the note before me. But when I said I was content, I was well aware that I was not the decision maker, because I knew the legislation set out who the decision maker was. It was the Minister in the relevant Department by law, and therefore it could not be me in any event. I had actually been talking to the independent adviser about it throughout, as he makes clear in his letter. I always take his advice, even if I do not think there is anything wrong.

I understand that, but you have also regretted your own decision.

I have now asked him to look again, when someone says they are recusing themselves, at the processes that then need to be put in the office to make sure that even a decision that is not for the recused person and is coming by way of note, in effect, is not put before them. That is just to make sure that we are not in that position again. I was well aware that I was not the decision maker, because I knew by law it was the Minister.

Thank you. Finally, on other public appointments, can I refer you to your recent decision as Prime Minister on appointments to the House of Lords? Prior to the general election, you promised to reduce political appointments to the Lords, and indeed stated as much in your party’s manifesto. Do you understand why the public might feel that you are not upholding the high standards you set yourself on appointments to the House of Lords?

It is important that the House of Lords is able to do its vital work of scrutinising legislation. At the moment, there is an imbalance in the Lords in the numbers of peers for the relevant political parties, and it is right that we get the balance right as we go forward. But the overarching work to reduce the size of the House of Lords is ongoing. The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill has been going through, and it is important—

That wasn’t my question. My question was specifically about your comments prior to the general election and the decision that you made last week. But thank you very much, Prime Minister, for the answers that you have given.

Good afternoon, Prime Minister. Public trust is pivotal if the governance of this country and our public life is to be supported and trusted, but the public’s trust in what we do and why we do it seems to be a value that is declining. Before my Committee last week, Baroness Deech said it is quite interesting how parties change their position on standards from when they were in opposition to then going into government. We are doing a piece of work that is clearly showing that, notwithstanding Nolan, the EIC and amendments to the “Ministerial Code”, there is still an element of what I suppose, in the old term, you could call the “good chaps” principle—HOLAC and so on. In order to future-proof against rogue operators, and to try to bolster declining public confidence, what consideration, if any, have you given or might you give to putting quite a lot of these bodies on a statutory footing, including the ethics adviser at No. 10, so that the public can see that there are dispassionate people who take decisions based on good judgment and sound evidence?

Obviously I strengthened the “Ministerial Code”, and then I also took the step because the independent adviser, before I became Prime Minister, was not able to initiate investigations and could do it only with the Prime Minister’s approval. I thought that was wrong in principle and that it would be better if the independent adviser—who was appointed under the last Government but continued under me—had the ability to say of his own volition, “I think this is serious for me to look at it”, so I have done that. At the moment, I am not convinced that we need to go further and put it on a statutory basis, but I never close my mind to further steps that could be taken, whether it is in relation to the independent adviser or any of the other relevant bodies.

We now move on to the plan for change, which was the Government’s plan on entering government, and the five missions that were established. I am going to ask Helen Hayes to kick off on the opportunity mission.

Good afternoon, Prime Minister. Your personal commitment to further education and skills is really clear, and we have seen some positive announcements from the Government in relation to technical excellence colleges and qualifications reform in the skills White Paper. My Committee has recently completed an inquiry on further education and skills, and we found that there are two areas that are really holding back the FE sector at the moment. The first is that, unlike other post-16 education providers, FE colleges and stand-alone sixth-form colleges are unable to claim VAT back on their expenditure. That is a tax position for which there is no justification, and my Committee was very clear on that from the evidence that we found. Will you undertake to speak to the Treasury about this anomaly, which is holding back post-16 education providers from delivering against the Government’s mission?

I will certainly have a look and talk to the Treasury about it. I am very keen to do what we can to further further education—I think it is part of the system that needs more work, more resource, more capability and more weight behind it. I will certainly have a look at that issue.

Thank you very much. As an example of the scale of change and difference that would make, a college that my Committee visited told us that the amount of VAT it was unable to claim back made the difference between adding a whole extra storey on a new building it had recently completed. The second area that my Committee found to be a problem for the FE sector is the disparity in pay between FE colleges and schools for teachers teaching the same subject. A pay disparity of up to 15% makes it really hard for them to recruit the teachers they need. It also creates difficulties in getting people from industry to come to teach within the further education sector. On a recent visit to Switzerland, we found that the Swiss rail system pays its staff more—they get an extra premium—if they are prepared to undertake training for apprentices within the rail system. We just had the announcement on the setting up of Great British Railways. Will you look at the premium that is placed on training for the next generation of the rail industry within the leverage that you have with Great British Railways, and seek to learn from Switzerland on how important it is that the next generation are really well trained?

I was not aware of the Swiss experience and approach, but I am certainly very willing to have a look at that. In terms of further education colleges, we need to improve and focus the skills and courses to make sure they link with the work that those coming out are most likely to be able to do. The retention and recruitment of teachers is hugely important in that sector for some of the reasons that you set out, as is anything we can do to help in that regard. I will certainly have a look at the Swiss example and see whether some or all of it can be applied here in the United Kingdom.

Thank you. Finally, we have also seen some really positive announcements from the Government on opportunities for young people, through the youth guarantee and the youth strategy announced last week. We have spoken previously in this Committee about some of the barriers that hold back care-experienced young people from being able to take advantage of the opportunities that are available to them. The Government are still resistant to a national offer for care leavers, which would provide confidence and clarity for care leavers across the country that, wherever they live, the same support and entitlements would be available to them. Will you look again at that commitment, which would really enable care leavers to be able to access some of the great opportunities that the Government are making available to young people across the country?

Yes. Certainly in the context of the youth guarantee, that would be a sensible place to start in relation to the support that is going in from 13 weeks for two years, and then, if necessary after 18 months, into the offer of a job, which the Government will support with business, so that young people can actually get into a job. I think that will make a material difference for them as a stepping stone. I am certainly happy to look at care leavers and whether there is anything in the youth guarantee or the youth strategy, for that matter, that could help.

If you are a care leaver who cannot access housing or help with transport costs—which some care leavers can and some cannot, depending on where they live in the country—you are not going to be able to access the 13 weeks of training to get into employment.

I am certainly happy to look at that again.

Good afternoon, Prime Minister. Sir Brian Leveson’s independent review of the criminal courts has 45 recommendations in part 1 alone, but the controversy around it is centred on changes to the jury system, specifically the mode of trial that will apply in intermediate cases. The plans seem to involve a quarter to a half of current jury trials being heard by magistrates or by a judge sitting alone. Yet we are told this will affect only about 1% or 2% of all criminal trials, so it is difficult to see how it will address the Crown court backlog. Would it not be sensible to postpone the decision on the future of jury trials until we have more reliable information and can see what the impact on the backlog will be?

First, just to put those figures into context, of all the criminal cases that go to court in this country, 90% are in the magistrates court and therefore do not have a jury in any event. The other 10% go to the Crown court, where there is the potential for a jury, but 70% of those plead guilty. Therefore, of all the criminal cases that go to our criminal courts, 3% currently go before a jury. Those are the most serious. The proposals that Brian Leveson has recommended—he is a highly respected judge—would change that to about 2.25%. I accept the challenge that that will not, on its own, be the silver bullet that speeds up our criminal cases, but it is one element of a package. I am acutely aware that victims in our criminal justice system are waiting too long for justice. I am particularly concerned about violence against women and girls, where all the indicators are that, still, 60% of victims and survivors will not make it through to the final hurdle of being in court, because they will have dropped out along the way, either pre-charge or during charge, because they are waiting three or four years to give their evidence. Even in the last week, I have heard examples of a 14-year-old who then gave evidence when she was 18 and was cross-examined up hill and down dale about that—it is very hard, four years after the event, to deal with that—and a young woman who was 16 at the time of the alleged offence and gave evidence when she was a young woman of 20. That is not acceptable, and we have to do whatever we can to improve that. The criminal justice system has been too slow for too long. This is not just a recent phenomenon; I have been on this for the best part of 20 years.

It is also the case—this is not in the Leveson report—that magistrates court sentences are proposed to go from, until very recently, a six-month maximum for an offence up to a maximum of 24 months, and that swift courts will involve a judge sitting alone without magistrates. As I say, those proposals are not in Leveson, so why are the Government going down this route? Is this not more likely to lead to the unintended consequence of even more custodial sentences, undoing the work of reducing prison numbers as set out in the Sentencing Bill and the Gauke review?

No, I don’t think so. The most serious crimes will still go before a jury: anything over three years, and all indictable-only offences—rape, murder, manslaughter, GBH, robbery and arson with intent to kill. All those very serious offences will still go before our juries. We have to answer this question: how do we speed up our processes? How do we make a system that measures the delivery of justice in months, not years—it has been years for far too long. Sir Brian Leveson painted the picture of a system in virtual crisis, and we cannot go on like that. In relation to the sentencing point, this obviously goes alongside the changes we are making to sentencing and various presumptions there at the same time. The two of them have to go together. Of course, we need to keep looking at it to keep checking that we have it right, but I, for one, am not prepared any more just to walk past what has been a stain on our criminal justice system for far too long, and I am absolutely determined to do something about it.

There is widespread support for the Hillsborough Bill, not least because it offers equality of arms between victims and the state in addressing unlawful state action. Does the same inequality not exist between the press and those who, in Gerry McCann’s words, are “monstered” by them? Thirteen years after the Leveson review of press ethics, most newspapers are not subject to independent regulation, and there is no low-cost way to challenge media errors. Last week, over 30 victims of press intrusion wrote to you, including Christine Flack, Kate and Gerry McCann and Margaret Aspinall, whom you know.

I know her very well.

Her son James died at Hillsborough. They wrote to ask you to meet them and discuss their experiences. Will you meet them?

Yes, of course.

Thank you. Finally, artificial intelligence can violate individual privacy, entrench discrimination or hinder access to justice. You have put AI at the heart of the Government’s mission for growth, but how can you be sure that the increased use of AI will not lead to a weakening of human rights protection?

We need to get the balance right. AI is a huge opportunity and there is huge potential, such as in health, where we are already seeing the difference it can make. I have seen for myself AI being used to identify blood clots in stroke victims much more quickly than can be done otherwise, which is literally saving lives. Equally, AI can be used with heart monitors to predict future problems and allow preventive measures to be taken. In criminal justice, it is already being used in probation in relation to a huge amount of material, and I know that the judiciary are interested in how it can improve criminal justice. It needs to be within a framework or architecture that is aware of and attuned to the risks, but I do not think that, for that reason, we should take the decision that we would not use AI where it can improve criminal justice or the delivery of all our public services.

I do not think anyone is saying that, but it can include personal data, it can be discriminatory, and it can lack transparency. That needs some human oversight, does it not?

Yes, we need to make sure that we have the balance right. Where there are potential risks, we need to put measures in place—I completely accept that.

Thank you, Prime Minister. We know that the Joint Committee on Human Rights, as well as a number of other Committees of this House, is looking at a lot of these issues. I am sure it will be feeding that into the Government’s thinking on this.

Thank you, Prime Minister, for coming before us. When will the Government publish the new violence against women and girls strategy?

As soon as possible. I was in Downing Street the week before last, when we brought together all the various bodies that are helping and working with us on that. We are now looking at publishing very shortly in the future. I think the sooner that we can—

This week?

I would hope to do it as soon as possible. I do not want to commit to a date that ends up not being possible. I will be clear with you that I want it out as soon as possible, and I am really pleased with the work that we are doing on this. We have incredibly good individuals and organisations working with us on it, so we will get it published as soon as we can.

The Home Secretary was on the media round yesterday to talk about things that will be in the strategy. I expected that we would have a statement on it today. I am very surprised that we do not have it, if she can do the media round on it.

We are very close—I think we are just finishing off the final bits in the strategy. I want to get it out as quickly as possible.

In response to Mr Costa, you were saying how you thought that statements to the House were important, and here is an example of one where there was a lot being discussed by Ministers in the media to the public, but not to Parliament.

The strategy is not—we will do the strategy in due course, but I am—

The Government said it would come out before the summer; it then was going to be in September. We have been told time and again that it is going come very soon, and we are still waiting for it. That is having real-world consequences. Three rape crisis centres I know have closed because services cannot be commissioned as local authorities and so on do not know what money they are going to have because they do not have the strategy.

I want the strategy out as quickly as possible. There are measures we have put in place already. The use of specialists in 999 control rooms has been widely welcomed; the national policing centre for violence against women and girls has been established; and there are the domestic abuse protection orders. There are a number of measures we have already taken, but I am not pushing back on it—I want the strategy out as quickly as possible. We just need to finalise it and get it out.

I think we all do. £53 million has been committed to perpetrator programmes for the highest-risk perpetrators. There has not been a similar amount of money for victims’ services, and there is a real disquiet in the sector that the victims are being forgotten. What would you say?

Certainly the victims are not being forgotten. They are at the centre of the strategy on violence against women and girls—

No money for them has been committed so far.

I will look at the money commitments again and make sure we have got that right. But this is a commitment of the Government in relation to violence against women and girls; it is a personal commitment of mine. I have been working on this since I became the Director of Public Prosecutions—

I remember when you shadowed me when I was at the Home Office—that is why I am surprised.

I genuinely want to do as much as we possibly can. The figures on violence against women and girls are appalling—they have been appalling for a long time. Three women a week are killed by their partner or ex-partner, and that is a statistic that has been there ever since I have been looking at it, for well over 20 years. We have to shift that. We need to do that with the strategy and pull together all the individuals and organisations who have got huge experience here. That is why I brought them all into Downing Street as a group the week before last.

We will look forward to the strategy. Another thing we are waiting for is the police reform White Paper, which, again, we were expecting we would have by now. Do you think there are too many police forces in England and Wales?

I am not going to speculate in relation to that. I do think we need to look at—

But Prime Minister, you were the DPP—you might have a view on this.

Look, when I was DPP, we reduced the number of CPS areas from 42 to 13, so we streamlined that. I am well aware that you also have to look at where the courts and probation are streamlined and so on. No decisions have been made about this yet, but are there some functions that could be across forces? Yes, I think there probably are and where that has been possible, it has worked well. Are there some areas such as the uniforms and police cars that could be better looked at across a number of forces? Yes, I absolutely think there are. So I am up for rationalising it, but no decision has been arrived at on the final configuration in relation to that.

Can I put a plea in for Staffordshire, given what happened to Staffordshire ambulance services when we merged into west midlands? We would like to keep our police in Staffordshire, please.

I completely get that. The chief constable knowing his or her patch is really important. I have approached the question slightly differently, which is: are there structural issues where, if you look at types of offence that are not usually confined within a county border, we could make better use of work across forces than we are at the moment? A structural reset in terms of numbers is not, I think, the answer to this; the answer is probably looking at the functions and where those functions sit.

Thank you. We will look forward to the White Paper. I want to finish on asylum accommodation. The Government said that they were looking to open large sites in Crowborough and Inverness by the end of November. They have not opened yet. When will they open?

As soon as we are satisfied that they are ready. We have military sites under consideration; obviously, we need to make sure that they are suitable and that all the necessary checks are being carried out. Asylum hotels at their height were measured, I think, at 400 or so; they are down to about 200 now. I am absolutely determined that we will close them by the end of this Parliament—sooner, if that is possible. That is why military sites are under consideration.

But can you understand how local residents feel and the uncertainty there is? They have been told that their area has been identified as a site; they do not know when it is going to open or what the clientele are going to be, and there is real concern. The MPs who represent those areas have been making representations to me as Chair of the Select Committee. We really need to understand how this is going to affect local areas. Can you sympathise with that?

I do understand that. In the end, the question needs to move away from where we are housing people whose asylum claims have not been processed to how we can more quickly get the lists down so that we don’t have to go through the exercise of housing them anywhere or for very long. We inherited record levels of claims because they were not being properly processed under the last Government, and we are bringing them down as quickly as we can. For me, that has to be a priority. In the end, whether it is hotels, other accommodation or military sites, the better answer to the question is, “How do we get the numbers down in the first place?”

Earlier this year, the UK’s first sanctioned drug consumption facility opened in Glasgow. It is called the Thistle, and it exists because of a statement of prosecution policy given to it by the Lord Advocate. In the Scottish Affairs Committee’s report, we urged the Government to take an evidence-based approach to the facility’s future. In its response, the Home Office reiterated that it will not amend the law to put the facility on a sound legal footing. Given the scale of Scotland’s drug crisis—it has the highest death rates in Europe from drug overdoses and drug abuse—can you commit to reconsidering that position if the evaluation from the pilot shows that the facility has been effective in reducing drug deaths and drug harms?

First, let me pick up your absolutely valid point. There are a terribly high number of drug-related deaths in Scotland—particularly in Glasgow, which is very much the focus of this discussion. We have looked at it and we do not intend to amend the law but, as I understand it, the way the scheme operates in Scotland allows it to take account of factors that are peculiar to or more focused in Scotland—particularly the high number of deaths—in relation to prosecutorial discretion in terms of what action will follow if these centres are set up. That is an area that is, to my mind, rightly better taken by those in Scotland addressing the particular issues that they have, but I don’t think it should lead to a UK-wide changing of the drug laws.

You have repeatedly said that the economic mission of this Government is to be on the side of working people. Is that still your position?

Yes.

Do you consider farmers, many of whom get up at 4 am and work 365 days a year to feed the nation, to be working people—yes or no?

Yes, I do.

Thank you. Last year, rural communities, including many farmers, put their trust in Labour for the first time in a very long time and gave us a mandate for change in this country. However—I hear this from many of the 950 farm holdings in my constituency—many feel like they were misled about the changes to IHT and APR, which are going to pull the rug from underneath farming communities and obliterate the family farm for many farmers. Elderly farmers, or farmers with terminal diagnoses, are in a position whereby if they die before April, their farm will pass to the next generation with no tax implications, but if they die after, their family farm will potentially be completely unviable. Can you see how farmers can feel like this Government hasn’t treated them in the way they expect to be treated as working people?

Well, look, I do understand the concern. I met with the president of the NFU just last week—I have met with him before—to run through the particular concerns that they have. I do think, on agricultural property relief, that there had to be sensible reform, and I think that this is sensible reform. We obviously made an amendment in the Budget in relation to the spousal transfer. More generally, we are sustaining £11.8 billion in sustainable farming this Parliament, so there is a lot of money set aside in the Budget. There is a road map that we are agreeing with farmers as to the way forward, and of course Minette Batters, the ex-president of the NFU, has just completed a report for us on profitability and how we drive it up year on year, which is vitally important because, in a sense, the missing factor here is the amount of money that farmers can make year on year. We need to drive that amount up.

The issue with the money in the Budget is that it has been overshadowed, in the same way that the countryside stewardship fund has been overshadowed by the IHT issue, and there is political damage to that. Although I think the Government’s ambition to tackle tax avoidance on, say, large country estates was right, the collateral damage is that the small family farm is feeling the hit. The changes in the Budget will not go any way to benefit one of my constituents, who is 89 next month. He is already widowed, so he will not be able to benefit from the spousal transfer that has been announced. Given that you have been a Prime Minister who has changed courses in the past, I think quite admirably, when issues have been exposed to the absolute reality of things, would you consider changing course on this issue?

First, let me just reassure you that the vast majority—three quarters, I think—of farmers are simply not affected at all. Of those that are affected, the rate that is paid is half the rate and it is over a 10-year period. In relation to that particular example, if you are happy to give me further details, I will certainly have my team look at that.

I will happily write to the Prime Minister with the details. One final question, Chair, if I may—and I do not think this will have sunk in. Is the Prime Minister aware that some farmers who have terminal diagnoses are now actively planning to expedite their own deaths so that they hit before April?

I have had discussions with a number of individuals who have drawn all manner of things to my attention.

Do you understand, Prime Minister, that the basis for that sits in the Finance Bill itself? It is the provision called the anti-forestalling clause. Are you familiar with the anti-forestalling clause?

I am.

It means that anyone who transfers their property or their firm to a descendant, but dies within seven years, will be liable to pay inheritance tax under the new system. If they do not live seven years, they could even trigger capital gains tax. If you do nothing, though, and you die before April next year, the estate passes tax-free. Do we agree, Prime Minister, that nobody should be left feeling that they would be better off dying between now and next April, as Cat Smith has just described?

No, of course, but Governments have to bring about sensible reform and take measures to ensure—

Sensible reform, absolutely.

Things like the anti-forestalling clause are not unique to this situation. But on a human level, the answer to your question is of course not.

Last year, you told me that this was a policy that was just aimed at revenue raising—that it was not targeted at anybody in particular. We have now seen the anti-forestalling clause, and we know from the Treasury’s own figures that 75% of the half billion pounds expected to be raised from this will come from farmers who die over the age of 75. Is it not the case that this is actually a targeted measure? It is targeted at and will affect those who are elderly, suffering from terminal illnesses and over 75. It does not matter if it is one farmer or 1,000 farmers—surely you cannot be comfortable with that.

Let me just address the point that it is not targeted. It is not targeted at individuals.

Well, it was what you said last year.

It is not targeted, as I said last year. It is an economic reform that we took in the Budget before last. It is not targeted. It is to adjust the fact that inheritance tax is paid, the rate at which it is paid and the period over which it is paid, but it is not targeted against individuals. I am not arguing with you that individuals will therefore be affected, as with any change in any tax regime. But there is a difference between changing the tax regime and targeting a group of individuals. This is about changing the tax regime.

The anti-forestalling clause that we have spoken about traps farmers into the new rules.

I understand that.

It does not allow them the same opportunities that other taxpayers will have to use tax planning to manage their affairs in a sensible way that will allow the succession of family farms in this country.

That does not make it targeted. It is a necessary consequence of the decisions that we have taken. But I can assure you that, as you would expect, the president of the NFU has raised this issue with me on more than one occasion.

It is not just the president of the NFU.

I appreciate that.

You have heard it from Cat Smith. You have heard it from my Select Committee. You have heard it from the Welsh Affairs Committee. You have heard it from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. Incidentally, all those Select Committees have Labour party majorities and they have all produced unanimous reports calling for this to be paused and rethought. You do not have to listen to me, you do not even have to listen to the farmers out there and you do not have to listen to the president of the NFU, but why do you not listen to your own party colleagues?

I do listen to party colleagues all the time.

And then do what you’re going to do anyway.

Prime Minister, you rightly noted that defence is an engine for growth—in fact, it is one of the eight high-growth sectors that are best placed to deliver on growth and jobs—but there was hardly anything new for defence in the Budget. How can it be an engine for growth if we do not have a clear and credible approach to increasing defence spending, and not just up to 2027? We need to give confidence to the supply chain well beyond that, rather than just having this hockey-stick approach, whereby most of the increase in defence spending is always planned for years and years into the future.

I think there was quite a big measure in the Budget, in that we increased defence spending to 2.6%, not “years and years in the future” but in 2027.

That had been previously announced—about a year ago.

Well, yes, but that then is baked into the Budget and affects all the other figures, in terms of what else we can do. I do think you are right that the challenge, therefore, is to turn that into growth and productivity. The way in which we intend to do that is that we had the strategic defence review, as you know, published earlier this year, and we are now pushing forward with the defence investment plan on the back of that, where the actual decisions get taken in terms of how we put the defence review forward. The other thing that we have done is create a hub for smaller businesses that can feed into the defence spend, so that the extra money spent on defence can be felt in different communities through different businesses. On top of that, as you will be aware, we are taking the opportunities to sign big deals with other countries. With Norway, we signed a big deal for frigates—£10 billion, to be built on the Clyde—and with Turkey the deal is for Typhoons, worth £8 billion, predominantly to be assembled in Lancashire. Those deals then boost the local economy and the many businesses that feed into that.

That still does not answer my underlying question, but let’s move on. I am glad that you mentioned the strategic defence review and the defence investment plan. Anybody and everybody, including the NATO Secretary-General, is saying that we need to prepare, given the increased propensity and intensity of attacks, especially cyber-attacks, from our adversaries. To give a clear demand signal to industry and all, there needs to be a defence investment plan. That was promised to us by autumn, and it is Christmas next week. I know that some would take the interpretation that they are waiting for the winter solstice this Sunday, because that is still within the autumn, but it really is taking the biscuit. What we need to have is that defence investment plan. When is that plan landing, Prime Minister?

We are working hard on the defence investment plan, and we will publish it as soon as it is ready, but you will appreciate from the work of your Committee that that involves very significant and important decisions that we need to make sure we get absolutely right. But we will do it as soon as it is ready, and obviously your Committee will then want to look at it.

Prime Minister, you reshuffled out the Defence Procurement Minister at the last reshuffle. Was that wise when you are going through a defence investment plan process?

Well, the defence investment plan process involves quite a number of Cabinet members, because of the significance of the decisions that we are making.

But that is a very important job in Government, to make sure that procurement is done properly.

Yes, and the Minister we have got in doing it is doing an excellent job, and that has not affected—

I am not suggesting that individuals are not; I am just saying that continuity is quite important.

The defence investment plan is a very significant plan, involving a number of Cabinet members, as you would expect, because of its significance.

The way it is being interpreted by all and sundry outside is that the Government is still arguing about money, which is holding up the DIP. Let me move on to another thing that was mentioned in the strategic defence review, namely the national conversation. That is something that requires your personal leadership, as you have intimated, because we need to make the public aware about the threats, but also their role within defence. Can you list the engagements that you personally have led and undertaken with regard to a national conversation?

What I envisage is a national conversation that goes on around the country. I have obviously led a number of conversations about the importance of defence and security. In relation to Ukraine, we have obviously been playing a leading part in the coalition of the willing, which is now bringing together about 35 countries to provide security guarantees. I have made it clear in my conversations that I see that as a necessary response to the situation in Ukraine, but also as part of a bigger argument: I do think that for too many years now, pretty well all European countries have not done enough on defence and security. We need to step up in terms of not just spend, but capability and co-ordination. It falls to leaders—now—to make that argument, because the threat from Russia is very clear and very real, and it is not just in Ukraine. Part of the conversation, as I see it, that I have to lead, quite rightly, is to make the argument for more defence and security, and a bigger answer on defence and security, so that Europe is better able to defend itself. I will always believe in the Euro-Atlantic security mechanisms, but I think it is time for European countries to step up, to step into the breach on spend, capability and co-ordination in Europe.

My final point is on what is happening. A lot of hard work has been undertaken by you abroad, especially to ensure that there is a just and lasting peace for our Ukrainian friends, who we rightly support.

Yes.

You are trying to keep together the transatlantic NATO alliance, especially in the midst of having a very unpredictable ally in the new Trump Administration, but if it all goes pear-shaped at home, all that hard work will unravel. We have a lot of perennial procurement problems within defence, namely the Ajax and Boxer vehicles, and the MAN SVs, so how will you ensure value for money within defence procurement?

By the increased oversight that we are putting in, because I do not think that there has been enough focus on value for money in procurement, and we need to change that. Just to reassure you, in terms of what is happening in Ukraine, we cannot let up in our efforts to bring about a just and lasting peace. That affects Ukraine and Europe, and it affects the United Kingdom. We can see the Russian intent in terms of land in what they have been doing in our waters, in cyber, and in what happened at Salisbury not so many years ago. We have to be alert to that ever present danger from Russia. Therefore, the work that we do on Ukraine—I am going straight to Berlin after this to continue that—is to ensure that we deal not just with the terrible conflict in Ukraine that has been going on for nearly four years now, with Russian aggression exacting a very heavy price in Ukraine; it is about our defence and security as well. That is why it is such a central focus of what I have been doing.

You talk about having a conversation and leading a conversation—who are you having those conversations with, Prime Minister?

In terms of defence and security, all the other countries involved in the coalition—

Internationally, yes.

And all the work we are doing in the media in this country in relation to different communities. The discussions I have in every community I go to where there is a defence industry—

When you say “communities”, you mean geographical communities.

Okay, Lancashire for the Turkish deal—I went there to talk to the communities there about the impact—

When you say “communities”, you mean—

The workforce, their families, their communities. The same in the Clyde—I went to talk to the apprentices, to the workforce and to their wider communities. They are two examples, but we are doing this across the country. I will accept the challenge: it needs to be more formalised into a conversation, which is what we envisaged in the strategic review, and that is a bit of work that needs to be fast-forwarded in my view. But the conversation, in terms of the dangers we are facing, what we have to do to step up to those dangers, and what that means for strategic decisions in this country, is what needs to be going on.

Okay. You have the conversation, but then it is the delivery that Mr Dhesi was highlighting that needs to happen.

Yes.

Good afternoon, Prime Minister. The energy price cap is set to be £83 higher in April next year than it was at the general election. That is after the Budget measures that your Chancellor announced. Energy costs are set to increase as a result of improvements to the network and new generation, including Sizewell C. Those will go on to consumer bills. Chris Stark, your own champion, says that energy bills will be slightly lower in the run-up to 2030. Is there a danger, Prime Minister, that people will say that you have not kept your promise to reduce energy bills by £300?

As you will have seen from the Budget, we are taking every step that we can to reduce energy bills. That is why, in the Budget, we took the decision to reduce energy bills to take £150 off bills for every household. That, as you know in your Committee very well, is in addition to the £150 that we took off by way of discount for, last year, 3 million of the poorest households; we have now doubled that to the 6 million poorest households. We need to take further measures—I accept your challenge—but I am also absolutely clear that the only long-term way to get energy prices down is to make the transition to renewables, because energy prices are, at the moment, still a reflection of the international fossil fuel market, which has been profoundly impacted by Ukraine over the last four years.

Certainly; thank you. The point that Chris Stark is making is that it will take until 2030 to start to see them coming down. You do not have very long to get that £300 reduction.

No—that is why we are pulling every lever. I am well aware that, for many families—the vast majority—the cost of living is the single most important issue, and that their energy bill is one of the bills they worry about the most, which is why we took the decision in the Budget to take that £150 off bills. Do we need to do more? Yes, we do need to do more. We need to get to the transition to renewables more quickly. We need to try to resolve the situation in Ukraine for a whole bunch of reasons, but among them the fact that Ukraine has affected our energy bills more than anything else in the last five years or so.

The latest climate science, meanwhile, suggests a doubling of the carbon emissions since 2017, and the actuarial analysis shows that, unless we have an immediate and dramatic change in approach, we could see a GDP fall of 20% in the next 20 years. How do you address this challenge? The UK has shown great leadership internationally, but this latest evidence is really stark.

With climate change, we have to see this not just as an obligation, but as a huge opportunity. As we go to renewable energy, there is a global race on. Huge amounts of investment are being put into different countries around the globe on renewables. I am really pleased that we are attracting a good deal of that investment because of the clarity of our policy. More money has come in by way of foreign investment into this country on renewables and clean power than on any of our other sectors. We have to take advantage of those opportunities, and therefore it will not be an inhibitor on growth; it will be an engine for growth, if we get this right.

Okay. Coming to this point about the leadership you have shown internationally, there is the commitment to an 81% reduction in nationally determined contributions from 1990 levels. That is now the second highest, as Denmark has gone 1% higher, but it is something to be very proud of. You decided not to make a financial commitment to the Tropical Forest Forever facility. Is there not a danger that that rather undermines the climate leadership that you have shown up to now?

On the TFFF, we have been there as a founder member, if you like, supporting the TFFF. We have been absolutely clear that we see a role for the United Kingdom going forward of leveraging private investment into the TFFF, which is very much where the conversation is in terms of funding for projects. In the future, we will continue to do that and to look at what else we can do, but we remain committed to the concept—the idea—and I made that absolutely clear to the President in Brazil when I was there for COP just a few weeks ago.

I mentioned Denmark. The Danes have been at this for a very long time. Their response to the 1973 oil crisis was to try to find alternatives. In Denmark, people grow up being told, “A good Dane is a green Dane.” Do we need something similar here to get greater public support for this energy transition?

I think there is a growing awareness. I think most people would say that they absolutely understand the challenge of climate change. They want their Government to do something about it. I think they would add that they do not want necessarily to see that reflected simply in their bills at the expense of other measures that can be taken. I do not think there is a lack of commitment on this; there is an understandable issue in a cost of living crisis as to where the burden lies in relation to the funding of it, which is why, among other things, we wanted to take, and did take, £150 off energy bills. I think the vast majority of the public do understand that we have to take measures on climate change. They can see the effects in this country and other countries with ever more extreme weather conditions. I do not think we have climate deniers any more; we simply have climate delayers—those that think we should put it off. I am not in that camp; I think that is a mistake. I am heartened by the fact that there are fewer and fewer deniers, but we do need to get on with this now.

Maybe you will consider the idea that a good Brit is a green Brit.

Well, I am not sure about that; I am sure the Green party would seize on that in a moment. But, look, many more people cycle and walk and are conscious, when they are buying things, of what they buy and make conscious choices in relation to it. I think their plea would not be, “Don’t do the transition to clean power.” Their plea would be, “Make sure that it’s affordable to families like mine.”

A recent report by the Scottish Affairs Committee found that the creation of clean energy jobs is not keeping scale or pace with the loss of jobs in the oil and gas industry. Harbour Energy, the UK’s largest oil and gas producer, has indicated that one of the reasons it has cut 350 jobs this year is the UK’s tax regime. How does the Budget decision to retain the energy profits levy align with the Government’s commitment to protect existing North sea jobs and deliver that fair and orderly energy transition that we would all like to see?

Putting this into context, over the last decade or so probably 70,000 jobs have been lost in oil and gas, and there is a declining base. Therefore the transition to renewables is really important. There are lots of investment opportunities in renewables, and we need to make that transition. It needs to be a fair and just transition, particularly for those in Scotland, who we thank for everything they have put into our energy supply for a very long time, but we do need to make that transition. In relation to Harbour Energy, ultimately that was a commercial decision by the business, but that does not take away the impact that will have had on those working there and their families and their communities. In relation to the tax, we have made it clear when the tax will end and we have looked at how the tax works. But it is important that we make the transition to renewables because in the end that will guarantee generations-worth of jobs in Scotland and elsewhere. We are committed to oil and gas being part of the mix for many years to come. Obviously, we made changes to the tieback scheme just recently, which is something the sector had been asking us specifically to deliver on. I am pleased we have been able to do that.

Our Committee was very concerned, however, that the scale and pace of the creation of the new jobs and the new industry was not anywhere near close to the number of jobs that we are losing in the oil and gas sector. However, if we look at some specific jobs that we lost at Grangemouth earlier this year, Prime Minister, you ringfenced £200 million from the National Wealth Fund to support Grangemouth going forward. We have not seen any concrete proposals coming forward as a result of that funding, although there was a good announcement last week that has come from other funding announced in the Budget. Can you tell us why the delivery of those changes and new jobs at Grangemouth is taking so long?

First, we obviously put a £100 million package in to support the community and invest in the local workforce, along with tailored support on good alternative jobs. Then we announced the £200 million from the National Wealth Fund for co-investment with the private sector. That has yielded about 100 inquiries from the private sector, which is a good thing. We need to go through those. At the Budget just a few weeks ago we announced over £14 million to support the projects that are viable going forward from that. What we are doing is whittling that down. There has been a good level of support. I am really pleased that that has happened. I think that is at least partly because we indicated we have put the £200 million down through the National Wealth Fund. Now we need to work through those that are viable and put in the support. That is why the £14 million was put down—to support the options that are viable so that we can go with this. I think Grangemouth has a huge potential future, by the way. I absolutely do not see it as one of those cases where decline is inevitable. I think the potential for Grangemouth is huge, particularly carbon capture and other projects. We need to seize that and make sure that Grangemouth is the successful future that I know it can be.

Do you think we will see new jobs being created in Grangemouth soon?

Yes, I hope so. What we need to do is, obviously, have a support package for the workers that are there at the moment, and work as quickly as possible to bring these inquiries and opportunities to fruition.

We were worried on the Committee that Grangemouth might, in effect, be the canary in the room, and that it might be the precursor to other such losses. Of course, within a month of our report being produced, we saw the proposed closure of Mossmorran, putting another 400 jobs at risk. Exxon has also said that the UK policy environment drove the decision to focus its business elsewhere in the world. We are aware, however, that it has closed a plant in France, and it is likely to close one in China too. What does the loss of that strategic asset at Mossmorran say about our ability to compete globally for industrial investment?

On Mossmorran, again, we have to recognise that it is a very difficult time for the workforce there. To reassure you and others, we engaged constructively with the company over a six-month period to see whether it was possible to put a viable plan together, because we recognise the importance of it. In the end, it was consistent with decisions they were taking in other countries, in relation to their particular project. We have to pick this up as a challenge and look at what viable options there are going forward. I can assure you that we worked hard with the company for six months to see whether there was an option, but the needs of the business were very substantial, hence the measures they took in other countries as well.

Prime Minister, on a scale of one to 10, how gutted are you by the BMA’s latest strike action vote?

Oh, very gutted.

Is that a 10 out of 10?

Ten out of 10. It is irresponsible at any time, particularly at the moment. It comes on the back of a very substantial pay increase in the last year or so. There is a deal that we have put on the table that could have been taken forward, so I think it is irresponsible action by the BMA, and not for the first time.

It may be irresponsible—I agree with you on that—but it is not actually surprising, is it? You have pointed to the massive pay rise last year, to which there were no productivity improvements linked at all. The BMA could be accused, with some justification, of thinking that they have the Government over a barrel and you will eventually cough and sign the cheque if they shout enough.

Well, that is not going to happen—we have been really clear about that—and it has not happened. In terms of productivity, notwithstanding the action of the BMA, we have brought down waiting times and waiting lists. We said we would do 2 million extra appointments in the first year of a Labour Government; we have done 5 million, and that is thanks to the NHS staff. Even in the teeth of the BMA action, we are working on productivity and heading in the right direction. Their action now puts that in jeopardy, at a time of terrible flu just before Christmas.

That is clearly going to have a negative impact. The supermarkets can work out when their Christmas rush is going to start and prepare for it from Eastertime. There appears to have been precious little winter preparedness in NHS England this year. When you overlay the unforeseen challenges now presented by strike action, elective surgery is being postponed or cancelled and hospital admissions are at a record high for this time of the year—and that is before we get to the seasonal winter peak. Why was the Government so underprepared for this annual thing called the winter crisis, which, because it happens every year, surely can no longer be described as a crisis?

I don’t accept that we were. The preparation—

Well, every other medical opinion says that that is the case, Prime Minister.

Just hear me out. We started the preparations earlier. We have taken decisive action. Seventeen million patients have been vaccinated—that is more than this time last year—including 60,000 frontline NHS staff, also more than this time last year. The waiting times and waiting lists are still coming down, and we are improving on ambulance times, bit by bit. I accept that it has not completely moved enough in the right direction yet. I have been through the flu figures with Chris Whitty, in terms of the strain and the ability that a Government has to try to deal with that. As we all know from previous years, predicting the strain of flu and what time it is going to hit is extremely difficult to do. I don’t think anybody would say that that can be attributed to the Government. By putting a plan in place early, we have been able to take decisive action, with more vaccinations. I want more still, by the way—I want the number to go up next year—but more have been vaccinated this year than last year.

You have now said on the record, via this Committee, to the BMA that there is no additional money on the table, other than that which has been tabled over the last few days. We recognise that their strike action is irresponsible and that it will put ever greater pressure on an already pressurised system because of the winter peaks in both covid and flu. What do you expect the BMA’s next move to be?

I want them to reflect on what they are doing. I think they are losing the support of the public. I also think they are losing the support of their colleagues in the NHS. You don’t have to spend much time in the company of staff in the NHS for—

But 83% of BMA members voting for strike action—

Of resident doctors, Mr Hoare.

Of resident doctors. That doesn’t suggest that they give a fig about that, does it?

Well, I would ask them to reflect on the impact this is having on the otherwise good work, and the numbers going in the right direction, in the NHS, and the fact that this is the week before Christmas with a flu problem that is very extreme. I think they are losing the sympathy—I think they have lost the sympathy of the public, frankly, and I think they have lost the sympathy of their non-doctor colleagues in the health service, who are getting on with their jobs, many of them on a much lesser rate of pay increase than the doctors got. I would appeal to the doctors themselves to push back against the BMA in relation to this. They are losing ground, in terms of the sympathy they might otherwise have had for the difficult job that they do.

Welcome, Prime Minister. In 18 months, your Government has announced many quite separate initiatives. What have you found most difficult in delivering the plan for change?

In terms of transport?

No.

Speed and ability to get things done in Parliament. We have so many checks and balances and consultations and regulations and arm’s length bodies. My own sense, after 12 to 18 months in the job—and this is a fault of Governments of all political colours—is that every time something has gone wrong in the past, successive Governments have put in place another procedure, another body or another consultation to try to stop ourselves ever making a mistake again. My experience as Prime Minister is of frustration that every time I go to pull a lever, there are a whole bunch of regulations, consultations and arm’s length bodies that mean the action from pulling the lever to delivery is longer than I think it ought to be, which is among the reasons I want to cut down on regulation generally and within Government.

I am using this just as an example, but in Switzerland, they set the rail timetable 10 years in advance, and then they build the infrastructure and the network in order to meet that timetable. It gives communities, passengers, freight operators and their private sector investment partners certainty; they know where they are going. Is that a concept you would consider for defence, housing, education or justice?

Well, I’m not sure I would go the full Swiss, but certainly the more decisions that can be made with medium and long-term planning, the better. Setting the numbers and times of trains in 10 years’ time is probably going a bit far for my liking, because I suspect that the way in which people travel, and demand, will change over that period of time, but the general proposition—

That is part of—

Look, too many decisions over the last 14 or 15 years have been short-term responses to problems, not middle and long-term decisions to fix things more fundamentally. I think we need to be in the fixing more fundamentally place as we go through government.

Prime Minister, you sound like you were surprised upon coming into government to find that when you pull a lever, it doesn’t always happen, or something else happens over there.

Frustrated rather than surprised.

Do you consider that there was enough preparation for entering government to ensure that you and your Ministers were ready for this?

Yes. When it comes to regulation, we are taking it down, but it takes time to take it down. I am not surprised, but I am frustrated. That is among the reasons that we are trying to get rid of as much of the regulation as possible, get rid of arm’s length bodies and ensure that we can move more quickly, but that was never possible on day one in government.

So you think getting rid of arm’s length bodies is going to make things go more quickly.

We need to look at the number that we have and what they actually add. I am not saying get rid of them all, of course, but there is a frustration—I think this is probably shared across the last Government and this Government—that there is a sort of thicket of reasons you can’t do anything, rather than a clear path through at speed. It is the clear path through at speed that we need.

Good afternoon, Prime Minister. As Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, I would like to raise with you a report that we published in 2024 into sensitive Government scrutiny. As you know, it is conventional for the Government to reply to Committee reports within two months of publication. However, 18 months on, my Committee has yet to receive a Government response. Dame Meg and I are grateful to you for your response to our letter sent earlier this month, and we welcome your assurance that you are now leading cross-Government work on this issue. However, please would you undertake to meet with Dame Meg, the Comptroller and Auditor General and myself in private as soon as possible in the new year, because we would like to ensure that you are fully appraised of the detail of our proposal?

Yes, I am very happy to meet.

Thank you.

I do understand the issue. Obviously, there is a careful balance to be struck, but I understand the concerns that you and the Chair have raised, and I am very happy to agree to a private meeting to discuss further.

Prime Minister, you mentioned in answer to Mr Costa making sure that Ministers are presenting issues and making policy statements to the House. One issue that we have been pushing for a few months now is the long-awaited reform to leasehold and commonhold. The Secretary of State confirmed at our Select Committee last month that that will be laid before the House before Christmas. Can you guarantee that we will receive that before the House rises on Thursday 18th?

I cannot guarantee that, but I want to move it forward as quickly as possible. I know the strength of feeling and the reasons that we need to look at this—they are self-evident. We will come forward with proposals as quickly as we can.

Prime Minister, you are heading off eventually, hopefully, for a bit of a Christmas break, but we understand that you are flying off to Berlin today. Could you update us on the situation vis-à-vis Ukraine and what the UK is doing in that respect?

Thank you for that, because this is obviously a critical period, not just for Ukraine, but for Europe and for the United Kingdom. European history is full of peace agreements that failed and sometimes led to even greater conflict. That is why it is really important that we attend to this in detail. Putin has shown time and again that he will keep coming back for more if he sees the chance. We must never lose sight of that. Hostilities have gone on for nearly four years now, exacting a heavy price in Ukraine, on the frontline and on civilians, infrastructure and energy—and, if I may say so, in Russia. On average 5,000 Russian soldiers are being killed every week on the frontline because of the ambitions of one man: Putin. Now, there is a text in play that may take this forward, which I have discussed extensively with a number of leaders. President Zelensky was in last Monday for a private discussion about that. We are meeting again in Berlin tonight with President Zelensky and others. There are a number of principles that to me are absolutely fundamental. First, decisions on the most sensitive issues, including territory, are for Ukraine to decide—so no issues about Ukraine without Ukraine. Secondly, strong security guarantees are vital. Peace agreements fail, in my view, predominantly because there are not sufficiently robust security guarantees behind them. That is why the French President and I set up the coalition of the willing, which was to put in place guarantees from the coalition of the willing countries in accordance with and alongside the US playing a full part. Thirdly, elements that affect NATO, Europe and the EU must involve NATO, Europe and the EU and their institutions and members. While we strive for a just and lasting peace—and we do, and there is no country that wants that more than Ukraine—we must keep supporting Ukraine in the fight and keep the pressure on Putin, because only Russia stands in the way of peace, nobody else. That is the principal case that I have been making and will continue to make tonight. I hope we can make some further progress. We certainly had a good session in Downing Street on Monday last week. The route to peace is not a straight road, but we will keep on trying to get to the right outcome, because, as I say, history is littered with peace agreements in Europe that people had faith in but that, in the end, fell apart and led to even worse conflict.

You talk about security guarantees. Would that be British personnel and British equipment on the ground in the region?

If necessary. With the coalition of the willing, we had a political process with the leaders and a military process with the military planners, and we said to them, “We want military plans for the air, for the sea and for the ground, and for Ukraine’s own capability,” so we now have military plans in each of those areas. If necessary, that does involve ground deployment, but obviously at the moment the prior question is whether we can get to a just and lasting peace.

Mr Dhesi, do you want to ask anything?

Given that the Prime Minister needs to go to Berlin, we do not want to hold him up, just in case—

Even the Chair of the Defence Committee would rather you went to Berlin! Thank you very much indeed for your time, Prime Minister. The transcript of this session will be available on the website uncorrected in the next couple of days, with thanks to our colleagues at Hansard and thanks to our colleagues at Bow Tie. We hope, Prime Minister, that you do get some time for yourself and your family over the festive period.

Thank you, and I wish all the members of the Committee and their families a peaceful Christmas and new year.

Thank you very much indeed.