Full Transcript: Andy Burnham, Commons International Update (October 12, 2026)

The Prime Minister (Andy Burnham): With permission, I wish to make a statement on the United Nations General Assembly and related international events that have occurred since the House last met.

Before I do so, let me first welcome my hon. Friend the new Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Sagal Abdi-Wali) to her place. What a journey, from child refugee to Parliament, and what a country—that this story of hope could happen here. I know my hon. Friend will enhance this House in so many ways, and I look forward to working with her.

I took a clear message to the United Nations: after a decade of turbulence, Britain is back and can be relied upon as a consistent and stable partner in an uncertain world, always upholding the shared values set out in the UN charter, rejecting aggression wherever we see it, and always steadfast in our support for Ukraine, as I assured President Zelensky at our meeting in New York.

In the three weeks since that meeting, Russian strikes have intensified even further, with more attacks on civilians: on apartment blocks housing innocent families; on buses carrying innocent children. When I spoke to President Zelensky on Saturday, he described the step change from Russia, including daylight attacks intended to break the will of Ukraine and ours. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that that will never happen. In recent days, we have announced new funding to help Ukraine get through its fifth winter under Russian bombardment and a new sanctions package so that over 90% of Russia’s oil-producing capacity is now covered by UK sanctions.

The quickest way to get diesel back on to world markets without rewarding the aggressor is an energy ceasefire, with both sides stopping their attacks. I raised this with President Trump in New York. It is what Ukraine wants to see, so I welcome President Trump’s announcement yesterday of a reciprocal energy ceasefire. President Zelensky has assured me that Ukraine would immediately implement it when a start date is confirmed, and I will be discussing this further with him in the coming days.

NATO is a defensive alliance. We do not seek confrontation, but our resolve to defend our allies and ourselves is absolute, and I was clear in all of my meetings, including with the NATO Secretary-General in Oxfordshire, that we will meet our NATO commitments in full.

We know that Russia is conducting a campaign of hybrid attacks and sabotage across Europe. In Berlin last week, Chancellor Merz and I agreed a new partnership to tackle these hybrid threats. We must be clear-eyed about attempts to destabilise our democracies. It is why, in my speech to the UN General Assembly, I confirmed our commitment to establish a new centre for information defence, as recommended by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. More broadly, this is a moment to deepen collaboration with our partners, which is why in Berlin I indicated Britain’s openness to Germany joining the global combat air programme alongside Italy and Japan.

In my meeting with President Trump, we discussed the situation in the middle east. I confirmed Britain’s decision to send air defence and a Voyager aircraft to Saudi Arabia to provide air-to-air refuelling support. I can confirm today that it has already completed 14 operational missions. This support is needed to protect civilians. I condemn the appalling attacks on the King Khalid International airport. We will continue to stand with Saudi Arabia against the Houthis.

Since UNGA, we have been in close contact with the US about protective security at our shared bases. I thank our police and military personnel for their swift response to the incidents at RAF Fairford and RAF Molesworth. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will update the House on the incident at RAF Fairford, but I can confirm our assessment that it is highly likely to have been co-ordinated in Iran, almost certainly directed by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. We will not tolerate these threats on our soil. We will crack down on Iran’s use of criminal networks, using our full range of powers to target them and their funding streams, and we will bring further sanctions to restrict the capacity of Iran and the IRGC to do us harm.

In my meeting with the President, I also raised the Falkland Islands and the clear and declared will of the islanders to remain British. I emphasised that point in my speech to the General Assembly and that we will also always do whatever it takes to uphold their will.

In New York, I also had a positive meeting with the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, about the forthcoming UK-EU summit. I can confirm to the House today that it will take place in Brussels on 20 November. This summit presents an opportunity to make progress on two crucial issues: boosting UK growth and controlling illegal immigration. On the table is a trade deal on food and drink products, a deal on emissions trading, progress towards linking our energy systems, a new youth experience scheme, and deeper co-operation on immigration.

This summit presents an opportunity to make progress on two crucial issues: boosting UK growth and controlling illegal immigration. On the table is a trade deal on food and drink products, a deal on emissions trading, progress towards linking our energy systems, a new youth experience scheme and deeper co-operation on immigration. The summit will also be an opportunity to raise our concerns about “Made in Europe”, and it is clear to me that there is an opportunity to make progress in all of these areas. Together, these deals will add the equivalent of over £10 billion per year to the UK economy by 2040, with the potential to add significantly more. We should not turn our backs on this opportunity, and I hope Members from all sides of this House will get behind the Government’s efforts to land a positive outcome. It is a chance to cut costs and bureaucracy for sectors like farming.

At present, entire truckloads of plants or fresh produce can be destroyed because of a single missing stamp or a minor paperwork delay. Fresh meat and fish spoil while waiting in trucks, and tonnes of exports have to be written off. Our largest food export, Scottish salmon, faces a 100% rate of document checks at the border, costing us around £100 million in lost exports. British burgers and other fresh meat products cannot be sold in the EU. Seed potatoes from Scotland and shellfish from Wales are banned. This is having a real impact on businesses, and the agreement on the table could reverse some of that damage. For farmers and food producers, it would lift a burden that can reach £1,400 on a single shipment. For our small businesses, it would mean no more export health certificates, which can cost up to £200 each time. For households, it would ease the pressure on prices in the supermarket. It could help lower energy costs for households and businesses alike.

In Northern Ireland, the proposed energy deal could cut wholesale energy costs by 20%. On immigration, we could link up our law enforcement efforts once again, sharing more data and criminal records of foreign nationals, as well as ensuring faster electronic evidence from the phones of those behind the gangs. It is in Britain’s interests to secure a deal along these lines, and I will work hard over the next five weeks to achieve that. I believe that our chances of doing so will be enhanced by being open to a discussion about our relationship with the EU in the longer term. If we are serious about promoting growth, controlling immigration, upholding our values and security, it is a conversation that we must have. Sticking with the status quo is not good enough for Britain. Worse, it would be a major dereliction of duty to turn away. We need to take a calm, clear-eyed, rational look at the world as it is today, to consider what is best for our country.

Our immediate priority is securing a successful outcome at the summit, and I believe we should then set up a serious dialogue about the different options for our relationship in the long term. At every stage, the British public will be the boss, and I am clear that public opinion currently supports a pragmatic approach, like the one I am suggesting, but if we go into this further phase, we will proceed with care and complete transparency. This is the leadership we need to draw a line under a decade of drift and division, and to take the country forward.

Beyond Europe, a confident Britain is ready to play our part on the global stage as we take up the presidency of the G20 in 2027. I confirmed in New York that we will place artificial intelligence centre stage in our presidency, to capture the incredible opportunities it presents while guarding against the risks. Leading voices like the president of Microsoft are saying Britain is the world leader on AI safety, so we are well placed to take on this role, and to work towards agreeing a single set of global principles and standards on AI, in our G20 presidency year.

The message to the world is clear: Britain is back. On so many fronts, we are playing our part and looking confidently to the future. We are leading again, so our country can hope again. I commend this statement to the House.

Mr Speaker: I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con): I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. Since we last met, Iran has sponsored an attempted terror attack on a British military base; President Trump has withdrawn support from President Zelensky; and Saudi Arabia has been bombarded with Houthi missiles and asked Britain to come to her aid. UK household energy bills are set to rise by nearly £300 in January, and diesel prices have hit £2 a litre for the first time ever. Against that backdrop, the Chancellor will deliver a Budget in two weeks.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that there is a £35 billion black hole in the public finances. More borrowing or more taxes are on the way, because we know that the Prime Minister will not cut spending. This is at a time when families and businesses are already suffering under the weight of £70 billion in Labour’s tax rises. So what has the Prime Minister chosen to focus on today? Brexit. His exact words earlier this year were that

“the last thing we should do right now is rerun those arguments”,

yet here he is, unpicking the deal that this country signed with the EU, a decade after the referendum. He is not going to get a better deal. Not only are the EU tough negotiators, but he has already revealed his entire negotiating hand. He has just blurted out everything he wants in this statement. I will tell him now, as a former Trade Secretary, that that is not how you conduct negotiations. He has told them everything, and negotiations have not even started—unbelievable!

Over the weekend, on “The Rest is Politics” podcast, the Prime Minister implied that the referendum result was illegitimate because of Russian interference. Where has that come from? We all remember that in 2018, the head of MI5 said that there was no evidence that Russia had influenced the EU referendum result. Even this morning, the Prime Minister’s own Foreign Minister could not say if the evidence existed. Will the Prime Minister confirm, here and now, whether he believes that the referendum result was legitimate? If he does not, will he publish the evidence that Russia swung the result of the 2016 referendum? From my perspective, this is just another example of him trying to distract the country, rather than solving the immediate challenges we face.

Just as some people thought that all Britain’s problems would be solved by leaving the EU, some now think that all our problems will be solved by rejoining it. Neither of those are serious positions; they are lazy thinking from people who do not have solutions to the real problems that we face, such as on defence. The Prime Minister told us that he would set out a target date for spending 3% of GDP on defence at the spending review in the spring. That spending review has now been delayed until next autumn. Labour delayed procurement by a year to hold the strategic defence review, then the defence investment plan took another 18 months. The armed forces now have to wait at least another 12 months to find out what they are getting. The defence of the realm is the first duty of any Government, and kicking it into the long grass is a dereliction of duty.

I welcome the support that the Prime Minister has set out for our allies in Saudi Arabia and Ukraine, but they will require money, and serious questions on defence still need to be answered. The United States has withdrawn its bombers from RAF Fairford. Can the Prime Minister tell us why? What does that mean for the safety of our British aircraft and, more importantly, British personnel at that base?

The Prime Minister said in his statement that we will not tolerate threats from Iran on our soil, so were he and his Foreign Secretary aware of those threats before the Foreign Secretary met and shook hands with the Iranian Foreign Minister at the UN? Does the Prime Minister now think that the Foreign Secretary was wrong to do that?

On 18 July, we were told that the Prime Minister would grant licences for the Jackdaw gas field and Rosebank oilfield. We are still waiting for a decision nearly three months later, as a global energy crisis is looming. Can the Prime Minister now confirm exactly when he will approve those licences? Britain cannot afford to wait until the end of the decade for him to act—he is the Prime Minister for today. Rather than promising things on the never-never, here are some things that he could do right now: cut welfare, fund our defence, drill in the North sea, bring down people’s taxes, get young people into work, build new prison places and put more police on our streets. He could do all those things today if he cut spending. That is what I would do. Instead, he is trying to reopen yesterday’s arguments to avoid today’s decisions. What this statement shows is the difference between Labour and the Conservatives. We have answers to today’s problems; they are living in the past.

The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Lady. She started on the right point, which is the situation in the middle east, and the extent to which it is affecting cost of living pressures here at home—the cost of filling up at the pump, and the costs that people are feeling more broadly. She is absolutely right to say that that is where our focus should be. It is where my focus was when I had all my meetings in New York, and it is why I have taken action to remove VAT from electricity bills this month. We are acting quickly on the cost of living, and we will continue to do that.

I was listening carefully to what the right hon. Lady said about the European Union. One could only conclude from what she said about unpicking the deal—the deal that is supposedly so good for Britain—that she will be defending the status quo. I am sure that I heard her say at her conference that increasing growth would be the operating principle of any Government that she leads, so how can she justify turning her back on a deal, which is potentially on the table now, to add billions to the UK economy? How can the Conservatives justify turning their backs on farmers and the food industry, who are finding it hard to export to Europe? I think they need to reflect on that. She says that I have revealed what I want to do, and that this is no way to negotiate—because the Tories were so good at negotiating deals with our partners, weren’t they?

To address the right hon. Lady’s point, I implied no such thing in my comments on “The Rest Is Politics” podcast. I think she should go back and look again. It is a matter of record that Russian actors sought to interfere in the 2019 general election, and we think it is inconceivable that this was the first time. I have a question for her. I listened carefully to what she said at her conference last week. Twice, she was asked directly whether she thought Brexit had been good for London. Twice, she could not answer—she could not even address the question. That is not going to be good enough for a party that wishes to lead this country once again. It is not leadership to turn your back on growth and on building the British economy.

On defence, this Government are already spending £14 billion more every year than the Conservatives did in their last year in government. We will continue to work with our US counterparts on RAF Fairford. Can I say to the right hon. Lady that every single Foreign Secretary, including David Cameron as the last Conservative Foreign Secretary, met representatives of the Iranian Government? She should look back at that, as well as at her own record in government.

The Leader of the Opposition stands there today and says that she will build new prison places. Why is there a crisis in our prisons? It is because the Conservatives did not build those places when they were in office. We are dealing with the issues that she left behind. We are the ones providing leadership in difficult times. It is about time that she faced up to some of those realities about the mess they left behind.

Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab): I am grateful to the Prime Minister for treating concerted attempts to undermine our democracy with the seriousness they deserve. While it is always difficult to measure the success of such campaigns, it is also difficult to believe that Russia would bother if there was not at least a chance it might succeed. One thing is for sure: over the past 10 years, Russia has certainly got better at it, while at the same time, elements of the British state have been far too complacent about it. To hear the Prime Minister announce a new centre for information defence was encouraging. Can he assure the House that this centre will be publicly accountable and scrutinised by Parliament, and in particular by the Foreign Affairs Committee?

The Prime Minister: I can indeed give those assurances to my right hon. Friend, the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I thank her for the work that she has done in making that recommendation. She is right to say that the wrong approach was taken in the past. The Intelligence and Security Committee report in 2020 said that the last Government failed to seek evidence of any potential interference in our democratic processes. We will not make the same mistakes in the next decade as were made in the last. The new national centre for information defence is about putting Britain in a strong place to face the challenges in a difficult world, and that is what we will do.

Mr Speaker: I call the Father of the House.

Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): Will the Prime Minister forgive me if I put some words in his mouth? Does he think this is a reasonable statement: “Look, I have been elected by my MPs to serve a full term of government. I am going to get on with bread-and-butter issues, such as the care system, pensions and asylum. Of course, we like a good, close relationship with our partners on security in Europe, but”—this is the Prime Minister speaking—“I say this to the people: I am very wary about reopening the whole Brexit wars. There were years of harrowing negotiations and an even worse deal. I give an absolute commitment that I will not seek to join the EU unless there is a general election first and I offer the British people a full referendum”?

The Prime Minister: May I say to the Father of the House that I stand by every single one of those words? I am not reopening the referendum; I respect the referendum result, as I just said a moment ago. What I will do is take a pragmatic approach when I can boost growth in the British economy and when I can increase co-operation to get a grip on boat crossings across the channel. I will do those things where I believe they can be in the country’s best interests. The deal that I have inherited coming into office represents an opportunity to secure progress on both those things. The case I am putting to the House this afternoon is that it is a dereliction of duty for any Member to turn away from that possibility, when we can support the food industry, we can support farmers, and we can get Britain growing more strongly again. Our responsibility in this House is to serve this country’s best interests, and that is what I will do.

Mr Speaker: I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab): I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and in particular his efforts to assist our allies, to forge closer ties and to help de-escalate the situation in the middle east. It is clear that President Trump’s efforts to lift sanctions on Russian diesel and then buy it are a real kick in the teeth for our Ukrainian friends and will allow Vladimir Putin to further fuel his deadly war machine. Nations such as India, which was slapped with tariffs for buying Russian fuel, will no doubt decry that move and be left bemused by these haphazard, hypocritical policies that prevent our long-term strategic aims from being achieved.

However, there have also been reports that United States officials have been contacting European counterparts to stop Ukrainian attacks on Russian refineries, and are also limiting the supply of weapons and intelligence. Has the Prime Minister had any such discussions with our US or European allies about why we need to continue to support our Ukrainian friends?

The Prime Minister: I will always support our Ukrainian friends, and I can say to my hon. Friend that I called President Zelensky on Saturday afternoon precisely because I recognised that he was in the middle of a very difficult 24 hours. I can also say to the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke to the United States Treasury Secretary at around the same time, and talked about the importance of an energy ceasefire. It was good to see that proposal emerge from the President yesterday. It is the best possible outcome in the circumstances that we are in: it will get fuel flowing into the market as well as protecting Ukraine throughout the winter ahead of us, and we will continue to make the case for it.

Mr Speaker: I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD): Following the loss of his father, Roy, may I start by offering the Prime Minister’s family my deepest sympathies? I am sure that we were all moved by his words about his dad, and his determination to fix social care and tackle the devastating impact of dementia on sufferers and their families. I hope that we can work across this House to make that happen.

Let me now turn to the Prime Minister’s words about Europe. His predecessors turned a blind eye to the disastrous consequences of the Conservatives’ Brexit deal, so it was welcome to hear him recognise that damage today. We on these Liberal Democrat Benches have consistently argued that their Brexit deal has made us all poorer, weaker and less safe, so I am glad that the Prime Minister has arrived at the same conclusion, but now it is time to do something about it.

The test of the Prime Minister’s ambition is straightforward, if he wants growth and if he wants to cut the cost of living. Will he drop Labour’s red lines now, and open negotiations on joining the single market and a customs union? It would be a real dereliction of duty to refuse now to fix a deal that we know is not working. Every day, every week, every month of delay means more unnecessary costs for British businesses, more pointless red tape, more pain for British families. Being outside negotiations on AI safety, “Made in Europe” regulations and migration agreements does this country real harm. Fixing our relationship with Europe is more important now than ever, especially at a time when President Trump is waging a trade war with Canada while signing a new trade deal with Putin. Never before have we seen a US President so hostile to the UK and our allies, and so friendly to our adversaries. We cannot afford to fudge or dodge on this issue, and especially on Ukraine, so will the Minister bring together a coalition of the willing behind a joint statement condemning Trump’s diesel deal with Russia and calling on him to cancel it?

Let me finally refer to the Prime Minister’s comments about Russian interference in the Brexit referendum. That took courage, after the Conservatives had spent so long suppressing the evidence. Will the Prime Minister now present it to the House in full, alongside any evidence of interference in other UK votes, so that we can understand the threat and make it a national security priority to protect our democracy from attacks such as that?

The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words about my dad. They are much appreciated.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the harm done to food and farming, and to other industries, by the Brexit deal. It would seem that the Conservative party is in denial about this, and not open to seeing how we can move forward to a better position for the country. Indeed, it is clear that British public opinion has moved, and I believe that the public would now favour that. We are not ideological but pragmatic in taking steps to support growth and improve our approach to tackling irregular migration. If we can secure a good deal, I hope that I can count on the right hon. Gentleman’s support and that of his colleagues when it comes before the House. But as much as I want to improve growth in the UK, I also want to maintain trust in politics, and I am afraid I am not prepared to revisit the red lines in our manifesto.

On Ukraine, I have had discussions with Chancellor Merz about bringing forward a meeting of the coalition of the willing. I can update the House further as that proceeds.

Finally, on the Brexit referendum, I think it is really important to be open with people about everything that we have lived through in the last decade. I have been open, but I am also making sure that Britain is in a position where we do not face the same again. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will support the new national centre for information defence, so that Britain never again faces the risk of interference in our democratic process.

Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab): I commend the Prime Minister on what has been a flying start on the world stage, and I welcome news of a better, stronger deal with Europe that will cut costs and cut bills this winter. It is very clear to us, on the evidence that we have received, that the deal we inherited has left red tape strangling our businesses in general, and strangling small businesses in particular. The EU’s “Made in Europe” proposals risk destroying any ambitions to reindustrialise our country. To avoid that peril, we will have to get serious with the EU in tackling unfair competition from China. Will the Prime Minister reserve the right to introduce new tariffs on unfairly subsidised imports from China, so that British and European businesses have a fair and level playing field on which to compete?

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] My apologies—my right hon. Friend. I am still getting used to being back, Mr Speaker. I agree with him about the red tape that our businesses are facing. I have read out examples in the House this afternoon. The Conservatives used to be the first party to stand up and say, “Oh yes, let’s remove red tape from our businesses.” It sounded mightily like they were defending that red tape this afternoon. What has happened to them? They were meant to be the champions of free enterprise, but it falls to us to remove the red tape, and I will work hard to get that deal.

I agree with my right hon. Friend that “Made in Europe” presents risks to British manufacturing, and I know that he will have concerns about the automotive industry in the west midlands. I am raising those concerns with European partners. It is important that we get to an arrangement that works for both the UK and the EU. After all, we are both trying to deal with the same issue: the damaging effect that Chinese exports are having on our industries. The way to approach this is to do it together, and that is the case that we are making to the EU.

Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con): On the Prime Minister’s international agenda, should he not also focus on the appalling humanitarian situation in Darfur, Sudan, and avoid making policy on Israel, the timing of which enhances Netanyahu’s prospects of re-election? On Yemen, as well as defending Saudi Arabia from the outrageous Houthi attacks, should the Prime Minister not use Britain’s deep historical links and connections to Yemen to support constitutional negotiations and prevent the situation from getting any worse?

The Prime Minister: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that ending the suffering in Sudan is very high on the Foreign Secretary’s list of priorities, and that tackling the aggression from the Houthis is something that we are taking extremely seriously. Of course, we are providing support to Saudi Arabia, as I have mentioned this afternoon, and we will be prepared to consider further requests as and when they come in, but I cannot accept what the right hon. Gentleman said about Israel and Palestine. In this House, we have long supported a two-state solution. If we do nothing when a tender process to build on the west bank is moving forward, we will allow that two-state solution to die in front of our eyes. The Foreign Secretary is not prepared to allow that, I am not prepared to allow that, and we strongly defend the stance we have taken.

Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab): In my negotiations with Commissioner Šefčovič, I agreed not only the re-accession of the United Kingdom to Erasmus+, but that at this year’s summit we would deliver the food and drink agreement to bear down on costs in supermarkets and an emissions trading scheme linkage meaning that hundreds of millions of pounds in carbon taxes do not need to be paid by UK businesses, as well as opportunities for young people to work, travel and study in the UK. So can I say to Prime Minister that anyone who sets their face against the deal that I hope he pushes over the line on 20 November is in favour of adding costs to businesses and households?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is exactly right, and I commend him for the excellent work he did to lay the groundwork for this deal. He is right: in these circumstances and at this moment in time, it is incumbent on every Member of the House to do whatever we can to relieve pressure on British business, and that is what we will do. It is interesting that this afternoon the country will be able to see that we are prepared to do it, but the Opposition are not.

Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con): The Prime Minister opened today’s statement with the words that he

“took a clear message to the United Nations: that…Britain is back and can be relied upon as a consistent and stable partner”.

Is the same true of the Prime Minister? If so, can he tell me whether he plans to honour the Brexit referendum outcome, as he said in May when courting the Brexit voters of Makerfield, or is he planning to overturn it either partially or fully?

The Prime Minister: I say to the right hon. Lady that I am always a stable and consistent partner. Indeed, I will honour the result of the referendum, as I always have for the last 10 years—that is a clear commitment, as is the commitment to our manifesto, as I explained just a moment ago—but I am also going to lead and will be prepared to set out options that I think Britain should consider. If she is saying that she is happy with the status quo, she is in a minority in this country. People know that Britain can do better than this. I am determined to secure better for Britain. I am just surprised that the Opposition are setting their ambitions for our country so low.

Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op): I for one am really relieved that the Prime Minister is not going to take any lessons from any member of the previous Conservative Government on negotiating with Europe, given what a mess they made of it. Their irrational hatred of anything to do with Europe meant they took us out of the biofood security alert, meaning British farmers do not get told when there is foot and mouth, and took us out of the Eurodac system—[Interruption.] You took us out. I am watching the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) say, “What?” She might want to look at some of the details that she helped negotiate. They took us out of the Eurodac system, meaning we do not get the asylum data, which makes protecting our borders harder. So will the Prime Minister assure me and my constituents that he will not let Tory mistakes make border control and British farming harder to do, but will put the national interest first, seek that data and ensure that we have a future of working with Europe, not hating it?

Mr Speaker: Order. I just remind Members to please address the Chair, so we do not get into attacks on each other.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to raise the loss of immigration control that has come with the inability to access data across the European Union. It is something that the people who promoted this idea need to take on board and be held to account for, because the reality is that we are in a weaker position when it comes to controlling immigration than we were just over 10 years ago. It is really important, as we go into this next phase, that those on all sides of the House support the British position in this negotiation. Is any Member of this House truly saying to me this afternoon that they do not want to have access again to that European immigration information? If they are saying that, they need to be honest about it.

Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD): I welcomed the Foreign Secretary’s speech on Sudan at the UN General Assembly. The Prime Minister recently said that he would be “really concerned” to lose Sheikh Mansour, vice-president of the United Arab Emirates and owner of Manchester City FC, from Manchester, but does he recognise that the same individual is reported by outlets including The New York Times to have a “central role” not only in Man City’s contested success but in the genocide, famine and forced displacements happening across Sudan because of the Rapid Support Forces? When will the Prime Minister stand up to Sheikh Mansour and the UAE, and call out their dishonest roles in Manchester and in fanning the flames of conflict, leading to the world’s biggest humanitarian disaster in Sudan?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is clear that we want a humanitarian solution in Sudan without fear or favour, and we will make that case very clearly to the UAE. On the wider issue, I can confirm, Mr Speaker, that all my dealings will be published this afternoon in relation to any meetings with the owners of Manchester City.

Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab): I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. He may be aware that the Ukraine Solidarity Campaign is today protesting outside the US embassy in London against President Trump’s diesel deal, which will directly fund Putin’s war machine: a war machine that broke its promise to stop targeting Ukraine’s energy infrastructure less than 24 hours after it was committed to; a war machine that continues to bombard Oleshky, a city in the grip of a humanitarian crisis where people are being starved to death; and a war machine that is complicit in the forcible deportation and abduction of at least 20,651 Ukrainian children. Will the Prime Minister impress upon the President of the United States that his diesel deal will cost his own voters, my constituents and the people of Ukraine their safety?

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for the powerful way in which she puts her question. I assure her that Britain will always take the strongest possible approach towards sanctions on Russia. The Foreign Secretary recently announced new sanctions on the shadow fleet, crypto and oil companies in Russia. We will continue to take that action and, we hope, set a lead that others will follow.

Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con): As the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee who oversaw the publication of the Russia report as soon as the Committee was reconstituted, may I ask the Prime Minister to explain to the House exactly how he thinks Russia was able to alter the result of the referendum?

The Prime Minister: I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but I did not say that. I did not at any point say that it altered the result. I simply come back to what I said earlier: it is a matter of record that Russia has sought to interfere in elections—the 2019 general election—and we think it is inconceivable that this was the first time.

Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab): The Prime Minister quite rightly mentioned in his statement the fact that 90% of Russian oil production is covered by UK sanctions. I very much welcome what he had to say about joining international calls for a ceasefire on attacks on energy installations. When he is discussing this matter with President Trump, will he remind him that the biggest reason for high diesel prices here and in the United States is not the war between Russia and Ukraine, but what is going on in the strait of Hormuz and in Iran? Will he remind the President that the action he is taking will not cut the diesel price and that all it will do is fuel the Russian war machine?

The Prime Minister: I assure my hon. Friend that we are using our good offices on every front to ensure that we get a solution on the cost of energy. As I said before, in Ukraine an energy ceasefire is the best way to get fuel flowing into the market, and that has to be a reciprocal ceasefire. We are also doing whatever we can to support the bringing forward of a solution in the middle east. I discussed both those matters with President Trump in New York, and Britain stands ready to play its part on both fronts.

Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con): Iran clearly views this country as its enemy, and I fear that it smells weakness. It has attempted to attack Diego Garcia, Akrotiri and now Fairford. Does the Prime Minister agree that this demands a robust response, and will he confirm that if Iran is successful in attacking one of our bases, we will use direct action against it in legitimate self-defence? Will he provide enhanced support and assistance to our friends and allies who are under constant attack from Iran and its proxies—not just Saudi Arabia, but the United Arab Emirates and Israel?

The Prime Minister: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are providing the most robust response to the situation. We have introduced a tough sanctions regime. We are taking every step that needs to be taken in close consultation with our counterparts in the United States. There is no suggestion at all that Britain is not playing its part.

Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op): Derby has the manufacturing talent and capabilities to help Britain succeed on the international stage, and with a brilliant £1 billion order for 29 new battery-electric trains at Alstom in Litchurch Lane, we are on a roll in our city. Does the Prime Minister agree that by championing British manufacturing on the international stage we can secure more of that work, and the jobs our communities desperately need?

The Prime Minister: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he has done with colleagues in Derby to secure that investment and those new jobs. The great city of Derby will be a big beneficiary of this Government’s drive to reindustrialise the country. I was at Alstom with my hon. Friend and saw what is being done and the apprenticeships there. We are proud of what is going on in the city. I will ask the Chancellor and the First Secretary of State to do everything they can to drive the maximum value for British jobs from every pound of public procurement in this country.

Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD): As Liberal Democrats, we have long been calling for global leadership on AI from the UK, so I am pleased to hear the Prime Minister talk of that. We cannot get the best out of AI if we cannot protect people from the worst, and the UK should be leading on that. We also need to learn from online safety, and it needs to be Governments that lead the charge, not big tech. Will the Prime Minister listen to the Lib Dem call for an international AI safety institute, based on the International Atomic Energy Agency, based here in the UK?

The Prime Minister: We already have the AI Security Institute, and to be fair, I pay tribute to the previous Conservative Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), who was instrumental in the establishment of that institute. It is because of that that the president of Microsoft was on the radio this morning saying that Britain is now regarded as the world leader in AI safety. What we must not be, however, is complacent, which is why I am putting AI at the top of the agenda for Britain’s presidency of the G20. I look forward to working with the hon. Lady and Members from across the House to ensure that Britain brings together a global code of standards and principles that can capture the benefits of AI while guarding against the risks it poses.

Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op): First, I thank my right hon. Friend for his speech at UNGA, in which he committed, or recommitted, the United Kingdom to be a consistent and stable partner in upholding the shared values of the UN charter. That will be increasingly important as we enter the G20 presidency.

I spent last week with the chairs of the Ukrainian Parliament’s British friendship group, Deputy Speaker Korniyenko and Lesia Vasylenko, and they talked to me about how this El Niño winter is going to be the hardest ever winter in Ukraine. Just this week, Kyiv’s sewerage system broke due to electricity outages because of Russian attacks. What additional support can we give, particularly to Kyiv, in terms of generators, solar panels, thermal batteries and other humanitarian support to ensure that they can get through the exceedingly hard and difficult winter that is coming to Ukraine?

The Prime Minister: I do not think any Member of this House has done more than my hon. Friend to support Ukraine through its darkest hour. On the issue of protecting Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, as well as helping it with renewable and sustainable energy systems, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was in Ukraine last week and talked about these very issues. He also visited the site of one of the bomb attacks that killed children—people may have seen the photos. We are as engaged as my hon. Friend, and we will not waver in any way, shape or form. We will be there till the end, as I know will he.

Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con): I am quite sure that the whole House will applaud the Prime Minister’s reaffirmation of this country’s support for Ukraine and will support the additional sanctions that we are seeking to impose.

President Trump has effectively driven a coach and horses through those sanctions, has torn up the bill that he himself signed in the White House and, for the sake of his domestic audience, is seeking to blame President Zelensky and Ukraine for the oil shortages that the United States is now facing, rather than placing that blame where it truly lies, which is with his disastrous expedition in Iran.

The Prime Minister did not answer the question from the leader of the Liberal Democrats. Will he answer it now? Will he join my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in unequivocally condemning this act of treachery by the President of the United States?

The Prime Minister: I made it clear in my statement that, when I heard the news, I was immediately on the phone to President Zelensky to offer any help that I could provide. I think that where Britain can best provide help is in trying to bring people back together to get a solution that works for Ukraine. More than anything in these circumstances, we have to think about what will be most helpful. Of course, it is critical to get the US, as we discussed in New York with President Trump, back to the concept of an energy ceasefire, and that is what he announced yesterday.

Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab): My constituents in Pendle and Clitheroe want immigration to be controlled and managed in the best interests of the country, and I know that the Prime Minister’s constituents in Wigan feel the same. Can he confirm that, as long as he is Prime Minister, there will be no return to freedom of movement?

The Prime Minister: I take my responsibilities to my constituents very seriously, which is why I have said consistently that the manifesto upon which Labour Members were elected will be fully respected. What we have to look at are the options that are available for the long-term relationship. In the next decade, this country needs to know where it is going. There are no assumptions here, and as I said in my opening comments, the British public will be the boss of whatever is decided.

Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP): The Prime Minister says that, when it comes to the relationship with the EU, the British public will be the boss. Given that Scotland last had a vote on whether or not to stay in broken Brexit Britain before Brexit was even on the cards, does he not think it is a wee bit cheeky to give the UK public the choice, the driving seat and the reins on whether or not to have a different future with the EU while refusing that same choice to Scotland on its future with the UK?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that, like me, the hon. Lady looks at opinion polls from all parts of the country, including Scotland. No one in this House today is proposing a referendum.

Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op): I also was pleased to hear what the Prime Minister had to say about AI, both in New York and this afternoon in the Chamber. Can he confirm that it remains his view that decisions about global principles and standards for AI should be taken by democratically elected Governments representing working people and not by industry alone?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend very forcefully. I am setting up a process under the banner of the G20 presidency that mirrors what this country did in 2008, when international agreement was needed about how to handle the financial crisis. The Canadian Prime Minister, who was very much involved at that time, has been in discussions with me about how we could create a process to mirror that for AI so that individual countries could go back and embed those principles in their own laws and statutes. That is what we are trying to achieve. I would be really pleased if the whole House would get behind this endeavour, as the UK is in the global spotlight.

Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con): The so-called energy ceasefire is a farce. All but one of Ukraine’s oil refineries has already been destroyed. It is about protecting Russia’s oil refineries while Russia bombs Ukraine’s power grid into obliteration and it results in a health disaster. Will the Prime Minister commit to sending large-scale generators to Ukraine now, and will he stand by our Saudi allies at the UN Security Council and under chapter VII designate the Houthis as a terrorist organisation—yes or no?

The Prime Minister: On the first part of the hon. Lady’s question, I heard her strong view on the energy ceasefire, but I heard from the President on Saturday afternoon and he was asking the UK Government to press for such a ceasefire. I think it is right that we hear him and do everything within our power. As I said, there has been some progress on that front in the last 24 hours. On the second matter, I will reflect on what the hon. Lady said and come back to her.

Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab): Traders at Grimsby Seafood Village will welcome any action to reduce the Brexit red tape and bring down their energy bills. I think that they would also want to hear the Prime Minister say explicitly—he danced around in his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) earlier—that there will not be a return to freedom of movement and that in these negotiations we will not have to capitulate and join the euro?

The Prime Minister: As I have said many times this afternoon, we will honour the manifesto in full. The red lines are in place and they will remain in place. The seafood purveyors of Grimsby will probably have noticed, when I was talking about their plight and the difficulties they face, the lack of support for them from the Conservative Benches. I think the Conservatives need to have a period of reflection on their approach on this whole matter and do something to help British businesses that are struggling right now.

Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform): The Prime Minister confirmed that the incident at RAF Fairford was likely to have been co-ordinated in Iran. Can he comment on the serious suggestions that some of those who have been arrested and then bailed had Iranian diplomatic immunity?

The Prime Minister: I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not going to get into those matters on the Floor of the House. The Home Secretary will make a statement later today and provide more detail.

Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab): From catching “Pride” at the National Theatre to jamming the Smiths with Ukrainian troops, we know that this Prime Minister gets culture. Can he revisit pragmatically the Tory mess that has left the Really Useful Group, a theatre group, touring a production of “Phantom of the Opera” in Europe with a Chinese cast because of all the red tape and musicians crippled by costs with no cabotage agreements, because it is killing gigs and venues?

The Prime Minister: I say to my hon. Friend that those are precisely the issues that we believe need a second look. We need to take a more pragmatic approach, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and European Relations is having those discussions with Europe. We do want to see better arrangements for our British creative industries, because they deserve it. They are the best in the world and Europe wants to see and hear more from them.

Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con): Irrespective of how we voted in the referendum, I hope the Prime Minister will agree that if one wants to be called a democrat, one has to abide by that decision and make it work, but the Windsor framework illustrates that no deal is ever cast into tablets of stone and that things are capable of sensible evolution. Will the Prime Minister accept that at this time, as always, businesses large and small, urban and rural, need certainty? They need to know the regulatory regime in which they are trading, the opportunities that exist and the barriers that they may need to overcome. Will he commit that, whatever evolution he is envisaging, it will be delivered speedily to be able to give confidence, certainty and clarity to North Dorset businesses and those across the country?

The Prime Minister: I commend the hon. Gentleman on his pragmatic tone. He is absolutely right to approach it in that way. When I visit Northern Ireland, as I do, I hear a call for things to be changed and improved—evolved, as he said—and that is exactly right. I said in my statement that the energy cost-benefit for Northern Ireland could be significant: there could be up to a 20% reduction in wholesale energy costs. Why would I not do everything I could to deliver that for the people of Northern Ireland? He mentioned speed. If the whole House gets behind the drive to improve the deal, we will get it through more quickly.

Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab): I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for highlighting the effect of Brexit on the salmon farming industry. Salmon farming is worth £189 million to the Western Isles, with £34 million of that direct, and over 200 jobs. Similarly, fishing is worth £16 million, with most of that prawn exports to Spain and France. We are physically furthest from that EU market, but we need that deal—we need to get our fish and our produce in. While we are at it, let us get a deal for our young people to get them studying and working again in Europe.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend puts it so well, because he knows these issues so well—because of the travel times to market. If only Opposition Members had the level of understanding he has just demonstrated, we would be in a better place.

Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD): I note the Prime Minister’s remarks concerning Russian interference in some recent and not so recent elections, which raise serious questions for all of us who worry about the integrity of our democracy. Will the Prime Minister commit to reviewing whether campaign finance rules—both those in place at the moment and the welcome but limited steps being introduced in the Representation of the People Bill—sufficiently guard against foreign interference through political donations? In particular, may I encourage him to look at a cap on political donations to limit the influence of ultra-wealthy individuals and potential foreign interests?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State is leading a task and finish group on cleaning up politics, and I am sure that she would be very pleased to hear from the hon. Member on her proposals.

Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab): On 26 October 2021, when the Conservative Government’s Elections Bill was going through its Public Bill Committee, I was the shadow Minister, and I tabled a new clause relating to foreign interference in politics. The Minister then responsible for keeping our democracy safe replied in Committee that she had not read the Russia report and asked me to explain it to her. Does the Prime Minister share my concern that the Minister, now Leader of the Opposition, may not be fully across the details?

The Prime Minister: I was not aware of that, but I am aware that the Russia report says that

“written evidence provided to us appeared to suggest that HMG”—

I think that was Her Majesty’s Government at the time—

“had not seen or sought evidence of successful interference in UK democratic processes”.

That is indefensible. This Government will not make that mistake. We will ensure that we defend British democracy in the next decade as it was not defended in the last.

Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con): On illegal immigration, the Prime Minister will be aware that in the last month, three boats have left Normandy bound for the Solent and the south coast. The Government are giving France £662 million, yet the smugglers have simply moved down the coast. On 4 October, nearly 150 people landed in Gosport, against the will of local people and of the local council and against the safety advice of the police and crime commissioner. This sends a message to these evil people-smuggling gangs that this is now a viable new route. Given that no one from the Home Office had the courtesy to contact me before, during or after those 150 people were landed on the shores of my constituency, could the Prime Minister let me know what conversations are happening with France to try to shut down these routes from Normandy?

The Prime Minister: I will look into what the hon. Lady just said about not being informed, because if—well, I am sure it is true, and it is not good enough. We will seek to ensure that the Home Office improve on that, because these are difficult issues and I know that they were difficult issues as they were presented in her constituency. The answer is almost in what she said: we are working closely with the French, and it is precisely because of the success of that co-operation that the gangs are changing their tactics—obviously, she has seen the effect of that—but we will be relentless in changing ours to make sure they do not succeed. We will look at the issues that she mentioned and we will endeavour to ensure there is no repeat, but it is precisely because we are succeeding in reducing the number of boat crossings that they are having to try different routes.

Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op): I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to strengthening relations with our European neighbours. Can I give him one example of how he can boost economic growth by doing just that on the south coast? Thousands of the people I represent have called for international trains to come back to Ashford International. It would boost our economy by £2.7 billion and bring half a million more visitors to Sussex and Kent every year, and we have an international terminal sitting there ready to be used. It is a no-brainer, so will the Prime Minister give me his commitment that he will support this, like the Transport Secretary?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes an excellent case. She and I will ask the Transport Secretary to look into it and get back to her.

Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD): I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to the new national centre for information defence. It is a critical factor in preserving the integrity of our democracy, but he will be aware that the US State Department intends to spend tens of millions of pounds promoting ideological propaganda and supporting far-right parties in western Europe, potentially including the UK. Will he give the House the assurance that the new national centre will be free to go where it needs to go, without fear or favour, in investigating misinformation and disinformation, and that, where necessary, that will include the activities of the United States?

The Prime Minister: Indeed; I will give the hon. Gentleman that assurance here and now. That is exactly the point: it should be free to do that, and with independent oversight, as the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), said. Let us remember, the Russian Government spend over £1 billion every year on misinformation and disinformation, and we have to be open-eyed about that and start to respond accordingly. It is not about a ministry of truth, or whatever people want to say; it is about ensuring people are aware of what is being done, and where there is interference in our democratic process. It will be more successful if it carries the full support of all sides of the House, with the requisite independence and oversight.

Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab): I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. It is an absolute no-brainer that we move closer to our closest trading partner, the EU, and I know that thousands of businesses in my constituency of Monmouthshire will welcome the reduction in costs. I am sure that Monmouthshire farmers, too, will be delighted that they were at the centre of his statement, as they will be by the prospect of less red tape and lower costs when dealing with the EU. They were sold a lie by the Conservatives about Brexit. Can the PM confirm that Welsh lamb and Welsh beef exports will increase as a result of his statement and of the renegotiation with the EU?

The Prime Minister: Not as a result of the statement—if only I had that power—but yes, if we can secure the deal that I talked about in the statement. This is a really important moment for British farmers, who have had a very difficult year, and it is incumbent on me to do everything that I can. I can assure them—and my hon. Friend can assure them, because she heard it from me—that I will do everything that I possibly can to get this deal over the line in the next five weeks.

Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con): The Prime Minister has adopted a fascinating negotiating strategy by revealing his hand and goals in advance of any discussions with the EU. Is he aware that the price of any deal therefore went up with every word that he said? As a former Trade Minister, may I also advise the Prime Minister—because his officials and Ministers clearly have not—that it may not be so easy after all, because of some of the clauses in the 70-plus other trade deals that we did with other countries to unwind all the things that he would like to do? It may not be as simple as he thinks.

The Prime Minister: May I just reflect on the negotiating geniuses on the other side of the House, whose main strategy, as far as I recall, was insulting every member of the European Commission and every member state? That went well, didn’t it?

Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab): I congratulate the Prime Minister on his strong leadership at the UN and in preparing to host the G20. As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I welcome the national centre for information defence. On the EU, we need to boost opportunities for our hospitality, accommodation and tech sectors; they are the ones that talk about the great opportunities for young people to study, work and live here and—for people in my constituency—to travel to Europe as well. I therefore welcome talk of a work experience scheme being discussed at the EU summit. Will the Prime Minister say more about whether that scheme will lead to a youth mobility scheme, which would boost growth in this country?

The Prime Minister: That will be very much part of the discussion at the summit, and I believe that that, too, is in our interests. If young people come here to study, they develop an attachment to the country, which often bodes well for us, for the rest of their lives, as do British students going the other way. These are the things that worked in the past, and there is no reason why this generation should not be able to take advantage of them. I welcome my hon. Friend’s generous support for what we are trying to do.

Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green): I congratulate the hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Sagal Abdi-Wali), who was with us here earlier, and warmly welcome her to her place in this House. I also warmly welcome much of what the Prime Minister’s international update contained, particularly his recognition of Brexit’s disastrous effects on our country—as far as I am concerned, the faster we move to rejoin, the better—but there was no mention of the climate crisis. Does he not recognise that the climate crisis is one of the biggest international challenges facing us, that it requires us to keep fossil fuels in the ground, and that therefore—given that COP31 is coming up next month—the Government must rule out Jackdaw and Rosebank, and move with all speed to the future of clean, green, renewable energy on which this country’s future prosperity depends?

The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Lady for welcoming what I had to say. On the climate crisis, I can assure her that I was not silent in my speech to the UN General Assembly; indeed, the Foreign Secretary convened climate crisis-related events in New York. As I have said before, we will be pragmatic on oil and gas, given that the country will continue to need to use them in the future, but where we agree is that it is essential that this country builds the strongest possible bridge to a renewable future.

Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab): Last week, one of the food production companies in my constituency contacted my office regarding an import of fish from the European Union which has been held at Suffolk Coastal Port Health Authority because of a labelling discrepancy. Delay and potential refusal of entry have significant financial implications for the business, with storage and associated costs continuing to accumulate while the container remains at port with the increasing likelihood that the stock will have to be destroyed as time goes on. May I ask for the Prime Minister’s reassurance that closer ties with Europe will make it easier for local businesses to import and export to the European Union?

The Prime Minister: One can only imagine the frustration of the businesses that are trying to get that produce released. The Minister for Europe just said to me, “We get calls like this all the time.” Why was there such indifference on the other side of the House to this situation? Why are we not working towards a pragmatic solution to get British goods flowing to market? I do not think the other side’s position is sustainable, and the example my hon. Friend has just given, speaking up for businesses in her constituency, is one that the vast majority of people would say, “Right, get that fixed” and we will.

Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con): I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, to which I listened carefully. In it, he said,

“our resolve to defend…ourselves is absolute”.

However, at that Dispatch Box on another occasion, he said that national security

“cannot come at the expense of social security.”—[Official Report, 9 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 1036.]

Bearing in mind that our allies and our enemies are listening to our proceedings, could he make it crystal clear to the world that he has no higher priority than the national security of the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: I can make it abundantly clear that national security is my highest priority and the Government’s highest priority, and we will set out how we will meet our NATO commitments in due course. But resilience builds from the community level up, and we also have to have an eye to the resilience of our communities in a very changing world, so I was talking about social security in the broadest sense. They go together. I want a resilient and strong Britain in the 21st century.

Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab): The Prime Minister knows from our discussion that the cost of living is the No. 1 issue that my constituents raise with me and are struggling with right now in Blackpool South. With the UK-EU summit now confirmed, does the Prime Minister believe that this is the perfect opportunity to deliver real benefits for Blackpool businesses and families, including lowering food prices, more opportunities for young people, stronger defence and, most importantly for many of my constituents, further immigration controls which we lost under the previous Government?

The Prime Minister: One of the most positive aspects of my meeting with President von der Leyen in New York was her openness to the conversation about restoring data sharing on immigration across Europe. That is something that Britain has long sought in the decade since Brexit. It is the control that we lost, actually, at the time of the referendum. It is one issue that does not get enough attention and it should get more. I say to my hon. Friend that I will work hard to see if we can get a practical arrangement on that very issue at the summit in November.

Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con): There are only just over five weeks to go until the European summit that the Prime Minister has announced. The Prime Minister makes reference to our farmers, but the agricultural sector is putting out huge warnings at the moment. I wonder if the Prime Minister could specifically reference and refer to CropLife UK’s detailed report, which outlines that aligning the UK’s crop protection rules with the EU would slash farming income by up to £810 million in the first year alone, trigger steep falls in UK crop protection, and significantly negatively impact the progress made through the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023. Can the Prime Minister comment on those concerns that are being made right now?

The Prime Minister: Where I can comment is in saying to the hon. Member that the National Farmers Union is very strongly in support of this proposed deal. Obviously, we need to get the details on the table, and I will listen to what he has got to say. If he sends me the report that he referenced, I will take a look at it. But there is strong support for what we are trying to do to support British food and farming.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins): Order. I want to call as many Members as possible, so please can we quicken the pace?

Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab): In August I had the privilege of visiting the Falkland Islands, an amazing place, where Government representatives told me all about the opportunities presented by the Sea Lion oilfield development fund. Whatever one’s opinion of the Sea Lion development, it is clear that the Government of Argentina cannot threaten those who choose to get involved in that project and cannot try to scupper it with external actions that do not match our ambitions. I ask the Prime Minister today to set out his view on that. Will he also unambiguously state that it is the Falkland Islanders’ right to determine where their resources go?

The Prime Minister: We have consistently demonstrated our unwavering support for the Falkland Islanders and indeed for the Sea Lion project. I made that very clear in New York. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is working hard on this issue and we will say more in due course.

Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD): I fully recognise the need not to prejudice an ongoing investigation, but will the Prime Minister differentiate between the criminal investigations into the recent incidents at RAF bases and say what measures the Government are taking to establish whether other military bases face similar vulnerabilities, both at home and abroad, to protect our armed forces?

The Prime Minister: I assure the House that British police and security services have done everything that they should have done and have conducted the investigation in relation to RAF Fairford with the utmost rigour; that needs to be put on the record. The hon. Gentleman is right to press on base security more broadly, and I can assure him that I am working with the Defence Secretary to ensure that we are doing everything we can. We are confident in the way that we are managing the security of our bases, but we are not complacent and we will do everything necessary to secure them. I pay tribute to those who apprehended the trespassers at RAF Molesworth recently; that shows that we are being very vigilant when it comes to the security of our bases.

Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab): I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. To deter our adversaries, we are not only going to have to increase defence spending; we are also going to have to mobilise our financial markets. I welcome the many good conversations between the UK and Canada, but the founding of the defence, security and resilience bank will take political leadership. Will the Prime Minister take that step, stand with Prime Minister Carney, and ensure that Britain is at the forefront of building the financial power needed to deter our adversaries?

The Prime Minister: I have had discussions with the Canadian Prime Minister at a certain football ground on that very subject; I assure my hon. Friend of that. We are looking at how we can pursue procurement co-operation more broadly, and we will say more in due course.

David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con): For the avoidance of doubt, will the Prime Minister confirm which country was responsible for the Jaguar Land Rover hack and, more importantly, whether there have been any repercussions?

The Prime Minister: I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab): It is estimated that Scotland is some £30 billion a year worse off as a result of Brexit. We have already heard this afternoon about the problems faced by the fishing and agriculture sectors, but in addition, the creative industries, financial services, architectural firms, engineering companies and tourism have all identified problems arising for them and the people who work in those areas because of Brexit. In the EU summit to come, will the Prime Minister consider the opportunities there may be to advance the cause of those industries, particularly as they are so important to my home city of Glasgow?

The Prime Minister: I am looking forward to visiting Scotland later this week and I hope to have those discussions. We cannot accept the status quo—it is not good enough for Scotland or for Britain. I was encouraged by the pragmatic approach taken by the hon. Member for one of the Dorset seats—

Simon Hoare: North!

The Prime Minister: No. 10 North or Dorset North? [Laughter.] In the weeks ahead, I hope that we can encourage that same spirit of pragmatism among the rest of the Opposition Members.

Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con): I thank the Prime Minister for his steadfast support for Ukraine and his early visit. However, next year there may be a potential problem for Europe—I see the Europe Minister and the Defence Secretary are in their places—because the rise of National Rally in France and Alternative für Deutschland in Germany might mean that support for NATO starts to fragment in some European nations. Will the Prime Minister work with the Defence Secretary and the Chancellor on defence planning and a defence budget should the United Kingdom need to do more for Ukraine in those circumstances?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is right to point to the changing picture in Europe. Obviously, we will have to be mindful of how that picture might change. I was pleased to welcome the NATO Secretary-General to Oxfordshire—we had an excellent discussion. Britain will remain at the heart of NATO and we will continue to do whatever we need to do. It is right that Opposition Members challenge the Government about our commitments to defence, but we are still the third biggest contributor to NATO and sometimes that point is missed. We are spending billions of pounds more as a Government than we were, and we will continue to spend more as we go forward.

Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab): Younger generations in this country sacrificed a great deal during covid to protect older generations, and we all owe them our thanks for that. With the youth jobs grant and the Your First Home scheme, the Government are taking concrete steps to try to improve opportunities for young people. Of course the Prime Minister must prioritise economic growth in his discussions with the EU, but will he confirm that long-term commitment to Erasmus and the youth mobility scheme will be prioritised as well, so that younger generations can have the same opportunities that benefited my generation?

The Prime Minister: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The youth mobility component of the deal matters as much to me as the other parts.

Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party): I thank the Prime Minister for his statement—I hope that making an international statement in the House will become a regular feature for him. He has just come from the UN: what discussions took place about the future of the UN, the proper funding of the UN, the funding of the agencies of the UN and the reform of the Security Council and the General Assembly, so that the UN can play a real role in trying to bring about an end to the conflicts that are going on around the world? The world spent $2.7 trillion on arms last year, and it will be more this year. There is a role for international peace institutions to try to bring about ceasefires where possible and peace wherever it can be assured, so surely that needs to be on the agenda. Finally, in his reply to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), he said that there were concerns about the environment—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins): Order. I think the Prime Minister has got the gist.

The Prime Minister: I met the Secretary-General of the United Nations in New York. Of course Britain will play its part in providing the support that the UN needs, ensuring that the UN’s standing rises in these times, because we need it more now than we have in recent times. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will always be open to reform of the UN.

Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab): The Putin tax—the cost of Russian cyber and physical attacks on the UK—is costing the British taxpayer about £2.5 billion each year. My office conducted research over the summer, but we were unable to find a great deal of information about the true cost of Russian hostile activity because the Government do not collect that information. Will the Prime Minister commit the Government to collecting more of that information and to publishing it on a regular basis, so that the public know the true cost to the UK taxpayer of Vladimir Putin’s aggression?

The Prime Minister: That was a topic of conversation with Chancellor Merz in our meeting in Berlin last week. The cyber-attacks that both Germany and the UK face are multiple and pose serious risks for British businesses. That is why we have launched a new partnership on hybrid attacks. I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of monitoring the data, and I will see what more we can do on that.

Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con): I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and his commitment to being more straightforward with the House than perhaps has always been the case over the last couple of years. In the light of that, will he give the House an unequivocal assurance that he believes that the Brexit referendum was legitimate? Will he say so on the record?

The Prime Minister: I will very much say so on the record: it was legitimate. I have always respected the result, and I have never questioned its legitimacy, but I am within my rights to point out where foreign actors are looking to interfere in British democracy.

Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab): The last 10 years of poor Brexit deals have taken a toll on our businesses and economy, including on a lot of small and medium-sized enterprises in my constituency that are looking to grow. We all want less red tape for business and frictionless trade with our largest trading partners, so can the Prime Minister seek a deal that opens up possibilities for my breweries, farmers and manufacturers to help them grow?

The Prime Minister: If we get to a deal and it does not do all the things that my hon. Friend just mentioned, it will not be the right deal. I know that I will be in a stronger position the more that people in all parties in the House get behind what I am saying. That will put Britain in the strongest place to negotiate a deal. That would be a good negotiating strategy, and maybe the Opposition will consider it.

Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con): The whole House will have noted that when the Prime Minister was asked about freedom of movement, he evaded the question. May I ask him directly—it is a simple yes or no—to say that in any future negotiation on rejoining the EU, freedom of movement will not be on the table?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is getting way ahead of himself. There is no proposal for a referendum; there is no deal on the table. All I have said is that, as we go towards this negotiation, it makes sense to consider also our longer-term options, because it helps our European partners if they know where Britain wants to go in the future. That is all that is being said at this moment in time.

Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab): Britain has enormous strengths in AI. We attracted almost as much private investment as the EU 27 combined last year, but in an industry dominated by the United States and China, it is only by co-operating with our friends in Europe that we can achieve the scale necessary to keep ourselves safe and to thrive. Does the Prime Minister agree that a technology partnership is one of the ways in which we could rebuild our relationship with the EU?

The Prime Minister: That is an excellent thought, and that is exactly what we may be able to strengthen as part of our G20 presidency year. I point my hon. Friend towards the actions of the AI Minister, who has regained access to US AI frontier models for the AI Security Institute. That shows that we are in a good position to broker new standards on AI across the world and make arrangements with all our partners.

Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC): I commend the Prime Minister for his statement and specifically for his acknowledgment of the significant harm that Brexit has wrought on our communities. I welcome his desire for a serious conversation about the long-term relationship with the European Union. Does he agree that for any dialogue to be serious, it has to include a the full range of options, including membership of the customs union, the single market and possibly the European Union?

The Prime Minister: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is taking an open-minded approach. At this stage, as we look to move beyond the decade that was not the best for Britain—let us be honest about that—it is right that we have a discussion in the House about where we want to go and where we want to take this country in the next decade. Let us be clearer about our direction in the next decade than we were in the last. That is what I will try to bring as Prime Minister for this country. I am not going to turn away from questions just because they might be awkward or difficult. That is what has got us into this position. We have turned away from things that we should have dealt with. I am not going to do that. I appreciate the spirit that the hon. Gentleman is showing today. That is what the country needs as we go forward.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins): I remind Members that they need to speed up, please, because we are finishing this statement at around 5.30 pm.

Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab): I congratulate the Prime Minister on the work that he is doing with allies to promote resolution to conflicts around the world, particularly in the middle east and Ukraine. Nevertheless, my constituents remain extremely anxious about the effect of the situation in the strait of Hormuz on their fuel bills, going into what will probably be a difficult winter. Can the Prime Minister provide reassurance that he will try to protect the most vulnerable from increases in energy bills going forward, and will also continue our acceleration away from dependence on fossil fuels and further towards renewables, so that we are less open to energy price shocks in the future?

The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that reducing the cost of energy is a core priority of this Government, as I said at the conference in Liverpool just over a week ago. I have already removed VAT from electricity bills; there is more to come, and we will set that out soon.

Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con): If the Prime Minister is so keen to support our farmers, there is one step he could take that is entirely within his control, which is to scrap the family farm tax. Will he do so, and show a genuine commitment to our farmers?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Lady knows, changes have been made, but that is not the only issue affecting British farming, which is why I have made the statement I have made today.

James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab): The Prime Minister loves his music, as does Rob, a constituent of mine who is a member of the Musicians’ Union. He welcomed the Government’s plan for music, “Turn It Up”, and its support for local venues, but that plan is quiet about what the future relationship with Europe will look like when it comes to touring. With 59% of musicians saying that EU touring is no longer viable, will the Prime Minister commit to putting visa waivers for this specific purpose on the table on 20 November?

The Prime Minister: Let me be plain: I would like to see the return of visa-free access to Europe for British musicians and performers.

Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con): On 28 September, Javier Milei initiated annex VII arbitration proceedings against the United Kingdom in relation to halting activities at the Sea Lion oilfield. That deadline expired yesterday, and I assume that we have not complied. The Government have already said that they would robustly defend the Falkland Islands against this, which is great. Javier Milei will now initiate proceedings under the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. I agree that we should push back against this. However, last May, the former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), said from the Dispatch Box that the

“most proximate, and the most potentially serious”

legal challenge facing us about the Chagos islands was

“the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.”—[Official Report, 22 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 1291.]

Why are we prepared to defend the Falkland Islands against ITLOS, but not the Chagos islands?

The Prime Minister: I have been very clear this afternoon that we will defend the Falkland Islands, and I reiterated that to the Falkland Islands’ Government at our recent conference. I did discuss the matter of the Chagos islands in New York, and particularly the crucial need to secure the future of our base at Diego Garcia. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is what we will do.

Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab): Many of my younger constituents feel that their horizons have been shortened and their opportunities limited by the restrictions on their ability to travel, study and work in Europe, post Brexit. They simply want the same opportunities that were available to the generations before them. Does the Prime Minister agree that, through a new youth experience scheme, they should get those opportunities?

The Prime Minister: I believe that this generation, which has so much potential and so much promise, deserves the same thing that so many of us took for granted, which is the ability to travel and study in Europe with ease. That is why, as I said a moment ago, the youth mobility component of the proposed deal matters greatly to me.

Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform): We now know that Iran has targeted bases on our soil. We already knew that Iranian agents who had been charged with terrorism offences entered the United Kingdom on small boats, so will the Prime Minister do what Reform UK would do—declare a national security emergency, because we have a gaping hole in our borders right now, send the Royal Navy into the channel, and shut down the entire asylum farce, once and for all—to truly fulfil his duty as Prime Minister, which is to keep the British people safe?

The Prime Minister: I can remember a time when the right hon. Gentleman stood up in this House and made serious proposals—sadly, not today. If he had checked the facts recently, he would have seen that small boat crossings are coming down under this Government. When he was Immigration Minister, what did they do? They went up and up. Those are the facts; he should engage with them.

Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op): Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be aware that I absolutely love my town of Harlow. [Interruption.] Somebody who loved it even more than me, and apparently my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), was the late, great Jean Clark, a former Harlow councillor who sadly passed away during the recess. She will be dearly missed, and I would love the Prime Minister to pay tribute to a real Harlow legend.

The Prime Minister will be aware that many small and medium-sized businesses in Harlow depend on trade with the EU. They have been pressured by the increased red tape that we have seen since Brexit. Will he confirm to those businesses that he is not talking about a rerun of the Brexit referendum, or a rerun of those negotiations, but about ensuring that we get the best deal for businesses in Harlow?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has paid a touching tribute to Jean, and I am pleased to reiterate that from the Dispatch Box. I know that she will be much missed in Harlow. He is exactly right: this is not about rerunning anything, but about getting a pragmatic arrangement that improves the position. I think most of the common-sense people of Harlow will fully understand what I am trying to do.

Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con): Can I just get clarity? The Prime Minister said that he wanted to increase defence spending, but then he backtracked. He then said he would prioritise welfare—sorry, he promised to cut welfare, before prioritising it over defence. Despite his making a commitment to not reopen the Brexit debate, that is exactly what he has now done. He said here in the Chamber that there would be no referendum. Does that mean he would consider taking Britain back into Europe unilaterally?

The Prime Minister: I was trying to follow that question, but it was going on. The answer is no, full stop.

Peter Swallow: The Prime Minister is right to be honest with the British public. Brexit has made us economically and socially poorer; it has made it harder to tackle illegal immigration; and it is driving a cost of living crisis for my constituents. That is why the Prime Minister is also right to say that the status quo cannot hold. Can I urge him to take a position of maximum pragmatism ahead of the EU summit in November, so that we can make sure we get a closer relationship with Europe and a better deal for the British people?

The Prime Minister: I will absolutely do that. The quality of the conversations is already improving, and I am confident that we can steer things to a successful conclusion.

Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD): In Bath, we led the rebellion against Brexit, and I have raised time and again here in Parliament how the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal has harmed hundreds of small businesses in my constituency. We have already heard this afternoon that endless paperwork and red tape harms not just the food and drinks industry, but all business sectors, and small businesses in particular. While I recognise that the Prime Minister is focusing on the next six weeks, can he outline his ambition for negotiating cuts to the red tape and endless paperwork for businesses across the board, to support small businesses like those in Bath?

The Prime Minister: That is the deal that is on the table. It is not for the whole economy, but for those sectors that I mentioned today. If we can land that, it points to our going further in the future. I appreciate that the hon. Lady has been a consistent voice on this matter. If only her pragmatism was mirrored by those on the Conservative Benches.

Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab): The Prime Minister will be aware of the concerns of our vehicle manufacturers about the consequences if the UK does not secure exemptions from “Made in Europe” as drafted, and I welcome his assurances that the Government are prepared to act to harmonise our approach on Chinese imports in order to achieve that. Does he agree that if there are any changes to tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, there is no reason for a different approach to be taken to Chinese electric bus imports?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will remember that we visited Alexander Dennis in his constituency when Greater Manchester was buying buses from it. I have the strongest commitment to Scottish manufacturing, and indeed to manufacturing across the UK. We need to make common cause with Europe on the whole question of tackling Chinese exports and the damaging effect that they can have in undercutting British industry.

Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con): In recent weeks, we have seen once again that Iran poses a grave threat to the British people and our allies. Our intelligence relationships are our first line of defence, and Israel is among our most valuable partners in countering that threat. Given the fallout from his decision to sanction Israeli settlements and the deteriorating relationship that has followed, will the Prime Minister give the House a clear assurance today that intelligence co-operation with Israel is continuing in full—or is he putting at risk the safety and security of the British people?

The Prime Minister: It is possible to have differences on one issue, but then to co-operate on others. Of course we co-operate on intelligence and security with many international partners, including Israel. We have also been in discussions about the British presence in East Jerusalem, and we work to secure British interests all the time.

Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab): I would be very interested to hear what the Prime Minister has to say, in this international update, about companies in foreign ownership yet again closing down vital Scottish industries. This time, it is Syngenta’s Chinese owners in Grangemouth who will make 377 people redundant on site, and we all know that this means that thousands will be affected in the wider supply chain. The Prime Minister is right to talk about the pressing need to reindustrialise vast parts of the country. Will he come to Grangemouth and listen to local people who have had the heart ripped out of their community, and will he commit to spending the £200 million from the National Wealth Fund to save jobs and build the industrial future that Grangemouth and Scotland need?

The Prime Minister: I do want to visit Grangemouth, as soon as my diary allows, because I recognise some of the very difficult issues that my hon. Friend is dealing with, and we have to secure a good transition for industry in his constituency. I cannot give him a date today, but I give him a commitment that I will as soon as I can.

Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance): Northern Ireland voted to remain, and believe you me, no part of the UK has suffered more through Brexit than Northern Ireland. If there is a chance to make sure that my constituents in Lagan Valley have cheaper electricity, we are there. What assurance can the Prime Minister give me today that he is in live discussions with my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that Northern Ireland gets the best out of any possible deal?

The Prime Minister: That is my intent, stated from this Dispatch Box. I hope that we can work with the hon. Lady and her colleagues to deliver what could be a very real change, felt by her constituents and many more.

Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con): For the fourth time of asking, in any negotiations with the EU, will the Prime Minister rule out a return to freedom of movement?

The Prime Minister: It is not on the table, and it is not up for discussion. I am sorry that that does not suit the hon. Gentleman’s political purpose.

May I clarify something, Mr Speaker? The National Farmers Union is waiting to see the terms of any deal, so it is neutral at the moment. I thought that I had better correct the record before the end of this statement.

Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV): Does the Prime Minister view himself as the Prime Minister of Britain, or the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom? I ask because the sanitary and phytosanitary deal that he seeks to negotiate with the EU is exclusively a GB-EU SPS deal, which means that Northern Ireland remains under the colonial rule of the EU on all SPS matters, whereas if it were a UK-EU deal, the UK could take back control in Northern Ireland of EU laws in which we currently have no say whatsoever.

The Prime Minister: I can say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that this will also have the effect of reducing checks in the Irish sea, which will bring a benefit for his constituents. Of course, the bigger benefits for Northern Ireland are in relation to energy, and I think that is something that his constituents would want me to pursue.

Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con): The Prime Minister likes to present himself as a straight-talking kind of guy, but again and again he has been asked a straight question and not given a straight answer. Can he rule out—yes or no—taking Britain back into freedom of movement while he is Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister: I do not know how many times I need to remind the hon. Gentleman of the commitment that I made to the red lines in our manifesto, which include freedom of movement. I do not know if has just not been listening, even though he has been sat there all afternoon. It is simply not on the table in these discussions.

Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD): The Prime Minister has spoken encouragingly about closer ties with the EU. Between this and the renewed appetite for electoral reform, I welcome the Labour party’s recent adoption of Liberal Democrat policy priorities. The leader of the Conservatives was right to say that the Opposition have won the argument—it just was not her.

On international relations, Britain has always straddled two global alliances: our European neighbours and our global Commonwealth brothers and sisters. With that in mind, in order to build a more comprehensive global security network, to unlock future growth and to add to the closer links with the EU to which the Prime Minister has committed, could he inform the House about the Government’s position on strengthening integration with Canada, New Zealand and Australia? Will he also meet the newly formed CANZUK all-party parliamentary group to discuss this important issue further?

The Prime Minister: I will at some point—I will come back to the hon. Gentleman on precisely when. I had an excellent conversation with the Prime Minister of Canada, as I mentioned a moment ago. I think there is huge importance in the English-speaking world uniting in this moment, working together and navigating a difficult climate, but also in forging new partnerships to do so.

Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con): The Falklands have to get explicit permission from this country to have new oil and gas licences, so will the Prime Minister consent to them? If the answer is yes, why is it okay to drill in the South Pacific but not in the North sea? If it is no, how does that figure with self-determination of the Falklands Islands?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is jumping to the conclusion that I have made decisions on matters in relation to the North sea, but I have been very clear that we support the Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination. We will defend it resolutely in the face of hostility from Argentina, and the Foreign Secretary will say more on that in due course.

Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP): The Prime Minister, as a proud Unionist, will be acutely aware that despite Scotland voting overwhelmingly to remain in the EU, it was dragged out against its will because it is part of the United Kingdom. Since then, support for Scottish independence has only risen. Two thirds of the last 22 independent polls show support for independence, the Scottish Parliament has the highest majority ever of pro-independence MSPs, and it voted 72 to 55 in favour of a section 30 agreement for a referendum on Scotland’s future. In the Prime Minister’s own words to me last month, a “clear consensus” has now been met, so I ask him a simple question: what steps is he now taking with the Scottish Government to secure a legal pathway so that Scotland can decide its own future and rejoin the EU?

The Prime Minister: The discussions that I am having with the Scottish Government and will have later this month are on a model of deeper devolution for Scotland that can get growth going in all parts of the country. That is where my priority lies and that is what I will do.

Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD): I welcome the Prime Minister’s clarification that he believes that the UK referendum was legitimate. The Intelligence and Security Committee recommended six years ago that the UK intelligence community should produce an assessment of Russian interference in the EU referendum, and that an unclassified summary be published. That did not happen. Why does the Prime Minister think that his predecessors have been so reluctant to speak about Russian attempts to interfere in the referendum?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman might want to ask the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), sitting to his left, because the Russia report from the ISC found that Her Majesty’s Government had not sought evidence. Those are the facts as found by the Committee, and those are matters and questions for that Government rather than this one.

Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind): The Prime Minister has told this House repeatedly about the involvement of Russian authorities in our democratic process, and the fact that they are willing to spend millions and millions of pounds to interfere in our democratic process. Given that, does the Prime Minister concur with me that photo identification at polling stations during elections is not just important, but an absolute necessity?

The Prime Minister: I would say that we do want to uphold the highest standards of security in our voting system, but the Bill before the House does that, as well as allowing more people the ability to vote.

Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD): Today was a very sad day for my residents in Mid Dorset and North Poole, with the very last sailing of the Barfleur from Poole to her twin town of Cherbourg in France after 34 years of continuous trade, and this is blamed on Brexit red tape, food export restrictions and travel limitations on people who can travel only for 90 in 180 days. Will the Prime Minister please ask his officials to do all they can to keep open the window of opportunity to keep this going, and make sure that the issue of UK ports and their role is included in the UK-EU summit?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady raises a really important point, and the Minister for Europe has just said that he is willing to meet her to discuss it, because it is a real shame, given that level of history. But again, that is why we are trying to negotiate a better arrangement. We will do exactly as she says, and look at how what we are trying to achieve could benefit British ports.

Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD): Talk of an energy ceasefire shows once again how central energy security is to national security, so will the Prime Minister reassure the House that the rumoured cuts to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero budget will not undermine his Government’s ability to protect our critical energy infrastructure, or indeed to protect our constituents from the high energy bills that undermine society’s cohesion?

The Prime Minister: I say to the hon. Lady that protecting our critical national infrastructure and our energy infrastructure is a crucial part of national security. It is the essence of the deal—the partnership—we struck with Germany last week, and we will ensure that there is sufficient funding to achieve that via the Ministry of Defence and, indeed, DESNZ.

Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD): The EU asylum and migration pact ticks all the Prime Minister’s boxes in bringing control and safety to the asylum system, and it is cheaper than the bilateral agreements that his Government are making with France and Belgium, so why is it not on the agenda for his Government?

The Prime Minister: I am happy to look at what the hon. Gentleman is saying if he writes to me in detail on that very matter.

Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con): During the last couple of hours, I have heard the Prime Minister talk about three of the four pillars of our national defence—our military, our resilience and our alliances—but he has yet to mention the crucial fourth pillar, which is the importance of the international rules-based order and the institutions that underpin it. Is he going to take any active steps to defend the International Criminal Court and the UK citizens who work there against the American sanctions that have been placed on it?

The Prime Minister: Obviously, we are looking at the decisions that have been reached in relation to that very issue, and we will of course defend any British citizens who have been unfairly treated.

Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab): I have listened carefully to what the Prime Minister has had to say, and I am very grateful to him. Would he agree with me that in our international affairs we must do all we can to support the BBC World Service, which is the voice of this country to the world—the voice of truth and facts?

The Prime Minister: Indeed. I am a very big supporter of the World Service, and indeed of the BBC as a whole.

Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD): Will the Prime Minister state categorically that he is in no way considering a May 2027 general election?

The Prime Minister: Yes.

Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD): The US President’s disastrous war in the middle east has massively driven up the price of liquified petroleum gas and heating oil in my rural constituency. Pensioners and struggling families will be forced to leave their heating off, risking their health. As reducing bills is the Prime Minister’s stated priority, will he please consider removing VAT from heating oil and LPG, and include them in the energy price cap?

The Prime Minister: I understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making. Obviously, different parts of the UK are more dependent on heating oil and that issue has really come to the fore throughout the course of this year, so I will consider what he has to say.

Just to clarify in relation to the previous question: yes, in no way am I considering a May 2027 general election.

Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform): I know that the people of the Falkland Islands will be reassured by the Prime Minister telling President Trump and the UN General Assembly that the clear and declared will of the islands is to remain British, but will he please afford the same rights to the people of the Chagos islands? Surely, all citizens of overseas territories should have the right of self-determination and the right to stay British.

The Prime Minister: We will certainly uphold our obligations in respect of the Falklands Islands. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the issues related to the Chagos islands are different—they are not strictly comparable—but we will always take the right and fair approach.

Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind): The Prime Minister is confident that close ties with the EU will deliver growth, but what evidence can he provide to this House that this will translate into tangible improvements for the communities that felt left behind by globalisation and then voted for Brexit? Does he accept that we have a duty to respect that democratic decision, and that reopening this deeply divisive debate must be justified by clear measurable benefits that could not be achieved otherwise outside the European Union?

The Prime Minister: The clear measurable benefits are containers and lorries full of fresh produce not sitting at ports and going off. That is a clear and measurable benefit to a business, as is extra several billion pound-sized growth in the UK economy. I would not be pursuing this were there not tangible differences for British business at the end of it. The figures are from the Treasury. They quantify an increase of at least 0.2% in UK GDP if we get the right deal, possibly more, and that is worth pursuing at this moment in time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins): For the final question, I call Jim Shannon.

Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—my legs are the strongest in the Chamber, without a doubt.

Closer alignment with Brussels has caused great alarm in Strangford and across Northern Ireland. If the Government’s idea of a reset with Europe involves further alignment, will the Prime Minister explicitly state today whether he intends permanently to lock Northern Ireland into foreign laws under an unelected European court, or will he finally take a hard line to fully restore the Acts of Union and the internal market of the United Kingdom, as we should have had from the start? “All together or not at all” must be the message.

The Prime Minister: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I did not negotiate the arrangement that is currently in place. What I am trying to do is make things better for the people of Northern Ireland. I am confident in saying to him that if we get the right deal on energy connection, that could make an appreciable difference for his constituents, as could the paperwork on Irish sea crossings as well. There are real benefits that I can achieve here that will improve things for Northern Ireland—possibly not to his complete satisfaction, but they are steps forward.