Before we begin today’s proceedings, I would like to remind hon. Members of what I said last week following the King’s Speech. The language we use in the Chamber, and the way we behave towards each other, should reflect the principle that good temper and moderation are the hallmarks of parliamentary language and behaviour.

I am determined that Members in all parts of the House should be treated with courtesy and respect in this Chamber. I remind the House that it is entirely at the discretion of the hon. Member who has the Floor to choose whether to give way. And once it is clear that the Member does not wish to give way, colleagues should not persist in asking them to do so.

I should also like to remind Members about the church service tomorrow to mark the start of the new Parliament. You will all have received information about it and I look forward to seeing those of you who are able to attend.

Before I start my statement, I would like to pay a short tribute to President Biden, a man who, during five decades of service, never lost touch with the concerns of working people and always put his country first. A true friend of the Labour movement, his presidency will leave a legacy that extends far beyond America, to freedom and security on this continent—most of all, of course, in our steadfast resolve to stand by the people of Ukraine. He leaves the NATO alliance stronger than it has been for decades.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on my recent discussions with leaders around the world, including at the NATO summit and at the meeting of the European Political Community last week at Blenheim Palace, the biggest European summit in the UK since the war.

Mr Speaker, the House knows the significance of Blenheim Palace, the birthplace of Winston Churchill—the man who steered the march of European history towards democracy and the rule of law. It was a shared sacrifice for freedom—the blood bond of 1945. At both summits, we reaffirmed our commitment to that bond of security and freedom, as I am sure we do in this House today. NATO is the guarantor of those values, and that is more important than ever, because, today in Europe, innocent lives are once again being torn apart. Two weeks ago today there was an attack on a children’s hospital in Kyiv—children with cancer the target of Russian brutality.

Russia’s malign activity is not confined to Ukraine. In the Western Balkans, in Moldova and in Georgia, it is sowing instability. And let us not forget that it has targeted people on our streets and attempted to undermine our democracy. In the first days of this Government, I have taken a message to our friends and allies of enduring and unwavering commitment to the NATO alliance, to Ukraine and to the collective security of our country, our continent and our allies around the world. That message was just as relevant at the EPC last week. May I take this opportunity to thank the Leader of the Opposition, who brought that event to our shores in the first place?

At these meetings, I took a practical view of how the UK can meet this moment, driven not by ideology but by what is best for our country. That includes resetting our relationship with the European Union, because on these Benches we believe that the UK and the EU, working together as sovereign partners, are a powerful force for good across our continent. That has been my message throughout the many conversations that I have had with leaders in recent days, because countries want to work with Britain—of course they do. They welcome renewed British leadership on security, on illegal migration and on global challenges such as climate change. Our voice belongs in the room, centre stage, fighting for the national interest.

My conversations have focused on issues on which the British people want action, so I would like to update the House on my discussions in three specific areas. The first is European security. In Washington, I told NATO allies that the generational threat from Russia demands a generational response. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will set out a clear path to spending 2.5% of our GDP on defence. It is also why I launched a strategic defence review, led by the former NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson, to strengthen our armed forces and keep our nation safe.

I also took the opportunity at the NATO summit to confirm that we will deliver £3 billion-worth of military aid to Ukraine each year for as long as it takes. And together we confirmed Ukraine’s irreversible path to full NATO membership, because it is clear to me that NATO will be stronger with Ukraine as a member—something I reiterated to President Zelensky in person in Downing Street on Friday.

Secondly, I want to turn to the middle east, because that region is at a moment of grave danger and fragility. I have spoken to leaders in the region and allies around the world about our collective response. How can we deal with the malign influence of Iran, address its nuclear programme, manage the threat from the Houthis, ease tensions on Israel’s northern border, and work with all partners to uphold regional security?

Fundamental to that, of course, is the conflict in Gaza. I have spoken to the leaders of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. I have been clear that I fully support Israel’s right to security and the desperate need to see the hostages returned. I have also been clear that the situation in Gaza is intolerable, and that the world will not look away as innocent civilians, including women and children, continue to face death, disease and displacement. Mr Speaker, it cannot go on. We need an immediate ceasefire. Hostages out, aid in; a huge scale-up of humanitarian assistance. That is the policy of this Government, and an immediate ceasefire is the only way to achieve it, so we will do all we can in pursuit of these goals. That is why, as one of the first actions taken by this Government, we have restarted British funding to the UN Relief and Works Agency, to deliver that crucial humanitarian support.

We received the International Court of Justice opinion on Friday and will consider it carefully before responding, but let me say that we have always been opposed to the expansion of illegal settlements and we call on all sides to recommit to stability, peace, normalisation and the two-state solution: a recognised Palestinian state—the right of the Palestinian people—alongside a safe and secure Israel.

Thirdly, I want to turn to illegal migration. This issue has now become a crisis, and in order to tackle it we must reach out a hand to our European friends. We started that work at the EPC, agreeing new arrangements with Slovenia and Slovakia, deepening co-operation across Europe for our new border security command, and increasing the UK presence at Europol in The Hague, to play our full part in the European Migrant Smuggling Centre. The crisis we face is the fault of gangs—no question—but to stop illegal migration we must also recognise the root causes: conflict, climate change and extreme poverty. So I have announced £84 million of new funding for projects across Africa and the middle east, to provide humanitarian and health support, skills training, and access to education, because the decisions that people take to leave their homes cannot be separated from these wider issues.

We will work with our partners to stamp out this vile trade wherever it exists and focus on the hard yards of law enforcement with solutions that will actually deliver results. I have seen that in action, tackling counter-terrorism as Director of Public Prosecutions, and we can do the same on illegal migration. But let me be clear: there is no need to withdraw from the European convention on human rights. That is not consistent with the values of that blood bond, so we will not withdraw—not now, not ever.

The basic fact is that the priorities of the British people do require us to work across borders with our partners, and a Government of service at home requires a Government of strength abroad. That is our role. It has always been our role. Britain belongs on the world stage. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and join him in praising President Biden for his long career of public service both at home and abroad. Working together, we took our AUKUS partnership to the next level, supported Israel after the terrible events of 7 October, defended our countries from the Houthi threat and led global efforts to support Ukraine as it resisted Russia’s assault. On a personal level, it was a pleasure to work with him to strengthen the partnership between our two countries, and I wish him well.

As the Prime Minister indicated, the world is increasingly uncertain—the most dangerous it has been since the end of the cold war. Russia continues its illegal and brutal invasion of Ukraine. Iran continues with its regionally destabilising behaviour. Both Iran and North Korea are supplying Russian forces in Ukraine as we speak, and China is adopting a more aggressive stance in the South China sea and the Taiwan strait. Together, that axis of authoritarian states is increasingly working together to undermine democracies and reshape the world order.

In those circumstances, our alliances take on ever-greater importance. I commend the Prime Minister on his work with our closest allies at both the NATO summit in Washington and the European Political Community meeting at Blenheim. Across this House we built a strong consensus on foreign policy in the last Parliament, which has stood our country in good stead in this transition. Our allies, particularly Ukraine, know that although our Government have changed, Britain remains an active, involved and reliable partner.

I am glad that the Prime Minister also shares our view of the value of the EPC community as a forum. I am pleased by and welcome the fact that he used the summit to discuss illegal migration, because it is one of the most pressing problems facing our entire continent. When it comes to illegal migration, we all face the same fundamental question: how to deal with people who come to our countries illegally while respecting our international obligations.

Of course, it is not feasible or right to return Afghans to the Taliban, Syrians to Assad or Iranians to the ayatollahs, but nor can our country accommodate everyone who would like to leave Afghanistan, Syria or Iran and come here. I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister say that he was a pragmatist and that he would look at what works when it comes to squaring that circle. I urge him, in his conversations with other European leaders, to keep the option of further third-country migration partnerships on the table, as other countries have been discussing.

I know the Prime Minister is also interested in pursuing a security and defence co-operation pact with the European Union, and here I just urge him to be alert to the trade- offs involved. I hope he can reassure the House that any closer co-operation with the EU will not adversely affect the technological and procurement aspects of our other alliances such as AUKUS. Of course we are a pillar of European security, as our leadership on Ukraine has shown, but we also have alliances and interests that extend beyond the European continent.

Turning to the NATO summit, it was good to see the alliance reaffirming its commitment to Ukraine, with the UK at the heart of that leadership. I hope the Prime Minister will keep the House updated on how the new unit to co-ordinate our collective support to Ukraine will indeed lead to an increase in vital support. I urge the Prime Minister to continue stressing to our allies that now is the moment to increase, not to pare down, our backing for Ukraine, as the UK has continued to lead in doing.

In the 75 years of its existence, NATO has established itself as the most successful defensive alliance in history. The best way to strengthen the alliance is for its non-American members to do more, to show that we do not expect the Americans to bear every burden, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s indication that the Chancellor will soon set out a clear path to investing 2.5% of GDP in our armed forces—I hope by 2030. That would both show the Americans that the other members of the alliance are serious about boosting our own capabilities, and show President Putin and our adversaries that we are serious about defending our borders and allies from Russian or any other aggression.

The Prime Minister also spoke about the situation in the middle east. We all want to see progress towards a two-state solution where Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in peace, prosperity and security. However, as we make progress towards that goal, our friend and ally Israel must have the right to defend itself against the threat that it is facing—a threat demonstrated by the drone strike on Tel Aviv at the end of last week by the Iranian-aligned Houthi rebels.

In conclusion, I thank the Prime Minister for coming to update the House today. I can assure him that we on the Opposition Benches will work with him on these questions of foreign policy and national security. We will ask questions, probe and push for answers—that is our duty as the official Opposition—but we will always act in the national interest and work constructively with him to ensure the security of our country.

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his welcome comments in relation to President Biden, which I am sure will be well received, and for what he said about the consensus on foreign policy in relation to NATO and the EPC. That is important, and I am glad that we have managed to get that consensus over recent years, because we are in a more volatile world, and the world is looking in to see unity in the United Kingdom, particularly in relation to Ukraine. I have commended the role of the previous Government in relation to Ukraine, and I do so again. I took the deliberate decision when I was Leader of the Opposition not to depart on Ukraine, because I took, and continue to take, the view that the only winner in that circumstance is Putin, who wants to see division. It is very important for Ukraine to see that continued unity across this House.

We will of course work with others. In relation to the point made by the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] Old habits die hard. On the point made by the Leader of the Opposition about security and co-operation with our EU allies, I do believe that is to our mutual benefit, but I can assure him and the House that it does not cut across, or come at the cost of, other alliances. We are fully committed to AUKUS—as I made clear in opposition, and I take this early opportunity to affirm it in government—because it is an area on which there is an important consistency across the House.

In relation to the conflict in Gaza, the more that we in this House can be united, the better. It is an issue of great complexity, but the approach that has been shown is the right one, and we take it forward in that spirit.

I congratulate the Prime Minister on his flying start on the world stage, and on his determination to build not simply a rules-based order, but a rights-based order rooted in what Churchill called the great charter and we call the European convention on human rights. We want its freedoms and liberties to be enjoyed by the people of Ukraine, but that will take victory over Russia. It will need more than courage; it will need resources. Did he discuss with international colleagues the need not simply to freeze Russian assets, but to seize and put them to work in defeating once and for all the tyranny of President Putin?

I thank my right hon. Friend for that question on the centrality of the Ukraine issue. Yes, of course, that requires resource and more pressure in relation to sanctions, but it also requires resolve. A key issue coming out of the NATO council in Washington was the real sense, particularly in relation to Ukraine, of a bigger NATO—with more countries than ever at the council—a stronger NATO, and a unity of resolve in standing up to Russian aggression, particularly in Ukraine. Resources and sanctions were central to the agenda there.

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of the statement. Closer co-operation with our European neighbours is absolutely essential, whether on Russia’s illegal war against Ukraine or on tackling the criminal gangs responsible for the small-boats crisis, and I welcome the new Government’s change in approach. I also welcome their support for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Clearly, we need to put an end to the humanitarian devastation there, get the hostages home, and open the door to a two-state solution. Upholding international law is also crucial. To that end, I hope the Government will respect last week’s ruling of the ICJ when they consider it.

On the NATO summit, 70 years on from the foundation of NATO, the alliance has never been more relevant. We support the NATO summit pledge of long-term security assistance for Ukraine, as well as increased support now to ensure she can resist Russia’s attacks and liberate her territory. I am pleased that, in this new Parliament, this House will continue to stand united behind the brave Ukrainians opposing Russia’s illegal war, just as we have done together in recent years.

However, I hope Members of this House will not be complacent about the impact that the upcoming US elections could have, not just on the security of the UK and our allies, but on the security of Ukraine. We must hope that the leadership of President Biden continues with his successor—I echo the Prime Minister’s tribute to President Biden—but whatever happens in the US, part of the answer is for the UK and Europe to increase defence spending. The previous Conservative Government have left a legacy of the smallest Army since the age of Napoleon and played fast and loose with public money, making our shared ambition to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence a much more complicated route. We look forward to the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s plan. I hope this Government will start by reversing the planned cuts to the Army of 10,000 troops. That is a vital first step, so will the Prime Minister reassure the House and the country that it will be a priority within the recently launched strategic defence review?

We also urge the Government to move further and faster in taking steps to seize frozen Russian assets, of which there are £20 billion-worth on our shores and the same amount on the continent. I hope the Prime Minister recognises that we have an opportunity to lead within Europe on this vital issue: if the US cannot, Europe must.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising those three issues. On the international courts, we respect the independence of the Court and international law—let me be very clear about that. I will not get tempted by questions about the US elections later this year, save to say that it will obviously be for the American people to decide who they want as their President, and as Members would expect, we will work with whoever is the President after they have made their choice. I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the low numbers of troops, which will be looked at in the strategic defence review that we are carrying out into threats, capability and resources.

It was incredibly pleasing to see the Prime Minister both at NATO and welcoming leaders from across our continent to Blenheim palace, at a historic moment for a reset with Europe after the disastrous legacy that the departing Government left behind. Did the subject of youth mobility for students and suchlike arise, and could his Government look into repairing it for its soft power, cultural exchange and growth-boosting properties that have been so valued, as we are now in a post-Erasmus era?

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. The reset with our European allies was well received, and there was clearly an appetite to work in a different and better way with the UK, which I think will stand us in good stead as we go forward. We did have discussions about a closer relationship with our EU allies, but I made it very clear from the outset—as I have done in opposition—that that does not mean rejoining the EU, it does not mean going back into the structures of the EU, and it does not mean freedom of movement. I took the early opportunity to make that clear to our European allies so that we can move forward progressively, but with the right framework in mind.

May I congratulate the Prime Minister on his election victory, and particularly on the very strong commitment he gave at the beginning of his campaign to the maintenance of the strategic Trident nuclear deterrent in the future? Does he agree that, if there had existed in 1914 or in 1939 an organisation like NATO that committed America to the protection from day one of countries such as Belgium in the one case or Poland in the other, those two terrible conflicts might well never have broken out? Does he therefore share my concern that the virus of isolationism is again on the move in certain parts of the American political spectrum?

I thank the right hon. Member for that question. First, I was able to make clear our unshakeable commitment to the nuclear deterrent, something I did in opposition. I have been able to make that absolutely clear as Prime Minister, and it was very important that I did so from the outset. In relation to what may have happened in the past, I will not speculate, but I believe that NATO is the most successful alliance the world has ever known, and that it is as needed now as it was when it was founded. The then Labour Government were very proud to be a founder member of NATO, and it was very important for me to reaffirm our unshakeable support for NATO. The world is a more volatile place, the challenges are greater now than they have been for many years, and I think that NATO is as needed now and as relevant now as it has ever been in its history.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the leadership he showed not just at NATO, but at the European Political Community. Working together and collaborating are important, not least in the unstable world that we are in. Could he set out what discussions he had about the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement in the light of its renegotiation deadlines next year?

I was able to have early discussion about the EU-UK trade arrangements of a preliminary sort. There is an appetite for that discussion—no one pretends that it is an easy discussion—and I am pleased to have appointed a Minister, the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, who will take responsibility for that important work. It does not involve rejoining the EU; it does involve resetting and improving the relationship we have with our EU allies.

Can I, first, congratulate the Prime Minister on his election win, and wish him the very best in his new role? Building on the last question, the EPC summit seemed very positive. How does he see using this political locus to get the UK in the best possible position for the renegotiation of the TCA in 2026?

I thank the right hon. Member for his comments. There is an appetite now for a different discussion about our future relations with the EU—whether that is trade, education and research, or security co-operation. Particularly in the light of what has happened in Ukraine, there is a shared sense that there is room for closer work and closer ties there. They are the three main areas. It is at the very early stages, but the reset was well received by many European allies, and I was pleased to have that early opportunity to set out our case.

The Prime Minister’s statement will be warmly welcomed by the people of Rochdale, particularly the Ukrainian community, which has flourished in our town for nearly 80 years. So can I pass on to him a direct message from Olga Kurtianyk, who is the chair of the Rochdale branch of the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain, who told me yesterday that she is very grateful for the Prime Minister’s continued support for President Zelensky in the fight against the illegal war that Putin has waged?

I am very pleased to hear that, and to be able to make that clear commitment. But I want to emphasise that this is the continuation of the work of the previous Government, which we fully supported before and fully support now. What is also important for our communities, and certainly important for the international community, is to see the unity that we have been able to maintain here in this Chamber. The world watches in relation to our unity and it is important therefore that we maintain it as we go forward.

May I also add my personal congratulations to the Prime Minister on his election win?

The international rules-based system is the cornerstone of peace and security. The Prime Minister talks of a ceasefire in Gaza and the application of the rule of law. What measures is he willing to take to make sure that is implemented? Furthermore, being outside the EU makes us less safe. The populists who want us to turn away from the EU and towards Trump-style isolationism are playing straight into Putin’s hands, so what are we doing to get closer to the EU?

In relation to a ceasefire, obviously talks are under way at quite an advanced stage and we have already urged all sides in the international discussions that I have had to move forward on a ceasefire, because without a ceasefire it is very difficult to envisage the circumstances in which further hostages can come out safely and aid can go in at the scale that is desperately needed. Also, a ceasefire can be a foot in the door for the beginning of a process, however remote it may seem at the moment, to a two-state solution. In relation to the EU, we have a shared interest in safety and security with our EU allies and that was very much the topic of discussion we had at the EPC summit last week.

For my constituents in Makerfield, restoring control over our borders is a key issue of concern. It has become a matter of public trust. Does the Prime Minister agree that the new border security command is an opportunity to show how the UK can play a leading role in tackling criminal smuggler gangs?

Yes I do, and the command is based on the work I did as Director of Public Prosecutions, working with law enforcement and security and intelligence sharing with our allies—in the cases I was working on to deal with counter-terrorism. I have never accepted the argument that the only gangs that apparently cannot be taken down using the same techniques are the gangs running this vile trade. There was real interest in what we were saying at the EPC summit last week and an understanding that, if we share intelligence, data, strategy and approach, we can all do more to bring down these vile gangs.

I welcome the Prime Minister's reiteration that the UK remains the strongest supporter of Ukraine against Russian aggression, but what support can we also give to another former Soviet state, Armenia, both in resolving its conflict with Azerbaijan, and in pursuing its ambition to move closer to NATO and the European Union in the face of Russian threats and intimidation?

I am grateful for that question. This came up in the discussions last Thursday, as would have been expected, with a joint resolve to provide the support and framework needed for peace and security across the entire region. Again, there is a shared intent with our allies to work together on this because it is of such importance. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising it.

I am one of 12 newly elected Members on this side of the House who have served in the armed forces, and in Plymouth so many of my friends and neighbours have served as well. All of us are deeply concerned by the ongoing illegal invasion and inhumane, increasingly barbaric, tactics Russia is using. Will the Prime Minister agree with me that in an uncertain world one thing we can be sure of is that Ukraine has no firmer friend than the UK?

Yes, I can confirm that and emphasise just how important it is. We had the honour of hosting President Zelensky at Downing Street on Friday, where I was able to make that clear, and again to take the opportunity to say that we are building on the work of the previous Government, not departing from that work. I think the support of the UK in particular to Ukraine has been leading, important and provided at difficult times, which has often led to others moving in accordance with the moves we have made as a country. President Zelensky is grateful for the role we have played in the past and that we continue to play now.

My constituents in Sleaford and North Hykeham are very concerned about levels of illegal migration, particularly people crossing the channel. I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister say that he wants to tackle it. He mentioned two measures: £84 million to tackle root causes and the focus, which is arguably already present, from law enforcement. In the last seven days, 1,500 people crossed the channel. How many of them would he expect to have been deterred by the measures he describes?

This is a real problem that we have inherited because not enough attention has been paid to border control in my view. Record numbers have come this year. The measures taken by the last Government were patently not working, so we need to address that. That is why we have taken early steps to set up the border security command. It is also why we have already moved more staff into the returns unit, so it can get on with the job of actually returning those who have no right to be here. One hundred staff have moved already in the early days of this Government, but we have to recognise that we also need to address the reasons that people move in the first place, which are very much to do with conflict, poverty and climate change. If we ignore those upstream causes, we will never fully get to grips with the problem that is so obvious to so many people in this country.

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and I thank him particularly for his commitment to resetting our relationship with the European Union. It is regrettable that the deal signed by the Opposition when they were in government did real damage to our economy. It put up barriers to trade with the European Union and increased red tape. Does the Prime Minister agree that now is the time for a new relationship and to take practical measures, such as the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, to increase our alignment with the European Union, so we can help our services and get our economy moving again?

I do not think the deal we have is good enough. If we talk to any business that deals with the EU, they complain it is not good enough for them and has made trade harder, not easier, and that is a real problem. We can do better than that. The EPC was an early opportunity for us to reset our relationship and begin progress towards that better relationship, whether that is in relation to trade or defence and security, which are both very important to us.

I welcome that the Prime Minister says that there is an appetite for a reset in our relationship with our European neighbours. A core element of collective European security is collective economic security. He knows that being outside the single market and the customs union has cost the UK economy almost £140 billion. How will he remedy this toxic Tory legacy by continuing to refuse even to consider rejoining those economic structures?

I think the relationship can improve. We can have a better relationship, but I do not think we can simply ignore the referendum and go back into the EU. In the discussions I had with our European allies, none of them was urging us to take that course. They were interested in the argument we were making about a better relationship and how that could work in relation to trade, education and security and defence. That is why I wanted to be clear from the outset about our approach.

The Hexham constituency, as the Prime Minister will know, is home to the Otterburn ranges, which have played a key role in training our armed forces for decades. What steps will the Prime Minister take to improve the working relationship between our armed forces and those of our NATO allies?

Our armed forces provide huge resource to NATO, particularly in Europe, and across our armed forces we are fully committed in almost every respect to NATO. There is huge room for further such work, building on what is clearly working already.

The Prime Minister has given us fine words about the importance of our membership of international institutions, particularly international courts, and I agree with him—it is profoundly in our national interest that we are a member of these organisations—but he will know as well as I that those courts are only as good as the action and consequence that flow from their judgments. Without action and consequence, their judgments just become hot air. In relation to Israel-Gaza, and in particular the occupation of the west bank, can he please assure us that he is considering hard consequences for the very obvious flagrant breach of international law that is taking place daily in that part of the world?

I am grateful for that question, because I believe in international law and I think it is very important that we keep to our commitments on international law. We are known for that as a nation, and it matters to the world. In relation to the courts, I respect their independence. Obviously, we will have robust discussion about particular actions, judgments that they might publish, and decisions that they come to, but for those who believe in international law, it is important to be equally clear that we support the independence of the courts. Without that anchor, we do not have the framework that is so important to us, in terms of enforcing international law.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and very much echo his words about President Biden. Does the Prime Minister agree with me and the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme that the only way to stop illegal migration and the subsequent tragic loss of life is by our United Kingdom working more closely with our European neighbours to smash the gangs who run this vile trade?

Yes, I do. We have already been able to put further resource into Europol. Last Thursday, we had a very live discussion about sharing data and intelligence, and about an overarching strategy on prosecutions, with our European allies, who were keen to learn more about what we were proposing, and how they could play their part with us to smash the gangs; because the gangs operate across borders, that can be done only in conjunction and collaboration with our EU partners.

The last Government spent quite some time engaging with isolationists in Washington. They sought to influence conservative think-tanks in the US that are listened to by Republicans, such as the Heritage Foundation. I appreciate the Prime Minister’s point that it is for the American people to decide who governs them later this year, but what more can his Government do to stress to Republicans, and to candidate Trump, that European and American security are indivisible?

On the first part of the question, luckily I do not answer for the last Government; I answer for this Government. We will work with whoever the American people elect as President, but specifically on the question, the special relationship between the UK and the US was forged in the most difficult of circumstances and has endured for many years, and it is important both to the US and to the UK to maintain that special relationship. I have had an early opportunity to make my position clear on this. Again, it is a continuation of the position of the last Government: that special relationship matters to us, whoever ends up being the President of America.

Does the Prime Minister agree that we need a “NATO first” defence policy in the face of growing Russian aggression, as seen in Ukraine? Will he join me in paying tribute to the Doncaster Ukrainian Centre in my constituency, which has worked tirelessly around the clock to support Ukrainian refugees, demonstrating the true community spirit of Doncaster?

Let me start by joining in that, and making it clear that this work, done in so many communities, is really important, in terms of the support given and the welcome shown to refugees.

The point about “NATO first” is important. As I say, we are proud to have been among the founding members of NATO, and the review that we have put in place has framework principles, one of which is “NATO first”. That will inform the way in which we conduct the strategic review.

Why do we continue to limit Ukraine’s ability to take the fight to Russia?

The approach to capability taken by the UK remains the same as it was three weeks ago— no different decisions have been taken—and is based on the principle of recognising Ukraine’s right to self-defence and the parameters of international law. I think that is right, and that is why no new decisions have been taken.

Does the Prime Minister agree that the strength and unity of purpose expressed by our international alliances is mirrored and enhanced by the solidarity and friendship that the British people have shown by accommodating Ukrainians in this country? Would he join me in praising the work of the Rugby Ukrainian community, and assure me that his Government will continue to support such groups?

Yes on both points. A number of months ago, in Swindon, I was struck by the incredible contribution of Ukrainian women, who were leading workshops on businesses and success. On the main point about the attitude of British people, it was good to be able to say to President Zelensky that we have just had an election and we have been all over the United Kingdom, and pretty much wherever we went we saw the Ukrainian flag and people supporting Ukraine, irrespective of party political difference. There was a real sense that the whole country, as well as the Government and the Opposition, support Ukraine and are determined to do whatever they can to stand up to Russian aggression. We should be proud of the fact that we see that right across the country.

I congratulate the Prime Minister on the office that he has achieved, and thank him for his statement. I am pleased with the decision to remain part of the European convention on human rights. In all his meetings with both the EU and NATO, was the issue of global war considered—not just the wars in Ukraine and Palestine, but those in Sudan, Congo and Yemen—and the possibility of involving the UN much more in looking towards a more peaceful future, rather than continued greater expenditure on arms? I am pleased that the Prime Minister has called for a ceasefire in Gaza, but surely if we are to follow international law we need to go a bit further and call for the withdrawal of Israeli occupying forces both from Gaza and the west bank, and an end to our complicity by supplying arms to Israel.

Order. May I say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that I have a lot more to get in today, and as important as his message is, I need to make others heard?

Let me deal with both points. First, conflict resolution did come up, because we had a full discussion about illegal migration—the law enforcement aspect of it, as I have explained, and the root causes of migration, conflict, poverty and climate change being key among them. The prospect of a ceasefire is there. I am urging all parties to take that opportunity; it is an important foot in the door for the political process, which I believe is the only process that will bring about lasting peace and resolution in the middle east.

I congratulate the Prime Minister on a very successful set of meetings last week. Does he agree that the shifting relationship with the European Union led by the previous Government has made us economically poorer, and undermines small businesses such as the toy shop in Horsforth in my constituency, which closed? Will he ensure that small businesses and their needs and prosperity will be at the heart of any renegotiation deal in two years’ time?

Businesses across the country that deal with Europe feel that the deal that the last Government negotiated is not good enough for them and has made trading much harder. That is why they are encouraging us to reset that relationship and get a better deal—better for our country, our businesses and our economy. Our No. 1 mission in government is to grow our economy, so it is very important to see this in that context.

I too congratulate the Prime Minister on what was obviously a successful series of meetings last week. He has set out some of his new policies to deal with illegal migration across the channel, and to return illegal migrants from this country. In what sort of timescale could the British people reasonably expect his new policies to start having a real effect?

We have taken early measures, because the British people want to see an impact and a difference. They feel very much that in recent years there has been a loss of control of the borders. That is a matter of border security and, actually, national security. That is why we have acted quickly to begin the steps to set up the border security command. It is why we have already begun to put more staff in the returns unit, and taken a decision on the upstream work needed to reduce the likelihood of migration in the first place. They are early steps, and I am not going to put an arbitrary date on that, but I do understand the thrust of the question; this is an area of great importance, where British people want to see a material change in the situation.

In Gateshead Central and Whickham, and across the north-east, those who have fled Putin’s war in Ukraine want to make the most of their time in our community, but above all they want to know that the British people stand with them, so I thank the Prime Minister for his ongoing support for the people of Ukraine, but can he expand further on Ukraine’s future entry into NATO, which is so critically important?

Yes I can, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so. The North Atlantic Council committed itself to an irreversible path to membership of NATO. That is a material step forward from a year ago and is among the reasons President Zelensky said that the council was a success in relation to membership of NATO. That is why I said what I said in my statement. That path is now irreversible, and that is a good thing, welcomed across the NATO allies.

The level of infiltration by Hamas of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency is well documented—from UNRWA staff taking part in the pure evil that was the 7 October attack, to UNRWA-funded schools being used to store weapons and harbour terrorists, and to terror infrastructure being found under UNRWA’s headquarters in Gaza City. Before the Prime Minister took the decision to re-commit UK taxpayers’ money to UNRWA, what advice did he receive on that infiltration, and what steps has he demanded be taken, so that UK taxpayers’ money can never be used to fund terror or preach hate?

As the hon. Member would expect, we took the most careful advice and subjected it to the most careful consideration, because we were concerned, as anyone in this House would be, by the suggestions and allegations in relation to 7 October. We looked at that really carefully, took it very seriously, and gave it the utmost consideration. There has, of course, been an independent review and steps put in place, but there is a vital role for UNRWA. Many other countries have restored funding for UNRWA—it is the right thing to do—but I can give an assurance that the most careful consideration was given before that step was taken, as the hon. Member would expect.

I warmly welcome the announcement that the UK will lead an initiative to crack down on Russia’s shadow fleet of sanctions-evading ships, which is helping to generate dirty money to fund Russia’s war machine. Will the Prime Minister continue to make sanctions enforcement a priority, and update the House on the state of international negotiations on using frozen Russian assets, including those in Kensington and Bayswater, to support Ukraine now?

I am grateful for that question. Important progress was made at NATO on sanctions, and it is important for the House to have regular updates, so we can commit to giving the next update as soon as it is appropriate to do so. I think across the House there is a resolve to use sanctions as effectively as they can be used, as one of the weapons in relation to Russian aggression.

I hope the Prime Minister enjoyed welcoming fellow European leaders to Blenheim Palace in my constituency. One of my constituents, Rose, is studying Spanish and French at Southampton University. She would like to spend her year abroad working in Spain to strengthen her language skills and improve her employment prospects, yet as it stands she has no right to work there. I hope the Prime Minister saw the benefit of working with his European counterparts and perhaps making a few new friends. I hear his response on not rejoining the political structures, but as a specific measure to improve opportunities for young people, will he open talks with the European Union on a youth mobility scheme?

It was very good to be in the hon. Member’s constituency, at Blenheim Palace. I cannot tell him how many European leaders said to me that they had previously visited, usually while they were studying in the UK, but had only paid the £5 to get into the grounds, because they had not had the money to get into the building that they were then entering. That was a common theme.

As for the substance of the hon. Gentleman’s question, we are not returning to freedom of movement. I understand the desire of people to work in other countries, but I need to make it clear that there is no rejoining the European Union, no rejoining the single market or the customs union, and no returning to freedom of movement. However, I do believe there is a better deal that we can work on, and I think that the more we can work across the House on that, the better, because then it will be the more enduring.

As the proud home of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, my constituency knows the vital importance of our armed forces in keeping Britain safe, so I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment to setting out a path towards spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. Can the Prime Minister update the House on conversations that he has had with our NATO friends and allies to encourage others to match that target?

I am proud of the commitment that we already make to NATO on 2%. As would be expected, we did have a discussion at the NATO council on the need for all NATO members to make that contribution and to increase their contribution, and there was a commitment to do so. Our commitment to 2.5% will be set out, and the path will be set out, by the Chancellor at a future fiscal event.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that in seeking to reset Britain’s relationship with the European Union, his Government will not accept the automatic application of EU rules in Britain unless they have been specifically agreed by this Parliament?

Yes.

I thank the Prime Minister for the leadership that he has shown in his discussions at Blenheim, especially those on NATO. I am proud to hear him recommit us to a two-state solution in the middle east, and to an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Does he agree that this conflict is dire, but urgently needs sober and considerate solutions rather than extreme rhetoric from those who might seek to sow further divisions?

Yes, I do, and I am grateful for that question, because there is the prospect of a ceasefire. It is desperately needed, for the reasons that we have already discussed, but it will only happen if there is international agreement and a sober assessment that provides the framework for the release of the remaining hostages—I shudder to think of the state of some of them—for the aid that is desperately needed to be allowed in at the scale that is needed, and for the beginning of the process, in my view the only process, that will lead to a lasting resolution of this awful conflict. It is not just in all our interests, but our duty, to do everything we can to ensure that that comes about.

Order. Before I call the Home Secretary, may I just say this to her? The statement did not arrive in my office in time; it was late, and I believe that it was also late for the Opposition. Quite rightly, the Home Secretary made a big thing of this when she was the shadow Home Secretary, so I remind her of her own words: statements do need to arrive on time. This is the second time so far, and I know it will not happen again, because what I have said will be taken on board.

May I thank you, Mr Speaker, for standing up for the Opposition Front Benchers, as I know you have often done for me in the past? I apologise to the shadow Home Secretary for the delay in the arrival of the statement.

Most people in the United Kingdom want to see strong border security, with a properly controlled and managed asylum system where our country does its bit, alongside others, to help those who have fled persecution, but where rules are properly respected and enforced so that those with no right to be here are swiftly removed. At the moment, we have none of those things. Border security is being undermined by criminal smuggler gangs, and the asylum system is in chaos. Tragically, 19 lives have been lost in the channel so far this year, including children. No one should be making these perilous small boat journeys.

Criminal gangs have been allowed to take hold along our border, and they are making huge profit from undermining our border security and putting lives at risk. They should not be able to get away with it. Crossings in the first half of 2024 are up by 10% on last year—the number is going up, instead of coming down. At the same time, the asylum backlog is getting worse, as decision making in the Home Office has dropped. Home Office spending on asylum support has increased sevenfold in the space of just three years. This cannot go on. Since my appointment two weeks ago, I have reviewed the policies, programmes and legislation that we have inherited from our predecessors, and I have been shocked by what I have found. Not only are there already serious problems; on current policies, the chaos and costs are likely to get worse.

On our border security, it is clear that the security and enforcement arrangements we have inherited are too weak. Criminal gang networks are operating with impunity along our border, across the continent and beyond, and across the UK too. Action between Britain and France in the channel has improved, and is preventing some boat crossings. The work of the small boats operational command in the channel is important and will continue, but we need to go much further. We should be taking far more action upstream, long before the boats ever reach the French coast. Co-operation with Europol and other European police forces and prosecutors is far too limited, and enforcement against exploitation and trafficking in the UK is far too weak. Information sharing with our European neighbours has reduced, rather than increased. As a result of these weak arrangements, I am extremely concerned that the high levels of dangerous crossings that we have inherited are likely to persist throughout the summer.

Let me turn to the Rwanda migration and economic development partnership. Two and a half years after the previous Government launched it, I can report that it has already cost the British taxpayer £700 million—in order to send just four volunteers. That includes £290 million on payments to Rwanda and the costs of chartering flights that never took off, detaining hundreds of people and then releasing them, and paying for more than 1,000 civil servants to work on the scheme—for a scheme to send four people. It is the most shocking waste of taxpayers’ money I have ever seen.

Looking forward, the costs are set to get worse. Even if the scheme had ever got going, it is clear that it would have covered only a minority of arrivals, yet a substantial portion of future costs were fixed costs—for example, the annual direct payments to Rwanda, the contracts for escorts, the staffing in the Home Office, the detention and reception centres, and more. The taxpayer would have still had to pay out, no matter how few people were relocated. Most shockingly of all, over the six years of the migration and economic development partnership forecast, the previous Government had planned to spend over £10 billion of taxpayers’ money on the scheme. They did not tell Parliament that. I thank the Rwandan Government for working with the UK in good faith, because the failure of this policy lies with the previous UK Government. It has been a costly con, and the taxpayer has had to pay the price.

I turn to the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which has been in place for a year. We were told that it would stop the boats, but it has clearly failed. The legal contradictions in the Act are so great that they make it unworkable; indeed, 12 months on, the central duty has not even been enacted. It is also costing the taxpayer billions of pounds. Under section 9 of the Act, people who arrive in the UK can claim asylum and get asylum accommodation. However, under section 30, if they arrived after March 2023 and meet key conditions in the Act, no decision can be taken on their case; they just stay in the asylum system. Even if they have come here unlawfully for economic reasons and should be returned to their home country, they will not be, because the law does not work. Only a small minority might ever have been sent to Rwanda; everyone else stays indefinitely in taxpayer-funded accommodation and support.

The Home Office estimates that around 40% of asylum cases since March 2023 should be covered by those Illegal Migration Act conditions. The remaining 60%, under the previous Government’s policy, should still have been processed and cleared in the normal way. However, even though previous Ministers introduced this new law 12 months ago, they did not ever introduce an effective operational way for the Home Office to distinguish between the cases covered by the Illegal Migration Act and the other cases where decisions should continue—that is, between the 40% and the 60%. As a result, decisions cannot be taken on any of them.

I have been shocked to discover that the Home Office has effectively stopped making the majority of asylum decisions. Thousands of asylum caseworkers cannot do their proper job. As a result, the backlog of asylum cases is now going up. This is the most extraordinary policy I have ever seen. We have inherited asylum “Hotel California”—people arrive in the asylum system and they never leave. The previous Government’s policy was effectively an amnesty, and that is the wrong thing to do. It is not just bad policy, it is also completely unaffordable. The cost of this indefinitely rising asylum backlog in hotel and accommodation support bills is astronomical. The potential costs of asylum support over the next four years if we continue down this track could be an eye-watering £30 billion to £40 billion. That is double the annual police budget for England and Wales.

This newly elected Government are not prepared to let this chaos continue, so let me turn to the action we are urgently taking to restore some grip to the system, to tackle the chaos and to get costs down. First, I have informed the Rwandan Government that we will be ending the migration and economic development partnership. We will save £220 million on further direct payments to Rwanda over the next few years and we will immediately save up to £750 million that had been put aside by the previous Government to cover the MEDP this year.

Secondly, we will invest some of the saved money from the migration partnership into a new border security command instead. It will bring together the work of the Border Force, the National Crime Agency, the small boats operational command and intelligence and security officers. The recruitment has begun for a new commander and we will put in place additional cross-border officers, investigators, prosecutors, and intelligence and security officers with the new counter-terror-style powers against organised immigration crime announced in the King’s Speech last week. We are immediately increasing UK officers’ involvement in Europol and the European Migrant Smuggling Centre.

Thirdly, we will replace the Rwanda migration partnership with a serious returns and enforcement programme. We have immediately replaced the flight planning for Rwanda with actual flights to return people who have no right to stay to their home countries instead. We are immediately redeploying Home Office staff away from the failed Rwanda partnership and into returns and enforcement, to reverse the collapse in removals that has taken place since 2010. I have tasked the immigration enforcement team with intensifying enforcement activity this summer, targeting illegal working across high-risk sectors.

Fourthly, we will end the asylum chaos and start taking asylum decisions again so that we can clear the backlog and end asylum hotels. The new border security, asylum and immigration Bill announced in the King’s Speech will bring in new replacement arrangements, including fast-track decisions and returns to safe countries. In the meantime, I am laying a statutory instrument that ends the retrospective nature of the Illegal Migration Act provisions, so that the Home Office can immediately start clearing cases from after March 2023. Making this one simple change will save the taxpayer an estimated £7 billion over the next 10 years. Fifthly, as the Prime Minister has just set out, we will work closely with our European neighbours to tackle the upstream causes of migration, including through the Rome process.

This country will always do our bit alongside others to help those fleeing war and persecution, but we need a proper system where rules are enforced. There are no quick fixes to the chaos created over the last 14 years. It will take time to clear the asylum backlog, to bring costs down and to get new enforcement in place to strengthen our borders and prevent dangerous boat crossings, but there is no alternative to serious hard graft. We cannot waste any more time or money on gimmicks. The country voted for change, and that means it is time for a sensible, serious plan. I commend this statement to the House.

This very important statement overran slightly, so I am more than happy for the Opposition spokespersons also to run over, if need be.

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I welcome you back to your place, on my first opportunity to do so. In my time as Home Secretary and, before that, Foreign Secretary, you were very kind about my minor indiscretions at the Dispatch Box, my late deployment of statements and my slight overruns. You have always been very kind to my family in sometimes quite trying circumstances, which I very much appreciate.

I also take this opportunity to congratulate the right hon. Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper) on her appointment as Home Secretary. It is a challenging but incredibly rewarding job and, because the nation’s security is now very much in her and her Ministers’ hands, I genuinely wish her all success in everything she is looking to do.

The right hon. Lady inherits a dedicated team of Home Office civil servants who will help her to keep the country safe and secure. They helped me when I was in her position and, although it is disorderly to recognise their presence, if I were to wave my hand vaguely in their direction, I might take the opportunity to thank my previous private office civil servants.

My notes say that I want to thank the Home Secretary and her team for advance sight of her statement, but I will put a line through that.

The Labour party, and indeed the Home Secretary, likes to talk tough on border security, but today’s statement, despite all the hyperbole and the made-up numbers, is basically an admission of what we knew all along, which is that the Labour party has scrapped the Rwanda partnership on ideological grounds, removing a deterrent that the National Crime Agency said we needed.

The level of discourtesy directed towards the people and Government of Rwanda is quite breathtaking. To have them read about this decision in the papers before anyone from the UK Government had the good grace to formally notify them is an error, and no one in this House believes for a moment that this level of discourtesy would have happened had the partnership been with a European country.

Labour has given an effective amnesty to thousands of asylum seekers who were banned under Conservative plans. Labour’s plans amount to doing less than the Conservatives were doing when we were in government, merely changing the signs above a few desks in the Home Office with its so-called border security command and returns unit. Before the election, the right hon. Lady said that she would create a returns unit, and now the narrative is that she will redeploy some staff—not increase the number of staff, but redeploy some staff—which shows that the returns function already exists.

There is no safe third country to which to return people who cannot be returned home, so where will the right hon. Lady send people who come here from countries like Afghanistan, Iran and Syria? Has she started negotiating returns agreements with the Taliban, the ayatollahs of Iran or Assad in Syria? If she is not going to send to Rwanda anyone who arrives here on a small boat, to which local authorities will she send them? We were closing hotels when I was in government, so I wonder which local authorities will receive those asylum seekers. If not Rwanda, will it be Rochdale, Romford or Richmond? Most importantly, can the right hon. Lady now confirm that people who arrive here illegally in a small boat will be able to claim asylum? Finally, how long after the right hon. Lady briefed the media that she is scrapping the Rwanda partnership did she have the courtesy to speak directly with the Rwandan Government?

It is because we now have no deterrent that nobody wants to head her new so-called border security command. Neil Basu, a former senior police officer for whom I have huge respect, was Labour’s No. 1 choice, and he has ruled himself out. We now learn that General Stuart Skeates, a highly respected former general in the British Army, who was, in large part, responsible for delivering the Albania deal, which cut small boat arrivals from that country by 90%, has resigned from his position as director general for strategic operations. To misquote Oscar Wilde, “to lose one border commander could be seen as a misfortune; to lose two looks like carelessness”—perhaps even incompetence. I notice that the new job advert—it is available online for those who are thinking of applying—for Labour’s border security command says that the role is not located in Kent, where the channel is, but is flexible from Belfast, Bristol, Cardiff, Durham, Glasgow, Liverpool or Manchester, none of which, the last time I checked, are anywhere near the English channel.

The reality is that everybody knows, including the people smugglers, that the small boat problem is going to get worse—indeed, has already got worse under Labour—because there is no deterrent. People are being sold a lie when they are being smuggled into this country, across one of the busiest shipping lanes. We need to stop them. Too many lives have already been lost. Sadly, six more have been lost in the channel in the last few weeks, and our hearts go out to them and their loved ones. We disagree on many things, but we can agree that we need to put an end to this evil trade. Sadly, the initial decisions made by her Government have made the problem worse, not better.

I welcome the shadow Home Secretary’s words about the dedication of Home Office officials and about the importance of work on national security. As he knows, when I was shadow Secretary of State, I always worked with him and supported him around national security issues. I know he will do the same and I welcome him to his shadow post. I presume what we heard was the first of the Conservative leadership contest speeches.

I will respond to some of the things the shadow Home Secretary said. We need to be clear about what we have inherited from him and his party. Under his party, we have had the highest level of spring crossings ever. Gangs have been left to wreak havoc, not just along the French coast but across our border, through our country and back through Europe. Asylum support costs are set to rise to £30 billion to £40 billion over the next four years as a result of his and his party’s decisions.

As for the idea of deterrence, I am sorry but four volunteers being sent to Rwanda is not a deterrent to anyone for anything at all. The idea that he would spend £10 billion on this fantasy, this fiction, this gimmick rather than ever do the hard graft—£700 million has already been spent on sending just four volunteers in two and a half years. We have often warned that, frankly, it would be cheaper to put them up in the Paris Ritz. As it turns out, it would have been cheaper to buy the Paris Ritz.

As for the amnesty, I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman has ever understood the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which he voted for and he inherited from his predecessors. He asks if people who arrive illegally can claim asylum—that is exactly what happens under section 9 of that Act. They can all claim asylum, enter the asylum system and be entitled to asylum support. That is what happens in the system, which we have inherited, that he has presided over and run since he became Home Secretary. The problem is that people enter the asylum system but never leave. He did not bring in operational arrangements to try to take decisions properly. His Home Office effectively stopped taking the majority of asylum decisions in May. Perhaps he did not know that, but that is what happened in his Home Office. This party and this Government do not believe in amnesties. We think that the rules need to be respected and enforced. His party is the one that has given an effective amnesty to people who can end up staying in the asylum system forever. We believe that the rules should be enforced. The problem is that that is what the shadow Home Secretary believes too. He does not believe any of the stuff that he has just said. He is only saying it for his Tory leadership contest; he is just too weak to tell his party the truth. He thought that the whole policy on Rwanda was “batshit” and then he went out to bat for it. It is just not serious.

I welcome my right hon. Friend to her place and thank her for her statement. We all suspected that policy in the Home Office under the previous Government was a bit of a mess, but we did not realise how much of an expensive mess it was until she provided us with the details in her statement.

Let me ask the Home Secretary about the attraction for people to come here illegally to work in the black economy. If people have suspicions, they have to go to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, UK Visas and Immigration and the police to get action to deal with those activities. I note that the Home Secretary is looking to try to combine the approach to deal with illegal working in the car washing sector. Will that be a systematic change of approach, and will it be applied to other sectors as well? It would be very welcome if that were the case.

My hon. Friend is right. We must tackle the illegal working and also the exploitation that can often drive a lot of what happens. That is why we are intensifying the immigration enforcement, which is part of our new, huge expansion to the returns and enforcements unit. He is right that the process, which has become too complicated and too bureaucratic, needs to be simplified to make sure that the rules are being enforced. We have set out the high-risk sectors on which we wish to focus this summer, but we need a more systematic approach. We have talked about a single enforcement approach, and we will be setting out more details about those plans.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman.

In 2018, the number of small boat arrivals stood at 299. In 2023, last year, the number had risen to more than 29,000. What happened in those intervening five years? One thing that happened was the closure of the Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme, which was introduced by the coalition Government in 2014 and was designed to select some of the most vulnerable people from refugee camps in Jordan, near Syria. What we have seen since the closure of that scheme is people choosing instead to make for these shores rather than applying in refugee camps. Will the Home Secretary rule out the offshore processing of asylum seekers, or will she consider introducing a scheme similar to the Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme, which could incentivise asylum seekers applying for asylum close to the war zones afflicting them?

I welcome the hon. Member to his new post. He is right to talk about the importance of the UK doing its bit to help those who have fled persecution and conflict. It is why I strongly believe that the Homes for Ukraine programme was immensely important. Personally, it has been important to our family. It is important that the UK has done its bit, including in previous years around Hong Kong and Afghanistan. That must continue to be the case, but that help must operate alongside a properly functioning system, otherwise criminal gangs will continue to exploit the system whatever it is. At the moment, those criminal gangs are getting away with it.

Let me turn to the specific issue of offshore processing. In fact, the Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme was a form of offshore processing, just as the Homes for Ukraine scheme was. There are different ways to arrange these things. Our approach is always to look at what works. As long as it meets proper standards in terms of international law, we should be serious about what it is that works in order to tackle the complex problems that we face.

I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. I think that my constituents will be incredulous when they are informed of the extent to which the previous Government wasted so much money on this scheme. What commitments can she give the House that we will be able to rescind our commitments to spend further money on any such programmes, and that no further public money will be wasted?

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. I welcome her to Parliament, and I welcome her asking questions on this issue. We have to take a strong, rigorous and robust approach to value for money in every Department. It cannot simply be the responsibility of the Treasury; it has to be the responsibility of the Home Office, and of every Government Department. That is the approach that this Labour Government will take. I am frankly shocked that under the last Government not just the Home Office but the Treasury, the then Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues all signed off on these incredibly high payments and costs. They must have had the modelling that would tell them how much the costs would go up by, yet they signed off on them. Our Government are determined to pursue value for money at every stage.

If the number of small boat crossings are higher next summer than this summer, will she resign?

I realise that the right hon. Member is keen to get rid of me before I have even finished standing up at the Dispatch Box. Unfortunately, we have seen a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries—eight, I think, in the last eight years—none of whom resigned. Two of them were sacked under the last Government—actually, those two were the same person. Look, we have to be serious about this, because the dangerous boat crossings are undermining border security and putting lives at risk. Nobody should be making those journeys, and we have to work not just here but across other European countries to stop boats before they reach the French coast in the first place, to ensure that lives can be saved and the gangs are held accountable for their terrible crimes.

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement on the shocking figures that are symbolic of the failure of Conservative Members to restore control over our borders. I note that, despite that spending of taxpayers’ cash, removals of failed asylum seekers and foreign national offenders collapsed under the Conservatives. What is the Home Office doing to ensure that those who have no right to be in the UK are swiftly removed and the rules are properly enforced?

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I welcome him to his seat in Parliament. He is right that removals of failed asylum seekers have fallen by a third since 2010. Removals of foreign national offenders have fallen by a quarter. That is not good enough. It means that the rules are not being respected or enforced, and it is why we will set up a new returns and enforcement programme. We have committed to 1,000 additional staff to work on returns and enforcement, to ensure that the rules are respected, not only where we have returns agreements in place but looking at individual cases as well. We must ensure that we have a system that people have confidence in. There is a lot of chaos to tackle, but we are determined to do it.

The Home Secretary is absolutely right to lay into the Conservatives for their shambles of an immigration policy, which will define them for years to come, but all I am hearing is her being harder on asylum seekers. Enforcement seems to be her priority. When will we hear about the safe and legal routes that asylum seekers access to come to this country, and will she stop the dehumanising and scapegoating language, and pledge to take no quarter from the belligerents behind me?

As I said in response to the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), ensuring that the UK always does its bit to help those who have fled persecution is really important. We have done so through different programmes in the past. We had the Syrian families programme back in 2015, which was important, but we also have to ensure that the system works and has credibility, and that the rules are enforced. Too often at the moment the rules are not enforced, but they need to be, so that everyone can respect the system. Also, too often we have criminal gangs causing havoc, able to undermine border security and making huge profits. It has become a criminal industry along our border, and that is deeply damaging. I agree that this cannot be about rhetoric; nobody should be ramping up the rhetoric, especially alongside gimmicks that do not work. We have to be serious about this issue and put in place sensible plans that work.

I welcome the Home Secretary—the Labour Home Secretary—to her place. We have inherited an almighty mess, with asylum accommodation costing £8 million per day. It is absolute chaos and, according to The Sunday Times, there are even middlemen and middlewomen taking advantage and profiteering through the system. How is she going to get a grip of this chaos we have inherited from the previous Tory Government?

My hon. Friend raises an important question. As well as a failure to tackle the criminal gangs taking hold along the channel, there has also been too much of a focus on gimmicks and a failure to have practical planning in place. For example, there was a failure to ensure that there were proper long-term contracts on asylum accommodation, so that instead the chaos at Manston a couple of years ago led to last-minute hotel procurement, which was completely inappropriate accommodation and cost a fortune as well.

We have to tackle that. That is why we have set out plans and we are determined to make sure that we can get that backlog down and end asylum hotel use. As a result of the chaos with the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the fact that the Home Office had stopped taking decisions, that will now take time and it will be difficult to sort out, but that is why the statutory instrument we are laying before the House today is so important. That alone should save the taxpayer £7 billion.

I know the Labour party managed to go an entire election campaign without answering this question, and the Home Secretary failed to answer it again when asked by the shadow Home Secretary, but I will give it one more try. Where does the Home Secretary intend to send failed asylum seekers from Afghanistan, Syria and Iran?

The hon. Gentleman obviously does not understand the system that his party and his Government put in place. All the people who are in the asylum system are staying there. Under his policies for those individuals, they are now being sent all around the country into asylum hotels. That is the system the Conservatives have left us with. We do not think that is the right thing to do. We think that asylum decisions should be taken on a case-by-case basis. That is the right thing to do. We also think we should have proper returns agreements and do what his party should have been doing, under his own policies, for the 60% of people who continued to be entitled to asylum decisions but were not getting them under his Illegal Migration Act. What we will do is run the asylum system effectively, which his system should have been doing.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the forensic work she has been doing in her Department. What considerations has she given to humanitarian visas for people in Gaza to be reunited with their family, if they are studying in the UK or working in our NHS? My constituent has a wife and two little children in Gaza at the moment; he cannot return home, yet the last Government refused to make provision for them to come and be reunited with him in the UK.

My hon. Friend will know that there are long-standing arrangements for family reunion and for refugees. There are also different concerns that have been raised around Gaza, because there is a real importance to people’s being able to return to their homes in the middle east too. If she has an individual case that she would like to raise with my hon. Friend the Immigration Minister, she is very welcome to do so.

When I was in the migrant camps in northern France last year, the migrants told me and some of my colleagues that one deterrent that would stop them coming would be if they were turned back in the channel or sent back the same day. We saw the Border Force agency take a boatload back just last week. Will the Home Secretary now, with that advice, grow a political backbone and order the Border Force to send the boats back the same day?

The hon. Member refers to an incident in the channel where there was co-operation between Border Force and the French authorities that also involved returning people to the French coast. That operational co-operation is important, but I would just say to him that “co-operation” is the really important word. If we want to prevent gangs operating and organising, and prevent boats from reaching the French coast in the first place, we have to work closely not just with France but with Germany and other European countries, and with the countries through which some of the supply chains are operating. It is that co-operation that he and some others in his party have quite often refused, but it will be important and is our best way to stop the criminal gangs.

In a few short days, my right hon. Friend has simultaneously saved the taxpayer a tremendous amount of money and got more people in the Home Office working on getting the system sorted than in previous years. I congratulate her on that. Does she agree that it is entirely in keeping with Labour values to ensure safe refuge for those fleeing war zones, and, at the same time, to ensure that those who are not entitled to be here are repatriated, saving the UK taxpayer money?

My hon. Friend is right. There are principles here about doing our bit to help those who have fled persecution while also ensuring that the rules are enforced so that people who do not have a right to be here should be swiftly returned. At the moment, none of those things applies or is working properly. We have to restore order to the asylum system so that we can go back to the principles that, going back many years, the UK has always stood for.

It is a huge relief that the vile Rwanda scheme has been scrapped. I have listened carefully to the Home Secretary’s statement. Given that 94% of people seeking asylum in this country are ready and eager to work to support themselves, and that freezing them out of work leaves them in destitution and means that the UK misses out on tax revenue from their work, and on much-needed specialists and professionals such as the nurse I met recently in an asylum seeker project in Bristol, will the Home Secretary take the advice of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and urgently lift the ban on asylum seekers working?

No, I do not believe that is the right approach, because we need to make swift decisions and ensure that the rules are properly respected and enforced. I am concerned about employers who exploit those who have sometimes arrived as a result of criminal gangs, trafficking or smuggling. I do not believe that employers should be able to exploit those kinds of routes and journeys. If people who have fled persecution are granted asylum in this country, of course they should be able to work and to do so swiftly, but if they are not entitled to be here—if they have not fled persecution—and should be turned down and returned to their home country, they should not be able to work in the UK.

My constituents take this issue seriously as they are at the very frontline and the Conservatives have left us with open borders. I thank my right hon. Friend for dealing with the matter with such seriousness. How long will it take to put the border security commander in place, and what sort of impact will they have in assisting law enforcement?

I thank my hon. Friend and welcome him to his position. I know that his Dover and Deal constituency has faced real pressures as a result of the criminal gangs and the small boat crossings. I thank him for his work and experience in tackling these issues. He knows very well the work of the National Crime Agency, for example, in tackling the criminal gangs.

We are putting in place the steps for the border security command straight away. We have already begun recruitment not just for the new commander but for additional staff: hundreds of additional cross-border police, security and intelligence officers, and specialist investigators and prosecutors. That work will start straight away. We have already immediately increased the UK presence in Europol and its European migrant smuggling centre so that we can get on with that work to build those partnerships and take action.

I am sure the Home Secretary agrees that this is a moral issue: we must never again see people dying in the channel. However, does she also agree that deterrence must be a part of the panoply of measures that we put forward? I am not clear on what deterrent measures she is going to put in place or—because this question has failed to be answered a number of times—what will happen to failed asylum seekers from countries such as Syria, Iran and Afghanistan?

I agree with the hon. Member that it is devastating that lives are being lost, including children’s. We have seen increasing violence from some of the gangs, crowding more people on to these overcrowded boats, which has resulted in a seven-year-old girl losing her life.

The hon. Member talks about deterrence. The problem with the Rwanda scheme is that it is clearly not a deterrent: four people being sent over two and a half years is not a deterrent at all. There are also no deterrents at all for any of the criminal gangs, which at the moment can operate with impunity, so we have to start by ensuring that the criminal gangs can face justice and that action is taken against the supply chains earlier on—that we have consequences, and that there is a deterrent there.

I would also say that a system whereby people can arrive in the UK and stay in the asylum accommodation system forever, which is the situation under the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which the hon. Member’s party voted for, means that there is no disincentive for anyone. It makes it very easy for people to stay indefinitely and work illegally, even if they have no right to be here. That goes against the rules and means that the system is just not working.

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, which contained some really quite revelatory points about the state of the finances. Sandiacre in my constituency has been home to two asylum hotels, one of which I was very pleased to see close recently, but the Best Western hotel remains open. This is a huge cost to people in my constituency and across the nation, and it leaves asylum seekers caught in an endless and inescapable limbo. What steps will the Home Secretary take to ensure that we can close asylum hotels once and for all?

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. We need to clear the backlog—not just let it grow and grow, which is what the Conservatives were doing, but clear the backlog so that we can end asylum hotels, which are inappropriate and extremely costly. Having discovered that the Home Office had effectively stopped taking the majority of asylum decisions under the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly)—who does not seem to know what his own Department was doing as a result of his own policies—I am extremely concerned that that will now take longer to do, but it remains an immensely important thing that we have to do. The other thing we will have to do is tackle the backlog in the appeals process that the Conservatives had allowed to grow, which is also slowing down the system.

I congratulate the Home Secretary on her appointment and on her statements to the House. Following on from a previous question, but perhaps with a nuance, will asylum seekers—perhaps after initial registration—be allowed to work and pay taxes while their applications are pending?

If people have a right to be in the UK—if they have fled persecution and been granted refugee status, or they have come to be here on a visa through the normal processes—we will of course have them contributing to our country. That has been the case for generations, but if people are not here lawfully— if they have not fled persecution, and should fail the asylum process and be returned—they should not be working in the UK. This is simply about having a swift system so that we can make decisions quickly and ensure that the rules are enforced.

I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend in her place on the Government Benches. I am proud that Bradford is a city of sanctuary, and of organisations such as Bevan Health, set up by a GP in my constituency, which works to deliver vital healthcare to asylum seekers who are awaiting decisions, sometimes for over 12 months and in many cases in hotels. Can my right hon. Friend provide an assurance that asylum seekers will continue to have access to essential healthcare as our Government work to clear the asylum backlog, so that in future fewer people will be left languishing in hotels?

My hon. Friend is right; it is really important that we try to clear the backlog as rapidly as possible. It includes some people who are very vulnerable and may be in need of support. It also includes people who should not be in the UK, and the system should operate fairly so that they are swiftly returned. But we actually have to get back to decision making. I thought I would be coming to this Dispatch Box and saying, “Well, what we want to do is to speed up or accelerate decision making.” I did not think I would be standing at this Dispatch Box saying, “No, no, we actually have to restart asylum decision making in the first place, because the Conservatives just stopped it.” I really had not expected that. It really is far more shocking than I had imagined, and I really thought I had a good imagination.

When you take a drug dealer off the street corner, guess what: another one appears, because of the vile drugs trade and the amount of money involved. My constituents in Boston and Skegness believe it is exactly the same with trying the Home Secretary’s policy of smashing the gangs. If she smashes one gang, it is like a game of whack-a-mole: another one will appear and then another one, because there is so much money involved. Here is the point: how long will the Home Secretary give her policy before realising that the only policy that will work is the one she actually started last week, which is to pick people up and take them back to France, which we are entitled to do under international maritime law? It will help British citizens, help British taxpayers and help the French, and it will reduce the magnet factor.

I say to the hon. Member that no one should be making these dangerous journeys, and the criminal gangs are making massive profits from organising these boats. I just do not think they should be able to get away with it, and they are at the moment. We should be taking action against those criminal gangs, and I simply do not accept that it is impossible to go after them. We must ensure that we take action not just on the gangs themselves, but on their supply chains, the routes the boats are taking and their finances, and that we properly and substantially increase law enforcement resources. As hon. Members will know, we have had cases where journalists have identified smugglers and those responsible for being involved in some of the smuggler gangs, and I think those gang members should be facing law enforcement. It is essential that we do this. This is about properly standing up for the rule of law, as well as making sure that we do everything we can to prevent these dangerous small boat crossings.

I am very pleased to see the Home Secretary take her place. My constituents in Aylesbury have two concerns: first, that we re-establish control of our borders; and secondly, that we remember the need for compassion for vulnerable people fleeing conflict and persecution. On that point, will she commit to ensuring that there are resettlement routes for people fleeing desperate and dangerous circumstances, and what will she do to ensure that they are viable?

My hon. Friend is right, and I welcome her to her place in this House. I think what people in this country have always wanted is that combination of strong border security and a proper, fair system, so that we do our bit alongside other countries to help those who have fled persecution, but also so that the rules are enforced and those who do not have a right to be here are returned. She will know that there is a series of different resettlement routes or different forms of support—for example, the Homes for Ukraine scheme, which continues, and some of the Afghan resettlement schemes. We are concerned about the operation of some of the Afghan schemes, and we are looking further at that to ensure they are functioning properly.

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. The tragedy of desperate people dying in the channel is compounded by desperate people dying in the Mediterranean and the Aegean as human beings fleeing all kinds of horrible situation seek a place of safety. Is she co-operating with other European countries on a safe route for asylum seekers? Is she prepared to look in a much more humane way at the desperate situation facing people fleeing human rights abuses and wars around the world?

The right hon. Member makes an important point about what is happening in the Mediterranean, and about the pressures we have seen and the fact that, as the Prime Minister said in his statement, we have seen not just conflicts, wars and persecution, but the impact of climate change, making people travel and sometimes leading them to make dangerous journeys. We should be working to prevent the need for those dangerous journeys in the first place. That is why the Prime Minister announced last week at the European Political Community summit that we will invest over £80 million, alongside work with other European countries, also as part of the Rome process, both to tackle some of the wider criminal gang networks that still operate in the Mediterranean and to ensure that we address the injustices and serious crises that lead to people making such dangerous journeys in the first place.

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to her place. One of the consequences of the collapse in our asylum system over the past few years has been the increasing and intolerable pressure on local communities —my constituents in Hartlepool raise this with me time and again. Will she outline how the steps that she is taking will begin to reduce that pressure on communities such as Hartlepool?

I welcome my hon. Friend to his place. There is a real challenge from the chaotic way the asylum system has been run, which has led to the last-minute procurement of hotels and has ended up being extremely costly. Everybody loses out from spending billions of pounds on this system, but also from local authorities often not having time to work with communities or accommodation providers to ensure that things are managed in the right way. Because asylum decisions stopped being taken, there will now be some challenges in getting the system working again, which means that bringing down the backlog will take longer than we initially anticipated. But we are determined to do this; it is the only way to get back to having a functional system that everybody across the country should be able to support.

I welcome the Home Secretary to her place and wish her well for the future, and I thank her for the helpful and confident answers that she has given.

There is, of course, a glaring issue regarding border security much closer to home: the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This border was patrolled by Republic of Ireland officials, and understandably so as their right to protect their nation is paramount. However, it is also clear that the Good Friday agreement does not preclude the need to conduct checks on the border. What discussions have there been with the Police Service of Northern Ireland and security forces in Northern Ireland to ensure that the open border with the Republic of Ireland does not become a free route for UK immigration?

It is a pleasure to get my first question at the Dispatch Box from the hon. Member, and I look forward to very many more. He raises important issues. The border issues between Northern Ireland and Ireland are of course different; we rightly have different arrangements that reflect our long-shared history. But we also have very close co-operation. We have close policing co-operation, close information sharing, and additional information sharing that is not currently possible under the arrangements we have inherited with other European countries. It is important that those information-sharing arrangements continue, and hopefully we can build on them with other European partners.

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. I share her astonishment at the scale of the mismanagement of the asylum system by the previous Government. My constituency of Colchester has hosted many asylum seekers and refugees over the years. We are a city of sanctuary. Our local authorities have played a full part in supporting that work. Will she confirm that those local authorities will be fully engaged in the work going forward to ensure that we have more effective support systems?

My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of working closely with local authorities. We are determined to do that. The Immigration Minister already has work in chain looking at how we can have better working co-operation between the Home Office and local authorities. It is also important to recognise that, through many generations, refugees have come to this country and contributed to our economy and society and been a hugely important part of that. It is partly because we have that important history that it is crucial to get the whole system functioning again, instead of the chaos we have at the moment, which undermines everyone’s confidence.

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. The people of Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield want to see these crossings stopped and these gangs smashed, and they will welcome her tough action today. Because of the previous Government’s complete failure to control our borders, they spent millions of pounds a week on asylum hotels. What will she do to speed up the processing of people in these hotels and end their use?

I welcome my hon. Friend to Parliament. We have to do all these things. We have to take action on the criminal gangs exploiting the situation in the first place, which involves much stronger co-operation with European colleagues. That must include the new counter-terror powers that will be in the new legislation as part of the King’s Speech to strengthen powers against organised immigration crime. Alongside that, we have to get the basics right. We have to start taking decisions again, as well as speeding up asylum decisions and making the system work again.

On Friday 19 July, we saw a CrowdStrike software update on Microsoft systems result in a major global IT outage. It caused significant impacts around the world. Impacts were seen in the transport sector, with flights grounded in Europe and the US, and delays and cancellations here in the UK. Live train departure boards were impacted during the morning rush hour, and some media outlets lost the ability to provide live coverage. The outage caused substantial inconvenience for passengers hoping to travel for the summer holiday getaway on the busiest travel weekend of the year. Airports and airlines across the UK had measures in place to maintain safe operations, support passenger welfare, extend operating hours and deploy additional staff to support late-running operations and keep people moving where possible. As with all incidents, the sector will review its response and implement any learnings.

More concerningly, large parts of the local UK healthcare system lost access to test results and appointment information, affecting mostly GP services. Tried and tested NHS contingency plans were enacted and services are expected to be operating at full capacity in the next few days. Small businesses without dedicated IT support systems were heavily impacted due to disruption to card-only payment systems and ATMs, with many resorting to operate cash-only while firms worked to fix their systems. Many firms were able to get back online quickly and the remainder are expected to restore operations this week.

Officials from the National Cyber Security Centre quickly established that the outages were not the result of a security incident or malicious cyber-activity. The cause was instead identified to be a flawed CrowdStrike software update that caused Windows machines to crash.

On Friday morning, CrowdStrike issued guidance on how to solve the problem, giving users a manual fix for each affected device or system. I now believe that CrowdStrike is in the process of implementing an automated update, which can be applied remotely and should therefore speed up recovery. However, there are still residual impacts from the failed update, and it is important that we continue to monitor the situation and the longer-term impacts to UK sectors and secondary impacts from international disruption.

Ever since the incident occurred, the Government have worked closely with both Microsoft and CrowdStrike. My Cabinet Office officials have been leading co-ordination of the Government response across all impacted sectors of the economy. That included close monitoring of affected public services to ensure that business continuity plans were enacted and services were supported as they came back online. Two Cobra senior officials meetings were also convened on Friday to co-ordinate the response, and officials from across His Majesty’s Government met over the weekend to continuously monitor the impacts and the recovery process. I am pleased to say that Government services and the online services that the Government provide were and remain largely unaffected. My colleagues including the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Health Secretary and the Transport Secretary attended briefings with officials throughout, and the Prime Minister was kept informed.

The majority of the sectors that were impacted have now mostly recovered. The UK transport system—aviation, rail, road and maritime—is running normally. NHS staff worked hard over the course of Friday and the weekend to quickly apply the fixes required, and my colleagues in the Department for Health and Social Care have confirmed that systems are now back online, including for GPs. Their advice is that patients should continue to attend their appointments unless told not to. There may still be some delays, and GPs will need to rebook appointments that could not be made during the IT outage. The public should continue to contact their GPs in the normal way.

As IT systems are complex, we can expect that minor disruption will continue in some areas while systems continue to recover, but my officials expect those to be resolved in the next couple of days. I would like to thank everyone who has worked so hard to get systems up and running again, and all staff who have worked tirelessly to support individuals impacted by the outage.

Following this incident, the Cabinet Office will work with the National Cyber Security Centre and other partners across Government to review the lessons learned. The Central Digital and Data Office will work with the NCSC to implement any improvements to the existing response plans to cover both technical resilience features as well as cyber. The Cobra unit will work with Departments to support their processes for establishing how the organisations and sectors they represent manage the impacts of the outage and what lessons have been learnt.

As soon as the Government were elected, we took immediate steps to begin legislating to protect public services and the third-party services they use. Our cyber-security and resilience Bill, included in the King’s Speech, will strengthen our defences and ensure that more essential digital services than ever before are protected. For example, it will look at expanding the remit of the existing regulation, putting regulators on a stronger footing and increasing reporting requirements to build a better picture in Government of cyber threats. Technology failures can be as disruptive as cyber-attacks, and the move to create the centre for digital government within the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is aimed at creating a more resilient digital public sector.

What this incident shows is how dependent the modern world is on complex and interconnected IT systems and how essential preparedness for such events is, including business continuity planning. Notwithstanding the immense frustration and inconvenience that the outage has caused, I am pleased to see that effective contingency plans mitigated the very serious impacts that the outage could have had. I am pleased also that there is to be a comprehensive process to identify the lessons from this episode. I hope that they will lead to improvements that both help prevent similar incidents and further improve our resilience to system outages and the impacts they can have. In that spirit, I commend the statement to the House.

May I begin by welcoming the hon. Lady to her role and thanking her for advance sight of the statement? In that role I know she will be supported by a dedicated team of civil servants, who represent the very best of public service. I have no doubt that they will serve her as well as they did me.

The hon. Lady will be aware of the enormous challenges facing this Government and those around the world in relation to cyber-security. As I warned when I was the responsible Minister, threats to public services and critical national infrastructure come from a range of challenges, from hostile state actors to human error and design flaws. Last week we saw those challenges vividly brought to life. Following the corrupted antivirus update by CrowdStrike on Friday, 8.5 million Microsoft devices globally were rendered unusable. That left airports disrupted, patient records temporarily lost and GPs unable to access important patient data, creating significant backlogs. That is more than an inconvenience.

I pay tribute to all those working in our public services for the efforts they undertook over the weekend to restore those services, and to the work of dedicated cyber specialists across Government, including in the National Cyber Security Centre. In government we undertook a wide range of measures to enhance the nation’s cyber-security: creating the National Cyber Security Centre, introducing secure by design, setting cyber-resilience targets, launching GovAssure and transforming the oversight of governmental cyber-security.

I note, as the hon. Lady said, that the Government intend to build on that progress by bringing forward a cyber-security and resilience Bill. Will she therefore outline the timetable for the Bill, and will the Government consider mandatory cyber-security targets for the UK public sector? Are the Government considering obligations to ensure that infrastructure is designed to be resilient against common cause problems, such as this one? What steps are being taken to enhance cyber-security in the devolved Administrations and in parts of the public sector such as the NHS, which are operationally independent?

Specifically in relation to this incident, what assessment has been made of the prevalence of CrowdStrike within critical national infrastructure? What further reassurance can the Government give in relation to the timetable for full recovery of key systems and data? In particular, can the Minister assure employees that this month’s payroll will not be adversely affected?

Britain’s cyber industry is world leading. Cyber-security now employs more than 60,000 people and brings in nearly £12 billion-worth of revenue annually. This transformation was in part due to our £5.3 billion investment, which launched the country’s first national cyber-security strategy. I therefore urge the Government—I see the Chancellor in her place—to continue such investment.

Incidents such as that of CrowdStrike should not deter us from the path of progress. We must embrace digitalisation and the huge improvements to public services that it offers. The adoption of artificial intelligence across Government is the closest thing we have to a silver bullet for public sector productivity. However, if we are to command public confidence, people must be assured that technology is safe, secure and reliable. Such incidents demonstrate how reliant the Government and public services are on large technology companies, and how much responsibility they have for the services that have become critical to people’s lives and livelihoods. That is why, in government, I called for us to work more closely with leading technology firms to address these shared challenges. The best solution is partnership. To that end, what further engagement will the Minister undertake with Microsoft, CrowdStrike and the wider sector to ensure that there is no such recurrence?

The task for us all is to build on existing progress that has transformed Britian’s cyber defences, and to enhance protections for British families, businesses and the very heart of Government. In that mission, the Government can rely on the support of the Opposition.

I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution and his questions. In particular, I echo the thanks to all those in Departments across the civil service who were involved in dealing with the outage last Friday and in mitigating its effects. I set out in my statement that our cyber-security and resilience Bill, which was included in the King’s Speech, will strengthen our defences and ensure that more digital services are protected. That is a priority for this Government. The Bill will look at expanding the remit of regulation, putting regulators on a stronger footing and increasing reporting requirements, so that the Government can build a better picture of cyber-threats. We will consider the implications of Friday’s incident as we develop that legislation, but rest assured that we are working across Government to ensure resilience.

As the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said in his statement on the covid inquiry module 1 report, he will lead a review assessing our national resilience to the full range of risks that the UK faces, including cyber-risks.

It is a great pleasure to see my right hon. Friend the Minister in her place. As she said, the CrowdStrike outage is a reminder not only that technology is so integrated into all our lives, making them better, but also of our dependence on the standard of development, deployment and integration of new technology, which is largely not visible to us. I was reassured to hear about the steps that the Government and businesses have been taking to mitigate the impact, but I fear that small businesses and consumers do not have the same resources. Does she agree that people should not have to be able to reboot from a blue screen in order to enjoy the benefits of technology? Will her Government move to ensure that consumers are better protected?

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution, and I want to acknowledge all the work that she has done in this area. It has been hugely valuable. She makes really important points about ensuring that consumers and small businesses are protected, as well as Government Departments and bigger businesses. I am sure that will form part of the lessons learned from this incident, and will feed into the Bill that we will introduce.

This is my first opportunity to welcome Ministers to their places. I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. I want to focus on the impact on the NHS. My thanks, and I am sure those of the entire House, go to all NHS staff who have been scrambling to deal with urgent inquiries from distressed patients.

I wonder if I might press Ministers for assurances on two patient groups who need time-critical care. First, some patients require blood test results before they can commence urgent treatment or have operations. Are there any assurances on the attention that they will be given by the NHS, both now and in any future scenarios? Secondly, there are patients at great risk of becoming extremely ill from getting covid. Since the previous Government scrapped the covid medicines delivery unit, many vulnerable patients have been struggling to get the anti-virals that they need from their GP in time. That situation is made much worse when this kind of disruption happens. Can the hon. Lady provide assurances about any attention that NHS England has given to those two patient cohorts? If not, is she willing to meet me to discuss what we might do in future?

I thank the hon. Member for her question highlighting the issues facing vulnerable patients. I am pleased to report that there was no reported impact on 111 or 999 services, and that patients were able to access emergency care. The majority of the impact on GP services was in accessing patient records, GP appointments and prescriptions. Patients who could not access GP appointments were able to attend urgent care services, and GPs were able to issue paper prescriptions. However, I will pass on the hon. Lady’s concerns to my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, because they are incredibly important issues and we need to ensure that vulnerable patients are protected, going forwards.

May I take this opportunity to welcome you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to your very temporary position, and to welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to her role? Can she give the House any further details of the impact of this outage in Scotland, and what conversations has her Department had with the Scottish Government in recent days?

I welcome my hon. Friend back to the House; it is fantastic to see her, rightly, in her place. I thank her for the points that she raised, which are important and will be taken into account in the review of the lessons learned.

I congratulate the Minister on her appointment. Does she agree that these events demonstrated that we are very far from being in a position to move to a cashless society? Given that the Chancellor is present, will the Minister confirm that her Government will do everything that they can to support the continued use of cash, which is so important to some of the most vulnerable people in society?

Cash remains the second most commonly used form of payment in the UK, and we remain committed to ensuring that individuals and businesses have access to it. We have committed ourselves to providing 350 banking hubs, so that cash remains available to them.

It is a pleasure to welcome the Minister to her position, particularly as she is sitting alongside the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I welcome the points made about resilience in public services, but can she assure me that similar efforts are being made to ensure resilience of IT in a defence context?

As I said in answer to an earlier question, as soon as this Government were elected, we took immediate steps to start legislating to better protect all our public services and the third-party services that they use, and the cyber-security and resilience Bill will come before Parliament.

I welcome the Minister to her position. Congratulations are due to her: I understand that she was in charge of the Labour party’s election campaign, so she can take some credit for its success. It is good to see a reward for endeavours, and for hard work. I say to her: well done.

On airlines, as 171 flights were cancelled, some of my constituents were stuck in London and could not get home to Belfast. When it came to banks, some of my constituents who were out shopping found that their credit cards did not work because the system was down. When it came to the health system, the Department of Health in Northern Ireland said that hospital services and about two thirds of GP surgeries faced problems; there had been, for instance, problems getting patients into operating theatres and with accessing staff rosters. The whole system was in absolute chaos.

Does the Minister not agree that the issue has underlined the necessity of ensuring that we are prepared for cyber-breakdown, whether caused by an intentional attack or caused unintentionally? Can she say something about our preparedness for situations such as this, and about our resilience in moving forward from these technological problems, for the benefit of those in all parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

I thank the hon. Member for his kind comments. I am sorry to learn that some of his constituents were unable to secure flights home or GP appointments. In my statement, I spoke about ensuring that we expand our cyber-resilience, put regulators on a stronger footing and obtain a clear picture of cyber-threats and how they can be dealt with, and he raises important points in that regard.

This was an extremely serious incident that I suspect may well be detectable in the next GDP figures that come out of the Office for National Statistics. I have two questions. The hon. Lady said that she was “pleased to say that Government services, and the online services that the Government provide, were and remain largely unaffected.” Could she tell us which services were affected, or is “largely” just a euphemism for “not affected at all”?

Secondly, it is quite difficult for Members to get a handle on the full impact and spread of this contagion. Will she commit to laying before the House some kind of report detailing the sectors that were affected, how seriously they were affected—including Government systems—and whether and how there will be any resolution in the future? Obviously, we need to report to our constituents that these things are less likely to occur in the future.

I set out the impact that the incident had on, for example, GP services, but things like the emergency services remained unaffected, as far as we are aware. We are learning the lessons from the incident, and I am sure that we will report back once that has been completed.

Like so many others, GPs in my constituency were affected on Friday, and I thank them for the work they did. Even though patients were not able to get test results and appointments were missed, GPs managed to make sure that people received the best care possible. What assurances can the Minister give me that the lessons learned from Friday will mean that patients can continue to receive care when they need it?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the House, and I place on record my thanks to GP surgeries in Maidenhead, which did what they could to make sure that the disruption for patients was at a minimum. We will undertake the lessons learned exercise from this incident; I hope that offers some reassurance to his constituents, as well as the Bill that will be going through Parliament.

I am aware that the Minister is new to her role, so I will ask her to consider things, rather than to commit to doing things. Will she please consider continuing with the annual statement to Parliament on civil contingencies and risks, which the previous Government committed to? When she looks at the cyber-security and resilience Bill, will she consider assessing whether there is widespread use of certain software or hardware that could cause mass outages in the event that it is affected, as happened with CrowdStrike? I am not aware that we have seen an analysis of that in previous outputs by the Cabinet Office, and it would be incredibly helpful for us to be aware of where those risks are.

I thank the hon. Member for those suggestions. I am very happy to consider the points that she has raised.

I cannot be the only Member who thinks how proud Mr and Mrs Reeves must be today.

I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected amendment (h), tabled by the Leader of the Opposition.

I beg to move an amendment, at the end of the Question to add:

“but humbly regret that there is no mention in the Gracious Speech of the improved economic conditions the Government is inheriting, with the fastest recorded growth in the G7, inflation at the Bank of England’s target for the second month in a row, and unemployment at half the rate that it was in 2010; further regret that there is no mention of how to make necessary savings on welfare; urge the Government to meet the commitment set out in the Labour Party’s manifesto not to raise taxes on working people; regret that the Gracious Speech fails to make a commitment not to use changes to reliefs to raise taxes; and call on the Government to increase income tax thresholds to prevent income tax from being charged on the State Pension.”

It is an important and rather painful part of our democracy that today I am a shadow Chancellor, responding to the King’s Speech in exactly the same way that the new Chancellor responded to me just a few months ago, so I start by congratulating her, as well as Mr and Mrs Reeves. As the father of two girls, one of whom has her 10th birthday today, I warmly welcome the smashing of a glass ceiling by Britain’s first female Chancellor. As I said on election night, she has led the Labour party on a difficult journey, which has changed it for the better. Her stated commitment to fiscal responsibility, stability and economic growth has been consistent and, I am sure, not always easy. Unfortunately for us, her success in holding the line means that we face rather a lot of Labour MPs on the Government Benches, but I wish her well in her new role.

I also commend to the right hon. Lady the superb Treasury officials she now inherits, and put on record my gratitude to them the excellent work they did for me, staying up in the middle of the night ahead of fiscal events, engaging in tense negotiations with spending Departments—and occasionally, it has to be said, with No. 10—bringing me endless flat whites and Pret lunches to keep me going and, most of all, making my family feel welcome in the goldfish bowl that is Downing Street. It is part of the magic of democracy that those same officials have seamlessly transferred their allegiance from me to her, and I know that they will serve her extremely well.

In opposition, we will not oppose for its own sake, and there are a number of Bills in the King’s Speech that we welcome. The right hon. Lady is right to focus on growth, and the improvements on planning will build on many reforms introduced by the last Government, including the 110 growth measures I introduced in last year’s autumn statement. Any boost to house building is also welcome. We delivered 1 million homes in the last Parliament, and she will soon find out that if she is to deliver 1.5 million, she will not be able to duck reforming environmental regulations—a change that Labour blocked in the last Parliament but will deliver an extra 100,000 homes. I caution her not to over-rely on bringing back top-down targets. In the end, we will build more houses only if we change attitudes to new housing, and that is unlikely to happen if unpopular targets are steamrollered through local communities.

We will also look carefully at the right hon. Lady’s Budget Responsibility Bill. We are proud that a Conservative Government set up the Office for Budget Responsibility, and I commend the work of Richard Hughes and his team. We did not always agree, but in the end, that is the point of an independent watchdog. We all understand the politics of a Bill that allows the Government to make endless references to the mini Budget, but if the right hon. Lady is really committed to fiscal responsibility alongside growth, I hope that she will today confirm that she will not fiddle with the five-year debt rule to allow increased debt through the back door. We—and, it has to be said, markets—will be monitoring the overall level of debt very carefully to make sure that that does not happen. I also hope that she will commission the OBR to do 10-year forecasts of our long-term growth rate rather than five-year forecasts, as at present, in order to bake long-term decision making into Treasury thinking.

The shadow Chancellor was talking just now about fiscal responsibility. During the election campaign, he committed to a series of tax cuts, but I noticed that yesterday on Laura Kuenssberg’s show he said that it would not have been possible for him to proceed with those tax cuts. What has changed, and why did he make that commitment during the election campaign, knowing full well that he could not afford to carry it out?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because it allows me to explain why he is completely mistaken in what he is saying. We offered a set of carefully and fully funded tax cuts—unlike the £38.5 billion of unfunded spending commitments that came from the Labour party—but we always said that they would be brought in over time over the next Parliament. We did not make a commitment that they would come in immediately, and indeed they would not have. We would have done it in a responsible way.

When it comes to dubious claims, the new Chancellor herself has been making some that do not withstand scrutiny. She said, for example, that the economy would have been £140 billion bigger if we had matched the average OECD growth rate, but she knows that the OECD is a diverse group of 38 countries, including many with economies very different from our own, such as Turkey, Mexico or Luxembourg. A much more meaningful comparison is with other similar G7 economies, which shows that since 2010 we have grown faster than France, Italy, Germany and Japan. Indeed, the International Monetary Fund says that thanks to difficult measures taken by the last Conservative Government, we will grow faster than any of those four countries, not just in the short term but over the next six years. One reason for that is our record on attracting investment.

Since 2010, greenfield foreign direct investment has been higher in the UK than anywhere in the world except the United States and China. In the last year alone, Nissan, Jaguar Land Rover, Tata, BMW Mini, Google and Microsoft have all voted for the UK with their dollars, not least because of cuts in business taxation, such as full expensing, introduced by the last Government. If the Chancellor now looks for back-door ways to increase business taxation, as many fear, she will risk the UK’s attractiveness to foreign investors, of which she is now the beneficiary.

That investment is very important to my constituents in Stockton North, where many companies are poised to make billions of pounds of industrial investment. They tell me that they prize economic stability above all else, so will the right hon. Gentleman now commit to supporting the Budget Responsibility Bill to give those investors the security they need?

Yes, we are minded to support the Bill, subject to having had a close look at it, because we think it is perfectly sensible. Whether it is completely necessary is a different question, but it is perfectly sensible.

We have grave concerns about some elements of the King’s Speech, with a Times editorial this week describing some of its Bills as

“a dose of traditional socialist dogma”.

Tony Blair came to office having removed the old clause IV of the Labour party constitution, because he knew that state-run businesses are rarely successful and usually end up being bailed out by the taxpayer. Last week, with their railway and energy plans, the Government brought forward more nationalisation than Blair ever did—indeed, more than any Government in modern times.

If the Chancellor really cares about fiscal responsibility, she should beware. The reason why unions like publicly owned utilities is that they give them more leverage on pay and more ability to demand bail-outs. Unlearning the lessons of history will mean more strikes and bigger bills for the taxpayer.

An even bigger concern for business is the impact on jobs of Labour’s new deal for workers. We have seen the creation of almost 4 million jobs since 2010, which is nearly 800 jobs for every single day that Conservative Governments were in office. The president of the Confederation of British Industry described the UK as a “job-creation factory” but, like many others, he expressed concern that the Deputy Prime Minister’s new labour laws could put that at risk.

Day one rights sound attractive, but employers fear they will mean a flood of tribunal claims, meaning it is safer not to offer a job at all. That is why the Federation of Small Businesses responded to the King’s Speech by saying that companies are worried about increased costs and risks. In the end, French-style labour laws will lead to French levels of unemployment, which are nearly double our own—indeed, they are close to what they were when the last Labour Government were in office. By contrast, the Conservatives nearly halved unemployment over the last 14 years, and it would be a tragedy for working families up and down the country if the new Government turned the clock back.

Finally, the most dubious claim of all is this nonsense about the Government having the worst economic inheritance since the second world war, which everybody knows is just a pretext for long-planned tax rises. People can see what nonsense this is by simply comparing it with the last time we had a change of Government in 2010. Inflation was 3.4%, compared with 2% today. Unemployment was 8%, compared with 4.4% today. Growth was forecast then to be among the slowest in the G7, compared with the fastest today. Instead of an economy in which markets and the pound were facing meltdown, the Chancellor has inherited an economy in which the Office for National Statistics has said that growth is “going gangbusters.”

That has been backed up by even more data since the election. May’s GDP figures show that Britain’s growth was double the rate predicted by economists, and the fastest in more than two years. New figures from S&P show that, in February, British businesses were among the most optimistic in the world—top of the league again, according to the ONS. Inflation has remained at its 2% target level.

In her BBC interview yesterday, the Chancellor glossed over those figures, putting on the most shocked expression she could muster, to pretend that public finances are worse than she expected. But the root cause of the pressure on public finances—£400 billion in pandemic support and £94 billion in cost of living support—was never a secret. Indeed, the Labour party supported those measures and, in some cases, called for us to go further. Nor were the difficult decisions we had to take to pay for them a secret either. When we had to increase borrowing, increase tax and reduce spending plans in the autumn statement of 2022, Labour did not oppose us.

Like all Chancellors, she faces fiscal challenges: welcome to the job. But that job is a whole lot easier because, faced with an economic crisis two years ago, Conservatives took decisions that her predecessor Labour Government ducked completely after the financial crisis. That is why she has a deficit of 4.4% this year compared with 10.3% left behind for the Conservatives in 2010. She did not just compare her inheritance to 2010; she claimed to have the worst inheritance since the second world war. Is she really saying that she faces conditions worse than Geoffrey Howe in 1979, with a winter of discontent, stagflation, an 83% top rate of tax and a Labour Government who went with a begging bowl to be bailed out by the IMF? The Chancellor knows perfectly well that that claim is nonsense, otherwise why, in her first week, would she announce £7.3 billion of spending on her national wealth fund, without a spending review, a budget or any external validation from the OBR? As Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies says, thanks to the OBR the nation’s books are “wide open” and “fully transparent”, so pretending things are worse than expected “really won’t wash.” As she establishes her reputation, it is surely unwise to base her big central argument on a claim so patently ridiculous.

But we all know exactly why the Chancellor is doing it. She wants to lay the ground for tax rises she has been planning all along, which leads to two major concerns. First, she says her No. 1 mission is growth, but all around the world, evidence suggests countries with higher taxes tend to grow more slowly. Lower taxes, when funded properly, boost growth, as we saw with full expensing and the national insurance cuts last year, both of which the OBR confirmed add to our GDP. However, keeping taxes down is hard work.

I saw the numbers the Chancellor has seen just a few weeks ago, and the official advice was clear: with public sector pay restraint, productivity plans such as those we announced in the Budget, and welfare reform, it is perfectly possible to balance the books without tax rises. It is not easy—government never is—but not impossible. Yet all those three things—pay restraint, productivity improvements and welfare reform—were glaringly omitted from the King’s Speech. Instead, she has chosen an easier path: what Labour party sources told The Guardian was a “doctor’s mandate” to raise taxes.

The Chancellor has ruled out raising income tax, national insurance and VAT, but she should not think for one second that other tax rises will not impact working people. Capital gains tax destroys the pensions people build up over their lifetimes; business tax rises are passed on to customers, leading to higher bills; and taxes on banks and energy companies lead to fewer companies operating in the UK, a lower tax take and less money for public services such as the NHS.

That is the biggest contradiction in the new programme —a Government who say they want the fastest growth in the G7 but, in the very same breath, plan tax rises that will make that growth harder, if not impossible, to achieve. Even if such an approach were misconceived, it is none the less a legitimate choice for a governing party. What is not acceptable is, just 18 days after the election, to be laying the ground for tax rises after the Chancellor promised us 50 times in the election campaign that she had no plans to raise them. Every Labour Government in history have raised taxes and raised spending. If she wanted to do the same, she should have had the courage to make the case for that before the election. Instead, she is softening us up for a colossal U-turn that will lead to lower growth, less money for public services and massive public anger, which is why I commend to the House the amendment in the Opposition’s name.

It is a pleasure to open today’s King’s Speech debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Government. I always enjoy debating with the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), though I must say I rather prefer doing so from this side of the Chamber. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

I appreciate the shadow Chancellor’s generous words on my appointment and also his tribute to officials, who I can confirm are indeed first rate. It has been more than 14 years since a Labour Government were in office for a state opening of Parliament—14 years of chaos, 14 years of economic irresponsibility, 14 years of wasted opportunities and 14 years since there has been a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer standing at this Dispatch Box. Today, I pay tribute to my most recent Labour predecessor, the late Lord Darling. He was an outstanding Chancellor, a kind man and a good friend.

Mr Speaker, it is also the very first time that there has been a female Chancellor of the Exchequer. On my arrival at the Treasury, I learned that there is some debate about when the first Chancellor was appointed. It could have been 800 years ago, when one Ralph de Leicester was given the title of “Chancellor of the Exchequer” for the first time, or, 900 years ago, when “Henry the Treasurer” was referenced in the Domesday Book. It could even have been 1,000 years ago, when Alfred the Great was in effect the first Master of the Mint. Whichever it is, I am sure the whole House would agree on one thing—that we have waited far too long for a woman to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [HON. MEMBERS: “Hear, hear.”]

I stand here today proud, but also deeply conscious of the responsibility that I now have: a responsibility to women across the country whose work is too often undervalued; and a responsibility to every young woman and girl, who should know that there is no ceiling on their ambitions and no limit on their potential.

Seven Tory men have stood at that Dispatch Box over the past 14 years and the result has been an economic crisis, crumbling public services and a cost of living crisis. Can we expect a change of approach from the new female Chancellor of the Exchequer?

One thing is that I hope to be in post for a bit longer than some of my predecessors.

As tempting as it is, I do not intend to conduct a full sweep of the past 1,000 years of economic history from the Dispatch Box today—[Hon. Members: “Ah”!] I am sorry. However, we must talk about the past 14 years. I warned that whoever won the general election would inherit the worst set of circumstances since the second world war, and I have seen nothing to change my mind since I arrived at the Treasury. I will update the House on our public spending inheritance before Parliament rises for recess.

I heard what the shadow Chancellor said from the Dispatch Box now and on the television yesterday, which was to claim that I should be grateful for what he has left us. That is unbelievable, because he knows the truth and is now trying to rewrite history. In doing so, he has reminded the British people why the Conservatives lost the election. They are out of touch, deluded and unable to defend the indefensible. In the weeks ahead, it will become clear what those in his party did. They stored up problems, failed to take the tough decisions and then they ran away, leaving it to us—the Labour Government—to pick up the pieces and clear up their mess.

Today, I want to focus on one thing above all else: economic growth. Since 2010, Conservative Chancellor after Conservative Chancellor, including the now shadow Chancellor, stressed the importance of growth. We have had more growth plans than we have had Prime Ministers or Chancellors, and that is quite a lot, but growth requires more than talk; it requires action. Like so much else with the previous Administration, when we scratch beneath the surface the façade crumbles, and all that is left is the evidence of 14 years of failure.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her appointment; she is making an excellent speech. Friday’s ONS report showed that public sector borrowing was 25% higher than forecast. Does she agree that that underlines why it was so important to have a fully costed and fully funded manifesto to restore confidence in the public finances, and that it was a surprise that certain other parties did not follow the same route?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He speaks powerfully, and I pay tribute to his work in the last Parliament, particularly around education and skills. This is a really important point. For me, the most important pages of the manifesto that we stood on were the three grey pages at the back of it, which set out all our spending commitments and how they would be paid for. That was important, because to earn the trust of the electorate parties must be really clear about where the money will come from and what they will use it for. That is what we did in our manifesto, and it is what we will do in Government.

The shadow Chancellor made some points about GDP, comparing ours with that of other countries, but since 2010 UK GDP per capita—that is the most important measure, because it reflects how people feel and the money that they have—has grown slower than the G7 average, slower than the EU average, and slower than the OECD average. Treasury analysis that I requested when I became Chancellor shows that, had the UK economy grown at the average OECD rate these last 14 years, our economy would be over £140 billion bigger today. That could have brought in an additional £58 billion of tax revenues in the last year alone—money that could have been used for our schools, hospitals and other vital public services. Growth is about more than just lines on a chart; it is about the money in people’s pockets, and Treasury analysis shows that achieving the rate of growth of similar economies would have been worth more than £5,000 for every household in Britain.

The shadow Chancellor stood up and once again claimed that he bequeathed a great legacy. Seriously? The last Parliament was the first on record where living standards were lower at the end than at the start. The highest level of debt since the 1960s, the highest tax burden in 70 years, mortgages through the roof, the economy only just recovering after last year’s recession, economic inactivity numbers last week showing a further rise, and borrowing numbers last week showing over £3 billion more borrowing than the OBR expected—that is the Conservatives’ legacy. If that is a good inheritance, I would hate to see what a bad one looks like. I think deep down the shadow Chancellor knows that. In fact, he does know it.

Yesterday, the shadow Chancellor admitted what we all know: that the manifesto that he campaigned on was undeliverable, and the money for the tax cuts that he promised simply was not there. If he wanted to show the country that his party has listened, and learned from its mistakes, he would have used his speech this afternoon to apologise, but he did not, and that tells us everything that we need to know about this Conservative party: party first, country second; political self-interest ahead of the national interest; irresponsibility before the public good. Let me say this to the Conservative party, “We will not stop holding you responsible for the damage that you have done to our economy and to our country.” Never again will we allow the Conservatives to crash our economy. They failed this country. They shied away from tough choices, and we will not repeat their mistakes. It falls on us, this new Labour Government, to fix the foundations so that we can rebuild Britain and make every part of our country better off. We will govern through actions, not words, and we have already begun to do just that, because there is no time to waste.

Less than 72 hours after I was appointed as Chancellor, I put growth at the very heart of our work. Working alongside my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, I set out reforms to our planning system—reforms that the Conservative party did not deliver in 14 years. Our reforms restore mandatory targets to build the homes that we desperately need, end the absurd ban on onshore wind to deliver home-grown cheap energy and recover planning appeals for projects that sat on the desks of Ministers in the last Parliament for far too long. Those are tough decisions that the Conservative party already opposes.

Why was that my first act as Chancellor? Because getting our economy growing is urgent, and this King’s Speech shows that we are getting to work.

On the matter of mandatory housing targets, having been a constituency MP for 23 years and seen them tried in a number of different ways, may I humbly offer the Chancellor this, with all sincerity? There is such a thing as good development, but it only works if it is something that we do with people and not to people. This Stalinist approach will not work.

I have been compared to a lot of things, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have never been compared to Joseph Stalin.

Our approach is a brownfield-first approach. We will reintroduce those mandatory targets; of course it is up to local authorities and local communities to decide where the housing should be built, but the answer cannot always be no. If the answer is always no, we will continue as we are, with home ownership declining and mortgages and rents going through the roof. On the Government side of the House, we are not willing to tolerate that.

This King’s Speech shows that we are getting to work. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out, our programme for government is founded on principles of security, fairness and opportunity. Our No. 1 mission is to secure sustained economic growth in our great country through a new partnership between Government, business and working people that prioritises wealth creation for all of our communities.

We will fix the foundations of our economy so we can rebuild Britain and make every part of our country better off. There are a number of important pieces of legislation in the King’s Speech that will help us to grow the economy. In this speech, I will focus on three in particular: the Budget Responsibility Bill to restore economic stability, the national wealth fund Bill to drive investments and the pension schemes Bill to reform our economy. Those Bills speak not just to our programme for government, but also to trust in politics. They show that we will govern as we campaigned and that we will meet our promises to the British people.

In the election campaign, I said the first step we would take would be to restore economic stability, because stability is the precondition to a healthy, growing economy. It is how we keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible. After years of irresponsibility, we are putting our economy on firm ground once again. We introduced the new Budget Responsibility Bill on Thursday to deliver on our manifesto commitment to introduce a fiscal lock so that I can keep an iron grip on our country’s finances.

The Chancellor and I sat on the Treasury Committee together many years ago, and she will know from our time together that economics is as much art as it is science. Given that she is effectively giving a veto over economic policy to the OBR through this Bill, she must recognise that we need to understand what the people in the OBR believe, what their theories of economics are and what principles they attach themselves to. What further scrutiny of the chair of the OBR and the people doing the forecast will be available to this House, given that effectively they will be co-Chancellor with her during the next few years?

The Treasury Committee, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, can call in the chair and other members of the Office for Budget Responsibility, but his comments show exactly why we need this Bill: so that never again can we have a repeat of the mini Budget. The Bill will require every announcement that makes significant permanent changes to tax and spending to be subject to an independent assessment by the Office for Budget Responsibility. Why? Because unfunded, reckless commitments do not just threaten our public finances; they threaten people’s incomes and they threaten people’s mortgages. We saw that in the wake of the mini-Budget presided over by the former Member for South West Norfolk. I understand that she has taken umbrage in recent days at the idea that that episode was disastrous. Well, if any Conservative Member would like to dispute that fact today, I would be more than happy to give way. [Hon. Members: “Come on then!”] They cheered it at the time, but they are not cheering it now, and I do not imagine that they would put it on their leaflets.

The Conservatives should be ashamed of what they did because people up and down the country are still paying the price for the chaos that they caused. We say: never again. The Budget Responsibility Bill will enshrine that commitment in law.

During the pandemic, the friends and family of Conservatives were awarded contracts for work that were never fulfilled. My constituents would love to know how we can get their money back, perhaps through the covid corruption commissioner.

I enjoyed campaigning for my hon. Friend in York Outer, and it is great to see him in his place today. Stability means a tough set of fiscal rules, but it also means spending public money wisely, as he says. The last Government hiked taxes while allowing waste and inefficiency to spiral out of control. At no time was that more evident than during the pandemic, especially when it came to personal protective equipment. The former Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor, signed cheque after cheque after cheque for billions of pounds-worth of contracts that did not deliver for the NHS when it needed it—that is simply unacceptable.

Today, I can announce that I am beginning the process of appointing a covid corruption commissioner to get back what is owed to the British people. That money, which is today in the hands of fraudsters, belongs in our public services, and we want it back. The commissioner will report to me, working with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, and their report will be presented to Parliament for all Members to see. I will not tolerate waste. I will treat taxpayers’ money with respect and return stability to our public finances.

The second Bill I will speak to is the national wealth fund Bill. We know that economic stability is vital for investors and for business—the small business looking to grow; the global business looking to expand in the UK; the entrepreneur looking to take their first steps. To support them, stability must sit alongside investment.

On the effective use of public funds, is the Chancellor aware not only of the alleged corruption in the way that covid aid was distributed, but of the large number of tax loopholes in this economy? For example, in Cornwall, over £500 million of taxpayers’ money was handed out to holiday home owners not only through covid aid but through the small business rate relief scheme and other tax loopholes. At the same time, only a third of that amount has gone into social housing for first-time users. Will she look at the whole issue of parity in the way public funds are used, to support people who need housing?

I welcome the hon. Member back to this place. I enjoyed sparring with him in my early days in Parliament, and it is great to see him back in the House. He is absolutely right that we need to get value for money for all tax incentives. I will ensure that the Treasury and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government look at the changes that he suggests.

The last Government’s record on investment was dismal. We now sit behind every single member of the G7 when it comes to business investment as a share of GDP. That is not an abstract economic problem. Weak investment holds back productivity and hurts living standards; it leaves households poorer and wages lower.

The King’s Speech deals directly with the need to unlock private investment through a new national wealth fund Bill. That will be supported by an injection of capital, part funded by an increase to the windfall tax on oil and gas giants. It will make transformative investments in industries of the future, such as carbon capture and storage, and green hydrogen. It will mobilise billions of pounds-worth of additional private sector investment in our industrial heartlands and coastal communities while generating a return for taxpayers. The national wealth fund will work with local partners including mayors, as well as the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, to develop an investment offer that meets the needs of all our nations and regions. It will simplify a complex landscape of support for businesses today, aligning key institutions such as the UK Infrastructure Bank and the British Business Bank under the one banner of the national wealth fund.

I heartily applaud what my right hon. Friend is saying about the renewed windfall tax. Will she also look at the fact that, in this country, we have the lowest basic rate of tax on oil and gas companies anywhere in the world? The average is 74%; in this country, it is 38%.

As my hon. Friend knows, we committed in our manifesto to a three percentage point uplift to the current energy profits levy, which we will use to fund the national wealth fund. That fund will power jobs and prosperity in all parts of our country, and that work is already well under way. In my first week in office, I welcomed the report of the national wealth fund taskforce, and I thank the former Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, and the whole taskforce for their outstanding work. This Bill will put the national wealth fund on a statutory footing with clear objectives, crowding in private investment to create wealth across Britain.

Under the Conservatives, businesses and working people were held back by a complete and abject failure to build the new homes that my constituents in Ealing Southall were crying out for, the laboratory spaces that will provide the jobs of the future, or the national infrastructure needed for businesses and working people to prosper. Will my right hon. Friend assure this House that, under her chancellorship, we will finally get Britain building again?

I welcome the election of my hon. Friend in Ealing Southall—I think her constituents and the whole House can see what a strong advocate she will be for her local community. She is absolutely right: we have to get Britain building again. We have to build the homes and the transport, energy and digital infrastructure that our country desperately needs.

I thank the Chancellor for giving me the chance to intervene. When it comes to rebuilding and the house building programme that she has suggested should happen, in the papers today, it is suggested that people on a wage of £70,000 cannot get a mortgage. In Northern Ireland, those on a smaller wage cannot get a mortgage either, so can I ask the Chancellor this direct and hopefully positive question, which will hopefully receive a positive answer: what can she do to improve access to mortgages for those who want to own their accommodation, rather than rent it? What can she do to make sure that everyone in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can benefit, as she has clearly said they will?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. One of the biggest challenges people face with getting a mortgage is building up the deposit. That is why we have committed to a mortgage guarantee scheme, to help those people who cannot rely on the bank of mum and dad to get on the housing ladder. That is a really important commitment, as is our commitment to build the homes: unless we build more homes, home ownership will continue to go backwards, as it did over the past few years.

Alongside stability and investment in our economy must come reform, because delivering economic growth requires tough choices. It means taking on vested interests and confronting issues that politicians have too often avoided. The last Government refused to engage with those choices, and refused to level with the British people about what was required. This Government will be different. We have already demonstrated that through a series of reforms to our planning system, and are bringing forward further legislation in the King’s Speech to get Britain building.

Today, I want to focus on another area of our economy where reform is vital: our pension schemes. People across our country work hard to save for the future; they want a better, more secure retirement with the most generous pension possible. At the same time, British businesses with high growth potential need capital to support their expansion. Pension funds are at the heart of this. There will soon be over £800 billion of assets in defined contribution pension schemes, but for too long, those assets have not been targeted towards UK markets. That has impacted British savers, and it has impacted British business.

The last Government also said that this was a problem, and I welcome that acknowledgement, but they never introduced the legislation needed to make the change. We believe in deeds, not words, so we will strengthen investment from private pension providers by bringing forward the pension schemes Bill in the King’s Speech. It will boost pension pots by over £11,000 through a new and improved value for money framework. Through an investment shift in DC schemes, just a 1% shift in asset allocation could deliver £8 billion of new productive investment into the UK economy.

To ensure that the Bill is as strong as possible, I am today launching a pensions investment review, led by the first ever joint Commons Minister appointed between the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions—my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds), the Pensions Minister. This will include a review of the local government pension scheme, the seventh largest pension fund in the world, to ensure it is getting the best value from the savings of nearly 7 million public sector workers, the majority of whom are women and the majority of whom are low-paid. They deserve a pension that is working for them. Together, these reforms will kick-start economic growth by unlocking investment that has been tied up for too long.

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

I have already given way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Order. Could I just urge the House to think about interventions? There is a very long list of Members who want to speak and lots of people who want to make their maiden speech, and it would be great if they could all get in.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be pleased to know that I will not apprise the House of every Bill that supports economic growth in the King’s Speech. Needless to say, there are many more—from the English devolution Bill to transfer power back into the hands of local communities to the employment rights Bill to make work pay, and the Great British Energy Bill to take back control of our country’s energy and create new jobs across the United Kingdom. Growing our economy flows through almost every word of this Address.

The British people put their trust in us on 4 July to fix the foundations of our economy, to rebuild Britain and to make every part of our great country better off. I do not take that trust for granted. We will not let people down, and I am ready to deliver the change that we need. I know it will take time and I know it will require hard work, but we are already getting on with the job by ending a reckless, chaotic approach to economic management, by putting politics back in the service of working people and by making economic growth our fundamental mission. I commend the Address to the House.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair.

It is a real pleasure to contribute to the debate on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, not just because I am speaking on behalf of so many more of them than I used to, but because it gives me an opportunity to welcome the Chancellor of the Exchequer to her place and express my personal congratulations on becoming the first woman in the UK’s history to hold the position. I am personally delighted. I spent many years working in banking and finance, and I know how male-dominated those industries still are. I wish her well in her new role and look forward to working with her over the coming Parliament. The Liberal Democrats will be vigorous in scrutinising her plans, but we will always work in the national interest, and I can assure her of the support of the Liberal Democrats on all those matters on which we can agree.

I am sure that one of the things on which we can certainly agree is that the right hon. Lady and her colleagues have received a dismal inheritance from the departing Conservative Administration. The numbers reveal a dispiriting picture of low growth, high interest rates and a record fall in living standards delivered by an out-of-touch and incompetent Conservative party that took people for granted for years. Our constituents see this situation reflected in the increases in their mortgage payments, the hike in their energy bills and the prices they pay at the tills for their weekly shop. They see it in public services that are in a state of crisis and an NHS that is failing to deliver the care they need. The Liberal Democrats welcome the seriousness with which this King’s Speech focuses on stability, reinvesting in our crippled public services and growing the economy.

We welcome measures such as the introduction of an industrial strategy council to co-ordinate policy on economic growth, but the immediate and pressing problems that our constituents are facing in their everyday lives cannot just be addressed by centralised, top-down institutions run from Whitehall. Our economy needs to grow from the bottom up, bringing prosperity to every community, taking away the barriers to entry for small businesses and enabling individuals across the country to make the most of their skills and talents. The Liberal Democrats want urgent measures introduced to give immediate support to families and small businesses.

While out on the doorsteps during the general election campaign, I and my 71 colleagues heard a clear message from our constituents that their biggest priority was fixing the NHS. We are here because we promised to fight hard for a better NHS for our constituents and for communities across the country. That is why we are calling for the Chancellor to immediately draw up a Budget for health and social care. We cannot deliver economic growth without fixing the crisis in our NHS and in social care. NHS waiting lists are at an all-time high; it can take weeks to see a GP and it is now almost impossible to see an NHS dentist. Everyone deserves access to the care they need when they need it and where they need it. A successful health and social care system is fundamental to a fair society and our country’s prosperity.

The failures of the Conservative Administration led to a dramatic increase in the number of people experiencing long-term sickness conditions and the Liberal Democrats will continue to push for public service investment to help reduce NHS waiting lists to get people back to work.

Does my hon. Friend agree that reforming social care should be one of the most urgent priorities of this Government? The Royal Cornwall hospitals NHS trust recently announced that £26 million a year is spent on patients who are medically well but unable to be discharged due to a lack of social care packages.

My hon. Friend is right, and it is wonderful to see him in his place; the people of North Cornwall will be well served by his championing of social care, which was front and centre of the Liberal Democrats manifesto in the general election.

The most direct way to alleviate poverty is to increase the money paid to the poorest households. We know that our fellow citizens who are living in the severest poverty are likely to be families with small children. Growing up in poverty affects children’s educational chances and is likely to impact their physical and mental health, holding them back from achieving their true potential. Taking immediate steps to tackle child poverty should therefore be a priority. We believe that removing the two-child cap is the most cost-effective way of immediately lifting 500,000 children out of poverty, while helping to make costs more manageable for parents. That would have a direct benefit to families struggling with the cost of living crisis. Not only do we have a moral obligation to change this unnecessary policy but it is the most cost-effective way of alleviating poverty with a broad range of economic advantages, including supporting more parents back into the workforce. So I urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remove the two-child limit on social security payments in her Budget to ensure that all families who need it receive immediate reassurance and support.

But families of all sizes are suffering under the cost of living crisis and desperately need help. Our schools are increasingly having to battle the effects of poverty to ensure children are able to attend school and have the best chance of reaching their potential, and too many children are distracted from their lessons because they have not had enough to eat. The Liberal Democrats set out plans in our manifesto for free school meals for all children living in poverty, with an ambition to extend them to all children once public finances allow. The Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to consider funding free school meals as a priority to alleviate the pressure on the finances of the families who are struggling the most. This will also contribute to positive educational outcomes that will benefit us all in the future.

The Liberal Democrats welcome many of the measures in the King’s Speech that aim to boost economic growth, and we support the Government’s objective to make that a priority. We welcome moves to boost stability and provide strategic leadership via an industrial strategy council and to increase investment through pension reform. However, our small businesses and local high streets need immediate support, and the Government need to do more to ensure economic growth can reach every part of the United Kingdom and that small businesses and entrepreneurs can quickly rediscover the confidence that they need to invest after years of Conservative chaos and mismanagement. Liberal Democrats want to see more direct support which will impact local community businesses. We believe we need swift action specifically to tackle high energy costs and we continue to call for business rate reform.

A new Parliament presents a real opportunity to begin to properly rebuild our trading relationships with Europe. From speaking with many small business owners I understand the pressures and limitations that current trade deals with Europe pose to businesses. We must tackle the arduous legislation around importing and exporting goods, which significantly limits the opportunities for small businesses to grow. The Liberal Democrats have a comprehensive plan to rebuild trust and co-operation with Europe, and we understand that to be a crucial aspect of the support that businesses urgently need. We welcome the Government’s acknowledgment of the need to reform the apprenticeship levy. However, we would like to see them go further and replace the current scheme with a broader and more flexible skills and training levy. We hope that the Government will join us in encouraging the take-up of apprenticeships, particularly for young people, and support our calls to guarantee that they are paid at least the national minimum wage by scrapping the lower apprentice rate. We understand the broad economic benefits of supporting the development of skilled workers and are optimistic about the advantages that can bring to business.

The recent years of chaos and irresponsible Conservative administration have left a substantial challenge for the new Government to tackle. We do not underestimate the work lying ahead to get the economy back up and running, to nurture an environment that will allow businesses to thrive and to restore the public services that provide care for people when they need it. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I will hold the new Government to account to ensure that they deliver on the promises outlined by His Majesty on Wednesday as we work to rectify the damage done by the Conservatives: rebuilding our economy, supporting individual communities and small businesses, and urgently investing in health and social care.

The dilemma we face is self-evident: many hon. and right hon. Members want to speak, and we will do all we can to get in as many people as possible. Unfortunately, there will now be a five-minute limit on speeches. The clock will not be used for maiden speeches, but we ask Members to keep an eye on the time.

It is an honour to speak in this King’s Speech debate, and a privilege to have heard the first female Chancellor in our history deliver such a remarkable opening salvo. I will say a word not just about the King’s Speech itself, but the strategy behind it. When the Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister launched our manifesto, there was a clear ambition at its heart to ignite a revolution in wealth creation in this country not just for some, but for all. That strategy was absolutely right, because among the worst of our inheritance is the scandal—the moral emergency —of the inequality of wealth that now scars our country.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you and I could take a walk this afternoon down to a coffee bar called Shot in Mayfair, which would serve us coffee for £265 a shot. We could go next door to a restaurant Aragawa, where they serve steak for £900 apiece. Some, if they were lucky enough, could book a night at the Raffles hotel for £25,000. These are extraordinary prices, but not unremarkable in a country that now has the highest sales of Rolls-Royces, superyachts and private jets. This absurdity of affluence sits alongside a country where, on the last figures, more than 1,000 people died homeless, tens of thousands of people are dying from the diseases of poverty, and 2.1 million people can put food on the table only because of the tender mercies of food banks. That is the inequality of wealth bequeathed to this Government. It is best illustrated perhaps by one figure: the wealth of the top 1% has grown by 31 times the wealth of everybody else over the past 14 years. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was right to say that there has to be a revolution in wealth creation in this country—not just for some but for all.

The measures that my right hon. Friend has set out are the right ones: a plan for growth and a plan to devolve economic power out of the paralysis of Westminster and Whitehall and down to mayors and local councils. Alongside that is a revolution in planning law, infrastructure law and skills finance. I urge my friends on the Government Front Bench to maximise the amount of power held locally, because it is local people and local leaders who know best how to grow our economy. If we have a growing economy, the key is then to ensure that growth is fairly shared. That is why the employment rights Bill is so important. As my right hon. Friend said, there has not been growth in living standards for more than 14 years. That is why we need to ensure that there is a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.

Alongside that, the draft equality Bill is extremely important, and I urge my right hon. Friend to go further and to use the consolidation of pension funds to inaugurate an era of civic capitalism in this country, where we use the combined £2 trillion-worth of pension savings to encourage businesses that are good, not businesses that are bad, such as those that she revealed when she was a brilliant Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, or the scandals that we exposed in the last Parliament with McDonald’s, Asda and other firms behaving in a way reminiscent, frankly, of Victorian capitalism.

Once we have begun raising incomes, we must help people build well. That is why the changes to the housing market that my right hon. Friend proposed are so important. We can underpin that and maximise investment into the infrastructure of this country by ensuring that there is a national wealth fund, but I would go further, and I ask her to look at how we can put together not just the national wealth fund but the Crown estate fund, which is set for reform under a Bill in the King’s Speech.

We could go a step further and review the whole portfolio of investments held by the Government and by UK Government Investments. The last Government made some pretty strange investments during covid, including, I understand, buying shares in Bolton Wanderers, shares in a bespoke boutique whisky company, and even, it is said in some newspapers, shares in a strange firm that organises international sex parties called Killing Kittens. I say to my friends on the Government Front Bench that it is time we had a Domesday Book that consolidated assets in this country. Let us look at what we need and what we do not. Crucially, let us look at how we maximise dividends going to ordinary working people in this country to help them build wealth for themselves.

I conclude with this: on the Government Benches, we have long known that we only deliver and maximise freedom and opportunity for people in this country, and make those freedoms and opportunities real, if there is security. There is no security without wealth, which is why the ambition that my right hon. Friend set out not simply to build a wealthy democracy but a democracy of wealth, is the right one.

May I start by adding my congratulations to the Chancellor on being the first woman to hold that office in the history of our country? At this rate, the Labour party might even have a female Prime Minister some time this century. I also thank the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt) for everything he did while in office. In particular, I thank the voters of West Worcestershire for returning me here for the fifth time.

I was one of those who was here in 2010. It is ironic that I should be following the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), because he was the one who left that famous note, “I’m sorry: there is no money left.” If people want to know what a bad economic legacy looks like, I was here in 2010 when we received one from the Labour party. The deficit was over 10% and rising and unemployment was over 8%. Inflation was nearly twice its target, and the banking system had just collapsed and had to be bailed out by taxpayers. We can contrast that with the economic legacy of 2024 that the new Government inherit.

Despite the economic costs of the pandemic and the energy crisis, the UK is enjoying the fastest growth in the G7. Unemployment is now half the rate it was in 2010. Inflation is back on target. We have a well-capitalised banking system, almost completely out of taxpayers’ hands. Wages are now rising faster than inflation. We are the fourth-largest exporter in the world. Members do not have to take my word for it; they can take the words of the International Monetary Fund, which in a recently published report said that

“the UK economy is approaching a soft landing”,

with

“growth recovering faster than expected…inflation has fallen faster than was envisaged…The banking system remains healthy”.

So I approach the economic measures in the King’s Speech with a degree of trepidation, because they come at a time when the economy was back on track. While I agree that “securing economic growth” is a fundamental mission of government, I would add the word “non-inflationary”. I have looked and looked through this King’s Speech, and I cannot see any measures that magic up economic growth. Growth does not just happen because it is written into the King’s Speech.

In my time as Chair of the Treasury Committee, we had the opportunity to have a private session with the IMF. It is interesting to observe that many of the measures put forward by the Government in the King’s Speech were in the IMF’s prescription for the UK economy. Reforming planning and building on our beloved green belt were from the IMF, as was strengthening the role of the Office for Budget Responsibility and crowding in private capital on net zero projects via a national wealth fund.

What else does the IMF want? Well, colleagues may not be surprised to learn that it also wants to see more taxes. It does not quite say it like that—it calls it “closing tax loopholes” or “mobilising additional revenues”. Some of the measures we heard about in our private session with the IMF were as follows. The first was setting capital gains tax rates in line with income tax rates. I hope that Ministers will rule that one out. The second was subjecting the sale of primary residences to capital gains tax. I hope that Ministers will rule that one out. The third was ending inheritance tax loopholes for pensions, family businesses and farms. I hope that Ministers will rule that one out. The fourth was revaluing all of England’s homes for council tax, and especially those over £320,000 in value. I hope that Ministers will rule that one out. The IMF also liked the idea of road pricing; I hope that Ministers will rule that one out. It also wants to bring forward considerably the date at which the state pension age increases.

Given that those are all tax measures that the IMF recommends, I am sure that the Chancellor is beginning to contemplate them. When the Government respond to today’s debate, I hope that they will specifically rule those things out, because the tax rises that the Government admit to already—the pensioner tax, the tax on education, and regulatory costs galore—are bad enough. Let us hear some specific denials on those other taxes.

I call Georgia Gould for her maiden speech.

I am pleased to speak in a debate with so many strong female representatives, including the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), and I am really honoured to speak in a debate led by the first female Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has shown today what a force for change she is. I have found it incredibly moving to hear MPs across the House talk with such love and dedication about the places they represent. It has given this Parliament a deep grounding in the stories of people from every part of the UK.

I feel deeply the trust put in me by the people of Queen’s Park and Maida Vale. In speaking here, I stand on the shoulders of some extraordinary women who have represented the different parts of Queen’s Park and Maida Vale. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) is someone who breaks through glass ceilings and lifts others up behind her. Nothing ever dims her spirit and her passion for tackling injustice. You need only walk down Harlesden High Street with her to see how she inspires people by her example—and sometimes her music.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) is a formidable campaigner who was in the Chamber the day she was due to give birth because she needed to give her constituents a voice. She did not stop campaigning until her constituent Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe was safely home with her family. Those who know her will quickly learn that she never, ever gives up. She is always a voice for the people she cares about.

Karen Buck gave an extraordinary 27 years of service to the residents of Westminster North. I was at a school in my constituency last week where the head said that Karen was the fourth emergency service, always at the end of a phone ready to help. I remember going to an elderly people’s lunch where the residents said, “You can be our MP—you are very nice. Just make sure that Karen comes to our residents’ meeting in July.”

The wonderful team at the House Library sent me Karen’s maiden speech. It was no surprise to me that it was a passionate call to action on the housing conditions of her constituents. That passion has not dimmed for a second; it could be heard in every line of her 37 interventions on the Renters (Reform) Bill over 25 years later. She has shown that somebody with community running through their veins can move mountains. I will work every day to live up to the women who came before me—that includes you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and your sister Baroness McDonagh, who have both showed such amazing, dedicated service and have never given up fighting for constituents and the people of this country.

Queen’s Park and Maida Vale is a place that means a huge amount to me. My great-grandfather came over to the UK when he was a teenager, fleeing the poverty and pogroms of Lithuania, and worked his way up to open a shop on Kilburn High Road. My family have lived and worked in the area ever since. Growing up in the heart of London, I attended Hallfield primary school and saw how many children were cut out of the opportunities on their doorstep; that has driven me ever since. The need that we see now is greater than ever. My inbox and my surgeries are full of people facing the homelessness crisis and skipping meals to feed their family—all in walking distance of the Chamber.

Queen’s Park and Maida Vale is a place with huge need, but also with huge heart. It has welcomed not just my family but families from so many different backgrounds. We are home to the Bangladesh Caterers Association; the Lauderdale Road synagogue; the UK Albanian Muslim Community and Cultural Centre; Harlesden, which is the unofficial capital of reggae and the starting point for so many iconic artists and producers; Kilburn, a centre of creativity with a claim to be the birthplace of cinema; and the amazing, diverse community of Church Street.

We are a community that is rich in spirit and dynamism. In 1879, Queen’s Park was chosen to host the royal agricultural show, the Victorian equivalent of the Olympics. It was a very British affair—it rained most of the time—but ordinary people campaigned to preserve the open space, and it is still a thriving park today. Down the road, Walterton and Elgin Community Homes is a shining example of community leadership. We also have the country’s only urban parish council.

Queen’s Park is the birthplace of the pride of west London, Queens Park Rangers football club. I can tell the House that being a QPR fan is almost as good as this Chamber for getting to know the communities of the UK; it means spending rainy days in Cardiff, Preston, Southend and Tranmere, embracing again and again the triumph of hope over experience.

I have always been an optimist. Despite 14 tough years in local government, including seven as Camden council leader, I have never lost hope, because every day I can see the power of communities. I was elected as a councillor in 2010, and at events, when people used to say to me, “What do you do?”, I would proudly say to them, “I am a councillor.” They would say, “That is so wonderful; you do such wonderful work as a therapist.” I would have to say, “No, not that kind of counsellor. I am a Labour party councillor.” They would either swiftly go and get a drink or talk to me about dog mess.

Street cleaning and rubbish collection are essential services that councils deliver—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Mrs Hamilton) once introduced me as the person who makes sure that Keir Starmer’s bins are collected—but we often forget how much more local government is. I see that every day, watching the work of Brent and Westminster, two brilliant Labour councils in my constituency.

Councils are lifelines for communities. They provide care for the children and adults who most need support. They are leaders of place, bringing services and people together to make change. I have seen local government staff go above and beyond time and again, fuelled by love and dedication, because there was no one else there, whether they were working with communities to deliver food during covid or supporting Afghan evacuees. When things have been hard, they have held together our communities, finding unity in difference.

The Gracious Speech sets out bold new proposals in the English devolution Bill to unlock the energy and creativity of communities. It sets out Bills to fulfil Karen Buck’s long-held campaign to end no-fault evictions and reform the leasehold system. The proposals will support the people of Queen’s Park and Maida Vale who come out every day to build their community—the youth workers, the community gardeners and those running the North Paddington food bank, who wish it did not have to exist. These are people putting hope into action because they believe that things can change. I know that as I sit in the Chamber, I will have their voices and stories with me, but I will also have the stories that I have heard from hon. Members from across the UK. We all have that in common: the privilege and the responsibility of bringing the voices of our community to this place. We may debate and disagree, but I hope to always listen and learn, and remember that we are being entrusted to weave those stories, hopes and ambitions together into a national vision for this country—one that governs for all and leaves no one behind.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Queen’s Park and Maida Vale (Georgia Gould) on a simply superb speech that follows the best traditions of the House. She has done her constituents proud, and I know that she brings huge expertise and commitment to this House. I wish her all the best.

I put on record my thanks to the good people of Fareham and Waterlooville for sending me back to Parliament. We had a fantastically energetic—let me put it that way—and hard-fought campaign. I am honoured and humbled to have the privilege to speak on their behalf in this Chamber.

One thing struck me in the King’s Speech—not the long list of policies that will no doubt damage our economy, or the vague promises that will not survive contact with reality. For me, the thing that was conspicuous by its absence was the total failure of the Labour Government to deal with child poverty and scrap the two-child benefit cap on welfare. [Interruption.] Yes, hon. Members heard that right. [Interruption.]

Order. Could we show respect and listen to the Member’s speech?

I detect a bit of surprise on the Government Benches. I have risen to speak on scrapping the cap. In the grand tapestry of British politics, where the warp and weft of policy and principle interlace, it is not often that a Conservative MP will find threads of agreement with friends across the aisle, but here we are, discussing a proposal backed by Labour MPs, led by the hon. Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) and backed by the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National party and many Opposition parties. It is one with which I agree, because it speaks to my profound sense of justice and, dare I say, compassion. I will say why Conservatives can and should back scrapping the cap.

Let us not rewrite history, because there has been a lot of nonsense from Labour Front Benchers about the situation that we inherited in 2010. To put it simply, we inherited no less than an economic catastrophe, and we worked hard to recover from that situation. The deficit stood at 10% in 2010; we got that down to 1.9%. Public sector net borrowing was at 10%; we got that down to 3%. We were in a deep recession, and we now have the fastest growing economy in the G7.

We had to make incredibly difficult decisions back in 2010 to reduce our welfare bill, but it is clear to me that through those welfare reforms, spearheaded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), we overhauled an overly complex, bureaucratic system, and helped millions of people get back into work. Four million more people are in work now than in 2010. The unemployment rate is down to 4.4%—almost half what it was in 2010. We can make changes to some of the decisions that we made back then.

It is clear to me from my work with vulnerable families in Fareham that the cap is not working. It is pushing more children and families into relative poverty, causing them to use more food banks. There are three good reasons for scrapping the cap.

Will the right hon. and learned Lady tell the House who introduced the cap, why, and which way she voted when the measure went through this House?

I just set out that the parlous economic situation forced us to make impossible choices, but thanks to the improved economics and the improvements brought about by universal credit, I believe that it is time to put child poverty first and scrap the cap. There are three big reasons for Conservatives to support that. First, it is affordable. For about £1.7 billion—0.14% of total Government spending—we could quickly bring around 300,000 children out of poverty. In this improved situation, that is the fair and right thing to do. Secondly, the reason why it was introduced in the first place was to disincentivise poorer families from having more children, but that has not necessarily worked. The number of children born has remained relatively stable. As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found, heartbreakingly, 43% of children in larger families are in poverty. The children hardest hit are those under four. It predominantly affects younger children, and those in large families. I believe that the cap is aggravating child poverty, and it is time for it to go.

I know that there is the argument, “Don’t have children if you can’t afford them.” To me, that is not compassionate, fair or the right thing to say. As Conservatives, we should be proudly and loudly the party of family. We should encourage families on lower incomes to have more children. For those families on middle and higher incomes, we should change our tax regime so that they are incentivised to have children. We have better parental leave policies, better childcare provision policies and better maternity care. I am a Conservative because I believe in the strength and the sovereignty of the family unit. We should support it, not suppress it. This is not about right or left. This is about right or wrong. Let us come together, in a spirit of compassion and common sense, to scrap the cap and end child poverty for good.

I call Sarah Sackman to make her maiden speech.