Welcome to the Liaison Committee of Chairs of Select Committees in Parliament on Monday 23 March 2026. We are delighted to have the Prime Minister in front of us today, in one of his regular visits to this Committee to discuss the issues of the day. We told you in advance, Prime Minister, that we want to discuss the international situation, so I want to place on the record that Dame Emily Thornberry, who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee, is unable to be with us today, because she is travelling with her Committee on a long-planned visit to Greenland. She would have welcomed the opportunity to ask you questions; nevertheless, she has been able to talk to us about the situation, so she has made some input, even though she is not physically present.

Okay.

Every time you come in front of us, Prime Minister, there seems to have been another tragedy. In the early hours of this morning, the Jewish ambulance service Hatzola was attacked in Golders Green. In my own borough of Hackney, we know and value the work of Hatzola to support the people of Hackney, the Homerton hospital and the NHS, and the loss of four ambulances is a big issue. Happily, no individuals were hurt. Sarah Sackman, the MP for Golders Green, is keen to see an uplift in neighbourhood policing in neighbourhoods with large Jewish populations. I am sure that you want to say something about that and what the latest update for the public is to that investigation.

Yes, Chair, I really welcome that. I start by expressing my disgust at this horrific, antisemitic attack in Golders Green in the early hours of this morning. The idea that ambulances could be considered a target is simply horrendous. I know the impact that that will have had on so many individuals, not just those in the area—I was with Sarah Sackman, the constituency MP, this morning, and with the neighbouring MPs—but, frankly, on the whole Jewish community across the country, not least because this is not an isolated incident. The rise of antisemitic hatred is there for all to see. In relation to the ambulances, I spoke to the Health Secretary this morning, and I can confirm that we will replace the ambulances that were destroyed in the horrendous attack. London Ambulance will have the replacements ready by tomorrow morning, at the latest. I am really pleased to be able to put that support into place immediately, and to say that the NHS will pay for the permanent replacements that are going to be needed in due course. That is the right thing to do, but it also underscores what I think is a really important principle: that this is not just an attack on the Jewish community, but an attack on all of us, on everyone who holds the fundamental British values of tolerance and respect. I also met Jewish community leaders at Downing Street this morning, along with some members of the Cabinet and local MPs in the area of the attack, to discuss the actions we were taking to keep the community safe. I thank them for attending at such very short notice. A number of actions are coming out of that meeting, including speeding up aspects of the social cohesion strategy that has been published, the support that is available for the CST and other measures. The idea that we live in a society where people should feel that they need to hide their identity or religion is, frankly, abhorrent. Antisemitism is an old hatred, but it requires constant vigilance to overcome it, so let me be clear: we won’t rest in our fight to defeat this poison and keep the Jewish community safe. Chair, I have wider updates on the position in Iran and the middle east, but I am in your hands. I could do them now, taking some time, or I can try to weave them into questions that I suspect will come later.

We will come to that in questions, and we will make sure that you have time at the end, Prime Minister, to update the country on anything that we have not covered in the time. I thank you on behalf of the Committee for that statement. I think that there is great relief at the swift action to replace the ambulances. Will you be looking at increasing policing in areas with large Jewish populations, as Sarah Sackman has requested?

We discussed that this morning and I have already actioned some discussions with the Home Office about it. I will not go into the specific details here, but just rest assured that is one of the issues—

We appreciate it is not 24 hours yet.

No. We did discuss it this morning. Sarah Sackman raised it, and we are already taking action.

Thank you; speaking for a borough that also has a large Jewish community, I think that will be much appreciated.

I should emphasise that of course this happened in that constituency, but there will be concern right across the country, and that was reflected in the discussions we had this morning.

Thank you for that, Prime Minister. As you say, there are big things happening in the world, and the Iran war and its economic impacts are obviously crucial, so I am going to ask Liam Byrne MP to kick off on that.

Thank you very much for that statement, Prime Minister. I know you are chairing Cobra on the war in Iran later this afternoon. Things are moving very quickly and the fog of war remains thick, but what is your central planning scenario for how this conflict ends, and what is your view about the timeframes?

My very strong view is we need to de-escalate and bring an end to this conflict as swiftly as possible. We have been working with a number of countries in that regard, and to that end I welcome the talks reported between the US and Iran. To be clear with the Committee, we, the UK, were aware that that was happening. The immediate priority has to be a swift resolution of the conflict and delivering a negotiated agreement which puts tough conditions on Iran, particularly in relation to nuclear weapons. That is the No. 1 priority. Obviously, there is no certainty in this. That is why, in addition to the usual issues at Cobra meetings, which are often military, diplomatic, consular, we are holding a Cobra this afternoon on the economic impact, because my strong sense is that most people are very anxious and concerned at what they see on their television screens in terms of the conflict and the fear of escalation, but they are also very concerned about the impact it might have on them and their families. That is what we will be absolutely focusing on this afternoon.

President Trump is talking about days and weeks for this conflict to end; the markets are pricing now for a disruption that lasts for some months. I know you have to be very careful about not triggering panic buying of anything, but do you think that households and businesses in our country should be planning for a disruption that actually lasts for months, or do you think that actually this can be concluded in days and weeks, as President Trump seems to suggest?

It is hard to answer that question, if I’m honest about it. I think all our focus and energy has to be on the swift de-escalation, but we have got to plan on the basis that it could go on for some time, and that is the way in which we will plan this afternoon. Since the conflict started, I have been really clear with the team that we must not fall into the false comfort of thinking that there will necessarily be a quick and early end to this; we have to plan on the basis there may not be. A huge amount of focus has been on energy. I can reassure the Committee that we do not have any meaningful concerns about energy supplies. Obviously, the price fluctuates daily. For household energy bills, it is important for me to reiterate that they will be cut because of the measures we took in the Budget last year, and then held until the end of June. I know that many members of the public are asking whether that still holds, even if the conflict goes on, and the answer to that question is yes. So there is comfort there for households. Obviously, fuel duty is held until September. We have been working intensively in the last week or two with fuel suppliers, particularly petrol retailers, to make sure that nobody, but nobody, is profiteering from this. That is why we have said to the CMA that they have got to be all over any price gouging, any attempts to make money. We have taken measures in relation to households that use oil for their heating, which are predominantly in rural communities and quite extensively in places like Northern Ireland, where 68% heat their households by oil. They are the immediate measures. This afternoon we will be looking at a wider set of measures for the economy and specific sectors within the economy, and the Chancellor will make a statement to the House tomorrow. So we will have Cobra later on, which I will chair, and the Chancellor will come to Parliament tomorrow to announce the outcome of the Cobra meeting, so that there can then be questions in Parliament in relation to that.

Thank you.

Thank you for that explanation, Prime Minister. LNG production in the region has been severely damaged already, and reports are that it will take five years to restore the level of production. This will have a profound effect on supply and prices beyond the end of June, unfortunately. How are you factoring those calculations into what support will be needed by consumers and industry?

We are looking at what support can be put in. Obviously, that is subject to further discussion, not least at Cobra this afternoon. It is a little bit early to be too concrete, if I’m honest, because we do not yet know how much longer this is going to go on. We know what is being held with households, and we know that there is already some support for energy-intensive businesses, but I think a lot of businesses will be saying, “Even if we don’t fall within the energy-intensive bracket, is there anything that can be done for us?” I do not have a concrete answer that I can put before you today, but I can assure you that we are looking across the board at what can be done. Whether it is cost of living or the support we need to put in, I want to make sure that we examine all the appropriate levers that we can pull.

Thank you. We will come to that in a moment, but with everything going on in the world it is important that we discuss defence, so Tan Singh Dhesi MP is going to ask some questions.

Prime Minister, we were seeing reports of the US significantly ramping up its military presence around Iran in preparation for an attack, just as it did with Venezuela, but when it started the war, it was embarrassing that we could not muster even a single naval asset around the region. Are you embarrassed?

No, I don’t think that is actually right. During January and February, we could see the build-up. We were working very closely with the US on intelligence, and therefore we pre-deployed quite a lot of assets to the region. Just to reassure you, radar systems were pre-deployed, counter-drone systems were re-deployed, and F-35 jets were deployed in greater numbers than were already there. Ground-based air defence was deployed, 400 extra UK personnel were deployed, and autonomous mine-hunting systems were deployed. So far as HMS Dragon is concerned, it normally takes six weeks for the loading and deployment of the relevant capability on to the Dragon. That was done within six days, with 22-hour working days, with our service personnel and civilian personnel working together. There was a lot of pre-deployment.

I am aware of that, but with all due respect, that is one naval asset. If we look at the wider scene, more than half a billion pounds-worth of submarine maintenance has had to be postponed because of the lack of a dry dock facility. Doesn’t that failure to quickly deploy a Royal Navy asset simply demonstrate yet again how under-resourced and overstretched our armed forces are?

Spending under the last Government was not adequate, and Ben Wallace, the former Defence Secretary, concluded that the armed forces were “hollowed out”. But first let me pay tribute to the work that they do. Let me assure the Committee that they have been working from about an hour or two after this conflict started, with pilots in the air across the region, and they have been working continually—for hundreds of hours—since then. I do not want anything I say to detract from the courageous work they have been doing.

Let me talk about the integrated air and missile defence systems, or the lack thereof. We saw Iran launch a plethora of missiles and drones, including thousands of miles away toward the UK-US military base in Diego Garcia. If Iran or another adversary, such as Russia, were to launch ballistic missiles towards the UK, how would we defend ourselves?

As you will appreciate, we keep this under constant review, and I can assure the Committee of the assessments that we carry out on a constant basis. The two missiles did not reach Diego Garcia, but we are continually monitoring this. The question of integrated air defence systems is hugely important. To update the Committee in relation to our Gulf partners, we have embedded UK airspace battle management specialists into military commands in the region, and we are working with industry to distribute air defence missiles to Gulf partners. We are deploying short-range air defence systems to Bahrain at speed—an issue that came up as a matter of some urgency over the course of this weekend—and we are doing the same with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

It is good to hear what we are doing with allies, but I think the British public will rightly be concerned about our own safety. Forget the golden dome, the platinum dome or any other dome; we have not made any such investments in our own defence. Would you not agree that the public will be concerned about the ability of Russia or another adversary to launch ballistic missiles, and we have no way of defending ourselves?

We constantly assess this, and we have very effective ways of defending ourselves. I do not want to raise levels of public anxiety. People are anxious about what they are already seeing on their television screens, and about the impact it will have on their households, particularly economically; I do not want to increase their anxiety. I can tell you that our military personnel and our security and intelligence services are literally working 24/7 to keep us safe, and they are doing a very good job in that regard.

And we all pay tribute to their bravery. Prime Minister, when will the fabled defence investment plan be published? Do you have a date for us?

We are working hard to finalise it. You will be aware from your Committee’s work that this is the first zero-based review that has ever been undertaken, so it is a huge amount of work. We are finalising it, and we absolutely have to get it right. I want to ensure that anything relevant from this conflict is included within it. We are finalising it—I cannot give you a date, but I can tell you that we are finalising it.

Finally, let me go on to defence spending. I was at the Munich security conference last month, where you intimated that you recognise the level of threat that we face and the urgency of building up our hard power—in your words, that is the “currency of the age”. However, there is a huge difference between rhetoric and reality. Will you chart a path to defence spending being 3% of GDP in this Parliament so that we can get to the agreed NATO target of 3.5% the end of the next Parliament, or by 2035? Is that something you can commit to?

Obviously, we have already committed to 2.5% in 2027, and we will hit that. That means that, in this Parliament, we will spend £270 billion more on defence than we would otherwise have done. We have made the commitment to reach 3% in the next Parliament, and 5% by 2035, which is made up in the way that was agreed at the NATO summit. What I said at the Munich conference was that clearly we have to go further and faster, and I will set out what I mean by that in due course.

One of the things you can do, Prime Minister, is give an indication of future orders, even if they are not funded at this point. Is that something that you are considering?

Yes. Can I just address that in relation to the DIP process and any defence spending—

DIP being the defence investment plan.

Sorry, yes. Nothing we are doing now in considering the DIP is interfering with ongoing orders. You will have seen the Leonardo order go through two or three weekends ago, which was a very important order.

Last week we heard reports that the Type 83 frigate programme could be delayed to plug gaps in the defence budget. Do you recognise that such delays could hamper the momentum that has been building in the shipbuilding industry in recent years?

I do not want delays, and that is why I am insisting that there should not be any delays in the order. It is really important that those orders continue in the way that is expected. Shipbuilding is obviously hugely important in Scotland, and I was very pleased that we got the Norway frigate deal just a few months ago, which will provide at least a decade’s worth of work in Scotland. It also ensures that there is interoperability between our frigates and Norway’s frigates, which is an increasingly important part of the strategic work that we are doing. I went to the Clyde, as you know, to see the workforce there to thank them, and to allow them to see that there is more work in the shipyards for them and for the next generation.

Moving away from BAE, which is partly in my constituency, Babcock at Rosyth is on track to win a £1 billion contract from the Danish navy for Type 31 frigates. Can you tell us how close you think we might be to securing that deal? At a time when the Royal Navy is very stretched, how do we ensure that we get the right balance between exporting frigates and retaining them for domestic use?

We have obviously already done a deal with Indonesia, which is important for Babcock’s Rosyth shipyard. If you will forgive me, I will not go into huge detail on the Danish deal, other than to say that we are working very hard on it, including at leader level. I very much hope we can make progress. It will be on the same strategic basis as the agreement with Norway, and the deal we did with Turkey on Typhoons; there is the question of not just the orders but how we integrate and work strategically with our NATO partners. I am happy to update you privately with further information about the Danish proposal.

How do we ensure the balance between exporting frigates and retaining enough for our own use?

We need both, and we need to get that right, but I cannot stress enough the interoperability. The fact that we and Norway will have the same capability, which means that our service personnel can work on their frigates and their service personnel can work on ours, is a really big step forward. We have all said that Europe needs to step up and do more, and I absolutely subscribe to that. I have argued with Europeans at leader level that that means not just more defence spend, but more co-operation and co-ordination. What I mean by that is having that capability—if we have learned one thing from Ukraine, it is that by having different capabilities over the years, when we have then tried to work together for the benefit of Ukraine, it has been more difficult than it otherwise, in my view, should have been. So I am trying to fix that at the same time.

The Scottish Affairs Committee visited Faslane in autumn 2024 and saw for ourselves the scale of investment needed to maintain the base’s operational readiness. What investment has been made to ensure that the Faslane and Lossiemouth bases can continue to maintain NATO’s defence posture in the High North?

This is kept under constant review, because it is of the first priority. It is my job to ensure that we have the resource necessary in relation to what is the most important deterrent we have. As you know, I have been up there myself for a number of purposes, but not least to welcome back the incoming crew of a submarine. I have to say, it was a very humbling experience. They had been at sea for a very, very long time, not knowing where they were, but working six-hour shifts from the moment they left to the moment they came back. I also spent some time with their families, who were to receive them back early the next morning, to say thank you to the families who, of course, had spent all that time without their loved ones.

Personnel is a key issue, too. What work are you doing with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that we are recruiting at the rate we need? There has been a long-standing issue with lack of personnel for submarines, among other things.

Yes—and thank you for raising that. We are turning around the recruitment and we are now recruiting at a higher rate than was previously the case, and we are holding on to people and retaining people for longer. I have no doubt that the fact that we put in place a pay increase that properly reflected the work they are putting in, and have made commitments when it comes to things like homes and accommodation, are among the reasons for that. They are not the only reasons, but it does matter that people feel valued for the work they are putting in. We are turning that around. I have the figures somewhere, and I am very happy to write to the Committee to provide the details, but the direction of travel on retention and recruitment is now in the right place.

We know that the Defence Select Committee and the Public Accounts Committee have spent some time looking at those issues, so thank you for that answer.

Yes; if there is any information that they need but do not have, I will obviously provide it.

Good afternoon, Prime Minister. On the defence investment plan, with the greatest respect, the idea that the lack of the plan is not holding anything up is utterly ludicrous. Industry is crying out for the certainty it will bring, and the longer it is delayed, the longer the uncertainty exists. How can you create a 10-year plan without the Treasury making the necessary commitments for the necessary levels of spending for the next 10 years? The Treasury will not do that. The Chancellor says it is not on her desk, which means she has said no and sent it back to the Ministry of Defence. How are you going to resolve this?

It is my job to resolve it. I want to make sure that the investment we need is going in, and that it is sustained over a 10-year period, in accordance with the strategic review. I want to get that right. What I do not want to do is to set out commitments without being absolutely clear where the money is coming from. Of course we need to take the time to get that right, and of course it is not easy. There was a lack of investment over many, many years. I think that is palpable, and everybody now accepts that the last Government did not invest anything like enough in our defence. We are picking that up and turning it around. What I am not going to do is put out a plan when I cannot explain exactly how it will be funded. We are finalising that; we are nearly there. It is my job to resolve it, and resolve it I will.

You clearly have not communicated the necessary urgency to the Treasury, who need to come up with the money. At Cobra this afternoon, you might just ask the question: why does the Treasury not seem to realise we are already at war and we need to be in a warfighting mentality to deal with the emergencies we are facing?

I appreciate that, and that is why it is important that we are clear where the money is coming from, but because of the significant underfunding of the last Government, we have to make sure that we get this right. To be perfectly honest, the zero‑based review has thrown up all sorts of practices in the MOD that have gone on for years—overcommitment, underfunding and nothing done on time. On all of that, I have said I want the slate wiped clean; I am not going on like that any more. The plan we are coming up with deals with, yes, the strategic plan, but I am also clearing up the mess that I have inherited, because we cannot go on in this way. When I opened the books and saw the way this had been done for years, I needed to change it, and that is what I am doing. Q22        Sir Bernard Jenkin: Prime Minister, by all means take your party political swipes. I have here a paper produced by me and a Labour MP, Derek Twigg, on the Defence Committee, with a foreword by Lord Robertson. We are all agreed that the Government is not on a war footing and needs to be, very quickly. Why is it not on a war footing now?

The strategic review commits us to a war footing, and we now need to put the funding in place to get there. I have already announced the increase in defence spending to 2.5%; that did not happen under the last Government, and at the election a credible proposition was not put forward by your party. I am going to do this, and I am going to do it properly, and I want to be able to explain to Parliament where the money is coming from.

It sounds as though you are at peace while we are actually at war.

With respect, I am clearing up the mess that I inherited from the last Government, and I am doing that as quickly as possible.

I dare say Winston Churchill had a bit of mess to clear up from the previous Government; Margaret Thatcher had a bit of a mess to clear up from the previous Government. We are now facing an emergency, so why were we so unready to defend Cyprus?

We have a lot of defensive capability in Cyprus, as you know, including air capability. I have been constantly talking to the Cypriots about this; I was on the phone yet again to the President on Saturday at some great length. His assessment—the same as my assessment—is that our two military teams are working as closely as they have ever worked now, and we are absolutely determined to do everything we need to do to defend Cyprus. That is what I discussed with him at some length—not for the first time in recent weeks—on Saturday morning.

We could not even stop a 150 mph drone from getting through to hit a sovereign base in Cyprus. That means we were unprepared. The very fact that you immediately wanted to send a destroyer meant you had failed to anticipate the need to defend Cyprus with a destroyer. This smacks of a lack of warfighting mentality that reaches right across Government, which is what we address in this paper on warfighting readiness, which is not where we are at. The chiefs of staff are saying we need to be ready for war, so when are we going to be prepared, and for what?

We are finalising the investment plan. That sits with the strategic defence review.

This smacks of an enormous complacency.

This smacks of the fact that for years there was under-investment by the last Government and the stripping out and hollowing out of our armed forces—

You have had 18 months to deal with that. The Prime Minister—copyright Ben Wallace, who was the First Secretary—

I am not making a party political point, because I agree—

Honestly, with 14 years of under-investment, 18 months of a Labour Government—

Take drones for example—

We are picking up the under-investment of your Government.

The whole concept of warfighting has changed in the last 12 months.

I understand that.

I was in Ukraine very recently, and the Ukrainian armed forces are mystified and want to offer help—as they are offering help to the Gulf states, to NATO frontline states and to the NATO JEF—about how to prepare for drone warfare. This is being held up by the lack of the defence industrial plan.

No, it is not. I had President Zelensky in last week; I speak to him very regularly. He was in last week for some time, and I spoke exactly about this to him. I have been to Kyiv on a number of occasions to see their capability for myself. We are putting in backfill to that, working with them on industrial capability to produce drones with them. I discussed this very issue with him last week, and just for the record, he did not say that anything that they want to do is being held up by anything the UK is doing; on the contrary, he sees us as their foremost ally, and I am very pleased that we have been able to achieve that, on a cross-party basis.

How many defence reviews do you think took place during the second world war?

Well, I don’t know off the top of my head, but I know that I have one in front of me—

The answer is none. When you are at war, you get on with it; you don’t wait around for a plan.

The words “defence”, “review” and “plan”—in whatever order you want to put them—have been in many documents during my time in Parliament, for sure.

Prime Minister, I do not want into the party political debate about who hollowed out when and what the previous Government did. Given the urgency of the situation, I am interested in what this Government is doing in the here and now to produce that defence investment plan. You will recall that, during the last meeting of the Liaison Committee, you said it would be coming very, very soon. It was promised by the autumn of last year; we are now at the end of March. Will the defence investment plan be produced before the purdah period, and is it on your desk?

Yes, and we are finalising it, but I am absolutely determined that I will make commitments with appropriate funding that I can be sure is there. I will not make commitments without being clear where the funding is coming from. That is what has gone on for years, and that is why we are in the mess that we are in. I am not going to repeat that.

To be clear, it is on your desk, and you are now in a position—

I am working on finalising it.

It is in Number 10. We heard from the Chancellor the other week that it was not on her desk.

It is obviously cross-departmental, as you will appreciate.

Yes, but it has gone to you.

I am actively engaged in the process, and determined that we will get this right.

That is very helpful news; thank you.

Prime Minister, we recently had a very good discussion in Committee with a number of very innovative SMEs and start-up companies. They expressed to us a frustration about not being able to get on to a list of contractors, a list of tenderers, and wondered how they might do that. Can you reassure them that there is a space for them if they are successful in doing this, and that their new and innovative ideas will be taken seriously?

Yes, let me reassure them. Very many SMEs can and do contribute towards the spending on defence, and it is very important that they do. We have set up a special scheme to support them in doing that. That was put in place some months ago, but now that you have raised this again, we will refresh it, make sure they all know about it and can access it, and see if we can do anything more. It is really important that businesses of all sizes—not just the main, big defence businesses—are contributing to what we need to do.

Your cost of living champion, Richard Walker, wrote in The Sunday Times yesterday that there should be a short-term intervention by the Government to prevent profiteering in the short term from surging oil and fuel prices. Are you going to follow his advice?

I have just seen him to say we need to discuss those proposals urgently together. We are looking at measures to deal with profiteering. I have already asked the CMA to look at this, and we might look at what further teeth we can give the CMA to deal with it. I think there is not enough regulation in this area, and I want to see more. On price gouging and profiteering, we absolutely need to bear down on that, so we are actively considering whether the CMA should have additional powers to deal specifically with it. But at the moment we are making sure they are focused on anti-profiteering steps they can take now.

One of the reasons for asking the question is that it cost £40 billion to support energy bills in 2022. Preventing excess profiteering might be one way of supporting consumers. Are you considering targeted support this time, rather than the universal offer, given how expensive it was last time?

Again, we are looking this afternoon at the approach we might take. I am acutely aware of how much it cost last time round, and I am acutely aware of the state of the public finances, but we will look this afternoon at what the appropriate approach is. There are difficulties, in that we do not yet know the extent of the challenge we are facing, because we do not know when this conflict will come to an end, but we are actively looking at what measures we can put in place.

That, of course, is true. You said earlier, a couple of times, that you do not want to alarm people, but people can see the prices going up at the pumps now, and they can see it if they are on heating oil. People want answers now, Prime Minister.

We are looking at what support we can put in, and as soon as we are able to answer the question of what exactly that looks like, we will make it clear. Obviously, in the first instance, we are looking at what happens when the current price cap ends, which is the end of June. We are equally focused on the one after that, because the June to September/October period is when only about 7% of energy is used within household; it is after that when it gets very heavy. So we are looking at the end of June, but also ahead to the September/October position, when the percentage of energy being used goes up considerably, for obvious reasons.

Thank you. We touched on industry earlier in one of your answers. The Chemical Industries Association wrote to you on 3 March and pointed out that chemical production in the UK was down 40% between 2021 and 2024, and that this has a lot to do with the crisis of that time. Chemical production is crucial to all sectors of the economy, including to our defence industries. Will you look at what the chemical industry is asking? At the moment, they are not a part of some of what the Government is proposing to do to support our heavy industry.

Yes. We are prepared to look across the board, but I do not want to give the impression to the Committee that we can simply put in any support to any sector, to the extent that every sector will necessarily want. That is why we need to look carefully at what is possible, but we will obviously look at the chemical sector, for the reasons you have set out.

Turning to energy infrastructure, you have plans and there have been decisions on nuclear. But if we go back, as a lesson, France’s response to some of the oil price shocks of the 1970s and beyond was to invest in nuclear. At the time, the UK did not follow that path. We now have Sizewell C and the SMR programme, and these are big steps forward. What the industry is asking for is a commitment to a fleet approach to a long-term supply chain of production. Can you make that commitment and give that certainty, given how important nuclear is going to be?

Yes. I think it is really important, so let me give that certainty. That is why we have got the SMR programme, and we have identified a number of places where we will take forward those projects. Obviously, one of them is up in north Wales, and Scotland could well be one of them—if the SNP would remove their veto, we could have that in Scotland as well and would actively consider it. But it is part of the future. The other thing that is very important is that, if you look at the Ukraine conflict, the 12-day war and what is happening in Iran now, I am absolutely convinced that we need to go further and faster on renewables. The longer we are on the fossil fuel international market, the more we are susceptible to changes in energy prices—rapid changes, as we have seen in the last few weeks. The sooner we get on to home-grown renewables, where we have control over the price and proper energy security, the better. That is one of our major missions in Government. It is the right thing to do, and recent weeks have shown that, rather than slowing down, we should go faster.

Yes, and for consumers to be able to take advantage of it, it is going to be really important—this is what my Committee hears again and again—that the price of electricity is brought down, so that people can afford to make that change. At the moment, electricity is more than four times the price of gas, which makes it very difficult to make that switch. Will you take the action needed to close the gap between electricity and gas prices?

Yes. I have been looking at specifically how we can do that, for reasons that you will understand. We need to bring the price of electricity down, and we will. There are a number of possible ways of doing that, but we will do it. The fact that we have got more renewables now than we had at the outbreak of the Ukraine war has helped us a bit in responding in recent weeks. That shows you the potential if we were able to go further and faster on renewables and actually get control over our own energy prices. All the time we are on the international market, as soon as there is a conflict, the same thing happens: prices go up, we cannot control that, and households and businesses are then at the mercy of the markets. We have to get off that system; we have to get to renewables more quickly.

One of the challenges with more use of electricity is the state of the grid, which is another big project on your desk. Can you tell us anything about your plans for that? It is a very long-term programme.

You are absolutely right. When I came into politics in 2015, I never thought I would spend so much of my time talking about the grid, but it is vitally important—again, under-invested in for years. We are making real progress now. We have a new chair of the Grid, as you may know, and we are working on the entire infrastructure, but also how you can do localised support for plugging into the grid. It is one of the most important things, but we are working at speed on that. I am very happy to write to the Committee setting out fuller details of the work that we are doing, but also where we want to take this to.

Some of the local stuff that has been going on has been very helpful to people, where that works. There are still some structural issues, but I will leave that for now and bring in Jamie Stone MP.

Good afternoon, Prime Minister. Apropos of what you have just been talking about, out in the North sea, we have the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields, which are huge resources of oil and gas. They are massive and hugely important to this country. Can I suggest to you that we can achieve net zero simultaneously with utilising this strategic asset, particularly in view of the international situation and of what you said about being in control of our own energy prices?

First, you are absolutely right: oil and gas will be part of the mix for many years to come. It is really important that we are clear about that and that we support the oil and gas that is already being brought out in huge quantities. In November last year, we introduced the tiebacks, which is the opportunity to extract further from existing fields or adjacent fields. We are working at speed on that. In relation to Jackdaw and Rosebank, there is a statutory process around that, which is quasi-judicial. That is the process that is being operated and has to be operated in a particular way. That is a quasi-judicial decision for the Secretary of State to make, not a Government decision to make, but oil and gas will be part of the mix for a long time to come. I would add, though, that unfortunately that does not get us off the international market. The only thing that gets us truly off the international market is renewables, but we recognise that it has to be a mix. It is a mix and it needs to continue to be a mix as we go forward.

But Prime Minister, Rosebank remains an enormous strategic resource. I started my working life in the oil and gas sector. There are thousands of people out there who have made their livelihoods through this. What would be your message to be those people? Are we with them?

Yes, absolutely. First, we say thank you to them for the work they have done over decades to supply the energy that we have needed, and the work that they will be doing for many years to come to provide the energy that we need, but alongside that, we need to make sure that we are doing the work on renewables. I think there are a lot of transferable skills from the oil and gas sector to renewables, and we should make that link.

Finally, you have been talking about the nuclear industry. Surely, strategically, a network of small modular reactors all over the UK makes sense, including Scotland. It seems to me an utter nonsense that the Scottish Government can stop this. Can you reassure me that every tool at your disposal—at the Government’s disposal—will be used to make sure that this actually happens? It would be so welcomed in places like my constituency, my colleague Patricia Ferguson’s constituency and other parts of Scotland.

Yes—I completely agree with your analysis. We need SMRs across the whole of the United Kingdom in a strategic way. That is what we are putting in place for the other parts of the United Kingdom. It is only the veto of the SNP Government that is stopping us going as far as we want in Scotland. I urge them again to look at this, because it makes complete sense to have an SMR in Scotland. We would be prepared to look at that straight away, if it were not for the SNP blocking it. If I am urging them on that front, I also urge them to take a more open approach to defence projects, because there is a huge amount of defence work—good, skilled defence work—in Scotland. We want to put more of that into Scotland, but we are being held up by the SNP who, for ideological reasons, both on SMRs and on defence, are not taking action that is actually in the best interests of working people in Scotland.

Why do the Government not do what Professor Sir Dieter Helm recommends, which is to issue North sea licences for gas production on a conditional basis, on the basis that the gas is brought ashore, maybe against a contract for difference, but at a different price than we would buy it on the world stage? That is perfectly possible, but the Government seem to have an ideological bias against exploiting our own natural gas resources.

No, that is not true—

Well then why not get on with it?

Let the Prime Minister speak.

Decisions have to be made in accordance with the law, and the law sets out the process—

But this is an emergency now.

Sir Bernard, you asked the question. Prime Minister.

I appreciate that, but there is a legislative framework in place that has to be complied with, and simply breaking the law without changing it—

Pass a new law.

We need to operate within the law as it is at the moment and do everything we can to make sure that we have the energy we need.

The biggest threat to business right now is from spiking gilt prices that are driving up interest rates. They are rising in part due to the expectation of a costly energy subsidy for businesses and households. Is it not now time to grasp the nettle and shift the policy costs of transition off electricity bills and on to the general taxpayer, so that we end the pressure on bills at the moment, which is frankly crucifying our industry?

First, I totally agree that it is inflation that we need to keep our eye on. I am really pleased that inflation was coming down at the spring statement and predicted to come down further. Obviously, I am concerned about the impact of recent weeks. Where exactly the cost is put—whether on bills or the taxpayer—has been a lively discussion for some time in politics. Wherever it is put, there is obviously a burden in terms of how you raise the money and how it is done.

Is it not now time to bring that discussion to a close, and take a decision that is in the interests of our manufacturers and small businesses? Small businesses will see an increase in their standing charges of 40% kicking in in April, and Make UK is saying that we need to bring forward the electricity discount scheme from next year to this year. Industry is crying out now, at a time when growth is already under pressure.

I think that we need to keep all this under review and active consideration, and we are. Even if it is shifted to general taxation, it is still, in the end, taxation on individuals and businesses, so the cost does not go away; it simply gets moved somewhere else. There is no straightforward, cost-free way of doing this, but I certainly agree with you that we should always look at whether the balance is in the right place.

Do you think that we can bring that decision to a conclusion soon, one way or the other?

There are pros and cons either way, as you know, and we keep it under review.

I want to turn quickly to the economic security that underpins our national security. Right now, do you think that the Government are being clear enough with business, which needs to invest long term, about the sovereign capabilities we need in this country in these new times?

I think we have, but we need to do more, because the more sovereign capability we have, the better, as far as I am concerned. In the medium and long term, we have seen more investment coming in in the last 18 months than we have seen for a considerable period, particularly with foreign investment into the country, but sovereign capability is really important, and I do not think that we have done enough of it in the past—

Then will you revisit the decision made by Ministers a couple of weeks ago to not publish a list of sovereign capabilities? We are expecting businesses to be psychic at the moment and guess what we will build, what we will buy and, crucially, what we will safeguard against investment from China.

Yes. I will have a look at what was said the other week.

We need an industrial policy.

We have an industrial strategy that focuses on eight sectors.

Just to give you an example of the confusion that bedevils us at the moment, as recently as last year we were saying that we absolutely needed primary steelmaking capabilities as a sovereign capability. We all came back here on a Saturday to put through the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill, and we spent £400 million keeping blast furnaces open. When the steel strategy came out, it said that there is no long-term guarantee to keep the blast furnaces open, so you can see how industry is getting a little bit confused now—and where there is confusion, they are not going to invest in the way that we need to over the medium to long term.

I understand that, and the steel strategy has been broadly welcomed, but it is important that we can produce steel in this country in the way we need it in this country. As you know, that was one of the reasons we recalled Parliament on that Saturday about a year ago—not just because of the jobs in Scunthorpe, but because of the capability and the capacity as well.

One of the ways that we can strengthen the security of our defence industrial base is by joining the European Partnership on defence procurement—SAFE—and co-ordinating our defence policy more generally. You have a summit coming up with President von der Leyen. Is joining SAFE going to be on the agenda? What is your confidence level in getting it done?

It will certainly be on the agenda. I think what we may see is the next stage of SAFE or the next iteration of SAFE. It was disappointing that we were not involved at the first stage. I think a number of our partners in Europe think it was disappointing. We have had quite intensive discussions about how we can improve on that as we go forward. As we head towards that summit, it will be one of the issues of discussion. It already is one of the issues of discussion in many of the conversations I have with my counterparts in the EU.

How do we co-ordinate those discussions with Europe to help safeguard against coercion from China, restrictions on rare earths, for example, and dumping by over-subsidised Chinese firms in a way that will destroy our wind industry and the European wind industry? How do we tighten the economic security arrangements with Europe?

It is very important that we do, and we are co-ordinating. The discussions with EU leaders on all those issues are intense. Where we can act together, we should act together, because it is in our joint interests to do so, whether that is steel, critical materials or other areas where there is a threat both to the EU and to the UK. The levels of co-operation and discussion in the last 18 months are in a completely different place from anything since the referendum, quite frankly.

Just coming back to the point about industrial energy costs, policy costs for industry are up to 60% of the bill, which is significantly higher than it is for consumers. The point made again by the chemicals sector—not just by the chemicals sector—is that the danger is we reduce our emissions and decarbonise, not by the transition that you were talking about, but by deindustrialisation and the closure of our industry. It is very difficult for our industrial strategy to succeed if we do not have an industry, Prime Minister.

I agree, and that is why we need to put support in and work with the chemical sector or other sectors to ensure that we retain the capability in this country, and that is what I want to do.

On SAFE, why is the Polish President, Karol Nawrocki, submitting a Bill to his Parliament to get out of having to take a loan from SAFE on the basis that he has worked out it would cost twice as much to pay back as if they just borrowed that money themselves and spent it on their own defence?

I don’t know.

Could I suggest you look into that? Because I think gift horses and mouths might be—

I think the Prime Minister has been alerted to that.

Just to reassure you and the Committee, on SAFE we are having intensive discussions about how we can be involved.

But we want to avoid spending money in Europe, and we need to spend it on our own defence—

I appreciate that. We will always act—

Which is why we stayed out in the first place.

The reason we stayed out was because of the entry cost. But we need to look at where the benefit is to the United Kingdom. That is the sole prism through which I look at this.

Thank you, Prime Minister. It is getting quite warm in here, so feel free to take off your jackets—including you, Prime Minister, if you need to. I think they have not turned the heating off yet and the weather has got warm.

Prime Minister, let me start by emphasising the support that I have found in Newcastle for your continuing position of resisting further involvement in the war on Iran. Now, following Liam’s points about your economic security priorities, you recently announced significant investment in quantum and AI, each of which is a huge, diverse sector. How are you choosing the targeted strategic bets necessary to deliver long-term British competitive advantage and meaningful technology sovereignty?

Both quantum and AI are really important. I think they are going at slightly different paces. On AI, we have already started some of the work; we have had an AI action plan in place since January last year, most of which has been completed, but the AI growth zones are really important to us as well. We have identified AI growth zones where we can go at speed, including two in Wales and one in Scotland along with various other places. With AI we have looked at where we can have a competitive advantage. We are already one of the top countries in the world and have incredible facilities and resource in relation to AI. We need to make sure that we retain that advantage globally and AI growth zones are vital to that.

You are choosing to support AI through the growth zones. In terms of quantum, you have chosen quantum computing to focus on. I am not clear how you are making those choices. How does UK Research and Innovation’s decision to cut nuclear physics research programmes fit into that?

The assessment was that it would not cut across what we want to do with either quantum or AI. None of these decisions are easy, but that was the assessment that was taken in relation to that particular decision.

The digital battlefield is here, in Ukraine and in Iran. A US company, Palantir, is at the heart of our digital defence. Are you concerned that we are too reliant on AI, quantum and/or drone capabilities provided by private foreign companies that do not share our values or might even be closely allied with our adversaries?

All these contracts go through a very careful process. When it comes to things such as drones, I want to increase our domestic capability. The lesson from Ukraine is that drone warfare has changed considerably in four short years. I started going to Kyiv at the beginning of the conflict and have been constantly since. The rate of development for drones—the number and capability—is huge. I have been very struck during my last two visits by the development of drones. We need to be centrally part of that here. We are now co-producing with the Ukrainians—which is what I was discussing with President Zelensky last week. That is to their advantage, but it is also very much to our advantage.

It is good that we are learning from Ukraine on drones. However, I mentioned Palantir. That defence contract was not publicly tendered. Equally, Palantir is at the heart of the NHS, local government, and financial regulation, while Amazon Web Services and Microsoft have 70% of UK cloud between them. The US Government has significant powers over those companies’ supply chains and, critically, the data that they store—even if they store it here in the UK. Are we not dangerously over-reliant on a small number of US companies for our civil technology infrastructure, and does that not undermine UK tech and constrain our policy independence more widely?

I do not think that we are over-reliant, but I certainly take up the challenge you put to me that we need to have more domestic capability. I think we have got the ability to do so if we move at pace and I want us to move at pace because that is obviously a preferred position to be in.

Just how are we making those decisions? When you say “move at pace”, do you have a strategy for identifying the sovereign capabilities that have been talked about specifically in technology?

Yes. On the AI action plan, for example, we have specific measures on tech more generally. At the state visit last year, we reached a really important tech agreement with the US on how we work together with them. That involves more UK capability, and we have had a record investment of £150 billion coming in from the US to the UK at that state visit.

I was very impressed by that, but I am not sure that further US investment in the UK actually drives UK technology capability. I want to come to how we support new technology investment across Europe. At the Munich security conference, you berated our European allies for having 10 types of main battle tank, while the US only has one. You said it was inefficient, and I think you were right. However, you pointedly did not call on all of Europe to adopt, for example, the US Abrams tank. Does the logic of what you said at Munich not mean that for AI and cloud, we should be working with the European Union to develop safe, ethical European capability instead of being so reliant on that less than reliable ally, President Trump of America?

The point I was making at the Munich security conference was that we have lots of different capabilities in Europe: lots of different tanks, frigates—it does not matter what you pick. The Americans tend to have gone for one product. I believe that as we increase and step up on security and defence, which of course includes technology, as that is part of it these days, we should co-ordinate and collaborate more closely with our European partners on this. I certainly agree with that. That is why the deals we are trying to do now are more strategic in that sense than they have been in the past; the same needs to happen in other capabilities. But defence and security are not about just frigates, aircraft, vessels and so on; it is, of course, about energy and technology.

I am very glad to hear that you are looking more strategically at collaborating with the European Union on technology capability, particularly around AI. Prime Minister, we both campaigned against Brexit—I remember marching next to you—but I think we also recognise the public anger towards the European Union, which was driven in part by a sense that we had lost our sovereignty, or part of it, to the EU. Are you concerned that the British people would have a similar reaction to a loss of sovereignty to US tech giants?

I do not want to reopen old wounds when it comes to the Brexit vote.

No, and I do not want you to.

We all voted and I respect the outcome of that vote, but I do not accept that it means we have to operate in the way we did under the last Government—not having a particularly good deal with the EU, and not co-ordinating when it is in our interest to do so. That is why we reset the relationship at the UK-EU summit last year, and we have another summit coming up this year. Obviously, we have had a decades-long relationship with the US when it comes to defence, security and intelligence. That is hugely important for our country and should not be underestimated. I still firmly believe that we can have both that relationship with the US and a stronger relationship with the EU, and that the constant demands on me to choose one or the other are wrong. When it comes to defence, security and intelligence, having both relationships is what has kept us safe for 80-plus years, and we hold that very closely and very dear.

Thank you very much, Prime Minister. It is unfortunate but inevitable that big international crises like that in Iran sometimes knock other, existing crises off the front pages. We want to spend a moment on talking about some of the other issues around the world.

Good afternoon, Prime Minister. The Attorney General has said that the UK wants to play its role in ensuring compliance with international law and the rules-based system; he will be making another speech on that this afternoon, I believe. On that issue, we know that there has been condemnation—from UN human rights experts, for example—of the unprovoked military attack on Iran by the US and Israel, with some saying that it violates article 2 of the UN charter—notwithstanding the fact that Iran is a corrupt and oppressive regime. Could you expand on the response you gave to Liam Byrne earlier and tell us what specifically you are doing with international allies to resolve and de-escalate this crisis? Could you also give us the particular nuances of the leadership you are showing on this? We know that you have a significant leadership role on Ukraine, and it would be useful to understand your leadership on this as well.

On Iran, the principle I have applied throughout is that for there to be any UK action, there must be a lawful basis and a viable and thought-through plan. That is why we did not join the original offensive strikes. It is also why we took collective self-defensive action on our own behalf, in the work we are doing with our allies in the region to take out missiles coming from Iran, and why we allowed our bases to be used for the purpose of collective self-defence. But there is an important division: for collective self-defence, yes, and we have taken appropriate action, but this is not our war and we are not getting dragged into it. That is the divide that I have kept very firmly in place. Obviously, there has been a cross-party consensus on supporting Ukraine for, sadly, four-plus years now. We have been very clear throughout that the aggressor is Russia. This Ukraine conflict could end tomorrow if the aggressor stopped the aggression, and we must not lose sight of that. There are different considerations there. We have pulled together the coalition of the willing under the leadership of myself and President Macron, with Chancellor Merz now playing an increasingly important part. That is a coalition of countries that are committed to providing security guarantees in the event of a ceasefire in Ukraine. That is the sort of principled approach that I have taken to the Iran conflict and the Ukrainian conflict.

Do you not see parallels in how the current conflict could be de-escalated?

In the current conflict, we are working with others on how we de-escalate. There are a number of aspects to that. Specifically on the straits of Hormuz, we managed to get a statement of the so-called E4 countries out last Thursday, which the UK did a lot of work leading on. Plus, Japan, Canada, Australia and other countries have now joined that, so it is becoming a bigger group of countries that are committed to working on de-escalation as far as the straits are concerned, which is hugely important for our economy. More generally, we do need to de-escalate, and that is why I welcome the development on talks and indicate that we were aware that that was happening. We are working with others to see how we can develop that to a point of de-escalation. It is very important that we get to that.

The Attorney General said that the UN is “a beacon of hope” in maintaining our rules-based system, but for millions of Palestinians, UNRWA is their beacon of hope, helping to keep them alive. The outgoing UNRWA commissioner general said at the weekend: “It is incomprehensible that a UN entity has been allowed to be crushed as Unrwa has, in violation of international law, with total impunity, and with staff and Palestinian communities paying an unacceptable price.” What is the UK doing with like-minded allies to ensure that international law is being upheld, and that UNRWA and the other 37 INGOs can continue to provide humanitarian aid to Palestinians?

I do think the UN is really important, as I think the rules-based system is really important. When we call out Russia as the aggressor in Ukraine, we are doing so on the basis of the charter, and that is part of the rules of the rules-based system. Anybody who says Russia is the aggressor is necessarily reinforcing the rules-based system as set out in the charter. In answer to your question about what we can do, I think it is important that the UK does continue to play a leading role in this. I was pleased with the ceasefire in Gaza, although it has not led to the cessation of all hostilities, and certainly the west bank is a cause for concern. The UN aid needs to get in in greater volume with greater urgency, and the UN needs to be involved in that. That is the case that we continue to make, and it is a really important part of what we need to do to ensure that that ceasefire holds.

The International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion in July 2024 ruled that Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is unlawful and must end, including the cessation of all new settlements. Last month, the French joined nine other European states, as well as many Arab nations, to condemn the sweeping extensions to unlawful Israeli settlements over the west bank. This is imminent, Prime Minister. As much as we recognised a Palestinian state last September, the viability of a Palestinian state is seriously jeopardised by this unlawful action that we have currently failed to do anything about. That is followed by the German Chancellor, who last week called the disastrous E1 settlement “annexation moves” and said that Europe must unite to tell Israel to stop. I appreciate that we have also said that these are unlawful settlements, but will you work with the French, German and others on tangible action, including issuing a joint statement saying that any potential bidder of E1 tenders will put their business interests at risk in the UK and other countries opposed to these unlawful actions?

Let me just unpack and deal with those points. First, the recognition decision last year was really important. You will know that the timing and co-ordinating of that with others was really important, in my view. I have always believed that working with other countries at the same time helps and can help create the conditions for what then followed, which was the ceasefire. I am not saying that it was the sole cause, but it certainly helped to create the conditions, in relation to the reaction of others. The occupation is unlawful; that has been the long-standing policy position of the Government, and we are always working with others on this and related issues.

Prime Minister, I appreciate exactly what you are saying, but in December we had the deregistration of 37 international humanitarian organisations, against international law. We had the announcement on 31 December of the expansion of the E1 settlement development, jeopardising the two-state solution. As yet, we have not done anything about it. The board of peace has morphed from what the UN Security Council agreed to—

Prime Minister.

I say again that the occupation is unlawful, and any expansion of it necessarily so. That has been the consistent position of the Government, and I can—

Can I press you on what we will do? Will we issue a statement?

We are working with others, and I will very happily send you further details of what we are doing so you can see the full extent.

Prime Minister, can I build on Debbie’s point? I have been really shocked at the rapid rate of expansion of the unlawful settlements, so I am really grateful for the sanctions that this Government have put on the worst offenders. I have become very interested in procurement and supply chain transparency, as it seems a very elegant way to deal with some problems. Is there any opportunity for you to look at the legislation around goods that are coming out of the illegal settlements, and label them as such in the UK, so that consumers can make an informed choice and we can basically reward good behaviour?

I think it is important that we obviously say what our position is in principle and then take appropriate action. We are always looking at what action is appropriate, and I am very happy to write to you to set out what we have done and what may be possible as we go forward.

Again, I am really pleased and proud that you have made tackling violence against women and girls a priority in the UK. Is it also your intention to have it as a priority internationally?

Yes, I think it is really important that we do. Obviously, we have had to take difficult decisions in relation to overseas development aid but, within that, we have had to be really clear what our priorities are. Obviously, here in the UK, halving violence against women and girls is one of our missions; it is a really important one politically and to me personally. That also has to be a priority when it comes to what we are doing internationally, and of course there is always a correlation between the two in any event.

Are you able to do anything to push back against the challenge—if I call it that—of the anti-gender movement, and the backsliding on both women’s and girls’ rights but also LGBT rights? I am also thinking of anti-abortion and anti-maternal health movements. Is there anything that you are able to do on the international stage around that?

I think it is important that we stand up for our principles. On violence against women and girls, I think it is hugely important that we continue our work. We are a long way, internationally—and domestically—from where we need to be, and we need to bear down on it all the time. I am still shocked by the statistics in this country on the sheer number of women who are killed by a partner or ex-partner—a figure that has not changed for many, many years—and the shocking number of women and girls who do not feel that they have the confidence to come forward to report what has happened to them, or confidence in the ability of our criminal justice system, as it is, to get them the justice they need. Internationally, what we need to do with other partners—

I am thinking, for example, that the US has basically put a gagging clause on any agency—state agencies as well as charities—that are working with sexual and reproductive health rights, so it is challenging that when you are at the table with those people.

We will always stand up for our principles.

Thank you. Projects in Sudan, Somalia and Tunisia that were previously described by FCDO as essential to counter the rise of violence and extremism are now being cut. The integrated security fund is a cross-Government pot of money and tackling threats to national security is its priority. That is being cut by 43% and part of that is closing the stand-alone gender and national security portfolio. You say that you are cutting aid and the money is going to support defence, but I wonder now if you reflect on that and actually realise that foreign aid was part of our defence?

As I said at the time, no Labour Government wants to cut overseas development aid, but we had to answer the question: how we will pay for the increase in defence spending to 2.7%?

I view foreign aid as an early intervention arrangement.

I do absolutely understand and respect that. I think it has, in a way, forced us to look again at how we work on the question of overseas development. I think there is a shift with other countries; they want to see the relationship change from donor to investor. There are lots of reasonably good models; I think we need to go further and faster on those and work them up at pace. I do think that, in addition to saying that we want to get back to more spend on overseas development when we can, we should—

Is it still your priority to get back to more spend on overseas development?

Yes, when resources permit, but I do not want to waste the years—or however long—in between because I do think that we can get donations and investment in in a different way. I think that model is beginning to work; you saw examples, such as that of COP. Some of the work that Prince William is doing is championing that way of getting investment in. That then can come alongside an increase in overseas development aid, if and when we can afford it.

That comes beautifully into my last question. You will have heard today the warning from the UN that basically there is now more CO2 in the air than in the last 2 million years. We see in our oceans and on land the consequence of that. Your Government are cutting £6 billion from the international climate finance fund; will you reconsider that?

We are committed to what we need to do on climate finance. We have had to look at what we can spend on overseas development aid, but it does not lessen the commitment on this. That is among the reasons why I went to COP: to show our commitment on this and to work with others. At COP, we were looking—and we are actively looking—at other funding mechanisms than simply putting in public money in the way that has been done up until now. I do genuinely believe there is good progress there and there is potential for even more progress if we keep working in that way.

Good afternoon, Prime Minister. Can I just mop up one or two of the international law points? We have seen very little published by the Government on the legal basis for the current conflict in the middle east—less than has happened with less serious and less complex crises previously. Given the number of countries involved, the different positions that they are taking, and the constant 180° changes of view by the US President, which can go from, “It’s about to finish” one day to, “It’s about to intensify” the next, or to, “It’s already finished”, can we not have what we have had in previous conflicts—obviously not a Government legal opinion, but a summary of what the Government’s position is on these very complex issues?

We have published a summary of the legal basis for the use of our bases by the US, which is collective self-defence. As far as I know, nobody has challenged that legal basis or said the analysis is wrong. I think I am right in saying—I will be corrected if I am not—that the summary very much mirrors what the previous Government did when they were taking action. I looked again at the way in which they summarised their position before agreeing the way in which we would summarise the position in relation to these acts.

There was one very short statement on 1 March and a clarification on 20 March in relation to the strait of Hormuz. There are 10 to a dozen countries that have been subject to hostilities from Iran, and there is Israeli action in Lebanon and in the west bank. That is all going on around the main conflict there. Surely the Government are able to say what their view is in relation to the international law aspects of those conflicts?

There are two different things. The first is publishing the legal basis of the actions that we take. That is important; that is why we have done the summary. In the past, the Government has not, for good reason, tended to do legal summaries of the actions of other Governments. What we have done is to continue to make sure that, where we propose to take action, we have set out why we are doing it and what the lawful basis for that action is. The basis for the decision in relation to the straits of Hormuz was the same legal basis as the decision taken earlier, which was the collective self-defence of our allies and, of course, of our own interest and our own people.

The UK has been very clear over the years, ever since UN Security Council Resolution 242, which is nearly 60 years ago now, on the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. We were clear on that with regard to Ukraine. We now have that happening in Palestine, in Syria and in Lebanon as well. What is the Government doing to uphold those principles in relation to the middle east?

The lawfulness underpins all of the principles and policy decisions that we take, and it is important that that continues to be the case. It is important that we champion the UN and the rules-based system; it is hugely to the advantage of the United Kingdom.

But there always seems to be in relation to middle east conflicts a difference between the basic principle—what the Attorney General is talking about tonight, on the rules-based order—and the practicality of that. For example, in relation to the west bank, your Middle East Minister said on 3 March, “We will consider concrete steps in accordance with international law to counter the expansion” of illegal settlements, but we never seem to hear what that concrete action is going to be. There will be statements or condemnations, but nothing going beyond that.

There has been action going beyond that, but I am very happy to update you or the Committee—whichever is appropriate—on what further measures have been taken, or might be taken.

I do not think you fully answered my colleague on E1. That is the crucial issue on settlements at the moment. Equally—we always bring this up at these sessions, but I make no apology for that—there is the ICJ opinion. If the Government is not going to respond to that after almost two years, could it just put us out of our misery and say that?

It is under consideration and that remains the position.

This is my last question. Given that there are many violations of international law taking place around the world, which is undermining the rules-based international order, do you agree that the UK should not be a safe haven for those who have committed international crimes? I assume your answer to that is going to be yes.

Yes.

It would be strange if it was no. But in that respect, do you believe that domestic authorities should exercise universal jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes?

The rules of universal jurisdiction are pretty complicated and apply to different crimes in different ways, and to some crimes not at all. But where there is universal jurisdiction and where we have obligations under a treaty, that does translate into the actions of our domestic authorities. The International Criminal Court is an example of that—it is not the only example of that, but it is an example—where a number of steps are taken, because we are a signatory to the treaty.

I will finish with this, but the common theme here is that we are very good on the principles but not so good on the practice. A good example of that would be recognising the state of Palestine, which I think most people will support, but what is the practicality of that? Where is the coalition of the willing around Palestine’s success as a state?

First, it was really important that we acted in the way that we did and did it in co-ordination with other countries, and that took quite a lot of work. But it was the right thing to do. I have always felt that where we can act collectively, it is better than acting individually. In terms of the follow-through, let me be really clear. Obviously the ceasefire in Gaza is hugely welcomed, but we have to press on to the next stage, and that does involve building on the question of recognition and having in place a process and agreed steps for getting there. That is something we are actively engaged in with other countries. I think it is vital to any enduring cessation of hostilities and peace in the region, because I fundamentally believe that we will not get to peace in the region, on a sustained basis, without it.

The situation has never been worse in the west bank. Some would say that is a reaction to what we have done.

I am worried about the west bank. Not enough attention is paid to what is going on in the west bank. I am pleased you brought it up.

So your Middle East Minister is right: there will be some concrete action taken.

I will set out what we are considering.

One thing we could do now is introduce a really hard ban on goods from illegal settlements, but at the moment Ministers seem to be supplying my Committee with letters without real, concrete action. Is that something you can look at again?

We keep it under review. I am tempted to say I will write to you with the outcome, but since you have got so many letters, I will find a different way of indicating it to you.

If Departments could respond to letters from Select Committees with the proper detail, that would be a good start and save you—

I have a Cabinet meeting tomorrow, so I will put that on the list of things to do at the beginning.

In response to Mr Slaughter, you talked about the legal basis for action in Iran. You were very clear on the original position. On Friday, though, you gave permission for the US to use UK bases to target Iranian forces that are, in effect, keeping the strait of Hormuz closed. Can you be clear? Which states, under international law, are being defended through that action? Is it as clearcut a legal position as you were outlining?

It is predominantly our allies in the region, and the legal basis is the same—

Which particular states? Will you name some?

All of those in the region that we are allowing our bases to be used to defend, and where we have our own capability and assets in the sky. If we step back from this, we had already said, for the purposes of the collective self-defence of our allies and, in fact, our people who are in the region, we will allow—

We are very clear about that original position.

Just to explain the legal basis, we had already said that we will allow the US to strike Iran’s capability to send missiles essentially to land—to infrastructure, hotels, bases. What Friday did was extend that to vessels in the region, because of the illogicality that strikes hit hotels but then you had vessels in the water nearby that needed to be protected under exactly the same legal framework, so actually that was an extension of the original decision. As the targets of Iran have changed, so the set of targets that we have authorised the bases to be used for has changed accordingly, but the legal basis is precisely the same as the original legal basis, and the logic, actually, is precisely the same as well.

I very much welcome your commitment to sovereign UK industrial capability, particularly in defence, but when it comes to UK participation in defence programmes in the EU under SAFE, what assurances can you give that we will retain all our intellectual property and nobody will be required to hand over British IP to the EU?

That is a very important consideration, and we will only do this on the basis that it is in our best interests to do so with whatever guardrails or safeguards need to be in place. Being in the system does not mean you are obliged to have any particular contracts, but it means you have the ability to do so. We will engage each of them according to what is in our interests.

We have spoken a lot about the international context, but there is another area: foreign interference in UK politics, which is a real, big threat to democracy. The Government announced the Rycroft review in December, but, like the strategic defence review, we do not have a date for when it will conclude. Will you and the Government accept recommendations to look really seriously at banning cryptocurrencies? It is really hard to trace the source of that funding, and there are many bad-faith actors interfering with UK politics. Is that a recommendation that the Government will be accepting once we finally get the review?

The Rycroft review is near conclusion and therefore we will be able to share that in due course. It is at the tail end of the process.

There is no date on that, then, Prime Minister.

And we will obviously set out our responses to any recommendations in the review when we put the review into the public domain.

But there is no date on the conclusion.

No, other than to say that it is well advanced now.

Last summer, Prime Minister, the strategic defence review recommended that you personally lead a national conversation on defence and security. When will you begin that conversation, or do you consider that you have started it?

I think we have started it. There have been a number of elements to it. It is a discussion that we need to have, because as we spend more on defence and security, the country needs to come with us on that journey and businesses, small businesses and so on need to be part of the story, so I consider it started, but I am rightly urged by others to take it to another level. I think we are going to have to do that.

Do you think that the public understand the real trade-offs that will have to be made for more investment in defence? Ms Champion highlighted some of those just in the international sphere, let alone domestically.

I think that is the point of having the conversation, because in the abstract, when you say to people, “Should we spend more on defence?”, the answer tends to be yes. When you then say, “Does that mean we should spend less on something else?”, it becomes a more nuanced answer. That is not just the public; I find that in Parliament as well, quite frequently.

We are all here to argue for our areas.

It is a conversation that needs to be had with the country, but it is a conversation that needs to start and be had here as well. In all seriousness, there are difficult challenges ahead, but certainly as we take these decisions, there needs to be a proper conversation.

I do not doubt your sincerity in wanting to have a conversation, but can you give us some precise examples of what that is actually going to mean? What will it mean for constituents in Hackney South and Shoreditch or in Slough?

Or in Vauxhall.

Already I think in constituencies where there are SMEs—very many constituencies—those conversations are going on. One of the things I think we did before the summer break—I will absolutely double-check this—was that I asked for all the businesses that could benefit from our increased defence spend or from the trade deals we have done to be identified in each constituency, so that those conversations could go on. I urged all MPs to spend some of their Friday talking to businesses in their communities about the advantages that were there for them. I know that some of them have begun those conversations, but I will find the appropriate details—they were published some time ago.

Defence industries will be keen to have the conversation, but the general public may be harder to reach. How are you planning to do that?

They will be harder to reach, but given the sheer number of SMEs that could take advantage, quite a lot of the public in each constituency are covered, by people who work there, their family and their community, which would be quite extensive. It is a good place to start.

We have obviously talked quite a lot about the international issues. Yesterday, you had a call with President Trump, and today, you have a Cobra meeting about the domestic matters. As the world faces these challenges, and as you are dealing with President Trump—who makes some quite rude comments about the UK one day, but is sometimes supportive of the UK, so it seems like you are dealing with different Presidents on different days of the week—have you a message for the public about how you are personally facing these challenges, and how the country needs to face the challenges of the world order, and the challenge to the world order?

Yes, I am utterly focused on what is in the best interests of our country. I am unapologetic about that. Notwithstanding the pressure that comes from elsewhere, I will remain laser-focused on what is in the British national interest. A lot of what is said or done is undoubtedly said and done to put pressure on me—I have no doubt about that, and I understand exactly what is going on—but I am not going to be wavering on this. I am the British Prime Minister, and my job is to be absolutely focused on what is in the British national interest. That has served me well in recent weeks, and that is the principle that I will continue to adhere to as we go forward, taking difficult decisions, notwithstanding the pressure that comes from a number of different places.

Finally, you have the Cobra meeting, at which you are talking about economic issues. Will you be discussing business support? Some of that came up in various questions, from Mr Esterson in particular.

Yes, we will. We will be looking at a range of possible ways forward.

Thank you very much indeed, Prime Minister.