MPs question Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, 21 July - Liaison Committee

Order. Order. Welcome to the liaison committee on Monday the 21st of July 2025. We're delighted to have the Right Honourable Sir Ki Starmer, MP, in front of us as the Prime Minister, to answer questions from chairs of various select committees across the House.

Um, Prime Minister, as, as usual, you, you would expect us to be on top of our brief. We know that you're on top of your brief, so we don't need the background to every answer. I'm sure you'll just answer the questions that we're asking, and if not, we'll cheer you along.

Um, but I wanted just to start with you seeing what reflections you've got. You've been in post for a year now, and I wondered if you could give us a quick vignette, a picture of what you think the UK, what you want the UK to look like in three years' time after the first term or so of your premiership.

Oh. Um, I want people to feel better off. Um, and there has to be a central focus on living standards. I want them to feel as they will that the health service is working much better, is there for them and their families in a way that it hasn't been for many years. Um, and I want them to feel safe and secure, both in their immediate neighbourhood and as a country. Um, both our borders and national um, uh, security and defence. So, they're the three things that I'm focused on more than anything else. Those three things. Um, I want them to feel that we've cleared up the mess that we inherited after the election. It was a huge mess because we had a broken economy and broken public services, and that we're on the road to rebuilding the country.

Okay. Thank you. And about, what about child poverty? What would you like to see as progress on that?

Well, I mean, poverty and um, tackling poverty and breaking down barriers has to be central to everything that we do. People will not feel better off or safe and secure if we haven't tackled poverty. But I'm very clear in my own mind that, uh, we must tackle poverty by putting in the support that is needed, but also break down the opportunity, the barriers to opportunity, because, uh, otherwise we won't fix the very deep and complex causes of poverty. And that's why it's central to what we are doing, and it's not a one-department issue. It's across all departments because it is so complicated and deep-rooted. But it's got to be more than just support to deal with poverty as it is today, but also to put in place the measures to ensure that people can get out of poverty and stay out of poverty. And that's why, um, broadly speaking, um, the strategy we've adopted has four limbs to it. The first is to increase income, the money coming into people's pockets, if you like, into their household, uh, to decrease costs to them. Um, to strengthen the local support they have, particularly back into work, but in other ways, and to boost financial resilience. Um, and I'm very proud of the fact that the last Labour government drove down poverty, and I'm determined this government's going to as well.

Okay. You talked then about working across departments. You've obviously got the missions that you're working towards. What are you personally doing from the centre in Number 10 to make sure that those departments work together? Because sometimes in Whitehall, you can pull one lever somewhere and it doesn't have the desired effect. It can actually have a perverse outcome. So how are you going to make sure you're stitching those issues together?

Well, the first thing is to make it absolutely clear this matters to me and matters to Number 10. It is one of the central things that I want to drive, and that our priorities are the three that I set out earlier on. Two, to put in place the cross-departmental working, which is often the most difficult bit. Um, and then to set up, um, the relevant task force for child poverty. Obviously, we've set up a designated task force to look specifically at child poverty, um, to devise our strategy, and that reports in. So I have oversight of that, um, so that everybody can see it's a Number 10, um, Prime Minister, um, priority in what we're doing.

And would it be your aim to see part of child poverty reduced by the end of the Parliament?

Oh, yes. Thank you. Yes. As I said, the last government got child poverty down, and I want to get child poverty down.

Thank you, Florence Shalomi MP. Thank you, Joe. Thank you, Prime Minister. You mentioned that child poverty is central to that. For every child to be lifted out of poverty, Prime Minister, will you agree that they need to live in a safe, warm, secure home? Um, remember the tragic case of Awaab Ishak, the two-year-old that died in Rochdale in frankly unsuitable, uninhabitable conditions of damp and mould. And it's welcome that the new government has set its priority on tackling this issue. Prime Minister, when this new regulation is highlighted and brought in later this year, are you confident that this legislation on tackling damp and mould will be enforceable?

Yes. I, I think first, it's really important, and thank you for highlighting it, because it was a terrible case. Um, that, um, in this country, in these times, anybody could die in those circumstances. So that's why we made the pledge to put it into law. We put it into law, and we will. Um, I don't think we can simply say that that law on its own will do all the work that is needed. That is why we've strengthened, um, what we put in place for standards in housing across the board, um, including, um, checks on landlords to do things like electricity safety checks, um, as well. So, yes, I'm confident that it's the right law. Yes, I think it is enforceable and will be enforced. Um, but I don't think in any of these fields to do with either housing or poverty, there's one silver bullet that, um, solves all the problems.

Because one of the issues, Prime Minister, you may be aware, is that a number of landlords, including local authorities, are saying that they're struggling in terms of the funding and enforcement to carry out those necessary checks. Um, we've heard that the courts, we know that there's a backlog in the courts in terms of residents bringing forward those cases. So, just coming back to that enforceability, Prime Minister, as a lawyer, you know, for anything to be enforceable, it has to have the right protection around it. So, just wanting to know, um, if there's been discussions in that, interdepartmental discussions, to make sure that these cases are escalated when tenants bring them before the courts.

Uh, yes, there have been. And, um, one of the ways in which I've set up the work of government is to have key ministers on key commitments reporting in to me for a stocktake, um, on a regular basis, where we go through progress, what measures are in place, etcetera. And housing, as you would expect, is one of those. There are six areas, uh, where we have these regular stocktakes, and housing is one of them. So the Deputy Prime Minister and her team come into Number 10. We have a session where we go through a number of different issues, but decent standards and housing and enforceability is among them.

Okay. Um, you'll recall last time we met, Prime Minister, I asked you about the government's decision to freeze the local housing allowance. And coming back to the issue around child poverty. This is an area which is keeping many children and their families in poverty because they cannot afford the rent. The recent data from the Local Government Association, responsible for all councils, shows that there's a funding gap of around £7 million over the last five years. This is a key area pushing many people more into poverty. So I ask you again, Prime Minister, do you think that that was the right decision from a government that's ambitious on tackling, tackling child poverty?

Look, I think we, I defend the decisions we've made. Obviously, we head into the autumn, we will get to another budget. It'll be a chance to look again across the board. Um, but, um, we certainly made the right decision first time around. I think I'd also, um, emphasize something I touched on last time, which is, in the end, um, with housing, we need, um, to build and make available more housing across the board. There simply isn't enough. And that means the starts, Prime Minister, you may have seen, are quite low. We're not building those houses quickly enough.

And we were seeing more people and more children in poverty. We can't build our way out of this crisis. So, in the interim, what more can the government do to help alleviate that poverty?

Well, as I say, there'll be a child poverty strategy, which we're setting out in the autumn. Um, we will go into the budget in the autumn as well, and, um, uh, alleviating poverty is a priority of mine. Um, I do think that we need to build more, though, and we have to build more because we've had a problem for many years of not building enough social and affordable housing in this country. Um, and until we crack that problem, we will never be able to get to the fundamental roots, uh, of, uh, the failures here. And that's why on that issue, in particular, um, I'm pressing the Deputy Prime Minister very hard.

Prime Minister, on that though, when homes are built in place, expensive parts of the country, it's very hard for social landlords to afford to buy them at the rate they would need to to pay, make sure that the rents are truly affordable rents. So, is there anything that, on your radar about how you're going to ensure that not just the supply of housing, but the supply of really properly affordable social housing is...?

Yeah. That's why we made a commitment within the building commitment for social and affordable housing and put down £39 billion, which is the biggest amount over 10 years put behind well, yes, but just, just, well, I appreciate that, but, um, there is always the, um, duty of government to deal with the here and now, of course, but also to deal with the mid and long term. And one of the big problems, in my view, of the last 14 years is nobody did mid and long term. So we lived with the ever-decreasing cycle of failure, uh, and short-term sticking plaster, and I'm determined that we're going to cut through that.

Thank you to Geoffrey Clifton-Brown. Uh, good afternoon, Prime Minister. Good afternoon. Um, just following on from Florence's last question on local housing allowance. Um, some 45% of households now face a shortfall between the local housing allowance they receive and the rent they pay. Some local authorities top this up. That's costing them, in aggregate, £204 million. But when we did a study, the PAC did a study on this way back in January, the, your officials at DWP could not tell us what effect the freezing of these local housing allowances would have on increased homelessness, because there must be an effect.

Um, well, I, I hope that since then they've provided you with a letter or some further evidence, and if they haven't, I shall make sure I do, uh, after this session. But in relation to, um, homelessness, um, that is, um, also an initiative led by the Deputy Prime Minister. It's one of the priorities that I've given her, and we have put, um, a lot of money, so £950 million into more temporary accommodation. That's money straight into local authorities, because often it's a lack of temporary accommodation that is one of the causes of the problem. Um, and overall, we're investing £1 billion in reducing homelessness, um, and, uh, that involves a lot of preventative work. So there is a central focus on homelessness, quite a lot of money being put, um, behind it, but particularly focus on this question of temporary accommodation available to local authorities.

So, if I could just stick with homelessness a minute. We discovered that the cladding remediation levy was sucking up so much of developers' funds that the affordable housing starts in London last year, from a fairly low base, I accept, dropped by 90%. That surely is not going to help either the people who were made homeless or your overall efforts to reduce poverty, is it?

No. And we need to drive that up, and that's a problem we've identified and are working on. Obviously, we've got to do the necessary work on cladding, uh, that's got to be financed, but you're absolutely right that we need to drive, we need to turn that number around, uh, and drive it up. And so, uh, the Deputy Prime Minister is, um, across all these issues of housing.

So, one of the hardest things I found in our inquiry was that at June 24, almost 6,000 households with children were being housed in bed and breakfasts, of which almost 4,000 were over the six-week limit. I just ask you, Prime Minister, to imagine what it's like living in B&B with children, especially over when you're having to get out probably at 9:00 in the morning and not come back till 6:00 in the evening. It must be pretty hard. And of that, so we found that 39,000 households were living in, occupying temporary accommodation outside their normal home area. So there will be people living over the six-week limit with B&Bs with children outside their area, trying to struggle to get to schools or work, or whatever it is they have to do. I really wonder what, what can you, what would you suggest you can do to begin to solve that problem?

Well, firstly, let me acknowledge, um, it's a, it's a real problem, has a huge impact on families, and not just the physical aspects of living in those conditions and the, uh, cramped and small circumstances, but also, um, in very many cases, the ability of a child, for example, to get on with their homework and get on at school. So it has not just immediate short-term consequences, it has longer-term consequences, because those same children, once they're struggling in school, um, will then struggle further down the line in school. That is why, um, it's important that we, um, have put the extra money into temporary accommodation for, uh, local authorities to make sure there's a wider range of accommodation. Now, you can't fix this overnight, but you're absolutely right. It needs to be turned around for all the reasons that you've identified, and I absolutely understand.

Thank you very much. Just on that, Prime Minister, every homeless child means a child missing school. A child missing out on a vital and welcome breakfast club that your government have committed to. A child or adult missing out on those extra hospital appointments because they, they don't have a safe and secure home to go to. We are seeing councils at breaking point because of the additional money spent on temporary accommodations. A number of councils declaring bankrupt because of temporary accommodation. This is not sustainable. And, and I, and I come back to some of the measures that have been taken by the government. So, just to ask, do you feel, Prime Minister, then that we do need to have an urgent reset in local government funding to look at these long-term solutions and key pressures facing councils up and down the country?

Prime Minister. Uh, yeah, I mean, firstly, let me, um, say we have put a billion pounds into homelessness. That is a huge amount more than any government's put in for a very, very long time for precisely the reasons that have been identified by this, um, committee. So there's an absolute commitment on homelessness, and the money was put there in the budget and the spending review, uh, to make good on the commitment on, um, homelessness. On the wider question of local authority funding, yes, I do think it needs a review. Um, I've long thought it needs a review. Amongst other things, um, we need multi-year settlements. There are no end of local authorities that say to me, because it's a year-on-year-on-year allocation of money, we can't use the money as effectively as we might otherwise be able to do. There are, I don't know how many local authorities who say to me, until you fix, as we are now doing, the no-fault eviction problem, you'll have a homelessness problem, and the bill will be picked up by local authorities. That's why we brought in the provisions to get rid of no-fault, um, uh, evictions. So, all I, absolutely agree with you, this needs, um, review. It needs change. We've started the process of change. Um, and, uh, they would be, um, as it were, the top contenders that for me of what we're getting on with to bring about a material change as quickly as we can.

Okay, that's good. So it'll be good to know when we'll expect to see some of those changes in, in the extra investment, and if it's something that, well, the investment in terms has gone in already. I mean, the money has been made available. When you expect to see a change?

Well, as soon as possible. Um, uh, we've, I've got the Deputy Prime Minister project managing this. Um, we're looking across the numbers. We're getting the money to where it needs to be. Um, but the financial commitment and the political commitment are in place, and, um, the Deputy Prime Minister is pretty focused. I mean, it matters hugely to her. It matters hugely to me. Um, and therefore, we're driving it through central government.

I talked earlier about your vision in three years. I mean, you're saying in three years, in the next year, you'll see a difference. When do you think we'll see the actual difference on the ground, because in homelessness, or, or living standards more generally?

Well, on this particular issue, on housing and temporary accommodation, oh, I want the money going into temporary accommodation, I want to see having, um, immediate effect. In other words, more accommodation available. Now, obviously, it'll take some time to get it into place. Um, but where is this accommodation going to come from? This isn't a delayed project.

Well, uh, in terms of, uh, what could be built, what can be, um, arranged, what can be taken by councils and repurposed, is a central focus of what we're doing. But I want, I'm, I'm impatient for this change to be driven through. There's no, there's no desire on government for this to take any longer than it needs to take to be done effectively, uh, and properly.

It's just that we've got Home Office bidding for homes for assignment because we've got councils bidding for owners for the same properties, driving up the price, driving, which is why I'm so furious at the last government for leaving tens of thousands of asylum seekers unprocessed with nowhere to live other than accommodation paid by the taxpayer. Are you planning to build homes or, or put people into...?

We have to do a number of things. We do have to build, of course, but that won't happen in the next year. We have to, uh, take over other accommodation. We have to drive down the asylum lists. Um, there is just, just a bit pinpoint before we, what other accommodation precisely are you planning to take over to provide temporary accommodation for, for families?

Oh, there's lots of, um, housing and many, uh, local authorities that can be used, and we're identifying where it can be used. But I mean, look, sorry.

Could you give us? Have you got any examples you can give us?

Because no, but I'll, I'll, I'll write in and give you details. I could say certainly in a number of our local authorities are really picking up from around the table. There isn't a lot of spare housing available. If there were, councils would be able to be dealing with it by now.

Well, exactly. Which is why, um, leaving a huge tens of thousands of unprocessed asylum seekers that need to be housed, um, is a huge problem for.

So, you'll be putting the homeless families into those hotels?

That's... No, no, no. We will, we're looking at what accommodation is available, and I'll make sure that we, um, send a detailed letter.

Okay. Well, we, we certainly look forward to receiving that detailed note. I'm sure councils will be breathless waiting for it. Helen Hayes MP. Thank you. Good afternoon, Prime Minister. Uh, my committee has just completed an inquiry on children's social care, and as part of that inquiry, we heard really devastating evidence from care-experienced young people who experienced a cliff edge in support at the age of 18. So, for example, a young person told us how she had had to give up her A-levels because she had to work in order to pay rent to keep a roof over her head. I, I, I hope you would agree that that is a choice that no young person, um, would should have to make. And as a consequence of that evidence, my committee's recommended that young care-experienced people need more support at the age of 18, both with accommodation and with their living costs to, to stop them being trapped in poverty for a lifetime. Um, is that a recommendation that you agree with, and, and how would you progress, uh, the, uh, urgently needed additional support for young people leaving the care system?

Well, um, firstly, I absolutely agree with, um, the identification of the problem that you and your committee have put forward. Lots of, uh, children coming out of care essentially go off a cliff edge, um, from having, um, support when they're in care to almost none. We've got to, in my view, change that. So it's a, it's a, there's support, and it's, uh, graduated as they, um, come out of care. Um, I haven't, um, looked particularly at the recommendations, but I will make sure that they are being looked at, and obviously, um, give you our full response to them.

Thank you. So, so we, we welcome very much the government's, uh, commitment to youth guarantee to support, um, young people into education, employment, or training. Um, but we are really concerned about, um, some of the additional barriers that young care-experienced people face, often as a consequence of trauma that they've suffered earlier in their lives. And the evidence that we've seen would point to the government's decision to withdraw universal credit from under-22-year-olds as having particularly harsh impacts on increasing poverty amongst care-experienced young people. Um, our report recommends that that group of young people, actually a very small, numerically a very small group of people, are removed from the exemption, um, from, from the decision, um, to withdraw universal credit, so that they can still access that support when they need it. Um, is that something that you will, uh, be prepared to take forward?

Well, certainly have a look at the recommendation that, um, your committee has made. Um, I do think the youth guarantee is a hugely important part of what we're trying to do, but we'll certainly look at your recommendation. One of the issues is that the mental health support often isn't there for those young people who've experienced trauma earlier in their lives. And it is very difficult for them if they're living with trauma to be able to take advantage of opportunities that might otherwise be available to them. And that's why we're looking particularly at that safety net for care-experienced young people, because this is about avoiding them being trapped in poverty for the rest of their lives. Um, is this something you'd be prepared to pick up?

Yeah, I mean, as I say, we'll look at the, um, recommendation your committee has made.

Okay. And then the, the final thing from me, just drawing again on that report, is that the evidence is that, um, I mean, really, if the government is serious about homelessness, if the government is serious about tackling the problems that we have in the criminal justice system, the government has to be serious about providing better support for young people in the care system, because they are so vastly over-represented in both of those populations. So, a quarter of the prison population has care experience. That would indicate that they're not in prison for any reason other than their lives have gone really badly wrong because they've been let down, um, previously, and when they were children. So, this is a problem that we believe, as a committee, is of strategic importance to the government. Yet support across the country for care-experienced young people is completely inconsistent. So our committee recommends that there is a national offer for care-experienced young people. Um, will you commit to that, Prime Minister?

Well, firstly, I, on your general analysis, I, I agree. I mean, for many years, we've seen an over-representation of those that have been in care, um, in poverty and in prison, in the criminal justice, um, system. Um, and, um, we absolutely need a better approach, um, to that. Whether a completely national approach is right or wrong, I don't know. I'll certainly have a look again at what your committee has said about this and make the relevant, um, inquiries. But we do have to improve, um, the chances and opportunities for those who've been in care and come out of care. And it, it starts obviously with what has been a cliff edge for many of them, um, but then continues with quite deep-rooted problems, very often, for the rest of their lives.

On current policy, they will still face that cliff edge, and they will still fall through gaps in support because there is not a national safety net for them. So I hope that is something that you'll look at in detail and come back to this committee, um, in due, due course with progress.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ms. Hayes. Debbie Abrahams MP. Thank you, and good afternoon, Prime Minister. Since you were last before us, uh, Prime Minister, my committee published our interim findings on the Pathways to Work inquiry in May, uh, where we expressed our considerable concerns about the imminent UC, MP, and PIP legislation, and particularly in terms of the changes in eligibility, eligibility of these benefits, with the potential of pushing 250,000 disabled people, uh, into poverty. Now, I acknowledge, um, the concessions the government made to the bill, uh, but the fear and anxiety that this caused to disabled people currently in the system, um, cannot be underestimated. Um, I just wondered what you'd like to say to them now, and what you will be doing differently in the future.

Well, it's very important that, um, they feel, um, secure and supported, and, uh, that is, uh, at the heart of what we are, uh, doing in the changes we're making, uh, to welfare and related areas. I want to see more opportunities and more support put, um, in place. Um, and some of that will come from, uh, the state, some of it can come from employers. I'm absolutely clear in my own mind, there's more that employers could do, um, and the state can help them to do, uh, to encourage, um, those with disabilities to come into work and to retain, if they are in work, um, and I've seen good examples of that, um, myself, as no doubt you have, but not enough across the country. So, um, we need to do more.

Thank you. Well, on that, on, on that very point, um, you'll be aware that there is, uh, still, um, projections that your, um, government has, uh, put forward that estimate 50,000 newly disabled people in April next year will be pushed into poverty, um, because of the reduction in the UC health element, uh, of, of the bill. Now, you mentioned about getting more disabled people into work. Charlie Mayfield, who, as you know, is doing the Keep Working review, not to be published until later this autumn. Prime Minister, has said it will take several years before the labour market changes in order to allow, um, more people to be employ, disabled people to be employed, but also to retain, um, disabled people. So my question to you is, several years, eight months. What are we going to do to mitigate against the, the potential pushing of another 50,000 people, disabled people, newly disabled people and their families, um, into poverty?

Well, I, I, I think, um, uh, the Mayfield report is coming in in the autumn with the final recommendations. So we obviously need to look at that piece of work, and that is focused, as you know, on what employers can do. Um, I don't accept that everything is going to take years. Something, some changes do take years, but not all changes take years, and we have to do work in the interim, uh, to give that support to those with disabilities.

Specifically, how do you, how do you, in mind, given that we've had a disability employment gap for well over 10 years?

Well, I, I, I think there's a lot of work that can be done with employers to encourage them to take on and to retain. That doesn't need primary legislation. I've seen pilot examples of it across the country, which I'd like to see many more of, that have been very, very successful. So, yes, I accept that, you know, if you want to pass legislation, it'll probably take some time. I don't accept that every change that is needed, some of them that I've seen for myself have been quite effective, uh, don't need legislation at all, and I think we can get on with that as quickly as possible. And we, I mean, the Mayfield recommendations will be with us, obviously, later this, this autumn.

To give an example, Prime Minister, on that. Yes. I'm, I'm, I'm aware of the Trailblazers examples, and again, these are pilots, and tens of thousands, not the hundreds of thousands that, uh, uh, that will be affected next, uh, April. Um, and, and I'd just like to point out that in my part of the world, there is one job for a disabled person for every 333 disabled people chasing them. It's slightly different in the South, where there are, there's a more vibrant local economy. It just seems so punitive, um, in, in, in that regard. But ultimately, Prime Minister, I just wanted to go back to my first point about doing things differently. This was poor legislation. It was designed to save money for the Treasury by cutting support to sick and disabled people. It was so far removed from Labour values of fairness and social justice, let alone compassion and common decency. I had to, I have to say, I felt ashamed. So, what are the values that will underpin the government in terms of the policy going forward so that we avoid the harms, the potential harms, and the real harms that people are going to face, disabled people, vulnerable people are going to face?

I think this is a really important Labour value. I think the fact that there are nearly a million people, young people, out of work, not earning or learning, uh, is a huge challenge for our country, and none of us should be accepting of a system that operates like that. It is broken. It needs to be mended. All the evidence is, uh, that if you're, uh, on benefits and out of work at that young age, the likelihood of ever getting into good, well-paid, secure employment goes down, down, down for the rest of your life. One in 10 working-age people out of work, and 3 million locked out for health-related reasons. It is no wonder that almost everybody says the system is broken, and it's got to be, uh, changed. And I'm glad that we've started the process of change. I'm not going to pretend, um, that, um, we got everything, um, right in recent weeks, but we do need to reform the system, and we should take that on as a Labour argument, in my view.

Couldn't agree more. Everybody agrees that reform needs to happen. It is a broken system. Reform does not. You mentioned right at the beginning in your introduction, reform does not mean cuts to household incomes of already struggling, uh, households. We must do better. Prime Minister, you, you mentioned about reducing poverty. This had the potential of actually increasing it. I'll leave it there. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Abrahams. Just Geoffrey Clifton-Brown. Um, hello again, Prime Minister. Um, it seems that we have a, as, as Debbie Abrahams was, was saying, a long-term trend of unemployment increasing every month. It now stands at 4.7%, and 1.67 million people out of work. And therefore, it was perplexing to me, and I hope it might be perplexing to you, that when we did our, um, inquiry on, on the 2nd of July into job centres, we found that there were 2,100 fewer, uh, work coaches than there had been the year before. Now, I accept that the DWP have had difficulty, um, recruiting them, but given that I'm sure it must be your government's stated objective to try and help people back into work wherever possible, and job coaches play a key part in that, it was surprising to find that not only was there fewer job coaches, their initial interview time had been cut from 50 to 30 minutes, with proposals to cut them even further. Now, that means the moment the work coach gets into a room with the jobless person, they've got to establish who they are, get all their data, their criteria, their skills, their wishes, how they would get back into work, all in half an hour, which, if it had been previously deemed that it was necessary to have 50 minutes, I don't see how quite that could be done in 30 minutes. And when we questioned DWP on this, they told us this was based on data from their own employees dating back to 2015 to 18. They had not done any surveys on the people trying to get back into work themselves. This really does seem, uh, peculiar. And we do know that the inter-work rate declined by from 9.7 in 2021-22 to 8.2 in 2023-24, and I imagine it will decline again this year with the lack of these job coaches. So, uh, could you tell us how that might be reversed?

Yeah, I mean, let me go back to the beginning of your, um, question, if I may. Um, the employment rate is up, um, 0.8% over the year. The unemployment rate is also up slightly. Now, you may think that that's a slight contradiction, but as you will know, what that indicates in the data, um, on my own analysis, is that, um, the inactivity numbers have gone down. So those not even looking for work have begun to look for work. Hence the unemployment figure has gone up at the same time as the employment figure has gone up. That, therefore, puts a great spotlight on the very problem you've identified, which is whether job centres, uh, are doing what we expect of them in terms of helping those that are now looking for work and those that have been looking for work, um, into work. Um, I think, um, we have already started the, um, programme of changing the way job centres work, because there's not enough time, um, coaching and helping people into work. I also don't think that many businesses are actually going to the job centre when they have a vacancy. I've talked to lots of businesses myself and said, "When you do have a vacancy, are you putting that at the job centre so we can match up, um, the local jobs that are available with those that are looking for work?" And the answer is, most of them don't go to the job centre. So, there's a lot of change in the job centres that we've already started, and we need to see through for the very reasons you've identified.

So, Prime Minister, I don't think you quite, um, answered what I asked. And you said, I think, that the job coaches were going to be given more time. In fact, not only are the initial interviews, uh, cut from 50 to 80 minutes, the follow-up interviews are also cut, uh, considerably as well. So, in other words, people seeking to get into work are finding it more and more difficult because they're getting less and less advice.

Yeah. I, I, I mean, I'll take away the point you're putting to me. Not across the details of how many minutes are allocated to, um, the coaches in job centres, but, um, the broad principle I, that you're putting to me, as it were, I agree with, which is it needs to be more support for people to get into work, and we need to change the way job centres work altogether, in my view, um, and change the very nature of them, um, which is part of the work that we're doing. But I will take away the particular issue you put in terms of the minutes allocated and get a fuller answer to you.

Sorry, final question for me. You said just then you want to change the way job centres work. Do you want to just elucidate on what's in your mind on that?

Yeah, I don't think most businesses are advertising in lockdown in job centres, and I think there's a basic mismatch between what is genuinely available in an area, um, for those that are going to a job centre, um, and that which they're being presented with. And I think it's a problem we've got to sort out.

Okay. That is because people don't have faith in the job centres. Businesses don't. So you haven't got the job centre doing the job it's intended to do. I also want to look whether it's minutes allocated or whatever it is. I do think there's more support, and we've allocated money to support, uh, people into work, um, and that needs to be used much better, in my view. Um, in terms of precise minutes allocated at FaceTime or sport time, I'm not across the detail of that, but absolutely clear that we do need that more support. They're the two fundamental changes that are needed for job centres to my mind.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Sir. Liam Byrne. Prime Minister, thank you. Um, you said at the top of the meeting that your vision for three years' time is that, in your words, I want people to feel better off. Just so we're absolutely clear, is the ambition that everybody in our society should feel better off in three years' time, including the poorest 40% of households?

Yes. So you'll be aware of some quite troubling forecasts from, for example, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, that says that in fact, having looked at all the measures that the government's announced on the table by the summer, the bottom 40% of households are not going to be better off in three years' time. They're actually going to be £1,200 a year worse off. So, what do you think needs to change between now and the end of the Parliament so that everybody in our society is in fact enjoying higher living standards?

Well, we need to do a number of things. The first is, um, we've got to get much better growth into our economy and create more wealth in the first place. And that's why we've put so much store, um, on ensuring that we took necessary measures at the budget to, um, deal with our inheritance. We then had a spending review, which was targeted across the country. Uh, this question of making sure that if there is, um, a thriving economy, it's a thriving economy in every part of the country and not just in some parts of the country. And it's why we've already, in the spending review, focused on things like, uh, the living wage, the national wage, um, and, uh, the minimum wage, I'm sorry, and ensuring that wages are going up. Um, they've gone up more in the last 10 months than they went up in the last 10 years. Um, so that's the first part. The second part then is the poverty strategy that has to ensure that this is, um, across the whole of society and every, uh, location, because in addition, um, as you all know, um, to the growth figures, we've had inequality variances across the country, place by place. Um, and we have to have a laser focus, um, on that, because whilst we want more wealth creation and the economy to thrive, and we do, and we will, um, we can't have that as London or the South East and redistribution as a sort of one-word answer for the rest of the country. To my mind, that is fundamentally wrong.

Mr. Byrne, the challenge that we've got though is that the Bank of England now forecasts that wage growth is going to slow down. Joseph Rowntree Foundation says that earnings for the bottom 40% are going to fall by £700 a year. The Office for Budget Responsibility says real household disposable income is going to fall to almost zero in a couple of years' time. Resolution Foundation says that the freeze on tax thresholds means that the real wage growth for the poorest will get obliterated. We've got council tax going up by 5%. Food going up 4.5%. We've got energy bills up 10%, water bills up 26%. And Joseph Rowntree Foundation says that for those coming off fixed-term mortgages, they're going to be paying on average £1,400 a year extra by the end of this Parliament. Similarly, poor picture and outlook for renters. So, we've got taxes and bills that are rising faster than wages. So the question remains, what else do you think is needed over the next year or two so that everybody is enjoying higher living standards by the time of the next election?

Well, um, if I just concentrate on, um, two aspects of that. Firstly, um, the income side, and then the cost side. On the income side, obviously, we've already pulled the lever of increasing minimum wages, which is on average of, I think, about £1,400 extra into, uh, everybody in, effectively, 3 million of the lowest, um, employed, lowest paid, I'm sorry, above inflation, um, increases for standard rates of, of, uh, universal credit. Um, and then on the other flip side, if you like, um, free childcare is coming on stream from this September across the board, from nine months through to school starting age. Free school meals are being rolled out. Breakfast clubs are being rolled out. Limits on what you have to pay on, uh, school uniforms. Um, and, uh, warm homes discount is £150 per household. That's gone from 3 million to 6 million households for this winter. So I do think there are things that government, government has done and will continue to do. Um, but in the end, the central focus has to be on creating more wealth and making sure that we have a growing and thriving economy. Has been the single biggest failure of the last 14 years, which is we haven't had an economy, uh, that has grown in any significant.

These are all important steps forward, but having reviewed everything that you've just announced, the Resolution Foundation said that the poorest half of households, by the time of the next election, will still be £200 poorer than they were last year. So, you know, the question remains, over and above what you've announced, what else do you think is needed in order that everybody in our society is enjoying high living standards in a couple of years' time?

I think we need a central, um, poverty strategy, and we're putting that around the child poverty strategy, which we're rolling out in the autumn.

But you could cut people's taxes. I mean, if we taxed investment income in the way that we do work, if we tweaked up capital gains tax so that it was fairer, there would be enough money to deal with the fiscal pressures that we forecast and deliver a big, bold working-class tax cut, just as they delivered in Australia. Surely that should be an idea that remains on the table going into the budget.

Well, um, I'm not going to be tempted to start speculating on what might or might not be in the budget. It's going to come in the autumn. We will get the forecasts. The Chancellor will set out, um, her decisions according to that forecast, but I'm not going to be drawn into speculating on what that might be at this stage.

Well, Chair, the Prime Minister didn't rule that out, so I'll take that as a win. We're in six months because no Prime Minister or Chancellor ever says in which every day there'll be a story saying, "Doesn't rule out." Okay, absolutely, Prime Minister. We're very aware of that. Mr. Barclay, thank you, Chair. Prime Minister, you've just been a pains to point out to Mr. Byrne how much you're spending on different things. Um, in May, the government had the second highest borrowing since records began, with only peak COVID in May 2020 being higher. Sorry, I missed the middle word there. I'm so sorry. May, in May, your government borrowed the second highest amount since records began. £17.7 billion pounds you borrowed just in the month of May, and only peak COVID in May 2020 was higher. Um, do you expect borrowing this year to be higher or in line with forecast at the budget?

Oh, in line with forecasts. And there have been, I mean, there have been monthly fluctuations, um, usually for global reasons, as, um, you'll have seen in a number of other, um, countries. But we have also obviously got our overarching fiscal rules, um, in place, which, um, are, um, ironclad, um, one of them, um, relating to borrowing as a proportion of debt.

So tomorrow we will get both the June figure, but also the figure for your first year in government of how much you've borrowed. You're expecting that to be in line with what was set out in the budget?

Well, I'll see what the figures are, um, tomorrow. And there have been, I mean, I think every month this year, there have been fluctuations, um, broadly driven, and I think generally accepted as driven by events that are happening globally, almost, um, capable of being tracked to them, uh, day by day. But, um, I want to be in line with the forecasts. Um, we've got the, the fiscal rules in place to ensure that, uh, we are in line, uh, with the forecasts.

Well, the spending decision you just me talking.

About weren't global factors there. Uh, national decisions.

Um, at the spring statement, the OBR found that there was a 14 billion pound deterioration in the fiscal forecast, uh, the fiscal outlook from between the budget and the spring statement. Uh, industry analysts are predicting a similar amount of deterioration ahead of the budget. Again, is that something that you would reject?

Well, uh, my experience so far has been of different predictions, almost on a weekly basis, as we get into the final stages of the budget, um, which is why, um, I think it's important to see them over a slightly longer term, um, and see what precisely those forecasts are when we get to the autumn. And I don't say that frivolously. I mean, I was very concerned only a few weeks ago when, um, the conflict in the Middle East looked like it was going to escalate rather than de-escalate. I was very concerned about the impact that would have on oil prices and on our economy as a result. Uh, and therefore, um, I do think it's important for us to see this over a slightly longer term. We're tracking it as you would expect, slight variations.

What I'm trying to tease out is whether there's a trend, and you're rejecting, for example, pretty widely accepted industry analysts that there's an expected further deterioration. For example, ING had predicted a further 14 billion. You're saying that's quite wide of the mark?

Well, let's, um, see what the OBR's forecasts are in the autumn. As I say, um, my experience is that, um, those forecasts change on a pretty regular basis, often according to external factors, and trying to guess now what the forecast might be, um, in the autumn, um, is fraught with all sorts of difficulties.

Fine. In terms of consistency, then, given other things change, is it reasonable to say, uh, with regard to the fiscal headroom that you set out, that as a point of principle, you feel that there, there should be a reasonable amount of fiscal headroom?

Yes. And you took, uh, measures to restore the headroom in the spring statement. Was that because the fiscal headroom you put in place at the budget was too insufficient?

Uh, no, I don't think so. Um, I'd gently point out that the fiscal headroom we put in the budget was considerably more, uh, than the last government put in their last, uh, budget, uh, by some measure. Um, but then there was a lot of fluctuation in the early part of this year, um, particularly with conflicts in different parts of the world, but also with the immediate after-effects of, uh, the tariff decisions that were being taken, for example, in America, um, had an impact, and it was right, in my view and the Chancellor's view, that we retained the fiscal, um, headroom.

Okay. So even though the headroom at the budget was insufficient, and you, in my view rightly, took measures at the spring statement to restore it, the OECD are wrong when they said last month, again pointing to how thin the fiscal headroom is? Again, you feel both industry analysis is incorrect, and you see warnings from the likes of the OECD as incorrect in terms of suggesting it is way too thin?

No, I'm not saying they're incorrect. I'm just saying I think it's important for us to look at it in the round and over the slightly longer period. I do think it's important to have, um, that headroom, which is why we put it in in the budget last autumn, and why in the spring statement we took the opportunity, duty, um, to put that, that headroom back in, which is what we did.

The OBR found that of 21 forecasts that they have done since 2010, all but one of those, uh, was overly optimistic. Are you confident that the OBR forecast and the budget will not be over optimistic this time?

Uh, well, I don't, I don't know. I mean, look, that's a matter for the OBR. Um, they make the forecast. They're there for a purpose. Um, and we obviously, uh, take what forecast they put in place and act accordingly.

Okay. What I'm interested in is, is decisions you have taken, for example, on welfare, where the IFS, I think, put the figure at over three billion, uh, on winter fuel, where your own government figures put the cost as an additional, uh, 1 billion. There will be known pressures from decisions you have taken which will be coming in the forthcoming budget, and what I'm interested in is, is the trend of a, a fiscal headroom which was insufficient, and you've already had to take measures to restore for it, warnings of that, and warnings from industry. And again, without getting into writing a budget ahead of October, I'm interested in the trends and whether you're concerned.

No, I, I mean, I am, um, um, Stephen, I, and you, you've been in this, um, position preparing for budgets, and you will know, um, the experience, which is that there are, there are forecasts that, as you lead into a budget, they're going in the end, come on a weekly basis, um, and fluctuate week to week, um, literally, and therefore, um, my experience of the budget and the spring statement is, um, to focus intensely on the, on the forecasts when we get them and prepare for them now, according to our fiscal rules, which is what we're doing.

Well, you would accept that the size of gap we're talking about is more than mere fluctuations?

Well, it, I mean, look back at the autumn, um, the OBR predicted one thing, by the spring it predicted something else. By autumn, um, they will give their prediction going forward from there, and we have to work from that forecast.

But that, that's been consistent in a deteriorating line. That's the concern. It's not been fluctuating and getting better for some of the time. It's been consistently, uh, deteriorating.

Well, different forecasts forecast different things. Um, nobody forecast that we'd have the highest growth in the G7 for the first quarter of this year, but we did. Um, and I'm pleased about that. Um, and I think the measures we're taking, um, can create the conditions in which we can improve on that in the autumn and, and, and the budgets thereafter.

Okay. So, optimism, Prime Minister, for the future as well?

Of course.

Okay. Thank you very much. Dame Caroline Dinage. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Prime Minister. Uh, 86% of charities say that they are seeing an increased demand for their services. Meanwhile, fewer people and fewer corporations are actually donating to charity, and their overheads are going up. What's your government going to do to support charities?

Well, um, it is important. I think over half of the charities have been exempted from the National Insurance, um, rises. We are looking at what we can do on sort of business rates, etcetera, for charities and put in the support that they, um, need. That, that's it.

Well, there's probably other things as well, and I'll, I'll write to you with, with further staff. I mean, you say that half of charities have been exempted, exempted from, uh, the National Insurance contributions, but there are 44,000 registered charities that have an income over £100,000. And the National Council for Voluntary Organisations reckons that the next, uh, increase is going to put their payments at 1.4 billion. You know, these are the organisations that you, you said when you came into this room, you said tackling poverty is central to everything we do. These are the organisations that are doing just that in our constituencies. They're tackling poverty on the ground. They're feeding people. They're running hospices. Your NICs hike is one of the causes of the decline. 30% of them say they're cutting staff. Isn't it time to offer just a blanket carve-out to charities?

Well, no, I don't think it is. Um, but, um, in terms of the point you make about charities in all of our constituencies working hard in these areas, I completely accept that. And one of the things that we launched last Thursday, uh, was the Civil Society Covenant, where we got many, many thousands of charities together and did what we promised in opposition, which was to bring the government and the charities together in a partnership through that covenant, um, and demonstrate to them the, the sort of work that we can do together. I have to say, they felt that that was the first time it had ever happened, um, with a government prepared to work with charities in that way. It was a very good thing, very, very well received, um, and an example, to my mind, of the sort of partnership working to have, to have in this country. We're going to bring around the change that we need to bring about in the speed we've got available because, um, I never, you know, we have to always remember, um, we inherited both a broken economy plus broken public services. No government's inherited that combination for decades upon, uh, decades and decades and decades, and that's a very difficult working.

You're now attempting to break our charities. I mean, just this month, Marie Curie Hospice in Liverpool closed their inpatient unit permanently. Your Civil Society Covenant won't put charities on a good financial footing by itself. You need to offer them a carve-out for this National Insurance rise. I mean, quite simply, it is breaking them. 30% of them say they're cutting staff. Only 50% of them now feel positive about the future. Prime Minister, can't you do something?

Well, it is important just to bear in mind why we had to do what we did on National Insurance. We looked through the books and we found 22 billion pounds missing, uh, and we had to do something about it, um, because that's a serious problem. But you can't do that. And we, we addressed that at the budget. At the same time, we used the money from that NICs increase to invest hugely in our NHS. Hence, um, we promised 2 million extra appointments in the first year of Labour government. We've done 4.5 million. That takes the pressure off many, many charities.

I want to talk about charities, and you, you're basically balancing the budget on the back of things like children's hospices. Can I also talk about?

No, no, we're clearing up the mess of the last government.

On the back of children's hospices, charities also depend upon individuals giving generously. Do you know which is the most generous constituency in the country? Uh, in Sheffield Hallam, 1.9% of income of the. Congratulations to. I know, great. Right? Do you know which of the least three generous? The least three generous are Kensington and Chelsea, Chelsea and Fulham, and Holborn and St. Pancras, Prime Minister, each at around about half a percent of their income, about half of the average of the country as a whole. Now, we know that you and your colleagues aren't adverse to being on the receiving end of a bit, a little bit of philanthropic giving. How would you persuade people in wealthy areas like yours just to dig a bit deeper?

Well, that's the first time I've been presented with those figures, but clearly in Holborn and St Pancras and other places, we need to up our game, and we will do so.

So, have you got a plan to promote philanthropy?

Well, the, the first, I, I hadn't seen that readout of figures by constituency before, not just in your constituency, across the country. What can we do to encourage corporations and individuals just to support charities a bit more?

Oh, I think we should do everything we can to get them support, um, charities and individuals. Everything we can.

Like what?

Well, we'll go to Sheffield Hallam and we will find out what's happening there that clearly isn't happening in Holborn and St Pancras, um, and take it away as a, a learning experience.

Is this something your Civil Society Covenant might be looking at?

Yes. Uh, I think one of the most important things is how government works with charities, supporting what they do. We've had examples of charities rolling out particular initiatives that they've brought to us. Um, so one of them was, um, the, um, Macmillan initiative on, um, giving people guided support to the, um, charities that they might need if they're diagnosed in that particular case with cancer, but with other diagnoses. Uh, they did that as a local plan. We've taken that now as a nationally rolled-out plan, working with those charities, and that's an example of excellent government working together.

Can I move you on to the BBC, because that's a bit of a regressive, um, tax in itself, the, the license fee. Um, what's your view on how it might be reformed, and also, we were promised the BBC Charter Review at the beginning of the year. What's holding it up?

Um, well, we're going, we're going through the review, um, and, um, it'll obviously come to its conclusion, um, and, um, we keep an open mind about, um, what we need to do with the license fee, but we are working closely with the BBC. We're going through that review.

Will we see the consultation paper on BBC Charter Review before October?

I don't know off the top of my head, but I'll certainly write to you and let you know.

Well, in December, we were told it would be early in the new year. A fortnight ago, it, we were told it would be later this year. So I will try and get a more accurate date for you. Do you know what's holding it up?

No, I'll try and get you a more accurate date.

Okay. Okay. Thank you very much again, Caroline. Ruth Cadbury and P. Thank you. Good afternoon, Prime Minister. Uh, in answer to questions on poverty earlier, you acknowledged the need that, uh, earnings growth and economic growth has to, uh, happen across every part of our country. Now, away from large city centres, people who don't have access to a private car are dependent on minimal and sometimes non-existent local bus services to get to work, training, uh, take their children to childcare, and to get to affordable, uh, shops. In the Transport Committee, uh, inquiry on buses, we've had evidence, um, that to, to our inquiry, that 56% of small towns in the South West and North East, uh, are complete public transport deserts, and that this lack of buses, uh, impacts on the growth of those small towns. So, how is the government going to ensure that its current bus reforms actually close the gaps around the country in the way that is happening in Ireland, uh, and that these, the Buses Bill doesn't just prevent more decline in the inadequate status quo?

Um, well, firstly, um, I think I'm right in saying more people use buses than any other form of transport, and therefore it's hugely important, particularly in rural areas, but just across the piece, and there is a direct correlation between that sort of travel and building the local economy. So it's vitally, um, important. We did invest a lot of money at the budget in buses, and, um, the spending review, uh, set out, I think, was 900 million pounds of investment. But there's also, in direct answer to your question, I think a number of other measures that we've taken that are important. Capping at £3 the bus fare until, uh, March '27 is really important, but equally, um, in the Bus Services Bill is the socially necessary services, because, uh, it's not just the price, it's the route. Um, and too many times in the past have been examples of profitable routes having too many buses and non-profitable routes not having any buses at all. So, having that provision in is very important, as is the expansion of, um, the ability of, um, local representatives, mayors, but also other local authorities to take more control over the buses in their area. All of which, I think, will change the landscape here.

It's true that the Buses Bill is changing the governance structures, uh, and it's also true that socially necessary routes are identified. Our concern is, and the, the evidence we received is that that might just about hold the status quo, while we've got many places that already have no bus service or, and many more places that have no evening and no weekend bus service. So, could I just ask, Prime Minister, that you look at the Buses Bill and other potential initiatives available to you to ensure that buses and bus use grows, uh, around England outside of London, rather than just stays as it is?

Uh, yes, certainly. And, um, as I said, we put quite a lot of investment into the budget, but you're absolutely right that needs to, um, do more than maintain the status quo. I don't think it was a status quo. I think it's probably reducing, um, but it needs to more than stabilise the situation and improve the situation.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Miss Capri. Nick Smith MP. Thank you, Prime Minister. The Chancellor established long-term measures to boost our economy. The Industrial Strategy provides important detail, as did the Spending Review. However, truth is, some of our former industrial areas are much harder to revitalise. So, for instance, in the South Wales Valleys, almost a quarter of young people are economically inactive. Will the government look at concentrated regional investment for areas like these proud places which once powered our country, still need a helping hand? Comments.

Uh, yes, I think this is really important, and obviously this is, um, long-term, um, issues in communities that have been, um, overlooked, in my view, for a very, very long time. Um, I think there are a number of measures that we are taking that are really important. To give some examples, Cardiff and Newport Investment Zone will drive growth, particularly in manufacturing in that area. Much needed skills that are transferable. There's a Newport semiconductor cluster, which will support hundreds of, um, highly skilled jobs. You'll be well aware of all the support that's going into Tata Steel, into Port Talbot, um, and Tata, the owner there, that we're working with very closely. Um, and I was very pleased to see the electric arc furnace, um, work start, uh, just last week or the week, um, before. Um, but in addition to that, and really to tie it to the previous, um, questions, we also need to invest, um, in across, um, Wales and, uh, South Wales in particular, in in transport and rail, um, across the region.

Uh, thank you for the answers, particularly on, uh, Newport. That's very close to the Eastern Valleys where I'm from. But also, Prime Minister, can we invest in the future in a much more localised way in the Valleys? There's 750,000 people there. They need, uh, good support in the future.

Uh, yeah, absolutely. And, um, the, um, transport improvement, the local growth work that we're doing, and the empowering of local authorities and working with the local, with, with the Welsh Labour government, central, um, to that, in terms of what we're doing.

Thank you. Um, from Wales to Scotland. Patricia Ferguson. Thank you, Chair, and good afternoon, Prime Minister. The Scottish Affairs Committee has recently been looking at those former industrial areas in Scotland, and we've observed that persistent long-term poverty and poor outcomes occurs in many of our former industrial areas, particularly those that are not close to major towns. So, what steps is the government taking to ensure that the benefits of the industrial strategy reach those communities? And what work are you doing with the Scottish government? But also, what is the role of the Scotland Office in helping to deliver those outcomes that we want to see?

Um, some of the levers to deal with poverty are obviously devolved. Um, some are not. The ones that aren't, we can operate and pull, and we will. So that's your minimum wage, um, uh, the changes to Universal Credit, Employment Rights Bill, and some of the other schemes like Warm Home. So there are things, I think, directly the government can do. Um, we, the budget last year, um, set out the biggest devolution settlement for Scotland, best part of £50 billion pounds, um, per year. So there is the money there for the Scottish government to get on and take some of the other necessary, um, measures, and I'm not, um, convinced that they're doing so. Our job, um, notwithstanding our political differences, to work with the Scottish government to deliver, particularly on good, well-paid jobs in areas that need them, and, um, that, uh, we are doing. One of the first things I did as Prime Minister was to go to Scotland, in fact, the very first visit within days, to say to the First Minister that, notwithstanding our political differences, I saw my job to be delivering for Scotland, and therefore we'd work with him and his government wherever we.

Nick Smith MP. Uh, hello again, Prime Minister. The best way out of poverty is a good job. In recent years, there's been a cyber security course in Ebbw Vale. Cyber attacks on Marks and Spencer highlight how crucial this sector is. Archie Norman from M&S outlined the enormous surface attack which companies face, often after outsourcing and offshoring of cyber security. So, could you consider how the government and the private sector might collaborate on this to expand technology and cyber security jobs here in the UK? This could reduce our tech risk and be a pipeline for jobs for younger people for the future.

Uh, yes, firstly, I think it's a really important issue because, uh, there are very many more cyber attacks than, uh, most people appreciate, um, and there are serious security risks. Marks and Spencer is an example. There are plenty of others, um, including, um, concerted cyber attacks, um, on the government and on our public services, which we deal with day in, day out. So it's in our interests to work both with the private sector, which we are doing on initiatives, um, in very many, um, constituencies, uh, to build up those jobs and develop the skills that are going to be necessary, but also working with our security and intelligence services, and in some cases with our military as well, in terms of the, um, work that we're doing on cyber. So this is an area where, um, you can see room for expansion. We put in the money at the spending review on this because I'm very concerned about the increasing risk of cyber attacks across the board.

Mr. Smith, uh, just to emphasise, however, this issue of outsourcing and offshoring of cyber security, if you could please go back to the private sector about that, I think that'll help a lot across our country.

Yes, I'll do that.

Prime Minister, are you specifically looking at any, um, proposing any training in places like the Welsh Valleys, um, in order to promote cyber training for young people to, to help build skills in those areas?

Mr. Smith, yes, there are initiatives in.

Have you got any specifics you can give?

It would appreciate. May not have that. I know there are, but what I'll do is I'll make sure they're available to the committee.

Thank you. Patricia Ferguson. Thank you again, Prime Minister. Many of the communities we're talking about in both Scotland and in Wales have had difficulties now for quite some time. This is not a new problem. These are obviously very hard to reach communities in that sense. But many of them actually possess quite high levels of manufacturing skills, skills that we could use in the to promote the industrial strategy. So I just wonder if there are any specific things that we can point to that would help these communities to get out of this difficulty, because as I mentioned earlier, the problem seems to be particularly acute for those communities that are not close to a larger town where they can feed off what's happening there and where they have transport links that they can access to.

Yeah, I think, um, local growth plans are part of the answer to that. I think making sure we retain the skills, uh, and the jobs in the places we've got them is hugely important. Two examples of that. Grangemouth is, um, an area where we put, uh, quite a significant government, um, amount of money behind it recently. Grangemouth, it seems to me, I mean, there's, there's there's a problem obviously with the winding down of the refinery at Grangemouth, but it is a huge opportunity in terms of the potential of Grangemouth, and therefore for that community and many, many communities around it. I see it's a huge opportunity. I think we've got 10 strands of work going on there to identify the best possible way forward for Grangemouth, which we shouldn't see as some sort of charity case. It is an incredible opportunity in Scotland. Equally, um, I, the work around, um, Aberdeen as we transition, um, from oil and gas to renewables. The potential there is huge for using the same pipework for carbon capture as is currently used for, um, going the other way, if you like, and the same skills and the same workforce, um, for decades to come. So I think there is huge potential in Scotland if we get this right. I would also add, um, that thanks to our India trade deal, most whisky distillers in Scotland are saying to me they're now going to struggle to produce enough whisky to export. It's a problem they are absolutely loving. Um, but it just shows how the trade deal has direct impact on that issue in Scotland in particular.

M. Ferguson. Um, interestingly, many of the whiskey distilleries will also tell you that they have the problem of being able to provide housing for their employees, but perhaps we don't want to go to that one at the moment. But I, I wonder whether you think that the new jobs coming forward, both from Grangemouth specifically and also in the transitioning of the North Sea, are able to keep up with the number of jobs that are being lost?

I, I think they can, but I think it needs additional work. One of which is to value the local supply chains and to ensure that, uh, that is, um, measured when, um, contracts for procurement, um, are put out, because, I think particularly at the moment, having secure supply chains in Scotland is vitally important. And therefore, one aspect, whether it's Grangemouth or elsewhere, can then feed, um, a lot of other communities, a lot of other jobs in quite a wide range of, um, um, areas, is, but only if we value the fact that they are Scottish jobs in Scotland, where, um, in my view, the investment and the contract should be, not least because that then supports the communities through those jobs, and those with the jobs are then paying tax back into Scotland rather than paying it in another country. So there, we need to value it, um, and weigh it in the work that we're doing on contracts, in particular, around the main clusters that we're talking about.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Andy Slaughter. Uh, thank you, Chair, and good afternoon, Prime Minister. People of limited means used to rely on legal aid to navigate through the criminal and civil justice systems. As I think you know, the 2012 LPO Act destroyed much of that, leaving an inadequate patchwork of advice and representation and longer delays in the civil courts, which is the subject of a Justice Committee report published today. No one is expecting the government to suddenly restore the billions taken out of legal aid. But is there a comprehensive plan for ensuring access to justice, or will this be more of a patch-up job?

Well, it's a massive problem, as ever. Um, there's no department that we inherited that, um, is anything other than broken. Um, we are putting more money in. We're focusing first on the criminal side, putting in more money on the, on legal aid, because as you will know, there are, um, terrible backlogs in our courts, and we have to sort that out with more money going in, and then to focus on things like housing, where within the civil sphere, there's a particular problem. So there is more money going in, it's focused in that way, but, um, we are looking at a broader review of how we can have better and quicker access to justice, because, uh, it's far too slow.

Thank you. Could I just move on to reoffending? We've got terrible reoffending rates in this country. People leave prison without a job, a place to stay, or support with addiction and mental health. Some become a nuisance on our high street, committing further offences and quickly finding themselves back in prison. But while you're building new prisons and substituting control and punishment in the community for custody, what plans does the government have to cut the numbers committing criminal offences by reducing reoffending, stopping the revolving door that destroys the lives of victims and perpetrators alike?

Um, the first thing is more mental health, um, and substance abuse, um, support in prison whilst people are in prison, which, um, we're putting in and does make a difference. I think for those that are out of prison and serving their sentences in the community, um, there's, um, an initiative we've launched, um, with councils to try and bridge them into, um, well-paid work at the end of that part of their sentence, which has shown to have material, um, support, and then putting a better package of support around those actually leaving prison when they do leave prison. So those are the three things that we're doing at the moment.

Thank you. Thank you very much. And we're now going to move on to discussing some of the international issues, uh, that you've been dealing with, Prime Minister. And Andy Slaughter is going to kick off with that as well.

Well, slight change of tack, Prime Minister. Um, every day it's clearer that the civilian population of Gaza is being starved, killed, and displaced in a systematic yet indiscriminate way. The steps the UK has taken thus far have had no effect on the criminal actions of the Israeli government. Indeed, these have accelerated and spread to the West Bank. What further steps will the government take to protect Palestinians from mass killing and destruction of their homes and communities? And will these include recognition of Palestine as a state and acting on our obligations under the ICJ advisory opinion?

Yeah. Firstly, we need, in direct answer to the first part of your question, we need a ceasefire, um, and we need it straight away, um, because, um, that will create the space for, um, the remaining hostages to be released. They've been held for a very, very long time. It will create the space for aid to get in at speed and at volume, which is desperately needed, um, and equally importantly, create the space for a political process, which, to my mind, is the only, um, uh, long-term way to get a sustained peace, um, in, um, in Gaza. And, and we mustn't forget what's happening in the West Bank as well. I do think, in answer to the second part of your, um, question, that, um, it is important that all countries, including ours, play a leading part in bringing about, um, the peaceful settlement that we want. And obviously, on the question of recognition, um, we are, and have been for a long time, committed to that as part of the process, as a contribution to, um, the peace process at a time most conducive to the prospects of peace. We are working with others, um, on how we get from where we are now to a two-state solution, which is the only, um, viable option, um, to my mind. Um, and I think that, um, we need to use the coming weeks, uh, to push further on credible plans for the next phase of Gaza. If we get to a ceasefire, we need to push past that and on to, uh, better regionally supported reconstruction efforts, and supporting of the Arab plan. Um, and I think we should play a leading part in that.

I think, if I may, you began by talking about a ceasefire, which is absolutely right, because that, that is the, the sine qua non here. But we hear a lot of words, and there's been another statement, I understand today, a joint statement with 25 countries. But people are asking for action. You must hear that, and certainly the Foreign Secretary hears that every week in the House of Commons. And we have yet to see any steps that have led the Israelis to take action on a ceasefire. Indeed, the opposite is the case. Every morning brings new horrors and new atrocities, new displacements, new deaths of civilians queuing for food in that way. And they're looking to you and to this government to try and provide something which makes that ceasefire happen. What will that be?

Um, firstly, um, let me be clear, the situation on the ground in Gaza is intolerable, um, on so many levels. Um, and, um, we make that absolutely clear in all of our exchanges, um, with Israel and with, um, other countries. Um, whether that's, um, the deaths for those that are queuing for aid, whether it's the plans to, um, force Palestinians to live in certain areas or excluded from certain areas, they're all intolerable, um, and, um, and absolutely wrong in principle. Um, we have taken action, as you know, in terms of sanctions, in terms of what we're doing with arms sales, um, and we are working hard with allies to ensure we bring about a ceasefire. That is not straightforward, as, as you will appreciate. It is important that we're working with the Americans on this, as you would, um, expect. Um, but we need to get to that ceasefire to create the conditions for everything else that needs to happen, and will continue to do so. Um, it is, um, a really important part of the work that we're doing on a day-to-day basis.

We should have responded to the advisory opinion by now. It's over a year since that was issued.

Well, I mean, we're, there's a lot in it, um, and, um, we're working, um, through it, and we will respond in due course.

Thank you very much. Damian Lee Thornbury. Um, no one can deny that our relations with the Europeans are a lot better than they were a year ago. Um, it's much warmer. We've had the state visit of Macron. We've had Chancellor Merz and his new treaty. We've got the E3. We've got a, a European summit that was a great success. So, since we're on a roll, um, what are we going to do next? Um, if we can agree food standards with the Europeans at the next EU summit, can we agree some others? Can we agree something on medicines or chemicals or anything else, really?

Uh, well, firstly, I do think we've made real progress, and I'm pleased that we have. We said we would reset the relations with our, um, partners in Europe, and we've done that through a successful, uh, summit in May, and that had 10 strands to it, including an SPS agreement, which will mean lower prices in supermarkets across the country, but also really important work on defence and security. In addition to that, um, the, we've led with the French the coalition of the willing, which has shown, um, our ability to pull, um, allies together in response to the conflict in Ukraine, and that strong, um, E3 nucleus, if you like, of, we had, as you say, Chancellor Merz here last week, President Macron the week before, and that, that core E3 is now much stronger than it's been for some considerable time. In answer to your question, I think the summit is to be a yearly summit, and it's iterative, and therefore it's not just to monitor what we have agreed, it's to go further. I would like, um, to take up your example of medicines to do more and more on medicines. Uh, there are other areas where I think we could and should go further. I think many, um, creative people who are crossing borders for their artistry, their music, whatever it may be, on a temporary basis, they're not going to another country for any significant period of time, are still finding it too difficult to get in and out of a country. And, um, I hope we can make some progress there. They're not the only areas, but these are common sense changes that we could make, um, to our arrangements with, um, the EU, which had, in my view, very little to do with the vote in 2016, and where by resetting the mood in Europe, we now have a chance of going further.

I mean, what would a better relationship look like in terms of defence for the European Union?

Oh, um, we need, firstly, to ensure that the commitments to spend more are common across Europe, which I think we are doing. We certainly achieved that at the NATO summit. But then we need to do, uh, more than that, because if we're going to all spend more on defence, we need to cooperate and coordinate in how we're bringing about the capability. That was intensely part of the discussion with, um, the Chancellor, uh, of Germany last week, and with President Macron, which is how do we three countries in particular coordinate? So you'll have seen when President Macron was here, we agreed that on nuclear, for the first time, we would look at how we might coordinate, uh, better. I'm absolutely clear in my own mind that NATO has been the cornerstone of our peace for decades. If it's to continue to be, and it's our duty to make sure that it is, it requires some more heavy lifting from the Europeans. And, um, that is why, um, I sort of led from the front in trying to get others into the place of cooperating, coordinating more on the capability. We can learn a lot from Ukraine. A lot of capability was made available to Ukraine, but actually, it wasn't as useful as it could have been because in years gone by, there wasn't that level of coordination, and I think we can fix that now.

So, can I ask you just about something else in relation to defence and, and I think we have to ask you about this, about that shocking data breach for Afghan? I wondered, do you think there was a better way in which the previous government could have dealt with the data breach? Do you think that a super-injunction was the right way? Do you think there was a better way of dealing with it?

Uh, well, uh, it was a, a shocking inheritance. We inherited, um, the breach. We inherited the injunction, and we inherited a secret scheme. A number of us were quite uncomfortable about that. In answer to your question, which is why we set up the review to ask the question, is it necessary for these arrangements still to be in place? The Rimmer Review. And that produced an answer which was no, and therefore the injunction was, um, lifted. But, um, and we, we put in place, um, other measures, as you would expect, to ensure that data is more securely, um, held in the MOD. But it was, um, you know, it was a, it was a breach we inherited, and I do think, I mean, I think the Defence Select Committee is looking at it now, and, um, I hope that members of the previous administration will appear before that committee and give their explanation.

D Emily, I just wonder why it, it took a year to unpick this, uh, super-injunction. Can you give us any more information about that timeline?

Uh, yes, it was a very complicated review, and having got into the situation where lives were potentially at risk, um, I wanted the review to be as careful as it could be.

So you undertook the review because you were uncomfortable about the super-injunction?

Yes. Yes.

But you didn't, you wanted to know what the impact of removing it would be, of course, because, um, if, I mean, that, that was a risk assessment which held people's lives in it.

Decision made on, on entry into government as well. I mean, pretty soon afterwards.

Yeah. So you briefed in the first, briefed as Prime Minister, not as Leader of the Opposition, just to be clear.

I wasn't briefed as Leader of the Opposition.

Okay. Um, to be fair, it wasn't just for the record. It wasn't offered to me, but to be fair to the last government, they did offer me briefings on most things. As it happens, they didn't offer a briefing on this, but I'm not complaining as such. I didn't get offered it, but to be fair, I did get offered briefings, um, on quite a regular basis.

Just, just for the clarity for the record. G M War MP, thank you very much, and good afternoon, Prime Minister. The Science, Innovation and Technology Select Committee published its report into social media misinformation and harmful algorithms this month, and basically identified that the online safety regime which this government inherited, um, is not fit for purpose. It's unable to tackle, oh, sorry, so we, we found that the online safety regime which this government inherited is not fit for purpose. It's unable to tackle the, uh, spread of misinformation, and it cannot keep, uh, British citizens safe online. So, can you promise my committee and, uh, everyone whose lives are impacted by the viral spread of algorithmically, um, amplified misinformation, that the ongoing discussions on a trade agreement with the USA, or for that matter, the forthcoming visits of Vice President Vance and President Trump, will not prevent you from taking the action which is so urgently needed to keep British people safe online from misinformation?

Information. I'd say two things about that. Firstly, obviously the next tranche of protections under the Online Safety Act are coming into force imminently, and we need to look at how effective they are. But I do agree with you that we need to go further than that. And in all of, um, our analysis here and the work that we're doing, we have to focus on our national interest, what we need to do to keep, um, our citizens safe, um, and also to make sure our electoral system and democracy works effectively, because I am, I was very worried at the last election about misinformation, um, and I'm very worried about the potential for misinformation in future elections in this country.

Thank you, Prime Minister. The Online Safety Act specifically does not address misinformation. That was clear evidence, but there are provisions within it that are coming on, um, harm, which, coming into force, um, imminently.

Thank you very much. Dench. Then Caroline Dage, just very quickly, back to the BBC. It's the most trusted news brand, uh, around the world, and yet financial pressures have seen where they cut services, where the BBC World Service cuts services. They get backfilled by Chinese state media in Russia Today, and that actually has a direct positive impact on favourability towards them. Um, I just wondered, Prime Minister, do you agree with the minister who said to my Select Committee that the BBC World Service bolsters national security and global security? And if you do, do you think more government departments should contribute to fund it?

U, firstly, I do agree with the proposition. I think the World Service is really important. Um, I also agree that whether it's, um, in broadcasting or other areas, uh, there are other states that are more than happy to step in if a gap is, um, left. Um, I, somewhere in the pack I've got the funding arrangements for, uh, the World Service, but I can't put my finger on it at the moment, but we do need to make sure that we protect the World Service for those very reasons.

It is a matter of, sorry, in essence, it's been increased, but they're not enough.

Yeah. Well, uh, it's a constant call. Inflation that they're sort of facing in some countries is like 30%, and the increase is very tiny. Um, and in countries like Liberia, um, and, um, Lebanon and Kenya, where the BBC World Service has pulled out, Russia Today and Chinese state media have backfilled. So it's just really important to put that on your radar.

No. Uh, and, and, um, I take that away, but I agree with the basic proposition that, um, other countries are very quick to step in if we leave it.

One tiny quick question. Will there be a Department for Culture, Media and Sport after the next reshuffle?

Yes. Uh, and the committee to oversee it.

Prime Minister, at, at the beginning of the session, you set out what you wanted the country to look at, and you've obviously answered a number of questions about how you might achieve that. You also, a lot of discussion about shake-ups at Number 10. Do you think, given what you've laid out and the challenges that the country faces, there may be a benefit to bringing in ideas from outside Number 10 and Whitehall, and how are you proposing to do that, if so?

Oh, I think there's always, um, room for bringing outside ideas into, uh, Number 10, whether that's from, um, the private sector, um, particularly those that are running businesses, whether it's from our mayors and, um, local representatives across the country, um, whether it's, um, from making better use of parliamentarians, um, I think there's always room for improvement and bringing in the ideas of others. I, I, I, um, think that, um, where people have experience on the ground, it is invaluable to hear what they say about what we are doing, we're proposing to do, um, and, and to take that on board.

And, um, when you were in front of us at Christmas, you've done five months, now you've done a year. Um, given what you've just said, is there anything that you would have done differently, sitting where you are now, knowing what you know, compared with the 5th of July 2024?

Well, I mean, we, we had the most terrible inheritance, and I know, um, some people don't want to hear it anymore, but if you think about, um, Blair, he inherited, um, you know, an economy which was getting better, but public services which, uh, were, were broken. Cameron inherited, um, good public services, but the '08 crash. We inherited broken public services and a broken economy. So we had to take some difficult decisions in year one, and I'm not surprised that, uh, that's been hard in places. But at the same time, we've delivered incredible numbers.

Are you saying you would do nothing differently? Because I mean, you just talked about bringing people in from outside Whitehall to help shape the agenda. Is that something that you want to do more of?

Well, yes, but I do, I mean, if I may carry on, we, we, we've done four and a half million extra appointments on the NHS. That is remarkable. Nobody thought it could be done. Got a 10-year plan for the NHS.

You talked about wanting to engage with Parliament more, for example. Is there anything in, just, I mean, it's not over a year, you had a chance to do this, the biggest job in the country, very big challenge, huge challenge. Um, is there anything you would, what different approach you've taken now you, now you've had to sit in the hot seat?

Oh, I think we could engage Parliament more. I don't doubt that. But I do think it's important for us to, um, remind people of what, what improvements we have done to the NHS. What we've done on free school meals, breakfast clubs, childcare, school uniforms, what we've done in terms of the investment we've put into road and rail, the fact we got three trade deals with countries which, uh, many governments tried to get deals with and didn't achieve that. We've had 120 billion pounds worth of inward investment. That is a record, all-time record of inward, um, investment, and sometimes one of the mistakes we make is not shouting loud enough about what we are achieving. Um, we, we, we in the late.

So from that list of, of, of achievements, what's been your best moment in the last year as Prime Minister?

Oh, walking into Downing Street, um, and taking up, uh, the job of governing, and I wouldn't swap, um, a single day in government for years and years in opposition.

And what about, and what about your worst moment in the last 12 months? Every, every province has challenges, both good and bad. What's the most difficult thing you've had to deal with?

The worst thing was when my brother died, um, which for me brings the private and the public into, um, a very, um, tense conflict, and that was difficult.

Well, thank you very much, Prime Minister. Thank you for your time. We hope you get a bit of a break over the summer. Um, no, you didn't. I say that hopefully every time. At the beginning of the summer last time. So I'm not saying anything. Thank you very much indeed. If the public could stay behind, please. Order. Or order. I should say the transcript should be available hopefully tonight, if not tomorrow. Thanks to our colleagues at Hand. Thank you.