What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I thank my hon. Friend for leading the debate so admirably. One thing we heard at the APPG on patient safety is the need for staff to feel confident to speak out if they see things going wrong and the importance of a safe culture, yet in the NHS staff survey only four in 10 midwives say that their organisation would address concerns if they were raised. Does he agree that we need to do more to build a safe staff culture within the NHS and maternity units?
I thank my hon. Friend for her amazing work on this issue over many years, campaigning for families in her area who have been harmed. Families often face long and lonely legal battles after the grieving and damage that has been done during the child’s care. Clinicians and organisations can often become defensive and risk-averse, particularly in this environment. Does she agree that, as part of the changes she is calling for, we also need to look at NHS Resolution, the clinical negligence scheme, and stop making it a fight for parents to get answers to their questions?
I beg to move, That this House has considered Baby Loss Awareness Week. It is a privilege to open this debate again during Baby Loss Awareness Week. I want to start by recognising the bereaved parents participating in the debate today, whether by watching at home, having shared their story with their MP, or even by speaking in this Chamber. To lose a child is one of the most painful things a parent can experience. I know today will bring back difficult and deeply upsetting memories for many, but we are here today in our children’s memory. Since our debate last October, the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss has heard from countless families, charities and support groups. They have trusted us with heartbreaking stories of babies who have died, concerns that were dismissed, parents left without answers and families having to fight the very systems that should have supported them. We have also heard from dedicated healthcare professionals, representative of tens of thousands across the country who are working incredibly hard to deliver great care despite the system, not because of it. Last year I shared my experience of losing my daughter Mallorie. This year I have been spurred on by the stories that others have entrusted to us. Each is different, but the message running through them is the same. We know more than enough about the failures and the problems. We know what good should look like, and families and professionals now urgently need us to deliver change. To everyone who has spoken at the APPG, often at great personal cost, I say, “Thank you. Your testimony must not simply become part of another report; it must shape what happens next.” When I opened last year’s debate, I focused on the national investigation into maternity and neonatal services. Since then, Baroness Amos has published her findings, and a national maternity and neonatal taskforce has begun developing a national action plan. That is progress, but it is not yet delivery. Time and again, families have seen inquiries established, reports published and recommendations accepted, only for the same failures to recur again and again. We must break this cycle, and make this national action plan a watershed moment. The test will not be the quality of the plan when it is published, but whether care improves, families are listened to, staff are supported to provide care and, ultimately, fewer babies die. Today, I want to focus on some key areas in which action is urgently needed. First, to underpin the action plan, we need new national targets to reduce baby deaths and eliminate inequalities. Black and Asian babies continue to experience substantially higher rates of stillbirth and neonatal death, while babies born to the most deprived communities also face worse outcomes. We do not need another decade of evidence to know that this demands action. The previous national maternity safety ambitions expired last year and have not yet been replaced, so the Sands and Tommy’s joint policy unit is calling for new targets to take us to 2035. These targets must be ambitious, transparent and measurable. The policy unit’s recommendations include national targets for stillbirth, neonatal mortality and preterm birth, alongside an explicit commitment to eliminating the inequalities in these outcomes based on ethnicity and deprivation.
Unfortunately, the tragic case my hon. Friend describes is just too common, as is reflected in so many accounts I have heard from families at our all-party group. Yet again, it just adds to the weight of evidence showing that we need urgent and immediate action. We cannot wait. We cannot let those families down.
I pay tribute to those parents, and to so many parents who have launched campaigns in their children’s names. I hope and believe that that particular measure will be considered alongside many other methods and actions that could prevent the tragedies we see all too often. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that to our attention. The national maternity targets are vital, because without these clear targets, it is harder to maintain focus, measure progress or hold the system to account. The Government should adopt this call. Progress must be published regularly, and the data must show not only the national picture, but which communities are being failed and where. We must understand where babies are dying, which families are experiencing the poorest outcomes, where learning is taking place and, ultimately, whether changes in policy are actually making a difference. This must include better data on miscarriage. At present, we do not routinely collect the information needed to understand fully how many families experience miscarriage, how those experiences differ between communities and whether outcomes are improving.
I agree wholeheartedly, and as the hon. Member will see, I will focus on that significantly later in my speech. On miscarriage data, Scotland is expecting to begin routine data collection on miscarriage from this year. England should match that ambition. Linked to that, we also need to address anomalies in how stillbirth is defined and recorded. However, targets and data are only meaningful if someone is responsible for monitoring progress and challenging failure. That brings me to my second point. The maternity and neonatal commissioner, as recommended by Baroness Amos, must be independent, empowered and properly resourced. The commissioner could provide a strong national voice for women, babies and families, monitoring whether recommendations are implemented, holding the system to account and ultimately helping to rebuild trust. The commissioner should report regularly to Parliament on progress against national targets, identify where improvement has stalled and require public bodies to explain what corrective action they will take. That must include being able to challenge the regulators. Long-terms issues with the Care Quality Commission and the General Medical Council are well recognised, but effective, trusted and fit-for-purpose regulators are a crucial element of any maternity safety system and a maternity commissioner should be able to demand better of them. The commissioner’s potential will be realised only if they can act independently of the system being scrutinised. The system cannot be allowed to mark its own homework. The commissioner should have a statutory basis, independent publication rights, the power to obtain information and make formal recommendations, and a duty to monitor their implementation. The office will also need protected funding and a dedicated team. The Government must explain how the commissioner will work alongside the taskforce and other bodies, what powers the office will possess and how its independence will be protected. That will be particularly important if the role is to be based within the Department of Health and Social Care. If that is the case, the Government should present a clear rationale as to why it is the best option and provide specific assurances around independence. Ultimately, families will judge the maternity commissioner role by whether it can ask difficult questions, publish uncomfortable findings and demand proof that change has occurred.
I think this connects to the issue of personalised care. When it comes to bereavement support, it is the care and support that works for that individual. I will talk later about personalised care plans and personalised support plans during bereavement, but it is about reflecting on what the individual needs, not what the system says someone needs.
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Sands—indeed, we are joined today by staff from Sands in the Gallery. There are so many charities, such as Tommy’s and others, that are vital. It is a fact that so many parents rely on voluntary services and voluntary support to get through what is one of the most difficult times in their lives. Those charities are indispensable, but at the same time they are often plugging gaps that exist in the system that maybe should be providing that support. The third point I want to focus on is on the question about personalised family-centred care. Every pregnancy and every family is different. Good care depends on seeing the person in front of you, listening carefully, and understanding their history, circumstances, concerns and individual risks. Too many families have described being dismissed or treated as a category rather than as a person. A safe service cannot be one in which parents are not heard. Nor can it be called safe if assumptions about ethnicity or background influence the care someone receives.
I thank John and Holly for raising that question. Of course, I agree that listening to parents, listening to families and listening to mothers is crucial to a good service. To me, it is the thing that defines a good service: the personalisation and individualisation of care. Building on that, families must be genuinely involved in decisions. Information must be clear and accessible. Risk must be assessed individually. When a mother or parent says that something is wrong, that concern must be taken seriously. The national action plan should establish what every family is entitled to expect throughout the maternity and neonatal pathway: physical and psychological safety, dignity, informed choice, and compassionate care and communication. In designing this change, we should recognise that there are midwives, doctors, nurses, support workers and bereavement specialists throughout the country delivering extraordinary care every day, often under immense pressure. We must learn from that and build on it. To give just one local example, we have the Lancashire Women and Newborn Centre in Burnley. Speaking with staff and patients there, we can see what good practice looks like. It is a high-quality environment, with a triage unit to catch early issues. There is mutual respect among staff and personalised care for patients. They take time to listen and to provide compassionate bereavement support when needed. This same high standard of care is replicated in many units throughout the country, so reform must not simply identify what has gone wrong. We must recognise, celebrate and share what works. We must have structures that identify best practice and effectively propagate it throughout maternity services. That brings me to my fourth point. Supporting and empowering staff must be central to reform. Throughout the all-party parliamentary group’s work, we have heard from healthcare professionals who care deeply about families and take great pride in their work, but goodwill cannot compensate for a lack of time, training, capacity or appropriate facilities. Safe care requires the right staff with the right mix of skills and the right resources and facilities needed to deliver it. Staff need time to listen properly to families, undertake training, reflect on difficult cases and learn from colleagues.
I fully agree. I am so glad my hon. Friend raised that point, because she has, wonderfully, set up the next passage of my speech. Staff must be able to raise concerns without fearing damage to their careers. The figure in the NHS staff survey is, I believe, that 43.5% of midwifery staff felt confident that concerns would be addressed. Staff are often the first to recognise when a system is becoming unsafe. If they believe speaking up will make no difference, an opportunity to prevent harm may be lost. Improving culture must therefore mean more than asking staff to attend another programme or complete another exercise. It must mean creating an environment with time to listen and time to care. Speaking up should be welcomed, concerns taken seriously and those who raise them protected. Boards and senior leaders must hear what staff are telling them. They must be able to trace concerns from the ward to the boardroom, demonstrate what action has been taken and report back to those who spoke up. Whistleblowers must be protected from retaliation or isolation. No healthcare professional should be forced to choose between remaining silent about unsafe care and risking their livelihood by raising it. If staff are trusted, supported and heard, they are far better placed to listen to families in turn. Fundamentally, we should empower staff to provide the standard of care they entered the NHS to deliver. Finally, we must deliver compassionate and equitable bereavement care. Our daughter Mallorie died at five days old. Nothing could have been done to prevent that, and we received exceptional care throughout our time in hospital. We also received good emotional support in the immediate aftermath from hospital staff, but trauma can take time to kick in. The impacts of losing a child do not end after a week or a month or a year. They stay with us. My wife, Vanessa, suffered depression and post-traumatic stress disorder in the years following Mallorie’s death. For 11 years now, she has had consistent difficulties accessing specialist and sustained mental health support. Instead, she has been bounced between short-term interventions and generalists, and often reliant on limited voluntary services. At no point was she able to get support from a mental health professional who actually specialised in birth trauma. She was never able to return to her role as a senior health visitor. She has now had her NHS career terminated on ill health grounds and she is back on another waiting list for therapy. Vanessa’s experience is far from unique. Time and again, I have heard from mothers and fathers about how the system was incapable of responding to their individual circumstance, and the timing and depth of trauma.
I will come on to the full package of support that is needed, but what the hon. Member raises is indicative of how care is not available when people need it most—we hear that time and again.
Supporting charities is vital; they do so much incredible and brilliant work, and I would encourage any support that could be given. I will now attempt wrapping up and not take any more interventions —my eye has been caught by Madam Deputy Speaker. The care received after losing a baby stays with a family forever. Kindness, dignity and privacy cannot remove grief, but poor and absent care after loss will deepen trauma and cause long-term harm. To be clear, good bereavement support must include fathers. Only 29% of services offered basic assessments to fathers in 2024—that is simply not good enough. Services must recognise that fathers and partners will also grieve. We need to do better, and we can. We know what needs to be done. The national bereavement care pathway already exists and covers miscarriage, termination of pregnancy for foetal anomaly, stillbirth, neonatal death and sudden unexpected death in infancy. Every NHS trust in England has voluntarily adopted it, but implementation remains inconsistent because services have not always received the resources or prioritisation needed to deliver it. We must address that and require that all bereavement pathways are considered within NHS planning and resourcing. Effective bereavement support should be integral to all maternity services, with identified bereavement leads. All staff who may care for bereaved families should have access to appropriate bereavement training during working hours, and they must themselves receive the support they need in dealing with the losses they have seen. When loss has occurred, every family should have a private space to spend time with their baby, make memories and begin to process what has happened. Specialist bereavement support services should be there to support them through personalised support plans, and in the longer term they need to have specialist mental health support available to respond as trauma manifests, even if that is years later. The question is no longer whether maternity and neonatal services require fundamental change—report after report has answered that. The question is whether we have the determination to deliver it. We need targets to reduce baby deaths and eliminate inequalities by 2035, supported by good data to show that policy is working. We need a commissioner with the independence and authority to hold the system to account. We need care that sees and listens to every family as individuals. We need to give staff the training, time, capacity and protection they need to provide safe care and to speak up when something is wrong. And when a baby dies, we need compassionate, high-quality bereavement care for every family. Last year, I said that we had the opportunity and obligation to act. That obligation is now greater, because the actions we must take have been laid before us. Families have heard promises before, they have watched recommendations accepted, and they have been assured that lessons would be learned, only to see another family experience the same failures. We owe them something different now, not another expression of good intent, but evidence that care is changing and lives are being saved. Bereaved families have given us their testimony, time and trust. They should not be asked to return in another year—or in another decade—to tell us that the same failures continue. We cannot bring back the babies who have died, but we can honour their short lives through what we do next.
I thank everyone who has spoken and shared their experience, which is not easy. In that regard, I would just reflect on the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith). There are Members who could not be here today because their losses are too recent and too painful. As many others have reflected, baby loss affects far more of us than we actually realise. I thank all Members present, and I thank the Secretary of State for being here throughout—it means a lot; it really does matter. Her commitment and passion for getting this right shine through. There has been clear consensus across the House about what needs to be done. We should all be very clear that in a year’s time—and we will be back here in a year’s time—we need to be talking about what has been done and real, tangible, concrete actions. To deliver that, we need the resource, the institutional capacity and the leadership to drive through that change with urgency and practicality. So next year, let us be celebrating what we have done, not talking about what needs to be done. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Baby Loss Awareness Week.
With permission, I wish to make a statement on the United Nations General Assembly and related international events that have occurred since the House last met. Before I do so, let me first welcome my hon. Friend the new Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Sagal Abdi-Wali) to her place. What a journey, from child refugee to Parliament, and what a country—that this story of hope could happen here. I know my hon. Friend will enhance this House in so many ways, and I look forward to working with her. I took a clear message to the United Nations: after a decade of turbulence, Britain is back and can be relied upon as a consistent and stable partner in an uncertain world, always upholding the shared values set out in the UN charter, rejecting aggression wherever we see it, and always steadfast in our support for Ukraine, as I assured President Zelensky at our meeting in New York. In the three weeks since that meeting, Russian strikes have intensified even further, with more attacks on civilians: on apartment blocks housing innocent families; on buses carrying innocent children. When I spoke to President Zelensky on Saturday, he described the step change from Russia, including daylight attacks intended to break the will of Ukraine and ours. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that that will never happen. In recent days, we have announced new funding to help Ukraine get through its fifth winter under Russian bombardment and a new sanctions package so that over 90% of Russia’s oil-producing capacity is now covered by UK sanctions. The quickest way to get diesel back on to world markets without rewarding the aggressor is an energy ceasefire, with both sides stopping their attacks. I raised this with President Trump in New York. It is what Ukraine wants to see, so I welcome President Trump’s announcement yesterday of a reciprocal energy ceasefire. President Zelensky has assured me that Ukraine would immediately implement it when a start date is confirmed, and I will be discussing this further with him in the coming days. NATO is a defensive alliance. We do not seek confrontation, but our resolve to defend our allies and ourselves is absolute, and I was clear in all of my meetings, including with the NATO Secretary-General in Oxfordshire, that we will meet our NATO commitments in full. We know that Russia is conducting a campaign of hybrid attacks and sabotage across Europe. In Berlin last week, Chancellor Merz and I agreed a new partnership to tackle these hybrid threats. We must be clear-eyed about attempts to destabilise our democracies. It is why, in my speech to the UN General Assembly, I confirmed our commitment to establish a new centre for information defence, as recommended by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. More broadly, this is a moment to deepen collaboration with our partners, which is why in Berlin I indicated Britain’s openness to Germany joining the global combat air programme alongside Italy and Japan. In my meeting with President Trump, we discussed the situation in the middle east. I confirmed Britain’s decision to send air defence and a Voyager aircraft to Saudi Arabia to provide air-to-air refuelling support. I can confirm today that it has already completed 14 operational missions. This support is needed to protect civilians. I condemn the appalling attacks on the King Khalid International airport. We will continue to stand with Saudi Arabia against the Houthis. Since UNGA, we have been in close contact with the US about protective security at our shared bases. I thank our police and military personnel for their swift response to the incidents at RAF Fairford and RAF Molesworth. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will update the House on the incident at RAF Fairford, but I can confirm our assessment that it is highly likely to have been co-ordinated in Iran, almost certainly directed by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. We will not tolerate these threats on our soil. We will crack down on Iran’s use of criminal networks, using our full range of powers to target them and their funding streams, and we will bring further sanctions to restrict the capacity of Iran and the IRGC to do us harm. In my meeting with the President, I also raised the Falkland Islands and the clear and declared will of the islanders to remain British. I emphasised that point in my speech to the General Assembly and that we will also always do whatever it takes to uphold their will. In New York, I also had a positive meeting with the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, about the forthcoming UK-EU summit. I can confirm to the House today that it will take place in Brussels on 20 November. This summit presents an opportunity to make progress on two crucial issues: boosting UK growth and controlling illegal immigration. On the table is a trade deal on food and drink products, a deal on emissions trading, progress towards linking our energy systems, a new youth experience scheme, and deeper co-operation on immigration. This summit presents an opportunity to make progress on two crucial issues: boosting UK growth and controlling illegal immigration. On the table is a trade deal on food and drink products, a deal on emissions trading, progress towards linking our energy systems, a new youth experience scheme and deeper co-operation on immigration. The summit will also be an opportunity to raise our concerns about “Made in Europe”, and it is clear to me that there is an opportunity to make progress in all of these areas. Together, these deals will add the equivalent of over £10 billion per year to the UK economy by 2040, with the potential to add significantly more. We should not turn our backs on this opportunity, and I hope Members from all sides of this House will get behind the Government’s efforts to land a positive outcome. It is a chance to cut costs and bureaucracy for sectors like farming. At present, entire truckloads of plants or fresh produce can be destroyed because of a single missing stamp or a minor paperwork delay. Fresh meat and fish spoil while waiting in trucks, and tonnes of exports have to be written off. Our largest food export, Scottish salmon, faces a 100% rate of document checks at the border, costing us around £100 million in lost exports. British burgers and other fresh meat products cannot be sold in the EU. Seed potatoes from Scotland and shellfish from Wales are banned. This is having a real impact on businesses, and the agreement on the table could reverse some of that damage. For farmers and food producers, it would lift a burden that can reach £1,400 on a single shipment. For our small businesses, it would mean no more export health certificates, which can cost up to £200 each time. For households, it would ease the pressure on prices in the supermarket. It could help lower energy costs for households and businesses alike. In Northern Ireland, the proposed energy deal could cut wholesale energy costs by 20%. On immigration, we could link up our law enforcement efforts once again, sharing more data and criminal records of foreign nationals, as well as ensuring faster electronic evidence from the phones of those behind the gangs. It is in Britain’s interests to secure a deal along these lines, and I will work hard over the next five weeks to achieve that. I believe that our chances of doing so will be enhanced by being open to a discussion about our relationship with the EU in the longer term. If we are serious about promoting growth, controlling immigration, upholding our values and security, it is a conversation that we must have. Sticking with the status quo is not good enough for Britain. Worse, it would be a major dereliction of duty to turn away. We need to take a calm, clear-eyed, rational look at the world as it is today, to consider what is best for our country. Our immediate priority is securing a successful outcome at the summit, and I believe we should then set up a serious dialogue about the different options for our relationship in the long term. At every stage, the British public will be the boss, and I am clear that public opinion currently supports a pragmatic approach, like the one I am suggesting, but if we go into this further phase, we will proceed with care and complete transparency. This is the leadership we need to draw a line under a decade of drift and division, and to take the country forward. Beyond Europe, a confident Britain is ready to play our part on the global stage as we take up the presidency of the G20 in 2027. I confirmed in New York that we will place artificial intelligence centre stage in our presidency, to capture the incredible opportunities it presents while guarding against the risks. Leading voices like the president of Microsoft are saying Britain is the world leader on AI safety, so we are well placed to take on this role, and to work towards agreeing a single set of global principles and standards on AI, in our G20 presidency year. The message to the world is clear: Britain is back. On so many fronts, we are playing our part and looking confidently to the future. We are leading again, so our country can hope again. I commend this statement to the House.
I thank the right hon. Lady. She started on the right point, which is the situation in the middle east, and the extent to which it is affecting cost of living pressures here at home—the cost of filling up at the pump, and the costs that people are feeling more broadly. She is absolutely right to say that that is where our focus should be. It is where my focus was when I had all my meetings in New York, and it is why I have taken action to remove VAT from electricity bills this month. We are acting quickly on the cost of living, and we will continue to do that. I was listening carefully to what the right hon. Lady said about the European Union. One could only conclude from what she said about unpicking the deal—the deal that is supposedly so good for Britain—that she will be defending the status quo. I am sure that I heard her say at her conference that increasing growth would be the operating principle of any Government that she leads, so how can she justify turning her back on a deal, which is potentially on the table now, to add billions to the UK economy? How can the Conservatives justify turning their backs on farmers and the food industry, who are finding it hard to export to Europe? I think they need to reflect on that. She says that I have revealed what I want to do, and that this is no way to negotiate—because the Tories were so good at negotiating deals with our partners, weren’t they? To address the right hon. Lady’s point, I implied no such thing in my comments on “The Rest Is Politics” podcast. I think she should go back and look again. It is a matter of record that Russian actors sought to interfere in the 2019 general election, and we think it is inconceivable that this was the first time. I have a question for her. I listened carefully to what she said at her conference last week. Twice, she was asked directly whether she thought Brexit had been good for London. Twice, she could not answer—she could not even address the question. That is not going to be good enough for a party that wishes to lead this country once again. It is not leadership to turn your back on growth and on building the British economy. On defence, this Government are already spending £14 billion more every year than the Conservatives did in their last year in government. We will continue to work with our US counterparts on RAF Fairford. Can I say to the right hon. Lady that every single Foreign Secretary, including David Cameron as the last Conservative Foreign Secretary, met representatives of the Iranian Government? She should look back at that, as well as at her own record in government. The Leader of the Opposition stands there today and says that she will build new prison places. Why is there a crisis in our prisons? It is because the Conservatives did not build those places when they were in office. We are dealing with the issues that she left behind. We are the ones providing leadership in difficult times. It is about time that she faced up to some of those realities about the mess they left behind.
I can indeed give those assurances to my right hon. Friend, the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I thank her for the work that she has done in making that recommendation. She is right to say that the wrong approach was taken in the past. The Intelligence and Security Committee report in 2020 said that the last Government failed to seek evidence of any potential interference in our democratic processes. We will not make the same mistakes in the next decade as were made in the last. The new national centre for information defence is about putting Britain in a strong place to face the challenges in a difficult world, and that is what we will do.
May I say to the Father of the House that I stand by every single one of those words? I am not reopening the referendum; I respect the referendum result, as I just said a moment ago. What I will do is take a pragmatic approach when I can boost growth in the British economy and when I can increase co-operation to get a grip on boat crossings across the channel. I will do those things where I believe they can be in the country’s best interests. The deal that I have inherited coming into office represents an opportunity to secure progress on both those things. The case I am putting to the House this afternoon is that it is a dereliction of duty for any Member to turn away from that possibility, when we can support the food industry, we can support farmers, and we can get Britain growing more strongly again. Our responsibility in this House is to serve this country’s best interests, and that is what I will do.
I will always support our Ukrainian friends, and I can say to my hon. Friend that I called President Zelensky on Saturday afternoon precisely because I recognised that he was in the middle of a very difficult 24 hours. I can also say to the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke to the United States Treasury Secretary at around the same time, and talked about the importance of an energy ceasefire. It was good to see that proposal emerge from the President yesterday. It is the best possible outcome in the circumstances that we are in: it will get fuel flowing into the market as well as protecting Ukraine throughout the winter ahead of us, and we will continue to make the case for it.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words about my dad. They are much appreciated. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the harm done to food and farming, and to other industries, by the Brexit deal. It would seem that the Conservative party is in denial about this, and not open to seeing how we can move forward to a better position for the country. Indeed, it is clear that British public opinion has moved, and I believe that the public would now favour that. We are not ideological but pragmatic in taking steps to support growth and improve our approach to tackling irregular migration. If we can secure a good deal, I hope that I can count on the right hon. Gentleman’s support and that of his colleagues when it comes before the House. But as much as I want to improve growth in the UK, I also want to maintain trust in politics, and I am afraid I am not prepared to revisit the red lines in our manifesto. On Ukraine, I have had discussions with Chancellor Merz about bringing forward a meeting of the coalition of the willing. I can update the House further as that proceeds. Finally, on the Brexit referendum, I think it is really important to be open with people about everything that we have lived through in the last decade. I have been open, but I am also making sure that Britain is in a position where we do not face the same again. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will support the new national centre for information defence, so that Britain never again faces the risk of interference in our democratic process.
I thank my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] My apologies—my right hon. Friend. I am still getting used to being back, Mr Speaker. I agree with him about the red tape that our businesses are facing. I have read out examples in the House this afternoon. The Conservatives used to be the first party to stand up and say, “Oh yes, let’s remove red tape from our businesses.” It sounded mightily like they were defending that red tape this afternoon. What has happened to them? They were meant to be the champions of free enterprise, but it falls to us to remove the red tape, and I will work hard to get that deal. I agree with my right hon. Friend that “Made in Europe” presents risks to British manufacturing, and I know that he will have concerns about the automotive industry in the west midlands. I am raising those concerns with European partners. It is important that we get to an arrangement that works for both the UK and the EU. After all, we are both trying to deal with the same issue: the damaging effect that Chinese exports are having on our industries. The way to approach this is to do it together, and that is the case that we are making to the EU.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that ending the suffering in Sudan is very high on the Foreign Secretary’s list of priorities, and that tackling the aggression from the Houthis is something that we are taking extremely seriously. Of course, we are providing support to Saudi Arabia, as I have mentioned this afternoon, and we will be prepared to consider further requests as and when they come in, but I cannot accept what the right hon. Gentleman said about Israel and Palestine. In this House, we have long supported a two-state solution. If we do nothing when a tender process to build on the west bank is moving forward, we will allow that two-state solution to die in front of our eyes. The Foreign Secretary is not prepared to allow that, I am not prepared to allow that, and we strongly defend the stance we have taken.
My right hon. Friend is exactly right, and I commend him for the excellent work he did to lay the groundwork for this deal. He is right: in these circumstances and at this moment in time, it is incumbent on every Member of the House to do whatever we can to relieve pressure on British business, and that is what we will do. It is interesting that this afternoon the country will be able to see that we are prepared to do it, but the Opposition are not.
I say to the right hon. Lady that I am always a stable and consistent partner. Indeed, I will honour the result of the referendum, as I always have for the last 10 years—that is a clear commitment, as is the commitment to our manifesto, as I explained just a moment ago—but I am also going to lead and will be prepared to set out options that I think Britain should consider. If she is saying that she is happy with the status quo, she is in a minority in this country. People know that Britain can do better than this. I am determined to secure better for Britain. I am just surprised that the Opposition are setting their ambitions for our country so low.
My hon. Friend is right to raise the loss of immigration control that has come with the inability to access data across the European Union. It is something that the people who promoted this idea need to take on board and be held to account for, because the reality is that we are in a weaker position when it comes to controlling immigration than we were just over 10 years ago. It is really important, as we go into this next phase, that those on all sides of the House support the British position in this negotiation. Is any Member of this House truly saying to me this afternoon that they do not want to have access again to that European immigration information? If they are saying that, they need to be honest about it.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is clear that we want a humanitarian solution in Sudan without fear or favour, and we will make that case very clearly to the UAE. On the wider issue, I can confirm, Mr Speaker, that all my dealings will be published this afternoon in relation to any meetings with the owners of Manchester City.
I thank my hon. Friend for the powerful way in which she puts her question. I assure her that Britain will always take the strongest possible approach towards sanctions on Russia. The Foreign Secretary recently announced new sanctions on the shadow fleet, crypto and oil companies in Russia. We will continue to take that action and, we hope, set a lead that others will follow.
I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but I did not say that. I did not at any point say that it altered the result. I simply come back to what I said earlier: it is a matter of record that Russia has sought to interfere in elections—the 2019 general election—and we think it is inconceivable that this was the first time.
I assure my hon. Friend that we are using our good offices on every front to ensure that we get a solution on the cost of energy. As I said before, in Ukraine an energy ceasefire is the best way to get fuel flowing into the market, and that has to be a reciprocal ceasefire. We are also doing whatever we can to support the bringing forward of a solution in the middle east. I discussed both those matters with President Trump in New York, and Britain stands ready to play its part on both fronts.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are providing the most robust response to the situation. We have introduced a tough sanctions regime. We are taking every step that needs to be taken in close consultation with our counterparts in the United States. There is no suggestion at all that Britain is not playing its part.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he has done with colleagues in Derby to secure that investment and those new jobs. The great city of Derby will be a big beneficiary of this Government’s drive to reindustrialise the country. I was at Alstom with my hon. Friend and saw what is being done and the apprenticeships there. We are proud of what is going on in the city. I will ask the Chancellor and the First Secretary of State to do everything they can to drive the maximum value for British jobs from every pound of public procurement in this country.
We already have the AI Security Institute, and to be fair, I pay tribute to the previous Conservative Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), who was instrumental in the establishment of that institute. It is because of that that the president of Microsoft was on the radio this morning saying that Britain is now regarded as the world leader in AI safety. What we must not be, however, is complacent, which is why I am putting AI at the top of the agenda for Britain’s presidency of the G20. I look forward to working with the hon. Lady and Members from across the House to ensure that Britain brings together a global code of standards and principles that can capture the benefits of AI while guarding against the risks it poses.
I do not think any Member of this House has done more than my hon. Friend to support Ukraine through its darkest hour. On the issue of protecting Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, as well as helping it with renewable and sustainable energy systems, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was in Ukraine last week and talked about these very issues. He also visited the site of one of the bomb attacks that killed children—people may have seen the photos. We are as engaged as my hon. Friend, and we will not waver in any way, shape or form. We will be there till the end, as I know will he.
I made it clear in my statement that, when I heard the news, I was immediately on the phone to President Zelensky to offer any help that I could provide. I think that where Britain can best provide help is in trying to bring people back together to get a solution that works for Ukraine. More than anything in these circumstances, we have to think about what will be most helpful. Of course, it is critical to get the US, as we discussed in New York with President Trump, back to the concept of an energy ceasefire, and that is what he announced yesterday.
I take my responsibilities to my constituents very seriously, which is why I have said consistently that the manifesto upon which Labour Members were elected will be fully respected. What we have to look at are the options that are available for the long-term relationship. In the next decade, this country needs to know where it is going. There are no assumptions here, and as I said in my opening comments, the British public will be the boss of whatever is decided.
I am sure that, like me, the hon. Lady looks at opinion polls from all parts of the country, including Scotland. No one in this House today is proposing a referendum.
I agree with my right hon. Friend very forcefully. I am setting up a process under the banner of the G20 presidency that mirrors what this country did in 2008, when international agreement was needed about how to handle the financial crisis. The Canadian Prime Minister, who was very much involved at that time, has been in discussions with me about how we could create a process to mirror that for AI so that individual countries could go back and embed those principles in their own laws and statutes. That is what we are trying to achieve. I would be really pleased if the whole House would get behind this endeavour, as the UK is in the global spotlight.
On the first part of the hon. Lady’s question, I heard her strong view on the energy ceasefire, but I heard from the President on Saturday afternoon and he was asking the UK Government to press for such a ceasefire. I think it is right that we hear him and do everything within our power. As I said, there has been some progress on that front in the last 24 hours. On the second matter, I will reflect on what the hon. Lady said and come back to her.
As I have said many times this afternoon, we will honour the manifesto in full. The red lines are in place and they will remain in place. The seafood purveyors of Grimsby will probably have noticed, when I was talking about their plight and the difficulties they face, the lack of support for them from the Conservative Benches. I think the Conservatives need to have a period of reflection on their approach on this whole matter and do something to help British businesses that are struggling right now.
I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not going to get into those matters on the Floor of the House. The Home Secretary will make a statement later today and provide more detail.
I say to my hon. Friend that those are precisely the issues that we believe need a second look. We need to take a more pragmatic approach, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and European Relations is having those discussions with Europe. We do want to see better arrangements for our British creative industries, because they deserve it. They are the best in the world and Europe wants to see and hear more from them.