Engagements

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 26 February.

This week marked three years since Putin’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine. The courage of the Ukrainians is inspiring, and across this House we stand with them for as long as it takes. That is why we are increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by April 2027, with an ambition to reach 3% in the next Parliament, as economic and fiscal conditions allow. This afternoon, of course, I will travel to the US to have discussions with President Trump about the enduring security partnership between our two countries.

I am also delighted that we have announced the first 750 schools to start offering free breakfast clubs. This is our plan for change in action, ensuring every child has the chance to thrive.

I am sure the whole House will want to join me in thanking Amanda Pritchard for her service as chief executive of NHS England, and I wish her well for the future.

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Could the Prime Minister tell this House whether the outcome of his Budget was by design or by mistake? Did he mean to push 100,000 pensioners into poverty with his own analysis when he removed the winter fuel allowance, or was that a mistake? Did he mean to decimate family farming when he changed inheritance tax, or was that a mistake? Did he mean to tax GPs, care homes and hospices when he raised national insurance contributions, or was that a mistake? Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether they are acceptable collateral damage in his path for change, or simply mistakes that need rectifying?

I will tell the hon. Member what was a mistake: leaving a £22 billion black hole that we had to sort out. We took the difficult decisions, investing in our NHS, and I would have thought he would have welcomed the 2 million extra appointments that we have achieved in the first seven months of a Labour Government. That is the difference our Budget is making to people.

Q2. I am delighted that Calton and Grange primary schools in my city of Gloucester will be among the first 750 schools to get free breakfast clubs, and I am pleased that this Government are already delivering on their manifesto promises in less than a year. So will the Prime Minister agree with me that, by helping working parents with childcare and delivering the best start to the day for every single child, we are delivering opportunity for the next generation?

I agree with my hon. Friend. We are pleased that two of the early adopter schools will be in his constituency. We are ensuring that all children of primary school age can get access to free breakfasts and at least 30 minutes of free childcare. That means every child ready to learn, and parents of course supported with up to £450 a year back in their pockets. That is the change a Labour Government make.

We now come to the Leader of the Opposition.

I wish the Prime Minister every success on his trip to Washington. The visit to see President Trump must serve our national interest. The Prime Minister and I are completely united in our support for Ukraine as a proud and sovereign nation. What specific steps will he take to ensure Ukraine is at the negotiating table for any peace settlement?

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her words about the forthcoming trip. It is right, and I think the whole House will think it is right, that Ukraine must be at the table at negotiations. There can be no negotiations about Ukraine without Ukraine. That has been my consistent position in all of the discussions that I have had. That will continue to be my position, because this is about the sovereignty of Ukraine and the Ukrainians’ ability to decide for themselves the future of their country, so they must be at the table.

I thank the Prime Minister for that answer, and as I said, I wish him every success. We want to support him on this issue.

Turning to the details of the plan the Prime Minister set out yesterday, over the weekend I suggested to him that he cut the aid budget, and I am pleased that he accepted my advice—[Laughter.] It is the fastest response I have ever had from the Prime Minister. However, he announced £13.4 billion in additional defence spending yesterday. This morning, his Defence Secretary said the uplift is only £6 billion. Which is the correct figure?

I am going to have to let the Leader of the Opposition down gently: she did not feature in my thinking at all. I was so busy over the weekend that I did not even see her proposal. She has appointed herself the saviour of western civilisation; it is a desperate search for relevance.

If you take the numbers for this financial year and the numbers for the ’27-28 financial year, there is a £13.4 billion increase. That is the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war, and will put us in a position to ensure the security and defence of our country and of Europe.

That was not very clear. How is it that the Defence Secretary says £6 billion, but the Prime Minister says £13.4 billion? The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said the Government are playing “silly games with numbers”. How has he found this difference in numbers?

We went through this two weeks ago, going over the same question again and again. Let me say it again: if you take the financial year this year, and then you take the financial year for ’27-28, the difference between the two is £13.4 billion. That is the same answer. If she asks again, I will give the same answer again.

More!

I will decide when there is more.

Someone needs to tell the Prime Minister that being patronising is not a substitute for answering questions. He has not answered the question. What he has said is different from what he said yesterday. We are still not clear where the money is coming from. We want to support him. He has also said that we should put British troops on the ground in Ukraine, but we have not seen the detail of any proposals. Would his new spending plans allow him to fund that commitment effectively?

I think it is the same question again. It is £13.4 billion—that is the difference between this year and ’27-28.

The Leader of the Opposition asks a serious question about the security guarantees in Ukraine. That is extremely important, because the worst of all outcomes, if there is to be a cessation of hostilities, would be for it to be a short break, rather than a sustained and lasting peace. That means there have to be security guarantees, and I have indicated that we will play our full part. There has to be US backing; otherwise, I do not think it will deter Putin. We are working on that. I am having extensive discussions on it. I am not in a position to put details before the House today, as she well knows, but I will continue down that route. I want a lasting peace in Ukraine and Europe for the safety and security of Ukrainians, Europeans and, of course, everybody in this country.

This is an endeavour that we want to support the Prime Minister in, but we need to know exactly what we are supporting. We need clarity and transparency over the money, and we also need to know where the money is going. This morning, the Defence Secretary could not say whether the Chagos deal would come out of the defence budget. Can the Prime Minister confirm to the House that none of the defence uplift includes payments for his Chagos deal?

The additional spend I announced yesterday is for our capability on defence and security in Europe, as I made absolutely clear yesterday. The Chagos deal is extremely important for our security and for US security, and the US is rightly looking at it. When the deal is finalised, I will put it before the House with the costings. The figures being bandied around are absolutely wide of the mark. The deal is for well over a century. The funding I announced yesterday is for our capability, and will put us in a position to rise to a generational challenge. That is what that money is all about; I thought the right hon. Lady supported it.

We need to make sure we are supporting a plan that is clear and transparent. Yesterday, the Prime Minister set an ambition for defence spending to reach 3% in the next Parliament, and we agree with him on that. However, that could be 2034—almost a decade away. That is too slow. We do not know how he will pay for it. We cannot raise taxes further, and we already pay more on debt interest than defence.

Everyone in this House will have heard the Prime Minister not answer the previous question, so I will ask again: is he paying for the Chagos deal with this defence uplift or not?