If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 21 January.

In recent days, I have spoken extensively to our international allies, including European leaders and others, the US and NATO. We will continue to engage constructively to resolve issues, particularly those relating to international security, applying the principles and values that I set out on Monday.

In addition, this week, the Government have announced a landmark investment to support children with special educational needs, overhauled our water system, and today launched a £15 billion plan to create warm homes. At home and abroad, this Labour Government are delivering for the British people.

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.

We face an affordability crisis in this country. In the short term, our dependence on fossil fuels has led to a rise in energy Bills, and in the longer term, the aftershocks of Thatcher mean that there are not enough good, non-graduate jobs. That is why today’s warm homes plan is such good news: batteries, solar, home insulation; getting bills down and wages rising; making life affordable. But we must go further, so can I ask the Prime Minister to do even more to make sure that life is affordable for my constituents—

Order.

I thank my hon. Friend. I know how much he cares about making life affordable. We are taking £150 off energy Bills. That is £300 for the 6 million poorest families, including almost 3,700 households in his Constituency. The warm homes plan we are announcing today is the biggest ever public investment in upgrading British homes. It will lift 1 million households out of Fuel Poverty, tackling the cost of living. That is the difference a Labour Government make.

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

I welcome the Prime Minister following our lead on children accessing social media. In particular, I thank the Shadow Education Secretary, my right hon. Friend Laura Trott, 61 Labour MPs and the Greater Manchester Mayor for forcing him to think again.

The Prime Minister and I agree: the future of Greenland should only be decided by the people of Greenland. When the Prime Minister made that point to President Trump on Monday, did the President agree or disagree?

Engaging constructively on international security matters hugely, particularly when it comes to security in the Arctic, and that is the context in which this discussion about Greenland is going on. As we engage constructively, I have made my position clear on our principles and values. The first of those is that the future of Greenland is for the people of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark alone. The second is that threats of tariffs to pressurise allies are completely wrong. We will continue to engage constructively. I have had many international calls in recent days, and the Prime Minister of Denmark is coming to the United Kingdom tomorrow for bilateral talks. I want to be clear with the House: I will not yield—Britain will not yield—on our principles and values about the future of Greenland under threats of tariffs, and that is my clear position.

I am very glad to hear the Prime Minister say that. We all know that the people of Greenland do not want to be ruled by America, but does he agree that just as those in Greenland should decide their own future, so should the Chagossians?

I made my position on Greenland absolutely clear on Monday and a moment ago. President Trump deployed words on Chagos yesterday that were different to his previous words of welcome and support when I met him in the White House. He deployed those words yesterday for the express purpose of putting pressure on me and Britain in relation to my values and principles on the future of Greenland. He wants me to yield on my position and I am not going to do so. Given that that was his express purpose, I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition has jumped on the bandwagon. I had understood—[Interruption.] I had understood her position to be that she supported the Government’s position on the future of Greenland. Now she appears to support words by President Trump to undermine the Government’s position on the future of Greenland. She has chosen naked opportunism over the national interest.

We will note that when I asked him what the President told him, he could not tell us. Now he expects us to believe that he knows what is going on in President Trump’s mind. Let me remind him that his Deputy prime minister, then Foreign Secretary, used to say that if President Trump did not like the deal, it would not go ahead. Let us look at what President Trump actually said. The Chagos deal is

“an act of GREAT STUPIDITY”, and a sign of “total weakness.” We did not need President Trump to tell us that; we have been saying that for 12 months.

Let us remind the Prime Minister: President Trump thought that the Prime Minister was doing this for money. The Prime Minister is giving away territory we own and paying £35 billion for the privilege. Why does he not just scrap this terrible deal and put the money into our armed forces?

The words from President Trump were expressly intended to put pressure on me to yield on my principles. What he said about Chagos was literally in the same sentence as what he said about Greenland. That was his purpose. The future of Greenland is a binary issue that is splitting the world at the moment, with material consequences. I have been clear and consistent in my position on the future of Greenland: the future is for Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark alone. The Leader of the Opposition has taken three positions in 10 days. Ten days ago she said that Greenland was “a second order issue”; four days ago she said she supported our position on Greenland; and now she is backing arguments intended to undermine our position—Britain’s position—on Greenland. This is an important national moment and yet again the Leader of the Opposition has shown that she is uncapable of rising to it.

I have already told the Prime Minister that we agree on Greenland; I am asking about the Chagos deal. That money—that £35 billion—should go to the armed forces. The world is changing and we are in a very different place—the most dangerous international environment since the end of the cold war. Last week, the head of the armed forces—not me, the head of the armed forces—warned that our military faces a £28 billion shortfall. Is he right?

I am proud that we are spending more on defence than at any time since the last Labour Government. [Interruption.] The strategic defence review has backed the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war. That is £270 billion this Parliament, making defence an engine of growth. That is a stark contrast. Ben Wallace, the longest-serving Conservative Defence Secretary, openly admitted that under the Conservatives’ watch our armed forces were “hollowed out”. [Interruption.]

Order. Mr Bowie and Mr Cartlidge, it is continuous, week in and week out. There are a couple on the Government Benches who will also be going out for a cup of tea with you. Please, calm it down or you know the consequence.

They shout on a Wednesday and they defect on a Thursday. The loudest shouter used to be the former Shadow Justice Secretary. We should take a note of who is shouting most loudly this week.

The Prime Minister wants to talk about defections. Let me tell him that when I had someone undermining my party, I sacked him. If he sacked—[Interruption.]

Order. We are going to get through this Prime Minister’s questions. I want to hear the Leader of the Opposition and I want to hear the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] Those who do not may leave the Chamber.

We all know that if the Prime Minister sacked everyone undermining his party, his front bench would be empty. Jokes aside, these questions I am asking are about our national interest. We support our armed forces in every possible way. Later today, my party will vote to protect our veterans from unfair prosecution; he is ordering his MPs to vote against them. In our national interest, and for the sake of all the brave people in the armed forces, past, present and future, will the Prime Minister do the right thing and vote in support of our veterans, not against them?

The right hon. Lady is claiming strength. She read the guy’s defection letter and then at that point decided to sack him. What was she going to do? Correct the typos and give it back to him? [Hon. Members: “More!”] She should have sacked him when he made disgraceful comments about faces in Birmingham, but she failed to do so. And she smiles, saying it is a good thing she has cleared out—a good thing there are fewer Tory MPs. The rest of the country agrees with her completely in relation to that.

On the question of veterans protection, the last Government passed legislation that was struck down, leaving our veterans utterly exposed. We are putting in place proper measures to protect them.

The Prime Minister wants to talk about leadership. Three of his own Cabinet Ministers told The Times on Saturday that he needed to learn from me—[Interruption.]

Order. I am telling Members now, I am having no more. Do we understand each other? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Back to the national interest. Instead of acting in it, the Prime Minister just tries to get through the day. On the Chinese spy hub embassy, he is too weak. On Chagos, he is too weak. On funding for the armed forces, he is too weak. On protecting our veterans from prosecution, he is too weak. I will support the Prime Minister when he does the right thing, but time after time, this Prime Minister has done the wrong thing for our country. Is it not the truth that he is too weak to stand up for our national interests?

I have spent the week working with our NATO allies to protect our national security and ensure we have unity in NATO. That is a matter of national importance, and the right hon. Lady has utterly failed to rise to the occasion and show the solidarity she could have shown in this House. She has spent the week trying to hold together what is left of the Tory party. She says I should learn from her. She has no judgment! Only a week ago, in relation to Greenland, she shrugged and said it was some “second order issue”. Terrible judgment! Then she flip-flopped with three different positions in 10 days on Greenland. She said Liz Truss’s mini-Budget was “100% right”. She said last week that she was “100% confident” there would be no more defections, just before the latest defection. I am beginning to think her judgment is not 100% reliable.

NHS waiting lists in Birmingham are down by almost a quarter under Labour, and they are still falling. That is more than 28,000 people no longer stuck waiting for essential treatments. Yes, there are challenges still, but they are being addressed and progress is being made. Does the Prime Minister agree that this progress must be sustained, including by reducing ambulance waiting times?

I am pleased to confirm that last week saw the second biggest fall in NHS waiting times for 15 years. Waiting lists are down by more than 300,000, an extra 2,900 GPs have been recruited, and ambulances are arriving nearly 15 minutes faster this winter than they were last year. There is much more to do, which is why we are delivering the biggest upgrade to our ambulance fleet for many years. That progress has been made possible by Labour’s decisions, which are opposed by the Opposition parties.

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

We remember how Tony Blair ignored warnings from these Opposition Benches and tied himself to an unpopular American President and a disastrous foreign policy, while close allies such as Canada and France looked on in horror. With Donald Trump increasingly acting like a crime boss running a protection racket, threatening to smash up our economy unless he gets his hands on Greenland, will the Prime Minister avoid Blair’s historic mistake, take our advice this time and join Prime Minister Carney and President Macron in standing up far more strongly to President Trump?

The right hon. Member is clearly not listening. I said that I will not yield on the principles and values that I uphold, and that this country upholds, in relation to the future of Greenland. But the relationship with the US matters, especially on defence, security and intelligence, and nuclear capability, and also on trade and prosperity. While he is trying to get soundbites, we must not forget that a war is raging in Europe—it is in its fourth year. The Russians are raining bombs down on Ukrainian civilians day and night, the temperature was minus 20° in Kyiv last night, and 60% of the people there are without power. People are erecting tents to keep themselves warm. We have to work with our allies, including the US, on security guarantees to ensure that we can do what we must do in relation to Ukraine. That does not mean we agree with the US on everything, and I have been absolutely clear about my position on Greenland and my position on tariffs, but it is foolhardy to think that we should rip up our relationship with the US and abandon Ukraine and so many of the other things that are important to our defence, security and intelligence.

Of course we are not arguing that; we are arguing that the Prime Minister follows France and Canada—our close allies. Here is one thing that we can agree on: that the UK should strengthen our defensive capabilities, as the Prime Minister said earlier. But the Government are going far too slow in investing in our defensive industries. They have not even published the defence investment plan that was promised last autumn. That delay is putting critical industries, such as helicopter manufacturing based in Yeovil, at risk. Putin is waging a war in Europe, and Trump is threatening to undermine NATO. We have to rearm fast. So why will the Prime Minister not just get on with buying Great British helicopters made in the west country? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]

That’s about the same cheer we hear across the whole country.

We are increasing defence spend to the biggest spend since the last Labour Government. We are doing that because of the decisions we took at the Budget in relation to the money that is available. The right hon. Member wants more money for defence spending, and he wants it faster, but what did he do at the Budget? Did he stand up and say, “I support this”? No, he voted against it, against the measures necessary to carry out the upgrade.

Sadly, on Christmas day my constituent Beryl Barrett passed away after tragically falling into an unrepaired pothole. I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending my condolences to the family. In my Constituency there are literally thousands of potholes in our roads, which Nottinghamshire county council is failing to repair. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is time that the council took action, and will he meet Beryl’s family so that we can work together to ensure that there are no more accidents like that?

I send my deepest sympathies to Beryl’s family, and I will make sure that the Roads Minister meets them at the earliest opportunity. This shows why tackling potholes really matters. We are investing £2 billion in the east midlands to fix the roads and improve local transport. We are also putting in place tough new standards so that councils must prove they are fixing roads properly, and I am pleased that many excellent Labour councils across the country are leading by example.

For decades, our rivers, lakes and seas have paid the price of a failing system. The water white paper is a welcome first step in beginning to set things right, but there is a glaring gap: agricultural pollution contributes 40% of the pollution in our waterways but merits only a single page in this White Paper. Can the Prime Minister tell me why on earth this is the case? When will he start working with farmers to support river-friendly farming practices and treat agricultural pollution as seriously as sewage pollution?

We inherited a real mess on water, and we are taking the most effective and far-reaching measures to deal with it. I wonder what the hon. Lady, as someone who stood to lead her party, makes of how her leader is responding to this global uncertainty. He is saying that this is the time to withdraw from NATO; that this is the time to kick the US out of our military bases; that this is the time to negotiate—hear this—with Putin to give up our nuclear deterrent. I am sure that Putin would be very quick on the line for that one. It is as reckless and irresponsible as their plan to legalise heroin and crack cocaine. That is the Green party now—high on drugs, soft on Putin.

Order. We do not ask the Opposition questions. These are questions for the Prime Minister, not the other way around.

West Dunbartonshire is set to benefit from record UK Labour Government investment: £60 million of local growth funding has just been announced for the Glasgow city region, to add to the £20 million for Dumbarton’s town centre regeneration, the £20 million Pride in Place funding for my home town of Clydebank, and the £1.5 million in impact funding. Does the Prime Minister agree that this is in stark contrast to the SNP, which abandoned our communities, and demonstrates the difference that a Labour Government make to West Dunbartonshire and to Scotland?

I am very pleased that we are backing my hon. Friend’s home town of Clydebank with £20 million of Pride in Place funding. Just this week we hosted a reception to meet people who are working hard to change their neighbourhoods across the United Kingdom. That is Labour delivering on national renewal. As my hon. Friend rightly says, compare that with the SNP, which is more interested in squabbling over independence than using a record settlement to fix Scotland’s public services.

Challenging economic inactivity and supporting the vulnerable across the country is something that we all want, so would the Prime Minister be surprised to learn that, in Northern Ireland, around 11,000 people previously supported by UK shared prosperity funding will see those programmes cut dramatically, compounded by 400 job losses? Does he support the cuts to those vital programmes, and will he arrange an urgent meeting for me, and the organisations that have been impacted, with the relevant decision maker in Government so that these changes and challenges can be resolved?

We delivered a record settlement for Northern Ireland in the Budget to strengthen public services and to kick-start growth. The local growth fund, designed in partnership with the Executive, will see £45 million every year to support local growth. I am very happy to make sure that Ministers meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss his particular concerns.

Some 1.5 million women in the UK live with endometriosis, which is a painful and life-changing condition. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis, I met Jessica Smith and Endo Warriors West Lothian to discuss their campaign for a national endometriosis registry to capture and audit diagnosis, treatment and outcomes. Will the Prime Minister join me in commending the work of Jessica, Endo Warriors West Lothian and Endometriosis UK, and will he meet me to discuss creating a registry to improve the lives of women living with endometriosis?

I pay tribute to Jessica and all the women, and others, who are campaigning on these vital issues. Far too many women are left waiting for care in serious pain. That is why we are investing £8 million in research on diagnosis, treatment and pain management. I know that the Minister for women’s health will be keen to talk to my hon. Friend about her proposals on this issue, which I thank her for raising.

I have a constituent who, although not yet 30 years old, has just been diagnosed with a terminal illness. She has been told that she has a very short time to live. Because of her condition, she was given a retirement date—she is a civil servant—which was just last week. She has not received notification of any actual pension payment, and she has spent long hours trying to contact Capita. HM Revenue and Customs has claimed that all outstanding documentation was supplied to Capita in November. I have written to the Chancellor, and contacted the MPs’ hotline and Capita, but the issue remains unresolved. Will the Prime Minister, along with the Chancellor, help to get the issue resolved immediately?

I thank the hon. Member for raising this case, and I am truly sorry to hear about his constituent. If he would not mind following up with the details of the case, I will make sure that it is dealt with urgently on behalf of his constituent.

Yesterday I welcomed Bermondsey PC Kevin Webster to Parliament, after his recognition as the Met’s Police Constable of the Year 2025. Will the Prime Minister commend Kevin for his local work, and that of Labour Southwark council’s amazing night time and antisocial behaviour team? Will he tell Members when they will have new powers under the Crime and Policing Bill, and remind the Met that its access standards require all local officers, like Kevin, to be a maximum 20-minute walk from their ward, which is a policy currently going unmet in Rotherhithe?

May I congratulate Kevin and thank police across our country who are working hard to protect our communities? The Conservative party decimated local policing, and we are restoring it. There will be 3,000 more neighbourhood police on our streets by spring, which is an example of the change that people will feel this year. Our Crime and Policing Bill will give officers more powers to tackle knife crime, shoplifting and antisocial behaviour. I want officers to have those powers as swiftly as possible; the Tories and Reform voted against them.

My constituents are deeply concerned by proposed cuts to police community support officers across Cheshire. The Labour police and crime commissioner, Dan Price, was silent on the issue, seemingly content to see numbers slashed across the county until residents and local MPs spoke out. Now he seeks to present himself as campaigning to save police community support officers, while proposing to substantially increase the precept, and all at the same time as planning to increase spending on his office by £513,000 next year. Does the Prime Minister agree that that represents a failure of leadership, and that that money would be far better spent on increasing the number of PCSOs on our streets?

That comes from the party that broke our criminal justice system, just as it broke our economy and our NHS. It hollowed out local policing; we are restoring it, with 3,000 new officers in the spring of this year.

The thug in the White House has shown that he does not listen to grovelling or sycophancy, and he will continue to harm British interests no matter how compliant we are. Like all bullies, he will always find the weakest link. Will the Prime Minister close ranks with our European allies and commit to retaliatory tariffs?

I have made our position clear. I have set out my principles, and I am not going to yield on those principles. As I said on Monday, of course we need to protect our national interest, and we will always protect our national interest, but simply hurtling into a trade war at the first opportunity would hurt working people and businesses across the country. That is why I am working hard to ensure that we do not get to that point, and I will continue to act in the national interest.

The Prime Minister may be aware that my local authority in the East Riding of Yorkshire is the lowest-funded per pupil for children with special educational needs and disabilities, and his local authority in Camden is the highest—an inequality that he has repeatedly pledged to end. Well, the results are in: next year, children in my local area will receive just under £1,000, and children in his local area will receive over £3,800. The gap is getting wider. Will he explain to the House why he thinks that children in my Constituency are worth so much less than children in his?

We are applying their formula—the one that you put in place in government—[Interruption.] We are changing it—[Interruption.] Special educational needs are probably raised with me more than any other issue that is raised in the House. We are proposing reforms. The problem that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted—

Order. I am sorry to interrupt, Prime Minister, but Mr Holden, as Shadow Secretary of State for Transport, you will be getting the express train out of here.

The right hon. Gentleman may be making himself the next candidate for the Thursday defections—[Interruption.] Oh, maybe it is someone else. Those that shout loudest end up on the Reform UK Bench—[Interruption.] Reform is supporting our recycling moves, because soon it will be a party entirely made up of—

Order. Mr Holden, I think you need to leave. I have had enough.

Police officers in Greater Manchester are facing exceptional pressures as they work to keep our communities safe from horrific terror threats, hate crime, organised crime and regular mass protests. Despite that, Greater Manchester police received the second lowest percentage funding increase of any police force under the provisional settlement, leaving it £12 million worse off. I know that the Prime Minister will share my concerns, so will he urgently work with the Greater Manchester Mayor, the deputy mayor, myself and Greater Manchester MPs to ensure that GMP has the funding it truly needs to keep our communities safe?

I was humbled to visit Greater Manchester police after the Heaton Park synagogue attack. The professionalism and bravery that they showed was remarkable. We have boosted total police funding and Greater Manchester will receive up to £902 million, an increase of over £31 million. I reassure my hon. Friend that we will continue to work with her and local leaders to make our streets safe.

My Constituency of Melksham and Devizes does not have a minor injuries unit, leaving many to travel far afield, to Bath or Swindon, to access A&E services. Will the Prime Minister meet me to discuss the need for an expanded hospital provision in my constituency?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this on behalf of his constituents. I will ensure he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister to talk through his particular concerns, so that we can seek to address them.

After 14 years of Conservative austerity, councils are finally getting the support that they need to deliver for residents. In my Constituency of Bolton South and Walkden, under the leadership of Councillor Nick Peel in Bolton and Mayor Paul Dennett in Salford, increased funding has been turned into the restoration of frontline services, investment in town centres and support for families. Does the Prime Minister agree that councils needs serious leadership and long-term funding certainty to deliver, not short-term protest politics that put services at risk? Will he commit to continue that support?

Labour is boosting funding for councils that were chronically underfunded by the Conservatives. I pay tribute to Labour councils delivering results for my hon. Friend’s community, in stark contrast to the Division and chaos we have seen from Reform councils, wherever they have been elected.

Tens of thousands of people across Kent and Sussex were without running water last week. While the response of South East Water was shambolic, the Staplehurst emergency help team got a bottled water supplier, set up a collection station and delivered water to vulnerable people. Using only volunteers, they supported local people, businesses, farms and care homes with 20,000 bottles of water. Does the Prime Minister think, as I do, that South East Water should be ashamed to be schooled in crisis response by the volunteers of the Staplehurst emergency help team? Has he, like many of my constituents and many of our colleagues, lost confidence in South East Water’s chief executive?

The situation is completely unacceptable. We welcome Ofwat’s investigation into the company—that is the right thing to do. The Environment Secretary met company bosses last week to stress the need for accountability, and Ministers are continuing to chair daily meetings, but the situation is totally unacceptable and needs to be fixed.

For too long, many of my constituents have not had access to good, secure, well-paid jobs. We made a commitment in our manifesto that we would change that. We cannot grow an economy based on insecure work where, from one week to the next, somebody does not know how many hours they will work or how much money they will be paid. Does the Prime Minister agree that all workers should have the hours that they actually work reflected in their contract so that we can give all working people the security to plan their finances and their lives and to build a future for themselves and their family?

I am proud of this Labour Government delivering the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. We are ending exploitative zero-hours contracts and unscrupulous fire and rehire practices, plus we have changes to parental leave and sick pay. Workers will benefit from those rights in April, and they should never forget that Reform and the Tories opposed every single one of them.

One of the last meetings that I took as Shadow Justice Secretary was with the parents of Lenny Scott. Lenny Scott was an exceptionally brave prison officer who uncovered corruption in his prison. He left the service, and years later he was hunted down and brutally murdered. Because he died after leaving active service, there was never any compensation paid to the children he left behind. I know that the Prime Minister would want to right that wrong. I wrote to the Justice Secretary privately after I discovered this—I should say that Lenny Scott’s parents never asked for any support. Will the Prime Minister correct this, ensure that this brave man’s children have the support that they need as they grow up without the father they deserve, and join me in thanking all the brave men and women who serve us in our Prison Service?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. I will make sure that it is looked into as a matter of urgency, given the circumstances that he has set out.

I strongly welcome the Government’s decision to consult on introducing a social media ban for under-16s. That is something that the Tories did not do in office and did not even support until last week. The average 12-year-old spends 29 hours a week on a smartphone, with more than 500 children a day being referred to mental health services for anxiety. Those stats are not unrelated; parents, teachers and Members across these Benches can see the damage that social media is doing to our young, developing minds every single day. Does the Prime Minister agree that the scale of harm demands swift action and that this consultation must lead to timely decisions?

This is an issue of real concern to parents. As the father of two teenage children, I know just how much of a concern it is. That is why we will have a consultation to look at expert and international evidence to get this right, and we will respond by the summer. That includes looking at the question of the age at which children can access social media and at restrictions on addictive features. I am also concerned, as is the Education Secretary, about the screen time of those under the age of five. We will look at all those issues and make sure that Ofsted checks the enforcement of bans during school.

The Bertie Arms is a fantastic family pub, but because of the Chancellor’s tax raid on local business, it faces a 2,000% increase in its business rates by 2029. That means that the Treasury will lose £200,000 in tax take and Uffington will lose the heart of its community. The Prime Minister promised not to put up taxes on working people, so how does he justify a 2,000% tax attack on working family businesses like this pub?

We are working with the sector to put in the necessary support. I remind the hon. Lady that 7,000 pubs closed on the Conservatives’ watch, and she did not say a word about it.

Norfolk is a dental desert, which is causing real suffering for my constituents. I welcome Government action so far, including 21,000 extra urgent emergency appointments, but we are the only region without a dental school. The University of East Anglia is ready to open one. Can the Prime Minister set out what more we will do as a Government to tackle the dentistry crisis? Will he back our calls for a new dental school in our region?

Since day one, my hon. Friend has fought for her constituents on this issue, and I pay tribute to her for that. I agree that the University of East Anglia would be an excellent candidate for any future additional funded dentistry places available. We are also reforming contracts and making sure that dentists spend more time working in the NHS, delivering thousands of extra appointments to fix the failure we were left with.

For the final question, I call Gideon Amos.

Children with disabilities and special educational needs in Somerset will be severely hit if the Government go ahead with removing the remoteness uplift from authorities. Will the Government commit to ensuring that councils with the largest land areas—of which Somerset is one—are properly reimbursed for the costs of remoteness, so that children in my Constituency do not suffer?

We understand the challenges in rural communities, and we will look at that as part of the work we are doing on reform.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understood that the purpose of Prime Minister’s questions was for the Prime Minister to answer questions from MPs, yet—

Order. I do not have responsibility for answers from the Prime Minister, and I certainly do not want that responsibility. How the Prime Minister answers questions is up to him, which is why I closed him down and said that he is not there to ask questions of your party. I think we will leave it at that; I am not continuing the debate at this stage.