The comments made by Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, on 14 June 2026.
Roy Hattersley was a giant of the Labour movement.
Through decades of service, including as deputy leader and a minister, he never lost his belief in a more equal Britain.
My thoughts are with his wife Maggie and his family.
STORY
Roy Hattersley, the former deputy leader of the Labour Party, has died at the age of 93. He served as Labour deputy leader under Neil Kinnock from 1983 to 1992 and was a Labour MP from 1964 until 1997. After leaving the House of Commons, he was appointed to the House of Lords as Baron Hattersley of Sparkbrook.
Hattersley held ministerial office under Harold Wilson and James Callaghan, including serving as Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection from 1976 to 1979. In opposition, he held several senior shadow posts and became closely associated with Labour’s efforts during the 1980s to recover from electoral defeat, challenge the influence of the Militant tendency and move the party towards a more electorally viable position.
Alongside his political career, Hattersley was a writer, columnist and broadcaster. He wrote more than 20 books, including works of history, biography and memoir, and continued to comment on Labour politics after leaving Parliament. He was also critical of later developments in the party, including aspects of Tony Blair’s New Labour and Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. He is survived by his wife, Maggie Pearlstine.
The statement made by Yvette Cooper, the Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 11 June 2026.
Tomorrow marks one year since Air India flight 171 crashed shortly after take-off from Ahmedabad en route to London. This tragic accident claimed the lives of 260 people, including 52 British nationals and 113 others who lived in the UK—one of the largest losses of British life in any air accident. The continued heartache of the families and loved ones of those who died is impossible to imagine, not least for those who still have questions about the tragedy and the aftermath.
The thoughts of the whole Government remain with all those affected by this tragic accident. When I visited New Delhi last week, I joined Indian External Affairs Minister Jaishankar in commemorating the tragedy. I also raised the importance of closure for all those who have been left bereaved, as we continue to wait for the full accident investigation report, and as some families still wait for answers regarding their loved ones’ remains.
The UK Government response to the crash was both immediate and long lasting. Following the crash, officials initiated our crisis response to provide direct support to bereaved families and address the needs and welfare of all affected British nationals. Our high commissioner, Lindy Cameron, travelled to Ahmedabad on the day of the crash and has continued to support the UK deputy high commission team in the city. Trained consular staff were deployed to Ahmedabad to support families through the immediate period following the crash, along with experts from disaster victim identification, Red Cross and the UK air accidents investigation branch.
UK police family liaison officers also supported the families of deceased British and foreign nationals who were residents in the UK, and the FCDO continues to provide support to each family in need of help, including through dedicated consular caseworkers to hear feedback from the families and their representatives. As the Indian air accident investigation continues, AAIB family liaison teams have provided support to affected families. We also continue to engage with Air India and Indian Ministries to resolve outstanding issues that families have raised.
At every level, from family liaison officers to Ministers, what we have heard constantly from those who lost loved ones a year ago is that they want information and answers, to help them understand how a tragedy like this could have happened, and to know for certain what happened to their loved ones remains in the aftermath. Not knowing what caused the crash can only add to their sense of grief and frustration, and I hope that the accident investigation report, when completed and published by the Indian authorities, will answer some of their questions. The UK Government will continue to provide all the help and support we can as they seek answers to the rest.
In the meantime, my deepest sympathies remain with all those who lost their lives a year ago, and with all those who continue to mourn that loss today.
The statement made by Angela Eagle, the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, in the House of Commons on 11 June 2026.
I am today updating the House on the sustainable farming incentive, one of this Government’s environmental land management schemes that pay farmers to manage their land in ways that improve nature, soil health and the environment, alongside supporting sustainable food production.
Farmers in England will soon be able to apply for the improved SFI. Building on previous announcements, the revised scheme is designed to be simpler to access and better suited to modern farm businesses.
The new SFI cuts unnecessary complexity while continuing to reward the practical actions that underpin productive, resilient farm businesses, from healthier soils and cleaner water to better habitats for bees, birds and other wildlife.
We have worked with farmers and industry to shape the new scheme, backed by £240 million for new SFI agreements and building on around £560 million already committed to farmers delivering over 39,000 live SFI agreements.
Applications are scheduled to open from 30 June 2026 for two groups: small farms and farms without an existing ELM revenue agreement. A second application window will open in September 2026, giving all farmers and land managers the opportunity to apply.
The first application window opens with up to £60 million available, followed by a second window opening in September to all farms with the remainder of the £240 million budget available.
The SFI offer in 2026 is an iterated version of the 2024 scheme. For continuity, the large majority of scheme features will remain as they were—the look and feel of SFI should be familiar to farmers who have applied previously. However, we have made some improvements to produce a simpler and more streamlined offer.
In the previous version of SFI, a quarter of funding went to just 4% of farms. For SFI in 2026, we have introduced a new £100,000 annual agreement cap to help ensure funding reaches more farm businesses. Each farm business will be able to hold one SFI26 agreement, helping spread available funding more fairly across the sector.
The new offer also contains several actions which encourage the reduced use of synthetic fertilisers in favour of more sustainable options, cutting input costs and boosting resilience to global market shocks such as the closure of the strait of Hormuz.
The Government have listened to farmers who said they need time to understand the offer before applications open. We published “Get ready to apply” guidance on gov.uk on 6 May and near-final versions of the scheme guidance, terms and conditions, and actions last week on 2 June, allowing farmers to review the offer available and consider which actions may work best for their farm business. Final scheme guidance, developed with industry input, will be published next week.
Alongside the new SFI offer, the Government are making at least £50 million available for new countryside stewardship higher tier agreements this year, helping farmers and land managers deliver targeted environmental improvements where they can have the greatest impact.
The Government are also progressing the next group of landscape recovery projects expected to move into implementation this year, supporting large-scale action to restore rivers and habitats across England.
Together, these schemes form a comprehensive package of support for farmers, helping to boost food production, strengthen farm resilience and drive nature recovery, while underpinning the UK’s long-term food security.
William Hutchings has been jailed after admitting dangerous driving following a head-on collision in Sevenoaks. Kent Police said officers saw a silver Ford Fiesta carry out a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre on London Road towards Amherst Hill at around 8.15pm on 19 April 2025.
Police indicated for the vehicle to stop, but Hutchings continued driving at excessive speed, using hatched markings and the wrong side of the road. The pursuit ended on the A25 Westerham Road near Sevenoaks, where the Fiesta collided head-on with a black Land Rover Defender. The occupants of the Land Rover sustained minor injuries, while Hutchings suffered severe injuries and received life-saving first aid from officers until paramedics arrived.
Hutchings, 31, of Boughton Avenue in Bromley, London, was later charged with dangerous driving after a lengthy stay in hospital. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced at Maidstone Crown Court on 4 June 2026 to 16 months in prison. He will also be banned from driving for five years and six months after his release and will have to pass an extended test before driving again.
The speech made by Joe Powell, the Labour MP for Kensington and Bayswater, in the House of Commons on 11 June 2026.
This Sunday will be the ninth anniversary of the Grenfell tower fire. With thousands of others, I will join the silent walk on father’s day to remember the 72 people who lost their lives in an entirely preventable and foreseen tragedy, and to support families who lost parents, siblings and children in unimaginable circumstances.
I know that for the bereaved and for survivors, and for our community in Kensington and Bayswater, this is always a difficult time, because nine years on, there has been no criminal accountability for those responsible; nine years on, the pace of change at local government and at national level is too often too slow; and nine years on, the cladding crisis still affects hundreds of thousands of people across the country. I pay tribute to all those who continue to advocate for truth, justice and change for Grenfell, and to everyone across the country affected by this national scandal.
But it would be a mistake to give up hope. The Metropolitan police said last month that it will hand over files to the Crown Prosecution Service in September this year and that the CPS will make charging decisions by the 10th anniversary in 2027—20 organisations and 57 individuals could face criminal charges, and potential offences under consideration include corporate manslaughter, gross negligence manslaughter, fraud, health and safety breaches, and misconduct in public office.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
Justice delayed is justice denied. It is great that the Met has now come to this position. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should try to ensure that the cases are fast-tracked in our criminal system so that justice can now be speeded up?
Joe Powell
My hon. Friend is right. We have seen, in recent history, that with events of national significance—from Southport to the recent disturbances on our streets—the criminal justice system has moved really quickly because of the importance of showing that justice is seen to be done. I hope that once the CPS has made its decisions, we will do everything we can to ensure that the court capacity is in place to deliver the trials as soon as possible. I hope the Minister can reassure us that the investigation will continue to be fully funded and that that planning is already taking place with the judiciary and the Ministry of Justice so that the cases are prioritised. If those trials take place, which I obviously hope they will, they will be some of the most complex ever held in the UK. I therefore hope that consideration is also given to a special court or a Nightingale-style court. I know that is being looked at.
Corporate manslaughter convictions are incredibly rare, so it is essential that those responsible face the full force of the law. I also believe that it is completely wrong for any company cited in the public inquiry still to be receiving public contracts. In December I uncovered dozens of contracts with implicated companies, including two current NHS contracts with Rydon, the main contractor for the refurbishment, which was cited in the public inquiry. I urge all public bodies to do a full audit of their contracts, including subcontractors and supply chains, and publish exactly what they find. It is good news that this Government have introduced new powers to exclude companies on grounds such as professional misconduct. Now is the time for procurement offices to start using them.
We have already had a public inquiry that has laid out in stark terms why the fire happened and where responsibility lies, and I am glad that this Government have accepted the recommendations in full and that important progress is being made. It is important not to forget that. The last report shows that 20 of 61 recommendations are complete and 40 are in progress. I am glad that those include progress towards a single construction regulator, the expansion of product regulation, the introduction of residential personal emergency evacuation plans, the idea of a college of fire and rescue, and proposed changes to the statutory fire safety guidance in approved document B.
I am also pleased that, under Lord Roe in the other place, the performance of the Building Safety Regulator is improving, including signing off remediation works more quickly. I welcome the remediation Bill in the King’s Speech, on which I look forward to engaging in this parliamentary Session, so that we can address the outstanding unremediated buildings and the knock-on effects, such as crippling insurance bills for leaseholders.
I acknowledge all that progress, but there is one missing piece of the jigsaw: oversight and accountability. The online tracker for Grenfell recommendations is no doubt helpful, but Grenfell would not have happened at all if we had properly learned the lessons from the Lakanal House fire in 2009 and listened to the coroner’s recommendations. Instead, they sat on a shelf, and an opportunity to save lives was missed. We need a proper system of tracking and following up, not just on major inquiries that get a lot of attention here, but on all the inquests and investigations that lead to recommendations for change. That is why I continue to support the idea of a national oversight mechanism as a legacy for Grenfell.
On 25 February, the Secretary of State said in this House, in answer to my question:
“Work is continuing across Government, including in my Department, on setting up a national oversight mechanism”.—[Official Report, 25 February 2026; Vol. 781, c. 363.]
I hope that the Minister can provide us with an update on that work and tell us when we can expect a decision to be made. Such a mechanism would sit alongside the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—the Hillsborough law—which I hope to see back here soon, as landmark reforms that put power in the hands of citizens: a real duty of candour for the state, a level playing field for legal aid, and clear deterrence for misconduct in public office. If we design those well, they will lead to fewer and shorter inquiries, more rapid lesson learning by the state and a culture shift towards openness, which can contribute to the rebuilding of trust in politics and in government in this country.
The culture shift that we need extends to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. I am deeply disappointed that the first decision of the Conservative leadership in the new council term last month was to remove an opposition chair of the housing scrutiny committee. Since Grenfell, that position has been promised to an opposition councillor. It is still unclear to me why or how that decision was taken, because avoiding scrutiny, especially for this council, which is so culpable for the fire, is an extremely bad look. I call on the leadership to think again and to reverse that decision.
Residents in RBKC know that the council needs scrutiny. The independent Regulator of Social Housing reported last year that the housing department was seriously failing, giving it a C3 rating. The council has the third worst complaints record in the country. It likes to say that it gets the basics right. Well, meeting the decent homes standard, so that everyone can have the minimum of a safe and healthy home, is surely a basic human right that any council should be delivering.
The Lancaster West estate surrounding Grenfell is a good example. After the fire, the promise was a model 21st-century housing estate, and that promise is still unfulfilled. I am glad that the Government have stepped in with an additional £8 million to ensure that there are no further delays to the current work, and that that will come alongside additional scrutiny on how that money is spent. I hope that the Minister can provide more details on how residents can be involved, including leaseholders and others, so that new oversight can be shaped by them and that they have confidence in the arrangement. I am also pleased that support was extended to NHS services through the period of the deconstruction of the tower, given the acute risk of mental health issues, and to five local primary schools to provide trauma-informed education around the community.
My final point is a simple one: with the passage of time, we cannot allow a return to business as usual before the fire. Already, we hear rumbles from parts of the construction industry and even, shamefully, some political parties, saying that Grenfell is somehow responsible for the slowdown in house building or that fire safety is a trade-off worth considering. There will always be policy choices for local and national Government to make, but putting life at risk should not be a trade-off we accept. I hope we can work together with empathy and respect—something I suspect Jo Cox would have wanted—and ensure that the legacy of Grenfell is that everyone in this country, regardless of class, race, geography or age, lives in a safe and healthy home.
The letter sent by Maithripala Senanayake, the then Acting Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, on 17 March 1976.
My dear Prime Minister,
Your High Commissioner in Sri Lanka has delivered your message informing me of your decision to relinquish the office of Prime Minister.
I was extremely sorry to receive this news. We are greatly appreciative of the distinguished role you have played in the affairs of the Commonwealth. We particularly value the initiatives taken by you to make the Commonwealth responsive to the needs and aspirations of the developing countries. I am sure that your colleagues will feel your absence not only in their dealings with your country but also at the Commonwealth Meetings.
I should like to express my sincere appreciation for the personal interest you have taken in fostering the relations between our two countries. I share your conviction that these close relations will continue to grow in strength.
I send you my best wishes for your good health and happiness.
Maithripala Senanayake,
Acting Prime Minister.
The letter sent by Henry Kissinger to Harold Wilson on 18 March 1976.
Dear Harold,
The announcement of your decision to retire as Prime Minister has left me with a profound sense of loss. I have known you as long as any political leader in the world either in or out of office. In addition to the privilege of being associated with you in political life, I have always considered you a personal friend as well and have had, throughout these years, tremendous respect and admiration for your vision, dedication and leadership. We will miss you.
Warmest regards,
Henry A. Kissinger
The letter sent by Harold Wilson, the then Prime Minister, to cabinet colleagues on 20 December 1966.
We have to take a decision by the end of the year on whether or not we should continue with the P.1127. In discussion in the Defence and Oversea Policy Committee there was a division of view and, although preponderant opinion was in favour of continuation, the decision is one which the Cabinet will wish to take.
I attach a note by officials setting out the considerations on either side.
H.W.
10, Downing Street, S.W.1.
20th December, 1966
SECRET
P1127
Note by Officials
Introduction
The P1127 is an aircraft intended to provide close support for our ground forces. It is a major advance in this field through the exploitation of its unique ability to operate from very short rough strips in the forward area (short take off and landing capability or STOL) and to operate from small landing sites in the vertical take off and landing (VTOL) mode with a bomb or rocket load. At the time of the Defence Review it was hoped that the VTOL performance, which is limited in range and load, could be appreciably improved through incorporating plenum chamber burning, but further studies have established that this is not the answer and the most likely alternative would be costly in both development and production. There are, however, indications that engine thrust increases can be achieved in the normal course of development which will lead to worthwhile improvements in aircraft performance.
There is no aircraft which can replace the special V/STOL characteristics of the P1127, but it is possible — admittedly with some detriment to the operational efficiency of our forces — to provide close support for the Army by means of different combinations of the Spey-Phantom and of the Anglo-French Jaguar. The latter course would be cheaper, but would involve additional expenditure in foreign currency and would have industrial implications for the future of the United Kingdom aircraft industry. The question is the degree of priority to be accorded to the gain in operational efficiency.
Defence Requirements
The Defence Review made provision for the purchase of 110 P1127 aircraft (93 solos and 17 duals). In considering the Review in February (CC(66) 9th Conclusions) the Cabinet agreed that the P1127 was important for United Kingdom industrial reasons and that at that stage we should plan on the assumption that it would be developed. The Cabinet, however, reserved the right to take a different decision should technical developments or the escalation of costs make it desirable to do so. Following their discussion, the Defence and Oversea Policy Committee agreed in March (OPD(66) 15th Meeting, Item 1) that an order should be placed for 60 aircraft, with an option for a further 40, and that the issue should be further considered in the autumn in the light of feasibility studies, the cost of production and the prospect of export orders.
The present position is that the programme is going well, the first two aircraft are flying and development should be completed within the estimate of last March. Our commitments to the end of December in respect of both research and development and production will total about £45 million, which is over one-third of the estimated cost of the development and production of the first 60 aircraft (£120 million to £125 million) and 13 per cent of the total ten year programme cost of £336 million. In addition, we have spent, including contributions from the United States and German Governments to the Kestrel programme and payments on the cancelled P1154, a further £70 million on the technology of vectored thrust.
The further defence studies might call also for a review of the number of P1127 (or alternative aircraft) which will be required. These studies will not be completed until July, 1967 and, theoretically, the decision on the future of the P1127 should be taken then in the light of the cost and implications of the alternative courses. By then, however, a further £26 million will have been committed on the P1127 and effectively deferment now would be equivalent to a decision to continue with the aircraft. The choice on whether to continue or cancel the P1127 is therefore open to us only until the end of the year.
The argument for cancellation
The argument for cancelling the P1127 is its cost and its low defence priority. Pressure on the Defence Budget has increased. There is still the problem of attaining the Defence Review target of £2,000 million at 1964 prices in 1969-70: and further defence studies are being undertaken to consider the possibility of substantial additional savings by 1970-71. To provide the total 110 P1127 aircraft which would be necessary for the defence commitments envisaged in the Defence Review would cost £130 million more over a ten-year period than a likely alternative. Such an alternative, although cheaper in budgetary terms, could, however, involve expenditure of £40 million in dollars, plus perhaps a further £25 million for the foreign currency element of the additional Anglo-French Jaguars. (Until the further defence studies are completed it is uncertain whether this requirement for a number of P1127, or alternative aircraft, can be reduced: it is therefore impossible to calculate with any precision the additional budgetary cost of the P1127 and the cost in foreign exchange of the alternative.)
Although the P1127 is desirable on grounds of operational efficiency the priority to be accorded to it on defence grounds alone is not such as to justify its continuation in view of the pressure on the Defence Budget. The incidence of expenditure on the P1127 would moreover give rise to awkward budgetary problems in 1969-70 and 1970-71 and although alternatives to it, giving us a similar capability, could also do this, there would be greater room for manoeuvre. If the continuation of the P1127 is approved, then the Defence Budget will be higher than the total to which it could otherwise be reduced in consequence of the Defence Review and the further defence studies.
The argument for continuation
The argument for continuing with the P1127, apart from the gain in operational efficiency and the saving in foreign currency, is that it is the only advanced military aircraft at present under development in the United Kingdom and the only major national aircraft project this Government has initiated. Its adoption as a part replacement for the Hunter was intended to mitigate the cancellation of the TSR 2, P1154 and HS 681. If it were to be cancelled now the effect on the aircraft industry could be disastrous, particularly in the context of the uncertainty of the future of the Anglo-French variable geometry (VG) aircraft. Although the balance of probability is that the French will agree to the continuation of the latter, this is not certain, and if they withdrew we should then have to consider whether or not to continue with the development of a somewhat simpler form of this aircraft in the United Kingdom alone. This uncertainty is relevant to the future of the United Kingdom industry.
Although the main work for a design team in the immediate future would be on a VG aircraft and not on the P1127, the loss of confidence from the abandonment of the P1127 alone would be such that it is doubtful if men of the right industrial, scientific and technological standing could be retained in the industry. In particular, this is the major project in the programme for Hawker Siddeley. It is around this firm, and its management, that the Government’s proposals for reorganising the airframe industry are built. If this project were now cancelled, Hawker Siddeley’s willingness to remain in the industry could evaporate: in that event any prospect of an effective United Kingdom aircraft industry on the basis of the Government’s proposals would disappear.
Furthermore, the development of the VTOL and STOL capability is the only part of aircraft technology in which at present the United Kingdom is in advance of the rest of the world. To abandon the P1127 would be permanently to throw away that lead, with wider consequences for our technological capacity.
Export Prospects
The export prospects of the aircraft are necessarily uncertain until it is clear whether or not the Government intend to go ahead with production, since we cannot expect to sell military aircraft unless the RAF order them. However, a number of countries have shown interest. The most promising prospects so far appear to be Israel, India and Finland. In general, the Head of Defence Sales considers the export prospects are good but of course there can be no certainty of them.
Numbers to be ordered
If a decision were taken in favour of the continuation of the programme there would then be a choice between ordering now 60 single and ten dual aircraft (essential for training purposes) at a programme cost of £242 million while keeping an option open for a further purchase, the cost of which cannot be quantified until the end of the defence studies, or ordering now the full number of 110 (including 17 duals) at a programme cost of £336 million. The advantage of the former course is that it would leave options open if the defence studies showed either a requirement for fewer than 110, or that alternative cheaper aircraft should be provided for the full remaining requirement. The advantage of ordering the full 110 now is that if this number is required it would be marginally cheaper and that it would give greater industrial certainty and enhance exports prospects.
The Choice
The choice lies between:
(1) cancelling the P1127 and
(2) continuing the programme, in which case the choice is between:
(a) ordering 70 aircraft now and keeping the option open on the remainder until mid-1967; and
(b) ordering the full 110 now.
The letter sent by Harold Wilson, the then Prime Minister, to his Cabinet colleagues on 23 December 1964.
I should like to take this opportunity to wish all my colleagues in the Government a very happy Christmas.
I hope that we can all feel that, having regard to the circumstances which we found when we came into office, we have not done too badly since 16th October. We have launched important new initiatives in economic and industrial policy, in defence and foreign policy and in the field of the social services; and in many other respects we have set in hand a good deal of work, which will bear fruit in due course, to achieve the objectives which we set ourselves in our Election Manifesto. We must maintain this momentum; and we must be ready to tackle 1965 with no less energy and determination.
Meanwhile I trust that all my colleagues will have a well-earned rest over the holiday. I hope that they will also take the opportunity to do a little quiet stock-taking in the light of the first few weeks of office and to consider how we can improve still further our handling of Government business. I suggest that, among other things, we should all study afresh the memorandum on Questions of Procedure for Ministers (C. (64) 1) which I circulated on 19th October, 1964. I know that Ministers were very busy at the time when it was circulated and now is a good time to look at it again. It contains a lot of valuable guidance, which has been tested by experience; and it gains added force when it is re-read against the background of a few months of practical Ministerial responsibility. The sections dealing with contacts with the Press, television and public opinion in general are particularly worth attention. Recently, there have been one or two occasions when information about our intentions seems to have leaked prematurely; and this kind of thing, if it continues, is not only bad in itself but tends to undermine the whole concept of collective responsibility. I ask my colleagues to take particular care in this respect; and I would suggest that, for their own protection, they should preferably be accompanied by some responsible witness when they meet representatives of the Press, even if only informally, and that they should also ensure that their Departmental Information Officers are promptly informed of all such meetings and of what has passed on such occasions in order that any follow-up action which may be necessary can be taken. A few simple precautions of this kind can save a lot of subsequent trouble.
H.W.
10 Downing Street, S.W.1.
23rd December, 1964
CONFIDENTIAL