**Prime Minister Keir Starmer Issues Public Apology to Welsh MP Over Commons Remark**
Prime Minister Keir Starmer has publicly expressed regret for remarks he made towards Plaid Cymru’s Westminster leader, Liz Saville Roberts, during an exchange in the House of Commons. The Labour leader had previously accused Ms Saville Roberts of “talking rubbish” during a heated debate last week, a comment that has since sparked discussion about the tone of political discourse at Westminster.
The apology came during the latest Commons session, as Sir Keir responded to questions regarding the UK’s new agreement with the European Union. Addressing the chamber from the despatch box, Sir Keir acknowledged his previous comments, stating, “I think last week I was overly rude and I apologise. I do respect the honourable member.” This gesture was directed at Ms Saville Roberts after she referenced his earlier stance on the single market.
Ms Saville Roberts, representing Plaid Cymru, quoted Sir Keir’s previous advocacy for retaining the benefits of the single market and questioned how he now reconciles that position with his current policies. “Given his recent tendency to dismiss the views of others, what would he say to his younger self?” she asked. Her question prompted the Prime Minister’s apology, offering a striking moment of self-reflection during a period of intense scrutiny for government policy.
Sir Keir subsequently outlined the government’s approach to EU negotiations in light of Labour’s 2024 manifesto, making it clear that “red lines” relating to the single market had been established and preserved during discussions. He asserted, “The Government has kept those red lines and delivered a very good deal,” reiterating his position as the party in power seeks to navigate what remains a divisive topic across the political spectrum.
Tensions between the pair escalated last week at Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs), when Ms Saville Roberts challenged Sir Keir on his principles regarding migration. She referenced his prior speeches advocating compassion for migrants and free movement, contrasting these with his more recent rhetoric about “islands of strangers” and the need for Britain to “take back control.”
Ms Saville Roberts questioned whether the Prime Minister maintained any core beliefs once inside Downing Street, to which Sir Keir retorted, “Yes, the belief that she talks rubbish.” This blunt comment drew criticism both within and outside Parliament, highlighting the political pressures on leaders to remain both principled and diplomatic.
Nevertheless, Sir Keir defended his government’s evolving position. He remarked, “I want to lead a country where we pull together and walk into the future as neighbours and as communities, not as strangers,” citing what he viewed as mismanagement of migration by the previous government. He underlined that the government’s immigration overhaul is guided by “principles of control, selection and fairness.”
The background to this recent exchange lies in the government’s newly unveiled Immigration White Paper. In a recent speech launching the strategy, Sir Keir argued that robust rules are essential if the UK is to avoid becoming “an island of strangers.” The outlined strategy features tougher English language requirements and an educational threshold for visa applicants, measures intended, according to Sir Keir, to “take back control” of British borders and turn the page on what he characterised as a turbulent period for UK politics.
This incident has reignited discussions concerning the language used in Parliament and the responsibility of politicians to uphold respectful debate, even amid strong policy disagreements. Sir Keir’s apology has been viewed by some as a timely reminder of the importance of civility in public life, while others question whether it goes far enough in addressing the underlying issues raised by his critics.
As the government presses ahead with negotiations on the UK-EU relationship and faces scrutiny over its immigration policies, all eyes will be on whether the tone of Westminster debate—often combative—can shift towards one of greater mutual respect and productive discourse.