Oral Answers to Questions
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts(2 days, 1 hour ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Mr Speaker, thank you for marking four years since the terrible murder of Sir David Amess. I know the whole House will want to join me in remembering our former colleague. He is very much still in our hearts and minds. The way he died reminds us that the security of Members and this Parliament is paramount, so it concerns us all that the case against two people spying on Members of this House has collapsed. It is simply unbelievable.
Exactly as I expected, the Prime Minister had to be dragged out at the top of PMQs to give a statement that answers no questions. [Laughter.] I don’t know what they are laughing at; we are talking about the security of this Parliament. He had to be dragged out only to repeat more obfuscation. It is simply unbelievable that he is trying to say that the last Government did not classify China as a threat, so I will refresh his memory.
In 2021, the previous Government’s integrated review described China as
“the biggest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security.”
In 2024, the then Minister for Security said from the Dispatch Box that China poses a threat. But let us leave aside the Government. In November 2022, the director general of MI5 classified China as a threat in his remarks. How is it possible that the Government failed to provide the evidence that the CPS needed to prosecute?
The Prime Minister
The substantive evidence was provided in 2023 by the previous Government. That is when the witness statement was submitted. I am going to disclose it; Members will all be able to read it. The substantive evidence was written, disclosed and submitted in 2023, under the previous Government. I note that the Leader of the Opposition did not indicate whether Ministers were involved in that at the time.
The Leader of the Opposition questions what is in the refreshed reviews of 2021 and 2023. Let me be clear: the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, gave a speech at Mansion House one month after the arrests. It was called “Our position on China” and set out the Government’s policy. He said in that speech that summing up China as a “threat” in “one word” would be
“impossible, impractical and—most importantly—unwise.”
He was Foreign Secretary at the time.
It was not just the right hon. Member for Braintree. The Leader of the Opposition was Business Secretary at the time. In September 2023—the relevant year—she said:
“We certainly should not be describing China as a foe”.
It is worth looking up the word “foe” in the dictionary. It does not end there. In September 2024, she said:
“I have shied away from calling China a threat”.
She is playing politics with national security.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister can read the beginning of a quote, but let me finish that quote. At the end of the quote that he just read out, I did describe China as a threat. But his whataboutery neglects the fact that the spies were charged under a Conservative Government and let off under Labour.
The Prime Minister has not answered any questions. On Monday, the Security Minister repeatedly told the House that Ministers did not take decisions and that it was the deputy National Security Adviser who had full freedom. Are the Government seriously saying that only one man—the deputy National Security Adviser—had anything to do with this failure? Is that Prime Minister seriously saying that the deputy did not discuss with the National Security Adviser, the Home Secretary or anyone in Downing Street? Is the Prime Minister seriously saying that?
The Prime Minister
Yes, and let me explain why. First, the case was charged under the last Government, according to the evidence submitted under that Government, who set out their policy position. What was on issue in the trial is not the position of the current Government, but the position of the last Government. They carefully avoided describing China as an enemy because that was their policy at the time. As far as the position under this Government is concerned, no Minister or special adviser was involved. I will double-check this—[Interruption.] This is important. After the charging decision, the prosecution were very careful about who would then see the witness evidence. I will double-check exactly what instruction was taken, but I can be absolutely clear that no Minister was involved, no special adviser was involved in this. I am as assured as I can be that the prosecution was saying that it would be the witnesses only who would be involved in short updates to the evidence that was submitted under the previous Government.
Mrs Badenoch
The end of the answer was different from the beginning of the answer. What on earth is the point of us having a lawyer rather than a leader as the Prime Minister if he cannot even get the law right on a matter of national security? He keeps going back to the CPS. The CPS has said that it was satisfied that it was right to charge in August 2024. The Sunday Times reported that Jonathan Powell, the Prime Minister’s National Security Adviser, convened a secret meeting to discuss the security consequences of the China spy trial. Did that meeting happen, or is The Sunday Times making it up?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady is clearly not a lawyer or a leader. The problem for her is that I do actually understand the law, and I know what has to be proven. I have also looked at the evidence that was put in under the last Government in relation to this case. There was a meeting in September; that did not involve the National Security Adviser discussing the evidence in any way. One further point: the final statement in this case was submitted in August 2025. There was no further submission of evidence, one way or the other, after any discussion in September. This is a red herring—a completely scurrilous allegation made by the Leader of the Opposition.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister has now twice directly contradicted the words of his Security Minister. They cannot both be right. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee could not get any answers from the Security Minister. The CPS said that it was satisfied that the decision to charge the case in April 2024—not August—was correct on the basis of where the law stood at that time. This is a matter of fact, not a matter of what the previous Government had thought, or of the case not meeting a legal test—it did. Something must have changed when the charges were brought and when the case collapsed. The charges were brought under the Conservatives and collapsed under Labour. Will the Prime Minister tell us what changed, and what collapsed the case?
The Prime Minister
I have said that I will publish the witness statements in full. The whole House will then see exactly what was set out in 2023 in the substantive witness statements, and exactly what was set out in the two supplementary witness statements. The right hon. Lady will then realise that what she has just said is entirely baseless.
Mrs Badenoch
The CPS has said in the clearest terms that this prosecution was dropped because this Government did not provide the statements it expected. Why should we believe a man who at the last Prime Minister’s questions said that he had full confidence in the best friend of a convicted paedophile? Forgive us if we do not trust a word he says. This all stinks of a cover up. Given his statement earlier, will the Prime Minister publish today not just the Government witness statements, but also the meeting minutes, and all the correspondence that he had with the CPS?
The Prime Minister
Let me be clear: the only process I want to go through is in relation to some of the individuals in the statements to make sure that they know that this is coming up. I can assure the House that there is no substantive delay here.
Mrs Badenoch
Mr Speaker, you deserve better, and this House deserves better, than the evasive answers that we have had from the Prime Minister. Even the former Cabinet Secretary Lord Butler has accused the Government of being “economical with the truth” on this issue. The Prime Minister cannot tell us why Jonathan Powell had a secret meeting, when the Security Minister said he had no involvement the case. He cannot tell us why his Government did not provide evidence that China was a threat, and I suspect that the statements will not prove that either. He is blaming his civil servants, the media and the last Government. He cannot explain why he could not see this case through. He should have seen this case through.
Let me be clear about what has happened: a serious case involving national security has collapsed because this Government are too weak to stand up to China. If the Prime Minister cannot protect the Members of this House, what does that say about his ability to protect this country?
The Prime Minister
The case did not proceed because the policy of the past Government did not meet the test that was necessary. That is the long and the short of it. Far from evading, I have said that I will disclose the full witness statements, and set out exactly what was in them, and exactly what the subsequent statements say. The allegation that somehow they were changed—that the first and second statements are different—is completely and utterly unfounded. This is a pathetic spectacle. Instead of taking responsibility for the fact that they failed to update the law—the review into the legislation was in 2015—the Conservatives took eight years to change the law. Had they done that more quickly, this case would have proceeded. It was their failure, and they are just slinging mud. Meanwhile, we are getting on with renewing our country, planning reforms to get Britain building again, online hospitals for waiting lists, and new opportunities for young people. Labour is building a better future; the Conservatives cannot even come to terms with their past.
Middle East
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts(3 days, 1 hour ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I am grateful to the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. I remember almost two years ago meeting three mothers whose children had been stolen from them on 7 October and held captive in terror tunnels. They were living a nightmare unimaginable for any parent. Many of us on the Conservative Benches have met hostages and their families, and heard their stories and supported them. Yesterday, it was truly momentous to finally see the return of the 20 living hostages, who are now back home in Israel after over 730 days in terrorist captivity. The hostages released yesterday showed superhuman endurance in the face of evil. We send every best wish to them and their families as they begin the process of rebuilding their lives. We also mourn those hostages killed by Hamas, and continue to call for all their bodies to be returned to their families.
We must never forget what happened on 7 October 2023. The abduction of men, women and children was a calculated cruelty to break body, mind and soul after inflicting the mindless horror of rape and murder. There is no cause and no grievance that can ever justify what happened that day; I for one will never forget. The response from some in the west—the equivocation, the indulgence in whataboutery and the drawing of false equivalence—shows how far moral clarity has eroded. We have a job to do here at home to fix that.
On the Conservative Benches, we stand alongside Israel in our shared fight against Islamist terror. The conflict could have ended a long time ago if the hostages had been returned. So many Palestinian lives have been needlessly lost because of this war. Hamas are a genocidal terrorist organisation. A sustainable end to the suffering of civilians in Gaza means the complete eradication of Hamas and the dismantling of their terrorist infrastructure. Even now, we know that Hamas are still killing Palestinians in Gaza.
The initial phase of the US-backed peace plan represents a significant breakthrough. I thank the US Administration, President Trump and regional mediators for having secured this outcome. They put in the hard yards and found solutions, making clear that all progress would depend on the release of the hostages—a condition that some other Governments forgot.
With this peace deal, there is much to be hopeful for in the middle east. If the Abraham accords are expanded, a new age of peace will have arrived. We will see diplomatic normalisation of relations between Israel and the Arab world—something that many of us have longed to see. It saddens me that the Prime Minister’s statement does not appear to show that the UK was at the heart of any of these efforts specifically. It is quite clear that UK relations with Israel have been strained by the Government’s actions. Israel’s view—it has been stated publicly—is that it looks like the Prime Minister, under pressure from his Back Benchers, has taken the wrong decisions time and again, diminishing our influence in the region. [Hon. Members: “Shame!”] Labour Members can shout “shame” as much as they want. Within weeks of Labour coming into power, the Government decided to restore funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. We have not forgotten that. [Interruption.] They say “yes”; that is an organisation whose members assisted in the kidnapping of the hostages whose release we are celebrating today.
Relations with Israel have been so damaged that when Israel launched strikes against Iran—a country that has been a direct threat to us for years—the UK was out of the loop. Labour Members may not like it, but that is the truth. Then, in a move praised by Hamas, Labour decided to recognise a state of Palestine, without imposing the condition that hostages still held in the tunnels of Gaza be released, rewarding terrorism. [Interruption.] They may chunter from a sedentary position; I remind them that the British-Israeli former hostage Emily Damari called that a “moral failure”.
I was surprised to hear the Prime Minister say that recognition contributed to the peace deal. We all know that the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, condemned that recognition, saying that it had made ceasefire negotiations harder. That is what the US said. The truth is that as historic events have unfolded in the middle east, Britain has been out of step with the US. The US ambassador to Israel even called the Government’s claim that they had played a key role in the ceasefire “delusional”, which Israeli Foreign Ministers agreed with.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s promise to scale up protection for Jewish people in our country. Britain has always been a sanctuary for British Jews, but after the tragic murder of two British Jews outside a synagogue in Manchester, the Government must now do everything they can do eradicate antisemitism. The anti-Israel protesters who have turned our streets into theatres of hate have been relatively silent about the good news of a ceasefire and hostage return, showing us their real motivation.
The Prime Minister mentioned in his statement the Palestinian Authority. Will he tell us whether the Government’s preference is for the Palestinian Authority to take the reins in Gaza if they have committed to ending the pay-for-slay policies that reward families of terrorists for killing Israelis? Will they deal with antisemitism in education and are they demonstrating any democratic progress?
There are also domestic implications. We need to strengthen our borders. Hamas are still running Gaza, and those allowed to leave can do so only with Hamas’s approval. We should not bring anyone to Britain with links to extremism, to antisemitism, or to Hamas and other terrorists. Will the Prime Minister therefore confirm whether he intends to bring people from Gaza to study, for healthcare or for other purposes? What measures are in place to ensure that we do not import extremism, antisemitism or anyone linked to Hamas and other terrorists?
Britain is a great country and still a powerful one. We still have agency to shape the world around us. The Government must do better and show that they have the backbone to use Britain’s power to make a better world.
The Prime Minister
May I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her words about the hostages a moment ago? I know how heartfelt they are.
I was surprised and saddened that she spent more time attacking what we actually did to help the process than even mentioning the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, without setting out in terms the number of people who have been killed, who are starving and who have been subjected to denial of aid. When the immediate task for any serious Government is to work with allies to get that aid in at speed, I would have expected at least an acknowledgment of that terrible situation. It shows, yet again, just how far her party has slid from a serious statesperson’s approach to diplomacy.
This is not the time for a fight about what role any individual played. I am proud of what Steve Witkoff said about our National Security Adviser. He was negotiating this, he knows the role that we played, and this House should be proud of that. We were able to play that role only because of the relationship that this Government have with the Trump Administration: we are a trusted partner, working both before this peace deal and afterwards. And yes, I did discuss recognition of Palestine with President Trump when he was over here, because that is what grown-up, responsible partners do—unlike the discussion here. I stand by my words that in New York that was the first time that other countries in the region were clear in their condemnation of Hamas. That was a key aspect of what has now happened.
On her other questions, the Leader of the Opposition will know, from the reforms that have already been committed to, that the Palestinian Authority will not tolerate any election of individuals or parties that are not committed to a peaceful process. That is an absolute red line, it is part of the agreement and it is what we have been talking to other allies about for a very long time. On healthcare cases, as I reported, we have had such cases coming to the United Kingdom, as well as students. We are extremely careful in the checks that we carry out on everybody who comes to this country.
I return to the fact that this is a historic deal. It is important for the region and it is important for the world. It is to be celebrated across this House because of the relief it brings to the hostages and their families in particular, and to the many thousands of people in Gaza. As I said, I was surprised and saddened that the Leader of the Opposition has overlooked a really important part of the resolution of the conflict.
Speaker’s Statement
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts(3 days, 1 hour ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the Conservative party, I would like to add my voice to the tributes paid today to Lord Campbell. I had the pleasure of meeting Sir Ming Campbell, as he was then, just once—backstage before “Any Questions?”—and he was very courteous, very curious and very earnest. We all know how well respected he was across this House, not least because of the efforts he made to work cross-party, especially on international matters. He was a man with a clear sense of right and wrong, committed to doing the right thing even when it was difficult or unpopular, so I very much hope that his legacy of careful thought, integrity and public service endures. On behalf of myself and my party, I extend heartfelt condolences to Sir Ming’s family, his party and all those who knew him and loved him.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. For those of us on all sides who were here during the debate on the Iraq war, I want to thank Ming for the legal advice that he provided and the way that he addressed that debate, because he did so without seeking any party advantage. He simply set out the legal principles on which he was making his decision, and he did so with compassion and with the recognition of the moral duty that we all had. Many of us agreed with him and voted with him, and many did not, but everybody respected his judgment as a result. I believe he was a model MP, always speaking and voting on the basis of his conscience and the interests of his constituency and the country overall. He will be greatly missed, but I think his lesson will remain with many of us throughout our own parliamentary careers.
Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts(4 days, 1 hour ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
May I associate myself with the Minister’s remarks about Heaton Park synagogue? I thank Mr Speaker for all his work on Members’ security. No one has worked harder to protect the integrity of our Parliament.
The Security Minister is very well regarded, so I am sorry to see that he has been sent here again to make these arguments, which will not wash. This is about the ineptitude of the Government, and I cannot accept much of what he says. He has brought some updates to the House, which we acknowledge, but in essence, China spied on this Parliament and the Government are issuing us with leaflets. That is not good enough. There are Members here who have been spied on and sanctioned by China. Even Madam Deputy Speaker has been sanctioned. All MPs speaking today should be acting in the national interest—nothing else.
Let us remind ourselves of what has happened. Two men have been accused of spying on MPs in this very building. The CPS has what it felt was a clear and compelling case to prosecute, but the trial has collapsed because, for months and months, the Government have refused to give the CPS vital information. That was not a mistake; it was not a misunderstanding; it looks like a deliberate decision to collapse the case and curry favour with the regime in China. Instead of admitting that, the Security Minister has come here blaming the Official Secrets Act, when we know that the Act was enough to prosecute the case. Its deficiencies had nothing to do with the Government’s failures.
May I remind the House how serious this is? If the Government do not prosecute those who spy on us, it sends a message to the public that the Government do not care about their safety; it sends a message to our allies, who share intelligence with us, that Britain cannot be trusted; and it sends a message to those who spy on us that they can get away with it.
Let us look at the facts. First, the Government blamed the CPS. The Minister came to the House on 15 September and claimed that he had become aware of the situation only that day, and that the CPS decision had been an entirely independent one—an assertion that he has repeated today. He said:
“I am not able to talk about why the CPS has decided to make this decision.”—[Official Report, 15 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 1186.]
He said that it was not for him to “speculate on the reason”. He told my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) to “seek a meeting” if she wanted to find out the reasons. However, we now know, despite all he has just said, that the trial collapsed because the Government refused to give the CPS what it needed, and the Minister knew full well why it had collapsed. The Director of Public Prosecutions has said that he spent months trying to get the Government to provide the evidence that the CPS needed.
Secondly, the Government tried blaming the previous Government. Just like the Prime Minister, the Minister claims that the CPS could not prosecute because the previous Government did not describe China as a threat. I cannot believe that he would actually say that. He knows what we said, but let me remind him. For starters, the 2021 integrated review described China as—listen carefully—the “biggest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security.” The 2023 integrated review refresh said several times that China posed—listen carefully—a threat. In 2024, the then Minister for Security said from the Dispatch Box that China poses a serious threat. But even if the previous Government had not said China was a threat, which they did, this Government needed only to convince a jury that it was a threat, and the Minister knows that. I am astonished that he has repeated that nonsense today.
The Minister’s and Prime Minister’s argument has been refuted by no less than a former DPP, two former Cabinet Secretaries—one a former National Security Adviser—two former heads of MI6, and a professor of public law at the University of Cambridge, who said today that Ministers’ statements so far are “misleading” about the legal position. They are all clear that those people could have been prosecuted under the old legislation. Is the Government’s position that they are all wrong and the Government are right? The Minister referred to R v. Roussev. That case last year made it easier to prosecute, not harder. As the former Director of Public Prosecutions said of recruiting people to spy on MPs,
“That of itself clearly constitutes a threat to national security.”
Only this Government could mess that up.
We know that the National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, has a very close relationship with China. Are we supposed to believe that he was not involved in the “substance of the case and discussions around it”, as they say? What does that even mean? He was in those meetings, acting in the name of the Prime Minister. Do the Government really expect us to believe that he never mentioned any of this to the Prime Minister at any point?
We know from the CPS that it spent months and months asking the Government for the evidence that it needed. The Government say that the NSA did not take the decision not to give it the evidence, so who did? Who made that decision—can the Minister answer that question today? Is the Government’s argument seriously that no Minister knew anything about this until the trial collapsed? If that is the case, it is astonishing. My suspicion is that that is not the case, and that Ministers did know. They had the Chinese super-embassy in their in-tray, and they are allegedly being asked to pay £1 billion in compensation for the nationalisation of British Steel. I suspect that they have decided that closer economic ties with China were more important than due process and our national security. If that is the case, and that was the Government’s decision, they should tell us and have the backbone to admit it. They should explain it to the public, the CPS and our international allies, and let them all be the judge.
This issue is not going away—there is nowhere to hide. I wrote to the Prime Minister today and would like to know when I will get a response to my questions. We have also written to the Crown Prosecution Service to ask whether the trial can be reopened if the Government finally provide the evidence that they have been holding back. We know that the evidence that the CPS needs exists. If the Government decide not to provide it, then we will know that that is because this weak Prime Minister does not have the backbone to stand up to Beijing.
Dan Jarvis
I find it genuinely astonishing that at no point did the Leader of the Opposition acknowledge that all the acts that we have been talking about this afternoon happened when she was in government, on her watch.
I believe that it is important to discuss these matters in a fair and reasonable way, so I particularly made sure that the right hon. Lady had early sight of the statement, to give her ample opportunity. She has clearly not read the statement—she either did not read the statement or did not listen to what I have said, because she has asked me a number—[Interruption.]
Oral Answers to Questions
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s comments about the Duchess of Kent; she lived an exemplary life of public service, and will be very much missed. I agree with the Prime Minister, as all of us in this House should: we stand shoulder to shoulder with Poland and all our NATO allies against Putin’s aggression. A NATO country has just had to defend itself against Russian drones. Now more than ever, we need our ambassador to Washington fully focused on this issue, and liaising closely with America. Does the Prime Minister have full confidence in Peter Mandelson?
The Prime Minister
Let me start by saying that the victims of Epstein are at the forefront of our minds. He was a despicable criminal who committed the most heinous crimes and destroyed the lives of so many women and girls. The ambassador has repeatedly expressed his deep regret for his association with Epstein, and he is right to do so. I have confidence in him, and he is playing an important role in the UK-US relationship.
Mrs Badenoch
This is interesting. The Prime Minister says that the ambassador has expressed full regret, but the victims of the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein have called for Lord Mandelson to be sacked. Just so the House is aware, in 2019, Jeffrey Epstein was convicted of child prostitution and sex trafficking, which took place between 2002 and 2005. That is the precise period when Lord Mandelson called Jeffrey Epstein his “best pal”. Was the Prime Minister aware of this intimate relationship when he appointed Lord Mandelson to be our ambassador in Washington?
The Prime Minister
As the right hon. Lady and the House would expect, full due process was followed during this appointment, as it is with all ambassadors. The ambassador has repeatedly expressed his deep regret, and he is right to do so. He is now playing an important part in the US-UK relationship.
Mrs Badenoch
I asked the Prime Minister if he knew about the relationship. The fact that he did not answer indicates that he probably did know. I was not asking a question about process; I was asking a question about his judgment. The Daily Telegraph reported today that while Lord Mandelson was Business Secretary, he brokered a deal with Jeffrey Epstein, and that this occurred after Epstein had been convicted of child sex offences. Given this new information, does the Prime Minister really think that it is tenable for our ambassador to remain in post?
The Prime Minister
The relationship between the US and the UK is one of our foremost relationships, and I have confidence in the ambassador in the role he is doing.
Mrs Badenoch
I think it is embarrassing that the Prime Minister is still saying that he has confidence in a man who was brokering deals with convicted child sex offenders while sitting in Government. That is a disgrace. This Government have repeatedly refused to declare Lord Mandelson’s full interests. As part of the appointment, there will have been extensive Government vetting, covering details and timings of Peter Mandelson’s dealings with Jeffrey Epstein. Will the Prime Minister publish all the documents, including those about Lord Mandelson’s interests?
The Prime Minister
As I say, full due process was gone through in relation to this appointment, as would be expected. As the right hon. Lady well knows, the publication of documents is subject to a procedure that includes an independent element. This would have been subject to the usual procedure.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister cannot answer any questions. That is not the behaviour of someone who has full confidence. The ambassador should be in the White House, talking about how we respond to an incursion into NATO airspace; instead, he is giving interviews about himself to The Sun. This is a man who has already had to be removed from Cabinet twice, and now we learn that he was brokering billion-pound deals with Jeffrey Epstein while he was Business Secretary.
I did not get a proper answer. The Prime Minister is talking about process, but this is not about process; this is about judgment. Just last week, I told him that he should sack his Deputy Prime Minister. Labour Members were all cheering and congratulating themselves, but she was gone two days later. His phase 2 is broken, and he has a wholly new Front-Bench team. I will ask him again: will he ensure that these documents are published? Will he actually instruct Peter Mandelson to publish all his correspondence with Jeffrey Epstein?
The Prime Minister
The Leader of the Opposition says that the ambassador should be in the White House, discussing NATO; he is. We all are discussing that—we did so through a number of international calls this morning—as well as Ukraine and the attack in Doha yesterday. I see that she is finally catching up with the questions that she should have asked last week about the Deputy Prime Minister. In the meantime, we have opened up a new school-based nursery; on Monday, we had the defence industrial strategy; and on Tuesday, we published NHS league tables to push up standards. We reopened Doncaster Sheffield airport yesterday, and today we have set out how we are repairing the concrete in our hospitals.
Mrs Badenoch
A load of waffle and whataboutery. All Labour Members are interested in right now is their pointless deputy leadership election, while the country out there is suffering from an economic crisis. The Prime Minister has an ambassador mired in scandal, not focusing on NATO. He lost his Deputy Prime Minister just last week for evading taxes. He has a new Home Secretary and a new Foreign Secretary who are just learning the ropes and not able to help with this issue. We have strikes crippling our capital city and damaging our economy. He could use the minimum service legislation that the Conservatives introduced to make the lives of the people out there better, but he will not, because he does not have the backbone to face down the unions. The unions are running the Government; all the deputy leadership candidates are chasing after them. With this Government, it is more strikes, more scandal and more chaos. Is not the link between all this his bad decisions, his bad judgment and his total weakness?
The Prime Minister
Our deputy leader contest started this week and ends on 25 October. The Conservatives’ leadership contest has been going on for months, and will continue for a very long time. [Interruption.] All this noise from the arsonists while we are putting out the fires that they left behind! Interest rates and waiting lists are down. Wages, investment and deportations are up. Now we are stepping up defence spending, creating new jobs, driving up standards in our NHS and rebuilding our crumbling schools and hospitals. This is a Government of patriots fighting for working people.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I know the whole House will want to send our condolences to the family of our former colleague, David Warburton.
I also welcome the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister has referred herself to the ethics adviser. She has admitted that she underpaid tax, so why is she still in office? There is not just a crisis at the very top of the Prime Minister’s Cabinet; there is a crisis brewing for the whole country. When was the last time that the cost of Government borrowing was so high?
The Prime Minister
I join the Leader of the Opposition in her comments about Mr Warburton. I think the whole House would unite on such an issue.
In relation to the Deputy Prime Minister, she has explained her personal circumstances in detail. She has gone over and above in setting out the details, including yesterday afternoon asking a court to lift a confidentiality order in relation to her own son. I know from speaking at length to the Deputy Prime Minister just how difficult that decision was for her and her family, but she did it to ensure that all information is in the public domain. She has now referred herself to the independent adviser. That is the right thing to do, but I can be clear that I am very proud to sit alongside a Deputy Prime Minister who is building 1.5 million homes, who is bringing forward the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation, and who has come from a working-class background to be Deputy Prime Minister of this country.
On the question of borrowing costs, they have risen across the world, as the Leader of the Opposition well knows. We are driving them down by getting debt down. That is hardwired into our fiscal rules; those fiscal rules are non-negotiable. I am not going to take lectures on the economy from the Conservatives, who crashed the economy. Mortgages went through the roof and there was a record fall in living standards.
Mrs Badenoch
I am not sure we would have heard all that sympathy if it had been a Conservative Deputy Prime Minister who was being attacked. I remember when the Prime Minister said that tax evasion was a criminal offence and
“should be treated as all other fraud”.
If he had a backbone, he would sack her.
But let us get back to the issue of borrowing. The Prime Minister did not answer the question about why it is so high. The Conservatives left him the fastest-growing economy in the G7. Under him, the cost of our borrowing is now higher than it is in Greece. Why does the Prime Minister think that is?
The Prime Minister
If it had been the Conservatives, there would not have been the accountability, which is now in place, because they spent years and years avoiding it. The right hon. Lady’s claims about the economy on their watch are about as credible as her place at Stanford University. [Interruption.] She leaves out of her account, because she wants to talk down the country, that we have the highest growth in the G7. I look forward to her getting up and welcoming that. We have had five interest rate cuts in a row, and, of course, £120 billion of investment in the first year of a Labour Government. That is a record.
Mrs Badenoch
It is a terrible record. I stand by every single thing that I have said. The Prime Minister cannot say why borrowing is higher under him. I will tell him why it is higher: it is because the Chancellor changed the fiscal rules so that she could borrow record amounts. She maxed out the country’s credit card, and that has pushed up borrowing costs. These are their bad choices. Former members of the Monetary Policy Committee are warning that
“we are heading for an economic crash”.
Why does the Prime Minister think that he is right and they are wrong?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady cannot resist it—she comes straight back to talk the country down at every opportunity. She does not welcome the highest growth in the G7. She could have got up and welcomed that, but no. What about the 380,000 jobs that we have created? She could welcome that, but no. What about the three trade deals that we have? Not only does she not welcome them; she opposes them. And, of course, she has not welcomed the Norway deal—the biggest deal for shipbuilding in a very, very long time. She should stop talking down the country and get behind the renewal that this Government are delivering.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister is dragging down the country. He is dragging it down. How can he stand there and say that he is creating jobs? Unemployment has gone up in every single month under this Labour Government. He does not know why borrowing costs are going up. Another reason is that the markets can see that he is too weak to control spending. Now we are reading that he wants to have another go at welfare costing. What makes him think that Labour Members will vote for it this time?
The Prime Minister
I think I saw that the Leader of the Opposition said this to The Sunday Times at the weekend:
“I have inherited a gigantic mess and I’m cleaning it up.”
She said:
“It’s very difficult…it’s going to take a while.”
I know exactly how she feels.
Mrs Badenoch
We are not the ones referring ourselves to ethics advisers. The fact is that he is floundering. He—[Interruption.] Perhaps he should have a read—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. We do not want to start the session with someone leaving, do we? If someone wants to volunteer, please do so. If not, I will choose one.
Mrs Badenoch
Labour Members can do the fake cheers as much as they like. The whole country knows what a mess of the economy they are making.
It is clear that taxes are going up for everyone—except, perhaps, the Deputy Prime Minister. I warned before the summer that we would face weeks of speculation about which taxes would be going up. The former head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said:
“This sort of…uncertainty is actively damaging to the economy.”
And now we find that we have to wait until 26 November for a Budget. Does the Prime Minister really think that the country, or the markets, can wait that long?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady said that the Opposition were not referring themselves to the ethics advisers. That is among the reasons they got booted out of office last year. She complains that we are going through the due process for a Budget and going through the necessary steps. We tried a Budget on their watch without going through those steps. What happened? They blew up the economy. We will take no lessons from them.
Mrs Badenoch
This is desperate stuff from the Prime Minister. This week, he had another reset. This morning, the Prime Minister scrapped his five missions. After scrapping his three foundations, his six first steps for change and his seven pillars for growth, the truth is that this man has got no clue—zero clue. But this is serious. The Prime Minister’s incompetence is hurting real people. They are losing their jobs and the cost of everything is going up, from energy bills to the weekly shop. This is a crisis made in Downing Street. Is it not the truth that he is too weak to change course, and too arrogant to admit he got things wrong?
The Prime Minister
I do not know what social media sites the right hon. Lady has been on this morning, but I think the chair of the Tory party said that this Government are the “firefighters”. Well, in a sense we are, because we are putting out the fires that the Conservatives created. They were the arsonists—the biggest fall in living standards on record, blowing up the finances. We have spent the first year putting out their fires—quite right too—but now we are delivering on the cost of living: funded childcare worth £7,500 for working families, free breakfast clubs and opening new school-based nurseries. That is what we are fighting for: the best start for every child in this country.
G7 and NATO Summits
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. He has evaded Prime Minister’s questions for two weeks, only to come back here to tell us what we already heard on the news. This is a weak statement from a weak Prime Minister, which can be characterised in two words: noises off.
In his statement, the Prime Minister said:
“We urge Iran and Israel to honour the ceasefire”.
He said:
“We are using every diplomatic lever to support this effort”.
What diplomatic levers? Are they the same levers he is using with his Back-Bench rebels? Is he just asking them to please play nice? Let us be honest: nobody cares what this Prime Minister thinks—why should they, when he does not even know what he thinks? Clearly no one cares what he thinks, because he was not involved. We used to be a strategic player on the global stage, advancing Britain’s interests with confidence—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. You may not wish to hear the Leader of the Opposition, but I do. It does not do anybody good in this Chamber to try to shout down somebody who is speaking.
Mrs Badenoch
Labour Members can shout as much as they like, but we all know the truth. We used to be a strategic player on the global stage, advancing Britain’s interests with confidence, and now we are on the sidelines.
Over the last few weeks, historic events unfolded in the middle east, and at every stage Britain has been out of step with the US and out of the loop with Israel. Last week, the Prime Minister came back from the G7 insisting that there was nothing President Trump said that would indicate he was about to get involved in this conflict. Days later, the US launched its attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and the Prime Minister had no idea what was going on.
The week before, Israel launched an attack on Iran, and it became apparent that the UK was not even informed about the attack in advance, despite us having been involved in previous preventive action. How is that standing up on the world stage? On Tuesday, the Foreign Secretary—a lawyer—repeatedly could not say whether the US strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities were legal. This is a Government who do not know what they are doing. Let me make the Conservative position clear: Iran has been a direct threat to the UK for years, plotting terrorism on British soil. It must not get nuclear weapons. This is a time for Europe to step up, and the UK should be leading; instead, we have an Attorney General using international law to constrain and restrict the UK while the Prime Minister hovers indecisively on the sidelines. What we need is a leader—instead, we have three lawyers.
Last week, I wrote to the Prime Minister about how this conflict has underscored the folly of the Government’s £30 billion Chagos surrender deal. The Diego Garcia base is of obvious strategic importance for conflicts in the middle east. [Interruption.] Labour Members are shaking their heads—they do not understand. It is obvious; Diego Garcia was used extensively during the war in Afghanistan, including by the United States.
At Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister said that this Chagos surrender had been
“opposed by our adversaries, Russia, China and Iran”.—[Official Report, 4 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 302.]
Since then, it has been widely reported that China has offered massive congratulations on the deal and conveyed that it fully supports Mauritius. Will the Prime Minister now admit that he was incorrect to state on the Floor of this House that China opposes the Chagos deal, and can he confirm whether he still views China as an adversary? Under the terms of the Prime Minister’s deal, if the US were to launch an attack from the military base on Diego Garcia, we would have to inform the Chinese-allied Mauritius Government. Will he abandon the deeply flawed surrender deal? If not, when will he introduce the legislation setting out the details of the Chagos surrender, so that Parliament can consider and debate it?
We welcome the announcement that the UK will be buying F-35A fighter jets, and I am pleased that the Labour party has now moved on from its previous position of not supporting NATO and advocating against the nuclear deterrent. [Interruption.] Labour Members pretend that it never happened, but we have the receipts. Conservatives are proud of exceeding the NATO baseline of 2% of GDP spent on defence, and we led NATO in getting there. However, the Government’s aspiration to get spending on national security to 5% is just hope—the reality is that Labour does not have a plan to get to 3%. It is all smoke and mirrors, and we do not know what the Government will spend the extra 1.5% component on. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether this is money we are already spending, or whether there will be any new money? So long as this plan remains unfunded, these are just words.
Instead of using smoke and mirrors to inflate defence spending, Labour should heed our call to hit 3% by the end of this Parliament with a fully funded plan to get there. Look at the money the Government claim they are going to save through their welfare Bill—£5 billion is nowhere near the tens, if not hundreds, of billions we are going to need to find if we are to meet that defence spending target. This is the problem, Mr Speaker: it is one thing to talk about spending money on planes and infrastructure and to make announcements about reviews, but it is another to be clear about where the money will come from and how it will be spent efficiently to secure the defence of our nation. [Interruption.] Labour Members can mutter all they like; we all know that they are terrified of doing anything that is even remotely difficult.
It is crucial that there is a clear, united front in full support of Ukraine that secures peace on Ukraine’s terms. The stakes could not be higher. We need the Government to be leveraging British influence in every way they can for Ukraine, so can the Prime Minister tell us whether he pushed for clearer language in the NATO communiqué about Russia being the aggressor in this conflict? Can he update us on the UK’s current position on Ukraine’s accession to NATO, given the absence of detail in this year’s communiqué? We must ensure that our leading role continues, but that requires strong leadership and an ability to influence.
The Prime Minister may have finally returned to this House after a fortnight away, but in truth, he is all at sea—irrelevant on the world stage and impotent in the face of rising illegal immigration. Now, with 126 of his own MPs openly undermining his authority, his Government are incapable of making even the smallest changes to bring down the cost of our ever-expanding welfare bill; there is no way that they are going to be able to pay for our defence. This is a Government who are paralysed by their own legal advice, paralysed by their rebellious Back Benchers, and paralysed by the fear of being found out for having no real vision for this country.
Several hon. Members rose—
UK-EU Summit
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
When Labour negotiates, Britain loses. The Prime Minister talks about a hat trick of deals—they are own goals. In 2020, the Conservatives concluded the trade and co-operation agreement, the largest and most comprehensive free trade agreement in the world. We agreed to come back in five years with improved terms. This renegotiation should have been an opportunity to improve terms for our country, but the terms are improved for the EU. The Prime Minister can dress it up as much as he wants, but he has failed. It is bad for bills; it is bad for jobs; and it is bad for borders.
This is not a deal made for Britain; this deal is made for Labour’s public relations, to show Labour on the world stage, but it is a stitch-up for our country in return for short-term headlines. Let us take the Prime Minister’s abject failures one by one. First, on fishing, he has given away the prize most desired by EU member states, and he has done so for almost nothing. It is very easy to sign deals if you are prepared to give everything away for pennies. This deal locks out our fishermen until 2038. We are now in a worse position than the Faroe Islands—a set of islands with the population of Scarborough, but which gets to have annual negotiations. The Prime Minister quoted some organisations that welcome his deal—he does not listen to them normally—but he left one out deliberately: the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations has described the deal as a surrender and a giveaway. This is a Prime Minister who would pay to give away his family silver. Why is the Prime Minister selling our fishermen down the river? Is it because they do not vote Labour?
Secondly, on food and agriculture, the Prime Minister is going to pay the EU to abide by laws that we have no say on. While British farmers struggle with the family farms tax that his Chancellor has imposed on them, their regulations will now be made in Paris and enforced in Brussels. It is a total capitulation. We are not in the EU, and we are not at the table, so can the Prime Minister tell us how he will ensure accountability for the hundreds of regulations that he has signed this country up to?
Thirdly, on energy, the Prime Minister has shackled us to the EU’s emissions trading scheme. That means that the Government can no longer cut energy costs without the EU’s permission. It will also unravel parts of the India free trade agreement that he has just negotiated. This is not a technicality; it is a betrayal. The House should be in no doubt that this means higher bills, more pain and less flexibility.
Fourthly, on the Prime Minister’s manifesto promises, he said that we would not rejoin the single market. He promised no new payments, and that he would protect British interests. That promise has lasted about as long as his commitment to protect pensioners’ winter fuel allowance. He said whatever was needed to win power, and now he will say whatever is needed to keep it, even if it means selling out our sovereignty, our businesses and the public.
The truth is that most of what was announced yesterday was not a deal. There was no binding agreement on anything. Most of the items outlined are simply agreements to enter into further discussions, which we are already having. The Prime Minister is boasting that we will now avoid airport queues because we will get access to EU e-gates. It sounds great, except it is not true; some airports already allow that, and this deal does not guarantee it anywhere, as each country still has to agree. That sums up this deal perfectly: it is a lot of spin to disguise the terrible substance.
Having previously ruled out a youth mobility scheme, the Prime Minister is now desperately trying to hide his latest U-turn by rebranding the scheme as an experience. That is risible. We have no details on any cap or time limit, which begs the question: why are the Government talking about increasing migration before they have got a grip on the small boats or the legal migration system? I know that the Prime Minister does not like answering questions, but people out there want to know. Can we have some honesty about what has been discussed? How many young European workers does the Prime Minister think would be acceptable, and will they be able to bring dependants?
Even the defence commitments in this deal are hopelessly one-sided. We are making payments, but the EU is offering dialogue and consultation. This is a pitiful return for the country that leads NATO in Europe, and has troops on the ground in Estonia, defending our allies. Can the Prime Minister tell us why there was not a single word in his statement about the money that we will now be sending to Brussels? Can he set out how much those payments will cost taxpayers? In government, details matter, and so does honesty. [Laughter.] Labour Members are laughing, but this is a bad deal for the country. Look at them. This is how they laughed at the Budget. They have no idea what it is that they have signed up to. The Prime Minister said that he would stay out of the single market; he is going into the single market for agrifood, electricity and energy. He said that he would stay out of the customs union, but he is accepting EU tariff rules. How does he plan to stop the EU changing them to our disadvantage? He has no idea, and neither do any of them.
The British people know when they are being misled. They know that headlines fail. The Prime Minister did not listen to the CBI on the jobs tax, and he did not listen to the Federation of Small Businesses on the family farms tax. This deal has already unravelled. The damage is becoming clear, and the political consequences will be huge, and here he is, trumpeting his success. When he stands up in a moment, he will deflect, dismiss and distract, but we all know the truth. This is a fiction of a speech, a fraud of a deal, and a failure of a Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister
Oh dear. That was just such an unserious response. The right hon. Lady says that details matter in government; they matter in opposition as well. The SPS agreement cuts red tape and bureaucracy for all food and agricultural products going to the EU. It is a massive boost for our supermarkets, our farmers and others. Why is it that all the supermarkets have come out behind this deal? Because they know how important the SPS agreement is. It is completely in our favour. There is a huge amount of detail there. It is the best agreement.
On defence and security, we have greater operational co-ordination, and the right hon. Lady is against it at a time like this. It opens the gate to the EU defence procurement fund of €150 billion; that was a condition of the deal. She complains about emissions. [Hon. Members: “How much?”] I will tell you how much. Businesses were going to pay £800 million a year in tariffs that they will not now pay. That is why they are coming out in support of the deal. That is how much. The detail matters.
On energy, we are already connected, but we are not using that energy connection. We have electrical access to the market. On steel, we are getting rid of the tariffs. That will support British steel, but the right hon. Lady is against that, yet again. She says that e-gates access is already in existence; this deal clears the way for e-gates access. That is the huge difference it makes. [Interruption.] If any Conservative Members doubt that, they should travel across a border today and see the long queues.
On law enforcement, we have better operational working with Europol, and the right hon. Lady is against it. We have information sharing on facial mapping and dealing with criminal records, and she is against it. She is absolutely unserious. She is also against the India deal, which of course does huge things for trade in sectors such as whisky, where their only concern is whether they can produce enough. They have been absolutely clear about supporting the India deal—a deal that the Conservatives tried to do—and she now says that she is against it.
We have the US deal, which saved thousands upon thousands of jobs in car manufacturing and at Jaguar Land Rover. I do not know whether the right hon. Lady had the chance to make that trip to JLR, but she really ought to before she responds like that again. The US deal reduces tariffs on steel, so that our steel can be sold to America, and supports our whisky and gin, and she is against it. She is against every single deal. She is the only ex-Trade Secretary who is against every single deal. These deals have been welcomed broadly because they are good deals. You do not get a great long list of endorsements from all the business associations and companies for no—[Interruption.] The Conservatives are so unserious; they are lost in a descent into the abyss. They used to be a proud party of trading agreements, and they have slid off into the abyss. That is where they are.
On fishing, none of the rights negotiated by the Conservatives have been removed. There is no change in access for coastal communities, which is the same as before. There is no reduction in the British quota or increase in the EU quota; they are the same as before. We have reciprocal arrangements, which are the same as before. What is new is having the SPS agreement for the first time, and it is permanent. They were unable to do that. It reopens the EU market for shellfish and makes it much easier to sell British fish to our largest trading partner. That is hugely significant, because 72% of British fish is traded into EU markets, and it is now easier to do that. We are backing that with £360 million through our fishing and coastal grants. The Leader of the Opposition talks about the youth experience scheme. That scheme is capped, it is time-limited, and it is balanced.
In relation to standards, the truth is this: we are currently aligned in our standards, but we do not get the benefit of that. We want to continue to have high standards; that is what the British public want, and it is what this deal delivers. We will have a role in shaping any future rules, and application of them is specifically subject to our constitutional arrangements. We will have a process in this Parliament to apply the rules, but to be clear, we are already applying those rules at the moment—we are just not getting the advantage. This deal strips that away. It is good for our country and good for our economy, and it is a shame that the Leader of the Opposition cannot stand up and support it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Can I echo the Prime Minister’s comments? It was an honour to meet veterans at the VE Day parade on Monday and to commemorate the sacrifice of that generation. I look forward to marking VE Day at Westminster Abbey tomorrow.
Does the Prime Minister now admit that he was wrong to remove the winter fuel payment from millions of pensioners?
The Prime Minister
The No. 1 job of this Government was to put our finances back in order after the last Government lost control and to deal with the £22 billion black hole that they left. Because of our action, we have stabilised the economy, invested record amounts in the NHS, made a payment out to the 3 million lowest paid, and of course we are committed to the triple lock, which improved pensions by £470 last year. Because of the work that we have done, we are a country that countries such as India want to do deals with, because of the messages and the work that we have done.
Mrs Badenoch
The only black hole is the one the Prime Minister is digging. This issue affects some of the poorest and most vulnerable pensioners. His Mayor in Doncaster says it is wrong; his First Minister in Wales says it is wrong; even his own MPs are saying it is wrong. He has refused to listen to me on this, so will he at least listen to his own party and change course?
The Prime Minister
Let me spell this out. All the opposition parties would take this country back to where it was a few years ago: broken public finances, interest rates through the roof, and NHS waiting lists at an all-time high. No other party in this House is prepared to say how they would put the finances straight; no other party is saying how they would invest in our NHS and public services; no other party is focused on the long-term prosperity of Britain. No one on the Labour Benches is denying how big are the challenges that we face, but no one on the opposition Benches is even prepared to take those challenges on.
Mrs Badenoch
We would not balance it on the backs of pensioners. Pensioners are poorer and colder because of his decisions. All the while, energy has got more expensive for everyone. Why has the Prime Minister broken his promise to cut energy bills by £300?
The Prime Minister
The way to bring energy bills down for good is to deliver cheap, clean, home-grown energy. In the meantime, we have extended the warm home discount to 6 million households—one in five families—and that is £150 off their bills next winter. What will not bring energy bills down is the Leader of the Opposition’s policy, leaving us hooked on fossil fuels and at the mercy of dictators like Putin. I will tell you what else will not bring bills down: the Conservatives blocking every piece of infrastructure that is needed in their own backyards. They balanced the books and crashed the economy on the backs of millions of working people in this country—that is why those people delivered the verdict that they did at the last general election.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister talks about clean energy. We have the second highest amount of renewables on the grid in Europe, and yet we still have the highest energy bills. This is not about clean energy. The Prime Minister has broken another promise. He will not admit it, but is the truth not that he cannot cut energy bills because of his net zero policy?
The Prime Minister
Energy bills based on fossil fuels have fluctuated massively in the last three years because we are exposed to the international markets. The only way to get bills down is to go to renewable energy, which is something that the Leader of the Opposition used to believe in. In the words of the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), the shift to net zero
“must now happen as a matter of urgency. It is no longer simply an environmental issue—energy independence should be viewed as part of our national security.”
He must have our lines, Mr Speaker.
What about the Leader of the Opposition herself? This is what she said:
“We believe that green trade and investment will be the future-proofing force that will help us create a better tomorrow”.
She went on to say
“it’s long-term investment in nuclear and renewables that will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and keep down consumer costs.”
She has a reputation, apparently, for straight talking: she was right then, wasn’t she?
Mrs Badenoch
This approach to net zero is “irrational”; it is “doomed to fail”. Those aren’t my words; they are Tony Blair’s. If the Prime Minister wants to throw words about, he should speak to him. The truth is that the Prime Minister is on another planet. His net zero plans mean ever more expensive energy. Across this country, jobs are disappearing. Last week, a ceramics factory in Stoke closed because of energy costs. This morning, 250 more job losses have been announced in the North sea, and yet the amount of gas the UK is importing is doubling, so why is he shutting down the North sea rather than getting our oil and gas out of the ground and making energy cheaper?
The Prime Minister
As I have said many times, oil and gas will be part of the mix for many decades to come, but net zero is an opportunity to be seized. We have had over £43 billion invested in clean energy since July of last year, which is good for the economy, for business, for jobs, for apprentices and for growth. The global race is on for the jobs of the future, and I believe Britain can win that race. I do not think that the Leader of the Opposition is yet a climate denier, but she is a climate defeatist: she does not believe in Britain’s ability to win the race for our economy, businesses and jobs. They have never backed Britain, and there is nothing patriotic about that.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister has got no answer. He could not even bring himself to say something to the 250 people who found out this morning that they have lost their job. The fact is that pensioners are poorer and people are being laid off. From winter fuel to net zero, his energy policy is a disaster, and everyone knows it. We know it, the public know it, the unions know it, his MPs know it, and even Tony Blair knows it. The Prime Minister’s only answer is to go further and faster in the wrong direction. Why should we all suffer because he will not admit he has got this wrong?
The Prime Minister
Of course, nobody wants to see job losses, but the Leader of the Opposition should address her comments to the tens of thousands of men and women in this country who are working on renewables for the future of our country, and tell them that she does not want them. That is anti-growth, anti-jobs and anti-working people. Every week, she comes along to talk the country down and carp from the sidelines; she cannot even bring herself to celebrate the deal we have done with India. The Conservatives spent eight years fiddling around and got absolutely nothing. We have delivered the best deal since we left the EU—the most ambitious deal for India—which will be measured in billions of pounds into our economy and thousands of jobs in this country. The Leader of the Opposition should be welcoming that.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. There is no need to answer that, Prime Minister; you have no responsibility for any of that.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
On Monday, the Prime Minister’s safeguarding Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips)—admitted on the Floor of the House that there was a cover-up of the child rape gang scandal. Does the Prime Minister think we should expose this cover-up?
The Prime Minister
This is obviously a serious issue. I oversaw the first grooming gang prosecution, which was in Rochdale, more than a decade ago. There is a contrast here, because when the Leader of the Opposition was Minister for children and Minister for Women and Equalities, she never raised this issue in the House in three years. The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), held 352 external meetings during 20 months. How many were on this issue? Not one. Of course, the Conservatives failed to implement a single recommendation from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse.
My position is absolutely clear: where there is evidence, the police should investigate and there should be appropriate prosecutions. That is route No. 1. Route No. 2 is that we should implement existing recommendations, which did expose what went wrong. Those recommendations were not implemented by the last Government; they are being implemented by this Government. We are providing for local inquiries. We are investing more in delivering truth and justice for victims than the Conservative party did in 14 long years.
Mrs Badenoch
In the last year of the Conservative Government, we had a gangs taskforce that found 500 perpetrators, protecting thousands of victims. We launched the inquiry that the Prime Minister is talking about, but more still needs to be done. It is now four months since I asked him for a full national inquiry. Instead, he promised five local inquiries. There will be one in Oldham. Will he now name where the other four will be?
The Prime Minister
We are providing for local inquiries—[Interruption.] Conservative Members have got so much to say now; why did they not implement a single recommendation in the 14 years they had in office? There are recommendations already in place about the change that needs to be made. They sat on a shelf under the last Government; we are acting on them. We are providing for local inquiries, and we are investing more in delivering truth than the last Government ever did.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister cannot name a single place because nothing is happening. He stood at the Dispatch Box and promised five local inquiries. On the last day of term, he had his Minister come out to water down the promise that they would provide funding. That is not good enough. At least 50 towns are affected by rape gangs—places like Peterborough, Derby, Birmingham, Nottingham, Leicester, Rotherham, Rochdale and Preston. Is he dragging his heels on this because he does not want Labour cover-ups exposed?
The Prime Minister
I spent five years prosecuting these cases. I was the prosecutor who brought the first case, and when that file was brought to my attention, I noticed that one of the defendants had not been prosecuted previously. Far from covering up, I asked for that file so I could have a look at it. On the back of that, I changed the entire approach to prosecutions, which was lauded by the then Government—we were doing the right thing—and brought those prosecutions. My record, where I thought something had gone wrong, is of going after it and putting it right. The Leader of the Opposition stayed silent throughout the Conservatives’ years in government, and so did their entire Front Bench.
Mrs Badenoch
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not the Director of Public Prosecutions any more—he is the Prime Minister. People want to know what he is going to do now, not have him talk about what he did years ago. We are asking for a full national inquiry. Andy Burnham wants a national inquiry, and he is not Conservative; he is Labour. Harriet Harman wants one. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) wants one. All the victims I have met want a full national inquiry. The Prime Minister keeps talking about local inquiries, yet they have not got going, and they have not got going because local authorities do not want to investigate themselves. Local inquiries cannot force witnesses to appear. Local inquiries cannot force people to give evidence under oath. Why will he not have a national inquiry?
The Prime Minister
We have had a national inquiry, and we have had recommendations. [Interruption.] Look, hundreds of recommendations have been made in relation to this issue. It is a serious issue. I strongly believe that we should implement the recommendations that have already been made, and that is what we are doing. I strongly believe that we should listen to victims. Labour Members have been listening to victims for decades and working with them in relation to what they want, which is local inquiries, and we have set those local inquiries up.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister says we should listen to victims. The victims want a national inquiry. We have not had a national inquiry. We had the child sex abuse inquiry, which the Conservatives launched. There is still more to be done; it did not cover the scandal in detail. In Manchester, just last year, authorities were still covering up abuse, and the local inquiry chair there has quit. Bradford council, which covers an area with some of the worst abuses, refuses any inquiry, local or national. Whether we are talking about the streets of Birmingham or the town hall of Bradford, it is chaos and cover ups with Labour councils. When will he show leadership and do the right thing?
The Prime Minister
The right thing is to implement the recommendations that we have, which is what the Conservatives palpably failed to do in government. The right thing to do is to have the national inquiries that we need, which is what the victims want. The right thing to do is to invest in our criminal justice system, so we can bring people to justice. The Conservatives have absolutely collapsed the criminal justice system. Prosecutions for rape under their watch: did they go up or down? They went down to record lows. Investment in prosecuting these cases went down. Their record was abysmal; they should hang their heads in shame.
Mrs Badenoch
These are just distraction tactics. The Prime Minister has not read the recommendations, because if he had, he would know that none of them would tackle this issue. The fact is, if I were standing where he is, we would have had a national inquiry months ago.
This issue is personal for me. I have met many of the victims. This is about the protection of children; nothing else is more important. In the last few days, I have been to Wiltshire, Lincolnshire, Northumberland and Kent. All of them have outstanding children’s social care. Do you know why, Mr Speaker? Because they are all run by Conservatives. That is the difference that Conservative councillors make. Is the choice tomorrow not between chaos and cover ups under Labour councils, and better services under the Conservatives?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady says that the Conservatives would have a national inquiry; in 14 years, they did not do it. It is so hollow.
Yes, tomorrow is the country’s first opportunity to pass its verdict on the Leader of the Opposition and the Conservative party after the general election. Have they changed? Have they learned? We will see her next week.