Oral Answers to Questions
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts(6 days, 20 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I associate Conservative Members with the remarks the Prime Minister made about James Elliot.
Can the Prime Minister tell us why his Government are the first Government in history to float an increase in income tax rates, only to then U-turn on it—all after the actual Budget?
The Prime Minister
I can inform the Leader of the Opposition that the Budget is actually next week. She only has one week to go, but I can tell her that it will be a Labour Budget with Labour values. That means that we will concentrate on cutting NHS waiting lists, cutting debt, and cutting the cost of living. Because of the decisions we have already made, inflation is down this morning, the Bank of England has upgraded growth, and we have a record £230 billion of investment in this country under this Government.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister says that the Budget is next week, but we read all about it in the papers. This is the first Budget to unravel before it has even been delivered. I am afraid that the Chancellor’s cluelessness is damaging the economy now. The Prime Minister needs to end this shambles, so can he confirm today that he will not break another promise by freezing income tax thresholds?
The Prime Minister
The Budget is one week today, and we will lay out our plans then. I have said what we will do, in terms of protecting the NHS and public services; what we will not do is inflict austerity on the country, as the Conservatives did, which caused huge damage. What we will not do is inflict a borrowing spree, like Liz Truss did, which also inflicted huge damage. Have the Conservatives learned anything? The Leader of the Opposition apparently has a golden economic rule—it is very important, this golden rule. It is £47 billion of cuts with no detail. No wonder the Institute for Government says that they are on very shaky foundations. They have not listened, and they have not learned.
Mrs Badenoch
It is quite clear that the Government are going to freeze thresholds; we did not get a clear answer from the Prime Minister, but this is really important. In her Budget speech last year, the Chancellor said:
“I am keeping every single promise on tax that I made in our manifesto, so there will be no extension of the freeze in income tax and national insurance thresholds”.—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.]
Why was freezing thresholds a breach of the manifesto last year, but not this year?
The Prime Minister
Every week, the Leader of the Opposition comes along and speculates and distorts. Last year, the Conservatives predicted a recession, and what did we get? The fastest-growing economy in the G7 in the first half of the year. They opposed NHS investment, and what did we get? Five million extra appointments in the first year of a Labour Government. The Conservatives tried growing the economy with millions on NHS waiting lists, with our schools crumbling and holes in our roofs. It did not work. What do they want to do now? Go back to the same failed experiment.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister talks about speculation. The only people who have been speculating are his Government, every single day for the last three months. He mentioned inflation in his last answer; inflation has nearly doubled since Labour came into office. He wants a round of applause because it has come down a little bit, but I will remind him that food inflation is up to 4.9%. That is making life miserable for all of those people out there.
The Prime Minister
The Leader of the Opposition talks about inflation, but it went to 11% and the country is still paying the price. Inflation is down this morning, wages are up and we have had five interest rate cuts, and that is because our fiscal rules are iron-clad. She and the Conservatives have no credibility on the economy. She was a Treasury Minister during the worst decline in living standards on record. She said that Liz Truss got the mini-Budget 100% right. There is not much room for flexibility there—100%; that is full marks. She might want to tell us whether that is still her position—100% right for Liz Truss.
Mrs Badenoch
I was a Treasury Minister at the height of the pandemic, and we cleaned up that mess. Perhaps the Prime Minister will clean up some of his own mess. I will repeat what the Chancellor said, because it is clear that the whole Labour Front-Bench team have forgotten:
“I have come to the conclusion that extending the threshold freeze would hurt working people. It would take more money out of their payslips.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.]
That, however, is what Labour is planning to do next week. All this speculation is having real-world consequences. Just this morning, the UK chair of ExxonMobil said:
“The Government needs to understand that the whole industrial base of the UK is at risk unless they wake up and realise the damage their economic policies are doing.”
Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the loss of UK industry is the price that the country has to pay for having a clueless Chancellor?
The Prime Minister
On ExxonMobil, it is a difficult time for the workforce there, and we must focus on supporting them. We have been meeting the company for more than six months and explored every possible reasonable avenue. It has been facing losses for the past five years. [Interruption.] It is best to do the detail before you chunter. The site is currently losing £1 million a week. The Leader of the Opposition talks about policy and approach. On energy policy, she follows Reform. On the European convention, she follows the man who wants her job. When her shadow Minister said that we should deport people who are lawfully here to achieve cultural coherence, she pretended that it did not happen. I could go on. She was the Trade Secretary who did not sign any trade deals. She was a cheerleader for the mini-Budget and a cheerleader for open borders, and when the Conservatives were crashing the economy, botching Brexit and running down the NHS, she was right at the centre. She has not got an ounce of credibility.
Mrs Badenoch
On energy policy, what we are doing is listening to industry. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Slinger, please, we do not want to have to sling you out.
Mrs Badenoch
Just this morning, we heard from the chair of one of our largest energy companies. Last week, I had a roundtable with energy companies, and what they had to say about this Prime Minister and his Energy Secretary is unprintable. They are absolutely furious. Our oil and gas industry is dying, and the Prime Minister is standing there, saying he has had meetings. People out there are struggling and the Budget chaos is causing real anxiety. People are not buying houses, businesses are not hiring and they are cancelling investment decisions. Two weeks ago, the Chancellor called a ridiculous press conference to blame everyone else for her having to raise income tax, then last week she U-turned on her own U-turn. We can see that they are instead planning to freeze income tax thresholds, which she said last year would be a breach of their manifesto. They are making it up as they go along. Does the country not deserve better than government by guesswork?
The Prime Minister
Either we renew our country with Labour, or we go to austerity 2.0 with Reform and the Tories. The Tories left waiting lists at record highs and almost a million more children in poverty, and they wrecked our public services. The Leader of the Opposition comes here to talk down the country; we are turning the page, with more NHS appointments, free breakfast clubs, free childcare, more homes and better public services. That is what we are fighting for: a Britain built for all.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I associate my party with the Prime Minister’s comments about Remembrance Week and about Manfred Goldberg and Mervyn Kersh, who is in the Gallery today.
This morning on the BBC, the Health Secretary said that there is a “toxic culture” in Downing Street that needs to change. He is right, isn’t he?
The Prime Minister
My focus each and every day is on rebuilding and renewing our country. Let me be absolutely clear: any attack on any member of my Cabinet is completely unacceptable. In relation to the Health Secretary, he promised before the election that in the first year of a Labour Government we would deliver 2 million extra appointments. We did not deliver 2 million or 3 million or 4 million. We delivered 5 million extra appointments. Today the Health Secretary is in Manchester, where he is announcing that because of the action he has taken to abolish NHS England, he is putting more people on the frontline. He is doing a great job, as is the whole of my Cabinet.
Mrs Badenoch
What we heard the Health Secretary say this morning was that he wants to cut waiting lists, but we all know that there is only one waiting list he really wants to cut.
The Prime Minister is not going to do anything about the toxic culture, but this is his responsibility. Just last night, his allies accused not just the Health Secretary but the Home Secretary and even the Energy Secretary of launching leadership bids. These attacks came from No. 10—nowhere else: his toxic No. 10. The person responsible for the culture in No. 10 is his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney. Does the Prime Minister have full confidence in him?
The Prime Minister
Morgan McSweeney, my team and I are absolutely focused on delivering for the country. Let me be clear: of course I have never authorised attacks on Cabinet members. I appointed them to their posts because they are the best people to carry out their jobs.
The right hon. Lady asks about waiting lists—waiting lists are down under this Government. The number of GPs is up, and because we have scrapped NHS England we are investing on the frontline. That is what the Health Secretary is doing today: getting on with his job, and he is doing a very good job too.
Mrs Badenoch
I did not hear the Prime Minister give his full confidence in Morgan McSweeney. He says that these attacks are not authorised. The truth is that that means he has lost control of No. 10, because that is where they are coming from. But the real scandal is that, two weeks from a Budget, the Government have descended into civil war. Instead of fixing the mess they have made of the economy, they are all—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, they are all chuntering. These are the “feral MPs” that No.10 has been talking about. Those are not my words; they are No. 10’s words—his words.
Unbelievably, the Prime Minister’s advisers have been reduced to briefing that MPs cannot get rid of him—I am not making this up—because it would destabilise international markets. Why does the Prime Minister think that there would be a market meltdown if the Health Secretary took over?
The Prime Minister
This is a united team and we are delivering together. Look at what we are delivering: the fastest growth in the G7; five interest rate cuts; trade deals with the EU, the US and India—all of which the Conservatives opposed. We have delivered. I can update the House—[Interruption.]
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister is talking about growth and investment. While he desperately tries to cling on to his own job, perhaps he understands what it is like for all those people out there losing their jobs. How can he talk about growth? Yesterday, we learned that unemployment has risen to the same rate as it was in lockdown—180,000 jobs lost. Why does the Prime Minister think that unemployment has risen every single month since Labour took office?
The Prime Minister
Let me give the House the details: 329,000 more people are in work since the start of this year. Of course I accept that we need to do more in relation to unemployment. That is why we are transforming jobcentres, which the Conservatives opposed. That is why we are working with 60 major businesses to tackle ill health in the workplace and have invested £3.8 billion in tailored back-to-work support, which the Conservatives opposed. I also remind the Leader of the Opposition that average unemployment in the 14 years of her Government was 5.4%—higher than the rate today.
Mrs Badenoch
We left employment higher than it was after the last Labour Government. Let me tell the Prime Minister what is causing the increase in unemployment: his disastrous Budget last year. To be clear for all those Labour MPs shaking their heads, it is last year’s tax rises that have killed jobs, and that is what is going to trigger this year’s tax rises. This is the tax doom loop. There is only one way out of it, and that is to cut spending. Why is the Prime Minister instead offering welfare giveaways to save his own skin?
The Prime Minister
I will tell the Leader of the Opposition why we increased national insurance: it was because of the mess the Conservatives left the country in. The NHS was on its knees; now we have 5 million extra appointments, waiting lists are down and there are 2,500 more GPs as a result of our decisions. It is nearly the one-year anniversary, but on national insurance she still has not told us whether she agrees and admits that we should do it. If her position is that we should not, how would she find the money that we raised in the Budget? She has had a whole year to think about that question. Perhaps now she can give us an answer.
Mrs Badenoch
I would not have made the stupid mistake in the first place of putting up the jobs tax and killing jobs. Since Labour came in, it has been disaster after disaster. The Deputy Prime Minister—the new Deputy Prime Minister—is clueless about how many illegal migrant sex offenders he has let loose; the Culture Secretary is breaking the rules to give her donor a top job; taxes are set to rise even further; unemployment is at levels not seen since lockdown; and in the middle of it is a weak Prime Minister at war with his own Cabinet. It is not just him; it is all of them. There is no replacement; it is all of them. Two weeks before the Budget, is it not the case that this Prime Minister has lost control of his Government, lost the confidence of his party and lost the trust of the British people?
The Prime Minister
The stupid mistakes were made over 14 long years. The Conservatives broke the economy and now they think they can lecture us. Now they have this unserious idea that they can find £47 billion of cuts without saying where they will come from. No wonder that is called flimsy. Meanwhile, we are rebuilding the country: wages up, investment up, mortgages down. [Interruption.]
Oral Answers to Questions
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Last year, in its manifesto, Labour promised not to increase income tax, not to increase national insurance, and not to increase VAT. Does the Prime Minister still stand by his promises?
The Prime Minister
I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition is now finally talking about the economy. I can update the House: retail sales are higher than expected; inflation is lower than expected; growth has been upgraded this year; and the UK stock market is at an all-time high. The Budget is on 26 November, and we will lay out our plans then, but I can tell the House now that we will build a stronger economy, cut NHS waiting lists and deliver a better future for our country.
Mrs Badenoch
Well, well, well; what a fascinating answer. It is not the same answer that I received when I asked exactly the same question, word for word, on 9 July. Then, the Prime Minister replied with just one word—yes—and then he sat down with a smug grin on his face. What has changed in the past four months?
The Prime Minister
As the Leader of the Opposition well knows, no Prime Minister or Chancellor will ever set out their plans in advance. But I can say this: the figures from the productivity review that is being undertaken—which is a judgment on the Tories’ record in office—are now coming through, and they confirm that the Tories did even more damage to the economy than we had previously thought. We will turn that around. We have already delivered the fastest growth in the G7 in the first half of this year, five interest rate cuts in a row, and trade deals with the US, EU and India. The Tories broke the economy; we are fixing it.
Mrs Badenoch
The right and learned hon. Gentleman says that no Prime Minister or Chancellor will say these things before the Budget. Has he told his Chancellor? She has been out there flying kites, causing constant speculation around the Budget that is damaging the economy. All week, the Government have been briefing about tax rises. What we have heard is that he does not have a plan, so we have some ideas for him. [Interruption.] It is quite clear that they need some ideas. On the Conservative Benches, we believe in scrapping taxes on family homes. Yesterday, we voted to abolish stamp duty; Labour voted against it. Even the former Deputy Prime Minister, who resigned in disgrace for not paying stamp duty, voted to keep it. I remind them that on this side of the House we know that abolishing stamp duty is how we get young people on the housing ladder and get the economy growing. So why will he not scrap this terrible tax?
The Prime Minister
Why did the Tories not do it, then, in their 14 years in office? As I said, the productivity review figures are now coming in, and those show the true extent of the damage that they did. The Leader of the Opposition asks us to take advice from them. These figures are coming out, and we all know that austerity damaged the economy on their watch. The botched Brexit deal damaged the economy on their watch. Liz Truss’s mini-Budget damaged the economy on their watch. So we will take no lectures or advice from them on the economy. They will not be trusted on the economy for generations to come. That is why I can be clear that, at our Budget, there will be no return to austerity—that is what broke the country—and no return to the instability of their mad borrowing spree, and we will end the unfairness and low growth that squeezed living standards for working people. That is the path to national renewal.
Mrs Badenoch
The Conservatives reduced the deficit every year until the pandemic. We more than doubled the personal allowance. We left 4 million more jobs than we found from Labour. We brought inflation down to 2%; it has nearly doubled—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Tufnell, you are in my sights. The pantomime season has not arrived—do not start it too early.
Mrs Badenoch
On our record, we brought inflation down to 2%; it has doubled under the Prime Minister. We left him the fastest growing economy in the G7; it is no longer. The truth is, the Government have no ideas; we are giving them some. There is another way to get growth: cutting welfare spending and getting people into work. Last month, I offered to work cross-party with him to bring down welfare spending, because he knows and we know that he would rather dip into people’s pockets than upset the people behind him. Instead of tax rises, will he work with us to find a way to cut welfare spending and get Britain working again?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady talks about the Conservatives’ record, so let us go through it. They crashed the economy. Inflation went up to 11%. Mortgages went through the roof. Welfare spending went up by £33 billion. And they want to give us advice! They reduced the UK to a laughing stock. Because of our Budget, waiting lists have come down, wages are up, mortgage rates are down and other countries want to do deals with us. Just on Monday of this week, the Turkish Government signed an £8 billion deal for Typhoons. Earlier this year, the Norwegian Government signed a £10 billion deal for frigates. That is because of the Budget that we passed—fixing the mess that the Tories left.
Mrs Badenoch
It is not because of the Budget that the Prime Minister passed; I started that deal back in January 2024, and I welcome it. [Interruption.] It has nothing to do with the Government’s Budget; we are lucky the deal is still happening. I welcome the £8 billion deal that he has done with Turkey, but I remind him that just last month his Chancellor borrowed £20 billion. He will have to sell a hell of a lot more jets to make up for that. He will not rule out any tax rises, he cannot cut spending and he is increasing unemployment. This man knows nothing about economic growth, except how to destroy it. In his weakness, he has caved in to the unions on their regulations that will cripple businesses, costing them £5 billion every year. [Interruption.] Yes, please do speak up, because I want every single business out there to hear Labour MPs heckling when we talk about the damage that they are doing. I ask the Prime Minister: how on earth can he consider adding more burdens for these firms to deal with?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady has overlooked the fact that we had the highest growth in the G7 in the first six months of this year—and that growth has just been upgraded—and we had three interest rate cuts. We are not going to take lessons from the Conservatives. She has now introduced what I think she calls a “golden economic rule”. This golden rule that she is now putting forward—very golden!—is £47 billion-worth of unspecified spending cuts, with no detail whatsoever. Let me put that in context: that would mean 85,000 fewer nurses, 234,000 fewer teachers or cutting every police officer in the country twice over. No wonder the Institute for Government said she is on “shaky foundations”. That is exactly what caused the problem in the first place.
Mrs Badenoch
The fact that he has to stand there and make stuff up just shows what kind of Prime Minister he is. We had an itemised list worth £47 billion; £23 billion was on welfare spending, which I asked him to work with us to cut. He refuses to do so. All he knows how to do is tax, tax, tax. If you work, the Government tax you more. If you save, they tax you more. If you buy a home, they tax you more. None of these taxes were in their manifesto, which he had four years to prepare. He is raising taxes because he is too weak to control spending. He is blaming us, he is blaming the OBR. Last week, they were blaming Brexit. Is it not the truth that with this Prime Minister, it is always someone else’s fault?
The Prime Minister
The Conservatives were kicked out of office because they broke the economy. They will not be trusted for years to come. The right hon. Lady cannot tell us what her position is on the last Budget, and she has a phantom £47 billion with no foundation as we go forward. That is exactly the mess that they caused, and they have not changed one bit. Meanwhile, we are fixing their mess: 5 million extra NHS appointments, five interest rate cuts, and growth and wages are up. That is the change a Labour Government make.
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)
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(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 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(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)
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(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)
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(2 months, 2 weeks 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(2 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 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(4 months, 4 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—