Ukraine
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts(9 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 thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement, and for our conversation earlier today. The United Kingdom is a free, democratic and sovereign country. We recognise that Ukraine is fighting for her survival and fighting to have the same freedom, democracy and sovereignty that all of us here enjoy. That is why both the Opposition and the Government are fully committed to supporting Ukraine and President Zelensky. I was also glad to see His Majesty the King welcome President Zelensky at Sandringham. As I said at the weekend, President Zelensky is a hero. He is a symbol of the bravery of the Ukrainian people.
There are of course many areas where the Prime Minister and I disagree, but now is the time for us to discuss where we do agree. I welcome all his actions this weekend to convene European leaders, as well as the focus on economic security, using UK Export Finance to support British jobs.
As the Prime Minister knows, we welcome the uplift in defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, and we support the use of foreign aid to achieve that. We welcome a commitment to reach 3% in the years ahead, and we will support him in taking difficult spending decisions, including on welfare. We will return to the details of how the Government will fund this in the near future, but for now it is right that the Prime Minister is working with allies in Europe and with the United States to bring peace to Ukraine, and not a surrender to Russia.
As part of that, the Prime Minister has suggested that British troops could be deployed in Ukraine. There are obviously a range of possible options for what such a deployment could look like, and we are keen to work with the Government, but we will need details of any such plan. This will be a difficult but significant step. I know many in Parliament, and across our country, will be interested in what this entails, and I ask him to work with us so there can be effective scrutiny. I also welcome the coalition of the willing to support Ukraine and agree that Europe must do the heavy lifting. Will the Prime Minister update us on what European and other allies are willing to offer towards this coalition?
I welcome the use of the proceeds from frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine. Does the Prime Minister have plans to go further and use the frozen assets themselves? Will he provide an update on the Government’s sanctions on Russian-linked individuals and confirmation that such sanctions would not be lifted in the event of a ceasefire? Will he update us on the steps that he and other allies are taking to ensure that Ukraine is at the negotiating table for any peace plan? What does he think can be done to heal the rift with Washington?
As the Prime Minister referenced in his speech, the Minsk agreements of 2015 failed to stop Russian aggression and ultimately did not return Ukraine’s territorial integrity. His second principle is that any lasting peace guarantees the sovereignty of Ukraine, so how will the Prime Minister work to ensure we avoid a repeat of the Minsk agreements? How can we ensure that any peace fully protects Ukrainian sovereignty?
At times like these, it is so important that we stand together to defend shared values and the fundamental basic principle that aggressors should not win. The Prime Minister will have our support to do that and to ensure that we continue to uphold the values that all of us in this Parliament hold dear.
The Prime Minister
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her message and for our discussion this morning, and I thank her for her support for the measures that we are taking. It matters across this House that we are united on this issue, It matters to the Ukrainians and to President Zelensky. I can tell the right hon. Lady that he was moved by the reception that he got in our country on Saturday, and I felt very proud to be British on Saturday when our country spoke with one voice. The right hon. Lady reflects that through the unity that has been shown from Members from across the House, and I thank for that.
The right hon. Lady asks about the details of any deployment. We will, of course, put details before the House when we get to that stage—if we get to that stage. As I mentioned in our phone call this morning, I will ensure she gets whatever briefings she needs to be able to look at the detail before it is put before the House, so she is fully informed.
On the question of other allies, we had a long meeting yesterday with a number of allies. My strong view is that we have to move forward and lead from the front, and therefore we need a coalition of the willing. Otherwise, we will move at the speed of the most reluctant, which will be too slow. A number of countries and allies indicated their support; they will set that out in due course. I will not pretend that every country is in the same place on this issue. That is why I and others took the view that we should take a leading position and move forward, but I will give further details as they become available.
On the question of the frozen assets, the proceeds—the profits—are being used in the way that the House understands, in accordance with the statement I have just made. On using the assets themselves, it is a very complicated issue and not straightforward, but we need to do, and we are doing, more work to look at the possibilities, along with other countries, but I am not going to pretend that that is simple or straightforward.
On the sanctions, we introduced last week the heaviest sanctions that we have put in place, and the right hon. Lady is quite right that they must not be lifted just because there is a cessation in the fighting. They must be kept in place as a vital part of our armoury—something that did not happen with Minsk. She is quite right to say that we have to avoid the mistakes of the past, which is why a security guarantee is so important—a guarantee that we should lead, but which needs US backing if it is to act as a proper guarantee. Of course she is right to say that Ukraine must be at the table in any discussions about the future of Ukraine, and I think that is a common position across the House.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts(9 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 wish the Prime Minister every success on his trip to Washington. The visit to see President Trump must serve our national interest. The Prime Minister and I are completely united in our support for Ukraine as a proud and sovereign nation. What specific steps will he take to ensure Ukraine is at the negotiating table for any peace settlement?
The Prime Minister
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her words about the forthcoming trip. It is right, and I think the whole House will think it is right, that Ukraine must be at the table at negotiations. There can be no negotiations about Ukraine without Ukraine. That has been my consistent position in all of the discussions that I have had. That will continue to be my position, because this is about the sovereignty of Ukraine and the Ukrainians’ ability to decide for themselves the future of their country, so they must be at the table.
Mrs Badenoch
I thank the Prime Minister for that answer, and as I said, I wish him every success. We want to support him on this issue.
Turning to the details of the plan the Prime Minister set out yesterday, over the weekend I suggested to him that he cut the aid budget, and I am pleased that he accepted my advice—[Laughter.] It is the fastest response I have ever had from the Prime Minister. However, he announced £13.4 billion in additional defence spending yesterday. This morning, his Defence Secretary said the uplift is only £6 billion. Which is the correct figure?
The Prime Minister
I am going to have to let the Leader of the Opposition down gently: she did not feature in my thinking at all. I was so busy over the weekend that I did not even see her proposal. She has appointed herself the saviour of western civilisation; it is a desperate search for relevance.
If you take the numbers for this financial year and the numbers for the ’27-28 financial year, there is a £13.4 billion increase. That is the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war, and will put us in a position to ensure the security and defence of our country and of Europe.
Mrs Badenoch
That was not very clear. How is it that the Defence Secretary says £6 billion, but the Prime Minister says £13.4 billion? The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said the Government are playing “silly games with numbers”. How has he found this difference in numbers?
The Prime Minister
We went through this two weeks ago, going over the same question again and again. Let me say it again: if you take the financial year this year, and then you take the financial year for ’27-28, the difference between the two is £13.4 billion. That is the same answer. If she asks again, I will give the same answer again.
Mrs Badenoch
Someone needs to tell the Prime Minister that being patronising is not a substitute for answering questions. He has not answered the question. What he has said is different from what he said yesterday. We are still not clear where the money is coming from. We want to support him. He has also said that we should put British troops on the ground in Ukraine, but we have not seen the detail of any proposals. Would his new spending plans allow him to fund that commitment effectively?
The Prime Minister
I think it is the same question again. It is £13.4 billion—that is the difference between this year and ’27-28.
The Leader of the Opposition asks a serious question about the security guarantees in Ukraine. That is extremely important, because the worst of all outcomes, if there is to be a cessation of hostilities, would be for it to be a short break, rather than a sustained and lasting peace. That means there have to be security guarantees, and I have indicated that we will play our full part. There has to be US backing; otherwise, I do not think it will deter Putin. We are working on that. I am having extensive discussions on it. I am not in a position to put details before the House today, as she well knows, but I will continue down that route. I want a lasting peace in Ukraine and Europe for the safety and security of Ukrainians, Europeans and, of course, everybody in this country.
Mrs Badenoch
This is an endeavour that we want to support the Prime Minister in, but we need to know exactly what we are supporting. We need clarity and transparency over the money, and we also need to know where the money is going. This morning, the Defence Secretary could not say whether the Chagos deal would come out of the defence budget. Can the Prime Minister confirm to the House that none of the defence uplift includes payments for his Chagos deal?
The Prime Minister
The additional spend I announced yesterday is for our capability on defence and security in Europe, as I made absolutely clear yesterday. The Chagos deal is extremely important for our security and for US security, and the US is rightly looking at it. When the deal is finalised, I will put it before the House with the costings. The figures being bandied around are absolutely wide of the mark. The deal is for well over a century. The funding I announced yesterday is for our capability, and will put us in a position to rise to a generational challenge. That is what that money is all about; I thought the right hon. Lady supported it.
Mrs Badenoch
We need to make sure we are supporting a plan that is clear and transparent. Yesterday, the Prime Minister set an ambition for defence spending to reach 3% in the next Parliament, and we agree with him on that. However, that could be 2034—almost a decade away. That is too slow. We do not know how he will pay for it. We cannot raise taxes further, and we already pay more on debt interest than defence.
Everyone in this House will have heard the Prime Minister not answer the previous question, so I will ask again: is he paying for the Chagos deal with this defence uplift or not?
The Prime Minister
I have just dealt with that question, Mr Speaker. The money announced yesterday is going to our capability in order to put ourselves in a position to defend the security of both our country and Europe. The Leader of the Opposition asked about defence spending. She gave what people have described as a rambling speech yesterday, where she could not say what defence spending should be. We have been absolutely clear. We have set out a full, credible, costed plan, and I thought she supported it.
Defence and Security
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for the partial copy of his statement. Now that I have heard the unredacted bits, I must welcome his response and his fulsome support for Ukraine.
This weekend marked a grim milestone: it is now three years since Putin’s invasion. The Conservative party stands resolutely with the people of Ukraine. Our hearts are with those still caught up in this conflict as we remember the many innocent lives lost. I will always be proud of the support that the last Conservative Government gave in the run-up to Putin’s invasion, and in the first crucial weeks and months of the war. We helped prevent Kyiv from falling and we supported Ukraine in regaining territory initially lost to Russia. But it is also true that, overall, the west has not done enough to support Ukraine.
As has been the case from the outset, it ultimately remains for Ukraine, as a proud and sovereign nation that has sacrificed so much to defend itself and the fundamental freedoms that we all hold dear, to decide its future. We want this terrible war to end, but Ukraine needs to be at the negotiating table. Like President Zelenksy, we hope for a lasting, reliable peace, but the west must continue to be intensely robust in the face of Putin’s aggression. The lesson of the past 20 years is clear: he only comes back for more.
The first duty of every Government is to protect their people. That means a strong state that stands up for our national interest. Our foreign policy should seek to support our national interest, which should always come first, so I am very pleased to hear the Prime Minister announce the increase to 2.5% by 2027. All of us on the Conservative Benches welcome that; we have all wanted to see more spending on defence. On the inclusion of the intelligence budget, will the Prime Minister confirm whether that means new money for the intelligence services? Does it mean that there will be new money in the next financial year?
The Prime Minister will know that I wrote to him at the weekend with suggestions on what we can do to help increase defence spending, so I welcome his announcement on repurposing money from the overseas development budget—that is absolutely right—and I look forward to him taking up my other suggestion of considering what we can do on welfare. He will know that we had a fully funded plan, and we urge him to take it up.
Having said that, can the Prime Minister say with confidence that 2.5% by 2027 is sufficient? We need to look at exactly how we fund this. He must not raise taxes further, as that would destroy our economy, and we need a strong economy to pay for strong defence. He cannot borrow more; we are already spending more on debt interest than on defence. We all know that he must make difficult decisions on spending, and he has our support in doing that.
In his statement, the Prime Minister also told us about his new value-for-money defence reform and efficiency plan. Does he agree that the first thing that must be looked at is the spending of billions of pounds of taxpayer money to lease back the defence base on Diego Garcia, which we currently own? Why is he still pursuing that deal? Earlier today, I made a speech about the realism that should drive our foreign policy. As part of that, he must scrap his disastrous plan to surrender the Chagos islands and have British taxpayers pay for the privilege.
The key difference between we Conservatives and the Labour party is that we know that we need a strong economy for defence. We need a serious plan to get the British economy growing again. We do not have that with the latest Budget from the Chancellor. Will the Prime Minister tell us whether there will be a fiscal event this spring, even though his Government are committed to only one fiscal event per year?
In summary, the Prime Minister made four points. I agree with him that NATO is a bedrock of our security, as I said this morning, and that the US is our most important bilateral relationship, but friends tell each other when they disagree. We agree on this issue; we know that Ukraine must be supported, and I share his concern about statements that have been made about President Zelensky. I agree with him about protecting security in Europe, and I welcome his continued strengthening of alliances, but we must do that through NATO, building on the joint expeditionary force approach. Of course, we agree that we need peace, with Ukraine agreed.
I do not necessarily agree with the Prime Minister’s change of the national security posture, because we have different views on that—I am a Conservative realist, not a progressive internationalist—but I want him to know that when he does the right thing, we will work with him in the national interest.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
The Conservative Government established the Ukraine family scheme. In total, more than 200,000 Ukrainians—mostly women, children and the elderly—have found sanctuary in the UK from Putin’s war. However, a family of six from Gaza have applied to live in Britain using this scheme, and a judge has now ruled in their favour. That is not what the scheme was designed to do. This decision is completely wrong, and cannot be allowed to stand. Are the Government planning to appeal on any points of law, and, if so, which ones?
The Prime Minister
Let me be clear: I do not agree with the decision. The Leader of the Opposition is right that it is the wrong decision. She has not quite done her homework, however, because the decision in question was taken under the last Government, according to their legal framework. However, let me be clear: it should be Parliament that makes the rules on immigration; it should be the Government who make the policy. That is the principle. The Home Secretary is already looking at the legal loophole that we need to close in this particular case.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister did not answer the question. If he plans to appeal, the appeal might be unsuccessful, and the law will need to be changed. If he does not appeal, the law will definitely need to be changed. He talks about a decision made under the previous Government, but it was not made by that Government; it was made by the courts. The issue we are discussing today is about judicial decisions. We cannot be in a situation where we allow enormous numbers of people to exploit our laws in this way. There are millions of people all around the world in terrible situations—we cannot help them all, and we certainly cannot bring them all here. Will the Prime Minister commit to bringing forward that new legislation or amending his borders Bill?
The Prime Minister
I have already said that the Home Secretary has already got her team working on closing this loophole. We do not need to wait for that; we are getting on with that, because we are taking control. The Conservatives lost control of immigration: we had nearly 1 million people come into this country; we had an open borders experiment. On Monday this week, they voted against increased powers to deal with those who are running the vile trade of people smuggling. Same old Tories: open borders, empty promises.
Mrs Badenoch
If the Prime Minister was on top of his brief, perhaps he would be able to answer some questions. Given this crazy decision and so many others, new legislation is needed to clarify the right to a family life in article 8. [Interruption.] I am not talking about what he just said; I know Labour MPs do not understand much of what they are saying. The Prime Minister literally wrote a book on the European convention on human rights. This is a situation where we need to put our national interests before the ECHR. Does he agree that we should legislate, even if lawyers warn that that might be incompatible with human rights law?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady complains about scripted answers; her script does not allow her to listen to the answer. [Hon. Members: “More!”] She asked me if we are going to change the law and close the loophole in question one—I said yes. She asked me again in question two—and I said yes. She asked me again in question three—it is still yes.
Mrs Badenoch
The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not listen to question one. I asked if he would appeal the decision. He did not answer that. He is not listening; he is too busy defending the international human rights law framework.
This case has arisen because a Palestinian came to the UK from Gaza in 2007. He is now a British citizen. This is precisely why we need to break the conveyor belt—from arriving in the UK to acquiring indefinite leave to remain and then a British passport, and now a right to bring six family members here as well. Just last week, the Prime Minister bizarrely claimed that a British passport was not a pull factor for those coming to the UK. Will he now support our plans to toughen the process on indefinite leave to remain and make getting a British passport a privilege, not a right?
The Prime Minister
The Conservatives presided over record high levels of immigration. It reached nearly 1 million. It was a one nation experiment in open borders. The right hon. Lady was the cheerleader; she was the one campaigning for more people to come and thanking her own side when they supported her campaign. So, before she lectures us, she needs to reflect on her own record.
Mrs Badenoch
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is the Prime Minister now. The people out there want to know what he is going to do about the situation. He needs to spend less time whining about the last Government and do his job.
I thought the Prime Minister and I agreed that Israel had a right to defend herself, yet the judge in this case noted that the family were facing a humanitarian crisis
“as a consequence of the Israeli Government’s indiscriminate attempts to eliminate Hamas”,
and Government lawyers accepted that. Is the Prime Minister allowing lawyers to change the position on Israel, and was that because of advice from the Attorney General? If not, why on earth did Government lawyers accept the argument that Israeli actions were “indiscriminate”?
The Prime Minister
Government lawyers put the complete opposite argument. The right hon. Lady talks about being on top of her brief; she has no idea what she is talking about. I will tell her again: we need to change the law. That is why the Home Secretary is already closing the gap. I know the script does not allow any adaptation, but this is getting tedious.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister has not read the judgment. I suggest that he does so. Very serious questions are now being asked about the Attorney General, the Prime Minister’s personal friend and donor. Even Labour Ministers are concerned. One Labour peer, Lord Glasman, has called him
“the absolute archetype of an arrogant, progressive fool”.
If we are serious about protecting our borders, we need to make sure that we appoint people who believe in our country and everything we stand for. It is not clear that the Attorney General does.
The Government are now recruiting a new chief inspector of borders, who lives in Finland and wants to work from home. This is not serious. Why should the British public put up with it?
The Prime Minister
The individual in question was appointed in 2019 by the last Government to a senior position. He then worked for five years from Finland. We have changed that, and he will now be working from the United Kingdom full time. It was Finland under them.
The Leader of the Opposition talks about the Attorney General; she sat round the Cabinet table with an Attorney General who was later sacked for breaching national security.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts(10 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
When Labour negotiates, our country loses. Yesterday, we heard that the Government offered £18 billion for Mauritius to take our territory in the Chagos islands. This is money that belongs to our children and their children. This is an immoral surrender, so that north London lawyers can boast at their dinner parties.
When Labour negotiates, we all lose. Sometimes, it does not even bother to negotiate. Why did the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero withdraw Government lawyers from defending the case against the eco-nutters who want to obstruct the Rosebank oil and gas field?
The Prime Minister
Let me deal with the serious issue that the Leader of the Opposition raises in relation to the Chagos case. This is a military base that is vital to our national security. A number of years ago, the legal certainty of that base was thrown into doubt. Let me be clear, Mr Speaker, and I shall pick my words carefully. Without legal certainty, the base cannot operate in practical terms as it should. That is bad for our national security and a gift to our adversaries. Some within the Conservative party know exactly what I am talking about. That is why the last Government started negotiations about sovereignty and about securing the long-term use of the base. They were right to do so. That is why the last Government conducted 11 of the 13 rounds of those negotiations, and they were right to do so. That is why this Government have completed that process, and we were right to do so.
Mr Speaker, I will set out the details when they are finalised and they will, of course, be presented to Parliament, but if the Leader of the Opposition is properly briefed on the national security implications when she is asking these questions, which she is perfectly entitled to do, then she knows exactly what I am talking about in terms of national security and legal certainty. If, on the other hand, she is not properly briefed on the national security implications, she is not doing her job, she is not concerned about national security and she is not fit to be Prime Minister.
Mrs Badenoch
How can anyone believe that this man is defending UK interests when he bends the knee to anyone who asks him? His answer was so weak and so waffly it is no wonder that he needs a voice coach. But he did not answer the question I asked him—why the Energy Secretary was not defending our country. The Secretaries of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs received nearly £400,000-worth of donations from Lisbet Rausing. It is her money that is behind the court case that will stop an £8 billion investment, threaten thousands of jobs and endanger energy security for all of us. Did the Energy Secretary refuse to defend UK interests because he is funded by billionaire eco-zealots?
The Prime Minister
I shall come to that very issue, but I notice that the Leader of the Opposition did not say that she was briefed about the Chagos issue. This is important. When she became Leader of the Opposition, I said to her that I would give her a briefing on any national security issue if she asked for it. That is very important to the way that we run our democracy. She has not asked for a briefing on the Chagos case. That is because she is more interested in chasing Reform than in national security.
Oil and gas will be part of our energy supply for many years to come. We have been absolutely clear about that, but we are going through a transition. It is important because that transition to renewable energy will give us lower bills and energy security, it will take Putin’s foot off our throat and it will be good for the national interest.
Mrs Badenoch
That is a weak answer, because the Prime Minister does not know what is going on. Last week, I asked about the employment Bill; he did not know what was going on. We asked about the education Bill; he did not know what was going on. Let me tell him what is going on. Perhaps he can answer some questions. Shell has said that a one-year delay to Rosebank will cost £350 million and the loss of 1,000 jobs. Equinor has said that a two-year delay to Jackdaw will cost £800 million. The only benefit that I can see is the £400,000 to Labour Ministers. At a time of war in Europe, threatened energy security and increased competition from the US and elsewhere, we should be getting British oil and gas out of the ground. Does the Prime Minister have the guts to take on Labour donors and his Energy Secretary and approve the licence applications when they are resubmitted?
The Prime Minister
The Leader of the Opposition does not even want to know what is going on; otherwise she would have asked for the relevant briefings. She knows the position on Rosebank. She knows that the court case has meant that the licence has to be reviewed. There is a process that has to be gone through in the proper way. She understands that, but yet again she is proving that all she can do is student politics, and playing party politics.
Mrs Badenoch
I am speaking on behalf of the people of this country. When Labour negotiates, our country loses. The Prime Minister talks about bringing growth and investment. Last week, he lost a £450 million investment from AstraZeneca that we negotiated, which would have delivered growth immediately. That same day, he also lost the £8 billion oilfield investment that would have delivered next year. Business is abandoning the North sea because of his decisions. What signal does he think he is sending to investors?
The Prime Minister
As the Leader of the Opposition knows, AstraZeneca’s was a commercial decision. She must understand that. All she does is come here every week carping from the sidelines, talking our country down. We have the highest investment for 19 years. PwC says that we are the second best place to invest in the world. The International Monetary Fund has upgraded growth. Wages are up. Inflation is down. There is more to do: reforming planning and regulation, building new homes, and supporting a third runway at Heathrow. What unites those? Championed by Labour, opposed by the Tories.
Mrs Badenoch
It is so hard to believe anything the Prime Minister says. This is a man who needed “emergency” voice coaching on Christmas eve. This Government are so clueless they are borrowing £8 billion for GB Energy—a vanity project that is not great, not British, and does not produce any energy. Its own chairman admitted that it will take 20 years to create just 1,000 jobs. Meanwhile, 200,000 jobs are at stake in our oil and gas sector right now. Does the Prime Minister think that 1,000 jobs in 20 years’ time are worth more than the 200,000 jobs that we have now?
The Prime Minister
Again, the Leader of the Opposition clearly has not been briefed, or does not want to be briefed. GB Energy will be a publicly owned energy company that will drive the move to renewables. It is not about the number of jobs in HQ; it is about the thousands upon thousands of jobs that it will generate to give us energy security, which is something we did not have under the last Government, and take Putin’s boot off our throat—something that did not happen under the last Government. They lost control of the economy. We are getting it back.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister can waffle for as long as he likes, but we know that Labour promised to bring energy bills down by £300. Instead, bills are going up. He is freezing pensioners while shovelling money to Mauritius. The Prime Minister is not just managing decline; he is creating decline. He has the power to grant these licences, open these oil and gas fields, save British jobs and bring down bills. Why does he find it so hard to do the right thing?
The Prime Minister
She really needs to look into how these licences are granted. I appreciate that the Conservatives’ reset seems to be having no policies apart from cutting pensions, and having no briefings on relevant issues. Let us just remind ourselves that they presided over the biggest drop in living standards on record. Mortgages went through the roof, and they left a £22 billion black hole. We learned last weekend that, under the last Government, £35 billion was lost on benefit fraud and error. Who was in the Treasury at the time? The shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), and the Leader of the Opposition. They want to give lectures. No thanks!
Prime Minister
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister thinks that he can distract people from what is wrong with the Bill. This is not about breakfast clubs and school uniforms. Teachers and parents will be horrified at just how bad this Bill is. Even his own MPs may not realise it, but the Bill will cut teachers’ pay—it cuts pay for 20,000 teachers. His Education Secretary says that there is “not a ceiling” for pay—[Interruption.] Labour Members are all shaking their heads; they clearly have not read the Bill. The Education Secretary hasn’t read the Bill either, because clause 45 means that teachers’ pay will be capped. Did the Prime Minister know that the Bill as it stands will cut teachers’ pay?
The Prime Minister
We do need flexibility in our schools. If the Leader of the Opposition had hopped off social media for a while, she would have seen the amendment put down this morning to achieve that end.
[Official Report, 22 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 999.]
Written correction submitted by the Prime Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer):
Oral Answers to Questions
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
May I take this opportunity to welcome the release of hostages, including Emily Damari, from barbaric captivity? I also know that the thoughts of many will be with the victims of the Southport killings. There are important questions to answer, and I will return to those after the case is concluded.
Between 2009 and 2022 the OECD found that children in England rose up global league tables in maths, reading and science. Conservative Government action means that English schools now top the western world at maths and reading, but the Prime Minister’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which will be voted on in Committee this week, reverses the improvements that made that happen. The Bill is an act of vandalism. It is wrecking a cross-party consensus that lasted for decades. Why does the Prime Minister think that so many school leaders are criticising the Bill?
The Prime Minister
It was Labour that introduced academies in the first place to drive up standards. Academies are here to stay, and will continue to drive up standards. That is what the Bill is about. Also in that Bill are important provisions for protecting children, including a provision to stop abusers taking children out of school, and a unique identifier to ensure that the whereabouts of all children are known. What did the Leader of the Opposition do? She instructed Conservative Members to vote against those measures.
Mrs Badenoch
The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not even bother voting on that Bill. He talks about safeguarding measures, but that is not what the issue is—this is about the reforms that he is changing. We have an example of where those reforms were not introduced—Wales, which has been under Labour control for two decades. Welsh educational outcomes have tumbled down international league tables, and poor children in England now do better than wealthier children in Wales. The Bill denies children the guarantee that their failing schools will be turned into a better academy. It is an attack on excellence, it is an attack on higher standards, and it is an attack on aspiration. The Bill is the worst of socialism. Is it not deprived children in England who will pay the price?
The Prime Minister
As I said, we introduced academies, we are committed to them, and we are driving standards up. The Bill is important because it also sets up breakfast clubs for the very children that the right hon. Lady claims to champion. It limits the expense of school uniform, and puts in place vital protections for children. She has to answer the question: why did she instruct all of them to vote against child protection measures?
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister thinks that he can distract people from what is wrong with the Bill. This is not about breakfast clubs and school uniforms. Teachers and parents will be horrified at just how bad this Bill is. Even his own MPs may not realise it, but the Bill will cut teachers’ pay—it cuts pay for 20,000 teachers. His Education Secretary says that there is “not a ceiling” for pay—[Interruption.] Labour Members are all shaking their heads; they clearly have not read the Bill. The Education Secretary hasn’t read the Bill either, because clause 45 means that teachers’ pay will be capped. Did the Prime Minister know that the Bill as it stands will cut teachers’ pay?
The Prime Minister
We do need flexibility in our schools. If the Leader of the Opposition had hopped off social media for a while, she would have seen the amendment put down this morning to achieve that end. She says that the Bill is not about child protection; we had a young child killed who was taken out of school by an abuser. The Bill closes that gap—that is urgently needed. We have children who have not gone back to school since covid. The Bill closes that gap. She can make her points on academies and we can debate academies, but to vote against the Bill is a disgrace on all Conservative Members.
Mrs Badenoch
That is nonsense. The amendment that the Prime Minister is talking about does not address the issue. He raises academies, and that is exactly what I am talking about. Like every parent, I believe that all our children should have the best teachers. Apart from the issue of cutting teachers’ pay, the head of year 11 at Michaela—the most successful school in the country—came from the armed forces. The headmistress of that school has said that with Labour’s new rules, she would
“never have been able to hire him.”
Those are the academy freedoms that I am talking about. The Bill would have blocked that veteran from teaching. The Bill implies that doctors are not sufficiently qualified to teach biology and that an Olympic medallist cannot teach PE. Why is the Prime Minister closing down routes into teaching when we should be opening up more of them?
The Prime Minister
The Leader of the Opposition knows that that is not right. [Interruption.] No, it is not. Look at the provisions in the Bill. To say that teachers in our schools ought to be qualified should not be extraordinary or opposed. Under the Conservatives’ watch, we had far too many examples of secondary schools missing teachers. When we needed maths teachers—they championed maths—we did not have enough maths teachers in our secondary schools. I want every single child to have the best possible education.
Mrs Badenoch
The facts speak for themselves: standards went up under Conservative Governments. What we need to know is who is benefiting. Everyone is asking: who is benefiting from these changes? It is not teachers—their pay is being capped. It is not parents—their choices are being restricted. It is definitely not children—their outcomes will get worse. So who is benefiting? It is the trade unions. The National Education Union sent out a tick list proving that after a decade and a half, it is finally getting its way. Why is the Education Secretary allowing trade unions to run her Department and ruin children’s education?
The Prime Minister
The Bill benefits the children who need the nourishment of a breakfast club. The Bill benefits the families who cannot afford uniforms. The Bill benefits the children who are currently out of school and nobody knows where they are. The Bill will benefit the children who could be taken out of school by abusers were it not to go through. The Leader of the Opposition should change her mind and support these vital provisions.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister needs to get out more and speak to schools. I was at the Harris academy just this month, and what is it saying? The Bill reverses two decades of progress. It is imposing Labour’s new curriculum on every school, taxing the education of children with special needs and excluding talented outsiders—the closed shop is back. This is pure educational vandalism. Alongside those attacks, Labour is removing single-word Ofsted judgments so that parents cannot see standards slipping. It is the same old Labour: bad outcomes for all children; excellence for none.
I know what it is like to go to a school that did not care about standards—this is a tragedy in the making. The key changes in the Bill were not in Labour’s election manifesto. Is that not because the Prime Minister knew that parents and teachers would reject them?
The Prime Minister
Parents and teachers know that we introduced academies. Parents and teachers know that we are driven by standards. We are committed to standards—they are part of the future—and we will continue to focus on them.
The Leader of the Opposition talks about special needs. She has got a nerve; I don’t know. Conservative Members know it: they have asked me at Prime Minister’s questions about the appalling situation of special needs under their watch. We are going to fix that mess like we are fixing every other mess.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts(11 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Can I send my warmest wishes to our armed forces at home and overseas, to the emergency services, and to everyone who will be working over Christmas? Can I wish you, Mr Speaker, the House staff and all Members of this House a very merry Christmas?
For years, the Prime Minister and his Cabinet played politics with the WASPI women—the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign. The Deputy Prime Minister said the Conservatives were stealing their pensions. She promised to compensate them in full—another broken promise. Now, they admit that we were right all along. But let us ask about another group of pensioners whose trust was broken. Since the Chancellor cut winter fuel payments, how many extra people have applied for pension credit?
The Prime Minister
The No. 1 job of this Government was to put the finances back in order after the last Government lost control. They left a £22 billion black hole and we had to take tough choices. We made sure that the most vulnerable pensioners do get the winter fuel payment, and we have been encouraging them, driving up eligibility for pension credit and people signing up to their entitlement. The Leader of the Opposition should join that campaign. Here is the difference: because we have stabilised the economy, we can commit to the triple lock. That means that next April pensioners will get another £470. Here is the difference: two weeks ago, the shadow Chancellor said that the triple lock is “unsustainable”. Their position is that pensioners would lose out under the Tories yet again.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister did not answer the question because he does not know the answer. There are 850,000 eligible pensioners not claiming pension credit. If they sign up, that will cost the Treasury £2.3 billion, wiping out the savings that the Chancellor claimed she would make. Before the election, the Prime Minister’s Chief Secretary to the Treasury told the public that Labour had no plans to cut winter fuel payments, but they did have plans, didn’t they? Age UK says:
“Cutting the Winter Fuel Payment, with very little notice…will potentially jeopardise the health, as well as the finances, of millions of older people”.
Does the Prime Minister agree with Age UK that this is the last thing that pensioners and the NHS need?
The Prime Minister
We have been driving take-up with the campaign for pension credit. It is important that everyone who is entitled to it claims that pension credit. The Leader of the Opposition should not claim as some great victory that the record of her Government was that people had not signed up. We are the ones with the campaign, and the Tories should be supporting it. Because of the triple lock, pensions will be going up by £470 next April. She has not answered the question. Her shadow Chancellor says that the triple lock is “unsustainable”, so she needs to explain how pensioners would be worse off under a Tory Government.
Mrs Badenoch
We protected the triple lock during all our time in government. Meanwhile, energy bills are increasing, despite the Prime Minister’s promise to cut them by £300. In Scotland, his party leader wants to restore the winter fuel payment. Across England, councils are scrabbling together funds for struggling pensioners. The tragic reality this Christmas is that pensioners will suffer and may even die as a result of this cruel policy. Did the Chancellor consider the impact on councils and on the NHS, or does she just not know what she is doing?
The Prime Minister
The household support fund was set out in the Budget, as the Leader of the Opposition knows. We are pushing up pension credit. She now says that the Conservatives are committed to the triple lock. Her shadow Chancellor says that they are not and that it is “unsustainable”. Perhaps over a sandwich or a steak they could sort it out and come back and tell us what their policy actually is.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister needs to misrepresent me in order to make his point; I do not need to misrepresent him in order to make mine. The truth is that he did not think this through. Cutting winter fuel payments is not just callous; it may not make savings and it could actually cost us all more. It is not the only policy that is making things worse. The Chancellor’s Budget is a body blow to family businesses and charities. Marie Curie has warned that Labour’s Budget will cost it nearly £3 million a year. That is a cancer charity saying that it has no option but to reduce services. Did the Chancellor tell the Prime Minister that her jobs tax was going to hit charities?
The Prime Minister
The Leader of the Opposition has asked three questions about winter fuel—[Interruption.] I will come to that. She has changed her mind. She used to say that the payments were a “dead weight”. She said that she had constituents who did not need them. They all stood in 2017 on a Tory manifesto that committed to getting rid of the universal winter fuel payment for pensioners. We can see what their real commitment is—[Interruption.] As for the Budget, we are driving up productivity across—[Interruption.]
The Prime Minister
We are driving up productivity, prosperity and living standards. That is a pay rise for the 3 million lowest-paid—the Tories should welcome that—a pay rise for those working in the NHS, and better than expected wage growth just before Christmas. What unites all three is that they are delivered by Labour but opposed by the Tories.
Mrs Badenoch
I do not know what world the Prime Minister is living in. The economy is shrinking, and the Government did not think this jobs tax through or who it would impact.
Another area affected is the hospice sector. Hospices believe that the Budget will cost them an extra £30 million. Yesterday, Conservatives voted to exempt social care, nurseries, charities and hospices from Labour’s jobs tax. Labour voted that down. Can the Prime Minister at least agree to fund hospices so that they can continue their invaluable work helping people at the end of their lives?
The Prime Minister
We have put a record amount into the NHS in the Budget to deal with the problem that the Conservatives left. We will set out the funding arrangements for hospices in the new year. But it is the same old, same old: they want all the benefits from the Budget, as she has said herself, but she does not want to pay for any of them. That is what got us into the problem in the first place.
Mrs Badenoch
I did not hear a commitment to help hospices, which is a shame. The truth is that this winter people will be suffering because of the Prime Minister’s choices. The economy is shrinking, inflation is going up and jobs are being lost because of his Budget. Pensioners will be unable to heat their homes because of his Government’s decisions. They raised people’s hopes but then smashed them with broken promises. And now we learn that he is about to give away our hard-won Brexit freedoms—[Interruption.] Yes—the truth is that Labour is punching the British people in the face—literally, in the case of one of his MPs. He will pretend this is about the past, but we all know that these are his choices—bad choices. If he is looking for a new year’s resolution, why does he not start with telling the truth?
The Prime Minister
I will do it now. A £22 billion black hole left by the Conservatives, record numbers on the waiting lists—[Interruption.]
Speaker’s Statement
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts(1 year 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 Opposition, I pay tribute to the late John Prescott. Lord Prescott will be remembered for many things: as a committed Member of Parliament for his beloved constituency of Kingston upon Hull East, as a formidable campaigner for the causes he believed in, and for his public service as Deputy Prime Minister. As I said last week, he was a true patriot and had a unique way of connecting with the electorate. Many of us did not know him personally, but his strength of personality was felt.
For those of us who came into politics during the new Labour era, our experience of politics was shaped by Lord Prescott. He was a leading figure in making the Labour party under Tony Blair electable, after enduring four consecutive election defeats. In the process of broadening his party’s appeal, he ensured that Labour thought about the needs, values and aspirations of regular people across this country, not just those of a metropolitan elite. He was often underestimated, yet by all accounts he was an intelligent, amusing and relentlessly hard-working man with great political instincts. Although I would doubtless have disagreed with him on many things, I would have loved the opportunity to argue with him about making our country better.
In paying tribute to the late Lord Prescott, I express heartfelt condolences on behalf of myself and my party, and I send sincere condolences to his family, his friends and his colleagues.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I pay tribute not just to my predecessor as the Member of Parliament for Kingston upon Hull East, but to a family friend of over 50 years. In doing so, I send my heartfelt condolences to Pauline and the family.
Many will remember John as a political giant, and indeed he was, but he was also a gentle giant to many. John always had time to chat to anyone who stopped him. Many Members will speak today of the great work he did both inside and outside this House, but I want to speak about the John we knew in east Hull, both as our MP and as a very dear friend, as he was to many.
East Hull was John’s adoptive home, and it became a strong part of his identity. Everyone in east Hull has their own story about John, including those he helped, and there were many thousands of them. One of John’s biggest legacies in Hull is the £55 million regeneration of the Preston Road estate in the heart of the constituency as part of the new deal for communities. I am told that John was the person in the Cabinet who spearheaded that programme.
I have had the great pleasure and honour of knowing John all my life. As kids we enjoyed family holidays with the Prescotts, and I still keep a picture on my office desk of me, JP and the family hurtling down a log flume. I keep it for a reason: because John was clearly enjoying it the most.
One year, John decided that we were going to Loch Ness to find Nessie. We did not find Nessie, but we had the most amazing time, with memories we will never forget. During the voyage, Captain John thought it would be fun to throw his watch overboard to test our diving skills—as kids, we did not realise that John was an expert diver—but it sank too far. We began to panic a bit, but John, with a big grin on his face, dived overboard. He was missing for more than a few minutes, we thought, but he came up on the other side of the vessel, holding the watch with a massive grin on his face.
John’s legacy will always be etched on the hearts of those he served and the city that he loved. There will never be another JP, and no Member of this House will ever be able to connect with the voters quite like he did. He truly was one of a kind. John’s spirit and approach to politics will live on in all of us who were inspired by him and by his dedication and commitment to the cause. Rest in peace, comrade.
G20 and COP29 Summits
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I take this opportunity to express heartfelt condolences on my behalf and that of my party on the death of Lord Prescott. He was a titan of British politics in the 1990s, one of this country’s greatest examples of social mobility, and a true patriot—no one who had two Jags could not love this country. We all especially remember that moment when he connected with the electorate during the 2001 general election. Many of us across the country, as well as the public, were very much on his side during that altercation. May he rest in peace.
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. As he said, this week marks the 1,000th day of Russia’s unprovoked invasion. Ukraine is in a fight for its survival. The people of Ukraine are in our thoughts daily, but those thoughts must translate into action—action from us and from our allies.
I am proud of the last Conservative Government’s contribution to Ukraine: £12 billion-worth of military, humanitarian and economic support; a commitment to spend at least £3 billion a year on military support; and hitting Russia with the largest sanctions package ever imposed on a major economy. I said we would be a constructive Opposition, and I meant it. We will work with the Government to ensure that British support for Ukraine is steadfast and continuing. However, at the G20, the Prime Minister was not able to achieve his goal of getting leaders to double down on support for Ukraine. As Chancellor Scholz said:
“It is too little when the G20 cannot find the words to make it clear Russia is responsible.”
The Prime Minister’s meeting with the Chinese President has also attracted much interest. A day after his meeting with President Xi, in which the Prime Minister said he wanted a respectful relationship where both countries avoid surprises, 45 pro-democracy campaigners were imprisoned in Hong Kong. I was disappointed not to hear the Prime Minister condemn that at the time. Will he do so now, unequivocally? Will the Prime Minister confirm that he explicitly called for the repeal of the national security law and for an end to Jimmy Lai’s politically motivated trial when he met President Xi? Can he point to any tangible benefits for UK interests from that meeting?
COP has not yet concluded, so we do not know what the final impact on the UK will be, but we do know that the Prime Minister’s rush to a further cut in our emissions is yet another example of politicians putting short-term publicity above long-term planning. When will he publish the plans to achieve this new target? Where this Government do the right thing, we will back them; but where they put politics before people, and where they put press releases before practicality, we will hold them to account. It is time for politicians to tell the truth, and it is time for the Prime Minister to provide some substance to back this costly rhetoric.
Given how badly things are going at home, I am sure it was a lot easier being in Baku and at the G20, but while the Prime Minister was in Rio de Janeiro, hard-working farmers were protesting outside the gates of Downing Street against his cruel family farm tax. His Government have stoked inflation, and the Budget has caused employers to warn of job losses, price hikes and shop closures due to Labour’s jobs tax. He needs to show that what he is doing abroad is in the interests of this country and making lives better.
That is why I welcome the Prime Minister’s continuation of FTA negotiations with India. However, beyond the work we started, at the moment the Prime Minister’s foreign policy is a pick and mix of empty platitudes, unilateral commitments that he could have announced at home and dangerous precedents: rushing to give away the Chagos islands, and paying for the privilege; an ill-judged suspension of export licences to Israel, damaging our defence and security industry; and failing to set out a road map for spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, in a world that is becoming yet more dangerous.
I hope the Prime Minister is up to the very real and serious challenges posed to our security and prosperity. He has many questions to answer this morning, and I look forward to hearing his response.
The Prime Minister
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her tribute to John Prescott. We really appreciate that, and I am sure his family will as well.
On the broad issue of Ukraine, I welcome the continued unity across the House. The conflict has gone on for just over 1,000 days, and I am proud of the fact that throughout that time we have had unity across the House. I welcome the fact that we will continue to do so. If we divide on the issue, the only winner will be Putin and I am not prepared to let that happen. In relation to the G20 words, it was clear about the UN charter. My position on doubling down was absolutely clear in everything I said on the record at G20 and in everything I have said and done in the past few weeks.
On China, I made it very clear in my meeting with the President that where we disagree, we will be frank and open about that disagreement and raise those issues of concern. On the right hon. Lady’s specific question about the action in Hong Kong, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), made a statement condemning that action just a few days ago. I am happy to repeat and affirm her position, because that is the Government’s position. The right hon. Lady will have seen some of the references to other issues that I raised in my meeting. Those issues are raised consistently with the Chinese by all members of this Government and, to be fair, they were raised by members of the previous Government when they were in office. Again, there is a lot of common ground.
On COP, we used the meeting to push forward on the targets. It is a shame that what used to be a cross-party issue not so many years ago—[Interruption.] When COP was in Scotland, there was a real unity across the House about the importance of tackling one of the most central issues of our time. The fact that the Leader of the Opposition is now taking the position of attacking the very idea of setting targets shows just how far the Conservative party has fallen. On this issue, I was proud that under some of her predecessors we had that unity. It is a shame that has now been lost because of the position adopted by the Opposition.
The right hon. Lady referenced my being at G20 in Rio when the farmers were protesting. G20 is an opportunity for the leading economies of the world to get together and discuss questions of common issues on the economy and security. If her implication is that the UK should not be there at leader level—that we should join Putin in avoiding that meeting—and that is the position of her party, then she should say so.