Mrs Kemi Badenoch
MP for North West Essex · Conservative · United Kingdom
“It is unbelievable that the Prime Minister would say that. He is clearly unwilling. We need to fund our defence, not spend all our money on welfare. I cannot believe that he would actually say that. He is clearly unwilling, but there are ways to do this—he is not unable.”
“The Prime Minister seems to think that the last Government were a Conservative Government. The last Government were a Labour Government and they failed, which is why Keir Starmer resigned. He keeps talking about their record as if it was fantastic. If it was, then why is Keir Starmer not sitting there?”
“The Prime Minister wants to talk about the past on defence spending, so let me refresh his memory and that of the House. I remember when he was the shadow Home Secretary, when the then Labour leader wanted us to leave NATO, disarm our nuclear deterrent and defund the Army, so I will not be taking any lectures from him.”
“No, it is not. The truth is the Prime Minister does not know where he is going to find the money. He is talking about anything except defence, including council housing. He will not fund the military.”
“We are talking about paying £35 billion to give away British territory, and all of that is happening while the Prime Minister’s Government are cancelling £30 million of vital training for British soldiers. He may be new to the job, so let me tell him what may not be in his briefing paper.”
“After last week’s session, the country was thrown into confusion over whether the Prime Minister was or was not going to fund 3% for defence by 2030. After today he will have another five weeks off PMQs, but there are some serious threats to national security that cannot wait.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Mrs Kemi Badenoch, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 12.
“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.”
“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.”
“] 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Since he became Prime Minister, he and the Home Secretary dismissed calls for an inquiry because they did not want to cause a stir. They accused those of us who demanded justice for the victims of this scandal of “jumping on a far-right bandwagon”, a claim that the Prime Minister’s official spokesman restated this weekend—shameful. Time and again, it has been left to the Conservatives to force this issue. Three times— [ Interruption. ] They can all mutter now, but these Labour MPs voted against a national inquiry three times. The Liberal Democrats did not bother to vote at all—asleep at the wheel. Labour MPs voted against a reasoned amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, and in Committee they voted against the Bill. At Committee stage of the Crime and Policing Bill— [Interruption.]”
“Before I turn to the detail of the Home Secretary’s statement, I want to recognise the tireless work of those who refused to let this issue be buried: survivors like Fiona Goddard, who bravely waived her anonymity; the parents of survivors, like Marlon West, who I spoke to this morning; Maggie Oliver, whose courage in speaking truth to power has been instrumental in bringing us to this point; the late Andrew Norfolk, whose fearless journalism brought these crimes to light; Baroness Casey for her review; and Charlie Peters, who has consistently been a voice for the voiceless. The Prime Minister’s handling of this scandal is an extraordinary failure of leadership. His judgment has, once again, been found wanting.”
“I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of the statement, although when I listened to it, I could not believe my ears. It was as if this was the Government’s plan all along, when we all know it is another U-turn. After months of pressure, the Prime Minister has finally accepted our call for a full, statutory, national inquiry into grooming gangs, and I welcome our finally reaching this point. We must remember that this is not a victory for politicians—especially not for the ones, like the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister, who had to be dragged to this position. This is a victory for the survivors, who have been calling for this for years. However, I have been speaking to many who do not have confidence that a Government who ignored their concerns will deliver.”
“Will those local inquiries have the power to summon witnesses, or is that power only for the national inquiry? Most critically, we need a clear timeline for conclusions and actions. The victims cannot wait another decade for justice: we should be able to do this in two years. Finally, we did not need to commission a report to tell us what we already knew. Will the Home Secretary apologise on behalf of herself, the Labour party and the Prime Minister for wasting so much time and voting against this, dismissing the concerns of the survivors? The House, the British public and, most importantly, the many brave survivors deserve clear answers from a Government of dithering and delay.”
“We believe that anyone in the police, local authorities, social services or even the CPS who covered this up because they cared more about so-called community relations than about protecting vulnerable girls as young as 10 years old should be pursued. We welcome the Home Secretary’s comments about perpetrators not being able to make asylum claims. I remind her that we put forward an amendment to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, and she and all her colleagues voted against that very measure. Does she now agree that the perpetrators should also not be able to make human rights claims to avoid deportation, and will she legislate to do that? Will the inquiry be concluded within two years, and will every one of the 50 towns affected be covered, including Bradford, which is still refusing to conduct an inquiry into this?”
“While the review’s findings are crucial, we as legislators are sent here to make decisions, not to outsource the difficult ones. The Prime Minister has waited months for someone to take this decision for him. That is the kind of dithering and delay that the survivors complained about. We need answers to the following questions. The House deserves to know what changed the Prime Minister’s mind from thinking that this was dog-whistle, far-right politics to something that he must do. When exactly did Baroness Casey submit her findings to Downing Street, and did the Government request any changes to her report? Does the Home Secretary agree that anyone in authority who deliberately covered up these disgusting crimes should be prosecuted for misconduct in public office and that those prosecutions should happen alongside, not after the inquiry?”
“Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for his persistent advocacy on this issue. We need clear commitments. For example, will the inquiry examine the role of ethnicity in these crimes, confronting hard truths about potential cover-ups motivated by fears of appearing racist? [ Interruption. ] There is no point in Labour Members muttering—the Home Secretary said it herself. I spoke to the father of a survivor just this morning, and he told me that survivors need to have someone who is independent and who they can go to and trust. It is no use them being forced to speak to the same authorities who ignored them in the first place. Will this inquiry ensure that no one, whether police officers, councillors or council officials, is beyond scrutiny? The Government’s approach to the Casey review itself raises serious concerns.”
“There are legitimate concerns about institutions investigating themselves, especially as some of the most egregious cases of institutional failure occurred in Labour-controlled authorities. [ Interruption. ] Labour Members can moan as much as they like, but the people out there believe that is why nothing has happened yet. In Greater Manchester, Operation Augusta was prematurely shut down. In Rotherham, which has been under continuous Labour control since 1974, we saw repeated failures. In Telford, where Labour has predominantly held power, the current MP, the hon. Member for Telford (Shaun Davies), initially rejected calls for an inquiry while serving as council leader. This inquiry must have teeth. It must start with known hotspots such as Bradford and Rochdale, and I commend my hon.”
“We accepted all the recommendations made by the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse in 2022, except the recommendation to have a new Cabinet Minister, which would not have made any difference at all to the victims of this scandal. The Home Secretary claimed that the recommendations sat on the shelf, but let me be clear that we went further than those recommendations. It was the Conservatives who established the grooming gangs taskforce, which supported police forces to make 807 arrests for group-based child sexual exploitation last year, so do not tell me that we did nothing. It is vital that this inquiry is robust, swift and, above all, independent.”
“The Conservative Government took extensive action, starting with the original Jay report, commissioned in 2014 by the then Home Secretary, Theresa May. A year later, she commissioned the independent investigation into child sexual abuse, and Sajid Javid commissioned ethnicity data collection in 2018. It is wrong to claim, as the Home Secretary did, that ethnicity data collection had not been done. I remind her that the Foreign Secretary criticised Sajid Javid at the time, saying that he was bringing the office of Home Secretary “into disrepute”, and that he was pandering to the far-right for doing exactly what the Home Secretary says she will now do. They should be ashamed of themselves.”
“Mr Speaker, they can point and shout as much as they like; they know the truth, just as we on the Conservative Benches do. Three times— [ Interruption. ] I will repeat myself: Labour MPs voted against the reasoned amendment to the children’s Bill; in Committee, they voted against that Bill; and they voted against the Crime and Policing Bill in Committee. They voted against a national inquiry and, at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister repeatedly ruled out a national inquiry, to the cheers of all the Labour MPs who are now pretending that they believed in an inquiry all along. No doubt, in her response to me, the Home Secretary will try to claim that the previous Government did nothing—a wholly false assertion that she should not repeat today.”
“Perhaps the Prime Minister knows something I do not, because there is only one hospital in my constituency. Since Labour took office, inflation has nearly doubled, growth has halved and unemployment has surged. Is this what the Prime Minister meant when he tweeted that “The economy is improving”?”
“The Prime Minister must be talking about a different economy. All of us in this House heard about unemployment increasing—unemployment has increased every month since Labour took office. Last year, the Prime Minister said that he was taking the winter fuel payment away to balance the books, but the books are not balanced; in fact, they are worse. This year, the deficit is forecast to be £10 billion higher since the Budget—not since last year’s election, but since the Budget. In what way are the books now balanced?”
“The Prime Minister loves talking about Liz Truss. Why? Because he wants to hide from his own economic record. He is a coward. Every time he stands at the Dispatch Box and talks about Liz Truss, it is because he is scared of talking about his record and what is happening to the economy out there. Let us bring the Prime Minister back to the U-turn that he is running away from—a U-turn on a policy that his MPs went out defending time and again. Let us go through what is happening here. One minute, they said that it was right to take the winter fuel payment away, because there might be a run on the pound; the next minute, they said it was right to give it back. This is laughable. The Prime Minister stands there, all puffed up and self-righteous. Why can he not just admit that he made a mistake?”
“Last week, the Prime Minister had to get his lines from the Russian embassy. I think we all know that he is getting worse, and what he does not want to talk about is how he is going to make the economy better. That is what the people out there want to hear, and he has got no answers. His trade deals have unravelled. With the strategic defence review, everyone out there is asking where the money is coming from. The fact is that he does not know how to balance the books. The Chancellor says that the winter fuel payment U-turn will not be funded through higher borrowing, so will the Prime Minister admit that it will be funded by putting everybody’s taxes up?”
“Every week I come here to tell the Prime Minister the truth. The truth is that the economy is in a spiral because Labour—all of them—put up taxes, which cuts growth. We all heard the Prime Minister. He did not rule out tax rises, so the Government are going to have to put up taxes even more. This is a spiral. If that was not bad enough, this morning we heard that because of his terrible Chagos deal, Mauritius is scrapping income tax. Why on earth should the British taxpayer pay £30 billion for tax cuts in Mauritius?”
“The Prime Minister knows this has nothing to do with national security; it is his bad negotiating. I have had the security briefings; it was a bad deal before, and it is still a bad deal. In half an hour, the Chancellor is going to stand up and tell us that everything is fine, but the truth is that she has made bad choices—bad choices that mean higher inflation, bad choices that have led to lower growth, and bad choices that have meant that jobs have been lost every single month since Labour came into office. That is hundreds of thousands of families who have lost their income in Stoke, Grangemouth and Luton. Those are their constituencies and businesses across the country. The Chancellor has lost all her headroom. She has fallen out with the Cabinet. She is making unfunded spending commitments, which she promised not to do.”
“Three weeks ago, the winter fuel policy was set in stone. Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister U-turned. Today, the Chancellor is rushing her plans because she just realised when winter is. So, on the behalf of the pensioners who want to know, can the Prime Minister be clear with us here and now: how many of the 10 million people who lost their winter fuel payments will get it back?”
“The Prime Minister clearly has selective amnesia. I asked him three questions about the winter fuel payment two weeks ago and he was floundering. The fact is he has not answered the question I asked him; he cannot tell us who will get the payments. All we see is U-turn after U-turn—his head must be spinning. Will he apologise now, including to his own Back Benchers, for taking the payments away in the first place? Can he tell us how he will pay for this?”
“The Office for Budget Responsibility has said there was no such black hole. The Prime Minister has just given away £30 billion for the Chagos islands—that is his black hole. He has not stabilised the economy. Borrowing prices are higher now than at any time in the last Parliament. He has not stabilised the economy. He has no clear answers on what he is doing. It is just chaos, chaos, chaos. He keeps making announcements with no detail. Let’s move to another area of confusion. Can we get a simple answer: will the Government keep the two-child benefit cap?”
“I did not ask the Prime Minister about a taskforce. I asked him if he will keep the two-child benefit cap, and he does not know—it is just chaos and uncertainty. He has no details. He is briefing something and causing a lot of confusion to the people out there. On that two-child benefit cap, I tell him this: I believe in family, but I also believe in fairness. On the Conservative side of the House, we believe that people on benefits should have to make the same choices on having children as everyone else. What does the Prime Minister believe?”
“I asked the Prime Minister what he believes in. He had to look in his folder to find the answer. His MPs behind him know what they believe in—he does not know. He has been in government for nearly a year. It will only get harder and harder. The canned, forced laughter, the planted questions—all that will disappear because at every single point things are getting worse. He has to ask Morgan McSweeney what it is that he believes in, but the fact is that chaos is being felt in the economy. The Chancellor said she would not be coming back with new tax rises, but she will have to pay for all these U-turns she is announcing out there, won’t she?”
“This is total and utter chaos. Two weeks ago, he was crowing about his historic trade deal and how he got zero per cent tariffs on steel. Now the steel industry will face 25% tariffs unless he does exactly what President Trump tells him to. It is chaos, chaos, chaos—and isn’t the root of the chaos that it is about this Prime Minister, his decisions and his judgment?”
“It was our Government that stood behind Ukraine and led the way in Europe. Everything the Prime Minister has said this afternoon is total nonsense, obfuscation, and avoiding the question. He does not have any answers. It is disgraceful. I asked the Prime Minister about the two-child benefit cap; he is talking about the Kremlin. He is saying everything he can to distract from the mess he is making of our economy. The OECD has downgraded growth for the next two years. He cannot rule out tax rises. Police chiefs are saying that they do not have the money they need to keep the public safe, just as he is releasing more criminals on to the streets. His Cabinet are squabbling with each other, and they said that they have lost control of the borders, but he still managed to find £30 billion to give away the Chagos islands.”
“It was extraordinary listening to that last answer from the Prime Minister. Inflation was 2% when the Conservatives left office; it is now nearly double that. When will he recognise that it is Labour’s Budget that is driving up inflation?”
“That is laughable from the Prime Minister. He knows that inflation was brought down by us to 2%—bang on target. We were reacting to a war in Ukraine that brought inflation up all over Europe. While he is doing trade deals with countries such as the US and India, their inflation is going down, but it is going up here. Why? The Office for National Statistics says that the inflation figures are driven by significant increases in household bills. We warned him repeatedly that this is exactly what would happen—what his policies would do. We called it “awful April”. The Prime Minister came into office saying that he would tackle the cost of living crisis. He has failed. He has not got a clue, has he?”
“The Prime Minister needs to stop whining about what the last Government did and look at what he is doing. He is the Prime Minister. Look at the numbers this morning. As if inflation figures were not bad enough, we have also learned that the Deputy Prime Minister is on manoeuvres. The Prime Minister has lost control of the economy and he has lost control of his Cabinet. The Deputy Prime Minister is sitting there staring at me. She knew exactly what she was doing when she briefed the papers. She is demanding eight new tax rises—as if we have not suffered enough. People out there are struggling. Businesses are struggling. People are losing their jobs. We cannot have more tax rises. Will the Prime Minister rule out new tax rises this year?”
“That is desperate stuff. The whole House will have heard the Prime Minister refuse to rule out new tax rises. The whole House heard it: he did not rule them out. There is open warfare in his Cabinet. The Deputy Prime Minister is clearly calling the shots. What have we learned? We are heading for new tax rises. We know that inflation is up. It is just more and more bad news from a Prime Minister who has lost control. We heard the Prime Minister’s earlier answer on winter fuel. Let us try to get some more information. I shall ask him a simple question. It requires only one word: yes or no. Is he planning to U-turn on winter fuel cuts?”
“I made it really easy for the Prime Minister. It was a simple question—yes or no—and he could not answer it. I wonder how the public feel about a man who cannot give a straight answer to a simple question. Look at the MPs behind him—they are all cheering. When this inevitable U-turn on winter fuel comes, and it will, from a desperate Prime Minister, what will he say to the 348 MPs who went over the top and voted for the winter fuel cut last September? Just like the British public, how can any of them ever trust him again?”
“This is a Prime Minister who says he is taking measures, but the jobs tax is killing jobs, inflation is up, and business confidence is down. Everyone is worried. He promised to cut bills, but today we see that they are rising because of his policies. He promised not to raise taxes on working people, but his jobs tax means that people are losing their jobs. Every week, we come here with a new company that says it is shedding jobs, and that is on his watch. He promised to protect pensioners, but his winter fuel cut has driven thousands into hardship. His MPs hate this—he cannot see them, but they all look sick just hearing what it he is going to do. [ Interruption. ] They are laughing— [ Interruption. ]”
“His MPs are laughing, just as they laughed at the Budget. Hands up who here wanted winter fuel cuts? Not a single one of them. The fact is, this Prime Minister is destroying them. They need to look at what they are doing to the country. The truth is, and we all know it, that it is this Prime Minister, this Labour Government and their policies that are shafting the country, is it not?”
“When he stands up in a moment, he will deflect, dismiss and distract, but we all know the truth. This is a fiction of a speech, a fraud of a deal, and a failure of a Prime Minister.”
“They have no idea what it is that they have signed up to. The Prime Minister said that he would stay out of the single market; he is going into the single market for agrifood, electricity and energy. He said that he would stay out of the customs union, but he is accepting EU tariff rules. How does he plan to stop the EU changing them to our disadvantage? He has no idea, and neither do any of them. The British people know when they are being misled. They know that headlines fail. The Prime Minister did not listen to the CBI on the jobs tax, and he did not listen to the Federation of Small Businesses on the family farms tax. This deal has already unravelled. The damage is becoming clear, and the political consequences will be huge, and here he is, trumpeting his success.”
“Can we have some honesty about what has been discussed? How many young European workers does the Prime Minister think would be acceptable, and will they be able to bring dependants? Even the defence commitments in this deal are hopelessly one-sided. We are making payments, but the EU is offering dialogue and consultation. This is a pitiful return for the country that leads NATO in Europe, and has troops on the ground in Estonia, defending our allies. Can the Prime Minister tell us why there was not a single word in his statement about the money that we will now be sending to Brussels? Can he set out how much those payments will cost taxpayers? In government, details matter, and so does honesty. [Laughter.] Labour Members are laughing, but this is a bad deal for the country. Look at them. This is how they laughed at the Budget.”
“The Prime Minister is boasting that we will now avoid airport queues because we will get access to EU e-gates. It sounds great, except it is not true; some airports already allow that, and this deal does not guarantee it anywhere, as each country still has to agree. That sums up this deal perfectly: it is a lot of spin to disguise the terrible substance. Having previously ruled out a youth mobility scheme, the Prime Minister is now desperately trying to hide his latest U-turn by rebranding the scheme as an experience. That is risible. We have no details on any cap or time limit, which begs the question: why are the Government talking about increasing migration before they have got a grip on the small boats or the legal migration system? I know that the Prime Minister does not like answering questions, but people out there want to know.”
“The House should be in no doubt that this means higher bills, more pain and less flexibility. Fourthly, on the Prime Minister’s manifesto promises, he said that we would not rejoin the single market. He promised no new payments, and that he would protect British interests. That promise has lasted about as long as his commitment to protect pensioners’ winter fuel allowance. He said whatever was needed to win power, and now he will say whatever is needed to keep it, even if it means selling out our sovereignty, our businesses and the public. The truth is that most of what was announced yesterday was not a deal. There was no binding agreement on anything. Most of the items outlined are simply agreements to enter into further discussions, which we are already having.”
“Secondly, on food and agriculture, the Prime Minister is going to pay the EU to abide by laws that we have no say on. While British farmers struggle with the family farms tax that his Chancellor has imposed on them, their regulations will now be made in Paris and enforced in Brussels. It is a total capitulation. We are not in the EU, and we are not at the table, so can the Prime Minister tell us how he will ensure accountability for the hundreds of regulations that he has signed this country up to? Thirdly, on energy, the Prime Minister has shackled us to the EU’s emissions trading scheme. That means that the Government can no longer cut energy costs without the EU’s permission. It will also unravel parts of the India free trade agreement that he has just negotiated. This is not a technicality; it is a betrayal.”
“First, on fishing, he has given away the prize most desired by EU member states, and he has done so for almost nothing. It is very easy to sign deals if you are prepared to give everything away for pennies. This deal locks out our fishermen until 2038. We are now in a worse position than the Faroe Islands—a set of islands with the population of Scarborough, but which gets to have annual negotiations. The Prime Minister quoted some organisations that welcome his deal—he does not listen to them normally—but he left one out deliberately: the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations has described the deal as a surrender and a giveaway. This is a Prime Minister who would pay to give away his family silver. Why is the Prime Minister selling our fishermen down the river? Is it because they do not vote Labour?”
“When Labour negotiates, Britain loses. The Prime Minister talks about a hat trick of deals—they are own goals. In 2020, the Conservatives concluded the trade and co-operation agreement, the largest and most comprehensive free trade agreement in the world. We agreed to come back in five years with improved terms. This renegotiation should have been an opportunity to improve terms for our country, but the terms are improved for the EU. The Prime Minister can dress it up as much as he wants, but he has failed. It is bad for bills; it is bad for jobs; and it is bad for borders. This is not a deal made for Britain; this deal is made for Labour’s public relations, to show Labour on the world stage, but it is a stitch-up for our country in return for short-term headlines. Let us take the Prime Minister’s abject failures one by one.”
“If I may, Mr Speaker: Sir Roy Stone served 13 Chief Whips, and Prime Ministers from Margaret Thatcher to Boris Johnson. I would like to pay tribute to his extraordinary service and send my best wishes to his family. Before we start, I would also like to say to the Prime Minister how horrified I was to hear about the attack on his family home. It is completely unacceptable, and I think I speak for the whole House when I say that it was an attack not just on him, but on all of us and on our democracy. Yesterday we learned that unemployment is up 10% since the election. Why does the Prime Minister think unemployment is rising on his watch?”
“I am not sure that the Prime Minister even knew that employment was up, but there is no point in him blaming everyone else. The fact is that the Conservatives reduced the deficit every year until the pandemic, more than doubled the personal allowance, left 4 million extra jobs, tackled the post-pandemic inflation spike, and left the fastest-growing economy in the G7. Let us talk about what is happening today. Let us look at Beales, a 180-year-old department store in Dorset. It survived two world wars and the winter of discontent, but it could not survive this Labour Government. Beales is having what it calls a “Rachel Reeves closing down sale”. What does the Prime Minister have to say to all the people who have lost their jobs?”
“I am very happy to welcome the Prime Minister’s tiny tariff deal, but the fact is that it has put us in a worse position than we were in in March. He should not over-egg the pudding. Let us talk about how things are getting worse now. In every month of this year, household names like Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Asda and Santander have cut staff numbers. The Office for National Statistics estimates that there are 100,000 fewer jobs than there were a year ago—and that was before the Prime Minister’s jobs tax, which will make things worse. Can he promise the House that by this time next year, unemployment will be lower than it is today?”
“I did not hear a promise to get unemployment down, and that is because the Prime Minister knows things are going to get worse. This goes wider than businesses. Last week I met staff and patients at Farleigh hospice. They do fantastic work, but they need to find an additional £250,000 to pay the jobs tax. How does the Prime Minister suggest that Farleigh hospice—a charity that relies on donations—pays for his tax hike?”