PMQs review: The grooming gangs scandal continues to shake Parliament
Photo by House of Commons
Kemi Badenoch must be fuming that Keir Starmer is flying back from the G7 in Canada right now, with Angela Rayner standing in for him at PMQs and convention dictating that the Leader of the Opposition also offers up a deputy. So it was that in a week where the headline topic remains the grooming gang scandal that Badenoch has decided is one of her key passion projects, it was one of her shadow ministers asking the questions.
Badenoch has chosen not to have a regular deputy for these occasions, offering the job to a revolving cast of Tory frontbenchers. Unsurprisingly given what was obviously going to be the main issue, today it was the shadow home secretary. No, not Robert Jenrick (though you'd be forgiven for the mistake), but Chris Philp.
That's the same Chris Philp who appeared with Badenoch on a panel of grooming gang survivors, parents and activists yesterday morning, during which they were urged that 'all the political stuff needs to be put aside' by survivor Fiona Goddard. And it's also the same Chris Philp who seemed to show very little interest in the scandal until Elon Musk brought it back to Westminster's attention in January, including for the almost two years in which he was policing minister in the Home Office.
All of this meant that, when Philp began his questioning by noting he had met with survivors on Tuesday, he was greeted to heckles that he'd never met with any of them while in office. He brushed this off, adopting a dignified tone as he asked about survivors' justifiable insistence that the national inquiry announced on Monday will be fully independent, have statutory powers, cover all affected towns and put the affected individuals at its centre.
It was an attitude that won him appreciation from Rayner, who struck a stateswomanlike poise as she thanked him for 'his tone and for putting the survivors central', adding wryly that she hoped members of his party would follow his lead. Badenoch's own tactic of ferociously hammering the government over Louise Casey's report, most notably in the Chamber on Monday afternoon, has drawn criticism – including from victims, and from Casey herself.
The air of cross-party respect didn't last. Before long Philp was channelling his inner Badenoch, calling on Rayner to apologise for Starmer's claim in January (which the Prime Minister surely now regrets) that those calling for an inquiry were 'jumping on a bandwagon' and 'amplifying what the far right is saying'. Rayner responded with the universal Labour defence of pointing out what the Tories had done in office: 'precisely nothing'. It was notable that, while Philp raged, Rayner was flanked on both sides by female colleagues (Lucy Powell and Yvette Cooper to one side, Rachel Reeves and Bridge Phillipson on the other). It was a powerful image.
From there, we got an unedifying spat over illegal migrant numbers, the failure of the Rwanda scheme, asylum accommodation and – a nice new addition, presumably due to Rayner's brief – house building. Philp walked into a number of traps Badenoch could have told him were coming. Bringing up immigration at PMQs enables whoever is representing the government to return to their comfort ground of the Conservatives' own record. Philp's retort that the Rwanda scheme 'never started' isn't quite the win he thinks it is, given one of the key reasons voters abandoned the Tories was a feeling the party was so incompetent it couldn't even do what it was said it wanted to.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
As for his line wondering aloud how Rayner 'has the brass neck to claim she's got it under control, when the numbers crossing the Channel this year are the highest in history', Philp should have guessed his adversary would be prepared. And she was, punching the Boriswave bruise (nearly a million arrivals in 2022-3 alone), reeling off stats, and condemning Philp for the 'one million pounds a day 'spiffed' up the wall' (an allusion, perhaps, to Boris Johnson's similar turn-of-phrase discussing money spent on historic child abuse investigations – at any rate, a new one for Hansard).
It wasn't the finest audition piece from Philp. One wonders why Robert Jenrick wasn't chosen to stand in (although the answer to that may be apparent). Rayner brought less of her characteristic fire to today's proceedings, and all in all it was a somewhat anticlimactic session, with the mood around the House gradually souring. We had Lib Dem and SNP MPs ask about cuts to disability benefits, designed to rile up Labour backbenchers who are queasy about what Liz Kendall will be announcing later today. And instead of an explosive intervention from Reform's MPs, we got two planted questions: one about a Reform council cutting a fire engine in Nuneaton, and another about the dodgy arithmetic behind Nigel Farage's claim he could save £7bn of government spending by cutting DEI programmes.
We did hear Rayner signalling that the UK would not join the US were Donald Trump to choose to attack Iran, and stressing the need for a diplomatic approach. But given Keir Starmer insisted the US had no intentions of bombing Iran just before Trump implied it was a live consideration, who can say. (This week's New Statesman magazine is a War Special, covering everything going on in the Middle East, including an insight into Benjamin Netanyahu's mind from his former head of personal security and a deep dive into what Iran will do next by Lawrence Freedman, for once you're done digesting PMQs.)
Question of the day probably goes to Nick Timothy, who noted that channel crossings are up this year, and asked whether, if they fail to go down, the Home Secretary's job could be at risk. Yvette Cooper has so far not been a major target of the Tory frontbench, with the force of their efforts aimed more at Rachel Reeves, Ed Miliband and Bridget Phillipson. Is Timothy testing out a new attack line for the Conservatives? Or is he simply reminding his colleagues of his presence should a shadow ministerial vacancy come up?
[See also: Keir Starmer's grooming gang cowardice]
Related
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
Historic vote brings assisted dying closer to becoming law in England and Wales
Assisted dying is a step closer to being made legal in England and Wales after the proposed legislation cleared the House of Commons in a historic vote – albeit with a narrower majority. More than 300 MPs backed a Bill that would allow terminally ill adults with a life expectancy of less than six months to end their lives. Yes campaigners wept, jumped and hugged each other outside parliament as the vote result was announced, while some MPs appeared visibly emotional as they left the chamber. Others lined up to shake hands with Kim Leadbeater, the Bill's sponsor through the Commons, with some, including Home Office minister Jess Phillips, stopping to hug the Spen Valley MP. Despite warnings from opponents around the safety of a Bill they argued has been rushed through, the proposed legislation has taken another step in the parliamentary process. MPs voted 314 to 291, majority 23, to approve Ms Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill at third reading. This means the Bill has completed its first stages in the Commons and will move to the House of Lords for further debate and scrutiny. Both Houses must agree the final text of the Bill before it can be signed into law. Due to the four-year implementation period, it could be 2029 – potentially coinciding with the end of this Government's Parliament – before assisted dying is offered. Encouraging or assisting suicide is currently against the law in England and Wales, with a maximum jail sentence of 14 years. Supporters of assisted dying have described the current law as not being fit for purpose, with desperate terminally ill people feeling the need to end their lives in secret or go abroad to Dignitas alone, for fear loved ones will be prosecuted for helping them. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer remained supportive of the Bill, voting yes on Friday as he had done last year. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, who had urged MPs to vote against the legislation, describing it as 'a bad Bill' despite being 'previously supportive of assisted suicide', voted no. Friday was the first time the Bill was debated and voted on in its entirety since last year's historic yes vote, when MPs supported the principle of assisted dying for England and Wales by a majority of 55 at second reading. Labour MP Ms Leadbeater has argued her Bill will 'correct the profound injustices of the status quo and to offer a compassionate and safe choice to terminally ill people who want to make it'. During an hours-long date on Friday, MPs on both sides of the issue recalled personal stories of loved ones who had died. Conservative former minister Sir James Cleverly, who led the opposition to the Bill in the Commons, spoke of a close friend who died 'painfully' from cancer. He said he comes at the divisive issue 'not from a position of faith nor from a position of ignorance', and was driven in his opposition by 'concerns about the practicalities' of the Bill. MPs had a free vote on the Bill, meaning they decided according to their conscience rather than along party lines. The proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. Public support for a change in the law remains high, according to a YouGov poll published on the eve of the vote. The survey of 2,003 adults in Great Britain, suggested 73% of those asked last month were supportive of the Bill, while the proportion of people who feel assisted dying should be legal in principle stood at 75%.
The Independent
34 minutes ago
- The Independent
Kim Leadbeater in tears as MPs vote in favour of assisted dying bill
Watch the moment MPs voted in favour of the assisted dying bill which will legalise the right for terminally ill people in England and Wales to end their own life with medical assistance. Following a debate on the The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in the House of Commons on Friday (20 June), MPs voted 314 to 219 in favour of the legislation. It will now transfer to the House of Lords for several more stages of scrutiny. Kim Leadbeater, who proposed the bill, was seen crying in the chamber as it was passed.
Leader Live
34 minutes ago
- Leader Live
MPs debate assisted dying before crunch parliament vote
Legalisation could move a step closer for England and Wales depending on the result on Friday. The outcome will lead to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill either clearing the House of Commons and moving to the Lords, or falling completely – with a warning the latter could mean the issue might not return to Westminster for a decade. Opening her debate, Bill sponsor Kim Leadbeater, said her proposed legislation is 'cogent' and 'workable', with 'one simple thread running through it – the need to correct the profound injustices of the status quo and to offer a compassionate and safe choice to terminally ill people who want to make it'. She shared emotional stories from people she had met throughout the campaign to legalise assisted dying, both bereaved and terminally ill. Pressed by Conservative former minister Simon Hoare on concerns raised about the Bill by some doctors and medical bodies including the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Ms Leadbeater said: 'We have different views in this House and different people in different professions have different views.' She noted that all the royal colleges have a neutral position on assisted dying. The relatively narrow majority of 55 from the historic yes vote in November means every vote will count on Friday. The Bill would fall if 28 MPs switched directly from voting yes to no, but only if all other MPs voted the same way as in November, including those who abstained. Supporters and opponents of a change in the law gathered at Westminster early on Friday, holding placards saying 'Let us choose' and 'Don't make doctors killers'. On the eve of the vote, in what will be seen as a blow to the Bill, four Labour MPs confirmed they will switch sides to oppose the proposed new law. Paul Foster, Jonathan Hinder, Markus Campbell-Savours and Kanishka Narayan wrote to fellow MPs to voice concerns about the safety of the proposed legislation. They branded it 'drastically weakened', citing the scrapping of the High Court judge safeguard as a key reason. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch urged her MPs to vote against the legislation, describing it as 'a bad Bill' despite being 'previously supportive of assisted suicide'. As it stands, the proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales with fewer than six months to live to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. Ms Leadbeater has insisted the replacement of High Court judge approval with multidisciplinary panels is a strengthening of the legislation, incorporating wider expert knowledge to assess assisted dying applications. Before confirmation of the four vote-switchers, Ms Leadbeater acknowledged she expected 'some small movement in the middle' but that she did not 'anticipate that that majority would be heavily eroded'. She insisted her Bill is 'the most robust piece of legislation in the world' and has argued that dying people must be given choice at the end of their lives in a conversation which has seen support from high-profile figures including Dame Esther Rantzen. MPs have a free vote on the Bill, meaning they decide according to their conscience rather than along party lines. There is no obligation on MPs to take part in the vote, and others present on Friday could formally abstain. Ms Leadbeater warned that choosing not to support the assisted dying Bill is 'not a neutral act', but rather 'a vote for the status quo'. She said: 'It fills me with despair to think MPs could be here in another 10 years' time hearing the same stories.' All eyes will be on whether Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and senior colleagues continue their support for the Bill. Sir Keir indicated earlier this week that he had not changed his mind since voting yes last year, saying his 'position is long-standing and well-known'. Health Secretary Wes Streeting described Ms Leadbeater's work on the proposed legislation as 'extremely helpful', but confirmed in April that he still intended to vote against it. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has voiced her continued backing of the Bill, saying she she hopes it can clear the Commons and continue its progress to becoming law. She told Sky News she has a 'long-standing personal commitment to change the law on assisted dying with appropriate safeguards' and praised the 'very considered and respectful debate over the last few months on all sides'. A vote must be called before 2.30pm, as per parliamentary procedure. Friday's session began with considerations of outstanding amendments to the Bill, including one to prevent a person meeting the requirements for an assisted death 'solely as a result of voluntarily stopping eating or drinking'. The amendment – accepted without the need for a vote – combined with existing safeguards in the Bill, would rule out people with eating disorders falling into its scope, Ms Leadbeater has said. Another amendment, requiring ministers to report within a year of the Bill passing on how assisted dying could affect palliative care, was also approved by MPs. Marie Curie welcomed the amendment, but warned that 'this will not on its own make the improvements needed to guarantee everyone is able to access the palliative care they need' and urged a palliative care strategy for England 'supported by a sustainable funding settlement – which puts palliative and end of life care at the heart of NHS priorities for the coming years'. Ms Leadbeater has warned it could be a decade before legislation returns to Parliament if MPs reject her Bill on Friday. A YouGov poll of 2,003 adults in Great Britain, surveyed last month and published on Thursday, suggested public support for the Bill remains at 73% – unchanged from November. The proportion of people who feel assisted dying should be legal in principle has risen slightly, to 75% from 73% in November.
