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
New Statesman
26 minutes ago
- New Statesman
A perilous age
We go to print this week at a moment of deep peril, uncertainty and, it has to be said, shame. In the Middle East, Israel and Iran are engaged in an existential battle for supremacy which, at the time of writing, threatens to spiral out of control, causing unknown death and destruction. In Ukraine, Vladimir Putin's assault continues, and in Gaza, the suffering of millions intensifies even as their fate falls down the global agenda. We do not live in a world bending towards justice, but one being bent out of shape by those with power. While all this was happening, the leaders of what was once thought of as 'the West' looked on in Canada, paralysed in the face of the spectacle unfolding. Is there even such a thing as the G7 any more, you wonder? What we have, it seems, is an increasingly incongruous G6 – a gathering of half a dozen mid-sized powers, once loyal to the US, but now seemingly powerless to do much about anything. As the likes of Keir Starmer and Mark Carney put their names to another communiqué, the strongmen of the world did as they pleased. Naturally, much of this week's magazine is devoted to the unfolding crisis and the new world we now seem to have entered. Lawrence Freedman provides a masterly account of the grand strategy – and grand gamble – behind Benjamin Netanyahu's decision to attack Tehran, as well as the possible consequences in the days and weeks ahead. Freddie Hayward, our US correspondent, reports on the fractious world of Maga, where some of Trump's most ardent supporters are now watching with alarm as the one-time candidate of peace finds himself drawn ever closer to another foreign war. Katie Stallard reports from Washington and the strange spectacle of Trump's birthday parade, considering what it reveals about the uncertainty of the world now. In this world of strongmen, the personalities of those in power is crucial: what they believe and why. For this reason, we have delved into the personal history of Netanyahu, a pariah figure in much of the world today (justly) who, nevertheless, looks set to remake the Middle East to Israel's advantage through raw military power and violence. Ami Dror, who was the head of Netanyahu's secret service security detail between 1996 and 1999, provides a startling insider account of the prime minister who became a warlord. And Israeli-American journalist Joshua Leifer explains why Netanyahu has been waiting for this showdown with Iran for most of his adult life. At home, meanwhile, the government continues to flail, subcontracting its most difficult decisions to others. The Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, recently completed the government's latest U-turn by announcing that there would be a national inquiry into the euphemistically named 'grooming gangs' scandal. As Hannah Barnes writes, it beggars belief that after months of obfuscation, the government has finally been forced into this position by the findings of Louise Casey. I have sat in meetings with some of the most senior Labour officials in this government who have spoken passionately about the moral stain of what happened in Rotherham and elsewhere, raging against the Labour councils which failed to act. And yet still nothing happened until someone else outside the government ordered them to change course. Voters – and, I suspect, New Statesman readers – want a government that knows what it stands for and is prepared to set it out in clear, unambiguous terms. From the protection of young girls in Britain to the rights of Palestinians in Gaza, Britain expects a government that leads, not one that follows. It's not all doom and gloom though. In the New Society, Tina Brown takes a look at Princess Diana's contested legacy, Zoë Huxford explores modern Britain through Alexander McQueen's most famous shows, and Kate Mossman meets a growling Brian Cox. Not a big fan of the prime minister, it seems. Enjoy the issue, and please do get in touch to let us know what you think. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe [See also: Kemi Badenoch sinks further into the mire] Related
ITV News
31 minutes ago
- ITV News
Kim Leadbeater expects a majority of MPs to back ‘the most robust assisted dying bill in the world'
Kim Leadbeater told ITV News' Talking Politics podcast she was confident the bill would pass Kim Leadbeater has told ITV News' Talking Politics podcast she is 'positive and optimistic' that a majority of MPs will support 'the most robust assisted dying bill in the world' in this week's critical vote. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will get its crucial third reading and vote in the House of Commons on Friday, with MPs choosing to either pass it onto the House of Lords or kill it off. Despite a growing number of MPs declaring they will vote against the legislation in recent months, the Labour MP and architect of the bill said she expected 'some movement in both directions' in the next 48 hours but anticipated 'it will be relatively minor'. Speaking exclusively to the podcast, Leadbeater said: 'If that proves to be the case, it means we've still got a good majority and the bill will go forward." MPs have fiercely argued for and against a bill which will allow adults who are terminally ill, subject to safeguards and protections, to request and be provided with assistance to end their own life. ITV News understands - as of Wednesday evening - 152 MPs are planning to vote in favour, 141 plan to vote against it, 21 remain undecided, and 21 are due to abstain. The bill passed its first reading in the House of Commons with a majority of 55 votes (330 to 275) back in November, paving the way for months of scrutiny of the life-defining legislation. Leadbeater told podcast host Paul Brand: 'It's been a long journey, a tiring journey, but I'm feeling positive and optimistic, and hopefully we can get the bill over the line on Friday. 'Obviously lots of people are very clear about their positions, lots of people are very supportive of the bill, and there are people who are fundamentally against the bill, and I think in the middle there's potentially a small number of people who might change their mind either way, but if that proves to be the case, it means we've still got a good majority and the bill will go forward. 'So that's how I feel at the moment, but, you know, it's up to every MP to do what they feel is the right thing to do on Friday, and the debate will continue as it should.' Asked by Brand if she thought the vote would be tighter than November, Leadbeater replied: 'It's impossible to say, to be honest… I'm not keeping that close an eye on it, to be honest. 'But I think there'll be some movement in both directions. Certainly, a few colleagues have come out saying that they are going to support, having either abstained or voted against last time, and then other colleagues have done the same the other way. So, I think if there is any movement, it will be relatively minor.' She also defended the debate process, which saw significant changes to the original proposed legislation. 'Look, this is how we make laws. Are there things that I would change about the entire parliamentary process? Yes, there probably are,' she said. 'But if we start on pulling that thread at this stage, we've got a long way to go. So I think the bill has gone through a very robust process. 'If you think we started this back in November, so it's been a long period of time, the hours of scrutiny that it has had has been more than most government bills, lots of detailed exploration of the content, amendments looked at and tabled and taken and changes made, and that's quite right too. 'I've tried to engage with colleagues, whatever their views are, including on the bill committee, some very strong opponents of a change in the law, and I've tried to do that as collaboratively and as collegiately as I possibly can, and I think as a result of that, what Parliament will be presented with on Friday will be an even stronger piece of legislation and certainly the most robust assisted dying bill in the world." It has lost some support from the medical profession since it was first put to Parliament, with the Royal College of Psychiatrists saying in May that they could not back it.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Labour's decriminalisation of abortion all but completes our slide into the moral abyss
Hell is empty because all the devils are here. What is it about Left-wing women and killing babies? For all their bland, technocratic vocabulary about 'stakeholder orgs' and 'healthcare rights', make no mistake, Labour MPs, led by a cabal of morally-challenged feminists, have just voted to make infanticide legal in our country. May God forgive them. The House of Commons voted with a vast majority on Tuesday for the complete decriminalisation of abortion up to birth. Members of the present Government are of such distressingly low calibre that you would hesitate to allow them to euthanise a goldfish – let alone adjudicate on whether a human being in its third and final trimester of development should be terminated. Unbelievably, this is where we are. It makes you feel sick at what we have become, our slide into the moral abyss is almost complete. Without consulting the British people, who oppose late terminations overwhelmingly, MPs Stella Creasy, Tonia Antoniazzi and other aggressive pro-choicers have ensured that, from now on, women will not be prosecuted for carrying out their own late-term abortions 'even for non-medical reasons'. And despite the pain and suffering of the baby, who seems to have no rights at all in the matter, he or she will certainly be alive if the mother decides to do them in at the last minute. Doctors or anyone else providing assistance for late-term abortions for non-medical reasons will still be prosecuted, which does suggest that our lawmakers retain a residual awareness that the heinous thing they have just made legal is what the Left likes to call 'problematic' – and the rest of us call 'evil'. The UK already had some of the laxest restrictions on abortion in the world. With a 24-week cut-off point (you can have a termination later, but only if a woman's life is at risk or the foetus has a serious anomaly), we are on a chilling par with Communist China where abortion is generally legal at any stage of pregnancy, although there have been attempts in some provinces to root out sex-selection (aka killing baby girls – London hospitals are denying scans to try and prevent that repellent practice among certain ethnic groups here, too). No one ever mentions it, but Britain is worryingly out of step with the majority of European countries where the median time limit for abortion is just 12 weeks. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Latvia, Germany, Italy, Greece, all have a 12-week upper limit. France and Spain are slightly higher at 14 weeks. Liberal Sweden is 18 weeks and Norway's parliament recently adopted legislation extending the legal limit for abortion from 12 to 18 weeks. Only the Netherlands has the same 24-week limit as the UK (the date when the foetus is considered viable outside the mother's body) although, in practice, Dutch doctors apply a two-week margin of error and stick to 22 weeks. I fully support abortion up to 14 weeks, because insisting women should have babies they don't want, or can't provide for, is not humane. Bringing up a baby that you actually want is quite hard enough. But advances in medical science mean foetuses can survive earlier and earlier outside the womb and the UK's 24-week limit has looked increasingly indefensible. There are many thriving adults among us who will testify to that. On X, the clergyman and author Fergus Butler-Gallie wrote: 'I was not expected to survive birth, my parents bought the teddy I was due to be buried with. Very hard, knowing this as well as many other cases I've encountered pastorally, not to view the vote in the House of Commons as an act of acute moral evil.' Amen to that. Twenty years ago, I spent a few days observing a hospital neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) which specialised in the care of extremely premature babies. It was a humbling, unforgettable experience. Those tiny creatures, with their marsupial pelt of fine hair, were smaller than a shoe. Even though they were untimely ripped from the womb, they had a tenacious grip on this mortal coil, fists the size of a cotton reel hung onto it for dear life. Because life is dear, infinitely precious, and every being yearns to live. They taught me that. When I left the unit to visit the loo, I walked down a corridor past a section where abortions took place. I struggled to reconcile the idea that all the expertise of the NHS was dedicated to keeping a 24-week-old baby alive in one part of the hospital, while a baby of the same gestation was being terminated in another – even though they could both open their mouth and gasp for air. Those much-loved infants in the neonatal unit were between 23 and 36 weeks – ages at which Creasy and Antoniazzi think it's perfectly fine for a mother to put her baby to death. Socialists like them carry a banner for militant secularism, whose soulless creed is infiltrating every aspect of our society. Friday will see the Assisted Dying Bill come before the Commons and, if it passes, old people can as easily be bumped off as viable babies. What a double that would be, eh? The week when our formerly civilised land abandoned its most vulnerable citizens to their fate because they were disposable. The impetus towards decriminalisation of abortion came from the story of Carla Foster, who got a two-year jail sentence (14 months in custody) after she 'procured drugs to induce an abortion after the legal limit'. Aged 44, Mrs Foster already had three sons when she fell pregnant in 2019. At the start of lockdown, she moved back in with her estranged partner while carrying another man's child. She claimed that, because of lockdown, she had trouble accessing an abortion clinic, although such clinics remained open until the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) obtained a change in the law. Under the new rules, women up to 10 weeks pregnant could have a phone consultation and receive abortion pills in the post to take at home. Carla Foster lied to BPAS, not consulting them until May 2020, when she gave the impression she was only seven weeks pregnant. Prosecutors argued successfully that Foster knew she was over the legal 24-week time limit for abortion and had made online searches which indicated 'careful planning'. Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court heard that Foster was between 32 and 34 weeks pregnant when she took the pills – a horrific and harrowing act, barely comprehensible to any of us who has ever carried a baby of that advanced gestation in our body. Initially, Foster was charged with child destruction, which she denied. She later pleaded guilty to an alternative charge of section 58 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, administering drugs or using instruments to procure abortion. Foster later admitted she was 'haunted' by the face of her dead baby daughter. Good, so she should be. Instead of responding with the revulsion that crime deserved, several prominent women expressed sympathy for Foster, calling the 1861 legislation 'antiquated'. As if deciding to stop the heart of an eight-month-old unborn child was acceptable in any century. Dame Diana Johnson, who previously tried to repeal the 1861 act with a backbench bill, said ministers should change laws that were having a 'chilling effect on doctors, midwives and others'. No mention of the chilling effect on babies just a few weeks away from entering the world. Stella Creasy, who made a huge song and dance about being able to breastfeed her own baby in the House of Commons, said: 'Abortion is not a criminal matter, it's a healthcare matter. It serves no one to have had this case prosecuted.' Caroline Nokes, the irredeemably woke Conservative chairman of the Commons' Women and Equalities committee, said abortion legislation was 'very out of date' and should be 'overhauled'. It certainly should have been. Overhauled so the time limit went down and came into line with neighbouring countries which respect the rights of the unborn child (Creasy and Antoniazzi seem to think the unborn child has no rights because they don't think about the baby at all). Sorry, no. Late abortion is not a healthcare matter, whatever any of the pro-choice-at-any-stage brigade may claim. It is a barbarous and harrowing thing, it is a ripping and rending of flesh, bone and blood. It stops the heart. A human heat. It can only ever be justified in cases where mother, baby or both are at risk. A quarter of a century ago, I was faced with the option of terminating a pregnancy at 21 weeks, because they thought there might be a problem with the baby. I asked a young female gynaecologist what giving birth anyway would be like. 'Horrible for all concerned,' she said grimly, 'Horrible for mum, horrible for baby, horrible for nurses and doctor.' I thanked her for her honesty. My son and I, we would take our chances. Because of this repellent change in the law, a significant and meaningful deterrent is removed. More women will choose to abort their babies late because they can get away with it, and more men will give their partners abortion pills because they know they will no longer be jailed for that slaughter. Our humanity is diminished, our nation on a dark road never travelled, without maps or lights. Destination: nowhere good. A final thought: in NICUs today, there is a 47 per cent survival rate for babies of 24 weeks. It's a miracle. A miracle of science, compassion and human ingenuity. All those preemies who would once have died are saved, and we are the richer for them. Thirty-six years ago, in Wythenshawe, a baby boy was born three months premature – he weighed just one pound. There are women MPs who would have babies put to death at that age and weight. Fortunately, his parents had other ideas. Tyson Fury grew up to do pretty well, all things considered.
