Starmer ‘not telling truth’ over Gaza family asylum decision, claims Badenoch, after PMQ clash – UK politics live | Politics

The government has come under renewed pressure over Chinese involvement in a major North Sea wind project, amid claims it threatens national security, PA Media reports. PA says:

Energy minister Kerry McCarthy said the department had processes in place to ensure any risk in the Green Volt North Sea farm was minimised, as the Conservative party said Labour’s green energy targets came with a “made in China label”.

The project, due to be Europe’s largest floating offshore wind farm, is a joint venture between a Japanese and an Italian-Norwegian company.

The Treasury has reportedly selected Chinese firm Mingyang Smart Energy to supply wind turbines.

Among the concerns raised by government departments was that the Chinese state could switch off the power once the wind farm is operational, or that the platforms could be used as spy sensors, according to the Sun.

During an urgent question, the Lib Dem MP Christine Jardine said the government needed to ensure the software could not be accessed remotely or be at risk of being switched off by others.

She said the government must follow “rigorous processes”, adding: “That must include an assessment of any opportunities for remote access to the turbines, as the software will normally remain in control of the manufacturers, even once commissioned, which would leave them vulnerable to being switched off. We need local control.”

McCarthy said: “We have discussions with a wide range, variety, of international investors, but we do absolutely recognise this needs to be balanced against national security implications, and that is something that we work on constantly across Government. We do want to make sure that the most robust processes are followed as we look at the details of this particular incident.”

The referral of David Amess’s killer to Prevent was closed “too quickly”, Dan Jarvis, the security minister, told MPs.

Ali Harbi Ali had been referred to Prevent seven years before he killed the veteran MP on October 15 2021, but his case was closed in 2016.

In his statement to the Commons about how the case was handled (see 1.47pm and 1.48pm), Jarvis said:

The reviewer found that from the material reviewed, the assessment in terms of the perpetrator’s vulnerabilities was problematic, and this ultimately led to questionable decision making and sub-optimal handling of the case during the time he was engaged with Prevent and Channel.

“he reviewer ultimately found that while Prevent policy and guidance at the time was mostly followed, the case was exited from Prevent too quickly.

PA Media reports:

Ali was first referred to Prevent by his school, Riddlesdown college, in October 2014, amid concerns over a change in his behaviour.

The learning review found that he “was an engaging student who had performed well at school and appeared to have a bright future”, but then “his demeanour, appearance and behaviour changed during his final two years at school”.

A month after the Prevent referral, in November 2014, he was moved on to the next stage of the anti-radicalisation scheme, Channel, working with experts in Islamist extremism.

By April 2015 he had exited Channel, when his risk of terrorism was assessed to be low.

One year later, he was again assessed as part of a police review and again his risk was found to be low, and his case was closed.

There were no further referrals to Prevent in the five years before Sir David’s murder in October 2021.

Jarvis told the Commons that the learning review found six issues, including “problematic” record keeping; the rationale for certain decisions not being explained; responsibilities between police and the local authority being blurred; an outdated tool for identifying vulnerability to radicalisation being used; a failure to involve the school who made the referral; and only one intervention session being provided instead of two.

He also said a number of issues in Ali’s case would “most likely not be repeated today” as the reviewer found “significant changes” had been made since his referral, such as the introduction of statutory duties for Prevent and Channel under the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015.

On Radio 4’s the World at One, Chris Bryant, a minister in the culture and science departments, said that he backed the Home Office guidance saying that people who arrive in the UK on small boats should not normally be allowed to get British citizenship. (See 9.22am.) He claimed this was just

Asked if he was in favour, he replied:

To be precise, it’s a new guidance on an old policy.

The law already says, quite rightly and obviously, that if you’ve arrived and you’ve arrived illegally, and you have acted illegally as part of your arrival, then you may well not get citizenship. That’s always been a provision that’s been available in law, and we’re simply clarifying.

When it was put to him that stopping people being granted asylum from being able to acquire citizenship would be bad for integration, and he was asked how he could justify that, Bryant replied:

Because what I want to do is I want to get these numbers down.

Whether it’s people coming in on small boats, or previously we had different versions of people get illegally into this country, and we need to get those numbers down.

Ali Harbi Ali, who killed the Conservative MP David Amess in 2021, was referred to the Prevent programme for two years, security minister Dan Jarvis has told MPs.

In a Commons statement, Jarvis said:

The perpetrator had previously been referred to the Prevent programme and subsequently to the specialist Channel programme between 2014 and 2016, between five and seven years before the attack took place.

The minister said publishing the Prevent learning review into the case, completed in February 2022, would “enable public scrutiny of Prevent”.

Jarvis told MP:

The perpetrator of the attack on Sir David became known to Prevent in October 2014, when he was referred by his school after teachers identified a change in his behaviour.

The case was adopted by the Channel Mutli-Agency Early Intervention Programme in November of 2014. An intervention provider who specialised in tackling Islamist extremism was assigned to work with him. The perpetrator was exited from Channel in April 2015 after his terrorism risk was assessed as low.

A 12-month post-exit police review in 2016 also found no terrorism concerns. The case was closed to Prevent at that point. There were no further Prevent referrals in the five years between the case being closed and the attack.

The Ministry of Justice sent Kim Leadbeater an impact assessment warning about the effect of the assisted dying bill on the criminal justice system if each case had to be signed off by a high court judge.

Officials have pointed out that the MoJ has previously expressed concerns about the shortage of judges, and hinted that any advice to Leadbeater would have pointed out that it could add to the backlog of cases in Egland and Wales’ highest courts. The MoJ has previously expressed concern about the low number of high court judges, an insider said.

This week, in response to these concerns, and similar points made by witnesses giving evidence to the committee looking at the bill, Leadbeater announced that she was dropping the plan in the bill for all assisted dying applications to be signed off by a judge.

Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, told journalists:

It is my job and that of my ministers and my officials to engage with the substance of the bill after the second reading and to make recommendations and to put options in front of the person who owns a bill, Kim Leadbetter, about what is and what is not operable.

There were a number of options that she could have taken. It remains a decision for her about what options she chooses, what amendments she thinks she wants to make to the bill. And our job was to give dispassionate, neutral advice about what the thought could work in practice and what the ramifications of those options would be.

It is always good to be charitable in life and so, for reasons to be explained in a moment, it is worth pointing out that that was not quite as bad for Kemi Badenoch as it looked. But that’s little consolation, because it looked dire. Possibly her worst yet.

As expected, Badenoch started by asking about the Telegraph splash. This is what she said:

The Conservative government established the Ukraine family scheme, and in total over 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.

This is not what the scheme was designed to do. This decision is completely wrong. It cannot be allowed to stand. Is the government planning to appeal on any points of law, and if so, which ones?

And this is how Keir Starmer replied:

I do not agree with the decision. She’s right, it’s the wrong decision. She hasn’t quite done her homework, because the decision in question was taken under the last government according to the legal framework for the last government.

But let me be clear, it should be parliament that makes the rules on immigration. It should be the government that makes the policy, that is the principle, and the Home Secretary is already looking at the legal loophole which we need to close in this particular case.

Badenoch picked up on the point that Starmer had not specifically answered her question about an appeal, and she kept pursuing this. She also asked if it was possible to stop people, like the Palestinian family mentioned in the Telegraph story, from using the right to family life to make a case for coming to the UK, without leaving the European convention on human rights. Just now CCHQ has been tweeting about Starmer dodging the appeal question. And that says it all. Because if you have to start spinning your messsage to the media after a debate, or after a PMQs, it is a giveaway that you failed to land it at the time. Badenoch’s mistake was that she would not take yes for an answer. The intricacies of whether or not the government is appealing are far less important than the main point, which was whether or not Starmer was willing to condemn the decision, and once he did Badenoch should probably have moved on.

But she didn’t, and that allowed Starmer to deploy this answer in response to her third question.

She complains about scripted answers and questions, her script doesn’t allow her to listen to the answer.

She asked me if we’re 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’s still yes.

It was not entirely fair, and there was some straw man reasoning taking place here. Badenoch’s first question was about an appeal, not about changing law. But that did not matter because, rhetorically, it was brutally effective.

You might have thought it could not have got any worse for the Tory leader. But it did. In response to the final, Finland question, Starmer blew her out of the water. (See 12.13pm.).

So, overall, it was a wretched exchange for Badenoch.

But there were some faint positives. As opposition leader, you cannot make policy, but you can set the agenda, and Badenoch can plausibly argue that the citizenship policy that she announced last week (and which she referenced today in relation to the Gaza story – see 12.09pm) is having an impact on government. The Home Office does seem to be shifting in response. (See 9.22am.) And, although Starmer won a clear victory at PMQs today, he did so by adopting a relatively rightwing stance on an asylum application story that suggests he is a bit worried about Tory policy in this area (although, to be fair, it may be Nigel Farage that is worrying him more).

And Starmer also promised to close the “loophole” that allowed the family from Gaza to come to the UK. (See 12.06pm where I have posted the full quotes – but you may need to refresh the page to get them to show.) He sounded confident about being able to do that. But, if the experience of the last government in this area is anything to go by, it will turn out to be harder than he implies.

Harriet Cross (Con) asks if Daniel Zeichner, the farming minister, was right to say yesterday farming was not a priority for the government.

Starmer says farming is as priority for him.

UPDATE: Starmer said:

Farming is top of the agenda as far as I’m concerned, that’s why we put £5bn to support farmers in the budget.

They failed to spend £300m on their watch on farming and we set out our road map, which has been welcomed by the NFU as she very well knows, it was described as long overdue.

I wonder who didn’t do it before.

Saqib Bhatti (Con) asks about Lord Hermer, and whether he represents value of money.

Starmer says people used to believe in the principle that lawyers don’t necessarily agree with their clients. If we abandon that, then the only people able to defend sex offenders would be people who support them, and so you would have “victims cross-examined by perpetrators”.