Burnham and Badenoch clash over Jackdaw gasfield as Trump welcomes decision – UK politics live

At the No 10 post-PMQs lobby briefing, Downing Street rejected suggestions that Miatta Fahnbulleh was undermining Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, with her comments about indefinite leave to remain (ILR) this morning. (See 10.44am and 11.34am.) A spokesperson said that Mahmood was consulting on the plans announced last year and that she is engaged in “a thorough piece of work to ensure we get this right and have the right arrangements in place”. Asked about the Fahnbulleh interview, the spokesperson said:

The energy secretary made clear she backs reforms and the work that Shabana is doing. She was asked about specific elements of proposals that are subject to the results of the consultation.

The Green MP Siân Berry has welcomed Miatta Fahnbulleh’s decision not to endorse the home secretary’s plan to make migrant workers wait much longer for indefinite leave to remain. (See 10.44am.) But she urged Fahnbulleh to go further, and to also speak out about separate plans in the immigration and asylum bill. The bill, which is going through the Commons, will tighten various aspects of asylum law, including by allowing the Home Office to recover from some refugees money spent by the state housing them while their asylum claim was considered.

Berry said:

This Reform-inspired bill is a legacy of Keir Starmer’s leadership that will harm communities who want to welcome and support refugees, penalise desperate people for needing support, split up already war-torn families, and force people needing asylum here to live in a state of instability and poverty for decades.

I urge Miatta and her colleagues to do the right thing, and speak up more strongly and sooner against these plans, so we can together force our new prime minister to drop this awful bill.

In the Commons, Michael Shanks, the energy minister, is making a statement about the Jackdaw decision.

He is doing it because his boss, Miatta Fahnbulleh, is in Aberdeen.

Before he started, Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, said it was an “immense discourtesy” to the Commons that Fahnbulleh was not there herself.

And he said it was “shameful” that her department announced the news to the media first.

He said:

It is simply not good enough that it was trailed by the press last night and announced all over the media this morning by the secretary of state before it could be properly scrutinised in this house.

I’m sure there will be a leak inquiry, or is it that this department is deliberately briefing out to the media?

Hoyle said that, under the ministerial code, ministers were supposed to make important announcements to the Commons first.

Shanks told Hoyle that he respected what he had said, and that he would take these points back to the department.

Hoyle was not impressed. He said:

I’m sorry that Aberdeen is more important than the MPs they’ve elected.

Miatta Fahnbulleh is leaning towards rejecting the giant Rosebank oilfield, the Guardian understands, in what would be a blow for the North Sea energy industry and a major victory for climate campaigners. Kiran Stacey has the story.

Judging by the latest post on Truth Social, it looks as thought the Jackdaw announcement may have made Fox News in the US this morning. This is from Donald Trump.

That felt like quite a routine PMQs, but it was one that went quite well for Andy Burnham. It was not so much that he won; it was more that he emerged completely unscathed because none of Kemi Badenoch’s attack lines landed. It is always hard for an opposition leader to criticise a decision they agree with (Jackdaw), and so she tried the argument that Labour was to blame for rerunning the application process instead of fighting the legal challenge against the original decision all the way to the supreme court (where it may have lost anyway). Burnham’s response, that the Tories were to blame for mucking it up in the first place, was more convincing. After that Badenoch trotted through some very familiar lines on welfare and debt. It was hard to see what “story” she was trying to land, and it felt a bit as if she was not trying too hard. Maybe she is saving up her ammunition for her budget response next week.

Burnham also successfully seized the initiative with an announcement, about standing charges on gas bills. These are only worth about £100 a year, and presumably the money would be recouped from consumers in some other forms. Still, it’s news.

But what made Burnham’s performance quite strong today was not so much his standing charge teaser (which sounded like a hint for what might be in the budget) as his overall tone. One of the big complaints about PMQs is that MPs treat it as just a game. Badenoch herself is quite open about this, and she has said that she only started to do it well when she decided to view it like a panto. Burnham, though, can speak in the Commons with a degree of conviction and moral force that marks him out. We saw it today when he was talking about Aberfan, or social care, or Covid, or the importance of big decisions. This does not make him unique, and of course he is a professional politician, and he can equivocate as much as the rest of them. But at other moments he can convey seriousness and sincerity, rooted in lived experience, better than others. By comparison, Badenoch sounds glib.

David Davis (Con) asks if the PM would speak to the defence secretary to stop British agencies acting with “credulous complicity with our enemies trying to use lawfare against our soldiers”.

He was referring in particular to a Sunday Times report at the weekend about how SAS soldiers were hounded over “bogus allegations”.

Burnham said he would be happy to meet Davis to discuss this. He wanted to give an assurance to solidiers that the government would “always have their back” and treat them fairly.

Zubir Ahmed (Lab) asked Burnham to condemn the revelations in the ITV News exposé of racism in Reform UK.

Burnham said all parties in the Commons should take a stand against racism. And he paid tribute in particular to migrant care workers.

He said MPs should “root out the politics of poison which has seeped far too far into our politics”.

And he said “the firmest of action” should be taken in reponse to these ITV revelations. But he said he was “still waiting to see the right level of action” from Reform UK.

Edward Morello, the Lib Dem MP for West Dorset, asked Burnham if he would commit to having a mayor of Wessex by 2028.

Burnham said he would. He said he was “always happy to create more mayors”. He said he would like to see full devolution for the south-west of England. He says Cornish MPs were in No 10 North this week to speak about devolution deal.

James Cleverly (Con) said Burnham managed to increase police numbers when he was mayor of Manchester. But Sadiq Khan has not done that in London, he said.

What is it that he was able to get right and that I was able to get right [when Cleverly was home secretary] but Sadiq Khan, catastrophically, has failed to get right.

Cleverly wants to be the Tory candidate for London mayor for 2028.

Burnham said this was the second time Cleverly has used PMQs to ask a question about London, not Essex, where he is an MP. He suggested Khan was constrained by lack of government support when the Tories were in office.

Jerome Mayhew (Con) asked a follow up to the question he asked last week. He asked if Burnham had a meeting scheduled with Khaldoon Al Mubarak, the Manchester City chair, scheduled in September.

Burnham said he had nothing to add to the statement he had already made.

Imogen Walker (Lab) said her constituents were suffering serious problems because Royal Mail delivery services were so bad.

Burnham replied:

Royal Mail’s service has been unacceptable for far too long. They have been asked in to see ministers on a regular basis. Ofcom is looking at the situation as well.

Let’s be clear, they need to bring forward a plan to restore service standards to the level they need to be up. They need to do it quickly, or we will consider further measures.

Ellie Chowns, the parliamentary leader of the Greens, asked why Burnham was “pouring more fuel on the fire of climate breakdown” by approving Jackdaw. Why did he not accept expert evidence saying fossil fuels should stay in the ground?

Burnham said the UK still needs gas. He went on:

There’s a big difference, between an ideological approach, which I think is what [Chowns is] putting to the house, and a pragmatic approach, which is what I am announcing today.

Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, asked Burnham if he was going to wait until after the election until considering the case for joining the EU single market.

Burnham said at the UK-EU summit next month he would try to get a better deal covering food, energy and immigration. He went on:

If this house was to come together, it would give me the strongest position to go to that summit and get a good deal for.

Davey said, in the light of the PM’s position on Europe, “I feel that next week’s budget will not be the growth budget our country needs.”

He went on:

This week Ukraine’s defence system was seriously undermined by the US restricting access to Elon Musk’s Starlink system.

Musk says that the order came from the white House, but the Telegraph and The Wall Street Journal have revealed that must put the idea to Donald Trump himself.

Now, I understand the prime minister’s reluctance to criticise the present United States, but does he agree that directly aiding Putin in this way is beyond the pale? And will he work with European allies to prevent Elon Musk getting the licenses he wants? It would make our continent even more dependent on his satellite system.

Burnham said he had “concerns about any move that diminishes the military capability of Ukraine”. But he said the situation had to be handled carefully. The UK was working to help Ukraine, he said.

Claire Hanna (SDLP) asks about Sally Rooney’s books not being on sale in the UK, and invites Burnham to review the Palestine Action ban.

Burnham says:

When it comes to the prescription of Palestine Action, it followed a rigorous and evidence-based process that came before this house, endorsed by Parliament. The matter is alive, a legal case, so I won’t comment further than that.

Badenoch asks if Burnham will follow the Andy Haldane plan.

Burnham says “there are signs of growing strength in the British economy”. And he taunts the Tories over the mini budget.

Badenoch says Burnham is not going to cut welfare spending. Under his plans, it will go up.

She asks if he accepts his failure to cut borrowing is pushing up inflation.

Burnham again defends his social care policy. And, on welfare, he says he does not want to see people in their 20s out of work.

On inflation, he says:

[Badenoch] mentions inflation, though she may notice that there is a situation ongoing in the Middle East where we don’t have full control.

But I can of that situation … the fundamentals of the British economy are getting stronger and stronger under this government. We will take the right long term decisions, and she should wait for the budget, and she will see that laid out in this house.