During Prime Minister’s questions, Kemi Badenoch presses Starmer on his appointment of Louise Haigh after a fraud conviction

Keir Starmer was under the spotlight during Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) on December 4, as Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch questioned him over the resignation of Louise Haigh as Labour’s Transport Secretary. Haigh stepped down last week after it was revealed that she had pleaded guilty to a 2013 fraud offence involving a false police report. The case has sparked significant controversy, leading Badenoch to ask Starmer why he had appointed Haigh to such a high-profile position in the first place, despite her criminal history.

Badenoch opened her line of questioning by accusing Starmer of appointing a “convicted fraudster” to his cabinet, suggesting it was a questionable decision that many Labour MPs were concerned about. “What was the prime minister thinking when he appointed a fraudster to such an important role?” she asked, highlighting the stark contrast between the Labour leader’s actions and his party’s commitment to integrity in government.

Starmer, who had already faced brief questions from backbench MPs, responded by defending his decision to appoint Haigh, but was less forthcoming on the details surrounding her resignation. He stated that he had received “further information” about the issue but declined to elaborate. The Labour leader also insisted that Haigh had informed him of the matter when she joined the shadow cabinet, although specifics of the resignation were still shrouded in uncertainty.

The controversy over Haigh’s resignation centres on her admission that in 2013, she falsely reported to the police that her work mobile phone had been stolen. While the offence occurred before she entered Parliament, it still raises questions about her suitability for such a prominent cabinet position. Starmer’s reluctance to provide further details on the situation during PMQs drew further criticism from opposition members, who demanded greater transparency over his handling of the matter.

Badenoch continued to press Starmer, questioning his leadership and why he would appoint someone with a criminal conviction to such a significant role in government. She emphasised that this was a matter of public trust and argued that Starmer had failed to take the issue seriously, instead opting for vague statements and evasions.

Despite the mounting pressure, Starmer remained defiant, refusing to engage with specific details of Haigh’s resignation. His refusal to explain the full context surrounding her departure has only intensified the scrutiny over his judgment and leadership.

Haigh’s resignation, which came just weeks after her appointment, has left Labour grappling with further questions over the integrity of its leadership. The scandal has also raised concerns within the party about how it handles transparency and accountability, particularly when it comes to high-profile appointments.

The resignation has dominated political discourse, with both Labour and Conservative members offering differing opinions on whether Haigh’s past should have been disclosed before her appointment. While some have defended Starmer, arguing that Haigh had been forthcoming about her conviction, others see it as a significant lapse in judgment. The fallout from the controversy could have lasting implications for Starmer’s leadership as he attempts to balance his party’s image and credibility ahead of upcoming elections.

As the session in the Commons continued, Starmer sought to shift the focus back to broader political issues, but the damage from his handling of Haigh’s resignation seemed to linger. With Badenoch’s criticisms echoing in the chamber, it was clear that the Labour leader would face continued pressure over the matter in the days to come.