Sir Keir Starmer has refused to reveal the “further information” he was told about Louise Haigh’s phone “theft” conviction which led to her stepping down as transport secretary.
The prime minister was asked by Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch what new information “came to light” about Ms Haigh’s conviction, which is now “spent”, for reporting a phone stolen to police when it was not in 2014.
Answering Ms Badenoch’s question at Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs), Sir Keir said: “I’m not going to disclose private conversations. Further information came to light. The transport secretary resigns.”
The Tory leader accused Sir Keir of having “knowingly appointed a convicted fraudster to be a transport secretary” and asked: “What was he thinking?”
He said Ms Haigh “was right, when further information came forward, to resign”.
Image: Sir Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch faced off over Louise Haigh at PMQs
But Ms Badenoch accused him of never answering questions and allowing someone convicted of fraud to award pay rises to public sector workers.
“And it looks like he didn’t ask his transport secretary any questions either,” she told the Commons.
“The truth is, he appointed a person convicted of fraud to the cabinet.
“The first thing she did was bung hundreds of millions of pounds in pay rises to her trade union friends. Wasn’t this a fraud on the British people?”
Ms Badenoch was referring to the 15% pay rise Labour gave train drivers shortly after coming to power in July.
They also gave above-inflation pay rises to several other public sector workers, including teachers, most NHS workers and members of the armed forces.
Ms Haigh has declined to say officially if the prime minister knew about the conviction when he appointed his cabinet in July.
A source told Sky News’ political editor Beth Rigby that the story that emerged on Thursday was “inconsistent” with what Sir Keir had been told when Ms Haigh was appointed to his shadow cabinet.
Ms Haigh said the incident arose after she was “mugged while on a night out” in 2013.
She said she reported the incident to the police and gave officers a list of items she believed had been taken – including a work mobile phone.
However, she told Sky News she discovered “some time later” that “the mobile in question had not been taken”.
In the interim, she was issued with another work phone. When she turned on the original work device, it “triggered police attention and I was asked to come in for questioning”, she said.
“My solicitor advised me not to comment during that interview and I regret following that advice,” she added.
“Under the advice of my solicitor I pleaded guilty – despite the fact this was a genuine mistake from which I did not make any gain.
“The magistrates accepted all of these arguments and gave me the lowest possible outcome (a discharge) available.”
The Bank of England is worried that a rise in financiers’ lending to data center lending may cause an AI bubble reminiscent of the dot-com crash in the early 2000s.
A reference to China being an “enemy” of the UK was removed from key evidence for a collapsed spy trial in 2023 as it “did not reflect government policy” under the Conservatives at the time, according to the national security adviser.
In the letter published by parliament’s Joint Committee on National Security Strategy earlier on Friday, National Security Adviser (NSA) Jonathan Powell said Counter Terror Police and the Crown Prosecution Service were aware of the change made by Deputy National Security Adviser (DSNA) Matt Collins.
This would mean the CPS knew the “enemy” reference had been removed before charging the two suspects, according to Mr Powell.
In another letter published on Friday, the director of public prosecutions (DPP) Stephen Parkinson told the committee that it took DSNA Mr Collins more than a year to confirm to prosecutors he would not say China posed a threat to UK national security in court.
The DPP said a High Court judge ruled in June last year that an “enemy” under law is a state which “presently poses an active threat to the UK’s national security”, prompting the CPS to ask the DNSA whether China fulfilled that criteria.
He added prosecutors did not believe there would be “any difficulty in obtaining evidence” from Mr Collins that China was a national security threat, but added: “This was a sticking point that could not be overcome.”
More on China
Related Topics:
Mr Parkinson added that the DNSA’s “unwillingness” to describe China as an active or current threat was “fatal to the case” because Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry’s defence teams would have been entitled to call him as a witness.
The DPP added: “This factor is compounded by the fact that drafts of the first witness statement, reviewed by us in July 2025, showed that references to China being an ‘enemy’ or ‘possible enemy’ had been deleted.
“Those drafts would probably have been disclosable to the defence.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:38
What do we know about the China spy case?
A final draft of Mr Collins’ statement was sent to then-prime minister Rishi Sunak in December 2023, Mr Powell’s letter said.
“Drafts of a statement provided to DNSA included the term ‘enemy’ but he removed this term from the final draft as it did not reflect government policy,” the letter reads.
It comes amid a political row over the collapse of the prosecution of Christopher Berry and Christopher Cash last month, who were accused of conducting espionage for China.
Both individuals vehemently deny the claims.
Because the CPS was pursuing charges under the Official Secrets Act 1911, prosecutors would have had to show the defendants were acting for an “enemy”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:09
China spy row: Witness statements explained
DPP Mr Parkinson has come under pressure to provide a fuller explanation for the abandonment of the case.
He has blamed insufficient evidence being provided by the government that Beijing represented a threat to the UK at the time of the alleged offences.
The Conservatives have accused Sir Keir Starmer of letting the case collapse, but Labour has said there was nothing more it could have done.
The current government has insisted ministers did not intervene in the case or attempt to make representations to ensure the strength of evidence, for fear of interfering with the course of justice.
Image: Sir Keir Starmer met Chinese premier Xi Jingping in November 2024. Pic: PA
The DNSA and DPP will face questions from the parliamentary committee on Monday afternoon.
The current attorney general, Lord Hermer, and the chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, Darren Jones, will be questioned on Wednesday.
The PM’s spokesman reiterated the government’s position that “what is relevant in a criminal case of this nature is the government’s position at the time of the alleged offences”.