Kemi Badenoch MP: speeches

Speeches

• 26 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  We need to make sure we are supporting a plan that is clear and transparent. Yesterday, the Prime Minister set an ambition for defence spending to reach 3% in the next Parliament, and we agree with him on that. However, that could be 2034—almost a decade away. That is too slow. We do not know how he will pay for it. We cannot raise taxes further, and we already pay more on debt interest than defence. Everyone in this House will have heard the Prime Minister not answer the previous question, so I will ask again: is he paying for the Chagos deal with this defence uplift or not?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Prime Minister for that answer, and as I said, I wish him every success. We want to support him on this issue. Turning to the details of the plan the Prime Minister set out yesterday, over the weekend I suggested to him that he cut the aid budget, and I am pleased that he accepted my advice— [ Laughter. ] It is the fastest response I have ever had from the Prime Minister. However, he announced £13.4 billion in additional defence spending yesterday. This morning, his Defence Secretary said the uplift is only £6 billion. Which is the correct figure?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Someone needs to tell the Prime Minister that being patronising is not a substitute for answering questions. He has not answered the question. What he has said is different from what he said yesterday. We are still not clear where the money is coming from. We want to support him. He has also said that we should put British troops on the ground in Ukraine, but we have not seen the detail of any proposals. Would his new spending plans allow him to fund that commitment effectively?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  This is an endeavour that we want to support the Prime Minister in, but we need to know exactly what we are supporting. We need clarity and transparency over the money, and we also need to know where the money is going. This morning, the Defence Secretary could not say whether the Chagos deal would come out of the defence budget. Can the Prime Minister confirm to the House that none of the defence uplift includes payments for his Chagos deal?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  I wish the Prime Minister every success on his trip to Washington. The visit to see President Trump must serve our national interest. The Prime Minister and I are completely united in our support for Ukraine as a proud and sovereign nation. What specific steps will he take to ensure Ukraine is at the negotiating table for any peace settlement?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  That was not very clear. How is it that the Defence Secretary says £6 billion, but the Prime Minister says £13.4 billion? The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said the Government are playing “silly games with numbers”. How has he found this difference in numbers?

• 25 Feb 2025 · Defence and Security · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Prime Minister for the partial copy of his statement. Now that I have heard the unredacted bits, I must welcome his response and his fulsome support for Ukraine. This weekend marked a grim milestone: it is now three years since Putin’s invasion. The Conservative party stands resolutely with the people of Ukraine. Our hearts are with those still caught up in this conflict as we remember the many innocent lives lost. I will always be proud of the support that the last Conservative Government gave in the run-up to Putin’s invasion, and in the first crucial weeks and months of the war. We helped prevent Kyiv from falling and we supported Ukraine in regaining territory initially lost to Russia. But it is also true that, overall, the west has not done enough to support Ukraine. As has been the case from the outset, it ultimately remains for Ukraine, as a proud and sovereign nation that has sacrificed so much to defend itself and the fundamental freedoms that we all hold dear, to decide its future. We want this terrible war to end, but Ukraine needs to be at the negotiating table. Like President Zelenksy, we hope for a lasting, reliable peace, but the west must continue to be intensely robust in the face of Putin’s aggression. The lesson of the past 20 years is clear: he only comes back for more. The first duty of every Government is to protect their people. That means a strong state that stands up for our national interest. Our foreign policy should seek to support our national interest, which should always come first, so I am very pleased to hear the Prime Minister announce the increase to 2.5% by 2027. All of us on the Conservative Benches welcome that; we have all wanted to see more spending on defence. On the inclusion of the intelligence budget, will the Prime Minister confirm whether that means new money for the intelligence services? Does it mean that there will be new money in the next financial year? The Prime Minister will know that I wrote to him at the weekend with suggestions on what we can do to help increase defence spending, so I welcome his announcement on repurposing money from the overseas development budget—that is absolutely right—and I look forward to him taking up my other suggestion of considering what we can do on welfare. He will know that we had a fully funded plan, and we urge him to take it up. Having said that, can the Prime Minister say with confidence that 2.5% by 2027 is sufficient? We need to look at exactly how we fund this. He must not raise taxes further, as that would destroy our economy, and we need a strong economy to pay for strong defence. He cannot borrow more; we are already spending more on debt interest than on defence. We all know that he must make difficult decisions on spending, and he has our support in doing that. In his statement, the Prime Minister also told us about his new value-for-money defence reform and efficiency plan. Does he agree that the first thing that must be looked at is the spending of billions of pounds of taxpayer money to lease back the defence base on Diego Garcia, which we currently own? Why is he still pursuing that deal? Earlier today, I made a speech about the realism that should drive our foreign policy. As part of that, he must scrap his disastrous plan to surrender the Chagos islands and have British taxpayers pay for the privilege. The key difference between we Conservatives and the Labour party is that we know that we need a strong economy for defence. We need a serious plan to get the British economy growing again. We do not have that with the latest Budget from the Chancellor. Will the Prime Minister tell us whether there will be a fiscal event this spring, even though his Government are committed to only one fiscal event per year? In summary, the Prime Minister made four points. I agree with him that NATO is a bedrock of our security, as I said this morning, and that the US is our most important bilateral relationship, but friends tell each other when they disagree. We agree on this issue; we know that Ukraine must be supported, and I share his concern about statements that have been made about President Zelensky. I agree with him about protecting security in Europe, and I welcome his continued strengthening of alliances, but we must do that through NATO, building on the joint expeditionary force approach. Of course, we agree that we need peace, with Ukraine agreed. I do not necessarily agree with the Prime Minister’s change of the national security posture, because we have different views on that—I am a Conservative realist, not a progressive internationalist—but I want him to know that when he does the right thing, we will work with him in the national interest.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Conservative Government established the Ukraine family scheme. In total, more than 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. That is not what the scheme was designed to do. This decision is completely wrong, and cannot be allowed to stand. Are the Government planning to appeal on any points of law, and, if so, which ones?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. and learned Gentleman is the Prime Minister now. The people out there want to know what he is going to do about the situation. He needs to spend less time whining about the last Government and do his job. I thought the Prime Minister and I agreed that Israel had a right to defend herself, yet the judge in this case noted that the family were facing a humanitarian crisis “as a consequence of the Israeli Government’s indiscriminate attempts to eliminate Hamas”, and Government lawyers accepted that. Is the Prime Minister allowing lawyers to change the position on Israel, and was that because of advice from the Attorney General? If not, why on earth did Government lawyers accept the argument that Israeli actions were “indiscriminate”?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not listen to question one. I asked if he would appeal the decision. He did not answer that. He is not listening; he is too busy defending the international human rights law framework. This case has arisen because a Palestinian came to the UK from Gaza in 2007. He is now a British citizen. This is precisely why we need to break the conveyor belt—from arriving in the UK to acquiring indefinite leave to remain and then a British passport, and now a right to bring six family members here as well. Just last week, the Prime Minister bizarrely claimed that a British passport was not a pull factor for those coming to the UK. Will he now support our plans to toughen the process on indefinite leave to remain and make getting a British passport a privilege, not a right?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  If the Prime Minister was on top of his brief, perhaps he would be able to answer some questions. Given this crazy decision and so many others, new legislation is needed to clarify the right to a family life in article 8. [ Interruption. ] I am not talking about what he just said; I know Labour MPs do not understand much of what they are saying. The Prime Minister literally wrote a book on the European convention on human rights. This is a situation where we need to put our national interests before the ECHR. Does he agree that we should legislate, even if lawyers warn that that might be incompatible with human rights law?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister has not read the judgment. I suggest that he does so. Very serious questions are now being asked about the Attorney General, the Prime Minister’s personal friend and donor. Even Labour Ministers are concerned. One Labour peer, Lord Glasman, has called him “the absolute archetype of an arrogant, progressive fool”. If we are serious about protecting our borders, we need to make sure that we appoint people who believe in our country and everything we stand for. It is not clear that the Attorney General does. The Government are now recruiting a new chief inspector of borders, who lives in Finland and wants to work from home. This is not serious. Why should the British public put up with it?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister did not answer the question. If he plans to appeal, the appeal might be unsuccessful, and the law will need to be changed. If he does not appeal, the law will definitely need to be changed. He talks about a decision made under the previous Government, but it was not made by that Government; it was made by the courts. The issue we are discussing today is about judicial decisions. We cannot be in a situation where we allow enormous numbers of people to exploit our laws in this way. There are millions of people all around the world in terrible situations—we cannot help them all, and we certainly cannot bring them all here. Will the Prime Minister commit to bringing forward that new legislation or amending his borders Bill?

• 5 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  That is a weak answer, because the Prime Minister does not know what is going on. Last week, I asked about the employment Bill; he did not know what was going on. We asked about the education Bill; he did not know what was going on. Let me tell him what is going on. Perhaps he can answer some questions. Shell has said that a one-year delay to Rosebank will cost £350 million and the loss of 1,000 jobs. Equinor has said that a two-year delay to Jackdaw will cost £800 million. The only benefit that I can see is the £400,000 to Labour Ministers. At a time of war in Europe, threatened energy security and increased competition from the US and elsewhere, we should be getting British oil and gas out of the ground. Does the Prime Minister have the guts to take on Labour donors and his Energy Secretary and approve the licence applications when they are resubmitted?

• 5 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  I am speaking on behalf of the people of this country. When Labour negotiates, our country loses. The Prime Minister talks about bringing growth and investment. Last week, he lost a £450 million investment from AstraZeneca that we negotiated, which would have delivered growth immediately. That same day, he also lost the £8 billion oilfield investment that would have delivered next year. Business is abandoning the North sea because of his decisions. What signal does he think he is sending to investors?

• 5 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  When Labour negotiates, our country loses. Yesterday, we heard that the Government offered £18 billion for Mauritius to take our territory in the Chagos islands. This is money that belongs to our children and their children. This is an immoral surrender, so that north London lawyers can boast at their dinner parties. When Labour negotiates, we all lose. Sometimes, it does not even bother to negotiate. Why did the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero withdraw Government lawyers from defending the case against the eco-nutters who want to obstruct the Rosebank oil and gas field?

• 5 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  How can anyone believe that this man is defending UK interests when he bends the knee to anyone who asks him? His answer was so weak and so waffly it is no wonder that he needs a voice coach. But he did not answer the question I asked him—why the Energy Secretary was not defending our country. The Secretaries of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs received nearly £400,000-worth of donations from Lisbet Rausing. It is her money that is behind the court case that will stop an £8 billion investment, threaten thousands of jobs and endanger energy security for all of us. Did the Energy Secretary refuse to defend UK interests because he is funded by billionaire eco-zealots?

• 5 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  It is so hard to believe anything the Prime Minister says. This is a man who needed “emergency” voice coaching on Christmas eve. This Government are so clueless they are borrowing £8 billion for GB Energy—a vanity project that is not great, not British, and does not produce any energy. Its own chairman admitted that it will take 20 years to create just 1,000 jobs. Meanwhile, 200,000 jobs are at stake in our oil and gas sector right now. Does the Prime Minister think that 1,000 jobs in 20 years’ time are worth more than the 200,000 jobs that we have now?

• 5 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister can waffle for as long as he likes, but we know that Labour promised to bring energy bills down by £300. Instead, bills are going up. He is freezing pensioners while shovelling money to Mauritius. The Prime Minister is not just managing decline; he is creating decline. He has the power to grant these licences, open these oil and gas fields, save British jobs and bring down bills. Why does he find it so hard to do the right thing?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The arrogance of the Prime Minister is that he thinks that it is his Government who create growth. He is wrong. It is business that creates growth. Our economy is built by entrepreneurs, risk-takers and the hard graft of working people. They know that you cannot tax your way to growth, you cannot borrow your way to growth, you cannot legislate your way to growth. Other countries are serious about freeing business from red tape. President Trump is doing it in America. Argentina is taking a chainsaw to regulations. Even the EU is not going as far as this left-wing Government. This Bill will put us at the bottom of the pack. Added to the jobs tax and the family business tax, it is no wonder that wealth creators are fleeing Britain in droves. The Chancellor is desperately trying to save her reputation. She knows Labour has damaged growth. This Bill manifestly fails the Prime Minister’s own growth test. If he will not drop the unemployment Bill, what is the point of his growth test?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  All the Prime Minister’s ideas are the ones that we thought up. He needs to make sure that we deliver growth now, as well as in the future. To grow our economy, we must get more people off sickness and welfare, and into work. Clauses 8 and 9 of the unemployment Bill take us in the opposite direction by increasing entitlements. The Government themselves—his Government—estimate that these changes will increase business costs from £600 million to £1 billion a year in sick pay. That will mean higher prices, fewer jobs and less growth. Will he drop these measures from the Bill?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister does not want to talk about the employment Bill because he does not know about it. Last week he misled the House. He was not on top of his own Education Bill—

• 29 Jan 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, the Prime Minister claimed to have laid down an amendment that he had not made. He does not know what is going on in here or out there. Last week, I spoke to a woman running a business in Exeter. She is terrified of taking on new staff. She is struggling to keep her head above water, dreading what this Government will do next. She is not alone. The Federation of Small Businesses says 92% of small employers are concerned about the employment Bill. Clauses 1 to 6 make it harder for businesses to hire new employees—often young people looking for their first job. This is not an employment Bill; it is an unemployment Bill. Given these clauses, will he drop his Bill and show that he is not anti-growth?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister does not know what his Bill is doing. He should listen to business, which is terrified of this Bill. The only workers he cares about are lawyers, but it is not just lawyers benefiting from this Bill. Who else benefits? It is not taxpayers; they will be paying for even more welfare. It is not young workers; they will not get their first break. It is definitely not businesses; they are being hammered with yet more burdens. Who benefits? It is the trade unions. Part 4 of the unemployment Bill— [ Interruption. ] Labour Members have not read it. Part 4 of the unemployment Bill is the biggest expansion of trade union powers for a generation— [Interruption.] Exactly; thank you. The public will have heard them cheer. Rather than deregulating for business, which creates growth, he is deregulating for the unions. Clause 61 alone reduces the notice period for strikes to just one week. Given that strikes are catastrophic for growth, will he drop part 4 of the Bill?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  May I take this opportunity to solemnly commemorate the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz? We remember the 6 million Jewish men, women and children who were murdered. The Holocaust stands as a unique evil in human history. Yesterday the Prime Minister set his growth test. He said that if a policy is “good for growth…the answer is ‘yes’, if it’s not then the answer is ‘no’.” This morning the Chancellor embraced a series of Conservative policies. Although many are welcomed, they will take years to deliver. When the Conservatives left office, we had the fastest economic growth in the G7, but what are the Government doing for growth now? They are destroying it. Let us look at the employment Bill. The Government’s own figures say it will cost business £5 billion a year. It clearly fails the Prime Minister’s growth test. Will he drop it?