Kemi Badenoch MP: speeches

226 published records · newest first.

Speeches

14 May 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source
More
If I may, Mr Speaker: Sir Roy Stone served 13 Chief Whips, and Prime Ministers from Margaret Thatcher to Boris Johnson. I would like to pay tribute to his extraordinary service and send my best wishes to his family. Before we start, I would also like to say to the Prime Minister how horrified I was to hear about the attack on his family home. It is completely unacceptable, and I think I speak for the whole House when I say that it was an attack not just on him, but on all of us and on our democracy. Yesterday we learned that unemployment is up 10% since the election. Why does the Prime Minister think unemployment is rising on his watch?
14 May 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source
More
I am very happy to welcome the Prime Minister’s tiny tariff deal, but the fact is that it has put us in a worse position than we were in in March. He should not over-egg the pudding. Let us talk about how things are getting worse now. In every month of this year, household names like Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Asda and Santander have cut staff numbers. The Office for National Statistics estimates that there are 100,000 fewer jobs than there were a year ago—and that was before the Prime Minister’s jobs tax, which will make things worse. Can he promise the House that by this time next year, unemployment will be lower than it is today?
14 May 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source
More
I did not hear a promise to get unemployment down, and that is because the Prime Minister knows things are going to get worse. This goes wider than businesses. Last week I met staff and patients at Farleigh hospice. They do fantastic work, but they need to find an additional £250,000 to pay the jobs tax. How does the Prime Minister suggest that Farleigh hospice—a charity that relies on donations—pays for his tax hike?
7 May 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source
More
We would not balance it on the backs of pensioners. Pensioners are poorer and colder because of his decisions. All the while, energy has got more expensive for everyone. Why has the Prime Minister broken his promise to cut energy bills by £300?
7 May 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source
More
Can I echo the Prime Minister’s comments? It was an honour to meet veterans at the VE Day parade on Monday and to commemorate the sacrifice of that generation. I look forward to marking VE Day at Westminster Abbey tomorrow. Does the Prime Minister now admit that he was wrong to remove the winter fuel payment from millions of pensioners?
7 May 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source
More
The Prime Minister talks about clean energy. We have the second highest amount of renewables on the grid in Europe, and yet we still have the highest energy bills. This is not about clean energy. The Prime Minister has broken another promise. He will not admit it, but is the truth not that he cannot cut energy bills because of his net zero policy?
7 May 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source
More
This approach to net zero is “irrational”; it is “doomed to fail”. Those aren’t my words; they are Tony Blair’s. If the Prime Minister wants to throw words about, he should speak to him. The truth is that the Prime Minister is on another planet. His net zero plans mean ever more expensive energy. Across this country, jobs are disappearing. Last week, a ceramics factory in Stoke closed because of energy costs. This morning, 250 more job losses have been announced in the North sea, and yet the amount of gas the UK is importing is doubling, so why is he shutting down the North sea rather than getting our oil and gas out of the ground and making energy cheaper?
7 May 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source
More
The Prime Minister has got no answer. He could not even bring himself to say something to the 250 people who found out this morning that they have lost their job. The fact is that pensioners are poorer and people are being laid off. From winter fuel to net zero, his energy policy is a disaster, and everyone knows it. We know it, the public know it, the unions know it, his MPs know it, and even Tony Blair knows it. The Prime Minister’s only answer is to go further and faster in the wrong direction. Why should we all suffer because he will not admit he has got this wrong?
7 May 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source
More
The only black hole is the one the Prime Minister is digging. This issue affects some of the poorest and most vulnerable pensioners. His Mayor in Doncaster says it is wrong; his First Minister in Wales says it is wrong; even his own MPs are saying it is wrong. He has refused to listen to me on this, so will he at least listen to his own party and change course?
30 Apr 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source
More
The Prime Minister cannot name a single place because nothing is happening. He stood at the Dispatch Box and promised five local inquiries. On the last day of term, he had his Minister come out to water down the promise that they would provide funding. That is not good enough. At least 50 towns are affected by rape gangs—places like Peterborough, Derby, Birmingham, Nottingham, Leicester, Rotherham, Rochdale and Preston. Is he dragging his heels on this because he does not want Labour cover-ups exposed?
30 Apr 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source
More
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not the Director of Public Prosecutions any more—he is the Prime Minister. People want to know what he is going to do now, not have him talk about what he did years ago. We are asking for a full national inquiry. Andy Burnham wants a national inquiry, and he is not Conservative; he is Labour. Harriet Harman wants one. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) wants one. All the victims I have met want a full national inquiry. The Prime Minister keeps talking about local inquiries, yet they have not got going, and they have not got going because local authorities do not want to investigate themselves. Local inquiries cannot force witnesses to appear. Local inquiries cannot force people to give evidence under oath. Why will he not have a national inquiry?
30 Apr 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source
More
The Prime Minister says we should listen to victims. The victims want a national inquiry. We have not had a national inquiry. We had the child sex abuse inquiry, which the Conservatives launched. There is still more to be done; it did not cover the scandal in detail. In Manchester, just last year, authorities were still covering up abuse, and the local inquiry chair there has quit. Bradford council, which covers an area with some of the worst abuses, refuses any inquiry, local or national. Whether we are talking about the streets of Birmingham or the town hall of Bradford, it is chaos and cover ups with Labour councils. When will he show leadership and do the right thing?
30 Apr 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source
More
These are just distraction tactics. The Prime Minister has not read the recommendations, because if he had, he would know that none of them would tackle this issue. The fact is, if I were standing where he is, we would have had a national inquiry months ago. This issue is personal for me. I have met many of the victims. This is about the protection of children; nothing else is more important. In the last few days, I have been to Wiltshire, Lincolnshire, Northumberland and Kent. All of them have outstanding children’s social care. Do you know why, Mr Speaker? Because they are all run by Conservatives. That is the difference that Conservative councillors make. Is the choice tomorrow not between chaos and cover ups under Labour councils, and better services under the Conservatives?
30 Apr 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source
More
On Monday, the Prime Minister’s safeguarding Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips)—admitted on the Floor of the House that there was a cover-up of the child rape gang scandal. Does the Prime Minister think we should expose this cover-up?
30 Apr 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source
More
In the last year of the Conservative Government, we had a gangs taskforce that found 500 perpetrators, protecting thousands of victims. We launched the inquiry that the Prime Minister is talking about, but more still needs to be done. It is now four months since I asked him for a full national inquiry. Instead, he promised five local inquiries. There will be one in Oldham. Will he now name where the other four will be?
23 Apr 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source
More
The Prime Minister cannot bring himself to admit that he was wrong; that was the question. He spoke about respect and dignity, compassion and lowering the temperature, so will he now apologise to the very brave hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) for hounding her out of the Labour party simply for telling the truth?
23 Apr 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source
More
Who is playing political football now? The Prime Minister has no answers. Yesterday, Labour MP after Labour MP challenged the ruling. He should be more worried about his Back Benchers than my Front Benchers. His Labour Ministers called the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission “appalling”. Baroness Falkner’s role is critical to enforcing the Court’s judgment. She has had to put up with relentless abuse, not just from his Front Bench but from activists and ideologues. Reappointing her would be a clear sign that he is taking this issue seriously, so will he commit to reappointing Baroness Falkner when her term expires this year?
23 Apr 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source
More
There was no apology to the hon. Member for Canterbury. There is no taking of responsibility. The Prime Minister talks about political football; he practically kicked her out of his party—constructive dismissal. He talks about my predecessor. What about the abuse I faced from his MPs, who called me a transphobe for supporting what the Supreme Court has now clarified, to use his words? And where was he? He hid for six days without commenting on the Supreme Court judgment. Why did it take him so long to respond? Is it not because he was scared?
23 Apr 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source
More
I, too, wish everyone a happy St George’s day. Can I also associate myself with the remarks about the passing of His Holiness Pope Francis on Easter Monday? Being married to a Catholic, I know the profound loss for millions in Britain and across the world. Does the Prime Minister now accept that when he said that it was the law that trans women were women, he was wrong?
23 Apr 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source
More
The Prime Minister is clearly so uncomfortable talking about this subject. This is a choice between a Conservative party that stood up for common sense and a Labour party that bends the knee to every passing fad. This is a question about moral courage, and doing the right thing even when it is difficult. The truth is he doesn’t have the balls. The Prime Minister only tells people what they want to hear. He is a weathervane; he twists in the wind. He cheered an ideology that denied safe spaces to women and girls, because he thought it was cool to do so. He hounded a brave female MP out of his party for telling the truth he accepts now. And now, he is hiding behind the Supreme Court judgment. Is that not because he does not know what he actually believes?
23 Apr 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source
More
I will tell the Prime Minister what I did. I stopped the gender— [ Interruption. ] I will, I will. When his Labour leader in Scotland was whipping his MSPs to get male rapists into women’s prisons, I stopped that gender recognition Bill. I helped commission the Cass review. I replaced the guidance on single-sex toilets. I made sure that the puberty blockers issue was resolved, while he was sitting there cheering on the ideology that was taking away safe spaces. And when the Prime Minister stayed silent last week, presumably waiting to hear what Morgan McSweeney thinks, on his WhatsApp groups some of his closest Ministers were plotting to overturn the Supreme Court decision. Labour MP after Labour MP stood up yesterday and challenged the ruling. How can we take his Government seriously on this?
22 Apr 2025 · “For Women Scotland” Supreme Court Ruling · Hansard source
More
I thank the Minister for Women and Equalities for advance sight of her statement, even if it was mostly a shameless work of fiction. I could not believe my eyes, or my ears, this afternoon. In 2021 the Prime Minister said it was “not right” to say that only women have a cervix. In 2022 he said it was the law that “trans women are women”. In 2023 he said, “99% of women don’t have a penis”. I know what a woman is, and I always have. The people of this country know what a woman is. We did not need the Supreme Court to tell us that, but this Government did: a Labour Government so desperate to jump on a bandwagon that they abandoned common sense, along with the Scottish National party—which put rapists in women’s prisons—and, of course, the Liberal Democrats. The Supreme Court ruling is a powerful victory for the determined women behind For Women Scotland, and for people all over the UK who know how important it is to give privacy and dignity to women and girls who need it, but it follows years of battle. Individual women took action to uphold the law at great personal cost, losing their jobs and their reputations. A few weeks ago I met the Darlington nurses who were forced to bring legal action after a male nurse started using their changing room. Even their union, the Royal College of Nursing, refused to represent them. Women should not have to battle the NHS or their employers through the courts. Why has it been such a battle? Because something as simple as biological reality became politicised and corrupted by activists pushing this ideology as foolish politicians cheered. Even the Minister—who said in her statement that this was “personal” to her—stated just last year that men should access women’s spaces. Whether it is female victims in our courts being forced to refer to their male sex attackers as “she” or the NHS using confusing “gender-neutral” language, putting the health of women at risk, this is a serious matter. At every point when we have fought for women, we have faced hostility from activist groups and the Labour party: in 2020, when we rejected Labour’s calls to introduce self-identification, and in 2021, when the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), ordered police forces to stop recording offences by trans women in female crime statistics. The current Culture Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), said that crimes committed by men should be recorded how they wished, and that those convicted of serious sexual offences should be held in jails that matched their chosen gender. It was crazy then, and it is crazy now. I spent years battling abuse from Labour Members as I fought to uphold biological sex in government and blocked the SNP’s introduction of its mad self-identity laws, and I will take no lectures from them about what to do on this issue. Women and gay rights groups such as the LGB Alliance were even refused stands at the Labour party conference. The idea that Labour has supported this all along is for the birds. The Foreign Secretary described opponents of self-ID as “dinosaurs”. Labour now says that it knows what a woman is, and that transgender people should use services and facilities designated for their biological sex. It has never said that before, and this is a U-turn, but we welcome it. Now that we have legal clarity, will the Prime Minister show some courage and do the right thing? Will he apologise to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), who faced so many security concerns as she was hounded out by the Labour party, and who was rebuked by the Prime Minister, and by many Labour MPs who are sitting there looking at me, for stating what the Supreme Court has now ruled to be true? Will the Minister apologise to the hon. Member for Canterbury? I doubt it. Will the Prime Minister crack down on the groups whom we saw defacing statues of suffragists over the weekend with the same energy that he reserves for his political opponents, or will we see more two-tier justice? Last time we saw Labour MPs standing next to them with no rebuke whatsoever. Will the Minister ensure that the Equality and Human Rights Commission has the Government’s full support in its enforcement of the code of practice? In particular, will she condemn the Labour Ministers who described Baroness Falkner’s entirely correct position on the judgment as “appalling”? We need to root out gender ideology from our institutions. This Government now have a serious job to do, as many organisations will still fail women. I ask the following questions. As Minister for Women and Equalities, I published guidance for schools that made it clear that toilets and changing rooms must be provided separately for girls and boys, but the Minister scrapped that guidance. Will she stand up to the unions and urgently publish what she now admits is the law? She has also scrapped relationships, sex and health education guidance that would prevent schools from teaching contested gender ideology as fact. Will she now publish the guidance, and remove materials that mis-state the law? Will she act to stop passports and licences being issued with information on them about self-declared, rather than legal, sex? Will the Government support our amendments to the data Bill to ensure that digital ID systems record biological sex accurately? Finally, the Minister says that she is here to protect transgender people, many of whom were misled by Labour’s mis-statements on this issue. Some are now left very anxious. She has not provided any reassurance, and she should not use them as a shield to protect her failure. This is not the end of the matter, but the beginning of the end. There is so much to do, and the Conservative party, under my leadership, will be relentless in ensuring that the Government do the right thing.
12 Apr 2025 · Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill · Hansard source
More
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like advice on how to counter the points the Secretary of State is making, given that they are factually incorrect and a complete misrepresentation of the situation that he inherited.
12 Apr 2025 · Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill · Hansard source
More
rose—
12 Apr 2025 · Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill · Hansard source
More
Labour cannot negotiate. We were negotiating a modernisation deal that would have had limited job losses, just as we had in Port Talbot. The Labour Government inherited a functioning commercial deal in Port Talbot, and the same would have happened with British Steel had we not had a snap election. What the Secretary of State is doing now is the union-pushed deal. They brought that deal to me—I said no; he said yes.

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →