Kemi Badenoch MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 20 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Speaker, I seek leave to propose that the House debate a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration—namely, that this House has considered the matter of the Government’s accountability to the House in connection to the appointment of Peter Mandelson. This is a matter of national security, because the Prime Minister has admitted appointing a known serious security risk to our most sensitive diplomatic post. This goes beyond Mandelson’s close relationship to a convicted paedophile. Today I raised deeply concerning ties to the Kremlin and China, which the Prime Minister admitted he knew about before the appointment. Despite the Prime Minister’s statement today, there remain serious questions about what he knew and when. He has hidden behind process at every turn and failed to take responsibility. It is quite clear that the spirit and letter of the Humble Address, which this House voted for, have not been met. That is disrespectful to this House. There remain serious inconsistencies in the Government’s position, inconsistencies with the accounts of officials involved in the process, and inconsistencies with the Members of this House and journalists who sought to scrutinise the appointment at the time. There are also questions to be asked about the Prime Minister repeatedly sacking senior civil servants, on a whim, for his own decisions, and leaving the taxpayer with financial liabilities. The British public deserve to know the truth. Members on all sides were not satisfied with the answers the Prime Minister gave today. I even gave him my questions in advance and still I did not get proper answers. Tomorrow, the former permanent secretary of the Foreign Office will appear in Parliament. The House should also have the chance to debate what he says at the earliest opportunity. That is why the House should be able to debate this before the forthcoming Prorogation. At its core, this matter pertains to the Prime Minister’s catastrophic judgment. It pertains to his lack of grip and his failure to ask the relevant questions. It would be unfair of him to palm this debate off on to a junior Minister who does not have the information and did not take the decision. This whole saga has been about the Prime Minister’s leadership. A real leader would come here and answer these questions himself.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. His reputation is at stake, and everyone is watching, so it is finally time for the truth. Earlier today, Downing Street admitted that the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House. The Prime Minister has chosen not to repeat that from the Dispatch Box. I remind him that, under the ministerial code, he has a duty to correct the record at the earliest opportunity. The Prime Minister says he only found out on Tuesday that Peter Mandelson failed the security vetting. The earliest opportunity to correct the record was Prime Minister’s questions on Wednesday, almost a week ago. This is a breach of the ministerial code. Under that code, he is bound to be as open as possible with Parliament and the public in answering questions today, so let me start with what we do know. We know the Prime Minister personally appointed Peter Mandelson to be our ambassador to the United States. We know that Mandelson had a close relationship with a convicted paedophile. We know that he had concerning links with Russia and China—links that had already raised red flags. We know that the Prime Minister announced the appointment before vetting was complete—an extraordinary and unprecedented step for the role of US ambassador. The Prime Minister says that it was “usual” because it was a political appointment, so I remind him, and the rest of the Labour Front Bench who are heckling, that Peter Mandelson was a politician who had been sacked twice from Government for lying. That meant he should have gone through the full security process. We also know that when Peter Mandelson failed the security vetting, he was allowed to continue in the role with access to top secret intelligence and security information. This goes beyond propriety and ethics; this is a matter of national security. Let me turn to what we do not know. We still do not know exactly why Peter Mandelson failed that vetting. We do not know what risks our country was exposed to. We do not know how it is possible that the Prime Minister said repeatedly that this was a failure of vetting, went on television and said things that were blatantly incorrect, and not a single adviser or official told him that what he was saying was not true. At every turn, with every explanation, the Government story has become murkier and more contradictory. It is time for the truth. There are too many questions to ask in the allotted time, so I will ask the Prime Minister just six. I have taken the unprecedented step of providing these questions to the Prime Minister in advance, so he has them in front of him. I have asked for these questions to be put online for the public. They and I expect him to answer. The Prime Minister appointed a national security risk to our most sensitive diplomatic post. Let us look at how this happened. The right hon. and learned Gentleman told me at PMQs in September 2025 that “full due process was followed” —[ Official Report , 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 859.] in this appointment. We now know that in November 2024, Lord Case, the then Cabinet Secretary, told him that this process required security vetting to be done before the appointment. He did not mention any of what Lord Case said in his statement earlier. First, does the Prime Minister accept that when he said on the Floor of the House that “full due process was followed”, that was not true? Secondly, on 11 September last year, journalists asked his director of communications if it was true that Mandelson had failed security vetting. These allegations were on the front page of a national newspaper, and yet No. 10 did not deny the story—why? Thirdly, will the Prime Minister repeat at the Dispatch Box his words from last week: that no one in No. 10 was aware before Tuesday that Mandelson had failed his vetting? Fourthly, the Prime Minister says he is furious that he was not told the recommendations of the vetting, yet on 16 September, a Foreign Office Minister told Parliament that “the national security vetting process is rightly independent of Ministers, who are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome.” —[ Official Report , 16 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 1387.] That was the Government’s stated process, so why is the Prime Minister so furious that it was followed? Fifthly, on 4 February 2026, the Prime Minister told me from the Dispatch Box that the security vetting that Mandelson had received had revealed his relationship with Epstein. How could the Prime Minister say that if he had not seen the security vetting? Finally, Sistema is a Russian defence company that is closely linked to the Kremlin and Vladimir Putin’s war machine. Was the Prime Minister aware before the appointment that Peter Mandelson had remained a director of that company long after Russia’s invasion of Crimea? Everyone makes mistakes. It is how a leader faces up to those mistakes that shows their character. Instead of taking responsibility for the decisions he made, the Prime Minister has thrown his staff and his officials under the bus. This is a man who once said, “I will carry the can for mistakes of any organisation I lead.” Instead, he has sacked his Cabinet Secretary, he has sacked his director of communications, he has sacked his chief of staff, and he has now sacked the permanent secretary of the Foreign Office. All those people were fired for a decision that he made. The right hon. and learned Gentleman’s defence is that he, a former Director of Public Prosecutions, is so lacking in curiosity that he chose to ask no questions about the vetting process, no questions about Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein and no questions about the security risk that Mandelson posed. Apparently, he did not even speak to Peter Mandelson before his appointment. It does not appear that he asked any questions at all. Why? Because he did not want to know. He had taken the risk and chosen his man, and Whitehall had to follow. It is the duty of the Prime Minister to ensure that he is telling the truth—or does the ministerial code not apply to him? I am only holding the Prime Minister to the same standard to which he held others. On 26 January 2022, he said from this Dispatch Box to a previous Prime Minister: “If he misled Parliament, he must resign.” —[ Official Report , 26 January 2022; Vol. 707, c. 994.] Does he stand by those words, or is there one rule for him and another for everyone else?

• 15 Apr 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister is talking about the biggest sustained increase. Talking about an increase is not the same as giving an increase. The military and the defence industry want to hear about what he is going to do, not hear him prosecuting past Governments. He promised that the defence investment plan would be published last autumn. I asked him at Prime Minister’s questions six weeks ago when it would be published—he had no idea. It is now the middle of April. What is the hold-up?

• 15 Apr 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  That was a very interesting answer from the Prime Minister. Lord Robertson, who authored the Government’s strategic defence review, has said that the Prime Minister has a “corrosive complacency” when it comes to defence. Why did he say that?

• 15 Apr 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  This is so poor from the Prime Minister— [ Laughter. ] Labour MPs are laughing, but this is a moment of profound national seriousness. And what are they doing? They are promoting sex toys in Parliament. It gives a whole new meaning to fiddling while Rome burns. [ Interruption. ] That is what they are doing, Mr Speaker. Let us get back to the issue of the defence investment plan and defence spending. It is being reported that the Treasury is asking the Ministry of Defence to make £3.5 billion of cuts this year. The Prime Minister will not fund our military, because he wants to fund more welfare. That is why he has a welfare plan to 2031, but no defence investment plan at all. Now that the Chagos surrender deal is dead, will the Prime Minister put the billions saved from ditching Chagos into defence, or is that going into welfare as well?

• 15 Apr 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister says that he does not agree with Lord Robertson. Lord Robertson is a former Labour Defence Secretary and a former NATO Secretary-General. He also said: “We are underprepared. We are underinsured. We are under attack.” He said— [ Interruption. ]

• 15 Apr 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  It sounds like the Prime Minister does not want to spend the Chagos money on defence. Labour MPs will know Lord Robertson, a former Defence Secretary and a former NATO Secretary-General. He is Labour through and through. They all need to think about why he stuck his head above the parapet. I went through the strategic defence review with Lord Robertson last year. The Lib Dems and Reform refused to meet him. No other party is taking this seriously. I want to ask the Prime Minister a very specific question. In January 2024, the Conservatives approved an upgrade of destroyers, like HMS Dragon, so that they can better intercept ballistic missiles. In July 2024, the Prime Minister paused that plan. Will he immediately approve and fund that critical upgrade now?

• 15 Apr 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister loves to misrepresent my position on Iran. Let us stop talking about what I did not say. Let us start talking about what he is not doing. Mr Speaker, you will recall that on Monday, I offered to work with the Prime Minister to identify the welfare savings we need. What did he say? “No thanks.” Now that Lord Robertson has said, “We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget”, will the Prime Minister think again and work with us to find savings to fund defence?

• 15 Apr 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Lord Robertson’s criticisms were of the Prime Minister, and he said that Britain’s national security is “in peril”. Our armed forces are at the end of their tether, waiting for this Government to fund the strategic defence review. There are still two weeks of the parliamentary Session left, so why will the Prime Minister not publish the defence investment plan before the Session ends?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I would like to pay tribute to our brave servicemen and women serving in the middle east right now. The Prime Minister is right that Britain did not start this war, but whether we like it or not, we are impacted by it, and this is likely to get worse. The cost of borrowing has jumped, and petrol prices are climbing. Inflation is rising, and living standards are falling. It is time to take decisive action in our national interest. Britain must focus on what is in our power to protect British citizens today. First, we must rapidly solve the energy crisis that this war has caused in our country. Secondly, we must make sure that Britain is ready to defend herself in this new age. A nuclear-armed Iran is an existential threat to the UK. We should be in no doubt whose side we are on in this war: our allies in the middle east and the United States. I welcome the Prime Minister meeting some of those allies, and I welcome his support for diplomatic efforts and military planning to restore freedom of navigation in the region, but we will need to go further than just talking. He says that Britain stands ready to play our part, but we can all see that we were not ready for this situation. Here is what we need to do now. First, we must take rapid action to increase our energy security and keep bills down, not just until July but longer than that—permanently. Britain is particularly vulnerable to energy price shocks because we are killing domestic oil and gas production in the North sea. Labour’s policy of more expensive energy and de-industrialisation at this time of crisis is dangerous and irresponsible. It is also harming the defence industry. We must start drilling our own oil and gas in the North sea, grant licences for drilling in the Jackdaw and Rosebank fields, and restore British production before it is too late. The Prime Minister says that this will not impact international prices, but this is about more than international prices. This is about the domestic supply, especially of gas, all of which is used in this country. Supply matters. Furthermore, the Government must cancel the proposed rise in fuel duty. Hiking taxes on motorists for the first time in 15 years, while prices are surging, is a disgraceful decision. If Britain is to be a stronger country, it needs a stronger economy—not one that is being hammered by the highest energy prices in the developed world. Will the Prime Minister grant those oil and gas licences and scrap the rise in fuel duty? I know that he will say that it is the Energy Secretary’s job to do that, but the Energy Secretary is not the Prime Minister. He is, so he can instruct the Energy Secretary to grant those licences. Secondly, to be ready, Britain must be able to defend herself, and that means we must be ready for these situations before they happen. France and Greece— [ Interruption. ] I do not know why Labour Members are laughing. I am surprised, because last time I checked, France and Greece sent ships to protect our bases in Cyprus while our destroyer was stuck in Portsmouth. It was a national embarrassment—on Labour’s shoulders—and it should never happen again. We need no further evidence that we are living in a more dangerous world than a decade ago. I am sure Labour MPs will try to think of a way to make this my fault. [Interruption.] Yes, I know, it is preposterous, the historical illiteracy on the Labour Benches, but let me remind them that Governments of all colours—including those guys on the Liberal Democrat Benches—spent the peace dividend from 1989, when the Berlin wall fell, until the Ukraine war. When that war came, the Conservative Government responded rapidly and unequivocally. We did not have anything stuck in Portsmouth when Ukraine was invaded. We trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers and equipped them with our missiles. We increased defence spending every year after the Ukraine war started, but the world has since become even more dangerous. Every serious person, especially in the military, agrees that Britain must now find a way to spend 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament. After the election, many of the plans for spending were paused for Labour’s strategic defence review. Nine months after its publication, there is still no defence investment plan that explains how we will fund this. The defence readiness Bill is also nowhere to be seen. The question is not whether we need to increase defence spending, but what tough choices we must make to do so. That is what is missing from the Government’s plan. They have a plan for welfare spending until 2031, but no plans for defence spending. I say to the Prime Minister: let us put party interests aside— [Interruption.] I am glad that Labour MPs are laughing. I want the public to hear Labour MPs laughing when we say, “Let’s put party interests aside,” so please, keep laughing—go on. I say to the Prime Minister: let us find the money to rearm, let us identify the spending cuts, and if we reach agreement on a joint plan, we can all support those measures in Parliament. Conservatives have already found savings to fund more than £20 billion extra in defence spending. I am willing to work with him to go further. I am sure the Prime Minister, in his response, will be tempted to misrepresent my position and pretend that I demanded he join in the initial strikes. [Interruption.] Yes—Labour MPs cannot resist the temptation, but he and I both know that is not true, so let us get serious. It is time for us to act decisively in our national interest. Let us show our allies what we bring to the table. Let us show our enemies that we are able and ready to defend ourselves. That requires a defence investment plan, so when exactly will that plan be published, and what action is the Prime Minister taking to find the money to pay for it?

• 25 Mar 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister is hiding behind so many people. He is the Prime Minister; he can make this decision today. He is so weak that he is the first person to be pushed around by the Energy Secretary. Let me remind the Prime Minister who is on my side: the unions—yes, they are on my side—including GMB, Tony Blair, RenewableUK—the very people he talks about are saying to drill in the North sea—Centrica, Octopus Energy and even Labour MPs. Let me quote one Labour Member, the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell): “Offshoring our carbon emissions might give some a sense of moral superiority” but it is simply “impoverishing our own communities”. We agree, so why does the Prime Minister think that he knows better than everyone else?

• 25 Mar 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister loves to hide behind legal process. I wonder what a Director of Public Prosecutions would make of the defence, “Sorry, I can’t produce my WhatsApps—my phone has been stolen.” The Jackdaw gasfield could be up and running before winter. All that gas would be used here in the UK to heat 1.6 million homes. That is enough to power Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex put together. Will the Prime Minister approve the licences, or is the Energy Secretary running the Government?

• 25 Mar 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  We can have renewables and oil and gas. The Prime Minister says it is a matter for the Secretary of State—I thought that he was the Prime Minister. He loves to hide behind legal process every single time. I wonder what a Director of Public— [ Interruption. ]

• 25 Mar 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Norwegian Prime Minister is doing what is right for his country—if only our Prime Minister would do the same. Stopping all new drilling in the North sea was a reckless promise when he made it before the election; in the middle of a global energy crisis, it is catastrophic. Experts are predicting a £300 rise in bills in July. Approving new licences would show that he is serious about cutting bills. Why will he not do it?

• 25 Mar 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister says that bills are coming down; they are higher than they were when he came into office. He talks about what the Government are doing to help with energy bills. Families and businesses will suffer from the spike in energy costs because of his decisions. He could abolish the green taxes on their bills. He could stop the fuel duty rise. We could drill our own gas in the North sea. What is he doing? He is planning another giveaway to people on welfare. Yet again, he is taking money from those who work to give it to those who do not. First, we had the Budget for “Benefits Street”; now, we have the bail-out for “Benefits Street”. Does that not just prove that they have given up on being the Labour party and are now just the welfare party?

• 25 Mar 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to let the Prime Minister in on a secret: he is the Prime Minister, and he can change the legislation. Hiding behind the Energy Secretary is pathetic. Under the Prime Minister’s Labour Government, we buy half the gas that we use from Norway. Last year, Norway’s Labour Government drilled 49 wells in the North sea. How many did Britain drill? Zero. For the first time since 1964, under this Prime Minister’s Government, Britain drilled no wells. Why is energy security the right policy for Labour in Norway, but the wrong policy for Labour in Britain?

• 25 Mar 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  I asked the Prime Minister six questions last week and he did not answer a single one. He has a duty to this House to answer the question. Let us see if he can do better this week. I will start with a simple one. Will the Prime Minister approve the licences for the Rosebank and Jackdaw gasfields in the North sea?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister wants to talk about Justice Secretaries. His Justice Secretary is abolishing jury trials; my shadow Justice Secretary is defending British values. I know who I would rather have sitting on the Front Bench next to me, and it is not the Justice Secretary. This is important: the Prime Minister wants to talk about anything except what I am asking him. Three times I have asked him whether he spoke to Peter Mandelson; three times, he has refused to answer. We can only assume that he did not speak to Peter Mandelson. From the documents published, we know that he left the questioning about Mandelson’s relationship with a convicted paedophile to two of Mandelson’s closest friends, one of whom was also friends with a convicted paedophile. Asking those questions should have been his job. Why did he fail to do his duty?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  I know the Prime Minister does not want to talk about the documents that he tried to bury last week. He is going to try to talk about anything else, but he is not going to get away with it. I asked him a question; he did not answer. We know that the Prime Minister was warned about the risk of appointing Peter Mandelson. This is not about the process. He knew that Mandelson stayed in Epstein’s house after Epstein had been convicted for child prostitution—he knew that. So I will ask him again: did he speak to Peter Mandelson about that before the appointment? Yes or no?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  It is a shame that the Prime Minister is not responsible for the answers either. He wants us to believe that he is a serious leader, but he does not do the work. He outsources the decisions and when things go wrong he blames the vetting, he blames the chief of staff, he blames the Cabinet Secretary—he blames anyone but himself. This Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson, but did not bother to ask the questions. If he cannot be straight with the House on something as simple as this, why should we believe a word he says about anything?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister tried to avoid scrutiny on the Mandelson files by releasing the documents immediately after Prime Minister’s questions last week, so let me ask him now: did he personally speak to Peter Mandelson about his relationship with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein before appointing him as our ambassador to Washington?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  I did not hear an answer, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister is right: it is about his judgment. He has repeatedly told us that Peter Mandelson lied to him, but he will not tell us if he actually picked up the phone and spoke to Mandelson before appointing him. That does not make any sense. The Prime Minister told us on the record that he “believed the lies” that Mandelson told him, but if he did not speak to him, how can he say that?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister wants to talk about my leadership. I am shocked. His former deputy has just fired the starting gun on the race to replace him. I will tell him one thing: she and I both agree that this weak man should be replaced by a strong woman. [ Interruption. ] But I am not finished, Mr Speaker—I have too much to say to him. There is still a lot to ask about the Mandelson files. The Prime Minister knew that Mandelson had kept up a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The documents released also show that he had been warned about appointing Mandelson. He claims he was lied to. Mandelson had twice been fired for dishonesty, so why did the Prime Minister believe Peter Mandelson over the vetting documents?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  I have never criticised our armed forces; I am criticising the Prime Minister and his decisions. Let me remind the House of his record on the armed forces. This is the same man who worked with Phil Shiner, a traitor to this country who made up evidence to put our soldiers in prison for crimes they did not commit. That is his record, so I will not take any lectures from him. By the way, military families in this country are also worried about petrol prices, and he has nothing to say on that. There is another group of people who have been hammered by this Government: farmers. I spent all last year telling the Prime Minister that his family farm tax was killing British farming. Now, those farmers are being punished with higher fuel prices. Does the Prime Minister think that is fair?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister does not want to talk about fuel duty, because he has absolutely no answers. The Conservatives are on the side of farmers. We are also on the side of drivers. We froze duel duty every year from 2011 and, in fact, we cut it in 2022, because we care about the cost of living. Labour thinks drivers are a cash cow and now it is hiking fuel duty for the first time in 15 years. Everyone in this House knows the pattern: first, he will march his Back Benchers up the hill, then they will be forced to defend fuel duty rises in the local elections, and then there will be another humiliating U-turn. Why does the Prime Minister not just stand up, admit he has got it wrong—again—and scrap the fuel duty hike now?