Kemi Badenoch MP: speeches

Speeches

• 11 Feb 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Whips have done a great job today— [ Interruption. ] Labour Members say, “Yes, exactly.” The Whips have done a great job today getting them cheering. We all know that they have been sick for the last week. Let us remember that just last week the Prime Minister told us he had “full confidence” in his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney. On Sunday he sacked Morgan McSweeney— [ Interruption. ] Oh, “He resigned.” Last week the Prime Minister was defending the Cabinet Secretary. Now he is sacking him. What changed?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister has not apologised for appointing Matthew Doyle, because he will not take responsibility—he never does, and Labour Members know it. The Prime Minister is now telling everyone that he has never lost a fight, but that is because he will not step into the ring. He has never lost a fight because he has walked away from welfare reform, he will not stand up to the unions, he will not stand up to China—he cannot even stand up to Mauritius. He has had three Cabinet Secretaries, four chiefs of staff and five directors of communications in just 18 months, and now he is mired in yet another scandal. Does he ever look in the mirror and ask himself if the real problem is staring him in the face?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Nobody buys it, Mr Speaker—not even the Labour women, because they know that the Prime Minister always puts the Downing Street boys club first. How dare he criticise us? The Conservatives were not the ones stuffing Government with hypocrites and paedophile apologists. He cannot build a team and he has no plan. He cannot even run his own office, let alone the country. He is now dealing with a new scandal of appointing someone who campaigned for a man convicted of having indecent pictures of girls as young as 10. Is the Prime Minister not ashamed that that will be his legacy?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister is demonstrating stratospheric levels of delusion if he thinks the problem is on the Opposition Benches. He did not say anything about why the Cabinet Secretary is going, but we know the truth: it is because he is throwing everyone under the bus except himself. The Mandelson episode was not an isolated incident. A few weeks ago, the Prime Minister announced a peerage for one Matthew Doyle, his former director of communications. Immediately after that, The Sunday Times published on its front page that Doyle had campaigned for a man charged with child sex offences. Despite the Prime Minister knowing that, he gave Doyle a job for life in the House of Lords anyway. Why?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  May I associate myself, and those on the Opposition Benches, with the Prime Minister’s words on the horrific stabbing in north London yesterday, as well as the shooting in Canada? When he was Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said, “I never turn on my staff. When they make mistakes, I carry the can.” What changed?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister pretends not to know about Matthew Doyle, but it was on the front page of The Sunday Times . He cannot explain why he gave this man a peerage—I think Labour Members should be wondering why they are still cheering for him after that. The Prime Minister sometimes likes to claim that he cares about violence against women, as he just did, but the truth is that he cares about the victims only when he is trying to save his own skin. Labour Members can shake their heads at that, but we saw it with grooming gangs, we saw it with Mandelson and now we see it with Doyle. Is that not what a former prosecutor would call an established pattern of behaviour?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  If that was really the case, the Prime Minister would not mind if the ISC had a look. Let us be clear: he says the involvement of the Cabinet Secretary makes the process non-political, but that does not make it independent. What we want is an independent look. The ISC is independent, whereas the Cabinet Secretary works for him. We know that there will be a cover-up, because this matter implicates the Prime Minister and his chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, a protégé of Peter Mandelson. The Prime Minister chose to inject Mandelson’s poison into the heart of his Government on the advice of Morgan McSweeney. His catastrophic lack of judgment—he is telling us now that he did know—has harmed the special relationship. It has endangered national security—it is not the Humble Address; it is him—compromised our diplomacy, and embarrassed our nation. After all this, does he have the same full confidence in Morgan McSweeney that he had in Peter Mandelson?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister is talking about national security. The national security issue was appointing Mandelson in the first place. What he has said about the Humble Address is a red herring. Let me tell those Labour MPs who were not here in the last Parliament: Humble Addresses already exempt genuine national security issues. This is not about national security; this is about the Prime Minister’s job security. His amendment lets him withhold anything to do with international relations, but this whole appointment is to do with international relations, so if Government Members are voting for it, they are voting for the cover-up. If the Prime Minister is serious about national security concerns, he should ask the Intelligence and Security Committee to decide which documents should be released. Will he commit to doing so here and now?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  What the Prime Minister has just said is shocking. How can he stand up there saying that he knew, but that he just asked Peter Mandelson if the security vetting was true or false? This was a man who had been sacked from Cabinet twice already for unethical behaviour. That is absolutely shocking. That is why, later today, my party will call on the Government to release all documents relating to Mandelson’s appointment, not just the ones the Prime Minister wants us to see; this Government are trying to sabotage that release with an amendment to let him choose what we see—the man who appointed Mandelson in the first place. Labour MPs now have to decide if they want to be accessories to his cover-up. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that he will not remove the Whip if they refuse to vote for his whitewash amendment?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The whole House will be disgusted by the latest revelations about Jeffrey Epstein. All of us want to see his victims get justice, but the political decision to appoint Epstein’s close associate, Peter Mandelson, as Britain’s ambassador to Washington goes to the very heart of this Prime Minister’s judgment. When he made that appointment, was he aware that Mandelson had continued his friendship even after Epstein’s conviction for child prostitution?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  I will come to the Humble Address in a moment, but the Prime Minister cannot blame the process. He did know. It was on Google. If the Conservative research department could find this information out, why couldn’t No. 10? On 10 September, when we knew this, I asked the Prime Minister about it at the Dispatch Box, and he gave Mandelson his full confidence—not once but twice. He only sacked him after pressure from us. I am asking the Prime Minister something very specific, not about the generalities of the full extent. Can the Prime Minister tell us: did the official security vetting that he received mention Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  I asked the Prime Minister a very specific question. Did he know that Mandelson had continued his friendship with Epstein after the conviction? He says, “If I knew then what I know now”—but he did know. In January 2024, a journalist from the Financial Times informed the Prime Minister that Mandelson had stayed in Epstein’s house even after that conviction for child prostitution. Did the Prime Minister conveniently forget this fact, or did he decide that it was a risk worth taking?

• 2 Feb 2026 · China and Japan · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Speaker, I am not worried about the Business Secretary; the entire business community thinks he is a joke and does not know what he is talking about. As I was saying, of course we should engage with other countries, even hostile ones, but we need to do so with our eyes open and from a position of strength. That requires a Prime Minister and a Government who put our national interest first.

• 2 Feb 2026 · China and Japan · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement, but it is utterly reprehensible that he began it by accusing the previous Government of isolationism—the same Conservative Government who— [ Interruption. ] The Business and Trade Secretary is laughing, but let me tell him this. That same Conservative Government led the world in our response to the invasion of Ukraine and signed the vital strategic alliance of AUKUS— [ Interruption. ] The Business Secretary asks how many free trade agreements we did. We signed Britain’s biggest post-Brexit trade deal—the CPTPP—bringing us closer to the 11 Indo-Pacific nations, including Japan. I know about that deal because I signed it myself. I welcome the Prime Minister’s efforts to collaborate more with our long-standing ally Japan, but let me turn to China. Of course Britain should engage with China. Even though the Chancellor was not allowed to go, even though it is an authoritarian state that seeks to undermine our interest, even though it spies on us—sometimes within the walls of this building—and even though it funds regimes around the world that are hostile to our country, China is a fact of life, a global power and an economic reality. Let me be clear: it is not the Prime Minister engaging with China that we take issue with. What we are criticising is his supine and short-termist approach. I am sure that the Prime Minister means well, but his negotiating tactic has always been to give everything away in the hope that people will be nice to him in return. Before the Prime Minister had even got on the plane, he had already shown that he would do anything to demonstrate his good relationship with China. China, however, uses every interaction to improve its own position. The Prime Minister looked like he enjoyed his trip—in fact, it looked like a dream come true for a man who was virtually a communist most of his life. Apart from the Labubu doll in his suitcase—which I hope he has checked for bugs—the Prime Minister has come back with next to nothing. We all want cheaper tariffs for Scotch whisky, but if the Prime Minister had bothered to speak to the whisky industry, as I did two weeks ago, he would know that what it really needs is cheaper energy and lower taxes. The Prime Minister also got us visa-free travel, but China already offers that to other countries. It is not big enough for a prime ministerial visit. The worst thing was the Prime Minister claiming a glorious triumph with the lifting of sanctions on four Conservative MPs, as if he had done us a favour. Let me tell him this: those MPs were sanctioned because they stood up to China. They stood up against human rights abuses, and they stood up against a country that is spying on our MPs in a way that the Prime Minister would not dare to do. Those Members do not want to go to China. The Chinese know that. They know that they are giving him something that costs absolutely nothing. Why can the British Prime Minister not see that? I say to you, Mr Speaker, and to the whole House that, like with the Chagos islands, the Prime Minister has been played. China is about to build an enormous spy hub in the centre of London—a ransom he had to pay before he could even get on the plane. I would never allow Britain to be held over a barrel like that. Yet again, the Prime Minister has negotiated our country into a weaker position in the world. His entire economic policy is to tax businesses more, regulate them harder and make energy so expensive that we deindustrialise, and then we can import Chinese wind turbines, solar panels and batteries for electric vehicles—all manufactured in a country that builds a coal-fired power station every other week. Did he speak to the Chinese about that? What did the Prime Minister’s trip achieve for Jimmy Lai? Nothing. Did China promise to stop fuelling Putin’s war machine in Ukraine? It does not sound like it. What did this trip achieve for the Uyghurs who are being enslaved? Absolutely nothing. Has China agreed to stop its relentless cyber-attacks? We all know the answer to that. The reality is that China showed its strength, and Britain was pushed around, literally. It is no wonder that President Xi praised the Labour party; the Conservatives stood up for Britain—we do not get pushed around. Britain is a great trading nation. Of course we should engage with other countries, even hostile ones— [ Interruption. ]

• 21 Jan 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  We all know that if the Prime Minister sacked everyone undermining his party, his Front Bench would be empty. Jokes aside, these questions I am asking are about our national interest. We support our armed forces in every possible way. Later today, my party will vote to protect our veterans from unfair prosecution; he is ordering his MPs to vote against them. In our national interest, and for the sake of all the brave people in the armed forces, past, present and future, will the Prime Minister do the right thing and vote in support of our veterans, not against them?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Prime Minister following our lead on children accessing social media. In particular, I thank the shadow Education Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), 61 Labour MPs and the Greater Manchester Mayor for forcing him to think again. The Prime Minister and I agree: the future of Greenland should only be decided by the people of Greenland. When the Prime Minister made that point to President Trump on Monday, did the President agree or disagree?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  I have already told the Prime Minister that we agree on Greenland; I am asking about the Chagos deal. That money—that £35 billion—should go to the armed forces. The world is changing and we are in a very different place—the most dangerous international environment since the end of the cold war. Last week, the head of the armed forces—not me, the head of the armed forces—warned that our military faces a £28 billion shortfall. Is he right?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  We will note that when I asked him what the President told him, he could not tell us. Now he expects us to believe that he knows what is going on in President Trump’s mind. Let me remind him that his Deputy Prime Minister, then Foreign Secretary, used to say that if President Trump did not like the deal, it would not go ahead. Let us look at what President Trump actually said. The Chagos deal is “an act of GREAT STUPIDITY”, and a sign of “total weakness.” We did not need President Trump to tell us that; we have been saying that for 12 months. Let us remind the Prime Minister: President Trump thought that the Prime Minister was doing this for money. The Prime Minister is giving away territory we own and paying £35 billion for the privilege. Why does he not just scrap this terrible deal and put the money into our armed forces?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister wants to talk about leadership. Three of his own Cabinet Ministers told The Times on Saturday that he needed to learn from me— [ Interruption. ]

• 21 Jan 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  I am very glad to hear the Prime Minister say that. We all know that the people of Greenland do not want to be ruled by America, but does he agree that just as those in Greenland should decide their own future, so should the Chagossians?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister wants to talk about defections. Let me tell him that when I had someone undermining my party, I sacked him. If he sacked— [ Interruption. ]

• 21 Jan 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker. Back to the national interest. Instead of acting in it, the Prime Minister just tries to get through the day. On the Chinese spy hub embassy, he is too weak. On Chagos, he is too weak. On funding for the armed forces, he is too weak. On protecting our veterans from prosecution, he is too weak. I will support the Prime Minister when he does the right thing, but time after time, this Prime Minister has done the wrong thing for our country. Is it not the truth that he is too weak to stand up for our national interests?

• 14 Jan 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  I asked the Prime Minister whether he understood the impact of his own policy; he did not say yes. The reason why he U-turns all the time is because he is clueless. He is blowing around like a plastic bag in the wind, with no sense of direction whatsoever. Let us be clear: this mess goes beyond pubs. The whole hospitality industry—cafés, hotels and restaurants, they are all being clobbered by Labour’s tax hikes. There is an answer to this: Conservatives would abolish business rates for small businesses on the high street. [ Interruption. ] Government Members are all chuntering, but the Prime Minister is already agreeing with us on the family farms tax and he is already agreeing with us on digital ID; why does he not make it a hat trick and abolish business rates for the high street?

• 14 Jan 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the Prime Minister’s comments on Iran. Today, Erfan Soltani faces execution for protesting in Iran. I am sure the whole House will be united in condemning that; our thoughts are with him and his family and the brave protesters fighting for their freedom against an evil regime. I know the Home Secretary will be making a statement today on the West Midlands police. The first thing she should be announcing is the sacking of the chief constable. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) for relentlessly pushing this issue. I welcome the Prime Minister’s latest U-turn—I feel like I say that every week. Mandatory digital ID was a rubbish policy, and the Opposition are glad to see the back of it. Yesterday, the Health Secretary said that the Prime Minister’s new year’s resolution should be to try to get it right first— [ Laughter. ] It should be to “try to get it right first time”.

• 14 Jan 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  A lot of waffle, Mr Speaker, but it is still a U-turn. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner)—this is so interesting—has said: “Labour MPs must think very carefully before defending policy decisions publicly. This stuff leaves us looking really stupid.” I am sorry to tell him that Labour MPs have been looking stupid for a long time. Let us look at some of the other things the Prime Minister did not get right the first time, starting with the family farm tax. Some farmers were so terrified that they sold their farms last year, only for the Prime Minister to U-turn two days before Christmas. Will he apologise for the misery he has caused countless farmers?