Kemi Badenoch MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 12 Mar 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister needs to get out more. Inflation is up, and estimates of job losses are between 130,000 and 300,000. His tax rises are hurting every sector of the economy. Things are getting worse for nurseries, which are writing to stressed parents right now telling them that fees will go up because of his jobs tax. Can he explain how more expensive childcare is good for the economy or for working families struggling to make ends meet?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister is out of touch. He should know that nurseries are charging more than £2,000 for full-time care—that is £24,000 a year after tax—and he is talking about 60p breakfast clubs. He has no idea what people out there are experiencing. It is not just families: even councils must pay the Prime Minister’s jobs tax. To cope with that, the average council tax bill is increasing by more than £100 in April, after he promised to freeze it. Hard-working families’ money is going to the Chancellor instead of to social care and fixing potholes. Why should these families pay more for less?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Later today, the Prime Minister is meeting the family of Sir David Amess. Sir David gave this House and our country 40 years of service. I hope the Prime Minister will agree that getting the response to his murder right is vital not just to his family but to our democracy. Every week, I speak to businesses that are letting go of staff or closing. Has the Prime Minister been given an estimate of how many people will lose their jobs because of his Budget?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The point is that the Prime Minister promised to freeze council taxes, and they are going up. If he wants to talk about councils, let us look at Liverpool, or maybe Birmingham, where the rubbish is piling up so high. People vote Labour, and all they get is trash—just like what he is saying at the Dispatch Box. People all over the country are suffering, not just in Birmingham. Millions of elderly people have had their winter fuel payments snatched away. At the same time, care home fees are set to go up by a devastating £3,000 because of the Prime Minister’s jobs tax. How does he expect pensioners on a fixed income to make ends meet?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister is not looking at what is happening out there. Every day, I speak to businesses that are telling us that they think they are going bust, and as if businesses and families did not have enough to worry about, supermarkets say that food prices will increase by over 4% because of the jobs tax. That is before we get to the immoral family farm tax on the very farmers who work so hard to produce our food. What does the Prime Minister have against farmers, anyway? Does he not see that his Budget is killing farming in this country, and that he is making life so much harder for everyone else?

• 5 Mar 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  I know that the Prime Minister is unable to comment on specific intelligence matters, and I am certainly not asking him to do that. However, there are concerning reports that the United States has instructed Britain to suspend intelligence sharing with Ukraine, and there are other reports that Five Eyes itself may be at risk. We need to ensure that America does not disengage. There are some in the House who argue that Europe should go it alone, but does he agree with me that without this country’s greatest ally, any peace agreement would place a terrible burden on Britain and our taxpayers?

• 5 Mar 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad that the Prime Minister has confirmed that those talks have started. People across our country are worried—worried about national security; worried about whether we can equip our military fast enough; and worried about whether we will deploy troops in Ukraine, and whether we will be able to keep the peace. They are also worried about our economic security—can we afford all this? The world is changing fast and we need an entirely new approach to our economy and our energy security. The Budget last year halted growth with higher taxes and higher borrowing. Yesterday, farmers were protesting in Whitehall again. People are hurting. Will the Prime Minister now change course so we can have the economic security that we know we need for our national security?

• 5 Mar 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Prime Minister for that answer. All of us in this House know that the British armed forces are a huge source of pride to our country. They put themselves in harm’s way to defend our values. As the Opposition, we support efforts to resolve the conflict, but we cannot write a blank cheque. If British peacekeeping troops in Ukraine were attacked—whether directly or via proxies—we could be drawn into conflict with Russia. Can the Prime Minister reassure all those who are concerned about the UK being drawn into war?

• 5 Mar 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister is quite right, and we on the Opposition side of the House agree with him. The objective for his visit to Washington was to get that US security guarantee for Ukraine, and I commend his efforts in that very difficult task. None the less, on Monday the United States withdrew military aid for Ukraine. Can he update the House on the steps he is taking to persuade America that it is also in its national interest to provide a security guarantee?

• 5 Mar 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Prime Minister for his comments on that. He will know that it is not just the security situation that worries people; they are also concerned about trade wars and the economic impact of tariffs such as those levelled on Canada and Mexico yesterday. The best way to avoid America putting tariffs on Britain is to reach agreement on a trade deal. Following the Prime Minister’s trip to Washington, have talks on a UK-US trade deal begun?

• 5 Mar 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Divisions between Ukraine and the US only serve Vladimir Putin. President Zelensky is right to try to rebuild his relationship with President Trump. He is keeping a cool head under very difficult circumstances, and I was glad to see President Trump receive his letter positively. What is the Prime Minister doing to help rebuild their relationship after a challenging week?

• 3 Mar 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement, and for our conversation earlier today. The United Kingdom is a free, democratic and sovereign country. We recognise that Ukraine is fighting for her survival and fighting to have the same freedom, democracy and sovereignty that all of us here enjoy. That is why both the Opposition and the Government are fully committed to supporting Ukraine and President Zelensky. I was also glad to see His Majesty the King welcome President Zelensky at Sandringham. As I said at the weekend, President Zelensky is a hero. He is a symbol of the bravery of the Ukrainian people. There are of course many areas where the Prime Minister and I disagree, but now is the time for us to discuss where we do agree. I welcome all his actions this weekend to convene European leaders, as well as the focus on economic security, using UK Export Finance to support British jobs. As the Prime Minister knows, we welcome the uplift in defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, and we support the use of foreign aid to achieve that. We welcome a commitment to reach 3% in the years ahead, and we will support him in taking difficult spending decisions, including on welfare. We will return to the details of how the Government will fund this in the near future, but for now it is right that the Prime Minister is working with allies in Europe and with the United States to bring peace to Ukraine, and not a surrender to Russia. As part of that, the Prime Minister has suggested that British troops could be deployed in Ukraine. There are obviously a range of possible options for what such a deployment could look like, and we are keen to work with the Government, but we will need details of any such plan. This will be a difficult but significant step. I know many in Parliament, and across our country, will be interested in what this entails, and I ask him to work with us so there can be effective scrutiny. I also welcome the coalition of the willing to support Ukraine and agree that Europe must do the heavy lifting. Will the Prime Minister update us on what European and other allies are willing to offer towards this coalition? I welcome the use of the proceeds from frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine. Does the Prime Minister have plans to go further and use the frozen assets themselves? Will he provide an update on the Government’s sanctions on Russian-linked individuals and confirmation that such sanctions would not be lifted in the event of a ceasefire? Will he update us on the steps that he and other allies are taking to ensure that Ukraine is at the negotiating table for any peace plan? What does he think can be done to heal the rift with Washington? As the Prime Minister referenced in his speech, the Minsk agreements of 2015 failed to stop Russian aggression and ultimately did not return Ukraine’s territorial integrity. His second principle is that any lasting peace guarantees the sovereignty of Ukraine, so how will the Prime Minister work to ensure we avoid a repeat of the Minsk agreements? How can we ensure that any peace fully protects Ukrainian sovereignty? At times like these, it is so important that we stand together to defend shared values and the fundamental basic principle that aggressors should not win. The Prime Minister will have our support to do that and to ensure that we continue to uphold the values that all of us in this Parliament hold dear.

• 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?