Mrs Kemi Badenoch
MP for North West Essex · Conservative · United Kingdom
“It is unbelievable that the Prime Minister would say that. He is clearly unwilling. We need to fund our defence, not spend all our money on welfare. I cannot believe that he would actually say that. He is clearly unwilling, but there are ways to do this—he is not unable.”
“The Prime Minister seems to think that the last Government were a Conservative Government. The last Government were a Labour Government and they failed, which is why Keir Starmer resigned. He keeps talking about their record as if it was fantastic. If it was, then why is Keir Starmer not sitting there?”
“The Prime Minister wants to talk about the past on defence spending, so let me refresh his memory and that of the House. I remember when he was the shadow Home Secretary, when the then Labour leader wanted us to leave NATO, disarm our nuclear deterrent and defund the Army, so I will not be taking any lectures from him.”
“No, it is not. The truth is the Prime Minister does not know where he is going to find the money. He is talking about anything except defence, including council housing. He will not fund the military.”
“We are talking about paying £35 billion to give away British territory, and all of that is happening while the Prime Minister’s Government are cancelling £30 million of vital training for British soldiers. He may be new to the job, so let me tell him what may not be in his briefing paper.”
“After last week’s session, the country was thrown into confusion over whether the Prime Minister was or was not going to fund 3% for defence by 2030. After today he will have another five weeks off PMQs, but there are some serious threats to national security that cannot wait.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Mrs Kemi Badenoch, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 12.
“If Putin is seen to emerge stronger from these negotiations, all our potential adversaries will be emboldened. Let us be in no doubt, the axis of authoritarian states is collaborating to destabilise the west, aided by China, with Iran providing weapons and North Korea providing troops for Putin. It is precisely for these reasons that the Government must continue to work extremely closely with the US and to understand its objectives. Parties such as the Lib Dems and the Greens, who are encouraging us to decouple from the US, are putting their anti-American prejudice above national security.”
“It is now incumbent on this Government to leverage British influence at this crucial time for the west. Putin’s relentless bombardment of Kyiv and KGB-style negotiating tactics show he is not serious about peace, which is why Russia must not be welcomed back into the international fold without a comprehensive peace agreement. Will the Prime Minister rule out support for readmitting Russia to the G7? We all want this terrible war to end, and as the Prime Minister rightly said, elements of that draft 28-point plan were unacceptable. Conservatives are clear that the blanket surrender of Ukrainian territory would mean rewarding Putin’s unprovoked aggression. What is the Government’s position on reports that Ukraine’s territorial integrity is on the table?”
“I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. We are proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine and our support remains unwavering. Ukraine is battling the most flagrant breach of territorial integrity in Europe in recent times. We must never forget that the war was started by Putin, who is trying to extinguish a democracy on our own continent. It is important that we stand together to defend the principle that aggressors should not succeed. The previous Conservative Government led Europe in support for Ukraine. We were the first country to provide modern, western-made battle tanks and to gift munitions and Storm Shadow missiles. We led the way on sanctions and trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers on UK soil.”
“I associate Conservative Members with the remarks the Prime Minister made about James Elliot. Can the Prime Minister tell us why his Government are the first Government in history to float an increase in income tax rates, only to then U-turn on it—all after the actual Budget?”
“The Prime Minister says that the Budget is next week, but we read all about it in the papers. This is the first Budget to unravel before it has even been delivered. I am afraid that the Chancellor’s cluelessness is damaging the economy now. The Prime Minister needs to end this shambles, so can he confirm today that he will not break another promise by freezing income tax thresholds?”
“It is quite clear that the Government are going to freeze thresholds; we did not get a clear answer from the Prime Minister, but this is really important. In her Budget speech last year, the Chancellor said: “I am keeping every single promise on tax that I made in our manifesto, so there will be no extension of the freeze in income tax and national insurance thresholds”. —[ Official Report , 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.] Why was freezing thresholds a breach of the manifesto last year, but not this year?”
“The Prime Minister talks about speculation. The only people who have been speculating are his Government, every single day for the last three months. He mentioned inflation in his last answer; inflation has nearly doubled since Labour came into office. He wants a round of applause because it has come down a little bit, but I will remind him that food inflation is up to 4.9%. That is making life miserable for all of those people out there.”
“Just this morning, the UK chair of ExxonMobil said: “The Government needs to understand that the whole industrial base of the UK is at risk unless they wake up and realise the damage their economic policies are doing.” Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the loss of UK industry is the price that the country has to pay for having a clueless Chancellor?”
“I was a Treasury Minister at the height of the pandemic, and we cleaned up that mess. Perhaps the Prime Minister will clean up some of his own mess. I will repeat what the Chancellor said, because it is clear that the whole Labour Front-Bench team have forgotten: “I have come to the conclusion that extending the threshold freeze would hurt working people. It would take more money out of their payslips.” —[ Official Report , 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.] That, however, is what Labour is planning to do next week. All this speculation is having real-world consequences.”
“We can see that they are instead planning to freeze income tax thresholds, which she said last year would be a breach of their manifesto. They are making it up as they go along. Does the country not deserve better than government by guesswork?”
“Just this morning, we heard from the chair of one of our largest energy companies. Last week, I had a roundtable with energy companies, and what they had to say about this Prime Minister and his Energy Secretary is unprintable. They are absolutely furious. Our oil and gas industry is dying, and the Prime Minister is standing there, saying he has had meetings. People out there are struggling and the Budget chaos is causing real anxiety. People are not buying houses, businesses are not hiring and they are cancelling investment decisions. Two weeks ago, the Chancellor called a ridiculous press conference to blame everyone else for her having to raise income tax, then last week she U-turned on her own U-turn.”
“If she finds that the Human Rights Act 1998 and the ECHR prevent her from enacting those proposals, will she use primary legislation to resolve that? Has Lord Hermer agreed? By her own admission three weeks ago, the Home Office is not yet fit for purpose, so why are we creating a new legal route for the Home Office to run? Will she take me up on my serious, genuine offer to meet and to discuss how we can work together to resolve the asylum crisis—yes or no? I urge her to put party politics aside, meet me and my shadow Home Secretary, so that we can find a way to work together—”
“We have seen them do that time and again. Our offer to work together is a genuine one and in the national interest. We will not play the same game that Labour Members did by voting things down for no reason. However, the Home Secretary must be clear with the House on these questions: how many people will be able to take advantage of the new work and study visa routes? What will be the level of the cap? Will it be 10,000 people or 100,000 people? The Government have separately confirmed that they will allow Gazan students to bring dependants. We oppose that, but can she clarify how the Government will ensure that people brought to the UK from a territory under Hamas control are not a risk to our security?”
“That is what is in our borders plan, so I urge the Home Secretary to take me up on my offer to work together, not just because we have some ideas that she might find useful, but because judging by the reaction of her own Back Benchers today, she may find our votes come in handy. Earlier this year, we saw what happened when the Government tried to make changes through the welfare Bill: the Prime Minister was defeated by his own Back Benchers and ended up passing legislation guaranteeing that more money would be spent on welfare. It does not appear that his grip on the party has improved since then, so we can be sure that Labour Back Benchers are already plotting to block any serious changes that she tries to make, so we can help her with that— [ Interruption. ] Why are Labour Members shaking their heads?”
“I have seen the looks, and I know that she knows that we would leave the ECHR and the European convention on action against trafficking to stop the Strasbourg courts from frustrating deportations, and establish a new removals force to ensure that all illegal arrivals are deported. We would end the use of immigration tribunals, judicial review and legal aid in immigration cases, as those are the things that are slowing us down, and we would sign returns agreements that are backed by visa sanctions to ensure that we send illegal arrivals back to their place of origin. I welcome what she says about Angola and Namibia, but we all know that those countries are not the ones that are creating the biggest problems. We need to be bold, serious and unafraid to do what the British people demand: secure our borders.”
“Just like the Government’s plan to “smash the gangs”, or the one in, one out policy, it is timewasting, and it is doomed to fail because of lawfare. We have seen this all before. The tough measures will be challenged in the courts and blocked, the new legal routes that the Home Secretary is talking about will be exploited, and the numbers arriving on our shores and disappearing into the black economy will keep on rising. If the Home Secretary is serious about reducing these numbers—I do believe that she is—she must be bolder. She must take steps to deter illegal immigrants from coming to Britain, and deport them as soon as they arrive. Our borders plan does just that, and I know that she has studied it in detail.”
“We tried that already, and Strasbourg and UK case law will prevail. I agree with her that the definition of “degrading treatment” is over-interpreted, but renegotiating article 3 internationally will take years—years we do not have if it were even possible, but the fact is that it is not. We know that because a small group of EU countries tried that earlier, and they were dismissed by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. Her Government did nothing to support them, so I am not convinced it is the Prime Minister’s negotiating skills that will sort out that problem. We have looked at this issue from every possible direction, and any plan that does not include leaving the ECHR as a necessary step is wasting time we do not have.”
“I would like to know, and I think the country would like to know, because this announcement means that some people who arrive will be allowed to stay—they just need to wait 20 years before getting permanent settlement. That does not remove the pull factor. The main problem is that for as long as the UK is in the European convention on human rights, illegal immigrants and those exploiting our system will use human rights laws to block anything she does to solve this. I know that because I saw it happen again and again over the last four years, and I know she has seen it too. We even saw it this year with the Prime Minister’s one in, one out scheme, which has seen people return to France and come back on small boats yet again. I guarantee that the Home Secretary’s plan to reinterpret article 8 will not work.”
“Some of the measures that the Home Secretary is announcing today are undoubtedly positive steps—baby steps, but positive none the less. We welcome making refugee status temporary, and we welcome removing the last Labour Government’s legislation that created a duty to support asylum seekers—she is right to do that. However, some of what she is announcing simply does not go far enough. Conservative Members believe that anyone who arrives illegally, especially from safe countries, should be deported and banned from claiming asylum. Does the Home Secretary agree that anyone who comes to this country illegally should be deported?”
“The Home Secretary will know that 10,000 people have crossed the channel in the 70 days she has been in office, and we have seen record levels of asylum claims in the last year. The problem has got worse since Labour came into office, and it is getting worse by the day. I am afraid that what the Home Secretary is announcing will not work on its own, and some of these measures will take us backwards. I say that to her with no ill will, and I hope she believes me when I say that I genuinely want her to succeed. Conservative Members are speaking from experience: we know how difficult this is— [ Interruption. ] We do, and we will not take any lectures from the people who voted down every single measure to control immigration.”
“] Yes, they are cheering. It was already starting to act as a deterrent before it even got off the ground, and before it started, Labour Members threw away all our hard work and taxpayers’ money—they are the ones who have wasted that money, not us. The statement is an admission that the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill of the Home Secretary’s predecessor will not work, but I am glad to see Labour Members now changing course. The powers they are using in the Bill are ones they all voted down when we were in government, and they would not be able to do that if we had not got those measures through. None of them know the work that was done; they are just cheering nonsensically, but we know what has happened since Labour came to office.”
“We will also allow our English channel to operate as an open route into this country for anyone who is prepared to risk their life and pay criminal gangs. That is not fair on British citizens, it is not fair on those who come here legally, and it is not fair on those in genuine need who are pushed to the back of the queue because the system is overwhelmed. Anyone who cannot see by now that simply tinkering with the current system will not fix this problem is either living in la-la land or being wilfully obstructive. It is a shame that it has taken Labour a year in office to realise there is a borders crisis— [ Interruption. ] I don’t know why Labour Members are chuntering. What was their first act in government? The first act of the Home Secretary’s predecessor was to scrap the Rwanda plan, which was already— [ Interruption.”
“I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement, most of which I read The Sunday Telegraph . I am pleased that she is bringing forward measures to crack down on illegal immigration. It is not enough but it is a start, and a change from her previous position in opposition of a general amnesty for illegal migrants. I praise the new Home Secretary. She is bringing fresh energy and a clearer focus to this problem, and she has got more done in 70 days in the job than her predecessor did in a year. She seems to get what many on the Labour Benches refuse to accept, and she is right to say that if we fail to deal with the crisis, we will draw more people to a path that starts with anger and ends in hatred.”
“I associate my party with the Prime Minister’s comments about Remembrance Week and about Manfred Goldberg and Mervyn Kersh, who is in the Gallery today. This morning on the BBC, the Health Secretary said that there is a “toxic culture” in Downing Street that needs to change. He is right, isn’t he?”
“What we heard the Health Secretary say this morning was that he wants to cut waiting lists, but we all know that there is only one waiting list he really wants to cut. The Prime Minister is not going to do anything about the toxic culture, but this is his responsibility. Just last night, his allies accused not just the Health Secretary but the Home Secretary and even the Energy Secretary of launching leadership bids. These attacks came from No. 10—nowhere else: his toxic No. 10. The person responsible for the culture in No. 10 is his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney. Does the Prime Minister have full confidence in him?”
“I did not hear the Prime Minister give his full confidence in Morgan McSweeney. He says that these attacks are not authorised. The truth is that that means he has lost control of No. 10, because that is where they are coming from. But the real scandal is that, two weeks from a Budget, the Government have descended into civil war. Instead of fixing the mess they have made of the economy, they are all— [Interruption.] Mr Speaker, they are all chuntering. These are the “feral MPs” that No.10 has been talking about. Those are not my words; they are No. 10’s words—his words. Unbelievably, the Prime Minister’s advisers have been reduced to briefing that MPs cannot get rid of him—I am not making this up—because it would destabilise international markets.”
“The Prime Minister is talking about growth and investment. While he desperately tries to cling on to his own job, perhaps he understands what it is like for all those people out there losing their jobs. How can he talk about growth? Yesterday, we learned that unemployment has risen to the same rate as it was in lockdown—180,000 jobs lost. Why does the Prime Minister think that unemployment has risen every single month since Labour took office?”
“We left employment higher than it was after the last Labour Government. Let me tell the Prime Minister what is causing the increase in unemployment: his disastrous Budget last year. To be clear for all those Labour MPs shaking their heads, it is last year’s tax rises that have killed jobs, and that is what is going to trigger this year’s tax rises. This is the tax doom loop. There is only one way out of it, and that is to cut spending. Why is the Prime Minister instead offering welfare giveaways to save his own skin?”
“I would not have made the stupid mistake in the first place of putting up the jobs tax and killing jobs. Since Labour came in, it has been disaster after disaster. The Deputy Prime Minister—the new Deputy Prime Minister—is clueless about how many illegal migrant sex offenders he has let loose; the Culture Secretary is breaking the rules to give her donor a top job; taxes are set to rise even further; unemployment is at levels not seen since lockdown; and in the middle of it is a weak Prime Minister at war with his own Cabinet. It is not just him; it is all of them. There is no replacement; it is all of them. Two weeks before the Budget, is it not the case that this Prime Minister has lost control of his Government, lost the confidence of his party and lost the trust of the British people?”
“Last year, in its manifesto, Labour promised not to increase income tax, not to increase national insurance, and not to increase VAT. Does the Prime Minister still stand by his promises?”
“Well, well, well; what a fascinating answer. It is not the same answer that I received when I asked exactly the same question, word for word, on 9 July. Then, the Prime Minister replied with just one word—yes—and then he sat down with a smug grin on his face. What has changed in the past four months?”
“I remind them that on this side of the House we know that abolishing stamp duty is how we get young people on the housing ladder and get the economy growing. So why will he not scrap this terrible tax?”
“The right and learned hon. Gentleman says that no Prime Minister or Chancellor will say these things before the Budget. Has he told his Chancellor? She has been out there flying kites, causing constant speculation around the Budget that is damaging the economy. All week, the Government have been briefing about tax rises. What we have heard is that he does not have a plan, so we have some ideas for him. [Interruption.] It is quite clear that they need some ideas. On the Conservative Benches, we believe in scrapping taxes on family homes. Yesterday, we voted to abolish stamp duty; Labour voted against it. Even the former Deputy Prime Minister, who resigned in disgrace for not paying stamp duty, voted to keep it.”
“The Conservatives reduced the deficit every year until the pandemic. We more than doubled the personal allowance. We left 4 million more jobs than we found from Labour. We brought inflation down to 2%; it has nearly doubled— [ Interruption. ]”
“On our record, we brought inflation down to 2%; it has doubled under the Prime Minister. We left him the fastest growing economy in the G7; it is no longer. The truth is, the Government have no ideas; we are giving them some. There is another way to get growth: cutting welfare spending and getting people into work. Last month, I offered to work cross-party with him to bring down welfare spending, because he knows and we know that he would rather dip into people’s pockets than upset the people behind him. Instead of tax rises, will he work with us to find a way to cut welfare spending and get Britain working again?”
“] Yes, please do speak up, because I want every single business out there to hear Labour MPs heckling when we talk about the damage that they are doing. I ask the Prime Minister: how on earth can he consider adding more burdens for these firms to deal with?”
“It is not because of the Budget that the Prime Minister passed; I started that deal back in January 2024, and I welcome it. [Interruption.] It has nothing to do with the Government’s Budget; we are lucky the deal is still happening. I welcome the £8 billion deal that he has done with Turkey, but I remind him that just last month his Chancellor borrowed £20 billion. He will have to sell a hell of a lot more jets to make up for that. He will not rule out any tax rises, he cannot cut spending and he is increasing unemployment. This man knows nothing about economic growth, except how to destroy it. In his weakness, he has caved in to the unions on their regulations that will cripple businesses, costing them £5 billion every year. [ Interruption.”
“The fact that he has to stand there and make stuff up just shows what kind of Prime Minister he is. We had an itemised list worth £47 billion; £23 billion was on welfare spending, which I asked him to work with us to cut. He refuses to do so. All he knows how to do is tax, tax, tax. If you work, the Government tax you more. If you save, they tax you more. If you buy a home, they tax you more. None of these taxes were in their manifesto, which he had four years to prepare. He is raising taxes because he is too weak to control spending. He is blaming us, he is blaming the OBR. Last week, they were blaming Brexit. Is it not the truth that with this Prime Minister, it is always someone else’s fault?”
“May I first pay tribute to the former Conservative MP Oliver Colvile, who has very sadly passed away after a long illness? Colleagues will remember him for his love of cricket and, of course, hedgehogs. He will be very much missed. Four victims on the rape gangs survivors panel have resigned, and they have resigned because they have lost all confidence in the Government’s inquiry, so I am giving my first question to one of them—to Fiona. She said: “Being dismissed and contradicted by a minister when you’re telling the truth takes you right back to that feeling of not being believed all over again.” Fiona’s question is simple: “what’s the point in speaking up if we’re just going to be called liars?””
“I doubt that Fiona will be satisfied with that answer. The Prime Minister says that they could return to the panel if they wish to. Why would they do that? The Government have been engaged in a briefing war against survivors. Elizabeth—[Hon. Members: “Shame!”] They say “Shame.” Why do they not listen to what Elizabeth had to say? Elizabeth, who was abused in Rotherham from the age of 14, had this to say about the Government: “It has created a toxic environment for survivors”. They were looking for answers from the Prime Minister, and what they have heard is Labour MPs saying “Shame” at their words. Yesterday, the Safeguarding Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), said that Elizabeth was wrong. Who should we believe: the Prime Minister’s Safeguarding Minister or Elizabeth?”
“The Prime Minister says that he wants survivors to be at the heart of this, but in his first PMQs this year he said that we did not need a national inquiry. When he did, all of these Labour Members cheered. They were nodding their heads, including the Safeguarding Minister. They voted against the national inquiry three times. [ Interruption. ] Yes, they did. They voted against the national inquiry three times, so the victims do not believe them. They can say no as much as they like, but it is on the record. They do not like it, but it is true. Now, one of the victims has quit. Contrary to what the Prime Minister has just said and what the Home Secretary wrote this morning, the victims believe that the inquiry will downplay the racial and religious motivations behind their abuse. Are the victims not right when they call it a cover-up?”
“They deserve a judge. We are talking about the industrial-scale rape of women and girls. Unlike most of the inquiries going on, why is it that this inquiry does not deserve a judge?”
“The Prime Minister is talking about mandatory reporting. I will remind him what Fiona asked: what is the point, if the victims are not going to be believed? What would be the point of mandatory reporting? All of this is happening now—all that he is saying—is because four of those victims resigned from the survivors panel. If they had not done that, the Government would have continued with the watering down, which we all know they were carrying out. So yes, the victims are right to be worried. The Prime Minister also talked about looking for a chair. It has been 10 months since we first called for a national inquiry—10 months. It is shocking that the Government still do not have a chair. One of the final two candidates has pulled out, leaving a former police officer who the victims do not want. What they do want is a judge.”
“Member for Birmingham Yardley has clearly lost the confidence of the victims. Does she still have the confidence of the Prime Minister?”
“The Prime Minister should hang his head in shame for calling this a “far-right bandwagon” when we first raised this issue. The deputy leader or the future deputy leader—we all know who is going to win—called this a dog whistle. What we need to think about right now is the victims and the survivors. I spoke to one of them yesterday. Let us remember that these are victims who waived their anonymity—an incredibly difficult thing to do—and they believe that the Safeguarding Minister has lied to them and about them. One of the survivors has said: “Jess Phillips needs to be removed because I don’t think her conduct during this…has been acceptable for the position that she holds”. [Interruption.] Those are not my words; those are the words of a survivor. It is a shame that Labour MPs are drowning that out. The hon.”
“The Safeguarding Minister does not have more experience than the survivors. The fact is that, just a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister was standing there telling us he had full confidence in the best friend of a convicted paedophile, so it is no surprise the people have no confidence in what he is saying. The victims have said that she should be sacked. We on this side of the House believe that she should be sacked, because this is about Labour failure. Labour never wanted this inquiry; we demanded it. It has been Labour-run councils—Trafford, Bradford, Blackpool—that have tried to suppress the truth. It is Labour Ministers attacking the victims; we are standing up for them. How is it that, whether it is rape or Chinese espionage, when the Prime Minister is in a position to do something about it, it is always someone else’s fault?”
“It is simply unbelievable that he is trying to say that the last Government did not classify China as a threat, so I will refresh his memory. In 2021, the previous Government’s integrated review described China as “the biggest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security.” In 2024, the then Minister for Security said from the Dispatch Box that China poses a threat. But let us leave aside the Government. In November 2022, the director general of MI5 classified China as a threat in his remarks. How is it possible that the Government failed to provide the evidence that the CPS needed to prosecute?”
“Mr Speaker, thank you for marking four years since the terrible murder of Sir David Amess. I know the whole House will want to join me in remembering our former colleague. He is very much still in our hearts and minds. The way he died reminds us that the security of Members and this Parliament is paramount, so it concerns us all that the case against two people spying on Members of this House has collapsed. It is simply unbelievable. Exactly as I expected, the Prime Minister had to be dragged out at the top of PMQs to give a statement that answers no questions. [ Laughter. ] I don’t know what they are laughing at; we are talking about the security of this Parliament. He had to be dragged out only to repeat more obfuscation.”
“The Prime Minister can read the beginning of a quote, but let me finish that quote. At the end of the quote that he just read out, I did describe China as a threat. But his whataboutery neglects the fact that the spies were charged under a Conservative Government and let off under Labour. The Prime Minister has not answered any questions. On Monday, the Security Minister repeatedly told the House that Ministers did not take decisions and that it was the deputy National Security Adviser who had full freedom. Are the Government seriously saying that only one man—the deputy National Security Adviser—had anything to do with this failure? Is that Prime Minister seriously saying that the deputy did not discuss with the National Security Adviser, the Home Secretary or anyone in Downing Street? Is the Prime Minister seriously saying that?”
“The end of the answer was different from the beginning of the answer. What on earth is the point of us having a lawyer rather than a leader as the Prime Minister if he cannot even get the law right on a matter of national security? He keeps going back to the CPS. The CPS has said that it was satisfied that it was right to charge in August 2024. The Sunday Times reported that Jonathan Powell, the Prime Minister’s National Security Adviser, convened a secret meeting to discuss the security consequences of the China spy trial. Did that meeting happen, or is The Sunday Times making it up?”