Kemi Badenoch’s address to the House of Commons during the Emergency Debate on referring Keir Starmer to the Privileges Committee

Today [Tuesday 28^th April 2026], Kemi Badenoch MP, Leader of the Conservative Party, addressed the House of Commons during the Emergency Debate on referring Keir Starmer to the Privileges Committee. Please find Kemi's speech below:

Checked against delivery

“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Mr Speaker, shall we pick up where we left off last Tuesday, when we had an emergency debate about the Government's accountability to Parliament over Peter Mandelson's appointment as our ambassador to the United States? The very next day, at Prime Minister's Questions, the Prime Minister read out selective quotes from Sir Olly Robbins' evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and deliberately left out critical sections to make it seem as if Sir Olly Robbins' evidence had exonerated him.

The Prime Minister told the House—and I quote—“no pressure existed whatsoever in relation to this case.” That is not what the record shows. Let me read Sir Olly Robbins' exact words: “Throughout January, my office and the Foreign Secretary's office were under constant pressure. There was an atmosphere of constant chasing.”

So how can the Prime Minister tell us that Sir Olly Robbins said no pressure existed whatsoever? Everybody heard what Olly Robbins said. We are not here to test whether Members have good hearing—people can go and look in Hansard.

The question today, as the Speaker said, is whether this should go to the Privileges Committee—whether this House, and Labour MPs, really believe in full due process; whether Labour MPs have the integrity to refer the Prime Minister to the Privileges Committee, knowing what we all know and can all read in Hansard.

The Ministerial Code is very clear: Ministers who mislead the House must correct the record “at the earliest opportunity.” It is very obvious that what the Prime Minister said at the Despatch Box was not correct. It is clear that full due process was not followed. If Labour MPs allow the Whips to force them to block the consequences of these decisions, it will degrade not just them, but this House.

The question is: what kind of people are they? Are they people who will live up to the promises they made about standards and the rules mattering, or are they people who abandon their promises to be complicit in a cover-up?

Yes, I think that is an excellent question. We asked for the release of documents, and when the evidence came—showing what the Cabinet Secretary had said in November 2024 about what full due process was—it was very clear that those instructions had not been followed. We also know that this latest information about the problems with the security vetting did not come from the humble Address; it came from a leak to The Guardian. So why should we wait for a never-never process that is clearly not happening?

Even members of the Intelligence and Security Committee said last week that there were delays to the release of documents. Members opposite want to pretend this is something only one party is doing, but this is a cross-party motion supported by Independents, the Liberal Democrats, the DUP, the SNP, and Members from across this House.

Calling this a stunt disrespects this House and the Speaker. Listening to the media and their tweets, it is obvious they have been told to come here and repeat that line. Why are they acting like sheep? They should be better than that. We will be counting how many times people call this a stunt—I am looking forward to it.

There are more people here today than there were last time, so the Whips have clearly been working hard. Last week, not a single Labour MP intervened. Now we have more participation.

The evidence we have heard from the Foreign Affairs Select Committee this morning is only making matters worse for the Prime Minister. This is not a stunt; this is about the integrity of this House. Why is the Privileges Committee only considered a political stunt when Labour is in the dock? Do they still believe honesty and accountability matter when it is one of their own?

Should Labour Prime Ministers be held to the same standards as Conservative Prime Ministers were, or is there now an “honesty discount”? The absence of senior Cabinet Ministers on the Front Bench suggests they are struggling to defend this position.

If Labour MPs vote against this motion today, they are effectively admitting that Labour should be held to a lower standard. This country is the mother of all Parliaments. This vote is about Parliament, not party politics. It is about whether the Prime Minister is accountable.

Members opposite may believe the Prime Minister is telling the truth, but that is not the question. The question is whether the Committee should investigate whether he told the truth.

This is a matter of public trust. The question is whether there is a case to answer that the Prime Minister misled the House and failed to correct the record. If there is a credible case, it should go to the Privileges Committee—that is how this House works.

Let me set out the facts. The Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson before security vetting was completed, contrary to advice given on 11 November 2024 by the Cabinet Secretary. That is not due process. His own National Security Adviser described the process as “weirdly rushed,” and the Foreign Office was not properly consulted. That is not due process.

We have been told that the Government showed a dismissive attitude to vetting and even argued that Mandelson did not need it. That is not due process. We have heard that No. 10 put constant pressure on the Foreign Office. That is not due process.

Sir Philip Barton confirmed he was presented with a decision with no room for dialogue, and that normally vetting comes before announcement—but here it was reversed. That is not due process.

Even the Prime Minister's former Chief of Staff has said due diligence was mishandled and incomplete, yet the appointment still went ahead. On multiple counts, due process was not followed.

There is a clear inconsistency: how can the Prime Minister claim full process was followed while sacking Sir Olly Robbins for not following process?

The Privileges Committee is clear: misleading the House, refusing to answer legitimate questions, or failing to correct the record is contempt. The Prime Minister has refused to answer key questions, including repeated questions about whether he spoke to Mandelson before the appointment.

This is no longer just about the appointment—it is about whether the Prime Minister should be referred for contempt of Parliament. If he is truly a man of integrity, as some Members claim, then an investigation should be welcomed.

This side was not whipped. We trusted the House to act fairly, even when the Committee was led by a Labour figure. Why will they not do the same? The Committee itself has a Labour majority—do they not trust their own colleagues?

If the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, why is there such effort to block scrutiny? MPs are being asked to defend him before the facts are tested. This pattern—of forcing MPs to defend questionable decisions—is not new.

This is about standards. If MPs vote against scrutiny, they risk damaging their own reputations to protect someone who has shown little loyalty in return. Political careers are not defined by what the Whips instruct, but by how Members act in moments like this.

The public will remember whether MPs stood for accountability or participated in a cover-up. This is not about internal party matters—it is about whether Parliament holds the Prime Minister to account.

If this is truly a “stunt,” then let an inquiry prove it. If there is no wrongdoing, the Committee will say so. But blocking scrutiny sends a different message entirely.

This motion is about whether Parliament matters more than party. It is about whether Members believe in transparency, accountability, and the rules that underpin our democracy.

Every Member voting today must decide what kind of representative they want to be. They can support proper scrutiny and uphold the standards they promised their constituents, or they can choose party over principle.

Their vote will define them—and the public is watching.

Mr Speaker, I commend this motion to the House.”