Alicia Kearns
MP for Rutland and Stamford · Conservative · United Kingdom
“I am grateful to the Government for considering improvements to the A605 and Tinwell junctions on the A1, but the current plan is to put traffic lights in place and National Highways agrees that that is not the right approach.”
“Nobody asked for this, and the lack of a mandate has been compounded by councils like Rutland county council refusing to engage with any opposition councillors.”
“Ann Widdecombe was a force of nature, and my heart goes out to all her friends and loved ones. The BNO route has provided sanctuary for Hongkongers fleeing the autocracy of the Chinese Communist party. However, its effectiveness should not be measured in visas granted, but in whether people are actually safe here.”
“Do the Government really believe that not a single organisation in the UK is engaged in political influence on behalf of the Chinese Communist party, and if not, how many investigations have there been into those failing to disclose? The annual report on FIRS was due to published by the end of June.”
“To all the mothers and your stolen children who have wrongly carried grief and shame for so long, you were denied the love that you deserved and tortured by a state—and the silence only revictimized you. We are sorry.”
“In 2023, I secured funds from the last Government to conserve and bring home our 10-foot sea dragon to Rutland. Unfortunately, Rutland county council has now overrun on another project and has decided not bring the ichthyosaur back to Rutland, which will cost our local economy in terms of future prosperity.”
The complete record
Every one of 603 lines we hold for Alicia Kearns, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 13.
“I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 Offences relating to designated bodies Amendment proposed : 3, page 3, line 8, leave out from “body” until end of line 9.— (Alicia Kearns.) This amendment and Amendments 4 to 6 would remove the additional defence of supporting a designated body for a non-prohibited purpose. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
“The Bill asks how our country confronts the greatest threat it faces: states that behave like terrorists. We support the Bill, and have today set out its weaknesses—the places where, as drafted, it is found wanting. We tabled 13 amendments and new clauses, with not one designed to delay the Bill, not one designed to wreck it and, tonight, not one accepted—not a clause, not a line, not one additional defence for our country. There are two ways for a Government to show their contempt for the House: they may deny it time or deny it influence. They may rush this House or overrule it. This Government have chosen both.”
“I hope this Bill is as watertight as the Government assert, but if they wish to be absolute and to remove risk or ambiguities, we ask those in the other place to shut down any risk that the shield this aims to be might let even one traitor succeed in harming our nation. I hope they will do that on the basis of the way we have put forward our amendments: in the national interest.”
“The Bill now passes to the other place, and I have every confidence that their lordships will give it the scrutiny it deserves. We will not oppose the Bill tonight. We will support it, not because it delivers the full protections it should, but because a flawed shield is still a shield of some form and the men and women that the Bill is designed to protect cannot be left with nothing. We support it, having placed on the record of this House what was refused and whose hand refused it. The threat we face is patient, it is ruthless and it will not be deterred by a law that we were too rushed to finish and that the Government were too proud to mend. I have supported this Bill at every stage, and it is because of that that I lament what the Bill could have been and that the House was given a single afternoon to try to get it right.”
“That is therefore still the case and there is no protection against seeing those flags walked past Jewish people’s homes. In Committee, I asked the Government how we look the people the regime has hunted in the eye and tell them that the banner of the hunter is still welcome on our streets. Tonight, I have no answer to offer them. A law passed in good faith but built wrongly fails as surely as one that is passed in bad faith. When a prosecution comes, it will turn not on the speeches given today, the Government’s good intentions or our warnings, but on what a defendant did. When that day comes and there is a gap that was identified in this House today that could have been closed in an afternoon, let the record show that it could have been mended.”
“The self-directed actor—the lone individual that our terrorism law learned to tackle, at great and terrible cost, two decades ago—will fall through a gap that we were forbidden to close. Britain may be used as a base from which to plot against our friends in Dublin, Berlin or Brussels, or even those in Hong Kong and Tehran. The flag of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps may still be flown, lawfully, on a British street, glorifying every threat against our Jewish communities that the regime has directed here. [ Interruption. ] The Minister may say, “Not necessarily,” but she specifically ruled out our amendment on the basis that we should not prevent members of the Iranian diplomatic corps from wearing uniforms here. The Bill does not apply to members of the diplomatic corps; it applies specifically to UK persons.”
“I am not sure that anyone has disputed that Jonathan Hall backs the Bill. I had a lengthy call with him to discuss the gaps in the Bill, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman has not had. I will not share a private conversation, but I encourage the hon. Gentleman to have a similar call with Jonathan Hall to discuss those gaps. We are here in this place to find the gaps while they can still be mended. That is the whole of our purpose, but we were not permitted to fulfil it today because scrutiny was declined. I have to admit that it feels like our suggestions were not even given due consideration. So I must tell the House what in the Bill now leaves this Chamber unaltered. The sponsor remains more gently treated in law than the proxies that it arms. The world’s largest sponsor of terrorism keeps a protection denied to its terrorist proxies.”
“Will the Government commit to a review after the first year of operation to look specifically at the ability of Border Force to identify trafficked or vulnerable children at the gates, particularly those subject to modern slavery, and commit to broader safeguarding regarding children at those gates? We recognise the measure is a positive change. Our border must remain welcoming to legitimate travellers and robust against those who try to abuse it, particularly anyone with a malevolent interest in children.”
“As anyone who has stood in a Border Force queue at Stansted, for example, on a Sunday night in August with tired children knows, we want to get our children home as quickly and safely as possible. Where changes can be made safely and can ease the burden, we will support them. However, the effectiveness of e-gates relies on public confidence in the system, so can the Minister expand on whether the Home Office will monitor the impact of lowering the age threshold, particularly on processing times and accuracy rates, and the experience of families travelling with younger children? Will the Minister confirm whether the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner has been formally consulted on the change, given her work highlighting the challenges that Border Force faces in identifying trafficked children, particularly at ports of entry?”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks. The Conservative party supports this order and the sensible operational change that it makes. e-Gates were rolled out across our major airports under successive Conservative-led Governments, with 264 e-gates operating by 2019. They now process the majority of arrivals at our busiest ports of entry, freeing up border officers to focus on genuine threats and concerns at our borders. We lowered the minimum e-gate age from 12 to 10 in 2023, following a successful trial, so we support the Government continuing in that direction. This is a practical change.”
“I welcome the right hon. and gallant Member to his place, and I thank the Royal Marines, the Navy and the National Crime Agency for their work over this weekend. It is very important that we see more initiatives on this basis. Will the Secretary of State give the House the very specific cost of maintaining and ultimately decommissioning this ship? He was not willing to tell us whether the seized oil will pay for that. The cost will run into the millions, so he will know the exact cost. That would let the House work out where the funding will come from.”
“Lindsay Foreman and her husband Craig have not eaten in 32 and 23 days respectively. They are being held hostage by the terrorist Government of Iran, but this Government’s weak words have abandoned them, so will the Prime Minister stop raising their case and start fighting for them? He can do that by declaring today in this House that they are being arbitrarily detained—something he has refused to do—and by referring their case to the International Court of Justice, so we get them home.”
“Can you kindly guide us on how the Opposition can get the briefings we need so that we can hold the Government to account, not least when they are seeking to rush legislation through the House?”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, I was left with no choice but to make a point of order on the Government’s refusal to give briefings to shadow Ministers on national security matters. Today, we are told that the Government wish to push through the National Security (State Threats) Bill next Wednesday in just one day. Once again, the Government failed to offer a briefing to the official Opposition, yet this morning—five hours before the Bill was laid in the House—the media had a one-hour briefing at the Home Office containing the detail. As a shadow Minister, I have now been invited to a one-hour briefing on Monday night—a day after amendment submissions close—with every other MP in the House.”
“Two years in, we still do not know how this Government are going to measure violence against women and girls and whether it has halved, so my ask is simple and is something that the Government can do today: extradite Andrew and Tristan Tate to the UK to answer Crown Prosecution Service charges that were laid in 2024. It is a political decision. A year since I asked for them to be extradited, the Government should do what is right. If they are in Dubai or Hong Kong, they can be extradited. Why will the Government not extradite them?”
“May I put on the record my sympathy for the family and colleagues of Sir Alex Younger? He was a true patriot. Two years ago, this Government pledged to halve violence against women and girls within a decade, but the Minister responsible for delivering that promise has now resigned. In her resignation letter, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) laid a damning charge: that Government progress came from the fear of embarrassment from “threats made by me in light of catastrophic mistakes”, and that it was only when the Prime Minister’s shameful decision to appoint paedophile apologist Lord Mandelson “bubbled up” that No. 10 would “kick into gear” and finally do anything about women and girls.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In March, I requested two briefings from the Home Office as a member of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition: one on Islamist terrorism and one on the security threat in Northern Ireland. After months of chasing, at the end of last month I received a reply from a private secretary informing me that “we will need to decline the request of a briefing for Alicia Kearns on the security and threat picture in Northern Ireland and the Islamist terrorist threat”. It is not unreasonable for the Opposition to request two briefings in six months. What advice and guidance can you kindly give, Mr Speaker, on how we can get the briefings we need so that we can hold the Government to account?”
“I welcome the Government’s belated move on social media, but can the Minister clarify whether the technology prevents photos from being taken in the first place, or whether it scans people’s devices to prevent them sending photos? There are understandable privacy concerns. The Minister’s Department has also briefed the media that YouTube Kids will be excluded from any such action by the Government. Can he explain why?”
“I would hope that no one in this House had any sympathy for the Cuban regime. It is highly unlikely that President Trump will pursue military action in Cuba; it is far more likely that the US Government intend to use Venezuelan oil as leverage over Cuba to force changes in its behaviour. What is the Minister’s assessment of the legal basis on which Venezuela’s sovereign oil can be transferred and used as a bargaining chip by the US, and how would the UK sanctions regime respond to that?”
“The hon. and learned Gentleman is making absolutely the right points. So far the Government have limited themselves to saying that Craig and Lindsay were innocent tourists, but they have not said categorically that they are not spies, despite promising to do so. They have also refused to say that they are being arbitrarily detained. We are dealing with a terrorist state. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is no reason for the Government to hold back in their rhetoric? Iran is a terrorist state with a record of holding people hostage for political leverage. If we are not willing to do so in this situation, when would we ever do so when it comes to allies, or those who purport to be our friends, holding British citizens hostage?”
“I thank the Minister for saying that he is pressing on the matter, and that he has been talking to our ambassador, but can he tell the House when he last spoke to his Iranian counterpart, and how many times in the past three months he has raised the case with his Iranian counterpart? With all due respect, getting the couple home requires Government-to-Government negotiation.”
“The Minister has made the point about public versus private, and what works. The French approach of declaring their person arbitrarily detained worked; they are home. On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), given that the Minister has just recognised that Iranian law does not provide for a fair trial, and that we cannot recognise due process to have been followed, will the Minister at least declare on the Floor of the House that Craig and Lindsay are being arbitrarily detained?”
“Paedophiles should be behind bars, not roaming our communities. I am afraid that the Minister’s words will ring hollow for my constituent who received a call in January and was told that her abuser, the paedophile, who was only two years into a nine-year sentence, had been moved into an open prison, and now had the right to leave the site freely, and even stay out overnight. Will the Government review these moves? Clearly something is not working. Will the Minister also specifically look into this case, which is utterly unacceptable?”
“Does the Secretary of State not concede that GDP per capita is down? Can he tell me that a single one of his constituents, apart from those on welfare, feels better off under this Government?”
“Last Friday, I convened a meeting with Quinbrook and the affected parish councillors from Rutland and Lincolnshire. I had to intervene just to get the executives in the room, and what they put on the table was an insult. They have refused to honour the promises made during the application process to pay per megawatt generated, reinterpreting it to mean only energy exported—a sleight of hand that will cost my communities £44,000 a year. Let us put this in plain terms. A solar plant is estimated to generate annual revenues after finance and operating costs of £10 million to £15 million a year, and yet the company claims it can afford to give my communities only a paltry £96,000 a year.”
“I will begin with an issue where the Government have promised action time and again but have failed to act: solar mega-plants. If rural communities are to host nationally significant energy infrastructure, we must be compensated fairly for doing so. An entire parliamentary term has passed, and yet the Government have still not regulated mandatory compensation, despite promising to do so. The consequences are real. In Rutland and Lincolnshire, a 2,100-acre industrial plant with 10-foot solar panels will fence in some of our villages on all sides for the next 60 years—a decision that the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband) happily signed off on in his first 24 hours as Energy Secretary. Mallard Pass has subsequently been purchased by Quinbrook Infrastructure Partners, a company with a global transaction value of $30 billion.”
“A case has already collapsed because of the use of one such kit. In a debate on Times Radio, I told one of the founders, Katie White, that I had seen the threatening letters that Enough had sent to rape charities and young women across our country. When asked if this was true by the journalist, Katie said, “No, not true.” This was also a lie.”
“The company, which is called Enough, sells self-swab rape kits to women and children, and it does so on the back of a series of lies: that the kits are admissible in court—they are not; that women are more likely to be raped than to get cancer—they are not; that 430,000 people are raped in the UK every year—they are not; and that owning of its devices will deter a man from raping you—as if it is my responsibility as a woman to stop a man raping me. More than 40 sexual assault charities have urged against use of the kits. The National Police Chiefs’ Council has also spoken out against them. The Advertising Standards Authority is investigating the company, as is Trading Standards. The kits prevent proper evidence collection and stop perpetrators’ DNA being checked against police records.”
“I intend to amend the Government’s energy independence Bill to make community compensation mandatory for solar developments and to backdate it, but the Government could act first. The King’s Speech also contained no measures to ban SLAPPs—the use of aggressive, unfounded legal threats to silence whistleblowers. I will use parliamentary privilege today to expose one of the most stomach-churning examples I have encountered. I hope this will shame the perpetrator into silence and similarly force the Government into action.”
“I give notice today that if that offer is not substantially improved, that is precisely what I intend to do: I will name every investor and every shareholder on the Floor of this House, and I will write to them and ask whether they are comfortable with what is being done to my communities in Rutland and Lincolnshire. Quinbrook is offering less than 40% of the rate being offered on comparable developments in the east midlands. In fact, the only national programme offering less than Mallard Pass is Cleve Hill, which—surprise, surprise—is also owned by Quinbrook. Over the two years of construction works, Quinbrook issued a good-will handout of £200,000 as a one-off donation—not for each year, but across the two. Some residents’ homes have already lost 70% of their value. My question is: when will the Government stand up for us?”
“My right hon. Friend is completely right. What is breathtaking about this offer of £96,000 a year is that in a previous meeting—in a statement the company now disavows—we were told that paying compensation any higher would make the project financially unviable. That is to say that a project generating £15 million a year would be made financially unviable if it upped its offer to £144,000 a year in compensation. I wonder how Quinbrook’s investors and shareholders would feel if I asked them why margins are so narrow and whether they can have confidence in Quinbrook.”
“We in this House, and the Government, must choose the side of victims and rape charities and make sure that individuals who commit rapes face the justice they deserve, instead of it being stolen by a company selling lies to women. It must end.”
“After once again threatening legal action, Enough had the audacity to write: “Our client considers such an approach to be in the best interests of survivors.” Citing the best interests of survivors—said by a company that lies to survivors. Enough’s targets are rape charities and young women. It has tried to make their lives hell. I urge the Government to ban self-swab rape kits, and I urge them to honour their promise to legislate against SLAPPs. I am speaking out because Enough has intimidated people into silence, and rape charities are quiet because they do not have the financial means to take legal action—legal action that would distract them from their duties to survivors. What I have described today is a window into how our legal system is being weaponised to silence the vulnerable and punish those with the courage to tell the truth.”
“Then—and I want the House to hear this clearly—they said to a young woman who had simply dared to raise concerns: “Carefully consider the long-term consequences of continuing this campaign…you not only risk serious legal considerations, but also lasting damage to your personal reputation, career prospects, and future opportunities.” They threatened to destroy her future because she posted questions on Instagram. A week later, to ensure there was no ambiguity, they sent a second letter, explicitly calling it a cease and desist. This is predatory, and it is not a one-off. A rape charity has also shared with me a letter it has received from Enough—lawyers threatening a rape charity into silence. I will tell Members what that letter said.”
“My hon. Friend has enormous experience, and it is exactly the MHRA that we need to look at. This is not a medical device, yet it is being treated as such. I want to pay tribute to the brave young girl who has shared with me the letter sent to her by Enough. She is not a journalist or a campaigner, and she does not have the protections that I enjoy as a Member of Parliament, so Enough thought it could silence her. The first letter, signed personally by both founders, Katie White and Tom Allchurch, told her that she had seven days to comply, or they would pursue “injunctive relief, damages for defamation, and recovery of legal costs.” They accused her of scaremongering.”
“In rural areas like Rutland and Stamford, we are reliant on our cars, so fuel costs are hitting us hard. I have a simple ask that the Chancellor could deliver on now: will she expand the 5p per litre rural fuel duty relief to more areas as soon as possible, particularly Leicestershire, Rutland and Lincolnshire, where it is desperately needed?”
“Are we really suggesting in this debate, in this Chamber, that anyone who does not pass vetting fully and comprehensively, and who is not granted it without hesitation, should be given the most important of our ambassadorships? The Government seem to be suggesting that someone who is borderline—about whom there are any red flags—should be put in that sort of role. Is that not extraordinary?”
“The hon. Gentleman is right that there are some precedents for House business being whipped, but the lesson is that it is a fool’s errand—it is normally the start of the end. He is making a fair point and being kind to his Front Benchers, but does he agree that we should learn from precedent and not necessarily repeat it?”
“If I, listening and reading every single detail, feel that something does not sit quite right; if I have former colleagues ringing me and saying, “That is not how the process works. It just doesn’t make sense—that is not right”; if we then have the Prime Minister saying that he had seen the vetting, “Oh no, I meant I’d seen something else. Sorry, I had not seen the security vetting; I had seen the due diligence. Oh, there was not any pressure put on” when others most clearly think there was pressure put on; and if the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) is genuinely suggesting that there is no such thing as abuse from those who have more power against those who have less, that politicians do not sometimes behave appallingly to civil servants and that, “Oh, we are all busy. It’s the same pressure”, then I say no.”
“The motion does not attribute wrongdoing. It represents a simple choice and a decision: do we as a House support transparency, and do we think that truth in this place still matters? Peter Mandelson’s CV reads like an indictment—we all know that—and I do not need to rehearse the litany of appalling and heinous decisions and acts. For me, that leaves no question but that the Prime Minister’s judgment was absolutely found wanting in this situation. Given the seriousness of Mandelson’s actions and of this appointment, surely every Member of this House wants to know why he was appointed, how he was appointed and whether we and the British people have been given the full story of what happened. I worked at the Foreign Office as a civil servant.”
“Let me finish this point and then I will happily take an intervention. We have specific laws that when someone senior to you puts you under undue pressure or treats you in a certain way, they have to take far more responsibility, because they have the ability to exercise that responsibility and authority over you which you cannot challenge. If the hon. Gentleman wants to come back and argue that he does not believe that in hierarchies, particularly No. 10 political appointments versus civil servants, there is such an imbalance in power, I will happily have him make that case.”
“I say to the new intake that there is a reason why no other MPs from previous intakes are on the Labour Benches, and why MPs from previous intakes have said, “If your gut is telling you there’s a problem, there’s a problem.” They have given you their advice. They often tell us how dismissive you are of them, but— [ Interruption. ] Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker—you would never be dismissive of anyone. There is a reason, and you should take that time—”
“I had planned to vote against him, because, in watching the debate from the Government Benches, I was horrified by what I saw. Despite the enormous pressure from people around me, I thought, “Okay, I must do what is right,” and I decided to vote with those 13 brave Conservatives who did the right thing. I then went downstairs to breastfeed my daughter, who was very young at the time—she was just turning six months old—but when I came back upstairs there was only one minute remaining following the Division Bells. When I looked at the two voting Lobbies, I could not see those 13 friends who had gone the right way on the vote, so I stood there on my own, absolutely terrified about what to do, and saw everyone else going through the other Lobby. I will never, ever accept feeling that way ever again.”
“Friend and neighbour the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), and I want to place on the record my total faith in his probity and professionalism. Unfortunately, as we have seen in previous approaches and investigations, some people may seek to undermine individuals. I appreciate that there are a range of views among Labour Members. Some of them seem genuinely to believe the Prime Minister’s version of events, while others share the concerns of Conservative Members, even if they are reticent to say so. I point out that at no point in this debate has there been more than nine Labour MPs sat on the Back Benches who were elected before 2024. I was once a new MP, and I too went through this process. As I have said before, on the Owen Paterson vote, I voted in a way that I deeply regret.”
“The Prime Minister’s judgment has also shown that he was happy to appoint people to Cabinet who had lied to the police, where he knew full well that they had done that, so there is a pattern. Olly Robbins lost his job for implementing the wishes of the Prime Minister by the book. Either he followed due process and was sacked for doing so, or there was no due process and he was sacked because there was not. The Prime Minister’s position so far is that the former is true; it cannot be both, in which case Olly Robbins should never have been sacked. He did his job under immense pressure and was stripped of the agency to say no. As Mr Speaker set out at the start of the debate, this motion does not attribute guilt to anyone and the vote today is for an investigation by the Privileges Committee. That Committee is chaired by my hon.”
“I am sorry but the idea that somebody just chasing an update—“Can I just check where we are with that? We really would like to get it done”—and that there is no concept of any bullying because someone is just asking for something to be done a bit quicker, is a foolhardy suggestion by the hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister has come to the House many times, as hon. Members have said, but he has not answered the questions. The Prime Minister himself set the terms. Either he misled the House or he was reckless with the truth, and those are the terms that he set. Multiple people have lost their jobs over this Prime Minister’s decision to appoint Mandelson: two civil servants and two political appointments. For a man who said he would never sack his staff because of his own appointments, that is quite something.”
“I would also say to Labour MPs who are considering speaking in this debate that you may find—[Hon. Members: “They may find!”] Labour Members may find that, before the vote this evening, their party changes its mind and they are no longer being whipped. I encourage Labour MPs to reflect on whether that is the record that a Member may wish to have. Whips do change their minds if Members make representations to them. Can you truly say that the whole story is out there?”
“There is precedent here: in 2022, the House unanimously passed a motion allowing an inquiry into whether the then Prime Minister had misled Parliament. We Conservatives supported that motion—not a single MP blocked it. I know how hard such decisions are because we have been there. I supported the Committee’s finding that Boris Johnson had misled the House. My advice to Labour MPs is to listen to your conscience and do what you know is right. Members will thank themselves, as the years pass by, for being free of the weight of regret. Standards matters should never be whipped. Is any Labour MP willing to stand up and say that the threat of having the Whip removed has not been made? So far, none of them has said that. [ Interruption. ] Indeed, pressure seems to be an issue that we ought to debate more.”
“Oh my goodness! I can only apologise again for saying “you”, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is a reason why Labour MPs from older intakes have chosen not to come and defend the Prime Minister: they have seen this show before and know what happens. They know that their gut is telling them the right thing to do. I congratulate those of them who have been brave enough to speak out and share their views. The House will recall that the Government attempted to whip Labour MPs against giving the Intelligence and Security Committee a role in assessing and releasing the Mandelson files, as per the Humble Address. Parliament asserted itself on that day, and we must do so again. A vote against this motion will show loud and clear that Labour Members forgave, followed the party line and ignored their conscience.”
“Clearly, something went awry and due process was not followed, but this House was told once again that due process was followed. Judgment is revealed not in the exception but in the pattern, and there is a very clear pattern in this situation.”