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 5 of 13.
“I thank the Minister for recognising that we need to legislate to protect children with allergies in schools. Can she reassure us that the Benedict Blythe Foundation, Helen and the MPs who have campaigned for this will see the amendment at the very earliest opportunity before it goes to the Lords, so we can ensure that Benedict’s law is delivered in full?”
“This is not about the ability of parents; it is about recognising that social media platforms are being weaponised by algorithms—let alone by hostile states—to make children addicted to them. It is impossible for parents to protect their children who do not have the critical thinking skills before 16. Having worked in counter-terrorism, I know that it is critical thinking that stops people from getting on planes to blow themselves up in foreign countries. The No. 2 cause of stroke in women under 40 is being strangled during sex. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is because they have been told on the internet that they can be safely strangled? They cannot. We have to protect our children, because it is impossible for them to police things or have the critical thinking skills to protect themselves when they are on the internet.”
“That is why we come to this place—to protect those who need us—and I am so proud to have been able to stand beside Helen in her fight. I ask colleagues today to hold Benedict in their hearts tonight. I know that today is a good day, but such a promise will only be worthy of him when it is kept and when children become safer in our schools.”
“By altering the distribution method, as the Benedict Blythe Foundation has recommended, the new measures in Benedict’s law could save the Treasury £1 million a year. Just as with defibrillators, which the Conservative Government funded for all schools, we are asking the Government to fund medications to save the taxpayer money. These savings are before we consider the estimated £1.5 million saved by reducing A&E and hospital admissions, improvements in school attendance and parental workforce participation. I ask the Government to look at that again as they draft the amendment for the Lords. I want to close by paying tribute to Helen Blythe. Her asks have really been very simple: “Benedict’s life mattered. His death must matter too”.”
“I am willing to draw a line under this, but I put it on the record that I want the Government to maintain their resolve and make sure the amendment is laid, because on Tuesday last week we received a letter telling all of us in this place that the amendment would be voted down and was not needed. On Friday, that was still the Government’s position, which is why they missed the deadline to lay their own amendment. I want to turn to the financing of this amendment. The Government do not plan to provide funding to schools for the medications needed to protect children having anaphylactic shock. That is not the right approach. It currently costs the taxpayer about £9 million to provide the additional adrenalin auto-injectors prescribed to children to take into school individually.”
“When the amendment was put to the Lords, the Government whipped their peers to vote against it. I thank every noble Lord who voted for it, because they brought us here today. The Government had told me that legislation was not needed. When the guidance was announced, we welcomed it, but we said that it did not go far enough. That is why we pushed our amendment to a vote. We are glad the Government now recognise that the guidance does not go far enough, largely because we were determined to push the amendment to a vote. We will need to see the wording of the amendment as soon as possible, because in the Lords we learned that guidance can be given and guidance can be taken away. There was a view that a threat of losing what little had been offered would deter Helen Blythe, and that misjudged her entirely.”
“One in three schools in our country currently has none of those things, but we would not have known that if it was not for Helen’s campaigning for the Benedict Blythe Foundation. That is why this law is needed. I offer my thanks to the Government. The statutory guidance to which they have committed is a real step forward, and today’s announcement that the Government will accept our amendment by tabling it in the Government’s name is welcome. It finishes the job, and means that full protections will finally be in place. Every measure that protects a child with allergies is a good thing, and I am so relieved that we have reached this point. I drafted the Benedick Blythe amendment last September, and I pay tribute to Harry Warren and my team, with whom I have campaigned throughout this time.”
“Lords amendment 105 is named Benedict’s law for Benedict Blythe, who was just five years old when he suffered a fatal anaphylactic reaction at school after being exposed to allergens. No child should go to school in the morning feeling anxious that they will not be safe, and no parent should fear at drop-off that they may never pick up their child again, but that was the unfortunate reality for Helen and Peter Blythe. Since that day, they have fought to make sure that every child is safer in school. Benedict’s law would ensure that every school has a mandatory allergy policy and holds spare adrenalin medications on site, and that every member of staff is trained and knows how to protect children.”
“It is slightly bizarre to hear the hon. Member for Clacton appear to make the argument that the Maldives should own Diego Garcia. On the question from my right hon. Friend the Father of the House, putting aside the wider Bill, as the Minister does not wish to discuss it, does article 298 of UNCLOS exempt military bases—very simply, yes or no? The Minister is a diplomat, so he knows the answer.”
“I note that ahead of today there has been no communication on the Minister’s Twitter account, when normally he is so busy creating videos that he believes may or may not go viral. I understand that some airlines are accepting expired British passports issued since 1989, but will the Minister confirm whether that will become a consistent approach across all airlines? That is the minimum expectation that the Government should put in place. Finally, will he also confirm what specific efforts have been made to ensure that those serving under the King’s Colour, if deployed abroad, will have no issues coming home? The Conservatives support robust improvements to ensure that we have enforceable borders.”
“It does not strip anyone of citizenship. It concerns the evidence required when travelling. People have known since 2023 that change was coming, so this is not a radical change. Citizenship carries rights, but it also carries responsibilities. Maintaining appropriate documentation is one of them. If the Liberal Democrats wish to argue for weaker evidential standards at the border, they should do so plainly. What they should not do is pretend that three years’ notice is somehow an injustice. Turning to practical questions, the Minister has set out the contingency plans to support dual nationals. Will he confirm that consular services within the Foreign Office will be properly resourced to support individuals? Will he also commit to improving the communications plan, which has been insufficient?”
“I thank the Minister for his response. The ETA scheme was introduced by the Conservative Government to secure and modernise Britain’s borders. Under the previous system, someone holding a passport from a non-visa nation could enter the UK for six months with minimal formality. That left the Home Office unable to distinguish between a genuine British citizen travelling on a foreign passport and someone who had simply overstayed. The changes strengthen our borders, and I am afraid that the Liberal Democrat suggestion that three years’ notice is somehow insufficient is not serious policymaking. Most immigration and border changes take effect within months. Tax changes happen within a single Budget cycle. A three-year transition for a documentation requirement is not unreasonable. The change does not remove rights.”
“Will it primarily fund the cost of dealing with illegal migration, or is some other enhancement planned in the immigration system? I acknowledge that responsibility for this matter lies with a number of members of the Home Office team, but given these concerning figures, it is important to know where the funding will go. Does the Minister anticipate that the cost to the Home Office will remain as high? Does he anticipate that the maxima fee will have to be increased again in the near future? For how long can he commit to that increase? Does he guarantee that the additional income will deliver a more efficient border system, or will the increased income simply subsidise a system that is still not working?”
“However, we must be mindful of how any increase to the electronic travel authorisation fee could impact the number of visitors to the UK, so I would be grateful if the Minister could outline what assessments have been made of the impact of increasing the ETA, and explain why £20 is considered the appropriate level of increase. The real focus needs to be on how the funding will be used, because it will generate significant fees. The Government have repeatedly stated that immigration must be significantly reduced, yet in 2025 more than 41,000 people crossed the English channel in small boats and entered the country illegally. As of June 2025, we have 32,000 illegal immigrants residing in hotels. How will the funding be used?”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks. Fees for migration and border products and services play a vital role in our country’s ability to run a sustainable immigration system. Just like any other public service, it is right that those who use and benefit from the UK’s immigration system should contribute to it. The proposed changes set out in the draft order will not only reduce the financial burden on the taxpayer but generate a significant amount of much needed income for the Home Office.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for not giving you prior notice, Mr Speaker, but during Health questions this morning the Minister said that for the first time ever there will be a children’s cancer strategy as part of the cancer strategy. However, the Government scrapped the children’s cancer strategy that we had put in place, so should the Minister not come and correct the record for having misled the House—”
“I am afraid that this question may feel like groundhog day. This time last month, I asked for a meeting about local government reform, because my residents are so concerned. I was promised a meeting, yet despite having chased at least twice a week every single week for the past month, we have had zero response from the Department. When are we going to get the meetings on really important matters that we are promised in this Chamber?”
“Many of the practitioners who sell the heinous crime of female genital mutilation also sell exorcisms of children. Thousands of children have died from these so-called exorcisms over the past 10 years, including from the black African community here in the UK. Does the Solicitor General have any consideration of what needs to be done in the law to protect these children?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister, who has now left the Chamber, said that each Humble Address that his party laid in opposition mentioned national security. However, I have checked the two most recent Humble Addresses laid by the Labour party when it was in opposition, and all Labour Members should be aware that the words “national security” do not feature even once, because it is not necessary in an Humble Address. So how can we get the Prime Minister to correct the record when he has chosen just to leave the room? [Hon. Members: “Call him back!”]”
“The hon. Lady’s point about the wider establishment is important. Individuals like Sir Richard Branson clearly offered to help Epstein launder his identity and reputation by suggesting public relations advice on how he might recover from his prosecution. We have gentlemen like Bill Gates, whose wife has bravely spoken out, saying that one of the reasons she left him was his links to Epstein. How do we make sure that such men, who continue to have extreme power, face some sort of justice?”
“I thank the hon. Lady for raising that issue. I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary on 5 December, asking when Peter Mandelson’s pay had stopped, how much the severance pay was, and whether taxpayers have had to foot the bill for it. Although that was well over two months ago, I have received no response. How can we have any confidence that this investigation will be carried out properly when the Cabinet Secretary will not even answer basic questions about how Mandelson was paid and how much it cost us all?”
“I understand that the right hon. Lady is saying that the information that Peter Mandelson had maintained a relationship with a then convicted paedophile passed her by. However, she does have an entire committee of Clerks who will have advised her. She also says that she said that this was an imaginative appointment. I am afraid she actually said that it was an “inspired appointment”. I know, because I spoke out against the appointment. Will she please tell me whether her Clerks at any point shared with her concerns about the background of Epstein and his relationship with Mandelson, and whether she will therefore now say that she regrets calling it an “inspired appointment”?”
“I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point. From my perspective—I wonder if he agrees with me—if the amendment had said that anything that was secret or top secret needed to be withheld, that would be a very different argument. However, the use of the very vague terminology of “national security”—which has never been used in a previous Humble Address by the Opposition, as I made clear in a point of order after Prime Minister’s questions—is a nonsense, and the idea of “international relations” is completely vague.”
“I wish to credit the hon. Gentleman for the speech he is giving today. Very early in my career, I voted for something and I could not sleep that night. Never since have I voted for something that has made me feel ashamed of myself, and I will never do it again. It takes bravery to do that so early in the hon. Gentleman’s time in Parliament. It is really important. I hope his colleagues on the Labour Benches, in particular the new intake, stand behind him, support him for the decision he has made and do not criticise him, because he is doing what he believes to be right. All credit to him, because we know how difficult that is, from having governed for so long. I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he is saying and what he is doing today.”
“There does seem to be amnesia about this. When Mandelson was made ambassador, it was well known that he continued the relationship with the convicted paedophile post his conviction, and there were simpering emails already in the public domain saying things like, “Oh darling one, all should be forgiven.” The suggestion that it only recently became unacceptable for him to be ambassador is wrong. If Labour Members want to suggest that it was not well known, let me tell them that colleagues like me raised it in this Chamber on the day that he was appointed, and I was greeted with jeers and boos from the Labour Benches. No one said, “Absolutely, maybe there are concerns”. Should that amnesia perhaps be reconsidered?”
“Another appointment that we have had is that of the National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, who some might argue is the de facto Foreign Secretary. Given that he is running around having secret meetings with Wang Yi and other Chinese senior officials, how can we have confidence that he went through the appropriate vetting, when we cannot have confidence that it was done for our ambassador to America?”
“There are significant concerns in the House about the fact that there has been no scrutiny of him because he will not come before the House and give evidence. There is also significant concern about his relationships in China and around the world, yet he is permitted—again, while flying the flag of this nation—to conduct secret visits to China, where he met Wang Yi and other senior representatives. The British Government refused to put out any press notice explaining why the visit happened, or even that it happened at all.”
“I was asked about every single aspect of my life because both apolitical civil servants and politicians in this place should hold themselves accountable and be right for appointment to their role. It is clear from the debate, and from the evidence put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), that the Prime Minister wanted this appointment made, and because the Prime Minister wanted Mandelson, Mandelson was going to be appointed. We will see when the docs are released how they were able to get around the official vetting, but that brings me to my concerns about another political appointment that was rushed through because the Prime Minister demanded it: that of Jonathan Powell, the National Security Adviser. There are significant concerns about his business interests.”
“On Monday, a Government Minister said that nobody objected when Mandelson was appointed. Look at Hansard : I remember objecting very clearly and repeatedly, because it was clear at that point that Mandelson had repeatedly said that Epstein did not deserve to be in prison, that this was an awful time for him, and how he cared about and was thinking about his good friend. Why was there no investigation, and why was the vetting not done right? There is no question but that the vetting cannot have been conducted properly. I have been through vetting myself—not as a Minister, I accept, but as a civil servant. I have sat in a room with a rather elderly gentleman for two hours, being asked about my every sexual proclivity, when I lost my virginity, and whether I had taken drugs.”
“How dare he do that while representing this country! Did no one in the Cabinet Office or the Department for Business and Trade—no civil servant or political appointee —know that he had said, “No, I don’t need a hotel, thank you ever so much. I’m going to stay at my friend’s Epstein’s house. Oh, by the way, he happens to be in prison, but I’m going to stay at his house anyway”? There are serious questions about why he was not pursued for misconduct in public office at that point. No one can say that the Labour Government did not know, because I have been a civil servant; I knew where my Ministers were staying when they were abroad. I am not sure that they always wanted me to know, but I knew, and none of them would have ever done that. That is at the heart of the issue with the judgment of the Prime Minister.”
““Liberation Day!”—that was how Mandelson described the day of Epstein’s release from prison for procuring children to be trafficked and raped. His next message was, “How is freedom feeling?” Epstein replied, “she feels fresh, firm, and creamy”. Mandelson’s next reply: “Naughty boy”. We had not seen those emails, I admit, when the ambassador was appointed, but let us look at what we did know when he was appointed ambassador. We knew at that point that he had consoled this paedophile on his being found guilty and convicted of just one of the many crimes he committed. We also knew that while he was Deputy Prime Minister of this country and Business and Trade Secretary, and while he was carrying the flag of our great nation, he stayed in a convicted paedophile’s flat while on an official visit to New York.”
“I entirely agree with my very good and hon. Friend. I was taken aback by the comments of the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), who sought to give us a lecture on how Government vetting is undertaken. She kept referring to fast-stream civil servants as those responsible for vetting. Fast stream is a mode of recruitment, not a type of civil servant. It felt as if she was trying to suggest that junior civil servants should take the can for the vetting process that was pursued. I very much hope that is not the case, because it is deeply inappropriate. The commonality between the appointments of Lord Mandelson and Jonathan Powell is Morgan McSweeney, so I must ask whether Morgan McSweeney is the one who should be held accountable.”
“My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He may also recall that, following Prime Minister’s questions, I had no choice but to make a point of order because the Prime Minister had told this House that every Humble Address that the Labour party had proposed in opposition had a national security protection clause, yet neither of Labour’s last two Humble Addresses in opposition featured the words “national” or “security”, let alone the two put together. In contrast, the Prime Minister put his hand up to me and dismissed me, shaking his arm at me as he left the Chamber, as if the point I was making was not necessary. [ Interruption. ] And yes, on Monday, Members will also recall that he shouted that I was pathetic for asking why he met with the master of two Chinese spies during his recent trip to China.”
“Almost two months on, I have received no response from the Cabinet Secretary—in whom, as we have discussed today almost ad nauseum, we do not have confidence to carry out this inquiry. That is not a personal attack; it is recognition of the fact that he works for the Prime Minister and does not reply to straightforward questions from Members of the House.”
“I hope that when these documents are released, we will see the full extent of Epstein’s relationship not just with the Putin state, but with the Chinese Communist party. I have deep concerns about the way in which Mandelson had a say about the Government’s China policy. There is no question but that he has been influencing it. Some questions are still unanswered. As I have said almost every day this week, I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary on 5 December to ask for the details of Mandelson’s severance package. These were not complicated questions: what was the detail of the contract, and will it be published; has any non-disclosure agreement to do with it been signed at any point; when did Mandelson receive his final payment, or is he still being paid by the taxpayer; and what were the details of his severance package?”
“I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I agree that he should hold his Government to exactly those standards. I am very sorry that he missed my point of order—I recognise that it was not a show-stopper—but that is exactly the point I made: national security concerns are implicit in Humble Addresses. If the Government had put such wording in their amendment as “secret or top secret documents cannot be revealed”, I would have said, “Yes, that is absolutely fair.” But that is the point: there is no requirement to stipulate national security concerns, let alone provide some vague wording about international relationships, because that is already provided for. I thank him for confirming exactly my position. We have touched on China.”
“Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) would like to intervene on that, as I suspect he has something to say about the Labour party stripping people of their membership. On Monday, the Government told the House that they cannot legislate as that would not be appropriate or possible, and it was too difficult, despite the entire House offering to sit until 4 am to do so. We then had silence from the Government when Members of the House asked them to refer the matter to the police. It was clear from early doors that this was going to end with the police, and hopefully in our courts, as I have argued it should have done back in 2010.”
“Unfortunately, as Members must slowly learn, where there is a vacuum of silence in this place, our constituents, the great people of this country, see conspiracy, and sadly too often they are right. The Paymaster General has committed to get me answers to my letter, and although he is currently having a conversation with someone else, I gently encourage him that I would like answers to those questions on severance pay today from the Dispatch Box, because I raised the issue on Monday and have received no response. It is in the motion, so please can we have those answers? I also want briefly to reflect on what has happened over the past week. On Sunday, the Labour party informed the media that it could not strip Mandelson of his membership of the Labour party—perhaps the right hon.”
“Let me be clear: malfeasance in public office is what he should be tried for, and that carries a life sentence. That is how severe are the crimes that he has been conducting, and I am ashamed that Gordon Brown raised the flag of warning and seems to have had nothing in response to his concerns.”
“One lesson of being in government—there are many—that I hope we have learned is that the writing is normally on the wall. It was very clear from early days that this man was going to let down our country, but those of us who criticised him were told, “This is imaginative; this is inspired. They are putting in place a man who can shake things up and make friends with Donald Trump.” Throughout his persistent behaviour, as more and more became clear, the Prime Minister could have taken decisive action. As I said, it has been clear for a long time that this was not going to end up just with Mandelson disgraced, or with us rightly saying that he should be removed from the other place; it is going to end up with him facing court, I hope.”
“It is a sign that the Government are listening, and I give them credit for doing so. However, this could all have been prevented if the Prime Minister had come before the House on Monday and given a firmer commitment to take action.”
“It is very difficult, particularly when a party has such a high number of new MPs—we have been there and experienced it—to feel the mood music, hear the jungle drums, and understand whether something is a precipice or a turning point. For many of us who have been reflecting over the past few days, this has the hallmark of things that we feel we have seen before. We have been here; we have seen this sideshow. It is very difficult, because our integrity is the only thing we take with us when we leave this place. Too many colleagues from across the House have had to learn that over the past few years, because this is a cruel game, and we can find ourselves being thrown out when we do not expect it. May I say how much I welcome the fact that the manuscript amendment has been put forward?”
“I can give but one comment to those new MPs who may think that a reshuffle is a good thing: it causes only more upset and heartache within the party, and it will not be a solution.”
“It is quite clearly the will of the House that that would be beyond unacceptable—it would be a contempt of Parliament, if it happened. I can say—I would like to think that this goes for the entire House—that I have complete confidence in the integrity of gentlemen such as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who sits on the ISC. No one would impugn his integrity or question whether he would ensure that he got to the bottom of whatever is necessary. There is no question but that this issue goes so far beyond the vile and inhumane treatment of women; it appears, I am afraid, that Peter Mandelson betrayed not just his colleagues but his own country for the financial interests of others.”
“I want transparency and I want those documents to come out. But, whether it is a woman in our constituency or someone from another part of the country who comes to us in concern, I want us all to say that we will stand by them. This is a stain on Britain. We must ensure that this never happens again, and that we listen to our women and defend them.”
“Let me conclude by touching once again on the incredibly brave women without whom none of this would ever have come out, and Virginia, who obviously is not here today to hear us debate and discuss this important issue. We have to recommit in this place that we will hear women, see women and stand by women who report abuse, because all of us have seen how easily women’s concerns are dismissed, how we are spoken over and how we are ignored, particularly when it comes to men of power. We have touched on some of the men named in these documents who are commercially very powerful, and there are concerns about who else may come out. No one who has been named in those documents who knew what happened to those women should be allowed to continue to live their lives and make profits as if this did not happen. That must be the main commitment.”
“My right hon. Friend hits on a point that no one has raised in today’s debate; without it, we would have had a real missed opportunity. As yet, there has been no commitment from the Government as to how quickly files will be turned over to the ISC or how quickly all the documents mandated in this Humble Address will be released. That is vital. I hope that, as part of any release, the Government will contact the Ministry of Justice and require the release of any additional documents that would be in our national interests, or anything that references Mandelson or any British national in any way. I ask the Minister to confirm that. Any existing documents could be on the ISC’s desk by Friday, so let us ensure that we move quickly.”
“One of my concerns has been that when Mandelson was our ambassador in Washington DC, he was responsible for a very large embassy. There may have been members of the Foreign Office staff there who had survived rape or sexual assault, or there may well have been sexual assaults during his tenure as ambassador. Can the Minister confirm that Foreign Office Ministers have reviewed all human resources decisions that Mandelson made while he was there as ambassador, to make sure that any women who had concerns about treatment, the way that they were spoken to or the things that they reported, received the support that they deserved?”
“We all want to see the day when animal testing is no longer needed, but until that day comes, we have a duty to ensure that every procedure is justified, every harm is minimised, and every failure of care is met with the full force of a robust and well-resourced regulator, not a written rap on the knuckle.”
“It is right that the Government move quickly where mature technology exists, such as in skin-irritation testing, and aim for total replacement in 2026. However, I sound a note of caution: we must ensure that we do not see countries with lower regulatory standards becoming industrialised for animal testing. Some products will continue to require animal testing, and we must not rely on animal suffering being exported and happening elsewhere, because that will be under worse conditions beyond the reach of British regulation. It would be not a victory for animal welfare but an abdication of responsibility. Can the Minister also share what steps have been taken to ensure that products imported into this country have been developed to adequate standards?”