Lord Mandelson

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Smart]

The best disinfectant is often daylight. I am strongly in favour of transparency; I welcome it, including about the information that is being requested today.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart]

My hon. Friend makes the point extremely well. I believe that an inquiry in public, which could take evidence in camera, when appropriate for reasons of national security, would be the right way forward. I encourage the Minister to consider where we go from here.

Transparency must be prioritised over the potential embarrassment that any of these documents could cause. Surely Government Members must see that. The intentionally broad wording of the Government amendment would permit the Government to keep any correspondence hidden that they think might embarrass them or our allies—that means Trump and his cronies—or that might paint the Prime Minister somehow as weak. That is surely a relevant factor when considering international relations. It must not be allowed to do so, and we will be voting against the pretty shameless Government amendment.

There are rumours that Peter Mandelson is still receiving a salary, or payments from the UK Government, potentially including his ambassador’s salary severance pay and/or a pension from his time as a Minister. I would be grateful if, when winding up the debate, the Minister could confirm whether any of that is the case.

[Alicia Kearns]

Will the hon. Lady give way one more time?

[Lisa Smart]

I will give way one last time.

[Alicia Kearns]

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?

[Lisa Smart]

I strongly agree with the hon. Lady. Transparency is what the public deserve, and it is what we in the House demand.

This whole sorry tale is about more than the failures, greed and corruption of one man, or even whole swathes of rich, powerful men who conspired to abuse their wealth and power over many years. It is about judgment, and also about a system that has long been not fit for purpose, and an establishment that wants to keep things just the way they are because that suits their needs. We should use this shocking situation to bring about the changes that our country needs, that trust in politics demands, and that those brave women who spoke out deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

I will come to that, because it is important, and it is important to put it in context.

Since then, we have seen not just that, but treachery of the worst kind. The question is: how did we get here? How did a man like that become Britain’s ambassador to the United States? We must begin by taking ourselves back to the time when Donald Trump was elected, and consider how challenging and difficult it was to know who was the best choice for ambassador. There was a choice: we could have continued with the ambassador who was already there, Karen Pierce. She had been invited to Mar-a-Lago many times; she had connections with Donald Trump’s circle; she was an older woman; she was a powerhouse; she is great at making friends; she wears mad shoes. She is one of a generation of senior, older women, too many of whom are no longer in the Foreign Office and have been replaced by boys. At the time when Labour was elected, all the other six members of the G7 were represented by women, as was the United Nations. Now there is only one.

We had a choice between deciding to ask Karen Pierce to continue to be the ambassador and going in another direction. The question was: what was the right way to do it? We chose Mandelson because it was seen as an imaginative response, and I welcomed it as an imaginative response. Personally, I would have continued with Karen Pierce, who is a woman I know, trust and admire, but if a different direction was to be taken, it was a choice that was imaginative and one that made some sense in the context of Donald Trump becoming President.

On 3 November, when we discovered more information about Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein, we asked Chris Wormald, the Cabinet Secretary, and Oliver Robbins, the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, to come before the Foreign Affairs Committee to give evidence, because we were concerned about how this had happened. Clearly, so much background information about Peter Mandelson was out there but did not seem to have been considered properly before a decision was made, so we asked how it had happened. We were told that the first thing that had happened was due diligence. Due diligence meant fast-stream civil servants having the opportunity to search open sources, so they go to Google and they look, and that threw up reference to Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

I said to Sir Chris Wormald—this is question 313 in the transcript—

“It is really important to be clear about this—I am sorry to keep banging on about it—but was the Prime Minister told that Peter Mandelson had stayed at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse in 2009, when Epstein was in prison for soliciting an under-age girl?”

Perhaps this is because of my background as a lawyer, but there seems to me to be a difference here. To stand by a friend who has been accused of something shows one sort of character—it shows a certain strength—but to continue to be friends with them after they have been convicted, and to stay at their house, shows a completely different type of character. That, to me, was a nub point, so I wanted to know whether the Prime Minister had been given that information, which was publicly available—although, I have to say that it had passed me by; I knew of the friendship, but that is different from knowing that the friendship had continued post-conviction. I think it is really important to establish that difference, and that was something we asked about in the Committee hearing. The answer was, “I am not going to tell you the contents of the due diligence report.”

[Alicia Kearns]

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”?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alicia Kearns]

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.

[Sir Julian Smith]

I agree with my hon. Friend on that point. I am aware that one of our Five Eyes allies gave a warning about Peter Mandelson. I do not know whether that is true, but I know that as a humble Back Bencher. The House now needs to know, because this is a House matter. If we do not deal with it satisfactorily, we will all be condemned by what has gone on. I urge Ministers to ensure that, in the next hour or so, the discussions focus on not just ISC involvement, but ISC oversight of all sensitive diplomatic or security-related documents.

My second point is about the nature of the Humble Address itself. It is very tempting for the Government of the day to take a narrow view of what the Opposition have asked them, but as we heard from Opposition Front Benchers, there is evidence, or at least there are allegations, about Peter Mandelson’s time in Washington. That relates to who attended embassy parties and how UK Government contracts came about last year. In my view, we should now address all these issues and get them out in the open, so that we can fully understand not just what happened and the judgment of the Government, but what was behind the threats and what our allies were worrying about, which included China, Russia and many more things than just the corrupt act itself.

This Humble Address should be regarded by the House, and particularly by the Government, as a vehicle. It is a vehicle for protecting our democracy, and for beginning to unpick exactly what happened, on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Bishop]

Yes, I completely agree. I will get on to the ISC in a second.

What would I say to those victims? That transparency matters, except when it is inconvenient? That accountability applies, except when it is uncomfortable? As a party, we promised to halve violence against women and girls. We promised to put victims at the heart of everything we do. Yet today we are being asked to accept an internal review into how the close friend of a known paedophile was vetted—an internal review carried out by the very structures that failed to prevent this in the first place.

[Alicia Kearns]

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.

[Matt Bishop]

I thank the hon. Member for her words.

How can we mark our own homework on matters of such gravity? I want to be clear. I understand the position the Government find themselves in. I understand the concerns that have been raised about embarrassment, reputational damage, and national and international security. They are serious considerations and should not be dismissed lightly, but if vetting decisions were influenced by compromising relationships, we have a far bigger problem—one that demands scrutiny, not silence; one that requires us to re-evaluate how this country operates on the international stage, and whether transparency and accountability are truly guiding principles or merely slogans.

An independent review by the ISC, coupled with a commitment to release documents, subject to independent legal advice, is not an unreasonable request. The public are not naive, and if such a process is deemed unfavourable by the Government, they will draw their own conclusions. I am not making any accusations today. I am asking reasonable questions on behalf of my constituents and victims who are watching this debate closely. Will No. 10 be candid? Will it show humility? Will it choose transparency over defensiveness?

Let me be equally clear about something else: I do not believe the Opposition tabled this motion with victims at heart. We can all see the political point scoring at play, but the motivations of the Opposition do not absolve us of our responsibility. Given the strength of feeling among victim and survivor groups—and, frankly, given my own conscience—I cannot in good faith support a position that risks further eroding trust in our commitment to justice. Power and trust go hand in hand. The responsibility that comes with holding public office must never be understated. We are entrusted—all of us—with shaping national policy, representing our communities and safeguarding the most vulnerable. That trust must be earned every single day.

So today, not because it is politically convenient to me but because it is morally necessary, I am voting with the victims, I am voting with the survivors and I am voting for the principle that no one, however powerful, should ever be beyond scrutiny.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

My right hon. Friend is right, but if this motion is passed unamended this afternoon, all those papers will be available either to this place or to the ISC, and then we will know.

We are all aware of these sorts of things. Somebody will set a hare running at some point and we will say that we think this, that and the other. I have heard, for example, that Peter Mandelson was at Labour party headquarters each and every day in the run-up to the general election and that he was intimately involved with the selection of candidates—I can see a couple of Labour Members nodding as if to say, “Yes, I knew exactly what was going to happen”—and that in essence, the ambassadorial position was a thank you present: “Thank you for getting us back into No. 10—here’s your final gift from the public purse. Go and be our ambassador to Washington.”

In the general scheme of things, that is perfectly fine, but I think we deserve to see the paperwork that shows the paper trail. It is not unusual for political appointments to be made in that way, but that is in the abstract. In this specific case, it is unconscionable, and it is surprising given the fact that the Prime Minister flaunts, with some degree of credibility, his previous role as a senior lawyer and his ability to tell right from wrong. And by God, did we not hear that when he was Leader of the Opposition? Whenever a Conservative committed even a minor misdemeanour—if they put something plastic in the paper recycling box—by God it was a hanging offence: “They should all be taken outside, hanged, drawn and quartered” and so on.

Being in government is obviously different, but the reason the appointment of Mandelson befuddles everybody is that the argument that the Prime Minister has deployed is that the full extent of the relationship and friendship with Epstein was not known. The fact that there was any relationship with Epstein post conviction should have precluded Mandelson’s appointment. Why? Because an ambassador is not a representative of the Government. The position is His Majesty’s ambassador to the United States of America, so it brings in the impartiality of the Crown as well. There are therefore serious questions to ask about the operation of No. 10 and about how the Prime Minister exercises his judgment.

[Alicia Kearns]

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?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is not me who will say when it is 4 o’clock, but I would gently say that this is Opposition day and the Opposition may want to extend the time available for this debate. I am very bothered that not many people will get in given the rate that we are going at. I leave it to Members to take care of time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Flynn]

Four hours is plenty for me, Mr Speaker.

This is a dark and disgusting day for this Chamber and for each and every person living on these isles, because their Prime Minister admitted that he knew about the relationship. Of course he knew; in The Guardian in 2023, Rowena Mason wrote about the court documents that had been released in the United States of America, which referenced the fact that Jeffrey Epstein had maintained a relationship with two individuals prominent in British public life. Members will know them. They were Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Peter Mandelson. The Prime Minister knew, just as he knew when Jim Pickard of the Financial Times asked him in January 2024 about the relationship. He has seen the photos that each of us in this Chamber has seen of Peter Mandelson in luxury accommodation in New York alongside Jeffrey Epstein.

[Alicia Kearns]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Flynn]

I will not, I am afraid.

The Prime Minister knew that the two had a relationship, yet he ignored it. He ignored each and every victim of Jeffrey Epstein when he chose to appoint Mandelson as the ambassador to the United States of America.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I completely share the view of my right hon. Friend. Like her, I went through a process in which I was required to get rid of shareholding interests, which were rather smaller than those held by Lord Mandelson. This is just one of a huge range of questions to which we need to know the answers.

[Alicia Kearns]

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?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

Once we get the revelations from the documents as to precisely what occurred in the case of Lord Mandelson, that is bound to raise questions about what procedures were followed in the case of other appointees, particularly Jonathan Powell, who in many ways is the Foreign Secretary of this country.

We were told that the second stage of the process was the “due diligence” carried out by the Cabinet Office. The due diligence consisted of “identification of information” and judgment about it. However, all the information that was obtained in the due diligence was actually in the public domain already. No additional investigation took place; it was simply, essentially, an internet trawl. That due diligence report was presented to the Cabinet Secretary for onward transmission to the Prime Minister. However, due diligence through an internet trawl, even at that time, would already have shown up the fact that Peter Mandelson had stayed in the townhouse belonging to Jeffrey Epstein after his conviction, so the continuing association after his conviction had already been reported in the press and was therefore bound to form part of the due diligence process.

The question that has been raised several times in this debate already is this: when the appointment was made, did the Prime Minister know? We understand that, potentially, he did, which I assume was contained in the due diligence report. That was put directly to the Cabinet Secretary:

“did you tell the Prime Minister about Mandelson staying in the Manhattan townhouse when Epstein was in jail?”

All that the Cabinet Secretary said to us was:

“I will consider whether there is further information that can be shared and write to the Committee.”

We have never had a full answer to that question.

The third part of the process was the developed vetting, which we are told is a usual process for very senior appointments. We are told that it consists of a wide range of different investigations into staff files, company records checks, spent and unspent criminal records, credit history, a check of security service records, and an interview—not just of the candidate, but of the referees supplied—by a trained investigating officer. We will need to see the outcome of that report, even if it can only be provided, as the Government have now conceded, to the Intelligence and Security Committee.

With those three processes, the Prime Minister still decided that there was no obstacle to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. We then come to the question put to him at Prime Minister’s questions following the Bloomberg report of the large number of emails. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office learnt of those emails the night before Prime Minister’s questions. I pressed the permanent under-secretary on whether No. 10 had been told that the emails contained material evidence that could potentially change the whole perception of Lord Mandelson’s relationship. He said that he had a “duty of care” to Lord Mandelson and therefore needed to make checks. He essentially told us that No. 10 had not been informed. I find that very hard to believe. As somebody who used to prepare a Prime Minister for answering questions, I find the idea that the Prime Minister was not told something of that order absolutely extraordinary.

There is another question that needs to be asked. The British Government say that they discovered all the emails that proved the relationship was of very long standing and much closer than had ever been admitted by Lord Mandelson, because Bloomberg obtained copies in a leak. They were held by the US Government in the Department of Justice for months. The US Government knew all about them, but we are told it was only when Bloomberg obtained them that the British Government found out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

“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. 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.

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. 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. 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.

[Paul Holmes]

As usual, my hon. Friend is making a good speech. I was a special adviser at the Cabinet Office—a great Department with great civil servants. She mentions the cases of Jonathan Powell, and of Lord Mandelson as Deputy Prime Minister. Does she agree that this backhanded way of conducting Government business, without officials present, puts pressure on our great civil servants, and places them in difficult situations? It is not how Government should be run.

[Alicia Kearns]

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. At this point, it looks as if no one will be held accountable.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

This debate is about accountability; everything falls into the lap of the Prime Minister. Does my hon. Friend not find it frankly incredible that the Prime Minister has sent—I say this with the greatest of respect—a junior Minister to the House, when he alone has serious questions to answer? Would it not show real leadership if the Prime Minister came to the Dispatch Box to wind up the debate?

[Alicia Kearns]

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.

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Ind)]

I will take the hon. Member’s word for it that those Humble Addresses did not contain those words, but if you take, for example, the Humble Address on Lebedev’s appointment to the House of Lords in 2022, it did not have to contain those words for the Conservative Government to use national security grounds not to provide swathes of documents—they did so without those words even being included. Their response almost mirrored the Freedom of Information Act 2000, in respect of the types of exemptions that should apply. Are you really going to deny that that was the approach—

[Markus Campbell-Savours]

Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am obviously out of practice on interventions. Is the hon. Lady aware of that convention?

[Alicia Kearns]

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. 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? 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.

[Harriet Cross]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, if she struggles today to get answers to those very basic and straightforward questions, we can draw our own conclusions as to the answers?

[Alicia Kearns]

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. 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.

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend will recall that during various parliamentary debates in the Chamber on Peter Mandelson, and despite the Prime Minister knowing that he had that relationship, at one stage she and I asked the Minister the simple question of whether the Government would strip Lord Mandelson of the Labour Whip. That question was refused an answer, and they did not remove the Whip. Does that not show a constant lack of action from a Prime Minister who does not have a grip?

[Alicia Kearns]

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. 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.

[Stuart Anderson]

My hon. Friend is making a passionate speech. Since today’s debate started, more information is coming out—we might be at the tip of it and there is much to come out. The Prime Minister has made a significant error of judgment, yet his Back Benchers are still defending him. Does my hon. Friend believe there is a chance that this could cause detriment to the whole Government?

[Alicia Kearns]

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? 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.

[Bradley Thomas]

Does my hon. Friend agree, particularly following her point about the writing being on the wall, that the Minister, when he wraps up on behalf of the Government, needs to quash any rumours that the Prime Minister is hunkered down in Downing Street and planning a reshuffle to stabilise a sinking ship?

[Alicia Kearns]

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.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Does the hon. Member agree that the House should be slightly cautious here? We should not just roll over and accept the Government’s manuscript amendment without clear assurances about how far the inquiries will go where they relate to commercial interests, rather than just security interests, as well as a very clear process of reporting and a timetable, so that this is not just a carpet-brushing exercise to get rid of an embarrassing day for the Government.

[Alicia Kearns]

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.

[Graham Stuart]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Alicia Kearns]

I will take one last intervention.

[Graham Stuart]

Further to that last intervention, we need an assurance that we will have urgency. We have seen victims of child abuse in this country let down by a Government who resisted an inquiry but then agreed to it in a big moment. Today could be a moment like that, when the Government appear to give way, but months then pass with nobody appointed to the inquiry. We need to hear from the Minister that the Government will move with speed to ensure that this information comes out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alicia Kearns]

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.

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.

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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Ward]

I entirely agree. I could not have put it anywhere near as well as that—and, as I said earlier, my hon. Friend made an incredibly powerful speech earlier. She quoted Virginia Giuffre at length, which was an extraordinarily powerful way in which to make the point, and she made it better than anyone, because it is the victims whom we should have in mind.

[Alicia Kearns]

rose—

[Chris Ward]

I will give way once more, and then I will come to the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alicia Kearns]

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?

[Chris Ward]

Obviously anyone who made any allegation or report such as that would be treated seriously. I will take that up with Foreign Office Ministers and come back to the hon. Lady, because she raises an incredibly serious point.

US Department of Justice Release of Files

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that releasing Government information in and of itself, let alone for personal or commercial gain, is wrong and a breach of rules that we all must comply with. If that is what happened, there should be appropriate investigations and consequences for that behaviour.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

I am afraid that it is untenable to suggest that what was already known of Mandelson’s simpering after the conviction of Epstein was not enough to make it inappropriate for him to be ambassador, and I did object to that from day one, on that exact basis, as Hansard shows. I am afraid that a number of questions to the Cabinet Secretary—to whom I wrote on 5 December, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies)—still have not been answered, so I would be grateful for the answers today. Did Mandelson receive a taxpayer-funded severance payment after stepping down as ambassador? If so, how much was it? Will details of his contract be published, in the name of transparency? Was any non-disclosure agreement signed, and when did Lord Mandelson’s salary formally cease? These are not unreasonable questions, but almost two months on, I have had no response from the Cabinet Secretary. That gives me enormous concern.

[Darren Jones]

On the first part of the hon. Lady’s question, as the Prime Minister made very clear, when the extent and depth of the relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein post his conviction became clear, the Prime Minister moved very quickly indeed to sack Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. The Prime Minister was not aware of that at the point of Peter Mandelson’s appointment, and Peter Mandelson made certain commitments to the Prime Minister that obviously turned out to be untrue. On the hon. Lady’s letter to the Cabinet Secretary, I will feed what she has said back to the Cabinet Secretary and ensure that she gets appropriate answers to her questions.

China and Japan

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to the contribution that Lord Browne has made. I assure my hon. Friend that our discussions with China did include how we derisk the risk in relation to nuclear weapons.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

When John Major went to Beijing, he spoke clearly and said, “We will not forget Tiananmen Square.” In contrast, the Prime Minister refused to say Jimmy Lai’s name until he was wheels up. I have never said that we should not engage with Beijing; I have said that we should not give it a propaganda visit. It is extraordinary to abrogate the responsibility of the Chinese Communist party, whose actions we had to respond to, therefore pausing trade talks, as if it has done nothing wrong. Finally, the Prime Minister met with Cai Qi, the man responsible for running two spies who were undermining this Parliament, but he excluded that from his statement. Why doesn’t he tell us why he thought it was acceptable to meet this man and what he got out of it in the British interest?

[The Prime Minister]

This is so pathetic. At the highest level and one to one, I raised each of the issues of difference between our two countries—each and every one of them—in the way that the House would expect, and that is what the Opposition are criticising. They seem genuinely to believe that these issues can be progressed or influenced by doing nothing about them. You have to be in the room to have a discussion, and that is what we did.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

This is an issue of real concern to parents. As the father of two teenage children, I know just how much of a concern it is. That is why we will have a consultation to look at expert and international evidence to get this right, and we will respond by the summer. That includes looking at the question of the age at which children can access social media and at restrictions on addictive features. I am also concerned, as is the Education Secretary, about the screen time of those under the age of five. We will look at all those issues and make sure that Ofsted checks the enforcement of bans during school.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

The Bertie Arms is a fantastic family pub, but because of the Chancellor’s tax raid on local business, it faces a 2,000% increase in its business rates by 2029. That means that the Treasury will lose £200,000 in tax take and Uffington will lose the heart of its community. The Prime Minister promised not to put up taxes on working people, so how does he justify a 2,000% tax attack on working family businesses like this pub?

[The Prime Minister]

We are working with the sector to put in the necessary support. I remind the hon. Lady that 7,000 pubs closed on the Conservatives’ watch, and she did not say a word about it.

China Espionage: Government Security Response

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

My heart goes out to the missing crew member, their ship’s company, and their loved ones at home. Let us all hope for good news.

I thank the Minister for advance sight of this statement, and for his time last week, but the revelations today are no surprise. They are the latest in an ever-growing list of actions by the Chinese Communist party to interfere in our sovereign affairs and try to undermine our democracy and our country. The pernicious nature of this threat should not be underestimated. I welcome the Minister’s plans for a new proscription tool to counter foreign interference, and the fact that the Government have completed the work that we started of stripping surveillance equipment manufactured in China from sensitive sites. On education, however, the plans to discuss foreign interference with vice-chancellors are quite inadequate. I have had those discussions, and faced nothing but naivety and intransigence. They are also useless unless the Government are willing to use their teeth to defend those institutions that are under attack.

Earlier this month, Norway and Denmark alerted us to the existence of dual-use kill switches in Chinese-made electric buses. These switches allow China to switch off buses and bring chaos to transport systems. Can the Minister give an update on the investigation of our bus networks, and the chips that have been placed in Ministry of Defence vehicles, which require our members of the armed forces to be silent while travelling around our country in defence of our nation?

On academic freedom, Sheffield Hallam University was blackmailed by Chinese security services into cancelling research on state-sanctioned Uyghur slave labour. What update can the Minister give on the police investigation into that, and the coercive campaign? Will he admit that it was a mistake for his party to cancel our university free speech provisions, and will he convince the Government to reintroduce them, now that the threat is on the front pages of our newspapers? It is only by drawing a red line and taking action to establish some form of deterrence that we will see threats abate.

In the face of this hostility, the Government appear to be delegating difficult conversations to officials. On the collapse of the case against Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry, the Government saw fit only to call in a senior official to have a conversation with a Chinese chargé d’affaires. Last week, Hongkonger Chloe Cheung said that the Government were not keeping her safe. The Government’s response to a bounty being put on her head, and to kidnap notes being delivered to her neighbours, asking them to take her to the Chinese embassy, was the same rhetorical tap on the knuckles. This is insufficient if the Government seriously want to deter further attacks on our country.

We Conservative Members recognise the threat from the Chinese Communist party, and we want to work with the Government, so we have a few suggestions. The Minister today stated that the Chinese Government are using proxy organisations to interfere in, and commit espionage against, our democracy. That is literally why we introduced the foreign influence registration scheme. Instead of carrying out their communications plan and holding the private, closed-door meetings announced today, we urge the Government to put China in the enhanced tier of the FIR scheme. In opposition, Labour supported our National Security Act 2023, yet in government, it refuses to use it as it was designed. That is perverse. Why vote for a defensive tool, only to leave it on the shelf when we are under threat?

The decision on the new Chinese embassy is expected shortly. We would refuse permission for that embassy. If the Government will not, will they at least require the Chinese Government to pay for sensitive underground cables to be re-routed away from the embassy? We hear that multiple Government visits to China are planned before Christmas and the new year. Will those now be cancelled? What message does it send when, despite an attack on this House and our Parliament, Ministers are happily jetting off to stride down red carpets with the Government responsible?

Finally, we need a comprehensive audit of our vulnerabilities across our society and our economy. The recent export controls on critical minerals demonstrate China’s willingness to weaponise its economic heft. We need to know where our vulnerabilities lie, and to increase our resilience accordingly. That means publishing the shelved China audit, because how can an entire civil service base its posture on a document that most will never be allowed to read? It needs to be published. Sensitive parts can be redacted. As for the possibility of the Chinese authorities taking any offence at its contents, the contents are down to their actions, not ours.

We face an acute threat to our democracy, and in the face of that threat, we have yet to see repercussions for the Chinese Communist party. To defend our nation, the Government must have a firm policy of deterrence. Justice was denied last month, but the Government have the tools and the ability to act. When will they take action to make it clear to the Chinese Communist party that it will not get away with attacks on our democracy?

The Government can cancel the Joint Economic and Trade Commission talks, impose sanctions, cancel propaganda visits to China and put the Chinese Communist party in the enhanced foreign influence registration scheme tier. When they do any of those things, the Opposition will be here, ready to help. Until that time, the Chinese Communist party will think that our country is unwilling to deter future acts of hostility and unwilling to defend our democracy or our country.

[Dan Jarvis]

It is good to see the hon. Lady in her place. I am grateful for her comments today and for the contact that we have had recently. I hope she knows that this is a conversation that I want to continue to have with her and colleagues on the Opposition Benches. We take very seriously the points she has made today and on countless other occasions.

Let me try to provide the hon. Lady with some reassurance; if I am not able to do so, I would be happy to meet her again in the very near future. As she will understand, there are sensitivities that mean it is more difficult to get into the detail of some things, but let me see what I can say to try to provide some assurances.

The package that we have announced today is, by any metric, comprehensive, although I have been clear about the Government’s willingness to go further when and where that is required. The measures we have announced today will help us to tackle economic, academic, cyber and espionage threats that we face from China and other state actors. The impact of the measures will be immediate, but, as I say, we will not hesitate to go further where necessary; when we say that national security is the first priority of this Government, we take that incredibly seriously.

The hon. Lady is right that the threats we face from China require actions not words, but I gently reiterate some of the announcements that we have confirmed today. The work that we are taking forward will be co-ordinated by the Cabinet Office and me as part of a new counter-political interference and espionage plan; that will be the fulcrum point for co-ordinating activity right across Government and across law enforcement. She will have heard what I have said about the new guidance briefings that will be issued to Members of this House, the devolved Assemblies and candidates standing for election next May.

We are also putting our money where our mouth is. We have announced £170 million specifically towards renewing our sovereign encrypted technical capability and another £130 million on projects such as building the capacity of counter-terrorism police, working with the NCSC and the NPSA to protect intellectual property.

I have also referenced, as the hon. Lady did, the removal of surveillance equipment manufactured by companies subject to China’s national intelligence law—work that I absolutely acknowledge began under the previous Government. I am pleased to confirm that we have completed that process today. I have issued a written ministerial statement with further detail on that. There is also an important legislative angle to all this, which is why we introduced the new Cyber Security and Resilience Bill just last week, and why I give an assurance that we will introduce the elections Bill at the earliest available opportunity.

All these measures are important in their own right, but they are more important when they are brought together. In the end, though—I think the hon. Lady will agree with this—what really matters is our mindset, and our mindset is born of an absolute desire to work collaboratively across this place to protect our country and all the people who live here. Will that involve making some tough choices? Yes; the truth of the matter is that it will involve making some tough choices. The previous Government made some tough choices, and this Government will have to make tough choices. Like all our G7 counterparts, we will engage with those choices in a clear-eyed way. I do not think any serious Member of this House thinks that we should not be engaging with China—the debate is around the nature of the engagement.

The hon. Lady made some important points, and if I am not able to address them adequately, I will come back to her. She raised the importance of education and academic freedoms; I completely agree with her on that. She referenced Sheffield Hallam University specifically. She will understand that because of ongoing active inquiries into the matter, it would not be appropriate to comment on the specifics of what has allegedly happened at Sheffield Hallam. However, her points are well made, and I give her an absolute assurance that we take them incredibly seriously.

It did not come as a huge surprise to me that the hon. Lady also raised the issue of FIRS. She will remember that FIRS is a product of the National Security Act 2023. Some Members of this House said that we would not introduce FIRS at all; then, when we confirmed that we were going to introduce it, they said that we would not be able to do so by 1 July. I gave a categorical assurance that we would introduce it by 1 July, and we did. We are looking closely at whether it is necessary to make further additions to the enhanced tier, but I can say to the hon. Lady that no decision has yet been made with regard to China specifically.

The hon. Lady also asked me about the embassy. There has been much discussion about that matter in this place, and we are moving towards a point of decision. She will understand that that is not a decision for me; it will be made by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government in a quasi-judicial capacity. As a consequence of that, I am limited in what I can say. However, as I have said previously, I can say that national security has been the core priority throughout.

The hon. Lady spoke about visits to China. I would take a different view to her characterisation of those visits: I think it is important that members of this Government—Ministers and senior Ministers—engage with our counterparts in China, as it is only by engaging that we are provided with an opportunity to deliver tough and consistent messages. I can categorically assure her that any Minister or official who travels from this country to China will deliver a series of strong and coherent messages aligned with the messages that I have delivered to the House today.

The hon. Lady also asked about the audit. She will know that the previous Foreign Secretary gave a statement in this House about the China audit, but I will look carefully at the specific points she has made.

In concluding my response to the hon. Lady, I hope that she knows how seriously we take these matters, and I assure her categorically that I am very happy to work collaboratively with her and colleagues on the Opposition Benches to ensure that we secure the right outcome for the country.

Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Ward]

The hon. Gentleman raises a good point, and I thank him for his kind words in welcoming me. If I can speak as many times in this place as he does, I will be very grateful—[Interruption.] I am not sure anyone really wants that. He makes a very serious point about the threats posed by China and the threats posed to his constituents and all our constituents by that. That is the central message we should be trying to get back to: how the Government can work across the parties and how, with the CPS and others, we can all work to ensure that this kind of thing can never happen again.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Until the statement was published last night, some of us had no idea about the details of this case, but the Government appear to be unwilling to answer three questions that have been asked repeatedly in this Chamber, so can you, Mr Speaker, kindly help me to ascertain how we get answers to them? The first concerns proof that, for the 14 months the CPS asked about, the DNSA at no point spoke to any Ministers or the National Security Adviser. Why, when the Prime Minister was informed that the case would collapse, did he not do everything in his power, and is there any evidence that he took any action at all? And why, if the Government are so disappointed that the case collapsed, have there been to this day no repercussions for the Chinese Communist party, despite the Government in power having every tool in the box to make it clear that we will protect this House, this democracy and this country?

[Mr Speaker]

I cannot prolong the UQ. I know the hon. Lady well, and I know she will not leave it at that point of order. She will go and use all the options that are open to her, and I am sure that she will be coming back in not too distant a time.

Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who asks such a very useful question that parliamentarians should be asking themselves. Yes, I can give him that assurance, and I have made clear from this Dispatch Box on many occasions the importance that this Government attach, as I am sure the previous Government did, to the National Security Act 2023. It was a groundbreaking piece of legislation, and as my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), would acknowledge, I have paid tribute on numerous occasions to those who were involved.

My hon. Friend asks the right question. The NSA closed the loopholes that we are essentially debating today, so I can assure him that our legislative framework is in a much better place than it was a couple of years ago. That said, because this Government take these matters incredibly seriously, we constantly look at the legislative framework to assure ourselves that it is appropriate. We work very closely with Jonathan Hall KC, who has made recommendations, at the Government’s request, on our legislative framework, and we have made a commitment that wherever there is a requirement for more legislation, we will bring it forward.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

The integrated review refresh, which stated that the Chinese Communist party posed a threat to our people and our security, was in fact published the very day that these two men were arrested. But that in itself is a red herring, because the Bulgaria case proved that it is for a jury to decide whether a country is or could be a threat, and it is not for the Government alone to prove that. The Minister told the House in response to our urgent question that the Government demanded that the Chinese chargé d’affaires come in for the démarche. Did a Minister do that, or did an official do it?

Secondly, given that the House has been told how disappointed the Government are with this outcome and that they seem to be quite clear about the evidence of guilt, what repercussions are they choosing to put on the Chinese Communist party? Will they be cancelling the joint economic and trade commission? Will they be putting in place sanctions? Will they be banning the embassy? If they will not act, why not?

[Dan Jarvis]

Of course, the hon. Lady has a very close personal interest in this case, and it will be well understood by Members across the House why she has expressed concerns today and previously. I am sorry that she does not feel that the Government’s response is adequate, but I assure her that I will endeavour to ensure that this Government do as much as we possibly can to work with her and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on this issue, so that she can have confidence that these matters are not able to happen again.

The hon. Lady specifically asked about the démarche I referenced in my statement—it was not an urgent question—on 15 September. As she will know, that was done through the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, but I will come back to her with more details should she wish.

Official Secrets Act

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Member who has been heavily involved in this, Alicia Kearns.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

I will be responding in a personal capacity, but may I start by thanking you, Mr Speaker, for the support you have given to us over the past two years? I also place on record my gratitude to our intelligence community and counter-terrorism police, who are exceptional.

From a securities perspective, today’s events are disastrous. They will embolden our enemies and make us look unwilling to defend our own nation, even when attacked in this place, the mother of all Parliaments. I am relieved that the National Security Act will make it safer and easier in future to prosecute foreign spies, but I urge the Minister to reform the Treason Act so that traitors are prosecuted and face justice, put China in the enhanced tier, and support private prosecution.

It remains unclear to me why Chris Cash and Christopher Berry cannot be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act. The evidence shows a clear line between those two, the United Front Work Department and the politburo—the very top of the Chinese Communist party. The information shared was prejudicial to the safety and interests of the UK, and I believe it put Members at personal risk. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) was told by agency heads that the evidence was overwhelming and the case beyond doubt. Counter-terrorism police this morning agreed and said the same to me—that the evidential standard had been met at the time of charges.

My question for the Minister is simple: if officials, the security services and the police agree that the case was a slam dunk, why has the Crown Prosecution Service not been able to get it over the line? If the CPS was not confident, why, given the compelling evidence, did it not put it to a jury and test it? Whoever is responsible for this decision—whether the Director of Public Prosecutions, an official in his own Department or the Attorney General—they have weakened the defence of our country today and I am desperately sorry to see it.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her remarks, and I completely understand why she has phrased them in the way that she has. Let me also join her in thanking you, Mr Speaker, for the work you have done to keep parliamentarians safe. Over the next few days, weeks, months and years, it is vital that we work together. I look forward to meeting you later on today to discuss how we can ensure that we work together to safeguard all our parliamentary colleagues.

Turning to the substance of the remarks made by the hon. Lady, I agree with her characterisation of the National Security Act. I will look very carefully at the points she made specifically with regard to treason. On her assessment of the decision that has been made, I completely understand why she has arrived at that conclusion, as will Members right across the House. In my opening remarks, I expressed my extreme disappointment at the decision that has been made. These remarks, and the judgments people are forming in the House this afternoon, will be heard by the CPS. I know that she will take every opportunity—as will the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), whom she referenced in her introductory remarks—to seek a meeting with the CPS at the earliest available opportunity to hear and better understand the decision-making process it has been through.

As I have said previously, I am not able to speculate on the reason why the CPS has taken this decision. I am extremely disappointed that it has done so, but I will do everything I can to ensure that Government are organised so that we can ensure we have the resources in the right place to stand against the threats that we face.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call Alicia Kearns on a point of order. May I just say what a pleasure it is to see you back?

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. That is very kind. I shall be returning home to my four-month-old in a couple of hours.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Government Front Benchers are unable to answer the questions of this House regarding the decision making of the Crown Prosecution Service, so can you kindly advise how this House can scrutinise the Crown Prosecution Service and its decisions, as that is clearly the will of the House?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me notice of her point of order. I believe that this is a matter for the Attorney General—who is responsible for the CPS—and as he sits in the other place, maybe we will have to use the Solicitor General as a way forward. In this case, I hope that a clear message has gone back to everybody that when we still have Members of Parliament who have sanctions, we cannot let this go in the way that seems to have been done.

Income tax (charge)

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)]

The right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt) has confirmed that this is his last appearance at the Dispatch Box, at least in his current guise, so I begin by thanking him for his service to government and to the country. He and I have something in common: we both inherited an awful mess from our predecessors. He was appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer as the repair man—the adult in the room—and was meant to sort things out after the disaster left by his predecessor. He was supposed to be the antidote to Liz Truss, but in recent days, he has become an ally of Liz Truss, united with her in attacking the OBR. He was brought in to praise the economic institutions, but he has ended up condemning them. However, he cannot hide from the verdict: the OBR has confirmed that the previous Government hid billions of pounds of pressures that they knew about, and the Treasury has given us a full picture of precisely what those pressures added up to.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman states that a full breakdown was provided by the Treasury yesterday, but that is just not true. In fact, the chair of the OBR said on “Sky News” last night:

“Nothing in our review was a legitimisation of that £22 billion”

claim. That was him making it very clear that the OBR does not support and has not endorsed the claim in the Treasury report. Will the right hon. Gentleman now confirm, with a simple yes or no, that the OBR does not legitimise that claim?

[Pat McFadden]

Let me read what the OBR has said:

“The Treasury did not share information with the OBR about the large pressures on RDEL, about the unusual extent of commitments against the reserve… had this information been made available, a materially different judgement…would have been reached.”

[Pat McFadden]

The right hon. Gentleman suggests that things got better after February. They did not; they got worse, and that is how we got to £22 billion. This is not just a verdict about what happened but an indictment of the Conservative party’s final period in office. The truth is that, under his watch, the Treasury had stopped doing the basic job of controlling expenditure.

Announcements were made with no money set aside, the asylum and hotel bill was funded by emptying the country’s reserves within the first few months of the financial year, hospital building programmes were announced without the necessary funds set aside to pay for them, a pay award sat on a Secretary of State’s desk while they looked the other way, and compensation schemes were announced without the full funds being set aside to pay for them. That was an irresponsible dereliction of duty that has led to us picking up the pieces and to the right hon. Gentleman attacking the independent watchdog that was set up by his own party. Even his predecessor, the former Member for Spelthorne, admitted this morning that Labour is clearing up the Tory mess. If Conservative Members are more out of touch with reality than the former Member for Spelthorne, let me tell them that that is not a good place to be.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the IFS, which said this morning that the Chancellor

“is not wrong to stress that she got a hospital pass on the public finances.”

[Alicia Kearns]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Pat McFadden]

I have given way once.

[Alicia Kearns]

I thank him for giving way—oh.

[Pat McFadden]

No, I am not giving way.

The Conservatives talk about their golden legacy, and we heard the former Chancellor read out some of his greatest hits. Who are they kidding? The last Parliament was the worst on record for living standards, with British families worse off than their French and German counterparts. His Government had the second lowest growth in the G7 since the pandemic and the highest inflation in the G7 since the pandemic. They left a prison system overflowing and just days away from collapse, and rather than take responsibility for it, they cut and ran and called an early election.

I have to give the previous Government credit: some things did grow on their watch, such as hospital waiting lists, housing waiting lists, shoplifting, insecure work and the decline of our high streets. That is their record, and it falls to us to fix it and start to rebuild Britain, so there is no point in coming to this Chamber and pretending that people are making it all up.

The former Chancellor talks about business. His party stuffed business—his colleague, the former Prime Minister, said “eff business”, and then the Conservatives carried out the policy. Under them, we had the lowest business investment in the G7. Why? Because of constant chaos in their Governments, meaning that business did not know who would be leading them from one year to the next; because they caved in to their Back Benchers and blocked anything substantial from being built; and because businesses could not hire the workers they needed with so many people on the sick.

This could have been a Budget where we just muddled through—patched up some mistakes made by the Conservative party and hoped something would turn up—but that is not good enough. We have had that time and again. In fact, we have had 14 years of it—long enough to show that that approach is not going to work. The country voted for change, and this was a Budget to deliver change. It is not a time for more of the same; it is a time to choose. We did not duck the challenge or look the other way; we confronted the challenge, because that is what the country needs. This is the moment when the country turns a corner and sets out a proper plan for the years to come.

We did make tax changes in this Budget, which is never an easy thing to do. That was because the first thing we had to do was fix the foundations and put the public finances on a sound footing. With this Budget, we say how we will pay for what we will do. The first fiscal rule announced by the Chancellor is to fund day-to-day spending from the revenue that we raise, a rule that the OBR judges will be met two years early.

The IMF, to which the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash referred, has today welcomed

“the Budget’s focus on boosting growth through a needed increase in public investment while addressing urgent pressures on public services”,

so let me turn to those public services. Secondly, there will be more NHS appointments to get waiting lists and times down; more technology to improve productivity; more prevention to stop people falling ill in the first place; new surgical hubs and diagnostic centres; a hospital-building programme brought from fiction to reality, this time founded on more than hot air; new schools to help children learn; more teachers to bring out the best in every child; and more investment in further education to give people the skills they need. It is investment and reform together—not just more money into the same system, but changing the system for a new age, with productivity targets alongside the extra money.

The right hon. Gentleman also talked about welfare spending, but the Conservatives had plenty of time to sort out welfare spending. Their legacy is almost 3 million people out of work because of long-term sickness. The truth is that they did not have a plan, but they do have a record, and again, it falls to us to sort that record out. We will take tough action on welfare fraud, and we will not give up on those who can work and make a contribution, because we understand that when the sick can get treated and when every child of every background has the best chance to learn, that is not just good for them and their families but for the economy as a whole.

Thirdly, this Budget put in place help with the cost of living for millions: a rising minimum wage with extra help for young workers, fuel duty frozen, carers allowed to earn more, the triple lock protected, the household support fund extended to help the poorest, and lower deductions from universal credit. Those are the choices that we made—real help for millions of people.

Finally, we reject the path of decline for investment that the Conservatives were planning. They wanted to cut public investment by a third. That was the right hon. Gentleman’s plan—to once again cut back on the house building, schools, hospitals and transport projects that the country needs. That is a path of decline that has been chosen too often in the past. The Tories do not yet have a leader, and the only policy to come out of their leadership contest so far is to cut maternity pay, but on the question of investment, they do have a position. Budgets are about choices, and yesterday they chose: the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) railed against our new investment rule, and more Conservative Members have spoken out since. What does that mean their position is? New money for housing—opposed. New money for schools—opposed. New money for potholes—opposed. New money for research—opposed. Investment in the future itself—opposed by the Conservative party. I understand the perils of opposition. We have had long enough experience of it, but if the Conservatives really want to run around the country opposing every new investment over the coming four or five years, be our guests.

Yes, this Budget was a big choice, and in opposing the investments within it, the Conservatives have made a big choice too. We will remind them of it, project after project, year after year. They wanted to lock us into the world that voters rejected just four short months ago.

Iran-Israel Update

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

My condolences, Mr Speaker, on the loss of your father.

This remains a dangerous moment, yet over the weekend we saw a demonstration of unity and purpose. We saw the depth of will for normalisation and for a secure future for all peoples of the middle east. Restraint is vital if we want to build on the momentum to get hostages home to their families and to get improvements to continuing aid, but to better protect our people, will my right hon. Friend commit to launching with our allies a new consensus on Iran and a new effort—with combined diplomatic, military and wider expert areas—to limit the extent of the atrocities of Iran? We need to end the compartmentalisation of threats when we deal with Iran; we must deal with it as one, whether on its nuclear ambitious, the arming of the militia, femicide or transnational repression. Only with a new consensus will we see that progress, so will he please commit to leading that internationally?

[The Prime Minister]

I can give my hon. Friend that commitment. That was exactly the subject of our discussions among the G7 leaders yesterday. She mentions nuclear. Iran’s nuclear programme has never been more advanced than it is today; it threatens international peace and security. There is absolutely no justification, at a civilian level, for the enrichment that we are seeing and which the International Atomic Energy Agency has reported in Iran. I want to reassure her that we are considering next steps on the nuclear file with our international partners, and we are committed to using all diplomatic tools available to ensure that Iran never develops a nuclear weapon, including using the snapback mechanism if necessary.