Alicia Kearns MP: speeches

Speeches

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is completely right. We were told repeatedly and consistently that due process was not followed. I know that it was not because I have been through security clearance. At the first level, before I could hand in my notice at my existing job and join the civil service, I had to wait seven months for security clearance. Then there was developed vetting, for which I had to wait about six months before I could take up a new role. I have also been through STRAP clearance, so I have been through the works. The claim that due process was followed does not sit right with me. Fundamentally, if due process was followed, Olly Robbins did not deserve to be sacked—he must have breached due process if he needed to be sacked. I will vote in favour of the motion and end my day with a clear conscience, knowing that I voted to give my communities the answers that they deserve. I hope that every Member can say the same. We are asking whether the man leading our country has the judgment that his office necessitates and the required commitment to the truth. At this moment, the country does not believe that that commitment is there, so let us have an inquiry and see if it was.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. Some Members have suggested that their constituents do not really care about process and whether the truth is told in this Chamber, and that they are not really interested in this privilege motion, but that is most certainly not the case—and that is something that Members will experience in the months to come. I fear that a future release of files will further contradict the Prime Minister’s version of events. We discovered only this morning that Jonathan Powell, the National Security Adviser, was also appointed before being vetted. I asked the Government about his vetting in February, and I was told that national security vetting for the current National Security Adviser was conducted to the usual standard set for developed vetting. Does that sound familiar? Clearly, something went awry and due process was not followed, but this House was told once again that due process was followed. Judgment is revealed not in the exception but in the pattern, and there is a very clear pattern in this situation.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  I fully accept that. I know better and I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  Oh my goodness! I can only apologise again for saying “you”, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is a reason why Labour MPs from older intakes have chosen not to come and defend the Prime Minister: they have seen this show before and know what happens. They know that their gut is telling them the right thing to do. I congratulate those of them who have been brave enough to speak out and share their views. The House will recall that the Government attempted to whip Labour MPs against giving the Intelligence and Security Committee a role in assessing and releasing the Mandelson files, as per the Humble Address. Parliament asserted itself on that day, and we must do so again. A vote against this motion will show loud and clear that Labour Members forgave, followed the party line and ignored their conscience. There is precedent here: in 2022, the House unanimously passed a motion allowing an inquiry into whether the then Prime Minister had misled Parliament. We Conservatives supported that motion—not a single MP blocked it. I know how hard such decisions are because we have been there. I supported the Committee’s finding that Boris Johnson had misled the House. My advice to Labour MPs is to listen to your conscience and do what you know is right. Members will thank themselves, as the years pass by, for being free of the weight of regret. Standards matters should never be whipped. Is any Labour MP willing to stand up and say that the threat of having the Whip removed has not been made? So far, none of them has said that. [ Interruption. ] Indeed, pressure seems to be an issue that we ought to debate more. I would also say to Labour MPs who are considering speaking in this debate that you may find—[Hon. Members: “They may find!”] Labour Members may find that, before the vote this evening, their party changes its mind and they are no longer being whipped. I encourage Labour MPs to reflect on whether that is the record that a Member may wish to have. Whips do change their minds if Members make representations to them. Can you truly say that the whole story is out there?

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  Let me finish this point and then I will happily take an intervention. We have specific laws that when someone senior to you puts you under undue pressure or treats you in a certain way, they have to take far more responsibility, because they have the ability to exercise that responsibility and authority over you which you cannot challenge. If the hon. Gentleman wants to come back and argue that he does not believe that in hierarchies, particularly No. 10 political appointments versus civil servants, there is such an imbalance in power, I will happily have him make that case.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  Are we really suggesting in this debate, in this Chamber, that anyone who does not pass vetting fully and comprehensively, and who is not granted it without hesitation, should be given the most important of our ambassadorships? The Government seem to be suggesting that someone who is borderline—about whom there are any red flags—should be put in that sort of role. Is that not extraordinary?

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry but the idea that somebody just chasing an update—“Can I just check where we are with that? We really would like to get it done”—and that there is no concept of any bullying because someone is just asking for something to be done a bit quicker, is a foolhardy suggestion by the hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister has come to the House many times, as hon. Members have said, but he has not answered the questions. The Prime Minister himself set the terms. Either he misled the House or he was reckless with the truth, and those are the terms that he set. Multiple people have lost their jobs over this Prime Minister’s decision to appoint Mandelson: two civil servants and two political appointments. For a man who said he would never sack his staff because of his own appointments, that is quite something. The Prime Minister’s judgment has also shown that he was happy to appoint people to Cabinet who had lied to the police, where he knew full well that they had done that, so there is a pattern. Olly Robbins lost his job for implementing the wishes of the Prime Minister by the book. Either he followed due process and was sacked for doing so, or there was no due process and he was sacked because there was not. The Prime Minister’s position so far is that the former is true; it cannot be both, in which case Olly Robbins should never have been sacked. He did his job under immense pressure and was stripped of the agency to say no. As Mr Speaker set out at the start of the debate, this motion does not attribute guilt to anyone and the vote today is for an investigation by the Privileges Committee. That Committee is chaired by my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), and I want to place on the record my total faith in his probity and professionalism. Unfortunately, as we have seen in previous approaches and investigations, some people may seek to undermine individuals. I appreciate that there are a range of views among Labour Members. Some of them seem genuinely to believe the Prime Minister’s version of events, while others share the concerns of Conservative Members, even if they are reticent to say so. I point out that at no point in this debate has there been more than nine Labour MPs sat on the Back Benches who were elected before 2024. I was once a new MP, and I too went through this process. As I have said before, on the Owen Paterson vote, I voted in a way that I deeply regret. I had planned to vote against him, because, in watching the debate from the Government Benches, I was horrified by what I saw. Despite the enormous pressure from people around me, I thought, “Okay, I must do what is right,” and I decided to vote with those 13 brave Conservatives who did the right thing. I then went downstairs to breastfeed my daughter, who was very young at the time—she was just turning six months old—but when I came back upstairs there was only one minute remaining following the Division Bells. When I looked at the two voting Lobbies, I could not see those 13 friends who had gone the right way on the vote, so I stood there on my own, absolutely terrified about what to do, and saw everyone else going through the other Lobby. I will never, ever accept feeling that way ever again. I say to the new intake that there is a reason why no other MPs from previous intakes are on the Labour Benches, and why MPs from previous intakes have said, “If your gut is telling you there’s a problem, there’s a problem.” They have given you their advice. They often tell us how dismissive you are of them, but— [ Interruption. ] Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker—you would never be dismissive of anyone. There is a reason, and you should take that time—

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is right that there are some precedents for House business being whipped, but the lesson is that it is a fool’s errand—it is normally the start of the end. He is making a fair point and being kind to his Front Benchers, but does he agree that we should learn from precedent and not necessarily repeat it?

• 27 Apr 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over) · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State suggested in his speech that no comfort letters were ever issued by Tony Blair, but a court case collapsed specifically because of one of them, so could he clarify that? More specifically, the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said that a member of staff hired by the Northern Ireland Office is having meetings about the early release of IRA dissidents. That worries the House intensely. Will the Secretary of State confirm that no such requests have been made by the Northern Ireland Office, or, if any such requests have been made, that they have been immediately denied very clearly, both in writing and verbally?

• 27 Apr 2026 · Veterans Railcard and HM Forces Railcard · Hansard source

  More

  This Government have legislated to protect railcard discounts for young people, the elderly and disabled passengers, yet shamefully in the same breath voted against doing the same for our veterans and armed forces. The Government told us that we should simply trust them not to remove these railcards in the future. That is not good enough and, frankly, is another black eye for our veterans and armed forces. I thank the 225 people who signed this petition with a wet signature, and the 1,623 people who signed my separate online petition on this issue. If the principle is sound enough to enshrine in law for others, it is sound enough to enshrine in law for those who serve their nation. The petition states: The petition of residents of the United Kingdom, Declares that Veterans and HM Forces rail travel discounts should be protected in law. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to introduce legislation to create a statutory duty for the continued provision of the Veterans Railcard and HM Forces Railcard schemes. And the petitioners remain, etc. [P003192]

• 27 Apr 2026 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am intervening because I am a little bit concerned. One of the Ministers and the Parliamentary Private Secretaries are mouthing across the Chamber that there will be no ban. I would be grateful for clarification that there is unity on the Labour side. It is clear—I have checked with those around me, and they all agree that that is exactly what is being mouthed—so it is a bit confusing.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Social media is the biggest child protection issue of our time, whether it is sexual exploitation, grooming, bullying, radicalisation or, of course, mental health and the risk of addiction. Raising the social media age limit to 16 is the right thing to do. I welcome the Government making this decision and thank them for doing so. That is why this Chamber and that of the Lords exist: because no one can make the right policy in isolation; we come together as a House, particularly with the support of our country. No MP in this room has not been inundated by parents and children desperately asking them to make sure that this change is brought forward. It is good news, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) on her hard work pushing the Government on it. I also thank the Lords for their work. There is no question but that their vote this evening was absolutely decisive. Locally, I want to mention the Conversation Stamford, who are an incredible group, mainly of mothers who have come together to go around our schools and fight to have a good, honest and important conversation about what access young people should have not only to social media but to phones. They are working class by class to get parents to come together as a community, to make a decision where they all stand together on what access their children have, to protect them together. We will hold the Government to this promise; the shadow Secretary of State most certainly will, and parents will be watching. Most of all, we are doing this for parents; it is they who will hold the Government to account. This is a good day; it shows that the right thing happens when the House comes together and does what is in the national interest and the best interests of our children and our future.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  Any assessment of this intervention must recognise that the Iranian regime has made the Iranian people pay with blood for every single act of defiance, so any attempt to apportion blame when a mass insurrection does not materialise would be unjust, and I hope that we will soon hear Ministers say so from the Dispatch Box. Last week, I raised concerns that the assessment of the intent and capability of Iran was clearly flawed, and this weekend’s activity has proved that to be true. What action has the Secretary of State taken to challenge thinking internally, and to support British overseas territories by taking action to reinforce their defences and by speaking to their elected Governments, not just governors?

• 23 Mar 2026 · Child Exploitation · Hansard source

  More

  Online cowards such as Andrew Tate make money by radicalising boys into viewing women as prey, which has been laid bare once again by Louis Theroux’s documentary “Manosphere”. Meanwhile, we have religious preachers encouraging men to beat and rape their wives if they refuse to give them sex at their request. Will the Home Secretary therefore issue statutory guidance requiring police forces to use existing incitement legislation to prosecute those who incite sexual violence against women and girls, and will she share what a difference that could make? The reality is that we have the laws, but they are not being used in creative ways to crack down on those who use their voices in this way.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Student Loans · Hansard source

  More

  I was of the Tony Blair generation. We were told that unless we went to university, we were a failure, and that everyone should be able to go to university. That was fundamentally wrong; it led to a two-tier system where those who did not go to university were asking why not. I remember young people at my sixth form asking, “Am I not as bright? Do I not have the same prospects?” They should have been encouraged and supported. For example, my brother went into carpentry while studying philosophy at Birmingham. He could have started his career at a much earlier point. By rebalancing, we are giving the right recognition to the skills and training needed earlier, rather than pushing people into unnecessary debt traps.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Flooding: Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is at risk of stealing my sandwiches, but I will get there shortly. He is right, particularly when it comes to farmers; too often they are overlooked and they need support. The issues that I hear about at my flooding summits are that local authorities are too often silent when asked for help, and that riparian owners are not taking their duties as seriously as they should—dredging goes undone and drains go uncleared—and when people from Rutland ask the Government for support, we are told that we do not qualify. The reason for that is a simple number: 50. To access the flooding recovery framework, 50 houses must flood. Below that line, there is no support; above that line, here comes the cavalry. For Leicestershire and Lincolnshire, which I also serve, 50 flooded houses is sadly an achievable and often exceeded threshold, but because Rutland is the smallest county—we have just 41,000 residents—we almost never hit 50 flooded homes, thankfully. We must remember the 30 houses that were badly damaged in Greatford in Lincolnshire, which I serve. If it had been the only village in Lincolnshire to flood, it would have had no support, despite people having to be evacuated by boat and being besieged. There is something deeply wrong with a framework so rigid that those in need of help do not or might not receive support. I raised this objection in the last Parliament, and my Government then listened. The Conservative Government made sure that in 2024, for the first time ever, Rutland could access the flood recovery grant. I ask the Government to make those changes permanent ahead of the next big floods this year. Surely support should be based on the percentage of the population affected or just those who are the most affected, and accessing this funding would make an enormous difference. I also ask the Minister to ensure that she provides support for farmers. In the village of Tixover in my community, for example, farmers have had to spend up to £80,000 this year buying food for their sheep, which would otherwise just graze off the grass, because they cannot access their land because it is so flooded. We talk about flood risk in terms of physical damage, infrastructure and recovery time, but there is a financial dimension to this issue that is devastating households. That is the insurance market. For families in flood-risk areas, insurance premiums are eye-watering where they are available at all, so families have to cover the risk themselves; they hope that this year, the storm will pass, the river will hold or the drain will cope, but it never quite does. A family living in fear of flooding is living in fear, not just of water, but of the bill that comes in the post. Flood Re was a vital reinsurance scheme established by the last Government, but homes built since 2009 are not covered, and that scheme’s remit will end in 2030, leaving people stuck. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us an update on the Government’s thinking on this matter.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Flooding: Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I was not aware of just how drastic insurers see the situation, but it does not surprise me, based on what I see in my communities. I know that my hon. Friend has worked consistently on the issue of flooding, so I take him at his word that we need to be looking at that problem more seriously. Turning to dredging, the Environment Agency consistently argues that we should not be dredging its man-made assets, but that position is not supported by landowners and farmers, who are the custodians of our land and understand it. It can restore natural water flow, support better drainage and remove debris. It should be an option, as should removing vegetation from EA assets.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Flooding: Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I am in quite an unenviable position, in that only some of my constituency is covered by an internal drainage board, but that capital is absolutely fundamental. I am sure the Minister has heard my right hon. Friend’s intervention and will be able to reflect that in her speech—I was going to ask about that issue, but I no longer need to do that, so I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I want to touch briefly on flood alleviation schemes. We need strategies to store water better, because we are moving from droughts to floods and back to droughts. Water resilience and water security should be treated with equal importance to food security. Turning to planning and development, the Government plan significantly—and, in my view, disproportionately—to increase the number of homes built in rural areas. All the cities around me have seen significant reductions in how many houses they have to build, while each of my areas has seen an increase in what is expected of over 100%, despite our consistently over-delivering on the targets previously set. Planning and development have to be done responsibly, and I fear that so much of the building is going to be on floodplains, or on the outskirts of small villages whose drainage has only just kept up with modern-day life and modern times. Those villages will find their infrastructure overrun by these additional housing pressures.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Flooding: Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I will gently say to Members that, as much as I love to have an audience for my Adjournment debate, we must recognise that I need to get through everything. I will give way quickly to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) and then to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

• 18 Mar 2026 · Flooding: Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—riparian ownership is a repeated issue in my community. It is also devastating to hear that he has things like shopping trollies in his waterways; we are very fortunate, in that we have so many local groups who go out and drag anything like that out of our waterways, although it is very rare. We need action to get those issues resolved.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Flooding: Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I will happily pay tribute. In fact, that gives me a great opportunity to mention Ben Thornely, who is our local Environment Agency officer. It does not matter when I call him or whether it is an emergency or proactively trying to make our communities safer, he always takes the call, and he has been out to see our communities whenever I ask. There are people in the system who work incredibly hard, and this is a great opportunity to thank them. Every year I hold flooding summits across the three counties I serve, and every year the story is the same.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Flooding: Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this debate. Water has no respect for property. It has no regard for a family’s memories or for a business’s survival. It rises where it will, and for too many in our communities across Rutland, Harborough and the South Kesteven villages, it rises again and again. In Whissendine, the White Lion pub flooded four times in 2024 alone. The water was so deep in the village that people water-skied, although of course I cannot condone that. The pub’s damage was so severe and so repeated that the insurers, the very people paid to be there when it matters most, walked away. Yolanda and Chris Stevenson, who have spent years running the pub, were left to face the consequences alone. A home, a livelihood and a community hub were all under threat. Sometimes the barriers to getting things done leave me quite bereft. In Whissendine, the simple installation of a depth gauge would make a big difference to preventing cars from driving through when the roads are flooded and yet, for the life of me, I cannot get anyone to fund it or agree to it. In Langham, the same homes have flooded every single year since 2024, and properties that barely saw a drop of water in the years before now face a deluge, which often comes through their doors as lorries drive belligerently through our flooded streets when they should know better. However, no one stops them because the council repeatedly fails to put up signs shutting the road. I believe that residents should be empowered to put up signs themselves, in co-ordination with local flood response leads. Residents are spending thousands of pounds on flood defences, and not because they want to but because they have to. In Tallington, a storm left the sewage system and residents without working toilets or showers. Thankfully, by supporting Philip Sagar and Tallington parish council, we have secured and completed works on the culvert under the railway, which was incredibly difficult to negotiate, and more is planned. We also have Thurnby brook, which flooded in 2024 and 2025 following the storms, and the impact is still felt today. There is the beautiful Braceborough, which suffered horrendously. There is Greatford, where I was left at 9 o’clock at night ringing the circus—the real circus; it was Pinder’s circus from Rutland, which was in Hungary at the time—and begging it to help me find portaloos for the village. When Storm Henk struck, the village did not flood; it was engulfed. Some people had to be rescued by boats, and people spent nights in rescue centres. When the waters finally receded, a third of all homes had been severely damaged, and many people could not return home for well over a year. These residents can easily be statistics, but we all know that each of them is a family with their own story. These are the same communities that are about to have a 1,300-acre solar plant imposed on flood plains right next to their homes. Flooding is not unique to my patch, and I am not trying to claim a monopoly on hardship, but I am here to advocate for solutions.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Flooding: Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has been very generous with interventions. We are about to run out the clock. There were a few more questions and I would be very grateful if she would write to me on them. I know how diligently she fulfils her brief and I am really grateful to her for that, but it would be great to have answers to all the wider points I raised as well.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Flooding: Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  Run-off has unfortunately been a real problem. I have only three towns in my constituency. They are not substantial, but Oakham in particular has seen a real issue with run-off, and that is all from new properties. It needs to be dealt with, and it speaks to the need for incentives and sticks. New fiduciary financial liabilities would make clear to developers that if they build new homes and in the short term—between the following five to 15 years—there is a significant increase in flooding that was not previously occurring, they should be liable for action to build additional flood prevention aids or to upgrade the flood defences or drains they originally built. That brings me to the planning process, where it would be sensible if water companies became statutory consultees. Turning to local councils, a couple of years ago we Conservatives had to force the first ever special meeting in the history of Rutland county council, because the council was not responding on flooding and was insisting that those who had to move out of their homes would have to pay council tax on both their original property and the one they were renting. The council’s long overdue section 19 flooding report has finally been published, but it had little about what the council would do to protect us in the future. Instead, it focused on telling us all what the problems are. First, we already knew that, and secondly, it took the council pretty much 18 months from the first flood to report, and we had already had a second flood in the meantime. We all know our communities and we know what the issues are. A statutory limit on how long section 19 reports can take is necessary, but councils should also have to go beyond just setting out the problem and lay out the solutions that are needed. Will the Government do that, and will they mandate that those who have had to move out of their homes due to flooding should be protected from the cost of covering council tax on two properties? Frankly, I am tired of having that fight with my local councils every time we have significant flooding. I will touch on some of the flooding heroes in our communities. Phil Britton and the entire Greatford parish council and flood warden team rebuilt and recovered in the most extraordinary way. They have gone on to be determined to help other communities to protect themselves better. It is so beautiful to see them wanting to share their expertise and plans with others. Richard Besant, chair of Langham parish council, has advocated and pushed relentlessly on behalf of his village. I mentioned Philip Sagar, the chair of Tallington parish council, who has been a persistent and principled voice for residents who have been facing avoidable misery. I also touched on Yolanda and Chris Stevenson, who fought not only for their own pub in Whissendine, but for the entire community when others frankly would have given up and hidden in a hole. Those are just some of the people who have held our communities together, and they are remarkable, and I am so proud to represent them. There are more who I wish I could name who have stepped up. It should not be left to those who care passionately to improve our flood defences or respond in an emergency. It should not be councillors, such as Kiloran Heckels or Karen Payne, who find themselves out in the dark trying to get to the bottom of things. In Whitwell, we literally had people putting on scuba gear, diving down to the bottom of the water—that is how deep it was—to try to get things out of the drains to get the water moving. It also should not be left to farmers, who are often our first responders and flood wardens, to stand in the breach because the authorities simply have not responded. Let me be clear about what I am asking. I am disappointed that our communities have been excluded from the flood funds that were announced overnight, and I would be grateful if the Government revisited that decision. I cannot believe that we are not some of the worst affected communities in the country, not least from the conversations I have had with the Environment Agency. The Government should do more to support local flood resilience groups because, as we discussed earlier, our communities know what is best for them. We know where the flooding has happened, for how long and when there are new patterns. On insurance, the Flood Re scheme must be updated. Can section 19 reports please have far more of a focus on action and a time limit? We need to end double council tax for victims of flooding and challenge the existing orthodoxy on dredging that is letting our communities down. On developers, we need financial liabilities to ensure that developers who build new homes tackle flooding pre-emptively or are held to account when they have not done so sufficiently. We need water companies to become statutory consultees in the planning process. Finally, as I have touched on, I want the Government to review the flooding recovery framework and in particular the 50-house threshold. As it stands, it systematically excludes my communities that are incredibly vulnerable. In conclusion, the heavy rains will come again, and I fear they will come far too soon, and our communities cannot face this challenge alone. I have touched on some of the villages that have suffered flooding, but we have had it in Whitwell, Whissendine, Careby, including Careby’s beautiful church, Creeton, Edenham, Braceborough, Ashwell, Stretton, Glooston, Lyddington, Stonton Wyvill, Langham, Tugby, Tallington, Greatford and Barleythorpe Brooke. Those are all in the last two years, and there are far more who have suffered. Rural communities deserve protection and recovery should not depend on population density and protections for those who can afford the premium. I suspect that these are principles that command support throughout the Chamber, regardless of political alliance, but principles unmatched by policy are just words, and I believe that we in our villages deserve much more than words. This really is one of our foremost concerns and priorities. I am grateful to the Minister for listening to the points that I have raised, and she is very welcome to come to my next flooding summit. I will bring three counties together if necessary, which may be a shock to their systems, but we would do it if she were willing to come and have those discussions. I look forward very much to hearing her response this evening.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  For four months, I asked the Government what severance payments Mandelson received. According to the permanent secretary of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, I received no reply due to an “error”. Now, we have the failure to release 56 documents. Mandelson should have been dismissed for gross misconduct, yet the British people had to fork out for a payout. Even though Treasury rules say that severance payments cannot be used “to avoid…unwelcome publicity or reputational damage”, Foreign Office advice to the Prime Minister said: “Given the reputational impact for HMG, a modest settlement as proposed is the recommended course of action.” Does the Minister maintain that no rules were broken with Mandelson’s payoff?