Alicia Kearns MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 9 Mar 2026 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for recognising that we need to legislate to protect children with allergies in schools. Can she reassure us that the Benedict Blythe Foundation, Helen and the MPs who have campaigned for this will see the amendment at the very earliest opportunity before it goes to the Lords, so we can ensure that Benedict’s law is delivered in full?

• 9 Mar 2026 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Lords amendment 105 is named Benedict’s law for Benedict Blythe, who was just five years old when he suffered a fatal anaphylactic reaction at school after being exposed to allergens. No child should go to school in the morning feeling anxious that they will not be safe, and no parent should fear at drop-off that they may never pick up their child again, but that was the unfortunate reality for Helen and Peter Blythe. Since that day, they have fought to make sure that every child is safer in school. Benedict’s law would ensure that every school has a mandatory allergy policy and holds spare adrenalin medications on site, and that every member of staff is trained and knows how to protect children. One in three schools in our country currently has none of those things, but we would not have known that if it was not for Helen’s campaigning for the Benedict Blythe Foundation. That is why this law is needed. I offer my thanks to the Government. The statutory guidance to which they have committed is a real step forward, and today’s announcement that the Government will accept our amendment by tabling it in the Government’s name is welcome. It finishes the job, and means that full protections will finally be in place. Every measure that protects a child with allergies is a good thing, and I am so relieved that we have reached this point. I drafted the Benedick Blythe amendment last September, and I pay tribute to Harry Warren and my team, with whom I have campaigned throughout this time. When the amendment was put to the Lords, the Government whipped their peers to vote against it. I thank every noble Lord who voted for it, because they brought us here today. The Government had told me that legislation was not needed. When the guidance was announced, we welcomed it, but we said that it did not go far enough. That is why we pushed our amendment to a vote. We are glad the Government now recognise that the guidance does not go far enough, largely because we were determined to push the amendment to a vote. We will need to see the wording of the amendment as soon as possible, because in the Lords we learned that guidance can be given and guidance can be taken away. There was a view that a threat of losing what little had been offered would deter Helen Blythe, and that misjudged her entirely. I am willing to draw a line under this, but I put it on the record that I want the Government to maintain their resolve and make sure the amendment is laid, because on Tuesday last week we received a letter telling all of us in this place that the amendment would be voted down and was not needed. On Friday, that was still the Government’s position, which is why they missed the deadline to lay their own amendment. I want to turn to the financing of this amendment. The Government do not plan to provide funding to schools for the medications needed to protect children having anaphylactic shock. That is not the right approach. It currently costs the taxpayer about £9 million to provide the additional adrenalin auto-injectors prescribed to children to take into school individually. By altering the distribution method, as the Benedict Blythe Foundation has recommended, the new measures in Benedict’s law could save the Treasury £1 million a year. Just as with defibrillators, which the Conservative Government funded for all schools, we are asking the Government to fund medications to save the taxpayer money. These savings are before we consider the estimated £1.5 million saved by reducing A&E and hospital admissions, improvements in school attendance and parental workforce participation. I ask the Government to look at that again as they draft the amendment for the Lords. I want to close by paying tribute to Helen Blythe. Her asks have really been very simple: “Benedict’s life mattered. His death must matter too”. That is why we come to this place—to protect those who need us—and I am so proud to have been able to stand beside Helen in her fight. I ask colleagues today to hold Benedict in their hearts tonight. I know that today is a good day, but such a promise will only be worthy of him when it is kept and when children become safer in our schools.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This is not about the ability of parents; it is about recognising that social media platforms are being weaponised by algorithms—let alone by hostile states—to make children addicted to them. It is impossible for parents to protect their children who do not have the critical thinking skills before 16. Having worked in counter-terrorism, I know that it is critical thinking that stops people from getting on planes to blow themselves up in foreign countries. The No. 2 cause of stroke in women under 40 is being strangled during sex. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is because they have been told on the internet that they can be safely strangled? They cannot. We have to protect our children, because it is impossible for them to police things or have the critical thinking skills to protect themselves when they are on the internet.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  It is slightly bizarre to hear the hon. Member for Clacton appear to make the argument that the Maldives should own Diego Garcia. On the question from my right hon. Friend the Father of the House, putting aside the wider Bill, as the Minister does not wish to discuss it, does article 298 of UNCLOS exempt military bases—very simply, yes or no? The Minister is a diplomat, so he knows the answer.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Electronic Travel Authorisation: Dual Nationals · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his response. The ETA scheme was introduced by the Conservative Government to secure and modernise Britain’s borders. Under the previous system, someone holding a passport from a non-visa nation could enter the UK for six months with minimal formality. That left the Home Office unable to distinguish between a genuine British citizen travelling on a foreign passport and someone who had simply overstayed. The changes strengthen our borders, and I am afraid that the Liberal Democrat suggestion that three years’ notice is somehow insufficient is not serious policymaking. Most immigration and border changes take effect within months. Tax changes happen within a single Budget cycle. A three-year transition for a documentation requirement is not unreasonable. The change does not remove rights. It does not strip anyone of citizenship. It concerns the evidence required when travelling. People have known since 2023 that change was coming, so this is not a radical change. Citizenship carries rights, but it also carries responsibilities. Maintaining appropriate documentation is one of them. If the Liberal Democrats wish to argue for weaker evidential standards at the border, they should do so plainly. What they should not do is pretend that three years’ notice is somehow an injustice. Turning to practical questions, the Minister has set out the contingency plans to support dual nationals. Will he confirm that consular services within the Foreign Office will be properly resourced to support individuals? Will he also commit to improving the communications plan, which has been insufficient? I note that ahead of today there has been no communication on the Minister’s Twitter account, when normally he is so busy creating videos that he believes may or may not go viral. I understand that some airlines are accepting expired British passports issued since 1989, but will the Minister confirm whether that will become a consistent approach across all airlines? That is the minimum expectation that the Government should put in place. Finally, will he also confirm what specific efforts have been made to ensure that those serving under the King’s Colour, if deployed abroad, will have no issues coming home? The Conservatives support robust improvements to ensure that we have enforceable borders.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks. Fees for migration and border products and services play a vital role in our country’s ability to run a sustainable immigration system. Just like any other public service, it is right that those who use and benefit from the UK’s immigration system should contribute to it. The proposed changes set out in the draft order will not only reduce the financial burden on the taxpayer but generate a significant amount of much needed income for the Home Office. However, we must be mindful of how any increase to the electronic travel authorisation fee could impact the number of visitors to the UK, so I would be grateful if the Minister could outline what assessments have been made of the impact of increasing the ETA, and explain why £20 is considered the appropriate level of increase. The real focus needs to be on how the funding will be used, because it will generate significant fees. The Government have repeatedly stated that immigration must be significantly reduced, yet in 2025 more than 41,000 people crossed the English channel in small boats and entered the country illegally. As of June 2025, we have 32,000 illegal immigrants residing in hotels. How will the funding be used? Will it primarily fund the cost of dealing with illegal migration, or is some other enhancement planned in the immigration system? I acknowledge that responsibility for this matter lies with a number of members of the Home Office team, but given these concerning figures, it is important to know where the funding will go. Does the Minister anticipate that the cost to the Home Office will remain as high? Does he anticipate that the maxima fee will have to be increased again in the near future? For how long can he commit to that increase? Does he guarantee that the additional income will deliver a more efficient border system, or will the increased income simply subsidise a system that is still not working?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for not giving you prior notice, Mr Speaker, but during Health questions this morning the Minister said that for the first time ever there will be a children’s cancer strategy as part of the cancer strategy. However, the Government scrapped the children’s cancer strategy that we had put in place, so should the Minister not come and correct the record for having misled the House—

• 23 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  “There is no money left!”

• 23 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid that this question may feel like groundhog day. This time last month, I asked for a meeting about local government reform, because my residents are so concerned. I was promised a meeting, yet despite having chased at least twice a week every single week for the past month, we have had zero response from the Department. When are we going to get the meetings on really important matters that we are promised in this Chamber?

• 23 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  It is not funny.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Female Genital Mutilation · Hansard source

  More

  Many of the practitioners who sell the heinous crime of female genital mutilation also sell exorcisms of children. Thousands of children have died from these so-called exorcisms over the past 10 years, including from the black African community here in the UK. Does the Solicitor General have any consideration of what needs to be done in the law to protect these children?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister, who has now left the Chamber, said that each Humble Address that his party laid in opposition mentioned national security. However, I have checked the two most recent Humble Addresses laid by the Labour party when it was in opposition, and all Labour Members should be aware that the words “national security” do not feature even once, because it is not necessary in an Humble Address. So how can we get the Prime Minister to correct the record when he has chosen just to leave the room? [Hon. Members: “Call him back!”]

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  “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.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way one more time?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  I will take one last intervention.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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.