Alicia Kearns MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 12 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Rutland’s council could have submitted its own proposals for local government reform, but it has left our fate in the hands of others. The council submitted a proposal to join North Leicestershire, but this is in opposition to the wishes of residents. The council knows that, and purposely did not ask residents what we wanted. Stamford residents want to join Rutland; Rutlanders want to join Stamford. Will the Minister meet me to make sure that all residents are consulted on the Rutland and Stamford model, which the council has taken off the table?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  I have yet to make an argument, but I will shortly. Who in this place can honestly say that if they were facing incarceration, they would be happy with just one judge and no jury making that decision? Think of the victims who face unconscious bias daily, and who will not get justice if just one person decides that question. Most sinister of all has been the debate in the Chamber this afternoon. Labour MPs have argued that juries—ordinary people—cannot be trusted and are not up to the job. They have said that it is too complex and too detailed. What next? Will Labour strip their right to vote as well? It is deeply concerning. The Minister has said that this change is not the result of some crisis that Labour MPs want to blame on the Conservatives, and that the Government would be making it anyway. It is ideological. Every time Labour has come into government it has tried to strip jury trials—under Blair when I was a child, and yet again now. Both the Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary have previously recognised the importance of jury trials; in fact, they opposed their abolition publicly. How will they justify their change of mind? Perhaps when the Justice Secretary is returned to Parliament after the next election, as he almost certainly will be, he will bring in trial by combat. Almost 40 of the Government’s MPs have opposed this change, and they are absolutely right to do so, because there are other options, including using unused sitting days and Sir Brian Leveson’s proposal to have one judge sitting with two magistrates; there would then be an element of a layperson having a say. Clearly, the Prime Minister can admit it when he gets something wrong and can change course, as we saw—albeit far too late—with the family farm tax, welfare and grooming gangs. Do not leave it too late this time. The Labour manifesto made no mention of curtailing our right to jury trial. This is not a minor shift in policy; it is a worrying trend fundamental to the relationship between the individual and the state. We see this trend in the proposal for digital ID and the stripping of fundamental freedoms. Jury trials recognise the gravity of removing someone’s right to liberty.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid that we hear again the continual argument that the average layperson cannot understand justice. If a defence lawyer or prosecution lawyer cannot make the argument make sense to the average person, they have no job representing an individual at court. It is their duty to make law transparent and understandable to every individual. We hear this argument that court cases have become more detailed, but we should be pleased that there are more detailed and complex arguments being made in our courts. It is a sign of a court system that is working, and that does not rely on basics or tropes to get justice, yet the Labour party sees it as the opposite. This is, unfortunately, yet another disappointing and deeply sinister step toward the Government fundamentally changing our relationship with the Crown and the state. I urge the Government to listen to the legal industry, and to listen to and trust the British people.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  I am just wrapping up, but go on.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. Lady had listened carefully, she would have heard that I did not say that jury trial was an inalienable right. The law says that one has a right to a fair trial. However, we have established historically that jury trials mean that we do not see unconscious bias. There have been archaic and appalling cases that have shown that one individual making a decision about others is often not fair, transparent or right. As we heard from Sir David Davis, there is a greater number of retrials when an individual made the decision in a trial than when a jury made the decision.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  My sincerest apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. A year of maternity leave does leave one with a few cobwebs. The British people are very clear that they do not want this fundamental change.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  Jury trials were introduced to bring order and justice to a legal system beset by opportunism, superstition, bias and archaic practices. For eight centuries, they have been the bedrock of English and British liberty, recognised globally as a bulwark against tyranny and oppression. Yet without any modelling, impact assessment or equalities assessment, and not in line with the review done by Sir Brian Leveson, the Government plan to scrap this ancient protection.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Ukraine and Wider Operational Update · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the action today, and I commend our armed forces on their action. Much of the discussion has focused on troops in the event of peace. I would like to take us one step further. The right hon. Gentleman said that yesterday the UK agreed that we will participate in US-led monitoring and verification of any ceasefire. Can he please clarify whether that means physical monitoring or remote intelligence? What if the terms of a ceasefire are unacceptable to Ukraine and to the UK? The agreement signed yesterday says that we “will” do so, but does it require us to accept, police and monitor any ceasefire, or would we be able to withdraw if the terms were not acceptable to either us or to our ally, Ukraine?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Hate Crime · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker, and happy new year. Women are overwhelmingly the victims of hate crimes online, but that is no surprise when companies are promising that the purchase of a self-swab rape kit will deter rapists. That is plainly offensive and shifts the onus on to women and off the cowards who rape them. The kits are also inadmissible in court. We have already had a sexual assault of a child case collapse because of the use of a self-swab kit. For almost a year, rape charities have begged the Government to take action and ban these dangerous kits and their dangerous narratives. Will the Government work with me, support my campaign and commit to protecting women from self-swab rape kits?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Venezuela · Hansard source

  More

  Venezuelans are relieved to be free of Maduro’s tyranny. However, Venezuela risks remaining a failed state, rather than being a free state, unless the international community comes together. Oil companies are not state builders, nor are they capable of democratic capacity building or enabling political transitions. I was surprised that there was no mention in the Foreign Secretary’s statement of plans to evacuate British nationals if possible or of how many British nationals are in country. What phone calls has the Foreign Secretary had since this action with the leader of Guyana, a Commonwealth country and nation with whom we have an important relationship? If she has not spoken to that leader, why has she not?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  This U-turn comes too late for too many. It is extraordinary to hear Labour MPs saying that their farmers are delighted; mine are sick with relief after 14 months. At the Liaison Committee, the Prime Minister accepted that he knew that some farmers had planned to take their lives or had already done so, yet it still took him well over a week to decide that rural lives matter. What was it that suddenly changed after 14 months for him to decide that our farmers should be stood by, and should not be questioning whether or not they were going to be here for next Christmas?