Kieran Mullan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 9 Mar 2026 · Immigration Policy · Hansard source

  More

  The only country that has successfully tackled illegal boat crossings similar to ours is Australia, and it did so not by paying people £40,000 per family to leave, but by sending them to a safe third country. I noticed that the Minister completely failed to answer the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne). Does the Minister accept the reality that the only way to tackle this problem will be to get on with having a safe third country to deport these people to?

• 5 Mar 2026 · Local Museums · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on securing this debate, which I think may become a battle royale of whose constituency has the best museums. I will begin with Bexhill and Battle, which has a remarkable number of both local museums and national heritage sites. Let me take you on a tour of what we have to offer, Ms Lewell. Bexhill Museum, founded in 1914, has been educating and inspiring the community for well over a century. It remains a traditional local museum run largely by volunteers, yet it continues to thrive and evolve. It is currently completing the final stages of a comprehensive refurbishment made possible through a £390,000 grant from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport via Arts Council England in 2023. The museum holds an extraordinary and eclectic collection across four galleries, ranging from dinosaur footprints and Viking swords to a model of the town with a railway inherited from the Izzard family. It also has a restored 1895 fire engine, soon go on display. Around 1,500 schoolchildren visit each year, with a further 2,000 benefiting from loan boxes of artefacts and replicas used in the classroom. It even has a replica of the Bayeux tapestry. That takes me a few short miles away to the historic town of Battle, most famously known as the site of the battle of Hastings in 1066, where we have the Battle Museum of Local History. Housed in the historic Almonry building, this volunteer-run museum complements the internationally significant Battle abbey, which is one of the most visited heritage sites in the country. The town’s identity is naturally shaped by the events of 1066, but the museum rightly takes a broader approach, bringing together the collections and historical knowledge of the town while engaging the public in researching and understanding the area’s wider story. Its displays explore topics ranging from the development of public health and medicine to the experiences of local residents during the second world war. It does not stop there—we have museums in each and every corner of the constituency. In the west, we have Pevensey Courthouse Museum and Gaol. Current curator, Robert Slater, told me about the role that ultra-small local museums like that one play. They keep history alive not only through the stories of kings and battles, but through the ordinary lives of local people. Visitors to the courthouse can see coroner’s records and records of those who fell foul of the law—facing anything from fines to public whipping—and stories of smuggling along the Sussex coast. What makes these museums truly special is the extraordinary commitment of local volunteers and trustees. Despite being run by volunteers, the Courthouse Museum welcomed nearly 5,500 visitors last year alone. On the other side of the constituency is the Bright Foundation, founded by the Oscar-winning costume designer John Bright. Over the past 50 years, he has collaborated with and made costumes for a wide range of designers for productions ranging from “Pirates of the Caribbean” to “Downton Abbey”. His generosity underpins the Bright Foundation, which includes the Barn Theatre and Museum. This remarkable local charity, based in Westfield, gives children and young people opportunities to engage with arts and creativity. It includes John Bright’s toy museum, with a collection of more than 400 puppets, 400 dolls’ houses, and even a trainset that was featured in the 1997 film “The Borrowers”. With his support, the foundation engages more than 4,500 people a year, 44% of whom are in receipt of free school meals or have special educational needs. However, the contribution of that museum, and others, is sometimes overlooked when budgets are being drawn up and limited resources are available. For example, for every £1 of revenue that Bexhill Museum receives from the Government, it has to generate £8 of its own through the work of the volunteers in the shop and so on. I have a few questions for the Minister. To build on the excellent point from the hon. Member for Thurrock about small pots of money, we need transparency on what local government actually spends in this respect. We also need to understand, at a time of local government reorganisation, how museums can sometimes fall between the cracks among the various responsibilities. The Government need to understand that museums are not just receivers of funding but parts of local government infrastructure that contribute to the economy and to jobs. I will finish by thanking all the volunteers across all the museums in Bexhill and Battle who make such a fantastic contribution to our culture and heritage.

• 5 Mar 2026 · Local Museums · Hansard source

  More

  Members of Parliament and the public are also perfectly within their rights to say that they think they are a bad idea. It is a free speech issue, as much as anything. If a museum wants to put on an exhibition and then introduce all sorts of other political elements, the museum’s members and politicians—all of us—are perfectly free to say that we think it is a bad idea and a bad use of time. What is wrong with that?

• 5 Mar 2026 · Local Museums · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member helpfully reminds me that I forgot to mention that Bexhill is also putting itself forward for town of culture. I am happy to bribe him any time.

• 4 Mar 2026 · China: Foreign Interference Arrests · Hansard source

  More

  As the Minister said, at the heart of this is the question of whether our enemies and malign actors fear the consequences of hostile acts against us. That question is why many of us say that the embassy should be paused. Why would the Chinese be worried about consequences of spying, when this week, another malign actor attempted to kill British armed forces personnel and attacked sovereign territory, but suffered no consequences? What lesson does the Minister think China will take from our failure to defend our own territory from military attack?

• 4 Mar 2026 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to put the Chair in the position of having to give an immediate answer, but as others have said, there are rumours online that the individuals arrested for spying include the partner of a Labour MP. I do not know any suggestion that that Labour MP has done anything wrong—it could have been any of us, potentially. However, we all know that MPs work with MPs from their own party and with those from other parties, sharing information and campaigning together, so we may well have been subjected to activities and we could volunteer information about them to the House authorities and others. Unless we have confirmation about who that individual is, that is not an easy position to be in. Will the House give consideration to letting us know who the individual is, so that we might reflect on whether we can offer any helpful information?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Bayeux Tapestry Exhibition · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) on securing the debate. For those—perhaps our constituents—who do not know the etiquette of the House, an Adjournment debate is typically a debate for a single Member, so it is gracious of her to make time for me to speak briefly in this debate on something that we have worked on together. I want to thank her for the work that she has done to date. When we talk about the Bayeux tapestry, we are talking about history that is deeply interwoven in the culture and history of my constituency of Bexhill and Battle. William landed in Pevensey, which is in the west of the constituency. People can visit the ruins of Pevensey castle there, and we have a museum in Pevensey that exhibits the important local history from that perspective. Almost pinpointing the middle of my constituency is Battle abbey, which is perhaps the biggest tourist attraction in my constituency and is visited by thousands of people every year. It was built by William as penance for the bloodshed and violence that local people had experienced as part of the battle of Hastings. As the hon. Member indicated, there is some dispute about whether the battle took place there. As the Member for Bexhill and Battle, I will plant my flag firmly on the argument that it took place where Battle abbey is built. Every year there is a re-enactment of the battle, which is increasingly popular. It had one of its best ever years last year, and it is a major tourist attraction. Both the ruins of Pevensey castle and Battle abbey are important English Heritage sites. I thank them for meeting me recently to talk about the opportunities that the Bayeux tapestry presents and for all the work they do all year round on those sites and other important historical sites in my constituency. The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye did an excellent job of going into the detail of all the different things that we want to gain from the exhibit visiting the UK, so I will just re-emphasise a couple of really important points. Of course, the exhibition will benefit many different places, but we should expect the greatest attention and effort to be put into 1066 country to ensure its success. First, we must ensure that the benefits of the visit are felt outside London. As the hon. Lady said, the visit is being organised by the British Museum, so while it is important that London gets its share of the tourism spend that will come with the tapestry’s visit, that spend is vitally needed in our constituencies. The British Museum and other organisations must set up a clear programme to ensure that visits to the tapestry secure visits to our constituencies, and vice versa, so that people who would normally have just visited the historical sites in 1066 country will be encouraged to visit the exhibition of the tapestry. Secondly, how often do schoolchildren get to feel that their local history is as important as this? The tapestry is a major exhibit and its visit is a major historical event, so it is really important that local schoolchildren get to visit the tapestry, and that the exhibition is made affordable and accessible to them. There will be opportunities for schoolchildren from across the country to visit the exhibition, but let us ensure that the programme is really supportive of our local schoolchildren. To finish, I will mention a fantastic community project, the La Mora tapestry project, that demonstrates that our history is an ongoing part of our local culture, not something newly discovered. Christina Greene and her team are replicating elements of the tapestry that relate to the La Mora, the ship in which William sailed. For some time now, residents in my constituency have been able to visit Battle library and take time to carefully stitch parts of the replica tapestry, under the watchful eye of Christina, who ensures they are using the right techniques. They have done an amazing job researching wools, so the wools that they use are the same or as close as we can get to the wools that were originally used. Even more incredibly, she noticed, as I am sure other historians will have done, the absence of the female voice in the historical documents, including the tapestry, which tells a very male-centric story. William’s wife, the queen, is thought to be a major player and to have helped to commission the boat, so new bits of the story are being added to the tapestry that focus on her role, which is great for the schoolgirls who come to take part in the sewing of the tapestry. The tapestry is already part of our history locally, and we make day-to-day use of it culturally and historically. Let us ensure that the Bayeux tapestry’s visit helps to weave some new stories, projects and ideas. It is great opportunity to do that. I really want the Government to work with the British Museum, which is co-operating and with which we are having more productive discussions, but the efforts of the Minister to keep that all on track would be greatly appreciated.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  On a recent visit to St Richard’s Catholic college in my constituency, students told me that they face paying an astonishing extra £400 a year in bus fares. How can the Minister justify to those students and others in my constituency the cutting of our bus service funding by £2.5 million?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Court Reporting Data · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We obviously benefit from enormous privilege in this House, because we are able to say things without any worry about what might happen legally. The Minister said several times in her statement that Courtsdesk has admitted that it breached the data-sharing agreement. Courtsdesk has been absolutely clear with me that it has never admitted that it breached the agreement. I wonder if the Minister might want to take the chance at least to caveat what she said in the Chamber.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Court Reporting Data · Hansard source

  More

  Here we are again. Not even one week after this Government had to be forced to release the Mandelson files—looking out for themselves and not for victims—we are back with a Government who preach transparency and practise the opposite. The pattern is clear. They will not release migrant crime data. They fought our efforts to institute a grooming gangs inquiry every step of the way. That campaign was fuelled by journalists uncovering what was happening in our courts. What are the Government now intent on doing? Delete, delete, delete. They want to make it harder for journalists to report the truth. What is it that they are worried about? Could it be that they want to hide the fact that thousands of criminals will escape justice under their Sentencing Act 2026? Could it be that when they erode our rights to jury trials, they do not want the public to hear about the results? Can anyone draw any conclusion other than that they are determined to escape accountability for their damaging policies? The Courtsdesk project has been a huge success. Introduced by the shadow Home Secretary, it has revolutionised the transparency of our courtrooms. Courtsdesk reports that more than 1,500 journalists have used the platform. That is why so many journalists are rallying in support. What of the apparent data breach that the Government are using as an excuse for this? Have they engaged with Courtsdesk? No, they have not. There has been not one single meeting, despite multiple requests to the Minister. It is not just officialdom that is to blame. The Courts Minister has been written to by Courtsdesk and several major media organisations. She has been told directly how important this system is. This is a Minister who comes to the House and professes how vital magistrates courts are to the Government’s plans to take a sledgehammer to jury trials. She needs to tell us why she and her officials have refused even to meet Courtsdesk. What assessment have they made of the impact of this decision on open justice? Delete, delete, delete; stonewall, ignore and deflect—that is the character of this Government in their operations. We will not stand by and let them do the same in our courts.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Court Reporting Data · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question) : To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a statement on the implications for open justice of the impending deletion of the Courtsdesk court reporting data archive.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Standards in Public Life · Hansard source

  More

  The problem with the list of measures that the Chief Secretary read out is that, unfortunately, not one will protect us from the Prime Minister’s poor judgment. Before asking my question, I point out the fact that—as the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) knows, and as the Chief Secretary has mentioned himself—the Government are currently introducing the duty of candour Bill, which will legally require Ministers to answer questions frankly and with any information that people could usefully think they should know. I ask for a third time: how much is Peter Mandelson due to take as part of his pay-off?

• 9 Feb 2026 · Jimmy Lai: Prison Sentence · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister was happy to trot back from China heralding the successes of the visit without having secured the release of Jimmy Lai, and now we see Jimmy facing a 20-year prison sentence—in effect, a life sentence. Does the Minister think that was a price worth paying?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to see the detail of it, but that was a helpful intervention from the former Deputy Prime Minister. I think there is a way forward for us, potentially. I also want to highlight that it was not just this one issue of whether the Prime Minister knew that Mandelson was in touch with a paedophile. We also know what was publicly reported. Before Mandelson was appointed, Epstein was discussing Government business from jail, if we can believe the reporting. What more could we have known? We are Five Eyes partners with the United States. We share the most secret and confidential information with the United States, so what was preventing the Government from approaching the US Department of Justice prior to the public release of these emails and asking whether there was anything in them that we needed to know before we appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador? We could have asked those questions, and I would like the Minister to say whether we did ask them and to give us any response we might have had. We are talking about what has been in the public domain, and the Government could have had that information beforehand.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and there are many other questions that we want answered by the Government. That is why we want to pass this Humble Address so that we have access to all the information. We have heard from ISC members and other Select Committee Chairs about how we can do that in a way that protects national security, so the idea that we cannot do so without breaching national security is complete nonsense. I ask Labour Members: what will the public think? How will this look to ordinary members of the public? Labour Members may well put forward technical arguments, and the Government might brief on various reasons why, because of technicalities, they cannot pass this motion and how it is all too difficult, but the public will come away thinking that some Labour MPs—not all of them—are willing to collude and support a Prime Minister who exercised catastrophically poor judgment at the expense of victims of violence against women and girls. It was the stated aim of this Government to tackle that and have it as a key tenet. That will reflect poorly on them, and the public will know exactly what has gone on here: a rescue operation for a flailing Prime Minister who, I think, is on his way out. When Prime Ministers are on their way out, they fight and kick and drag other people along with them. If Labour MPs allow the Prime Minister to do that, they will come to regret it, because once he is gone, he will move on and do new things, and they will still be MPs seeking re-election at the next election, having been tarnished and damaged by the things he did to save his own skin.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  Rumours abound that a manuscript amendment will be tabled to bring forward something that Labour Members feel they can vote for. Does the hon. Lady agree that Labour Members should not forget the fact that the Government were willing to try to make them vote for the original amendment?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  I think some Labour Members do get it, which is why we are seeing furious activity with the usual channels at the moment. I think there is a whole movement of those Members who are not going to be willing to support the Government in voting for their own amendment today. I think some of them get it, and the rest of them need to catch up quickly. Those first movers who spoke out and were clear that they were not going to support it will be able to hold their heads up high. Let us also be clear about Mandelson’s disrespect for this House. We have heard from the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). She has now left the Chamber, but I will refer to her remarks. She gave a pretty poor account of why she wholeheartedly endorsed his appointment. As Chair of that Committee, she is supposed to be independent and to act on behalf of the House. She was happy to explain all the reasons why she felt that the vetting was not complete and the processes were not up to scratch. Why, then, did she not say at the time that this person should not have been appointed? We know that other members of the Committee said the same thing, and they were similarly thrown under the bus by the Chair of the Committee, who endorsed the appointment. I think that is also a disrespect to this House.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  It is pretty underhand of the Minister to make himself the champion of public anger about the person Mandelson was, because I can tell the Minister that the House is angry—both sides of it—not just with Mandelson, but with the Prime Minister for appointing him in the first place.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet). Actually, in writing my speech, I had people like her in mind: the Labour MPs who I know are genuinely passionate about tackling violence against women and girls. They use that passion to criticise us, and what we did or did not do in government—and I respect that—and sometimes to criticise their own Government. It is those MPs that the Prime Minister is trying to throw under the bus today. It is those MPs who I do not think would ever have agreed to the judgment the Prime Minister made, that it was “worth the risk”. This is not some hidden or secret position that the Government took; a Minister said on the record in an interview that the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson was “worth the risk”. What does that mean? What are we talking about here? What was it worth? It was worth disrespecting, denigrating and betraying the victims of Jeffrey Epstein by appointing someone who chose to associate with a convicted paedophile. That is the risk that the Prime Minister chose to take. I do not think it is a risk that the hon. Member for Bolsover would have taken, or the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), or many of those other Members; they would have made a different judgment. There is a pattern here, and those of us on the Opposition side of the House know what it is like. When Prime Ministers are weak and struggling to maintain their authority, they will go further and further in doing things that their own Members do not want them to do, in order to save their own skin. Members can come to regret supporting that.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee regret describing the appointment of Peter Mandelson as “inspired”, and did she know of his ongoing relationship with Epstein prior to his appointment?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  I think the fact that the Prime Minister resisted giving that answer for so long proves that he knows it is incredibly damaging to his Government that he did not want people to know that he had known and appointed Mandelson anyway.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend mentioned the revelations that are coming out of the emails. The point I made earlier—it is also very important that the Minister responds to this—is that the Government could have asked the US Department of Justice, “Is there anything in the emails relating to Mandelson that has not been released and could affect our decision to appoint him?” Nothing was stopping them from asking the DOJ that question, and it is vital that we know whether they did or not.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister just said that the deadline has passed to table an amendment. Can you confirm, Mr Speaker, that you just told the House that you would be sympathetic to a manuscript amendment, which would not be subject to that deadline?