Richard Tice MP: speeches 2025

197 published records · newest first.

Speeches

5 Nov 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source
More
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. After I spoke in the British Steel debate when the House was recalled on a Saturday back in April, three newspapers from the Mirror Group published false, inaccurate and, frankly, libellous statements about me that weekend, which were retweeted by a number of Labour MPs. I am pleased to report that the Independent Press Standards Organisation, the press regulator, has found in my favour against the Mirror Group, forcing it to apologise and to permanently delete those articles and all the social media posts. I am most grateful to those Labour MPs who deleted their posts when they were so informed.
3 Nov 2025 · “Soldier F” Trial Verdict · Hansard source
More
Does the Secretary of State not understand that, given the judge’s comments that the evidence fell well short of the standard required, veterans do consider that that was a vexatious prosecution? They do consider that the prosecution of Soldier B is a vexatious prosecution, and they do feel utterly betrayed by this Government’s repeal of the legacy Act.
30 Oct 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source
More
How many does Reform get?
30 Oct 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source
More
How long?
30 Oct 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source
More
Given the Government’s difficulties and delays in establishing a public inquiry into the grooming gangs scandal, will the Leader of the House and the Government consider establishing a Joint Committee of both Houses to look into it, with parliamentary powers to summon people and papers, to arrive at answers and the truth faster and more effectively?
29 Oct 2025 · Gaza and Hamas · Hansard source
More
Yesterday it emerged that Hamas do know where the bodies of the remaining hostages are, as video evidence emerged of them playing games with one body, removing it from a building, burying it, then bringing along the International Red Cross and pretending that they had found it and dug it up. Do the Minister and the Government condemn that, and what more can they do with our international allies and the Gulf nations to put pressure and leverage on Hamas to return all the remaining bodies immediately?
28 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source
More
T6. As we speak, the Chagossians are in the High Court to try to stop the terrible Chagos surrender deal. Given this Government’s passion for international human rights, and that we all agree how badly the Chagossians have been treated, will the Government finally agree to grant them a referendum on this dreadful deal?
27 Oct 2025 · North Sea Oil and Gas Industry · Hansard source
More
Thousands more jobs are at risk, alongside the thousands of families and jobs at risk at the Lindsey oil refinery in Lincolnshire, all because of this Government’s policies on net stupid zero, yet the Minister talks warmly about the growth prospects for Petrofac. To grow, we need an industry; to have an industry, we need more oil and gas licences. Will the Minister change course and allow exploration and more licences to produce oil and gas in the North sea?
23 Oct 2025 · Building Safety Regulator · Hansard source
More
In due time.
23 Oct 2025 · Building Safety Regulator · Hansard source
More
I will do my very best, Sir Desmond, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Members for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) and for Northampton South (Mike Reader) on securing this important debate. The Building Safety Regulator has the potential to hinder dramatically the Government’s laudable regime of building more homes and more affordable homes. We all remember the horror of Grenfell, and having this entity is probably the right way forward, but there are certain key lessons that are rapidly being learned. Hon. Members have spoken about some of the specific details, but I fear that the consequences of this issue are even greater than we may imagine. I have been listening to businesses from the property industry, which is my core industry—I started digging trenches in 1983, so I have been in the industry a long time. House builders and investors are now telling me that they are done. They are just not going to bother. We have heard experiences of people allocating a year from completion to occupation. Investors are saying, “We’re not going to bother. We’re going elsewhere.” We have to act faster on this. There are a couple of key things that we need to consider, including the application of a strange thing called common sense, which, too often among regulators, is sadly not very common. When we have traditional building materials that have stood the test of time for hundreds of years, be it brick or concrete, we could apply common sense to say, “Well, if using those materials, there should be a fast fast-track process.” I question also whether the whole concept of gateway 1 is necessary at all. If a project gets to gateway 2, that covers gateway 1. A developer is not going to spend hundreds of thousands or several millions on a planning application and get on site if they know they are not going to pass gateway 2, so why bother with gateway 1 at all? Numerous other examples have been talked about. Although there have been changes, we need to monitor those changes very quickly. It may well be that what we need is either an outsourcing or—dare I mention the word—competition. A competitive process or regulator could operate alongside the existing process, so that it does not act as too great a block. If it does, we will suffer the worst of all worlds, one in which those who most need new homes in our cities, particularly affordable homes, suffer the most. As a consequence of well-intentioned—but badly implemented and organised—caution and prevention, they will miss out. The numbers are as bad or worse than people fear, particularly in city centres. The issue also means that people are just not bothering to develop on brownfield sites—I have a number of them in my constituency—because the costs are too great, and because of the fear of the Building Safety Regulator and of ever-more regulation that may make the situation even worse. There is an enthusiastic pressure on the Minister and the Department to listen to these concerns and respond to them with constructive answers and keep everybody updated. As other hon. Members have said, the Minister should communicate that rapidly to industry participants. She needs to give the industry confidence that it is worth bothering to seek planning and start on site on important new housing projects here in the United Kingdom and help us all to create growth, wealth and more homes.
21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source
More
Does the hon. Lady accept that, in a democracy, it is important to be able to hold everybody to account, including judges? Does she accept that we need to be able to check that they are making good decisions on behalf of everybody?
20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source
More
Will the Minister give way?
20 Oct 2025 · Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation · Hansard source
More
The hon. Member speaks passionately about all of us being keen to close down the hotels, including those in my constituency of Boston and Skegness. He talks about being for things, so is he for moving asylum seekers who are here illegally into houses in multiple occupation, or is he for moving them into processing centres in remote locations, as Reform suggests?
20 Oct 2025 · Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation · Hansard source
More
The hon. Member speaks passionately about the great town of Hartlepool, which I know well. He made a key point: our nation has always been very compassionate towards genuine asylum seekers. Under the previous Labour Government, some 20 years ago, the average number of asylum seekers was in the order of 20,000 to 30,000 a year, and they came legally. That is the crux of it: they came under legal and safe routes, and the country could absorb them. The hon. Member made a point about fairness; the current system is unfair, and too many of those now coming illegally are actually economic migrants as opposed to genuine asylum seekers.
20 Oct 2025 · Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement · Hansard source
More
Last Thursday, the Minister at the Dispatch Box agreed with me that China is indeed a national security threat, and the Government have consistently said that they are “disappointed”. As the Minister knows, I like to be helpful and constructive at all times, so I asked a KC to advise as to whether a private criminal prosecution could be brought under the Official Secrets Act. The advice I have is that the answer is yes, as long as it has the consent of the Attorney General, and as long as the Government are helpful and constructive by providing evidence and witness statements. Will the Minister confirm whether the Attorney General will give such consent and provide appropriate evidence?
16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source
More
Among all the noise of this China spy scandal, my constituents in Boston and Skegness—and the whole British people—want some clarity from the Government. Do they view China as a national security threat—yes or no?
16 Oct 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source
More
Three weeks ago today, I met the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss the important decisions around quantitative easing and quantitative tightening, and the Governor agreed with me that this is actually a fiscal matter. It is triggering losses of tens of billions of pounds for the taxpayer every year, and therefore the Governor would welcome more input from the Houses of Parliament on this important matter. I wrote to the Chancellor—copying in the Leader of the House—to request a debate before the Budget, because if this House had a debate and voted on a different decision to guide the Governor and the Monetary Policy Committee, it would actually help the Chancellor in her difficult decisions around the Budget.
15 Oct 2025 · Knife Crime · Hansard source
More
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, as always. I congratulate my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), on securing this vital debate. Knife crime is the scourge of our society. Almost every day or every week, in the newspapers and in our constituencies, we hear horrific stories from people and we have our own experiences. Many good examples have been spoken of today, and there have been different suggestions of how to try to reduce it, whether that is through education in schools, amnesty bins, knife arches —we do not want them, but maybe they help—youth clubs and much more besides. We have to be prepared to try things to see what works, and different police forces will make different progress. Ultimately, however, there has to be a deterrent. Earlier this year, I had a slightly strange experience while campaigning in the glorious town of Boston in Lincolnshire, in my constituency. Some of my team were driving down a neighbouring street where a gentleman was walking along carrying a machete. They took a photograph of the machete and called the police, who were fantastic and responded immediately: I was taken off the street and the police found the gentleman. They arrested him and he was charged for carrying a machete. He went to court, but he was found not guilty of carrying a knife that could be a lethal instrument. We have to ask, where is the consistent application of sensible laws to act as a genuine deterrent? That is the point. Ultimately, with all the good measures that we hear about, which I just touched on and other Members know can work, when we educate people about the horrors of knife crime, there also has to be a sanction. There has to be a deterrent—that if someone does not listen to the wise words of mentors, fathers, teachers or youth clubs, there is a sanction. It seems to me that the data does not lie. There are short-term variances, but the medium and long-term data is crystal clear in England and Wales: in the past 12 years or so, stop and search has halved, while knife offences have doubled. We have to have automatic detention for carrying a knife and automatic longer sentences for using a knife. A zero tolerance policy is what our constituents want.
14 Oct 2025 · Net Zero: Impact on Manufacturing · Hansard source
More
I welcome the Minister to his place. Talking about industry, the Lindsey oil refinery in Lincolnshire is in receivership and is currently being sold, but thousands and thousands of jobs are at risk and the workers there are desperately concerned that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the official receiver are not running a proper process, frustrating potential bidders for the whole site. Will the Minister, in his new job, commit to helping ensure that the whole site is sold to a successful bidder?
14 Oct 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source
More
We all welcome the release of the hostages, the ceasefire and the beginning of the end of the suffering in Gaza. I know the joy that the hostage families I met a couple of weeks ago in Israel will be feeling; they will be ecstatic. As we hope that the divisions start to reduce in the middle east, we must also hope that we can reduce the heat and division of this debate here in the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister has quite rightly referred to the rise of antisemitism. Does he join me in hoping that now is the time to bring to an end the protests we have seen on our streets, with antisemitic chants such as, “From the river to the sea,” as we try to unify, to bring people together and to move forwards?
13 Oct 2025 · Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case · Hansard source
More
The stench emanating from the collapse of this Chinese spy case makes a manure heap seem positively floral. The bottom line is that everyone is disappointed, everyone thinks there is enough evidence and everyone seems to agree that China is a security threat, yet the case has collapsed and China has been given, essentially, carte blanche to carry on spying in the United Kingdom. I have it on good authority that senior figures in Washington now fear that Five Eyes has become Six Eyes. The one thing that has changed since charges were made in April 2024 is the National Security Adviser. Will the Minister give a commitment that the National Security Adviser will appear, and answer questions in person, before any parliamentary Committee that wishes to have those questions answered?
16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source
More
Last week, the Prime Minister expressed confidence in Lord Mandelson. This week, does the Minister express his confidence in national security vetting?
16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source
More
The reality is that the Prime Minister personally decided to appoint Lord Mandelson as the ambassador to the United States, and in so doing, he has humiliated and embarrassed this nation on the international stage, because Lord Mandelson is someone who described himself as the “best pal” of a paedophile and advised that paedophile to use his time in prison as “an opportunity”—truly shocking. There are two separate issues that require proper examination: first, the judgment of the Prime Minister, and secondly, whether he inadvertently misled the House last Wednesday in responding to the Leader of the Opposition. Let us look at the judgment of the Prime Minister. We know now that as he made the personal decision to appoint Lord Mandelson, he received a two-page document outlining some of his links to the paedophile, and yet he carried on with that decision to appoint him. He made the appointment in that knowledge. That is woefully incompetent judgment. Last week, in the knowledge that there was a cache of emails about Lord Mandelson’s links to this paedophile, the Prime Minister made the judgment—as a lawyer who supposedly is forensic—not to ask the questions about what was in the emails. That seems to me an absolute failure of judgment. He then made the judgment to come to this House and say he had confidence in the man about whom he knew there was a cache of emails that he thought it inappropriate to ask the detail of. The whole point of lawyers and barristers is that they do due diligence, but no—not our Prime Minister. That brings me to the critical issue of whether the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House. He said two things to the Leader of the Opposition. First, he said twice that he had “confidence in” Lord Mandelson, and yet he knew the day before about a cache of emails, which he did not want to know the detail of, on Lord Mandelson’s links to Epstein. The day after, the Prime Minister fired Lord Mandelson. Is it credible to believe that one can have confidence in a man, given those two facts that came about within a 24-hour period? Secondly, even more significantly, the Prime Minister said that “full due process” had been “followed during this appointment”. We now learn that that is not the case, because the due process was carried out after the decision by the Prime Minister to appoint Lord Mandelson and after it had been announced to the world at large. Those two things cannot be true. Either full due process was carried out before the decision to appoint, or it was carried out afterwards—it was not carried out “during”. For that reason, regrettably, I conclude personally that the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House of Commons and the British people. Therefore, the Prime Minister needs to come to the House and give absolute clarity on what he knew and when, why he made those decisions, and why he chose not to ask for detailed forensic investigations at the appropriate time.
16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source
More
The right hon. Lady is speaking powerfully. Does she think that if her Committee had been allowed to interview Lord Mandelson, it would have come up with a recommendation not to approve his appointment, and, in such a situation, does she think that her recommendation would have been listened to?
16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source
More
Will the Minister give way?

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →