Richard Tice MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2026 · Siren Associates Ltd: FCDO Contracts · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to lead this Adjournment debate; I am most grateful to Mr Speaker for granting it. The Minister at the Dispatch Box and I are both Lincolnshire MPs, and we share the burden of knowing that Lincolnshire’s is the most underfunded police force in the country, and could really do with an extra £10 million to £15 million per year to provide an extra 200-plus police officers, more technology and more cars to prevent crime and secure more convictions. So, imagine my surprise and concern when last October, I read that the Foreign Office had granted a three-year contract for a sum totalling £46 million to help not the Lincolnshire police force, but the Lebanese police force. I thought, “What’s going on here?” I thought, “This feels to me, in my honest opinion, a grotesque abuse of taxpayers’ cash,” because my constituents in Boston and Skegness believe that it is the Lincolnshire police force that should be properly funded. With all due respect to the police officers within the Lebanese police force, in the nicest possible way, that is their issue; our issue is protecting and keeping our own constituents safe. The idea that the Foreign Office is sending £15 million a year to train the Lebanese police force is a grotesque abuse of taxpayers’ cash, and I will come on to how I would deal with it. Of course, when contracts are placed by the Government, someone has to deliver that contract. Let me now introduce the House to a group of companies under the umbrella banner called Siren. There are a number of these companies, the first of which is Siren Associates Ltd, which is a not-for-profit company, which all sounds very nice and cosy and cuddly. There are other private companies called Siren Consulting Ltd, Siren Advisory Services Ltd and Siren Analytics Ltd. Those are owned and controlled by the four directors in varying different ways of the not-for-profit company Siren Associates Ltd. This is the company that has pitched for the contracts from the Foreign Office, and not just the three-year contract for £46 million that I referred to that was granted in September 2025. No, it actually transpires that Siren Associates Ltd, this not-for-profit company, had secured two previous contracts in 2021 and 2022 for the sums of £15 million for one year and then £16 million for two and a bit years to provide the same sort of services to the Lebanese police force. People might think, “That’s all very well.” I was surprised when I read into the accounts of Siren Associates Ltd, which are incredibly brief because they claim the exemption from full accounts, despite huge contracts from the Government, and from small company accounts, which means there is no profit and loss account. There is no explanation of how they are spending this taxpayers’ money overseas, of what an amazing job they might, or might not, be doing. Who knows? They have not explained how many police they are training and supporting in all the various ways. We have no idea whatsoever. The only interesting thing I spotted was at the end where the related party transactions show that millions of pounds are going out the side door to the directors by way of director fees and management fees to three separate Siren companies. It is quite hard to work it all out, but I have done my best, and it appears to me that within the first two contracts totalling some £31 million during that period, some director fees of £3.2 million were paid over that five-year period, which means that the directors were probably taking out per annum more than the Prime Minister is paid. Then, there is an additional twelve-and-a-bit million pounds by way of management fees to these other companies. It is probably worth reflecting on the four directors of this company, Siren Associates. One is a British citizen who appears to live in the United Kingdom. Two others are Lebanese citizens who live in Lebanon, and one is a Swedish citizen who lives in Sweden. I would have thought that directors’ fees of more per annum than the Prime Minister is paid is a king’s ransom in Beirut. I think many of our constituents would be pretty outraged, frankly, at the level of money—our cash—that has been going out the side door by way of directors’ fees and management fees. If this not-for-profit company is doing such a great job, why does it need all these separate companies? Why not be clear and transparent, when this not-for-profit company is clearly giving the impression of a great, charitable, noble endeavour? Maybe that was what helped to persuade the Foreign Office to grant the contracts, but we do not know. There is an anxiety about why it is so complicated, why there is so little transparency and why there is so little information about the performance and the quality of what they have done. So we have these four Siren companies, and we do not really know how they are performing. What we do know is that the framework contract under which these contracts were granted is the multibillion-pound conflict, stability and security fund. Accountability reports and audits have been done by the House and various others, and its performance has been heavily criticised here in the UK, with all sorts of red and amber alerts, which gives one considerable pause for thought. Of course, we all know that Lebanon is sadly in a difficult place; it is essentially a warzone. When we drill into it, there are—regrettably but unquestionably—considerable links between the Lebanese police force and the proscribed terror group Hezbollah. Taxpayers might wonder whether it is really a good idea to send our taxpayers’ cash to the Lebanese police force, which clearly has significant links—there is no question about this—to Hezbollah. That is a genuine concern, but in no way am I at all suggesting that that has any involvement with the, I am sure, very lovely and nice four directors of Siren Associates Ltd. When I learned this last October, I put out a tweet, and I gave my honest opinion that it is a grotesque abuse of taxpayers’ cash to grant a contract for £46 million to help train the Lebanese police force. I expressed my concern about millions of pounds going out in fees to other companies. That was not well received, I think it is fair to say, by the four directors. They sent me a letter from their lawyers at the end of October, and just recently I have been notified that I will be receiving a writ and they will be suing me. I believe it is a fundamental duty of a Member of Parliament—all of us, across all parties—to scrutinise the expenditure, value for money and performance of taxpayers’ cash. I do not think it is unreasonable therefore to look at that and, in a democracy where we pride ourselves on the joys of free speech, to be questioning where we can, where we should and where we must. Sometimes, that might involve language that some might find a bit bullish, a bit offensive or a bit too gentle—who knows? But that is our solemn duty. What is the point of us if we are not going to scrutinise that level of expenditure? It causes me real concern when I see this sort of secrecy and complexity, when it could be so simple, and they could be so informative, but they are not. It makes one think, “What have they got to hide?” The directors could have just rung me up, or sent me a very nice email or letter saying, “Richard, we saw your tweet. Look, dear chap, we think you’ve got it wrong. Could we come and see you and tell you what a lovely job we’re doing and how fantastically we are serving the emerging trainees and police officers in Lebanon?” I would have welcomed that, and if they convinced me I had got it wrong, I could have corrected the record—while bearing in mind that my responsibility and duty is to my constituents in Lincolnshire, which is suffering the burden of colossal underfunding, as I said at the start. But no, they did not do that. They just took the most aggressive route possible, not even writing to me directly from the company, but instead sending me notification from the lawyers. That makes me wonder, “Hmm, what’s going on here?” Where is the rational, calm, friendly, supportive approach one would expect from a UK company, based in Northern Ireland, that is benefiting from, in total across the three contracts, £77 million of taxpayers’ cash, to be spent with the Lebanese police force, where we know there are problems with links to Hezbollah? I think the company has got their response very badly wrong. To aggressively tell a Member of Parliament, “We’re going to sue you,” is completely the wrong approach. I was then even more surprised when just yesterday, I was approached by another hon. Member of this House who gave me, essentially, a warning, a veiled threat, on behalf of what he called “a third party”, that I should be very careful. Bear in mind that this is a Northern Irish Member of Parliament, speaking with regard to a Northern Irish company. We all know the horrors and fears that came from Northern Ireland. I have to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I received that with considerable concern and trepidation. Frankly, I think it is outrageous—absolutely outrageous. Then, I was surprised to hear that, apparently, Siren Associates wrote a letter to the Speaker expressing concern that this subject might be debated. The purpose of this debate—the very purpose of this place—is to do our job on behalf of our constituents and secure good value and better public services, and make people in this United Kingdom across all of our constituencies better off. I thought, “What’s going on here? Why would they behave like this?” Then, I realised, “If you don’t understand something, follow the money.” There is a lot of money here, and I am deeply concerned. The questions I pose to the Minister—a fellow Lincolnshire MP—are simple. Does he condemn on behalf of the Government a Member of Parliament being threatened as I have been? Does he condemn a lawsuit brought by a company against a Member of Parliament who is merely seeking to secure good value and to scrutinise the use of taxpayers’ cash? Given this chain of events, I ask him that a full and proper inquiry be conducted. Who granted these contracts? Where is the accountability? Where is the assessment of how well the company is doing? We do not know anything from what is in the public domain, because the company has not told us in their accounts, which I believe they should have done. Given all that I have described, I think the new three-year contract should be suspended, pending the review and the inquiry. This is not right. It is not fair, it is not proper, and it is not how we do things in Britain—it is just not the British way. To conclude, I revert to where I started: I believe that that £15 million a year would be much better spent on the Lincolnshire police force as opposed to the Lebanese police force, and in my honest opinion, it is a grotesque abuse of taxpayers’ cash.

• 22 Jun 2026 · British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  There is a reason why this request is actually fair and just. My hon. Friend talks so evocatively about the dangers undertaken by coalminers going underground, and in today’s world, that is almost impossible to imagine. That is the key difference. This was one of the most dangerous occupations in the country, but it literally kept the lights on and kept industry moving. For that reason, above all, justice and fairness must surely prevail.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q7. Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. We all condemn, of course, the appalling violence in Belfast last night after the horrific attack on Monday. But this Prime Minister is in denial of the rising despair across the country over his failure to stop the boats and related criminality, his failure to recognise two-tier policing, his failures over Mandelson and his failures over the scourge of antisemitism. He has lost the confidence of the country, his own trade union members and his own, very quiet, Back Benchers. When will he do the right thing? When will this Prime Minister resign?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  Surely we are regrettably here because of our membership of a foreign court. Without our membership of the ECHR, we would not be in this mess or having this debate, and we could be moving on towards truth and reconciliation.

• 14 Jan 2026 · West Midlands Police · Hansard source

  More

  The Home Secretary has rightly lost confidence in the West Midlands chief constable, who kowtowed to thugs, abandoned the Jewish community and blamed Jewish fans. The question for the Home Secretary now is this: if the police and crime commissioner fails to fire the chief constable, will she still have confidence in that commissioner, and will she make the new legislation retrospective, to ensure that action is delivered?

• 27 Nov 2025 · Right to Trial by Jury · Hansard source

  More

  Trial by jury is a fundamental principle of our justice system, engendering confidence among the British people. We all want to bring the backlogs down, but may I urge the Government to focus on the efficiencies, on technology and on additional investment? There is a fundamental point here: are the Minister and the Government aware that victims and the British people have more confidence in juries’ decisions than the decisions of judges?

• 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.

• 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?

• 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?

• 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.

• 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.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Official Secrets Act · Hansard source

  More

  There is a very nasty smell about the collapse of this Chinese spying affair case. Just over a year ago, the Crown Prosecution Service counter-terrorism unit said after complex investigations that these were very serious allegations and that charges were brought, but now we are supposed to believe that it cannot provide any evidence whatsoever. It feels to me as if one of two things has happened here: either the Crown Prosecution Service was wrong—potentially incompetent—or someone very high up in the Government has interfered with this situation. Which is it, Minister?

• 8 Sept 2025 · Palestine Action: Proscription and Protests · Hansard source

  More

  May I thank and congratulate the police for arresting successfully so many hundreds of people who broke the law and shockingly supported a proscribed terror group? Does the Minister expect them to be charged and prosecuted to ensure we have a proper deterrent against supporting a proscribed terror group?