Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

Are we really suggesting in this debate, in this Chamber, that anyone who does not pass vetting fully and comprehensively, and who is not granted it without hesitation, should be given the most important of our ambassadorships? The Government seem to be suggesting that someone who is borderline—about whom there are any red flags—should be put in that sort of role. Is that not extraordinary?

[Mrs Badenoch]

It is extraordinary, and the evidence that we have heard from the Foreign Affairs Committee this morning is only making this matter worse for the Prime Minister, so it is very wrong for Labour Members to be talking about a stunt. This is about the integrity of this House. Why is the Privileges Committee a political stunt only when Labour is in the dock? Do Labour MPs still believe that honesty and accountability matter when the person in question is one of their own? Do they believe that Labour Prime Ministers should be held to the exact same standards that they held Conservative Prime Ministers to, or do they believe that there should be an honesty discount because the Prime Minister is Labour? The fact that there are so few Cabinet Ministers sitting on the Front Bench—that the Government have had to dig deep to the bottom of the barrel for junior Ministers to sit there—shows that they are struggling to get support for their position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis). He and I rarely agree politically, but we do work together constructively in our constituencies for the betterment of the region.

I start by way of an apology, because last week —I think this was mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition—I accidentally published correspondence between me and you, Mr Speaker. That was my mistake. I respect you, Mr Speaker, and I respect your office, so I apologise sincerely for that mistake, but it was my mistake.

Do I believe that the Prime Minister deliberately misled this House? No, frankly. I have known him a long time, and I think I know him very well. It is fair to say that I describe him as a friend, and I think he has described me as a friend as well. Both him and I are lawyers by trade. In my honest opinion, there is no way that the Prime Minister would come here and deliberately mislead the House. However, there was a very significant difference, in my view, between what the Prime Minister said in answer to the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition in last week’s Prime Minister’s questions, and Olly Robbins’ evidence the previous day. I think I am right in saying that the Prime Minister said there was “no pressure whatsoever”, intimating that that was the evidence that Olly Robbins had given to the Foreign Affairs Committee, but I watched every minute of it and that is definitely not the case. I have looked back, and I have checked Hansard and the evidence that was given by Olly Robbins.

So I do think that there is a prima facie case for this matter to be investigated and for an inquiry to be conducted by the appropriate Committee of this House. I suspect that is not going to happen, because this debate is being whipped. I do not blame the Government for that—I find it unfortunate, to be honest, but they are not setting any new precedent; there is precedent for whipped scenarios in these situations in the past. But I do think that the Prime Minister would be vindicated.

[Alicia Kearns]

The hon. Gentleman is right that there are some precedents for House business being whipped, but the lesson is that it is a fool’s errand—it is normally the start of the end. He is making a fair point and being kind to his Front Benchers, but does he agree that we should learn from precedent and not necessarily repeat it?

[Karl Turner]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who is spot on. She leads me to the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition. I made a statement on social media that this motion is a stunt. A stunt is defined as an action designed to capture attention, but it is worse than that, actually. If I was to be cynical, I think the problem is that the motion is designed to capture Labour MPs. That is my concern. If it is said by our political opponents that Labour MPs came here today to block an inquiry of this House into the leader of the Labour party and Prime Minister, every single one of us will be accused by the electorate of trying to help the Prime Minister when he needed to face the music.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

The motion does not attribute wrongdoing. It represents a simple choice and a decision: do we as a House support transparency, and do we think that truth in this place still matters? Peter Mandelson’s CV reads like an indictment—we all know that—and I do not need to rehearse the litany of appalling and heinous decisions and acts. For me, that leaves no question but that the Prime Minister’s judgment was absolutely found wanting in this situation. Given the seriousness of Mandelson’s actions and of this appointment, surely every Member of this House wants to know why he was appointed, how he was appointed and whether we and the British people have been given the full story of what happened.

I worked at the Foreign Office as a civil servant. If I, listening and reading every single detail, feel that something does not sit quite right; if I have former colleagues ringing me and saying, “That is not how the process works. It just doesn’t make sense—that is not right”; if we then have the Prime Minister saying that he had seen the vetting, “Oh no, I meant I’d seen something else. Sorry, I had not seen the security vetting; I had seen the due diligence. Oh, there was not any pressure put on” when others most clearly think there was pressure put on; and if the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) is genuinely suggesting that there is no such thing as abuse from those who have more power against those who have less, that politicians do not sometimes behave appallingly to civil servants and that, “Oh, we are all busy. It’s the same pressure”, then I say no. That is why we have specific laws.

[Sam Rushworth]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Alicia Kearns]

Let me finish this point and then I will happily take an intervention.

We have specific laws that when someone senior to you puts you under undue pressure or treats you in a certain way, they have to take far more responsibility, because they have the ability to exercise that responsibility and authority over you which you cannot challenge. If the hon. Gentleman wants to come back and argue that he does not believe that in hierarchies, particularly No. 10 political appointments versus civil servants, there is such an imbalance in power, I will happily have him make that case.

[Sam Rushworth]

I think the hon. Member knows that I have great affection for her, so I am disappointed in the way she has just made that point. In Sir Olly Robbins’s testimony, he said that No. 10 was repeatedly asking, “Has the vetting been completed?” That is inconsistent with the idea that No. 10 regarded the vetting as immaterial to its decision—quite the opposite. It demonstrates to me a No. 10 that felt that this was an important process that had to be followed. There was of course pressure to complete it quickly, but that does not mean that there was pressure to change the outcome. I am sorry but until somebody shows otherwise through evidence, there is no reason we should believe that.

[Alicia Kearns]

I am sorry but the idea that somebody just chasing an update—“Can I just check where we are with that? We really would like to get it done”—and that there is no concept of any bullying because someone is just asking for something to be done a bit quicker, is a foolhardy suggestion by the hon. Gentleman.

The Prime Minister has come to the House many times, as hon. Members have said, but he has not answered the questions. The Prime Minister himself set the terms. Either he misled the House or he was reckless with the truth, and those are the terms that he set. Multiple people have lost their jobs over this Prime Minister’s decision to appoint Mandelson: two civil servants and two political appointments. For a man who said he would never sack his staff because of his own appointments, that is quite something. The Prime Minister’s judgment has also shown that he was happy to appoint people to Cabinet who had lied to the police, where he knew full well that they had done that, so there is a pattern.

Olly Robbins lost his job for implementing the wishes of the Prime Minister by the book. Either he followed due process and was sacked for doing so, or there was no due process and he was sacked because there was not. The Prime Minister’s position so far is that the former is true; it cannot be both, in which case Olly Robbins should never have been sacked. He did his job under immense pressure and was stripped of the agency to say no. As Mr Speaker set out at the start of the debate, this motion does not attribute guilt to anyone and the vote today is for an investigation by the Privileges Committee. That Committee is chaired by my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), and I want to place on the record my total faith in his probity and professionalism.

Unfortunately, as we have seen in previous approaches and investigations, some people may seek to undermine individuals.

I appreciate that there are a range of views among Labour Members. Some of them seem genuinely to believe the Prime Minister’s version of events, while others share the concerns of Conservative Members, even if they are reticent to say so. I point out that at no point in this debate has there been more than nine Labour MPs sat on the Back Benches who were elected before 2024.

I was once a new MP, and I too went through this process. As I have said before, on the Owen Paterson vote, I voted in a way that I deeply regret. I had planned to vote against him, because, in watching the debate from the Government Benches, I was horrified by what I saw. Despite the enormous pressure from people around me, I thought, “Okay, I must do what is right,” and I decided to vote with those 13 brave Conservatives who did the right thing. I then went downstairs to breastfeed my daughter, who was very young at the time—she was just turning six months old—but when I came back upstairs there was only one minute remaining following the Division Bells. When I looked at the two voting Lobbies, I could not see those 13 friends who had gone the right way on the vote, so I stood there on my own, absolutely terrified about what to do, and saw everyone else going through the other Lobby. I will never, ever accept feeling that way ever again.

I say to the new intake that there is a reason why no other MPs from previous intakes are on the Labour Benches, and why MPs from previous intakes have said, “If your gut is telling you there’s a problem, there’s a problem.” They have given you their advice. They often tell us how dismissive you are of them, but—[Interruption.] Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker—you would never be dismissive of anyone.

There is a reason, and you should take that time—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Again.

[Alicia Kearns]

Oh my goodness! I can only apologise again for saying “you”, Madam Deputy Speaker.

There is a reason why Labour MPs from older intakes have chosen not to come and defend the Prime Minister: they have seen this show before and know what happens. They know that their gut is telling them the right thing to do. I congratulate those of them who have been brave enough to speak out and share their views.

The House will recall that the Government attempted to whip Labour MPs against giving the Intelligence and Security Committee a role in assessing and releasing the Mandelson files, as per the Humble Address. Parliament asserted itself on that day, and we must do so again. A vote against this motion will show loud and clear that Labour Members forgave, followed the party line and ignored their conscience. There is precedent here: in 2022, the House unanimously passed a motion allowing an inquiry into whether the then Prime Minister had misled Parliament. We Conservatives supported that motion—not a single MP blocked it. I know how hard such decisions are because we have been there. I supported the Committee’s finding that Boris Johnson had misled the House. My advice to Labour MPs is to listen to your conscience and do what you know is right. Members will thank themselves, as the years pass by, for being free of the weight of regret.

Standards matters should never be whipped. Is any Labour MP willing to stand up and say that the threat of having the Whip removed has not been made? So far, none of them has said that. [Interruption.] Indeed, pressure seems to be an issue that we ought to debate more. I would also say to Labour MPs who are considering speaking in this debate that you may find—[Hon. Members: “They may find!”] Labour Members may find that, before the vote this evening, their party changes its mind and they are no longer being whipped. I encourage Labour MPs to reflect on whether that is the record that a Member may wish to have. Whips do change their minds if Members make representations to them. Can you truly say that the whole story is out there?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. May I remind the hon. Lady that much of her speech has been addressed to me, but I am not speaking or voting this afternoon?

[Alicia Kearns]

I fully accept that. I know better and I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady’s speech is based on wisdom, reflecting on her personal experience in previous votes. Does she agree that, no matter which voting Lobby we walk through, the question we must all ask today is whether we can justify our decision to our constituents?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alicia Kearns]

Absolutely. Some Members have suggested that their constituents do not really care about process and whether the truth is told in this Chamber, and that they are not really interested in this privilege motion, but that is most certainly not the case—and that is something that Members will experience in the months to come.

I fear that a future release of files will further contradict the Prime Minister’s version of events. We discovered only this morning that Jonathan Powell, the National Security Adviser, was also appointed before being vetted. I asked the Government about his vetting in February, and I was told that national security vetting for the current National Security Adviser was conducted to the usual standard set for developed vetting. Does that sound familiar? Clearly, something went awry and due process was not followed, but this House was told once again that due process was followed. Judgment is revealed not in the exception but in the pattern, and there is a very clear pattern in this situation.

[Imran Hussain]

The hon. Lady comes to the crux of the debate: was due process followed? The simple fact is that vetting must always come before an appointment, but as we heard in evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee this morning, that did not happen. It is clear that due process was not followed.

[Alicia Kearns]

The hon. Gentleman is completely right. We were told repeatedly and consistently that due process was not followed. I know that it was not because I have been through security clearance. At the first level, before I could hand in my notice at my existing job and join the civil service, I had to wait seven months for security clearance. Then there was developed vetting, for which I had to wait about six months before I could take up a new role. I have also been through STRAP clearance, so I have been through the works. The claim that due process was followed does not sit right with me. Fundamentally, if due process was followed, Olly Robbins did not deserve to be sacked—he must have breached due process if he needed to be sacked.

I will vote in favour of the motion and end my day with a clear conscience, knowing that I voted to give my communities the answers that they deserve. I hope that every Member can say the same. We are asking whether the man leading our country has the judgment that his office necessitates and the required commitment to the truth. At this moment, the country does not believe that that commitment is there, so let us have an inquiry and see if it was.

Strait of Hormuz

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

We continue to engage closely with the Palestinian authorities and, of course, with the Palestinian ambassador here in the UK. As I said, the Foreign Secretary was in the region at the weekend and engaged closely with Foreign Ministers from across the region. We will continue to work with all partners in the pursuit of stability, security and peace across the whole region.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

Closing the strait of Hormuz is Iran’s most predictable threat, yet it appears that no plan to reopen it was ready to be enacted. Equally, on Cyprus, it appears that there was either an intelligence or a planning failure, which underestimated Iran’s intent or capability. Will the Government review whether adequate planning and assessments are taking place, and will the Minister give a firm commitment that direct representations will be made to both the US and Israel to make sure that no action takes place around Evin prison? The Foremans and other British nationals are still being held hostage there, and we have heard nothing from the Government on making sure that they are protected—unlike the action last summer, when Evin prison was bombed.

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Lady will know that the Minister for the middle east, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), spoke about the case of the Foremans the other day, and I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will do so tomorrow if she is asked about it. I have been very clear about the importance of protecting not only our interests and bases in Cyprus, but the defence and security of Cyprus, and I am in regular contact with Foreign Minister Kombos and colleagues in Cyprus. Just for the record, I can confirm that the sovereign base areas on the island of Cyprus are not being used, and have not been used, by US bombers for strikes on Iran, but we will continue to work with partners across the region. It is simply not correct to say that we were not prepared. We had resources and capability in place, and we have provided further capability and resources in recent days.

Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I will leave the questions about how the hon. Member for Clacton spends his time to him. It was not a serious contribution to the debate on Diego Garcia and the British Indian Ocean Territory for him to travel there at the weekend. I am sure that I and many of my colleagues will be in Gorton and Denton in the coming days.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

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.

[Mr Falconer]

The reason why I do not really want to talk about the Bill is that it is not my Bill, it is quite detailed and it is going through both Chambers of Parliament. I am very happy to ensure that the relevant Minister writes and provides the answer to the issue.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Tom Hayes]

I always listen to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans). As I said at the outset, I support all of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen, who went into great detail about the amendments. The point I am bringing us back to is that Conservative Members need to put country before petty party politics. They are acting in a childish way and they are overexcited about this debate. This treaty protects our national interest. It safeguards British interests. The Opposition have a cheek, when they were responsible for at least 85% of the negotiations that led to this debate.

I will close with this. In this House, we speak through the Chair, because doing so tempers debate. When I speak with schoolchildren about the House, they remark upon the fact that we are in an old building, and that shows our continuity over many years of history. In this place, we make decisions in a sombre, sober way. We do not make them in the same way as the President of the United States did last night, in the form of a rash tweet. Let us not take that social media post at face value. Let us do the reasonable thing and debate this matter properly.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

Some “very tiny islands”. That is how this Government’s National Security Adviser described Diego Garcia and the Chagos islands. I am afraid that that contempt is consistent with how they continue to treat those people. The former Foreign Secretary never once met Chagossians. There is no evidence that the current Foreign Secretary has ever met Chagossians. I am afraid that the Minister at the Dispatch Box met Chagossians only on 30 September and 3 October, after the deal was done, and refused to discuss the deal with them—unless he is saying that those who are here today are lying. By contrast—before anyone starts to heckle—I have had many meetings with representatives of the Chagossian community and organised roundtables with them.

We urgently need Lords amendments 1, 5 and 6 on financial oversight of this £34.7 billion bill the British people are about to have to foot. The clawback option is the bare minimum the Government should accept for the eventuality that Mauritius breaks the conditions of this appalling deal, because it is quite likely that we will see mistreatment of the Chagossian people. It is also important that the clawback is there because we will need to review and understand the surge of Chagossians who came to the UK after the deal was announced. The Government tried to dismiss it, and claimed that the increase had nothing to do with the deal. That is wrong and we will continue to see that.

This is a bad deal. The agreement is legally illiterate: there was an ICJ opinion, not a ruling. It is historically illiterate, because the Chagos islands have never belonged to Mauritius. This is a bad deal, ceding territory not to those hailing from those islands, but to a country that has consistently mistreated Chagossians and legislated to criminalise their views. The Bill cements the shameful treatment of the Chagossian people into law.

Anyone who votes against the clawback tonight should be ashamed of themselves, because they should want to put in place the minimum protections for the people of the Chagos islands—those people who have come this evening to hear us debate, because their voices have not been heard in this Chamber and they have been denied by a Government who would not meet them, a Government who have no interest in supporting them, and a Government who tonight will vote against the only protections that might make sure that their voice is heard.

[Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)]

I align myself with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger).

In South East Cornwall, we may be geographically removed from Diego Garcia, but we are closely connected to the realities of our national defence. Torpoint has the third highest number of veterans of any community, with over 14% of people having served. Residents across the area have written to me about the importance of this issue. His Majesty’s Naval Base Devonport is the largest naval base in western Europe and a key part of our national defence capability, so we are an area that understands the importance of national defence and its complexities. We know that it requires long-term thinking and joint working with multiple allies, each of whom understandably has its own national interests in mind.

Does the Minister agree that this matter is about not just international law, but securing Britain’s ability to defend itself, including control over key capabilities such as berthing submarines, electromagnetic defence and force mobility? Given that 85% of the Chagos negotiations took place under the Conservatives, does the Minister know why the Tories started negotiations when they were in government if they did not think there was a threat to the crucial base?

As well as defence, South East Cornwall has deep ties to our marine environment, with many local livelihoods dependent on the sea. Our local economy relies on a healthy and resilient marine environment, so it is important to recognise the role of that environment. The Chagos marine protected area was established in 2010. Through the Blue Belt programme, the UK has continued to play a leading role in enhancing marine protection across the overseas territories. For Members who may not be aware, this is a brilliant programme that works with local communities to understand biodiversity, manage impacts and build a deeper understanding between people and nature. The marine protected area is home to extraordinary marine life. Research has shown that it contributes to climate resilience at a global scale.

Mauritius has committed to protecting that marine environment, which I welcome. However, as an island state located miles from the base, I have concerns about the practicalities of monitoring and enforcing protections against harmful activity. What provisions in the Bill and the treaty will safeguard the existing marine protected area and ensure that effective enforcement remains in place to prevent harm to the ecosystem and the species that depend on it?

Arctic Security

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

We regularly engage with joint expeditionary force partners. Indeed, there were meetings around the joint expeditionary force last week, and I believe there are further such meetings later this week, which the Ministry of Defence is heavily involved in supporting. That is exactly because we take these shared security issues so seriously. We know that for a country like the UK our security depends on the alliances we build, including with close European allies through the JEF.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

Greenland is being offered two options: to be sold or to be annexed. This is naked imperialism. The Government of Greenland have made clear that they will work with the US in any way necessary to protect our security and that of Europe, but I am afraid that beyond the vague diplomatic assurances of diplomatic activity and claims of being hard-headed, I am no clearer, from the statement, about what the Government are doing to keep us safe from tariffs and, more importantly, to protect our security and the sovereignty of Greenland.

[Yvette Cooper]

To be honest, I am surprised by that question from the hon. Lady, because she has experience in foreign affairs. She knows how diplomatic discussions take place and the urgency with which those discussions are taking place right now. She will understand the importance of those discussions. She will understand the importance of the collaboration with our allies and partners and how those discussions take place. She will also have seen the results of taking a similar hard-headed and robust approach to previous issues and the previous discussions we have taken forward. We will continue to do that. In terms of the people of Greenland, we have seen the protests on the streets in Greenland, and we have seen the strong views expressed by the people of the Kingdom of Denmark more widely. We will continue to support them and their sovereignty.

Proposed Chinese Embassy

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on her question. One could be excused for feeling that this is groundhog day, because once again the House has gathered to share our collective concern about plans to approve the Chinese Communist party’s mega-embassy and once again the Home Office has declined to answer. I did consider rereading my speech from last week, but as I hope we will get some answers, I have gone back to the drawing board.

The Chinese Communist party’s plans are not normal diplomatic renovations, and it would be laughable to suggest that they are, given the location. Did the Minister see the unredacted plans before their publication, and can she genuinely say that she would have no concerns about her Government approving this shadowy network of 208 secret rooms? Given the claims that the Government and Ministers had not seen these plans until last week, surely the Government need time to review them. Would the Minister confirm that there will be a delay to the decision, which is due tomorrow? No one would seriously suggest that, in the week that has passed, the Government have identified all the mitigations needed to protect our cables and militate against these secret rooms.

The Government have so far shielded themselves behind the mundane language of planning policy, but this is not a normal application. Can the Minister confirm whether our allies have been consulted on the unredacted plans, and if so, who? Can she confirm whether UK Government officials previously denied the existence of these cables to the United States in discussions?

Last week, I asked whether the Chinese Communist party’s ambassador had been démarched and forced to explain his party’s duplicity in the application. The Minister declined to answer. It has now been a week. Has the Minister—not officials—finally found time to prioritise national security and haul in the Chinese ambassador? If not, why not, and what message does that send to China? Not once have this Labour Government démarched the Chinese ambassador since they came to power, despite cyber-attacks, spies in this place and bounties on the heads of Hongkongers. What does the Chinese Communist party have to do for this Government to defend us and act to deter future hostile acts? The Government tell us that security concerns have been addressed, including ones that they only knew about a week ago. Tell us how.

Finally, the Prime Minister has not yet publicly confirmed his vanity visit to Beijing. Has the Chinese Communist party made approval of the new embassy contingent on the visit going ahead? The Government have a duty to protect our country. Without national security, there is no economic security. This House clearly speaks with one voice on this issue and that voice says no, so will the Government join us or will they choose a dereliction of their duties?

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the shadow Minister for her remarks. First, in relation to the Prime Minister’s visit, any prime ministerial or ministerial travel will be confirmed in the usual way. Secondly, it is right, and we are clear, that the planning decision is one for the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to take independently and that that decision is made in a quasi-judicial capacity. It is also important to say that the decision on the embassy will be taken in the proper way, regardless of any attempts at pressure from anyone, and we have been clear throughout that this is a planning decision for MHCLG Ministers.

It is important to recognise that national security is the first duty of Government—the shadow Minister will understand that more than anyone, given her own background—and we will always act to protect it. It is taken extremely seriously by the Home Office and the Foreign Office. It will be important that we continue to ensure that we have conversations, as we do routinely, with our allies and with the US, and that we take into account any security and intelligence, which we also share on a routine basis, in relation to China. As I have already mentioned, where there are concerns about national security, it is important that our intelligence services are involved throughout, and a range of measures have been developed and are being implemented.

I am sure that these matters will continue to be part of the debate, and that the Minister for Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), will address them further. It is also important that we continue to ensure that there is a focus on security and, in relation to concerns about those who may experience attempts under transnational repression, that we continue to stand up for the safety and security of all our people in the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the hon. Member for his question. It is important to emphasise again that national security is the first duty of Government, and we will always act to protect it.

[Alicia Kearns]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When I asked an urgent question about this important issue last week, it was shunted to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Today when the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) asked the question, it was shunted to the Foreign Office. The Minister opened her answer by saying that she could not answer the fundamental question being asked in the Chamber. When I asked her directly whether she had démarched the Chinese ambassador, because that is within her brief, no answer was given, so Ministers will not answer on other people’s briefs, despite collective responsibility; if they will not answer on their own briefs, how are we to get answers in this place?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I thank the hon. Lady for advance notice of that point of order. As she will know, the Chair is not responsible for the content of Ministers’ answers—if only we were—but she has most definitely put her point on the record, and the Minister might wish to respond now.

Iran: Protests

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his continued commitment to these issues, and to those in Syria, which he has been engaged in for some time. As I said, we are deeply concerned about the use of violence against protesters and we strongly condemn the killings of protesters. People must be able to exercise their right to peaceful protest without fear of reprisal.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

There are reports that the US is planning airstrikes or action in Iran. Following the previous US airstrikes there, Iran fired rockets at the Al Udeid airbase in Qatar in response. That base, which has recently been partly evacuated, is co-located with the prison where Matthew Pascoe is being detained. Will the Government advise the House on what they are doing to make sure that he, and any British nationals in the nearby area, will be safe? What is being done to ensure the safety of the Foremans, who continue to be held in Evin prison? We know that, in the past, Iranians have often rightly sought to overthrow the prisons, because of all those who are being held unjustly there.

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Lady asks a series of important questions. On our general posture in the region, I do not want to comment in great detail about force protection questions in relation to our bases, although I am sure she will be aware of reports. We are working closely with our American counterparts on those questions.

On those detained—the Foremans and others—I can confirm that I have been in touch with the families, who are at the forefront of our minds. I must draw the House’s and the public’s attention to our travel advice, however: with the embassy withdrawn, there is a limit to what can be done. We cannot offer a full consular package of assistance in Iran. This is a fast-moving situation and we try to keep our travel advice as up-to-date as possible to reflect the very latest developments.

Venezuela

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

Promoting international law in the most effective way also means promoting the rules-based order and the rules-based alliances that we have. It means being able to raise issues around international law both publicly and privately in a way that has the greatest results to defend the rules-based order. That is what we will continue to do, and that, frankly, is what is in the UK’s interest.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

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?

[Yvette Cooper]

As I think I set out in my statement, there are an estimated 500 British nationals in Venezuela. We did look at all possible crisis responses over the weekend. We stood up the crisis facility in the Foreign Office to ensure that we were ready to respond if necessary at any point. The response did not go beyond the changed travel advice, and over the weekend British nationals were advised to shelter in place while what might be happening next was assessed. We have had some consular contact, but it has been very limited. We have been available to any British nationals who want our support, as we would continue to be.

We are also in contact with Commonwealth countries and overseas territories. The Minister responsible for the overseas territories, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), is following up with overseas territories that are particularly affected by instability in the region.

Ukraine: 1,000 Days

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the previous Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Alicia Kearns.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

It has been a thousand days of Ukraine fighting for Europe’s future, but more than 3,900 days that Ukraine has been under attack and under invasion—3,900 days of bravery, terror and loss. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) for all she did to create the Homes for Ukraine programme when many thought it was impossible. Consistently, though, Ukraine has been underestimated and Russia overestimated—militarily, economically and beyond.

We all know here that personalities matter, and as the Foreign Secretary said, we know that Trump likes winners. The US Government’s new leader needs to see success and victory for Ukraine as a personal victory for him. What is the Foreign Secretary doing to make sure that Trump sees it in those terms and no other?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her work previously on the Foreign Affairs Committee. We were able to work together quite well when I was in my shadow role.

The hon. Lady is right to say that we have a job to do now. The mantra is: one American President at a time. We have another eight weeks first, and Ukraine is going into winter—it may well be a bitter winter. The good news is that we are now getting the money out of the door. Where there have been gaps between pledging and getting the kit and the equipment into Ukraine, there is now a doubling down across Europe and among the international G7 partners to ensure the kit gets there and puts Ukraine in a strong position going into 2025.

I am confident that on 20 January, Ukraine will be in an even stronger position than it is today. That will be because of that combined allied effort and because of the work in the United Kingdom by the Defence Secretary, the Prime Minister and myself to ensure that we are Ukraine’s strongest partner and that we are doing everything we can to support it military, economically and on a humanitarian level.

China: Human Rights and Sanctions

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this urgent question, and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting it.

It is disappointing, but not surprising, that the Foreign Secretary did not see fit to update the House following his visit to China. I want to press him on what the visit achieved because, comparing the read-outs, I would be forgiven for thinking that two very separate visits took place. The Opposition understand the importance of engagement, but not at any cost. All interactions with the Chinese Communist party must be clear-eyed and part of a meaningful strategy, as per the high-level China strategy that the Foreign Secretary inherited from our Government. Yet, as he said, this visit occurred before this Government had concluded their so-called China audit. Would it not have been better to wait until he knew what interests he is seeking to defend and further?

On the Conservative Benches, it looks as if the Foreign Secretary rushed into engagement without a plan. Concerningly, in a fundamental breach of the constitutional principle that Parliament is sovereign, he was willing to pressure parliamentarians into cancelling the visit of former President Tsai of Taiwan the week before his trip. Unlike in an autocratic state, the Government do not tell Members of Parliament who they can or cannot meet. Indeed, the Conservative Government told the CCP on multiple occasions that, no, it could not shut me and other Members up, despite its requests.

We are told that the Foreign Secretary raised British citizen Jimmy Lai’s sham detention. Jimmy is 76 and is being held in solitary confinement, yet the Foreign Secretary still has not met Jimmy’s son, despite his coming to the UK on multiple occasions and asking for a meeting. Will the Foreign Secretary now meet Sebastien to update him on his father’s prospects? And will he share with us the outcomes of his visit?

Will Jimmy Lai now be released? Will the Chinese Communist party now step back from its human rights abuses in Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet? Will sanctions on MPs now be lifted? Will the Chinese Communist party now refrain from actions to support Russia’s war machine and the intimidation of Taiwan? Will the transnational oppression of Hongkongers and Uyghurs now end? Which of those objectives did the Foreign Secretary achieve thanks to his visit?

It is easy to say that the visit was a reset in relations but, as we all know, in every relationship there are givers and takers. Has the Foreign Secretary not simply proved that he gave and they took?

[Mr Lammy]

Really? That was quite bad.

The leader and the Foreign Minister of the United States have had eight engagements with China, France has had six, Germany has had four, Japan has had three, and Canada has had two. The right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly) went once. And the hon. Lady asks me what I have achieved! I will go again and again to get outcomes in the UK’s national interest. The hon. Lady would expect nothing less.