Ambassador to the United States

Debate between Richard Tice and Nusrat Ghani

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I remind Members to temper their speeches. We do not, at any point, accuse other Members of dishonesty. I know that the next Member to speak will get that right.

Points of Order

Debate between Richard Tice and Nusrat Ghani

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Member has now twice put her words on the record, no doubt. If she is not aware—and for colleagues across the House who may not be aware—Hansard has its own editorial policy. If she wishes to have her words corrected, she needs to take that up directly with Hansard. That is not a responsibility of the Chair.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will be most grateful for your advice, because during Prime Minister’s questions earlier today the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) misled the House—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. We do not use language such as “misled the House” when talking about colleagues. The hon. Gentleman will have to check his words if he wishes to continue.

[Richard Tice]

I am most grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen may have possibly inadvertently misled the House with regard to Lancashire county council and nursery funding. The reality is that, unfortunately, as a result, the Prime Minister gave an answer based on that possible inadvertent misinformation. The truth is that Lancashire county council is carrying out a statutory consultation on whether to follow the example of Labour-controlled councils such as Blackburn and Blackpool in having a small, modest processing fee.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have already contacted the Member he referenced. If not, I have no doubt that he will do so forthwith. If only the Chair were responsible for the content of Members’ questions and answers, but unfortunately it is not. The hon. Gentleman has now put his words on the record and will no doubt get a response privately.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Debate between Richard Tice and Nusrat Ghani

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Richard Tice]

It is a really good question, and I am happy to answer it. If the landlord pulls a property available to rent out of the market, it will go into the ownership sector and that property will not be available to rent.

We know that there is significant demand to rent, and I say to the Government that we want to increase the supply of properties available to rent. I therefore repeat the point that it is about risk and reward. The Government must make these judgments. I just say to the Minister that he should keep this closely under review. If the Government get the balance wrong, the market will reduce while demand will continue to rise, so rents will rise as the supply reduces. That is my concern. If the Bill passes—it is likely to—perhaps the Minister should review it in a year by looking at the data and seeing what is happening to rents, what is happening to supply and whether further tweaks and adjustments are needed.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Pam Cox to make her maiden speech.

Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Richard Tice and Nusrat Ghani

2nd reading
Thursday 5th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham) on that excellent speech. The vision of a landlord with a sword serving alcohol is an interesting one. I also congratulate the others who have made maiden speeches, and in particular the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader). Northampton South is where I grew up and first went to school, and I am still a passionate supporter of the Northampton Saints.

I have long been a critic of the excessive levels of overseas ownership of our key public utilities thanks to the failures of the previous Conservative regimes. Some 80% of our offshore wind industry is overseas-owned, so I have some sympathy, the House may be surprised to hear, with some of the aims and ambitions of GB Energy. Indeed, it may be that the Secretary of State was listening to me a couple of years ago when I talked about this issue.

In the spirit of being constructive and helpful to the Minister and the Secretary of State, I wish to put forward a couple of suggestions. My model of joint-venture partial public ownership of monopoly, critical public utilities is a 50:50 model. In opening the debate, the Secretary of State referred to the Danish company Ørsted, which is 50% owned by the state and 50% owned primarily by pension funds with private sector management. That is a win-win joint venture. I urge the Secretary of State and the Minister, when they make investments through GB Energy, to focus almost exclusively on 50:50 joint ventures in which the other 50% should be private sector investment, preferably from British pension funds on behalf of British pensioners. That way we will get the best of all worlds, with the quality of private sector management, because the truth is that Governments can be good at funding things but are generally very bad at managing things. I therefore urge the Secretary of State and the Minister, when they consider the investments to be made through GB Energy, to adopt the model of investing only up to 50% and always ensuring that there is private sector investment alongside.

Of course, the Secretary of State passionately believes that renewable energy will be cheaper, so he should have no problem at all with inserting into the conditions for investment a requirement for confirmation that within the business plan for investments there is a clear goal for the investment to result in cheaper energy for British consumers and taxpayers. I urge the Secretary of State and the Minister to adopt that 50% restriction and consider the need for private sector investment.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Noah Law to make his maiden speech.

Budget Responsibility Bill

Debate between Richard Tice and Nusrat Ghani

2nd reading
Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Ghani)]

Does the point of order relate to the business being discussed right now?

[Richard Tice]

It relates to the business of the day.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Just for reference—I know that this can be tricky for new MPs—points of order must be relevant to the business under way, or be made during the transition between items of business. However, I know that that is not easy for new MPs, and I am grateful to the Member for giving notice of the point of order, so he may proceed.

[Richard Tice]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are hearing a lot about transparency, accountability and scrutiny, but the business of the day, proposed by the Leader of the House, includes a plan to abolish the European Scrutiny Committee. When this country voted to leave the European Union, we voted to take back control. How can we scrutinise the Government’s activities and negotiations with the European Union if the Government abolish the European Scrutiny Committee? Surely that is completely in contrast to what the Government proposed in their manifesto, and to these discussions about scrutiny.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Once again, I am grateful to the Member for giving us notice of his point of order. It is for the Government to decide what motions should be tabled and whether there should be consultation. Any Select Committee can scrutinise matters within its remit, which may include matters relating to the European Union. The remit of the European Scrutiny Committee, as defined in Standing Order No. 143, is to examine European Union documents—broadly speaking, proposals for European Union legislation or policy. It is for the House, not for the Speaker, to decide whether the Committee still fulfils a useful function, now that the UK is no longer a member of the EU.

I call Martin Rhodes.

Code of Conduct and Modernisation Committee

Debate between Richard Tice and Nusrat Ghani

Thursday 25th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) has just made a very good case, and has asked you a specific question: is it fair? From your lack of reply, I think it is implicit that you agree that it is not fair. You have it in your power to change that, as a matter of fairness and of listening to smaller parties. If you do not agree with that, I think constituents all over the country will find it absolutely astonishing.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Ghani)]

Order. Will Members refrain from using the word “you”? You are speaking through the Chair.