Alicia Kearns

Party affiliation

Register of interests

Register on Parliament's site

Latest on this tracker 265

1. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

   Foreign Interference in Democratic Processes

   Moscow ships stalk our cables, Tehran’s agents seek to assassinate on our soil, and last week the Pentagon declared Confucius institutes a threat to our national security. In stark contrast, the powers I secured to allow these weapons of the Chinese Communist party to be closed here in the UK were scrapped by this Government. Does the Foreign Secretary think that Washington has got it wrong, and if not, will the powers be reinstated and deployed? While he is at it, will he expel every Iranian official with links to the Ministry of Intelligence and Security and <span id="153" class="column-number" data-column-number="153"></span>bring our allies together to freeze Russian and Belarusian tourist visas to protect us from their use to attack our country?

   Hansard source
2. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

   Small Boat Crossings: Removal of Arrivals

   Ministers tell us that small boat arrivals are vetted, so we need not worry, but Mohammed Yaseen—who, as we all know, joined al-Qaeda at 16, was convicted as a Daesh terrorist in Germany, and, a British court was told, was a danger to the British people—was put by the Home Office not in a detention centre ready to be deported to Iraq, where the Iraqi people deserve to see him face trial and justice, but instead in a hostel in Windsor. He was free to roam British streets during daylight hours, along with too many of the 95% not yet deported. He is now back in prison, thanks to the newspapers. How can we have any confidence in the Government, when they allow a convicted Daesh member to be released on to our streets while his deportation is pending, and will the Home Secretary today give the commitment that he will be held in detention until he is on a plane, and that his ticket has been ordered?

   Hansard source
3. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

   Performance of Royal Mail

   A reliable post service is not a luxury; it is an essential public service. For our communities across Rutland, Stamford and the South Kesteven and Harborough villages, the consequences of poor service can be significant, and also unfair on the posties who face the brunt of those frustrations. In Carlby, some residents were left without post for 20 days in January, with many only receiving their post because they took the initiative to complain. One resident wrote her complaint on 26 January. The next day, a mammoth bundle of mail coincidentally arrived at her house, with some letters dating from 2 January—24 days late. In Ryhall, the village regularly goes without post for weeks at a time. It is not just an inconvenience; it is the norm. In Stamford, first-class post takes a minimum of four days to arrive, despite Royal Mail aiming to deliver the next working day. South Luffenham is no different. The Royal Mail comes once a week, or twice if locals are lucky. Indeed, I wrote to the residents of Cottesmore on 12 October and many received their letters only yesterday. One village resident has missed numerous medical appointments because letters arrive too late from the hospital—or she travels the 40 minutes to our local hospital to find out that the appointment has been cancelled. This is unacceptable. We are not asking for special treatment. In the last 18 months since the 2025 sale, something has happened that has broken Royal Mail. Residents have consistently been told they can only complain after seven days—a whole week of non-delivery. Again, the significant delays residents face every week are perfectly demonstrated by the fact that when I posted correspondence first class from my constituency office in Oakham, it took two weeks for the letters to arrive. To arrive where? In Oakham—some just one street away. I want to be clear that, as all Members in the Chamber have said, this is not an attack on our postal workers. Many work incredibly hard under considerable pressure in all weathers. We recognise the contribution they make, and we are grateful to them. I would like to turn briefly to a company called Enough, which uses the Royal Mail service to deliver its self-swab rape kits, despite having been publicly outed by me in this Chamber for sending SLAPPs—strategic lawsuits against public participation—to sexual assault survivors, rape charities and anyone who dares to speak out to question its motives or the claims on its kits. I have raised Enough’s use of Royal Mail services with <span id="103" class="column-number" data-column-number="103"></span>Royal Mail, because I believe its use of Royal Mail is not compliant with Royal Mail’s own guidance on the transportation of human specimens. First, a kit has to be sent by a qualified medical practitioner or requested by them. This is not the case. Secondly, the labelling on the packaging required is not currently in place. Thirdly, the packaging requirements are also not being met. Royal Mail is not taking the concerns I have raised with it seriously. The Minister knows very well the issues relating to Enough and has promised to look at how we regulate to deal with the fact that this company should not be in operation. It is important that Royal Mail comes back to me and that the Minister also raises this issue with Royal Mail. Rural communities cannot become an afterthought in the provision of essential services. Yes, distance and rural geography represent operational challenges, but they are not a permanent excuse for poor service. I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you have had the same issues in your very rural constituency. I urge the Government to take these concerns seriously and press Royal Mail for a clear and measurable improvement plan and improved powers for regulators. That plan must include: transparent local performance information that even I cannot get my hands on; an assessment of staffing and delivery arrangements; better communication with affected residents; and a straightforward process for reporting and resolving complaints. We are all very grateful to posties for what they do, but accountability means more than just acknowledging a problem. It means taking action and demonstrating results. The universal post service is an essential part of our national infrastructure. Its value is measured not by the number of letters delivered nationally, but by whether our communities can depend on it when they need it—and for too many, they cannot.

   Hansard source
4. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

   Child-like Sexual Abuse Dolls (Offences) Bill

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham for introducing the Bill, which closes a vile loophole in the law. I am grateful for her leadership in bringing together in this room a group of people who are all fully behind her, and I commend her work. A child-like sexual abuse doll is a replica of a child’s body made for perverse sexual use. Someone who imports one, as the hon. Member for Twickenham said, can be prosecuted under the Customs Consolidation Act 1876. However, as the CPS has acknowledged, simply possessing <span id="9" class="column-number" data-column-number="9"></span>one is not an offence. The law stops a parcel at the border, but not the person who receives it. The Bill is therefore proportionate and has the Opposition’s support. The Bill creates offences of making, possessing, importing and supplying, with a maximum sentence of five years—the same as for indecent images of children, which is exactly the right comparison. It provides for seizure and forfeiture, notification requirements, liability for directors and reach for UK companies abroad. The defences are sensible: for those investigating crime, for unsolicited receipt and for those who had no reason to know what they had. The burden of proof—which is, again, on the defendant—mirrors the indecent images regime, and that is right. The definition is targeted, too: this is a ban on sexualising children’s bodies. Why does it matter? The Lucy Faithfull Foundation warns that the dolls normalise and legitimise sexual behaviour towards children. Some argue the opposite: that they could be a safe outlet for paedophiles. However, there is no evidence at all that these vile objects prevent offending. When the evidence is uncertain and the potential victims are children, the burden must lie with those who permit the product, not those who protect against it. The Government have said that police have encountered those dolls while investigating suspected child sex abuse and when monitoring registered sex offenders. The Bill therefore rests on the judgment that a replica of a child made for sexual use has no place in a decent society. Technology is moving fast, as we have already touched on briefly in the debate. These products can be made to order and are becoming more realistic. The Bill covers “a doll or other object” —a physical object. Can the Minister confirm that that would include a robot or any AI-enabled physical product made to resemble a child for sexual use? The term “making” includes adapting something so that it becomes a doll, but how does the Bill apply to someone who 3D-prints a doll, or—this is a gap in the Bill—supplies the files to allow such 3D printing? They themselves are not producing it, but are providing the core content that allows that doll to be 3D-printed in an individual’s home. I have not tabled amendments in Committee, but I am considering doing so on Report on both those points, unless the Government reassure me that they are not needed or table such amendments themselves. I would welcome the Minister’s views on that. Will there be guidance on what the “reasonable person” test is for police, Border Force and prosecutors, so that it is applied consistently and legitimate items such as medical or training models clearly fall outside the offence? We do not want paramedics or others to be unable to train with the items that they need. The Bill gives no commencement date. Will the Government tell us when they hope to bring it into force, and what resources Border Force and the police will have to enforce it? One passing point raised by the hon. Member for Twickenham was that the Bill extends only to England and Wales. I expect that the Government want to push for equivalent protection elsewhere given how many of these products are being imported. Parliament has repeatedly legislated to protect children, and it is at its best when we work as one country. Finally, I urge the Government to consider requiring anyone who is found to own such a device to be placed on a sexual risk order, even if they are not imprisoned. <span id="10" class="column-number" data-column-number="10"></span>There is no need for a conviction for someone to be placed on a sexual risk order. That is vital, because anyone from the National Crime Agency or a chief constable can apply for one, and it would recognise that, even if an individual has not yet offended against a child or fully meets the need for imprisonment, we can take action. There is no question that anyone interfering in any way with an object like this has some sort of malign intent. I came into politics to protect those who cannot protect themselves, and no one is more deserving of protection than a child. This Bill is a small step, but it is the right one, and we are proud to support it. In this room, we are making clear that child-like sexual abuse dolls have no place in our country. A child’s body is not a product. Owning a child-like sex abuse doll is morally indefensible. There is no innocent reason to own one, and those who do are degenerates who are normalising the sexual abuse of children. They must be treated as the danger they are.

   Hansard source
5. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

   Child-like Sexual Abuse Dolls (Offences) Bill

   I thank the Minister for confirming that any doll that is 3D-printed will be included. Could she confirm whether those who produce the files that allow those individuals to create one at home, and enable their criminal behaviour, will also be covered? If not, would she write to me to confirm it and look into how it might be done?

   Hansard source
6. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

   Child-like Sexual Abuse Dolls (Offences) Bill

   I thank the hon. Member for making that point. She is essentially giving the National Crime Agency and police forces across the country an additional reason to enter the homes of potential offenders and those who are planning a crime. It is absolutely vital that we move to prevention in this area, because the reality is that there are too many children and adults across this country whose lives have been forever harmed by this. It is something they will live with for ever. The hon. Member is not just tackling a doll but providing a preventive power to go in and catch people before they escalate, and she is therefore protecting children. I thank her ever so much for doing so.

   Hansard source
7. 19 Oct 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

   Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

   On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?

   Hansard source
8. 19 Oct 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

   Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

   <em>indicated </em><em>assent</em><em>.</em>

   Hansard source
9. 19 Oct 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

   Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

   The Secretary of State talks about protections for those who served our country. One key achievement of the legacy Act was stopping new inquests that could threaten to expose those who served our country to vexatious claims, particularly in the case of Loughgall, which is one of the best known cases. Do his amendments definitively stop any such vexatious claims coming forward again?

   Hansard source
10. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

    Sustainable Farming Incentive

    The NFU and farmers were a klaxon on the impending car crash that unravelled—those are the words of a local farmer. A debacle—those are the words of a Labour MP. Having had no decency to warn farmers that it was coming, today was an opportunity for humility rather than gaslighting them that only some of the technical complaints were legitimate. Will the Minister at least now publish a transparent breakdown of how the farming budget is being spent in its entirety? That is the least that farmers deserve after this debacle.

    Hansard source