Al Pinkerton MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2026 · Historical Forced Adoption · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Prime Minister for his statement today and for the apology on behalf of the state. I acknowledge the visitors we have in the Gallery today and the extraordinary testimonies of Members across this House. So often this Chamber is divided along the lines of party politics, but on days like this, we are united as living, breathing and feeling human beings, and I think the Chamber is at its best in those moments. My constituent Lynne was forcibly adopted shortly after the second world war. To understand her health concerns, she was eager to learn something of her family’s medical past. She was denied access to medical records for many decades. In fact, it was only a very helpful social worker who sought to try to reconstruct her family’s medical past for her and with her. Could the Prime Minister say more about whether the new national online resource will include details such as family medical history, so that constituents like Lynne might better understand their own health concerns? Bearing in mind the highly time-sensitive nature, given that often the children were born in the late 1940s and 1950s, can he say more about the timescales he expects to deliver this new resource?

• 2 Jul 2026 · Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), for securing today’s important debate. I want to use the brief time I have to share two examples from my constituency of systemic mismanagement of managed property. The first example that I will cite is a FirstPort-managed property—we have heard that name mentioned already—called Bentley Court in Camberley’s town centre. On 19 March, the building’s only lift broke down. For most of us, that would be a frustration, but for the retirement community who live in that building, it has been life changing. These are older people, often with significant mobility issues. That lift is not just a convenience; it is their access point to and from their property. It is their independence. Residents tell me that they have not been able to go shopping and have missed hospital appointments. Some cannot take out their rubbish, and others have become trapped in their home for days at a time. That brings me to the case of Audrey West, one of my constituents. She lived at Bentley Court for more than 26 years. She suffered from heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic bronchitis, and had serious mobility problems. She became a prisoner in her own home when that lift broke down, and her health and wellbeing deteriorated. When she attempted to tackle the stairs, the physical exertion caused enormous strain on her body, leaving her breathless and exhausted. That was only compounded by the recent heatwave. In order to secure her safety, her family concluded that the only thing they could do was remove her from her home of 26 years. On 28 June, just days after leaving her home, Audrey’s family contacted FirstPort again, copying in my office, to inform the company and me that Audrey had died. I am not here to claim that a broken lift directly caused Audrey’s death, but I am willing to say this: no vulnerable resident should ever be left feeling abandoned and trapped in their home. The lift remains unrepaired and unrepairable, with no end to the situation in sight. My second example is Mytchett Heath, a not-for-profit retirement community managed by Cognatum Estates. MPs from across the House have constituents who are affected. Again, older residents are feeling completely ignored, and now maligned, by the company that should be looking after them—residents who have invested their life savings in a home, but who have no voice when it comes to how their property is managed. Last month, I met a group of Cognatum residents here in Parliament. One described Cognatum as “the worst commercial organisation I have dealt with in a long professional career”, and nobody in the room looked surprised at that. Residents described soaring service charges, complaints that went nowhere, a regulator—the Association of Retirement Housing Managers—that they do not believe is independent, and a tribunal process that is so expensive. Lease terms can allow the managing company to recover legal costs from residents, who simply give up trying to engage with the process. Residents spoke about residents’ forums disappearing, and about having to renegotiate electricity contracts on behalf of the management company, because it was incapable of doing so itself. The most extraordinary thing that we heard was that Cognatum has refused to allow defibrillators in a retirement community, because it is fearful that members of the public might seek to access those defibrillators from outside the estate. I will conclude in just a few seconds, if you will allow me that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I ask the Minister—

• 1 Jul 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 1 July.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s condolences and his birthday good wishes to the NHS. Everyone in my constituency of Surrey Heath wants a new Frimley Park hospital, but the chosen site—the last remaining fragment of the ancient Frimley common—is wholly inappropriate. It is inaccessible, behind multiple schools, and environmentally devastating. Worse, over recent weeks, I have received deeply troubling evidence that the preferred relocation site was known and being openly discussed by local political figures in 2023, before the official site selection process had even begun. The entirely reasonable conclusion is that this project has been compromised from the outset and the site predetermined. I think the Prime Minister would agree that this is no way to begin a multibillion-pound public procurement process, so will he please step in, commission an urgent independent review—

• 30 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  Since we have been in the Chamber, it has been reported online that senior military personnel are deeply unhappy with the DIP and, indeed, that the Chief of the Defence Staff asked the Secretary of State to remove a line that suggested that he personally backed the plan. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether he had to remove that line from his statement?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Media Green Paper · Hansard source

  More

  During a recent bombing of Tehran, a power outage hit that city and 20,000 bots promoting the cause of Scottish nationalism turned off instantaneously. I say that not to question in any way the legitimacy of a political position—admittedly one that I disagree with—but because it reveals the extent to which our country is under daily assault from those who would seek to tear us apart. What plans does the Secretary of State have to build out from this media Green Paper and take a whole-of-Government approach in order to enhance media literacy, to bear down on the conduits that are driving disinformation in our society, and to ensure that our armed forces and security services have precisely the resources they need to secure our integrity as a nation?

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to make some progress. The Liberal Democrat amendment recognises the reality that I have outlined on Europe, the United States, and Britain’s role at the heart of European defence. It speaks of the scale of the threat, the urgency of investment, and the need for deeper, pragmatic co-operation with European allies. The threats facing the United Kingdom are the greatest since the end of the cold war.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  The money is there. If we do not spend it up front, we end up spending it further down the line in not only treasure but blood.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  Both my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and I in my role as spokesperson today have acknowledged the mistakes that were made in the past. Frankly, I think that those mistakes need to be shared across the House, because they are shared across this House. Defence cannot be switched on overnight. We cannot rebuild industrial capacity, train personnel, modernise equipment or restore deterrence through vague promises about working at pace. Small and medium-sized businesses have told me plainly that investment decisions are being delayed, expansion is on hold and contracts are being lost overseas. Ministers must publish the defence investment plan immediately to reassure partners and provide a road map for regenerating our armed forces after years of mismanagement. At a time when Europe is rearming, Britain is hesitating, and hesitation sends signals—to our armed forces, to industry, to our allies and, most dangerously, to our adversaries. The resignations of the former Defence Secretary and the former Armed Forces Minister were a clarion warning from those who have scrutinised the numbers that they were left wanting.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend puts her finger on an incredibly important point that is intrinsic to the publication of the DIP. We should never ignore the experiences of women in our armed forces, who perform brave service every day.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman clearly knew exactly the structure that I would adopt today. This is where the consensus briefly ends. I contend that the Conservatives’ Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 failed victims, survivors and veterans alike. It removed legal avenues for justice, eroded public trust and, through its conditional amnesty, established a shameful equivalence between British service personnel and members of the IRA. Key provisions were found to be incompatible with the European convention on human rights, which matters because a country that asks its armed forces to serve with honour must legislate with honour, too. The ECHR is too often characterised as a threat to those who serve, but in truth it helps to protect service personnel, families and veterans who seek accountability when the state has failed in its duty, and withdrawing from it would remove a vital safeguard and route to justice for victims and families, such as those in the Snatch Land Rover case. This is where the consensus returns. The Liberal Democrats are firmly on the side of veterans, which is why we voted against the carry-over motion for the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. As drafted, the Bill lacks the safeguards that veterans deserve, including protection against repeated investigations without genuinely new evidence. The Government’s Bill should be human rights compliant and rooted in transparency and independent oversight, upholding victim’s rights while importantly ensuring that no process is used to discredit those who serve with honour and integrity.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman makes a curious argument. The United Kingdom is a modern 21st-century European nation. I had a very pleasant cycle to and from Fulham this morning on a Lime bike using our cycleways. Frankly, I do not think it is a choice between one and the other—I am perfectly happy for the Government to spend money on both cycleways and defence. It is a very strange equivalence that the right hon. Gentleman seeks to make. The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) is not in his place today, which is disappointing and shows a failure to engage with issues affecting our armed forces and defence. I would implore him to urge the Treasury to unlock the funding that we need as urgently as possible. Strength in this moment will be measured by investment, industrial renewal and the courage to deepen defence relationships with our European allies. That is why our amendment calls for the defence investment plan to be published urgently, alongside a plan to issue £20 billion of defence bonds, which would help to rebuild our armed forces, unlock investments, strengthen our industrial base and give Britain’s businesses the confidence that they need to expand and hire. However, the investment cannot stop there. The Government must commit to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030 at the latest and convene cross-party talks in the spirit of collaboration across this House, which the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) has talked about today—only then can we have responsible and sustainable defence spending. Britain must lead, and Britain must lead in Europe. Our European allies share our values, our geography and our commitment to collective defence. They are partners with whom we share intelligence, defend our sea lanes, protect our skies, secure our infrastructure and confront the same threats. Britain should now be leading European defence. That is why we have proposed a growth and defence partnership with the European Union. This is not about building an alternative to NATO, but ensuring that Europe carries more of the burden of collective defence. Madam Deputy Speaker, I can see that you are eager for me to conclude, so I will. We must never forget the people who serve our nation in our armed forces. The Government were right to accept the Liberal Democrats’ proposal that the decent homes standard be applied to service family accommodation, but it must now be extended to single living accommodation, too. The Liberal Democrats are clear that Britain needs the defence investment plan to be published now. Defence spending must reach 3% of GDP by 2030. A £20 billion defence bonds programme should rebuild capability and industry, and could do so quickly. Northern Ireland needs a fair, lawful and trusted legacy framework, including protections for our UK veterans, who served with honour. Our armed forces deserve the highest standards, so the decent homes standard must be extended to single living accommodation. Britain needs a new growth and defence partnership with Europe that places us at the heart of defence co-operation.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  I do not believe that there is a black hole, because international aid is not a zero-sum game. We cannot have defence and security in the modern world unless we are tackling the very challenges that drive contemporary conflict at source. International aid is a fundamental part—

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak in this debate at the start of Armed Forces Week, and as a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme—it has been the honour of a lifetime to be a member for the past couple of years. It has been wonderful to get to know friends and colleagues across the House on that programme. There is truly no better way to understand the challenges and opportunities of our armed forces than through participating in that scheme. I encourage all Members to consider it. In that spirit, I also encourage Members to engage with the defence showcase currently being held in Speaker’s Court. I had the privilege to speak to the bomb disposal unit based in Aldershot today, who do incredible work in hugely dangerous circumstances. The Liberal Democrats have tabled an amendment because Britain needs a serious defence policy for a dangerous age. That sentiment is shared across this House, even if we sometimes disagree about how to get there. I will be clear about our position on the Conservative motion, because parts of it identify genuine and real problems. Britain does, undoubtedly, need to restore its military capability. Recruitment, retention and morale must be rebuilt. Service personnel and veterans deserve dignity, from suitable housing to mental health support. Recognising a problem, however, is different from offering a credible solution. We cannot support a motion that asks this House to forget—or at least fail to properly acknowledge—who hollowed out our armed forces in the first place. The motion talks of rebuilding the Army, after the Conservatives cut troops by 10,000. It proposes to pay for new commitments by punishing struggling families and targeting the two-child benefit cap, sacrificing human security for strategic security without doing the hard work to genuinely move people into the workplace. The motion fails to meet the central strategic reality facing Britain: Europe is rearming, the United States is less reliable than it once was, and Britain must be at the heart of European defence co-operation.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—and, if I may say so, my friend; he has supported me in debates in the past—for his intervention. We are opposed to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which delivers neither justice for victims nor protection for veterans. I will talk a little more about that as I conclude my speech—in fact, I will move on now to talk about the issue of legacy.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—my near neighbour and friend—for his intervention. The private Member’s Bill that he describes sounds entirely consistent with the argument that I am making today. I shall take the opportunity to study the precise wording of the Bill before fully committing to it, but it certainly sounds consistent with my argument today, and I am grateful to him for bringing it to my attention. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) and I have engaged extensively with veterans associations. The amendments we will propose reflect their concerns by calling for enhanced oversight and the protection of veterans’ rights. At a time of acute threat, our military needs urgent restoration, but Labour has previously moved too slowly to undo the damage. The delay to the defence investment plan has created uncertainty for our armed forces, our industry and our allies. I note that His Majesty’s Opposition failed yesterday to back our new clause 22 to the Armed Forces Bill, which would have required a report into the damage done to British business by the delay to the DIP. That was a missed opportunity.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has asked me to speculate on elements of the DIP that I have not seen; he has the privilege of the insights he has gained from his recent visit. I simply point out that investment in the kind of structures and networks that he talks about pays multiple dividends in defence co-operation and long-standing and sustainable defence diplomacy. At a time when the threats facing the United Kingdom are the greatest since they have been since the end of the cold war, that is particularly important. Vladimir Putin continues his brutal invasion of Ukraine, while expanding hybrid war, sabotage and disinformation across the United Kingdom and Europe. At the same time, Donald Trump’s wavering commitment to European security casts doubt on NATO’s collective defence. That is the world in which this debate takes place: one that is more fragmented and unstable, and in which Britain cannot afford delay, drift or self-deception.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  I would absolutely be delighted to.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend speaks from a position of authority from his personal experience and his role in Committees in this House. I defer, as always, to his superior insights on the matter, and would not differ on anything he has suggested. Britain’s European allies share our values and commitment to collective defence. We cannot be a spectator while Europe rebuilds its defences; instead, we should shape and lead that effort. On the Conservatives’ watch, our Army fell to its smallest size since the Napoleonic wars, while the Navy’s surface fleet fell to its smallest size since the English civil war. We saw crises of recruitment, retention and morale and a failure to look after our service personnel and veterans properly, with shoddy housing and one of the worst privatisation deals in British political history.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is absolutely right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) acknowledged, parties across this House sought to leverage too much from the so-called peace dividend. While my hon. Friend and I have acknowledged that, will the hon. Member’s party do the same? On the question of defence investment bonds, it is about engaging the wider public and private finance institutions in common participation and the recognition that we need to invest more in defence. It is borrowing, but it is money that can be injected into the defence economy instantaneously, whereas the proposals from the official Opposition will take years to filter through, because cuts to welfare are not instant.

• 22 Jun 2026 · G7 Summit · Hansard source

  More

  The Government lauded the EU-UK reset deal as potentially delivering a modest yet none the less material 0.2% uplift to GDP per annum. That equates to about £6 billion per year, or £500 million per month. Given that the EU has announced a delay to that summit, does the Deputy Prime Minister consider £500 million to be a price too high, a price too low, or about right for the latest palace coup within the Labour party?

• 11 Jun 2026 · Point of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you and Members across the House know, there has been widespread speculation in the press and this House over the last 24 to 48 hours that either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Defence will announce the defence investment plan in whole or large part tomorrow, on a non-sitting day and in a non-parliamentary location. I wonder whether you can advise the House on the correct protocols for announcing such nationally consequential measures. What should our expectations as Members of this House be, and is there anything that we can do to compel the Government to make nationally significant announcements here in the House, where democratic scrutiny can immediately follow?

• 11 Jun 2026 · Road Junction Safety · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency of Surrey Heath, the M3/A322 junction between Bagshot and Lightwater remains a serious congestion bottleneck for local residents and a serious source of frustration for motorway users—it is notorious on all morning travel reports. Poor advance signage and a confusing road layout cause frequent near misses and dangerous last-minute manoeuvres. We can add to the mix a doubling of housing targets in our local area. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that critical junctions are safe, clearly signposted and fit for future population growth?

• 11 Jun 2026 · Road Junction Safety · Hansard source

  More

  6. What steps she is taking help improve safety at road junctions.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Freedom of Religion or Belief: Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I believe that this might be the first occasion on which I have done so. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who, not untypically, asked the right question with the deep care and compassion that always moves us. He was kind enough to reference the fact that I was in Sudan in 2022, so I speak from some limited personal experience in these matters; I will reflect on that shortly. It is important to acknowledge from the outset, though, that the conflict in Sudan today is the world’s largest humanitarian crisis. It is a catastrophe unfolding before our eyes—and what is so disappointing at times is that we do not seem to see it, to hear it or to read about it. As we focus on other events around the world, those terrible atrocities in Sudan fall away from the public gaze. That is deeply regrettable, because of the appalling tragedies that are unfolding there, which the hon. Member for Strangford has just spoken about: millions of people enduring unimaginable suffering, families are being forced from their homes, communities being shattered and many now facing starvation. I was in Sudan in 2022 working on an academic project. We were tracing the border between Sudan and Egypt—a British creation. There are two different borders constantly under negotiation, drawn at the end of the 19th century and the start of the 20th century, leaving a curious geographical anomaly called Bir Tawil between them. We started our journey in Khartoum, working alongside Sudanese guides, who were extraordinary in their care, service and hospitality. As we travelled north through the Nubian desert, we came across one of the key actors that has driven the conflict to where it is today. Just outside one of the stations on the old British railway that used to run from Wadi Halfa down to Khartoum, we came across the Wagner Group, the Russian paramilitary organisation. They were stationed in the Nubian desert, extracting tons of gold from the sands—transporting it back to Russia to fuel the war in eastern Europe—and training Sudanese paramilitaries at the same time. We were warned by local members of the Ababda tribe, who inscribed the symbol of the skull and crossbones—the symbol of the Wagner Group—into the sand, that we should not proceed any further along that particular wadi. As the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned, there are forces internal and external to Sudan who are driving this conflict. He has mentioned the United Arab Emirates, which I will talk about, but we should not forget the malign forces of the likes of Russia and its proxies, including the Wagner Group. The scale of the violence we are seeing today is truly horrifying. Across the country, civilians are living in fear, insecurity and hardship every single day. Amidst this devastating conflict, fundamental human rights, including freedom of religion or belief, are increasingly under threat. At a time when the very concept of human rights is under sustained threat globally, some might find it controversial to suggest that freedom of religion or belief is indeed a universal human right. The truth is that it should not be a controversial concept or principle, and we should continue to hold on to it. Every individual should be free to practise the faith of their choice, change their beliefs or hold no religious belief at all, without fear of discrimination, persecution or violence. However, reports from Sudan paint a deeply troubling picture. Religious minorities have faced discrimination and intimidation, places of worship have come under attack, and restrictions on religious practice have affected people from a wide range of faith communities and backgrounds. Those abuses are unacceptable and must not be ignored. The international community has so far failed to do enough. More must be done to safeguard religious freedoms, protect vulnerable minorities and uphold the basic rights and dignity of all Sudanese people. To make one party political reference, in our 2024 general election manifesto, the Liberal Democrats reaffirmed our commitment to protecting, defending and promoting human rights, including the rights of those persecuted because of religious or other faith-based beliefs. An unwavering commitment to human rights and the rule of law is frankly why I am a Liberal Democrat, but I also recognise that those commitments have long defined who we are as a nation and a people, and there is no better place to express them than in this Chamber. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the appointment of an ambassador-level champion for freedom of religion or belief, ensuring that those issues remain a priority in British foreign policy. We continue to support a robust, rights-based approach to tackling the persecution of religious minorities around the world, and that means applying diplomatic pressure where necessary, strengthening protections for those seeking asylum, supporting international accountability mechanisms and backing civil society organisations that work tirelessly to defend religious freedom. In Sudan, that begins with the UK Government working more closely with international partners to protect religious rights and challenge those—both indigenous and exogenous to Sudan—who are responsible for persecution and violence. It must include a clear commitment to upholding article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights, which guarantees “the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”. As the hon. Member for Strangford said, the United Kingdom has a particular responsibility in this area as the United Nations Security Council penholder on Sudan. Therefore, it is uniquely placed to lead international efforts on this crisis. I encourage the Government to use that position to work with allies and partners to push for a ceasefire and prevent further loss of life. The Liberal Democrats have also called for stronger international action to establish a Sudan-wide arms embargo to stem the flow of weapons that continue to fuel this conflict. Alongside that, the Government might usefully redouble their efforts to establish a multilateral contact group capable of co-ordinating the international response and building consensus among key partners. The international community must resist attempts to legitimise those driving the conflict within and outwith Sudan. It must ensure that individuals responsible for war crimes and serious human rights abuses are held accountable. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the United Arab Emirates, and it is important that we do, because the role it plays in Sudan has often gone unmentioned in this place. I hope the Minister will offer some comments and reflections on what can be done to ensure that its deeply toxic relationship with Sudan is affected by British diplomacy. Sudan’s future should be determined by civilian leadership, not by armed forces. At home, the Government should do more to raise public awareness of the crisis and work closely with the Disasters Emergency Committee to support a nationwide humanitarian appeal. Humanitarian workers continue to risk their lives delivering aid to those in the most desperate need, yet they are too often targeted by attacks and reprisals from the RSF and the Sudanese armed forces. The UK should work with international and regional partners to secure guarantees for their protection, and should press all parties to allow safe and unrestricted humanitarian access across Sudan. We must also take stronger action against the smuggling networks that sustain the conflict and prolong the suffering of ordinary Sudanese people. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the humanitarian catastrophe. The United Nations appeal and the regional refugee response must be properly funded. The Government should reverse their plans to cut official development assistance and should set out a clear pathway towards restoring aid spending. Particular attention must be given to Sudanese children, who have borne a disproportionate share of the conflict’s consequences. Millions have been denied access to education, healthcare and basic security; an entire generation has been placed at risk. Individuals and entities responsible for perpetrating, providing arms for or enabling serious human rights abuses in Sudan already face sanctions from the United Kingdom, the United States, the European Union and others. Those measures should remain under constant review and should be strengthened where necessary. I would go as far as to say that they should be expanded to include the role of the United Arab Emirates. The people of Sudan deserve peace, dignity and the freedom to live according to their beliefs, without fear. The international community, and the United Kingdom in particular, must not look away. We must act with urgency, defend human rights, uphold freedom of religion and belief, and stand alongside the people of Sudan in their time of greatest need.