Helen Maguire MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2025 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome Lord amendments 2B and 2C, tabled by Baroness Goldie in response to the Government’s rejection of the original proposals. These amendments are not about party politics. They were tabled by a Conservative peer and supported across the House of Lords by Liberal Democrats and others. They represent a thoughtful, pragmatic effort to address a real and persistent problem: the need for an Armed Forces Commissioner who is not just a complaints handler, but an independent figure capable of receiving and investigating whistleblowing disclosures about systemic welfare failures confidentially and without fear of reprisal. I welcome that the Minister has engaged with Baroness Kramer and me. However, the Government’s insistence on removing the Lords amendments and replacing them with something far more limited is deeply disappointing. Their approach diminishes the ambition of the Bill and misses a critical opportunity to build genuine trust with service personnel and their families—something that the commissioner must get right from the start, or it will be near impossible to regain. Let us be honest about what is at stake. Behind the language of “whistleblowing” are real people—soldiers, spouses and contractors—who have seen something go seriously wrong and want to make it right, not for themselves but for others. They are not filing a complaint; they are raising the alarm. Yet again and again, we have seen these people let down—unheard, unsupported or even punished for speaking out. From the appalling housing conditions endured by military families to serious allegations of abuse and misconduct, the public have grown increasingly aware that internal complaints mechanisms are not enough. That is why introducing whistleblowing matters, and why the Lords amendments are so vital.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  Today’s motion may appear procedural, but it sits at the heart of how we govern our armed forces and, by extension, how we uphold parliamentary democracy and the rule of law. Under the Bill of Rights of 1688, a standing army in peacetime must be consented to annually by Parliament. That annual renewal is not just constitutional housekeeping. It is a clear democratic statement that power in this country derives from Parliament, and that our armed forces serve under the law, not above it. I will, of course, support the continuation order. The Armed Forces Act 2006 provides a unified legal framework that enables our military to function. Without it, the service justice system would fall away. Discipline could not be enforced and commanding officers would be stripped of lawful authority, and there would be no means to uphold the standards of service that we rightly expect. With that annual consent must come annual scrutiny. We owe it to those who serve under this Act to ensure that the political leadership they serve is worthy of their trust. The reality is that, over recent years, Conservative Governments have failed in their duty to our armed forces. While a brutal war raged in Europe, the previous Government were cutting 10,000 troops from our Army. Our armed forces are now smaller than they have been for generations, at a time when global threats are escalating. Equipment programmes are routinely over budget and behind schedule. The National Audit Office has repeatedly warned about capability gaps in areas such as battlefield communications, armoured vehicles and naval readiness, and our service personnel are too often asked to do more with less, and that includes living in unacceptable conditions with a housing system that does not meet their needs. The effectiveness of our armed forces depends not just on kit, but on people. When these people are being let down—when we ask them to serve under a legal framework renewed by this House, but do not support them properly in practice—we are not keeping our side of the bargain. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a different path. We demand the reversal of those short-sighted troop cuts and a long-term plan to increase regular troop numbers to over 100,000 once more. That begins with immediate action through a new joining and re-enlistment bonus scheme to help recruit and retain at least 3,000 personnel, stabilising the force while we plan for future growth. We are also calling for cross-party talks to agree a sustainable path to meet NATO’s new spending target of 5% of GDP, a goal that should be above party politics. The security of our country and our allies depends on serious, sustained commitment. Beyond strategy and numbers, we want to deliver a fair deal for those who serve. That means proper pay and decent conditions. It means high-quality housing that meets the decent homes standard. As a minimum, it means giving real support for the transition to civilian life through access to mental health care, job opportunities and practical assistance for families who so often bear the strain behind the scenes. We press the Government to deliver long overdue justice for LGBT veterans, many of whom are still awaiting compensation after years of discrimination and dismissal. That process must be fair, fast and comprehensive. We also demand full implementation of the Atherton report’s recommendations to tackle the entrenched issues of harassment and misogyny faced by too many women in uniform. Service should never come with conditions of fear or inequality. Looking ahead, we understand the new armed forces Act is expected to be introduced in the next year. When the Bill is brought forward, I will hold the Government to a high standard. It must not be a copy-and-paste exercise. It must be an opportunity to improve the culture of our armed forces by ensuring that equality, accountability and modernisation are at its heart. The continuation order maintains the legal foundation of our armed forces, but laws alone are not enough. We need leadership, we need commitments, and we need a Government who do not simply consent to the military’s existence once a year, but honour their service every single day with action, investment and respect.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree with me that changing life-critical benefits in a rush, gambling with people’s futures without evidence, and only listening when their Back Benchers rebel is simply not how Governments govern at their best?

• 30 Jun 2025 · Armed Forces Family Housing · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the recent announcement of funding to improve military housing, but our fantastic service personnel deserve more than short-term fixes. This year’s armed forces continuous attitudes survey showed that one in five personnel plan to leave, and over a quarter of them cited the standard of accommodation as a reason. That should be a wake-up call. Will the Government commit to going further and show a real commitment to retention by finally U-turning on their decision to block Liberal Democrat proposals to bring all military housing under the decent homes standard?

• 30 Jun 2025 · Welfare Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Why are the proposed PIP cuts still being applied to new claimants, many of whose needs are as urgent and severe as those of existing claimants?

• 30 Jun 2025 · Defence Spending: Cross-party Talks · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s commitment to reach 5% on GDP on defence spending is the right decision. As we face the once-in-a-generation threat from Russia, it is vital that we regenerate our armed forces after years of decline under the Conservatives. However, we need more urgency. The International Institute for Strategic Studies warns that if there is a ceasefire in Ukraine, Russia could “pose a significant military challenge to NATO allies…as early as 2027.” In order to strengthen our defence, we need to give people better incentives to join the armed forces. Will the Minister consider accelerating recruitment by backing the Liberal Democrat proposal for a £10,000 signing bonus to attract new recruits?

• 26 Jun 2025 · G7 and NATO Summits · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Prime Minister agree that, in the context of the threat posed by Putin, we must provide more guidance and support to Britons to prepare them for the possibility of a future conflict, and that that should involve a national resilience campaign?

• 26 Jun 2025 · Armed Forces Day · Hansard source

  More

  It is an absolute privilege to speak in today’s debate on Armed Forces Day—a day on which we recognise and celebrate the bravery, dedication and sacrifice of those who serve and have served in our armed forces. We honour and thank them. Earlier this week I was proud to attend the armed forces flag-raising ceremony in Epsom. Such events are held in communities across the country, and their meaning runs deep. They are a visible reminder of something that should never be taken for granted: the courage of the men and women who step up to defend our freedoms, often at great personal cost. This week is personal for me, because I served in the British Army as part of the Royal Military Police, who vital operational work was quite rightly highlighted by the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald). My journey began with the desire to lead, travel and make a difference. I joined Sandhurst, which was gruelling and inspiring in equal measure. As one of the few women there at the time, I trained in boots that were not designed for me, but I emerged with unbreakable friendships forged in resilience. I was first deployed to Bosnia as part of NATO’s peacekeeping mission. Later, I served in Iraq with 1 Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment during Operation Telic 4, helping to retrain the Iraqi police force in a dangerous and volatile area. We operated under constant threat. A year before my arrival, six of my Royal Military Police colleagues were killed in Majar al-Kabir. I still remember the fear of that first night in Maysan, travelling in a blacked-out bus and unsure of what lay ahead; the fear of the unknown and of not making it home is one that many serving personnel still face today. We carried out our mission with professionalism and camaraderie—British troops working shoulder to shoulder with brave interpreters, local allies and international partners—but I saw at first hand how overstretched and under-equipped our troops often were compared with our allies. We got on with the job, but we should not have to make do. Armed Forces Day is not just about parades and flypasts; it marks a time for action. Our service personnel deserve more than warm words. They deserve a fair deal. That is why I am calling for a fair deal commission to overhaul the conditions facing service personnel, veterans and their families. From housing to pay and from diversity to transition support, our service personnel deserve reform. Unfortunately, too many military families still live in substandard accommodation, too many veterans struggle with poor mental health and inadequate support, and too many LGBT+ veterans are still waiting for proper justice and compensation. We were pleased to see the Government accept the Etherton report’s recommendations, but speed is of the essence because many of those affected are elderly or seriously ill. Women in the armed forces still face unacceptable levels of harassment and misogyny, as the Atherton report revealed. We must do better, and we will push for full implementation of those recommendations. When it comes to troop numbers, the reality is stark: our armed forces are overstretched and under-resourced. We are calling for a new bonus scheme to help to bring into and keep more new recruits in the British Army, and the expansion of the current rejoining scheme to attract former soldiers to re-enlist. I left the Army earlier than I planned. Like many servicewomen, I was forced to choose between motherhood and military service. There was no support, no nursery and no flexible career path. Those are the real barriers that drive people out of uniform, and the military lose many experienced people. We must change that. If we want to recruit and retain the best, we need to support families. The Liberal Democrats would create a one-stop shop for military families to access housing, education, healthcare and career support. I am proud of my constituency’s military history. Langley Vale was once a world war one training camp for more than 8,000 soldiers, and it is now a place of reflection. Our local Royal Engineers, the 135 Geographic Squadron, recently celebrated 75 years of proud service, marching with bayonets fixed through Ewell. In this volatile and uncertain time, let us honour the legacy of our service personnel not just in ceremony, but in policy. Let us make Armed Forces Day a starting point for serious change.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Nuclear-certified Aircraft Procurement · Hansard source

  More

  It is clear that we have entered a new and uncertain era. Putin’s imperialism represents a once-in-a-generation threat to our security. We must maintain the effectiveness of the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent to stop Putin or anyone else launching a nuclear attack. It remains the ultimate guarantor of Britain’s security. We support more investment in our defence capability, but we need more detail on the proposed use cases for the F-35As, and on their relation to our existing strong deterrent through Trident. We also need a clear explanation of why the Government have chosen this priority over others. There are still huge gaps in the armed forces, including as a result of 10,000 troops being cut by the Conservatives, and those gaps need filling if we are to show Putin that we are serious. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government will move further, faster, in rebuilding the strength and size of the other essential guarantor of UK security and deterrence—the British Army?

• 25 Jun 2025 · National Armaments Director · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend that it would absolutely help our deterrence if we could increase troop numbers. The Liberal Democrats are calling for new bonus schemes to recruit and re-enlist 3,000 personnel, allowing the Government to reach their target of 73,000 trained troops as soon as possible, meaning that they can grow Army numbers further and faster beyond that in this Parliament. I encourage the Minister to consider those proposals.

• 25 Jun 2025 · National Armaments Director · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member will know, if he has read our policies, that our proposal costs a maximum of £60 million, which is insignificant compared with the entire defence budget. Getting us to 76,000 as soon as possible will help us with deterrence. The Government have promised a new defence investment plan for the autumn. That gives them a vital opportunity to provide clarity about how they will effectively address the ubiquitous shortage of equipment throughout the armed forces. However, serious questions remain about why they did not think it appropriate to develop and publish the plan, or a defence equipment plan, alongside the strategic defence review earlier this month. All efforts should be made to accelerate the publication of the plan so that parliamentarians can scrutinise the Government’s proposals at the earliest opportunity. The threats to our security mean that the Government cannot afford to delay. With President Trump casting doubt on America’s commitment to NATO, the UK must lead in Europe. That means moving much faster to reach the new 5% NATO target than the currently proposed 2035 timeline, which would take us beyond the life of even the next Parliament. I therefore again urge the Minister to convene cross-party talks so that the whole House, representing the country, can together agree a pathway to the high amounts of defence spending that our security demands. Our attention has turned this week to security crises in the middle east, but it is vital that we do not lose sight of Putin’s continuing barbarism in Ukraine. We are currently sitting on £25 billion in frozen Russian assets. Across the G7, that figure rises to $300 billion. I recently visited Estonia, and I cannot emphasise enough how strongly the Estonians urge the UK and His Majesty’s Government to develop plans on how best to support Belgium in unlocking those assets, and to lead from the front by seizing assets across the UK. Liberal Democrats again call on the UK Government to work with our allies to seize those assets and repurpose them directly for Ukraine’s defence and reconstruction. If Putin’s imperialism is to be stopped, we must act decisively and boldly now. We also need a strategy that looks beyond the battlefield, because supporting our forces must mean supporting our veterans, service families, and the defence industry. Liberal Democrats would put in place a long-term defence industrial strategy to protect sovereign capability, provide certainty to industry, and ensure investment in R&D, training and regional jobs.

• 25 Jun 2025 · National Armaments Director · Hansard source

  More

  I know how important the defence industry is to my hon. Friend’s constituency, so I ask the Minister to consider that. We would end the scandal of poor service housing by requiring the Ministry of Defence to provide housing above the legal minimum standards. No one who puts their life on the line for this country should live with leaks or mould. We would extend access to military health services to service families, improve mental health support for veterans, and tackle discrimination and harassment in the armed forces by fully implementing the Atherton review recommendations. As the US has become an unpredictable ally, the UK has a greater responsibility to lead, to stand with our allies and to act decisively. We must now move faster to restore and grow our armed forces, reverse past cuts, and invest in the skills, infrastructure and sovereign capabilities that our military needs. The UK must rise to the challenges of standing with Ukraine, securing our alliances, and building the resilience to protect our people in the face of a more dangerous world.

• 25 Jun 2025 · National Armaments Director · Hansard source

  More

  Today’s debate takes place at a moment of acute global instability, with war still raging in Ukraine, mounting threats from hostile states and an unreliable security partner in the White House. The world is more dangerous than it has been in a generation. In that context, the Liberal Democrats warmly welcome the Government’s commitment in February to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027. The Government’s subsequent commitment to a new NATO defence spending target of 5% is also the right decision. It reflects a recognition of the new threat environment that we find ourselves in and of what is necessary to support Britain’s long-term defence. It remains the case, however, that the Government are still playing catch up on questions of the nation’s security. The last Conservative Government cut the Army by 10,000 troops, even as tanks rolled across continental Europe. That decision was staggeringly short-sighted and irresponsible. Despite that, this Government have dragged their feet on rebuilding the strength and size of our Army and have said that there will be no expansion to Army numbers beyond 73,000 troops until the next Parliament. In the context of the threats we face, that timeline can only be summarised as a day late and a pound short. The British Army remains one of the strongest deterrents we have—if the Government can commit to supporting its regeneration fully. While I welcome this Government’s shift in tone compared with the Conservatives, I urge Ministers again to commit to a much more rapid reversal of those troop cuts.

• 24 Jun 2025 · War Memorials · Hansard source

  More

  It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for securing this very important debate during Armed Forces Week. Throughout the UK, more than 100,000 war memorials have been erected in towns, villages, schools, churches, parks and cemeteries. Some are grand in scale and others modest and simple—but each tells an important story and bears witness to the sacrifice and the grief of those left behind. Most of those memorials were not commissioned by Government but by communities, raised through bake sales, church appeals and private donations, by families who lost sons, daughters, friends and neighbours and needed somewhere to grieve, to remember and to say they mattered. That spirit of local dedication must never be taken for granted. Successive Governments have taken the position that war memorials are a private matter, and the Ministry of Defence has not formally intervened in what a war memorial commemorates or how it is maintained, so as not to favour one commemoration over another. However, in practice responsibility falls to overstretched councils or passes quietly from one hand to another until someone takes up the role of ensuring these memorials are not forgotten. I want to take this opportunity to thank those who take up that charge. The Liberal Democrats believe war memorials are an essential part of our national fabric, reminding us not only of sacrifice but of the values we are meant to uphold: peace, service, dignity and freedom. In the wake of two world wars and many later conflicts, these sites remain powerful spaces for public reflection across generations and communities. In my constituency, we are fortunate to have powerful examples. The Epsom cemetery war memorial, unveiled in 1921, is a striking 18-foot granite cross, flanked by granite walls bearing the names of 265 local residents who lost their lives in the first world war. Epsom’s Commonwealth war graves memorial, with the names of 148 men—Canadians, Australians, Gurkhas and others from across the empire—reminds us that sacrifice did not know borders. That is why we also welcome a more inclusive national memorial. We fully support the plans for permanent memorials to Muslim service personnel and to LGBT veterans, both due to be constructed at the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire. Memorials serve as guardians of our shared memory, and remembrance must speak to all who served and reflect the full breadth of our shared history. We must continue to empower local authorities, charities and communities to care for these memorials. Every name etched in stone represents a life lived, a family changed forever and a sacrifice that should never be forgotten. Every memorial, no matter how humble, deserves our care, and as a society we have a duty to ensure that future generations not only see them but understand and pay respect to the brave people they represent.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Department for Education · Hansard source

  More

  Councils are being asked to deliver SEND services without sufficient funding, to which my hon. Friend has alluded, and that creates a postcode lottery for families, with children waiting months to receive support. Does she agree that we urgently need SEND funding reform, including removing the £6,000 school contribution to end the postcode lottery, so that we can deliver the support that children need?

• 23 Jun 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  Last week and today, the Foreign Secretary said the Government’s first priority is the welfare of British nationals, and I welcome that, but my constituent who was caught in Iran with her baby unfortunately received no support from the Foreign Office and had to flee with officials at the port and to evacuate to Oman. That was not a secure route and another ferry was bombed along the way. Thankfully, she and her baby are now safe but are still making their way back to the UK without their luggage or any provisions for the baby. Can the Foreign Secretary outline what steps are being taken to ensure that British nationals like my constituent can be repatriated swiftly and safely if they so wish?

• 23 Jun 2025 · Personal Independence Payment · Hansard source

  More

  One of my constituents, who has epilepsy, responded to the “Pathways to Work” consultation and highlighted that the questions implied that the Department views PIP as a pity payment, rather than a benefit designed to offset the extra costs of disability, such as seizure alert devices or accessible transport. Without such support, disabled people are less able to live independently. Does the Minister agree that cutting PIP payments simply pushes more disabled people further from living independently and from employment?

• 23 Jun 2025 · Personal Independence Payment · Hansard source

  More

  11. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the personal independence payment on the ability of disabled people to work.

• 17 Jun 2025 · NHS Buildings: Maintenance Backlogs · Hansard source

  More

  1. What recent progress his Department has made on tackling the backlog of repairs in hospitals.

• 17 Jun 2025 · NHS Buildings: Maintenance Backlogs · Hansard source

  More

  While I welcome the recent announcement of £12 million of extra funding for Epsom and St Helier university hospitals NHS trust, it is quite frankly a drop in the ocean in comparison with the scale of need, because the current backlog at the trust costs £150 million. Patients and staff deserve safe and modern facilities, not patchwork repairs. I therefore ask the Secretary of State to meet with me and visit Epsom and St Helier hospitals to see at first hand the scale of the challenge and how we can accelerate progress.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Air India Plane Crash · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I associate myself with his remarks and those of other colleagues about our collective grief and shock at so many lives being lost in this appalling crash, including the lives of 52 UK citizens. I express my condolences to the families of all those who lost their lives in the tragedy. It will be utterly devastating for them, and it is vital that the Government ensure that they are fully supported. What reassurances can the Minister provide that each of the families is receiving the support that they need, and is being kept updated with any and all new developments related to the crash? Reports suggest that investigators have now recovered the cockpit voice recorder from the flight, which should provide crucial new insights into why the plane went down. British and American teams are on the ground to support India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau in the inquiry into the cause of the crash, and I thank those teams for their work. What steps is the Department taking to support them and other investigators to ensure that no stone is left unturned in the search for answers? A British citizen, Vishwash Kumar Ramesh, was the only survivor of the crash. I speak for the whole House in expressing our relief that he is alive, but I also recognise what a traumatic experience this will have been for him, including having to come to terms with the loss of his brother, Ajay, who was also on the flight. Can the Minister outline what support the Government are providing to Mr Ramesh and his family to enable his physical recovery and access to wider support?

• 12 Jun 2025 · Gibraltar · Hansard source

  More

  Our thoughts also go out to all those families involved in the tragic air crash in India today. I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. The Conservatives’ botched deal with Europe left Gibraltar in a state of limbo for years. Our hope is that this new agreement will work to the genuine benefit of Gibraltarians, leaving no lingering questions over the status of Britain’s sovereignty of the territory and our commitment to the self-determination of Gibraltarians. There are a number of vital principles at stake. To ensure that the deal effectively secures the future of the Gibraltarian economy, it is vital that Parliament is given the opportunity to scrutinise the details of the agreement and vote on it. Will the Minister therefore commit to bringing the deal before the House for a review and outline when MPs can expect to vote on it? It is also vital that the Government provide further clarity on the timeline for implementing the deal. Will the Minister therefore confirm whether a provisional date has been agreed for its implementation and whether that timeline provides enough of an opportunity for parliamentarians to provide adequate scrutiny? Another principle is that nothing about Gibraltar should be agreed without Gibraltarians. Will the Minister provide further details on what steps have been taken to consult them, including representatives of business, to ensure that their interests have been front and centre in the negotiations? The Spanish Government have been willing in the past to act unilaterally over Gibraltar and to the detriment of Gibraltarians. Will the Minister outline what mechanisms will exist in the deal to ensure compliance and effective dispute resolution in the event of future possible unilateral action, thus giving confidence to Gibraltarians that the deal will be enforceable? Finally, will the Minister confirm the lifespan of the deal and whether it will include an opt-out clause, ensuring the ultimate guarantee of Gibraltar’s sovereignty?

• 11 Jun 2025 · Space Industry · Hansard source

  More

  On the point about other countries and companies around the world, UK firms have been locked out of EU space programmes such as Galileo since Brexit, and the lack of a UK alternative has stunted the growth of dual-use military space innovation. Does my hon. Friend agree that long-term funding in this area is vital to secure both economic resilience and defence sovereignty?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  It is vital that we get a clear and accurate picture of what exactly is happening on the ground. That is absolutely essential to ensure transparency. What are this Government doing to progress access for journalists into Gaza?

• 10 Jun 2025 · USAID Funding Pause · Hansard source

  More

  The UN has warned us that more than half of frontline, women-led organisations could shut down within six months due to global aid cuts. That is not just a funding crisis; it is a humanitarian catastrophe. Does the hon. Member agree that restoring funding to those groups must be a priority if we are to prevent the complete collapse of women’s services in conflict zones?