Helen Maguire MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Sept 2025 · Pavement Parking · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I absolutely agree that councils should have the power to decide where cars can be parked on pavements. Despite cross-party agreement in the Transport Committee’s 2019 report, clear public support and the examples already in place across the UK, the Government have still not published their response. Each time the question is raised we are told only that the Department is considering all the views expressed. After five years, that is simply not good enough. Inaction is leaving our most vulnerable residents at risk every single day. The impact is undeniable. Living Streets found that 62% of over-65s in England are worried about obstructions on the pavement. According to research from Guide Dogs, four out of five blind or partially sighted people say pavement parking makes it difficult to walk on the pavement at least once a week, and 95% have been forced into the road because of it. Among wheelchair and mobility scooters, that figure rises to a staggering 99%. Vehicles blocking pavements creates both a physical and psychological barrier, discouraging those with disabilities from leaving their homes. At a time when the Government are claiming to support more disabled people into work, it is essential that they tackle the issue.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Pavement Parking · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of pavement parking. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue that is long overdue for a solution. Every day people are forced into the road, into moving traffic, because the pavement is blocked by a vehicle. Parents with prams, wheelchair users and people with sight loss must choose between risking the road or turning back. These are not minor inconveniences but moments of danger, frustration and exclusion. Pavements are meant to be for the safe, independent movement of older people, disabled people, families with young children and everyone who simply wants to walk without obstruction. When pavements are blocked people are not just delayed; they are put in harm’s way, their dignity diminished and their right to use public space denied. The law is clear in London and Scotland: parking on the pavement is prohibited unless the council has judged that it is safe and necessary on that street. But in England, outside London, there is no such national prohibition and the result is a patchwork of inconsistent rules, limited enforcement and pavements increasingly blocked by vehicles. The Government have already consulted on the issue. The consultation entitled “Pavement parking: options for change” closed on 22 November 2020, nearly five years ago. It set out three options: first, improving the current process under which local authorities can ban pavement parking; secondly, giving local authorities civil enforcement powers to act against unnecessary obstruction of the pavement; and thirdly, banning pavement parking throughout England. My position and that of many of my residents and campaign organisations is that a default national prohibition with local exceptions, where needed, is the right choice. That would bring the rest of England into line with London, provide clarity for drivers and restore our pavements to the people they are meant for.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Pavement Parking · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. We need to invest in better public transport for our constituents. According to the 2023 YouGov polling, 74% of councillors in England supported a national law. As it stands, just 5% of drivers know all aspects of the laws that put them at risk of a fine. A national default prohibition would give the power and clarity to act to remove the ambiguity for drivers. That system would also allow for local exemptions so that streets where pavement parking is genuinely unavoidable could be identified and signed accordingly.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Pavement Parking · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the intervention. It is an absolute hazard that pedestrians or individuals pushing wheelchairs are continually pushed into the road, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we also need to talk to the troublemakers. In my case in Epsom, those are the many companies running fast food delivery services and so on. We need to talk to them. The poor condition of the pavement is fuelling physical inactivity and social isolation. Because the pavements are not in great condition, individuals cannot walk on them and they are not getting out as much. Making our high streets more walkable also boosts local businesses, and Living Streets’ research shows that people who walk or wheel to the shops spend more overall. They bring increased footfall, spend more time at the shops and spend more money, which is what we want for our local businesses on our local high streets. The current legal framework is fragmented and confusing. Driving on to the pavement is in fact already illegal under section 72 of the Highways Act 1835, but enforcement is inconsistent and largely reliant on police resources. In some cases, parking on a pavement can be treated as obstruction, but that too is a criminal offence enforced by the police, not a civil contravention enforced by local authorities. Local councils struggle to tackle pavement parking, although they can use their existing powers to make traffic regulation orders. Those are largely restricted to specific streets, and due to the requirements for advertising consultation and signage they are a costly and impractical way to tackle this problem.

• 2 Sept 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Government have claimed that the measures in this Bill, including merging councils, will save significant amounts of money. However, the County Councils Network has revealed that reorganisation could make no savings and cost money. Does my hon. Friend agree that the measures in this Bill are based on out-of-date reports that risk further bankrupting local authorities?

• 2 Sept 2025 · The Battle of Britain · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for securing this important debate. The battle of Britain remains one of the most decisive victories in our nation’s history. In the summer of 1940 the Royal Air Force, outnumbered and under immense pressure, faced down the Luftwaffe. In doing so, it prevented invasion and gave our nation hope. Victory was a turning point in the war, a symbol of resilience and testament to the power of co-ordinated defence. We rightly honour the few—the young pilots whose courage inspired a nation. But we must also honour the many—the engineers and fitters, the armourers, the women of the Women’s Auxiliary Air Force who tracked raids on vast plotting maps, and the factory workers, many of them women, who ensured that damaged aircraft could be replaced. Their unseen work sustained our pilots in the air. Their story is one of collective effort, resilience and sacrifice. This was an international battle. Pilots and personnel came from across the Commonwealth and from occupied Europe, Canada, New Zealand, Czechoslovakia and, most famously, Poland, whose 145 pilots played a decisive role. Indeed, the Polish No. 303 Squadron was the highest scoring unit of the entire campaign. Even volunteers from neutral countries such as Ireland and the United States chose to fight for Britain’s freedom. The battle of Britain was in every sense a collective endeavour. It was fought not only with Hurricanes and Spitfires, but with morale. Ordinary people endured blackouts, bombings and sleepless nights in the shelters. Yet the blitz spirit, stoicism, humour and neighbourly solidarity carried communities through. Churchill’s words and the sight of duels overhead helped forge a powerful sense of national unity—that resilience, both military and civilian. In my constituency of Epsom and Ewell, the war touched daily life. Residents sheltered in Anderson shelters through long nights filled with anti-aircraft fire. On 18 August, remembered as the “hardest day”, Flying Officer Peter James Simpson of No. 111 Squadron was forced to bring his stricken Hurricane down on the RAC golf course at Woodcote Park, Epsom. Having engaged a Dornier bomber, his aircraft was raked with fire. He was injured but managed a forced landing near the clubhouse in an act of skill and courage that left its mark on our town’s history. A painting of that moment still hangs in the clubhouse, a vivid reminder that Epsom itself lay beneath the skies of the battle, and that this is not just a national story, but a local one as well. Commemoration must go hand in hand with commitment. Just as the country pulled together to defend our liberty in 1940, so too must we pull together now to support those who have served. The UK Government must provide better care for all veterans, ensuring that their contributions are not forgotten and that they receive the recognition and support that they so rightly deserve. It is a scandal that in 2025 veterans continue to fall through the cracks. More than 2,000 veterans’ households were assessed as homeless in 2022-23, which is unacceptable. A fair deal for veterans must mean access to high-quality, affordable accommodation. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the building of 150,000 new social homes every year. Mental health support must also be a priority. Between 2017 and 2023, more than 30,000 referrals were made to the NHS veterans’ mental health service. Over half of veterans surveyed said they had experienced mental health problems. These are men and women who put their lives on the line for us. It is not right that so many are left suffering with depression, anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder without timely support. The Liberal Democrats are calling for regular mental health check-ups at key stages of veterans’ lives, better recording of outcomes, and a campaign to end the stigma that still too often prevents people from seeking help. For today’s serving personnel we must get the basics right. It is shameful that some members of our armed forces are housed in substandard accommodation. Peers reintroduced to the Renters’ Rights Bill the Liberal Democrat amendment to extend the decent homes standard to Ministry of Defence housing. I urge the Government, when the Bill returns to the Commons next week, to accept that amendment as a positive safeguard for our service personnel. They deserve that decent standard as a minimum. Remembrance is also about education and awareness, as many have already alluded to. The story of the battle of Britain must continue to be remembered in ways that reach future generations, whether through services of commemoration in our communities or through museums, exhibitions or teaching in our schools. Access to local stories, such as those from Epsom and Ewell, should sit alongside the national narrative so that young people see that this history is not distant; it happened on the very streets where they live today, and for their freedom and the peace that we enjoy today. Eighty-five years ago, the few gave everything to defend the many. Today we honour their courage, but the greatest tribute we can pay is to ensure that their legacy lives on not only in words, but in the way that we care for those who serve today, and in the way we continue to tell their stories for generations to come. Remembrance is much more than words; it must be action as well.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Gaza: Humanitarian Aid · Hansard source

  More

  The UN has now confirmed famine in Gaza City. More than half a million people face catastrophic conditions of starvation, destitution and death. This is a man-made disaster, described by the UN Secretary-General as “a failure of humanity”. At least 600 daily truckloads are needed to avert further famine-related deaths, yet Israel continues to block aid. Will the Government commit today to concrete actions to pressure the Israeli Government to lift the obstruction, including sanctioning all members of the Cabinet, including Netanyahu, who are complicit in the illegal aid blockade?

• 2 Sept 2025 · Gaza: Humanitarian Aid · Hansard source

  More

  14. What steps he is taking to support people impacted by the humanitarian situation in the Middle East.

• 1 Sept 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Defence Secretary for advance sight of his statement. I join others in the House in thanking Admiral Sir Tony Radakin for his service, and wish him well in his next steps. I was relieved to see the Prime Minister join fellow European leaders in Washington last month, standing shoulder to shoulder with President Zelensky in the wake of Donald Trump’s fawning appeasement of Vladimir Putin in Alaska. Despite that show of support, I still fear that Trump would prefer to secure a quick and easy carve-up of Ukraine, rather than work to secure a peace that provides justice for Ukraine and guarantees its sovereignty against future Russian aggression. That is why I believe that the Government need to continue to lead from the front, but to take our European partners with us we really need to bolster Ukraine’s defence and punish Putin. In that vein, can the Secretary of State update the House on what progress, if any, has been made on seizing the billions in frozen Russian assets across the G7? Can he update us on whether any assessment has been made of the volume and quality of weaponry that the seizure of those assets could help fund for Kyiv, or to what use they could be put in supporting the rebuilding of Ukraine? We must also tighten the screws on Putin’s war chest. I welcome the new £10 billion contract with Norway and the British jobs and businesses that it will support in the UK, which further demonstrates the need for us to work with our northern European allies in the fight against Russia’s aggression. I am pleased that the Government have taken a step to further cut the Kremlin’s profits through a reduction in the oil price cap, but that measure must be accompanied by more work to crack down on Russia’s shadow fleet, as it continues to trade and transport oil sold above that price cap. A joined-up approach between us and our allies is vital, so will the Secretary of State commit to expanding the UK’s designation of vessels in the shadow fleet, including those already sanctioned by the EU, Canada and the US, and will he seek reciprocal designations from those partners? As we reach a critical moment in negotiations, we need to be taking all the steps we can to provide Ukraine with the leverage and military matériel it needs, so will the Secretary of State consider sending UK Typhoon jets for use by the Ukrainian air force?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Independent Water Commission · Hansard source

  More

  We welcome the Government’s commitment to cutting water bills by 50% in the next three years. However, given the stark increases that consumers have paid because of failed water company finances, this commitment will not touch the sides, especially for the most vulnerable customers. Will the Secretary of State do what Conservative Ministers failed to do: commit to implementing a single social tariff for water bills to help eliminate water poverty?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  It is an absolute privilege to speak today as we mark the 80th anniversary of victory over Japan, an occasion for national reflection, remembrance and gratitude. We in the Liberal Democrats are proud that so many of our colleagues have served in the armed forces. They, together with veterans and serving personnel across the UK, carry the torch of service passed down from that greatest generation—those who fought to preserve freedom and democracy in the face of fascism and tyranny. This anniversary is not just a historical milestone; it is a vital opportunity to honour those who served, fought and, in so many cases, made the ultimate sacrifice. Their courage shaped the world we live in. It secured peace, it secured democracy and it left a legacy of international co-operation that we must never take for granted. In the far east, where the war continued long after peace had been declared in Europe, tens of thousands of British and Commonwealth troops, including the legendary Fourteenth Army, fought under unimaginable conditions in the jungles of Burma, in the heat of the Pacific islands, and in the face of fierce resistance. Fighting took place over a vast region, from Hawaii to India, and Allied forces faced disease, the constant risk of capture and the heartbreak of separation. Victory over Japan only came on 15 August, after devastating losses on all sides, including the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This anniversary carries a personal resonance for me. My grandfather served in Burma as a captain in what we believe was the Yorkshire Regiment, part of the British 2nd Infantry Division. He fought in the battle of Kohima, a brutal turning point in the war where the terrain, climate and conditions pushed soldiers to the absolute limits of human endurance. Like many people who fought in those conditions, he never spoke about his experience, but it was clear that the impact of the war stayed with him for his whole life. I remember him today with pride, and honour the sacrifice of all those who served alongside him. We have no surviving veterans who served in the far east in my constituency, but the memory of their service lives on powerfully in our community. On Victory over Japan Day, local residents flooded the streets in a spontaneous torchlit procession from Epsom town centre to the Downs. A 30-foot bonfire, built from the ruins of bomb sites, was lit by the mayor and effigies of Axis leaders were cast into flames. Across Ewell, Hook Road, Horton Estate and Rosebery Park, families gathered to celebrate, give thanks and remember. We remember still brave men from our borough, such as Sergeant Jack Canham, killed at Imphal; Lance Bombardier Alfred Cates, who died as a prisoner of war on the Burma railway; Corporal William Murphy, who fought and fell at Kohima; and Corporal Noel Seymour, a young RAF wireless operator, who died aged just 21. All are commemorated on our local war memorials and in the book of remembrance at the town hall. Their stories are part of Epsom and Ewell’s history, and they deserve to be part of our nation’s collective memory, too. The war in the Pacific was brutal. Captured soldiers faced inhumane treatment, while many of those who served in that theatre felt forgotten in the decades that followed, earning the title “the forgotten Army”. Today, we remember them. We remember the soldiers from India, the Caribbean, Africa and all those from the Commonwealth who fought under the British flag. Theirs was one of the most diverse fighting forces in history: men and women from across the empire, speaking dozens of languages, united by duty. Their contribution should be recognised not as an afterthought, but as a central part of our national narrative. I want to recognise and commend the efforts of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and its global “For Evermore” tour, which has worked to preserve the memories of those who served, from Singapore to Kenya, from Hong Kong to Thailand. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s torch for peace is a vital symbol of remembrance, passed from one generation to the next. As we commemorate, we must also recommit to supporting those who serve today and those who have served. It is not acceptable that, in 2025, veterans continue to fall through the cracks, struggling with mental health, homelessness or poor housing. The Liberal Democrats believe in a fair deal for our veterans. A fair deal means action on homelessness, by building 150,000 more social homes every year to allow every member of society access to their own home; a fair deal means proper mental health support, by providing mental health support and easy access to professional help; and a fair deal means making sure veterans count, by ensuring there is better recording of the physical and mental health outcomes of veterans, including waiting times for treatment. Those who now carry the torch—current service personnel—must have a fair deal. I am proud that last week my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the other place defeated the Government to extend the decent homes standard to Ministry of Defence accommodation. I hope that that remains in the Renters’ Rights Bill when it returns to the Commons. It is a basic principle: if someone is willing to put their life on the line for our democracy, they should at the very least have a warm, safe home. The injustices faced by many Commonwealth and other overseas armed forces personnel and their families must also be rectified. Some are still being asked to pay thousands of pounds in visa fees just to live in the country they served. Those fees should be scrapped. No veteran’s family should be priced out of their place in our society. Finally, we must ensure that this 80th anniversary is a living act of remembrance, and we must teach our children the full story of the blitz and the Burma railway. In doing so, we preserve the memory of those who fought and those who never came home, and we pass on their stories with honesty, pride and gratitude. Remembrance is about not only the past, but the present and the future; and as threats to freedom rise again in our world, we must remember why they fought and ensure that we honour their legacy in our teachings, in our words and in our deeds.

• 17 Jul 2025 · RAF Photographic Reconnaissance Unit · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) for securing this very important debate. I am honoured to speak today in support of the long-overdue recognition for one of the most courageous and least understood elements of our second world war effort—the RAF Photographic Reconnaissance Unit. Formed on 24 September 1939, the PRU operated in the shadows, yet it was utterly central to the allied war effort. Its pilots flew unarmed, alone and at extreme risk, capturing more than 26 million images across all theatres of war. Those same-day photographs provided around 80% of the intelligence used in allied strategic planning—used in the Cabinet war rooms, for the Dambusters raid and for D-day. Although Enigma cracked the codes, it took days to decipher them; the PRU got intelligence in front of commanders by nightfall. It was, in the words of many, the most efficient intelligence-gathering operation of the war, but it came at a heavy price. Their aircraft—modified Spitfires and Mosquitoes—carried no armour, guns or even radios, and of the 1,747 known aircrew, 628 were killed. Nearly a third of those are still missing today. The average age of those brave pilots was just 24. Among them were two heroes from my Epsom and Ewell constituency. Squadron Leader Frank Gerald “Jerry” Fray, educated at the City of London Freemen’s School in Ashtead, brought back the iconic photographs of the Dambusters raid. He completed two operational tours and later commanded RAF squadrons in India and Germany. Flight Lieutenant William George Poulter, born in Leatherhead in 1914, trained to fly Spitfires in the RAF Photographic Reconnaissance Unit and by the end of the war he was serving in the middle east. He later went on to become a civilian pilot, and his quiet contribution deserves our loudest thanks. Despite their sacrifice, there is still no national memorial to the men and women of the PRU. That is why I back the efforts of the Spitfire AA810 project, which has campaigned tirelessly since 2018 for a national monument near to the Churchill War Rooms, where their work shaped the course of history. The planned memorial will also honour the 635 photographic interpreters, including 195 women, who turned the aerial images into actionable intelligence. Without them, we would have had 26 million photos but no intelligence to act upon. It was an international effort, with personnel from more than 24 nations, from the USA to Fiji and from Brazil to Poland. With such widespread representation, the PRU is one of the best examples of international collaborative work against fascism. Ministers have indicated support and welcomed public fundraising for the memorial, and I welcome that the Government are now helping to bring it to fruition. These brave individuals deserve to be remembered; let us ensure their story is no longer hidden in the shadows, but carved permanently into the stone of our national memory.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Freedom of Religion or Belief: UK Foreign Policy · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that the UK’s credibility on promoting religious freedom abroad is significantly undermined by the deep cuts to official development assistance, which have reduced our ability to fund vital human rights and civil society work in fragile states where freedom of religion or belief is most at risk?

• 17 Jul 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Defence Secretary for advance sight of his statement. We welcome the additional support to Ukraine, because we must continue to support Ukraine to defend Europe. Russia’s increased attacks are devastating, and we recognise the resilience of the Ukrainians and support them. President Trump only now seems to be realising what has always been clear: that Russia’s brutal dictator has no interest in peace. While I was surprised and relieved to see the President announce potential secondary sanctions if no ceasefire is agreed within 50 days, we all know that he is as changeable as the wind. No one has forgotten the humiliating ambush he laid for President Zelensky in the Oval Office, and there is no guarantee he will not soon revert to praising Putin again. A 50-day deadline could even encourage Putin to escalate his attacks in the meantime. That is why the UK must go further to support Ukraine and increase pressure on the Kremlin. Could the Defence Secretary update the House on progress towards seizing the £25 billion in frozen Russian assets here in the UK and deploying them to Ukraine? What discussions are under way with European partners, especially Belgium and Germany, on doing the same across the continent? More must be done to cut off the oil revenues fuelling Russia’s war machine. The Secretary of State spoke about the shadow fleet, but will the Government expand the UK’s designation of vessels in Russia’s shadow fleet, including those that are already sanctioned by the EU, Canada and the US? Finally, I turn to the announcement on the Multinational Force Ukraine. We welcome the conclusion of this first phase of planning and the UK’s leading role in shaping the future security architecture for Ukraine, but we need clarity on what this means in practical terms. Can the Defence Secretary confirm what the specific UK armed forces contribution will be to the Multinational Force Ukraine? Will there be any planned deployment of UK personnel on land, at sea or in the air once the mission is operational, and if so, what role will the UK play in that deployment?

• 15 Jul 2025 · Renewable Energy · Hansard source

  More

  17. What steps he is taking to increase the use of renewable energy.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Renewable Energy · Hansard source

  More

  Over 50% of our food and £2.7 billion in lifesaving medicines depend on the cold chain, but operators face soaring energy costs and growing grid instability. In Epsom and Ewell, Sunswap is pioneering battery and solar-powered refrigeration, which cuts emissions while protecting vital supply chains. Will the Minister commit to targeted support for renewable energy innovators like Sunswap, whose technology can strengthen both sustainability and national resilience?

• 15 Jul 2025 · Afghanistan · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for the Armed Forces for his briefing on this issue this morning. I am pleased this House now has the opportunity to scrutinise this alarming data breach. It was right that the then Government moved to introduce a new scheme to try to minimise the risk to the Afghan soldiers and their families caught up in this breach involving 18,714 individuals in total. It is the very least we owe them given the sacrifices they made to support our campaign in Afghanistan, and I welcome the apologies from both sides of the House as a result of this data breach. There are, however, serious questions raised about how this data breach was allowed to happen under the Conservatives’ watch, and the heightened level of risk it has created for the Afghans involved. What steps have been taken to address the root cause of the breach and ensure that it cannot happen again? Reporting by the Financial Times this afternoon suggests that an original relocation scheme considered for all 25,000 Afghan personnel could cost up to £7 billion. Will he confirm what assessment his Department has made of that figure, and why that was kept hidden from the public? The immediate priority must be to ensure the safety of all those individuals caught up in this breach, so what assurances can the Secretary of State provide that lifting the super-injunction does not heighten dangers for the individuals concerned? What steps is he taking to ensure that the individuals whose data was leaked are aware of the incident? What additional support is being provided to them directly now that the case is in the public domain? In the light of these developments, can he outline when the casework and final relocations under this and the ARAP scheme will be completed?

• 14 Jul 2025 · Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution · Hansard source

  More

  Most who served in Northern Ireland did so with absolute honour, including many of my former colleagues. It is precisely because of that record that they deserve a system based on truth, not a blanket immunity that casts a shadow over everyone’s service. Does the hon. Member therefore agree that equal application of the rule of law is in the interests of both veterans and serving personnel?

• 14 Jul 2025 · Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

• 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?