Helen Maguire MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 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.

• 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?

• 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?

• 19 May 2025 · Defence Sector Jobs · Hansard source

  More

  In dodging last week’s peace talks in Turkey, President Putin proved once again that he has no interest in stopping the fighting; his goal remains the subjugation of Ukraine. Moreover, this afternoon’s reported phone call between Putin and President Trump once again presents the alarming possibility that, between them, the Kremlin and the White House will agree a carve-up of Ukraine, which would be utterly intolerable. What more are the Government doing to invest directly in Kyiv’s weapon production to ensure we strengthen Ukraine’s ability to resist Putin’s war machine, resist attempts at a carve-up by Putin and Trump, and secure maximum leverage for any peace negotiations?

• 30 Apr 2025 · UK Airstrike: Houthi Military Facility · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and I thank the Minister for the Armed Forces for his briefing earlier today. The Houthis’ destabilising military campaign in the Red sea has had a chilling effect on trade through that vital waterway, threatening lives while imposing costs on British businesses and consumers. The Houthis cannot be allowed to act with impunity and hold the global economy to ransom by restricting freedom of navigation. It is important that their military capabilities are degraded to ensure that trade can flow freely, which is why the Liberal Democrats support the case for limited strikes. We thank the service personnel involved for their bravery, and we are pleased that they have returned home safely. However, it is vital that we fully understand the operational goals behind the mission, as well as the intelligence planning and co-ordination of the strikes. Can the Secretary of State explain to the House why the Government have chosen this occasion to join US forces in a joint strike, rather than doing so on previous similar missions? The recent leaks from President Trump’s Cabinet, also pertaining to military action in Yemen against the Houthis, raise concerning questions about how secure US intelligence is and the possible impact on British service personnel. In the light of those leaks, can the Secretary of State reassure us that intelligence-sharing with the US is completely secure, and can he tell us whether the Government have undertaken an assessment of the security of our intelligence-sharing networks with the US? I was reassured to hear from him that the Government have no evidence of any loss of civilian life, but can he update the House on what steps were taken ahead of the mission in an effort to minimise civilian casualties?

• 24 Mar 2025 · European Union: UK Membership · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, I asked the Prime Minister whether he would negotiate a youth mobility scheme with the EU. He replied that we are not returning to free movement, but seemed to forget that we already have similar schemes with countries such as South Korea and Australia, based on work and travel for a specified duration of time. Does the right hon. Lady agree that a youth mobility scheme would mean not a return to free movement, but a fantastic opportunity to boost our economy and the prospects of people in Epsom and Ewell, and the rest of the UK?

• 19 Mar 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Liberal Democrats have long called for a UK-EU youth mobility scheme. Polling has repeatedly shown that the majority of Brits support the idea, including my constituents in Epsom and Ewell. A well-structured and controlled scheme would show that the Government are serious about providing opportunities for young people and backing British business. Will the Prime Minister stop sitting on the fence and finally commit to a youth mobility scheme?

• 27 Feb 2025 · War in Ukraine: Third Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  While I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, it is one that we all hoped we would never have to have, but I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing it. For more than three years, the brave people of Ukraine have heroically defended their country against a full-scale invasion, defying Putin’s expectations and showing the world their courage, resilience and unwavering determination. They have reminded us all of what is at stake: the right of a sovereign nation to choose its destiny, free from coercion and tyranny. Today, we are at a pivotal moment, with our Prime Minister in the US. This is a moment that will determine the future of our continent for generations to come. Now more than ever, we must stand firmly in support of our Ukrainian friends, resist Trump’s dangerous flirtation with a deal that rewards Russian aggression, and work with our European allies to defend freedom and democracy. The UK must act decisively. That starts with working with our European allies to unleash the £40 billion-worth of Russian assets currently sitting idle in banks, in order to give Ukraine a critical boost at this critical moment. The UN General Assembly has recognised Russia’s obligation to make reparations for this illegal war, yet history shows us that Russia will never voluntarily pay those reparations. By redirecting these funds to Ukraine, we are not undermining the rule of law, but upholding it. Some fear that seizing those assets sets a dangerous precedent. I argue the opposite—it sets a necessary precedent. It tells the world that the international community will act decisively against those who wage unprovoked wars of aggression. It is only right that those assets are repurposed for military aid, humanitarian support and rebuilding efforts. Any negotiations about Ukraine’s security must involve Ukraine itself. This war is about Ukraine’s sovereignty, and its fate cannot be decided in backroom deals between Washington and Moscow. I cautiously welcome reports that the White House is engaging respectfully with Kyiv, but this commitment must extend beyond words. There can be no ceasefire or security negotiations without Ukraine at the table; anything less would be an insult to the sacrifices made by its people and a betrayal of the values we claim to uphold. Supporting Ukraine means more than military aid alone. It requires long-term investment in defence manufacturing, joint procurement with Ukrainian companies, and a recognition that Ukraine’s innovation in defence technology, robotics, artificial intelligence and prosthetics is unparalleled globally. The UK should actively support and invest in those sectors, helping to strengthen Ukraine’s economy while also bolstering our own security and technological capabilities. We must also stand with Ukrainian veterans and refugees. More than 250,000 Ukrainians now call the UK home, and many of those who arrived here in 2022 will soon need to apply for visa extensions under the Ukraine permission extension scheme. While that scheme grants those Ukrainians an 18-month extension, it provides no certainty about their long-term future. We must ensure that Ukrainians in the UK have clarity about their right to remain, while understanding that so many of them will return to their country once the war is over. If the US retreats from its role in global security, Europe must step up, and Britain should lead. The Government’s pledge to raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027 is welcome, and we hope it will mean a reversal of the Conservative party’s short-sighted cut of 10,000 troops, but we must go further. Given the increasingly volatile global landscape, the UK needs to plan to further increase defence spending. Now is not the time to play politics. The Government should recognise this and host cross-party talks to discuss a pathway to 3% as soon as possible. However, we must fund this increased defence spending in the right way. At a time when Ukraine’s economy has contracted by nearly 30% and its reconstruction needs are estimated at nearly $500 billion, it is incomprehensible that the UK has chosen to cut its international aid budget to fund the increase in defence. Slashing funding for global development while increasing defence spending is like robbing Peter to pay Paul. The UK’s soft power is a vital tool in this fight, and we must restore our aid budget to 0.7% of gross national income, ensuring that our support for Ukraine does not come at the cost of abandoning other vulnerable nations. Defence, after all, is based on defence, diplomacy and development. The Liberal Democrats have set out how an increase in defence spending could be fairly funded by increasing taxes on social media firms and other tech giants, but the Government have chosen to finance it by cutting the international aid budget. This is a dangerous mistake; weakening the UK’s global influence will only play into the hands of Russia and China. We must also lead discussions about the creation of a European rearmament bank. Led by the UK and other like-minded European NATO allies, such a bank would allow us to collectively increase defence spending further and faster by raising additional private capital. That model would mean a more stable long-term financing system, enabling the defence industry to innovate and increase production capacity. The question is not whether we act, but what happens if we do not. Failing to stand with Ukraine will embolden Putin, undermine NATO and threaten European security. Three years into this war, the stakes could not be higher. We must take bold action to stand up for democracy, for our allies in Ukraine and eastern Europe, and for our own security.

• 4 Feb 2025 · UK-US Bilateral Relationship · Hansard source

  More

  The UK and the US have long led on humanitarian aid—saving lives and preventing crises. Scrapping USAID abandons that leadership, worsening global instability. International aid fosters security and economic growth, reducing forced migration. Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK must persuade the US to rethink that decision?

• 3 Feb 2025 · Career Breaks: Parents of Seriously Ill Children · Hansard source

  More

  We have heard so many stories of individuals who lost their jobs as a result of taking time off due to having seriously ill children, adding stress to an already unbearable situation. We have heard stories of good employers and not-so-good employers. Does the hon. Member agree that it is vital that we understand the extent of the situation, and that the Government should commission research into the number of families impacted each year? If we had more information, that would help us to determine the best solution.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Defence Procurement: Small and Medium-sized Enterprises · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) on securing this important debate. SMEs are the backbone of the UK economy and a vital part of our defence industry. They bring agility, innovation and high-quality jobs to communities across the country. Yet despite their immense potential, SMEs face significant barriers to fully contributing to our national defence procurement. There is a real and long-standing problem across the MOD’s defence procurement system: it is beset by inefficiencies, including delays, overspends and rigid processes. Liberal Democrats believe it is time for a fresh, ambitious approach to tackle those challenges. Our plan focuses on flexibility, accountability and long-term strategy. We would replace the current rigid system of defence reviews with a more flexible system of continuous reviews of security threats and evolution of defence plans. That would enable procurement to evolve in response to emerging security threats and rapidly advancing technologies. Further, we would integrate defence procurement into a comprehensive industrial strategy. That would ensure a reliable pipeline of equipment procurement, safeguard jobs and skills, and promote UK-based businesses. Collaboration with NATO and European partners is key to developing cutting-edge technologies and ensuring interoperability. For the areas of defence where we wish to maintain our sovereign capabilities, we must achieve that through greater collaboration with domestic SMEs. The survival of SMEs, such as small technology businesses, is dependent on their ability to develop and deploy innovative products at extraordinary speed. They are configured for agility, fast-paced decision making and recruitment of high-value talent. By contrast, Government organisations, including the MOD, operate within more complex mandates and constrained budgets. It is neither realistic nor efficient for the Government to attempt to replicate the private sector’s pace of innovation. The MOD must improve its procurement processes to leverage the agility of SMEs.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Defence Procurement: Small and Medium-sized Enterprises · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree and will come to that later in my speech. By focusing its limited research and development budget on adapting high potential dual-use technologies for defence purposes, the MOD can maximise innovation while delivering value for taxpayers. Furthermore, by involving more SMEs, we can manufacture critical components locally, reducing security risks associated with reliance on non-NATO or non-European allied suppliers. That approach also spreads the economic benefits, stimulating regional economies, creating jobs and fostering innovation. Defence contracts provide stable revenue streams, enabling SMEs to invest, scale up and contribute more broadly to the economy. The previous Conservative Government let small businesses down. They created chaos and uncertainty when businesses needed certainty and stability, especially in the aftermath of the pandemic. Liberal Democrats are fighting for a fair deal for SMEs, starting with overhauling the unfair business rates system and providing more support with energy costs. The current state of SME participation in MOD procurement is underwhelming. Only around 5% of the procurement budget is allocated to SMEs; 42% of contracts go to the same 10 suppliers. That is simply not good enough and we can do better. We welcome the announcement of a new defence industrial strategy, and we hope it is completed swiftly so that businesses can plan. I especially welcome that one of the six priorities of the strategy is to prioritise UK businesses, and another involves fostering a more diverse community of suppliers, including non-traditional SMEs. We will hold the Government to account on sticking to those priorities. Ultimately, I want to see the strategy turn into meaningful action. SMEs need simpler access to contracts and reduced bureaucracy, including help to overcome defence-related banking challenges and support to compete on a level playing field with the largest suppliers. It is time for the Government to unlock the potential of SMEs to fuel local economies, increase the UK’s defence sovereignty and lead on innovative technologies.

• 24 Jan 2025 · Unity Contract · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome this announcement of the UK’s new Unity contract with Rolls-Royce Submarines. This £9 billion investment will create 1,000 new jobs in the industry, and this sort of investment represents a boost for not only our national security but communities across the UK. It is right that we celebrate this success for British industry and its skilled workforce. However, while we welcome this development, the Government must go further to create the stability and certainty that businesses need to thrive. Long-term growth requires an industrial strategy that incentivises investment in ethical, inclusive new technologies such as artificial intelligence and clean energy. We must position the UK as a global leader in these sectors, so that we tackle the climate crisis while creating good jobs and driving economic growth. Furthermore, we urge the Government to work in closer partnership with businesses of all sizes. Small and medium-sized enterprises are vital to the defence supply chain, yet too often they are left out of the major procurement processes. What are the Government doing to ensure that SMEs are included in the MOD procurement process? We also want to unlock British businesses’ global potential by bringing down trade barriers and building stronger relationships with our closest trading partners, including by fixing our broken relationship with Europe. Universal liberal principles are at the core of what we believe as Liberal Democrats, not least among them internationalism, human rights, the pursuit of peace and the rule of law. That is why we continue to champion the liberal, rules-based international order, which provides a strong basis for multilateral co-operation to address the world’s biggest problems. The Liberal Democrats believe in a policy of pursuing global disarmament. However, in the meantime, and in the light of all the current threats, we call on the Government to maintain a minimum credible nuclear deterrent and maintain the current posture of continuous at-sea deterrence. I urge the Government to rebuild trust with our European allies. Our security is inseparable from Europe’s, and we must work towards a UK-EU defence and security agreement. Recent agreements with Germany are promising, but they must be a starting point for deeper co-operation. What steps are being taken to strengthen the AUKUS partnership with the United States and Australia, particularly in the light of concerns about potential shifts in US foreign policy? National security and economic growth—

• 24 Jan 2025 · Climate and Nature Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I recently visited a pioneering company in Epsom and Ewell called Sunswap. Its zero emission technology for refrigerated transport is enabling the transition from polluting diesel to solar power. Does the hon. Member agree that such innovation thrives in times of challenge and drives economic growth?

• 15 Jan 2025 · UK Submarine Fleet · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which gives me the opportunity to clarify that we do indeed support the at-sea deterrent, as was confirmed by a motion at conference recently; I cannot remember which conference it was, but it was a few conferences ago. As I was saying, as part of the AUKUS partnership, the UK will provide Australia with nuclear-powered conventionally armed submarines based on our next-generation SSN-AUKUS design. This not only strengthens our shared security interests in the Indo-Pacific but reaffirms the UK’s role as a leading global defence partner. We must ensure that we continue to show our strong support for the AUKUS programme, particularly given potential policy shifts in the United States. Reports suggest that the Trump Administration might renegotiate the AUKUS agreement or deprioritise the commitments that are part of it. In addition to their role in deterrence and warfare, submarines are critical for safeguarding undersea infrastructure, including the data cables that underpin global communications and commerce. The rise of seabed warfare, particularly by hostile states such as Russia and China, poses a serious threat to these assets, and a robust submarine fleet is essential to protect the UK’s interests in this domain. Finally, we must tackle the long-standing issues in defence procurement. Delays and cost overruns in major programmes have hindered progress in building and maintaining our submarine fleet. A comprehensive industrial strategy is needed to provide a reliable pipeline of equipment procurement. Such a strategy would not only ensure the readiness of the Royal Navy but support the growth of the UK’s defence industry. The UK submarine fleet is a vital component of our national security, our economy and our international partnerships. Although challenges remain, the benefits of continued investment in the sector are evident, and I urge the Government to prioritise the manpower, infrastructure and procurement reforms necessary to ensure that this critical capability is preserved and indeed enhanced for generations to come.

• 15 Jan 2025 · UK Submarine Fleet · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the second time today, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing this debate. I am disappointed that we did not somehow co-ordinate so that today the music that so often blares out on a Wednesday afternoon was “Yellow Submarine”. That song tells of the adventures of a submariner and reminds us to thank all those who serve as submariners in such confined conditions. It is so important that we recognise them, because the UK submarine fleet is critical to national security, economic development and defence of the rules-based international order. As we have heard, the Royal Navy’s submarine fleet comprises nine vessels: five Astute-class nuclear-powered attack submarines and four Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines. The fleet plays a central role in the UK’s defence strategy, providing a continuous at-sea deterrent and contributing to global security through intelligence, surveillance and undersea warfare capabilities, but the submarine fleet faces significant challenges. Issues such as manpower shortages, delays in maintenance and ageing infrastructure risk undermining the fleet’s operational readiness, and extended maintenance periods have raised concern about the Royal Navy’s ability to meet its current commitments as well as new obligations, such as deployments to Australia under the AUKUS agreement. The UK submarine industry is critical not only for national defence but as a significant driver of economic growth and skills development. His Majesty’s Naval Base, Clyde, known as Faslane and home to the UK’s entire submarine fleet, has received over £1.8 billion in infrastructure investments since 2015, supporting over 6,000 military and civilian jobs, and making it one of Scotland’s largest employers. In addition, the construction of next-generation Dreadnought-class sub-surface ballistic nuclear submarines and the AUKUS submarine programme is projected to create more than 20,000 jobs across the UK, including, as has been mentioned, 17,000 new roles at Rolls-Royce in Derby. These projects foster expertise in engineering, nuclear propulsion and advanced manufacturing, ensuring that the UK remains at the forefront of global submarine technology. It is essential that we continue to invest in training and apprenticeships to attract young people to this critical sector. Our young people need to develop the skills necessary to carry out these critical projects. Maintaining the UK’s nuclear deterrent is a cornerstone of our national security policy. For over 50 years, the continuous at-sea deterrent has been an unbroken line of defence against nuclear threats. Although I believe that the end goal should be multilateral disarmament, the reality is that the global security environment, which includes threats from state and non-state actors, makes it imperative to retain a robust deterrent. The AUKUS trilateral security agreement with Australia and the United States marks a significant step forward in international defence co-operation. As part of this partnership, the UK will provide Australia with nuclear-powered conventionally armed submarines based on our next-generation SSN-AUKUS design.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I am aware of that and I agree that it is a good way forward. Another business in my constituency, the Family Building Society, is also facing substantial repercussions. Last Friday I met its chief executive officer, Mark Bogard, who shared that this national insurance increase will cost him approximately £300,000 every year. He said: “Even as a mutual building society, with no shareholders to generate returns for, we cannot simply swallow that cost. So, going forward, we will inevitably now employ five or six fewer people.” Madam Chair, these are real-world examples of the damaging ripple effects of the Bill. It will hit not just businesses, but employees, with fewer jobs, lower wages and missed opportunities. This Government claim that they want to kickstart economic growth, but how can firms grow when they are forced to cut jobs instead of investing in their business. How can the economy thrive when ambition is replaced with survival? This Bill does not kickstart economic growth; it slams on the brakes. Across the board, this Bill threatens sectors vital to our economy and to society. Social care providers, GPs and hospices, already at breaking point, will now face further financial strain. Most of these organisations do not qualify for the employment allowance, meaning that they are exposed to these increases. The Liberal Democrats have called on the Government to exempt these essential providers from the tax rise, but those calls have been ignored. This decision will worsen the crises in our NHS and social care system, pushing more providers to the brink of bankruptcy. Six in 10 care homes in the UK are operated by companies vulnerable to even mild economic shocks. How then can the Government justify imposing additional financial burdens on a sector already struggling to stay afloat? Let us be clear: the Government’s own analysis admits that nearly four times as many employers will lose out under this Bill as will benefit. For many employers, this will translate into an average annual tax increase of over £26,000. This is not just a jobs tax, but a growth tax, a productivity tax and, ultimately, an attack on people’s living standards. This is a deeply inefficient way to raise funds, especially when fairer alternatives exist. The Liberal Democrats have proposed several measures that would raise revenue without harming jobs and growth. These include reversing Conservative tax cuts for big banks, increasing the digital services tax and introducing a fairer form of capital gains tax to ensure that ultra-wealthy people pay their fair share. These measures would protect small businesses, support families and safeguard essential services, while still addressing the country’s fiscal challenges. The people of Epsom and Ewell deserve better. They deserve a Government who support, not stifle, innovation, enterprise and community spirit. They deserve a Government who listen to small businesses, healthcare providers and families who are already struggling under the weight of rising costs and stagnant wages. This Bill is not the solution to our economic challenges; it is a blunt instrument that will do more harm than good, jeopardising jobs, living standards and essential services. I urge the Government to reconsider this unfair and counterproductive measure and to work with us to develop a fairer, more sustainable approach to taxation that prioritises people and communities.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am greatly concerned about the consequences of this Bill. There are consequences for businesses, for employees and for essential primary care providers in my constituency and across the country. The Bill represents an unfair jobs tax that risks harming the livelihoods of countless individuals and the viability of small businesses at a time when they are already grappling with a multitude of challenges. I wish to begin by highlighting the impact that this legislation will have on community pharmacies, which are at the frontline of healthcare in our local areas. The owner of Horton Pharmacy and Travel Clinic in Epsom has expressed grave concerns about the financial burden that this increase in employer national insurance contributions will impose. He told me: “We are estimating that it’s going to cost an extra £12,000 a year. It’s very distressing and making it harder to keep our doors open and help reduce the burden on other parts of the NHS.” Community pharmacies such as Horton Pharmacy play a critical role in alleviating pressure on our overstretched NHS by providing accessible healthcare and advice, yet the Bill threatens their financial viability, which in turn risks leaving constituents without the local care they rely on, thus increasing the burden on the NHS.

• 16 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In Epsom and Ewell, local charities such as the Sunnybank Trust are seeing a lack of employment opportunities for people with learning disabilities. In fact, only 6.9% of people with learning disabilities are currently in paid work. What measures is the DWP taking to support employers to help individuals with learning disabilities to get into work?

• 12 Dec 2024 · LGBT Veterans: Etherton Review · Hansard source

  More

  We are here today to discuss the implementation of the recommendations laid out in Lord Etherton’s independent review into the treatment of LGBT veterans, following the unjust and appalling treatment of LGBT+ veterans who served in our armed forces under the shadow of a discriminatory and dehumanising ban. It is not just a matter of historical injustice, but an ongoing fight for dignity, recognition and fairness for those who gave so much to our country and were repaid with shameful betrayal. We must also recognise all those who served before 1967, and the injustice they faced before that time. Between 1967 and 2000, thousands of LGBT+ personnel were dismissed or forced out of the military simply because of who they were. The anti-gay ban had and continues to have an enormous impact on people’s lives; careers were destroyed, lives upended and futures taken away. LGBT+ veterans were outed to their friends and family without their consent, facing extreme stigma. Not only did they lose their jobs, but they had their medals removed and were stripped of their pensions. In some cases, a conviction made it impossible for people to move on and rebuild their lives due to the barriers a criminal record creates when trying to find employment. It is indefensible that those who put their lives on the line for our country should continue to be treated with disregard. The independent review by Lord Etherton lays bare the devastating impact of this discriminatory policy on LGBT+ veterans and makes 49 recommendations to address those wrongs. While progress has been made, this process is far from complete. The Government must ensure that all the review’s recommendations are acted on as swiftly and comprehensively as possible. Let me share two harrowing examples from constituents of my colleagues, which illustrate the enduring trauma caused by this policy. This morning, I met Michael Sansom, who sits in the Public Gallery today, who is a constituent of Monica Harding MP. He joined the Royal Air Force—

• 12 Dec 2024 · LGBT Veterans: Etherton Review · Hansard source

  More

  My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. Michael joined the Royal Air Force at just 16 years old, filled with pride and ambition, and served with distinction for five years before his life was shattered in 1992. After innocently sharing details about attending London clubs, Michael became the target of a covert investigation: his barracks were searched in a humiliating manner, exposing deeply personal items such as a romantic letter; he was extensively and inappropriately questioned about his personal life, offered electroconvulsive “conversion” therapy, and underwent what at the time was described as a “medical examination”, but would today be called sexual assault. Ultimately, Michael was charged with homosexuality and detained for 14 days before his discharge, during which time he was subjected to cruel physical and verbal abuse. Following his discharge, Michael lost not only his career, but his home and his sense of purpose. He was left homeless, battling severe depression and rejection from his family. Despite his immense contributions to lifting the military ban, Michael continues to struggle with the deep scars of his past. He now seeks justice for himself and others who endured similar horrors. The current compensation scheme, capped at £70,000, is an inadequate acknowledgment of the profound harm suffered by individuals such as Michael. Michael said to me that he was proud to serve his country, and his country was ashamed of him. David, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), also served in the RAF during the 1980s, fulfilling a lifelong dream. However, his career was marred by persistent rumours, bullying and verbal abuse. Despite never being charged, he was subjected to constant surveillance and intimidation. After years enduring shame and distress, David left the RAF following an interview with his commanding officer, who bluntly stated that there was no place for him “in this man’s RAF”. To add insult to injury, David had to buy his way out of the RAF. He spent years unable to live openly as himself, and has faced diminished career prospects and a significantly impacted pension. Like Michael, David finds the proposed compensation deeply disappointing, and urges the Government to reconsider their approach. These stories are not isolated incidents. They represent a systematic failure that affected thousands of LGBT+ veterans. Lord Etherton’s review revealed the immense toll this policy took on mental health, with 87% of LGBT+ veterans reporting that their dismissal impacted their mental health, and 75% stating that their finances had been affected. The Government have accepted 38 of the 49 recommendations made in the review, which I acknowledge, and have also acknowledged the need for compensation. I am also pleased that the total budget for the compensation scheme has now been increased. However, the flat cap of £50,000 for dismissed or discharged applicants is inadequate. Veterans charities have rightly called it “inadequate and unacceptably low”. For people who lost their careers, homes and futures, it is a small offering. Justice demands better. It is unconscionable that veterans such as Michael and David are left fighting for recognition and fairness after already enduring so much. The LGBT impact payment of between £1,000 and £20,000 is also unacceptably low for what one veteran described as “state-sanctioned sexual assault”. The Liberal Democrats are unequivocal in our stance: LGBT+ veterans deserve full and fair compensation for the harm they suffered. We call on the Government to reassess the compensation scheme, ensuring that it truly reflects the gravity of the injustices endured. We welcome the four non-financial measures outlined by the Secretary of State today for veterans who served before 1967, but it is vital that all 49 recommendations of the Etherton review are implemented swiftly and comprehensively, including the return of medals, clarification of pension rights and the establishment of a memorial to honour LGBT+ veterans. Justice delayed is justice denied, and the Government must expedite support for elderly or ill veterans such as Joe Ousalice, who served with distinction for 18 years but now fears he may die before seeing justice. Joe deserves to have suitable compensation swiftly. He dedicated his life to serving our country and asks for very little in return. This debate also reminds us that discrimination in the armed forces has not been limited to LGBT+ personnel. The 2021 Atherton report highlighted the pervasive challenges faced by women in the military, including bullying, harassment and sexual assault. Some 62% of female veterans reported experiencing some form of abuse during their service. Such systemic issues are unacceptable and undermine the very values our armed forces are meant to uphold. We must ensure that the recommendations of the Atherton report are fully implemented and that diversity, inclusion and respect become cornerstones of military culture. The armed forces represent the best of our nation. They are made up of individuals who have pledged to protect us, often at great personal cost. For too long, LGBT+ veterans were denied the respect and recognition they deserved. It is time to right that wrong. The Liberal Democrats stand firmly with our LGBT+ veterans. We will continue to fight for fair compensation, the implementation of all recommendations from the Etherton and Atherton reports, and a culture of inclusivity in the armed forces. Let us honour the sacrifices of these brave individuals by delivering justice swiftly.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, at end insert— “(5A) The Commissioner must— (a) uphold and give due regard to the principles and commitments of the Armed Forces Covenant when carrying out their functions; (b) monitor and report on compliance with the principles and commitments of the Armed Forces Covenant in all areas of their responsibility.” This amendment would require the Commissioner to uphold and abide by the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant when carrying out their functions. The armed forces covenant is “a promise that together we acknowledge and understand that those who serve or have served in the Armed Forces, and their families, including the bereaved, should be treated with fairness and respect in the communities, economy, and society they serve with their lives.” I feel that it is important for the covenant to be incorporated into the Bill, and so far I do not see any reference to it. It is a binding commitment between the armed forces and the Government, and I would like to see it included in the Bill.