Lisa Smart MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 18 Jun 2025 · HS2 Reset · Hansard source

  More

  Before I was elected to this place, I was a member of HS2’s independent panel for the community and environment fund and business and local economy fund. The Secretary of State’s statement makes for pretty shocking reading. There is talk of fraud and shambolic mismanagement—things that should bring shame on everybody involved. One of the problems with HS2 was always the name, which put the focus on speed, rather than capacity. My Hazel Grove constituents use the west coast main line, and they talk to me about the capacity problems that remain. Indeed, I see them every week when I come up and down to work. The Secretary of State says that she is not reinstating the line north of Birmingham. She also says that trans-Pennine work is under way. What specific work is being undertaken by her Department on capacity on the west coast main line north of Birmingham?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I do not recall mentioning the hon. Member’s hon. Friend; I said that somebody saying that it was incorrect to have minimum levels of neighbourhood policing was daft, and I hold to that belief. New clauses 83 and 84 relate to rural crime. In rural areas, organised gangs target farm machinery, vehicles and GPS equipment, the cost of which soared to more than £52 million in 2023, according to the National Farmers’ Union. And I heard for myself, when I met local farmers recently, about the impact that organised fly-tipping and equipment theft have. I must applaud the work of my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire), who has been remarkably effective in pushing the Government on this area. In particular, he secured from the Home Secretary a commitment to establish a new rural and wildlife crime strategy, which of course is welcome. Liberal Democrat new clauses 83 and 84 would extend the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 to explicitly include the theft of GPS equipment and establish a rural crime taskforce to ensure that the new rural and wildlife crime strategy can be as effective as possible. Something that is discussed often in this House is a duty of candour, and its introduction is a commitment that I welcome from this Government. Justice must be accessible to all, and survivors should never have their trauma compounded by Governments and courts that fail to uncover the truth and hold those responsible to account—as happened after the Hillsborough disaster. It continues to be deeply disappointing to see how slow this Government have been in implementing a legal duty of candour. New clause 89 would ensure that police officers must be open and honest in all investigations and oversight processes, sharing relevant information proactively and truthfully. Failure to do so would lead to misconduct charges, including serious consequences for intentional or reckless breaches. Too many police officers are struggling to access the mental health support they need, with a growing number on mental health leave as a result, so new clause 90 seeks to deal with that issue. We would require every police force to ensure that all police get proper training on how to deal with that. I will conclude by commending my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on his work on new clause 43. He is dressed in the colours of all parties, representing the cross-party work he has carried out to get support for it. I urge the Government and colleagues across the House to back that new clause and the changes that I have outlined so that our communities get the action they so urgently need.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Our communities have been plagued by crime and antisocial behaviour for too long. Change is clearly needed after the former Conservative Government failed to get even the basics right on stopping and solving crime. More than 4,500 police community support officers have been taken off the streets since 2015, and more than 2 million crimes went unsolved across England and Wales in 2024. Even though there are many measures that we welcome in this wide-ranging Bill—we have heard some impassioned speeches today and I look forward to voting in favour of some changes—it remains the case that opportunities for the Government to take real action in a number of areas, from cracking down on sewage dumping and rural crime to supporting a real return to proper neighbourhood policing, have not been taken. I will focus my remarks on the amendments in my name. The previous Conservative Government let water companies get away with pumping sewage into our rivers and on to our beaches for years, creating an environmental crisis and a public health emergency while the companies’ executives handed themselves huge bonuses. This Government have taken some steps in the right direction, but in our opinion, they have not gone nearly far enough. Everyone deserves the right to enjoy clean, safe rivers in their local communities, yet our waterways have been polluted, often with impunity, by water companies that operate under weak regulation and with the complicity of a negligent Conservative Government, who voted time and again throughout the last Parliament against tougher action on sewage dumping. The scale of the crisis is undeniable. According to the Government’s own data, there were more than 500,000 sewage spills in 2024 alone, releasing 3.6 million hours’ worth of sewage into our rivers and coastal waters. Today, just 14% of rivers and lakes in the UK are in good ecological health, and despite that environmental failure, water company executives pocketed £20 million in pay and bonuses in the 2023-24 financial year. That is a damning reflection of a system that rewards pollution and punishes the public with higher bills and dirtier rivers. In my Hazel Grove constituency, sewage discharges into water bodies last year cumulatively lasted for almost 200 days. At the Otterspool Road outflow alone, sewage flowed into the beautiful River Goyt for more than 1,000 hours. The Liberal Democrats have pushed, and will continue to push, to hold the companies and their leadership to account. I particularly commend my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for his efforts in holding Thames Water to account for its failures. Last year, a Liberal Democrat amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill suggested creating an offence of failing to meet pollution performance commitment levels, but it was defeated by the Conservative Government. As we have scrutinised this Bill, it is clear that we are again witnessing a Government that do not go far enough to reform a broken water industry or hold polluters to account. Lib Dems have a plan to do exactly that. With new clause 87, we would create a new offence of failing to meet pollution commitment levels, while new clause 88 would create senior manager liability for failure to meet those commitment levels. If this Government are serious about ending the national scandal of sewage dumping, they really should stop shielding those responsible and start delivering real accountability.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I do not know why anybody would be against a minimum level of neighbourhood policing. It was in this Government’s manifesto that they wanted to see a proper restoration of neighbourhood policing. It is the model that has the most trust and the most support from my community—and, I am pretty sure, everybody’s community—and it seems daft, frankly, to oppose such a measure.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for timing his arrival to the Chamber so beautifully—that is a skill. I agree with him about the importance of neighbourhood policing. I also agree that the funding formula should put enough weight behind neighbourhood policing so that all our communities that need that strong neighbourhood policing get it. [Interruption.] I cannot hear the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), who is speaking from a sedentary position, but I would be delighted to take an intervention.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am under strict encouragement from Madam Deputy Speaker to be speedy, so I will not give way. I very much support the spirit of new clause 20, but I cannot support new clause 106. I acknowledge that those who tabled it want women to be able to access the best healthcare available, but it would be a step backwards to make it harder for women to access the treatment that they need, whether that is women in a coercive relationship, or those who live in a rural area with limited transport options, and who find it hard to access in-person medical appointments. Telemedicine enables timely, accessible abortion care. We rightly speak repeatedly in this House of the strain on our NHS’s space, staff and capacity, so it feels entirely retrograde to roll this service back and insert clinically unnecessary barriers, and I cannot support doing so. The amendments and new clauses before us are subject to free votes, so Members can rightly choose for themselves. I very much hope that we choose to move forwards, not back.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As is usual on matters of conscience, these votes will not be whipped by my party today, as I believe is the case across the House. That said, my party passed relevant policy at our party conference, and I will lay out that policy before talking a little about my predecessor’s work on the 1967 Act. Then I will explain, in a personal capacity, why I will support some, but not all, of the amendments before us. The Liberal Democrats believe that women have the right to make independent decisions about their reproductive health without interference from the state, and that access to reproductive healthcare is a human right. The current law impacts the most vulnerable women. Under that legislation, some can be dragged from hospital beds to prison cells and endure needlessly long periods of investigation and prosecution. The provisions that allow for this were introduced before women were even allowed to vote, so it is not surprising that many see the need for them to be updated. In the past five years, there have been both debates about whether the police have the resources that they need to keep our community safe, and a surge of police investigations into women suspected of obtaining medication or instruments to end their pregnancy outside the law. That surely cannot be the best use of police time. Lib Dem policy is to ensure proper funding for impartial advice services, so that people can receive comprehensive, unbiased information without being pressured. Access to abortion should never be made more stressful, so we would maintain safe zones around clinics to protect those seeking care. My predecessor as Liberal MP for Hazel Grove, the late Dr Michael Winstanley, later Lord Winstanley, was key in shaping the Abortion Act 1967. He was on a cross-party group of around a dozen MPs who sought to refine the language and the strategy of that vital legislation. Dr Winstanley continues to be mentioned on the doorstep in my constituency, and he is known, among other things, for bringing calm, professional insight to the debate. He drew on his background as a general practitioner and on his medical knowledge and experience to ground the discussion in medical evidence, and was especially vocal in highlighting the dangerous and often desperate conditions faced by women when abortion was severely restricted. He made the case that legal, regulated abortion was not only safer but more humane. At the end of this debate, I will join the World Health Organisation, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, midwives, nurses, psychiatrists, general practitioners and the End Violence Against Women Coalition in supporting new clause 1. To be clear, this new clause would not change how abortion is provided or the legal time limit on it, and it would apply only to women acting in relation to their own pregnancy. Healthcare professionals acting outside the law, and abusive partners using violence or poisoning to end a pregnancy, would still be criminalised, as they are now.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to amendment 160, which stands in my name, and briefly in favour of amendments 157 and 158, also in my name. I wish to start by thanking all those who have campaigned over many years for some of the sensible changes to the Bill that we are discussing today. I also want to put on record my thanks to our fantastic police forces, including Greater Manchester Police, and also to my hon. Friends the Members for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) and for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for their assiduous work on the Bill Committee. Liberal Democrat amendment 160 would ensure that the police cannot use live facial recognition technology when imposing conditions on public assemblies or processions under sections 12 or 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, unless a new and specific code of practice governing its use in public spaces has first been approved by both Houses. Regulations around the use of live facial recognition have been discussed many times in this House, and support for strengthening the current situation, bringing clarity and certainty to police forces, has gained support from all parts of the House, both in this Chamber and in Westminster Hall. I hope this amendment does the same today. The Liberal Democrats oppose the police’s use of facial recognition surveillance. It breaches the right to privacy and is far too often biased, particularly given its propensity to wrongly identify people of colour and women. In our manifesto last year, we committed immediately to halting the use of live facial recognition surveillance by the police and private companies. When data or technology, such as artificial intelligence, are used by the police, they must be regulated to ensure that they are unbiased. They must be used in a way that is transparent and accurate and that respects the privacy of innocent people. Policing should not intrude on this right for people who are not suspected of any crime. On the question of bias, much of the recent debate has centred around the National Physical Laboratory’s 2023 study into the equitability of facial recognition technology in law enforcement. This report is frequently cited by proponents of facial recognition, including the shadow Home Secretary, both at the Dispatch Box, when the Bill came before the House on Second Reading, and during a well-attended Westminster Hall debate last November as evidence that bias in the technology is on the decline. However, we should not overlook one of that study’s most critical findings. In live facial recognition—where a real-time camera feed is compared against a predetermined watchlist—the likelihood of false positives is not fixed. Instead, it depends heavily on the specific parameters of how that technology is deployed, particularly on the face-match threshold. That threshold, in turn, is influenced by both the size and composition of the watchlist, as well as the volume and nature of the people moving through the surveillance zone. The study recommends that, where operationally feasible, the police use a face-match threshold of 0.6 in order to reduce the risk of bias. However—and this is crucial—without clear regulation, police forces are under no obligation to adopt this or any specific standard. In other words, the presence of the technology alone does not ensure fairness. Without oversight, significant room remains for bias to persist in how facial recognition is applied. This leads to increased instances of the wrong people being stopped and searched—an area of policing that already disproportionately impacts black communities. New technologies in policing may well present good opportunities to improve public safety, and police should take advantage of them to prevent and solve crime. However, given that new technologies can raise significant concerns related to civil liberties and discrimination, we must ensure that any new powers involving them are scrutinised by both Houses. Liberal Democrat amendment 160 would ensure that the police cannot use live facial recognition technology when imposing conditions on public assemblies or processions under sections 12 or 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, unless a new and specific code of practice governing its use in public spaces has first been approved by both Houses. This will ensure democratic oversight of any changes to further legislation that may impact public privacy and civil liberties. I hope that the amendment will have support from across the House. I have just a few words to say on amendments 157 and 158, which would enable a review of antisocial behaviour powers. Antisocial behaviour, as Members have already mentioned this afternoon, blights communities, erodes trust, frays the social fabric and disproportionately affects the most vulnerable. Many colleagues have raised issues within their own communities, some of which I see in my constituency. We have off-road bikes in Heaviley, Marple, Offerton and High Lane. They are a persistent blight on my community. They intimidate people, endanger public safety and are just really annoying. But we must respond with laws that are not just tough, but fair and proportionate. That is why I urge all colleagues to support amendments 157 and 158, which would ensure that antisocial behaviour laws are reviewed before being changed, and that any new guidance is created with public input. I also welcome amendment 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt), which aims to ensure that the duty to report suspected child abuse covers faith groups. I encourage the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) to seek her out as he will find a doughty ally in his attempts to improve the Bill as it impacts on faith groups. As I said on Second Reading, there are measures in the Bill that the Liberal Democrats support. Were our amendments to be accepted, the Bill would go even further towards keeping our communities safe in a way that is proportionate and that balances the civil liberties implications of giving the police more powers. I hope that the House will support our amendments.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Child Sexual Exploitation: Casey Report · Hansard source

  More

  Child sexual abuse and exploitation are among the most abhorrent crimes imaginable, and we must all support every effort to deliver justice for victims and prevent these vile acts from happening again. It is, of course, right that the Government follow the recommendations of Baroness Casey’s report, including a new national inquiry. Survivors must be at the heart of this process. Their voices, experiences and insights must shape both the inquiry and its outcomes, and I would welcome hearing more from the Home Secretary about how she intends to ensure survivors are heard, are respected, and—essentially—are allowed to build on their existing testimony without being asked to repeat themselves and relive their abuse again and again. The seven-year inquiry into child sexual abuse, chaired by Professor Alexis Jay, delivered its final report in 2022, and the Government at the time delivered none of its recommendations, leaving survivors waiting for justice. In her remarks, the Home Secretary mentioned two of Professor Jay’s recommendations being introduced through the Crime and Policing Bill: a mandatory reporting duty and aggravated offences for grooming offenders. What does this new inquiry mean for the remaining recommendations of Professor Jay? Will victims and survivors see all 20 recommendations implemented while the new inquiry is being carried out? Any new inquiry must be more than symbolic; it must be robust, victim-centred and capable of driving real change. A duty of candour would require public officials and authorities to co-operate fully with such an inquiry, so it continues to be disappointing that the Government have delayed bringing that provision forward. I ask the Home Secretary plainly: what is stopping the Government from introducing a duty of candour via a Hillsborough law now? Finally, now that Baroness Casey has completed her review, I welcome her appointment as chair of the independent commission into adult social care. I trust that she will bring to that hugely important role the same determination to challenge injustice and to champion the voices of those too often left unheard.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Windrush Day 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Each successive generation that arrives on these shores, as people have done for millennia, has added to our rich cultural and social fabric. He is absolutely right to highlight his part of the world and the impact that people have had in his community. On the things that we should also look at, I will say that we should end the disproportionate use of stop and search. We should also look very carefully at the use of live facial recognition, which is most likely to wrongly identify black men and women. In so many ways, we are holding this debate because of the tireless campaigning of many of the Windrush generation, not least the Liberal Democrat peer, my noble Friend Baroness Floella Benjamin. Floella’s journey is emblematic of the Windrush generation. She arrived in Britain from Trinidad in 1960 at the age of 10, accompanied by three of her siblings. Her childhood was marked by persistent racism; she recalls every day as a battle where she was either ignored or subjected to verbal abuse. During a house viewing, neighbours called the police, accusing her family of stealing furniture from what would soon be their own home. Floella, of course, was not alone. Many children of her generation endured those indignities in silence, shouldering the burden of rejection by clinging to the hope that life would one day improve. Leaving school at 16, she chartered an extraordinary path—first as an actress, then as a presenter, writer, independent producer and always a tireless advocate for the care, education and welfare of children worldwide. Today, she chairs the Windrush Commemoration Committee, which is charged with establishing a lasting tribute to the Windrush generation and its descendants. Among the Committee’s notable achievements is the unveiling of the national Windrush monument at Waterloo station, which was designed by celebrated Jamaican artist Basil Watson, as mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). The monument stands as a powerful symbol of the immense hardship and equally immense contributions of the Windrush generation to British life. Floella’s voice remains a powerful one, holding the Government to account to ensure that the Windrush generation receives the recognition and justice that it so rightly deserves. I believe it was Floella who first proposed the idea of Windrush Day as a national celebration of the moment when Caribbean communities came to rebuild Britain in the face of adversity. It is thanks to her determination that we are able to mark this occasion and speak of it today. As well as being the giver of the best hugs in Parliament, she is a celebrated author, using her experience to educate future generations with her writing. It is right that we celebrate Floella and all the Windrush generation today.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Windrush Day 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  There have been some incredibly powerful speeches this evening, and I feel really lucky to be participating in the debate. There is a lot to celebrate, but there is an awful lot to be really angry about as well. We owe an enormous amount to the Caribbean and broader black-British community for their contributions to our society, not least the Windrush generation’s key role in building the NHS, and in my own region, the black-Caribbean community’s role in profoundly shaping Greater Manchester’s cultural landscape and social fabric. In 1966, Louise Da-Cocodia became Manchester’s first senior nursing officer, having come from Jamaica in 1955. Confronted with relentless racism in her role, she channelled her experiences into activism, becoming a key anti-racist campaigner, and her legacy continues through the organisations she helped to establish. In 1980, Kath Locke, a pioneering mixed-race community activist, founded the Abasindi Co-operative, a black, women-led community organisation based in the Moss Side people’s centre. It offered essential services, including a drop-in centre for the elderly, a community health hub and a Saturday school to tackle educational underachievement and high youth unemployment. In 1991, the NIA centre, now the Playhouse theatre in Hulme, opened as the first large-scale arts venue in Europe dedicated to African and Caribbean culture. Its inaugural event featured none other than the legendary Nina Simone. Today, the Chuck gallery in central Manchester continues that legacy by showcasing and celebrating Afro-Caribbean and African art. It works to foster greater understanding and appreciation of Caribbean artistic perspectives. Here in the UK, far too many people’s lives are still blighted by prejudice, discrimination and inequality. Racism is still far too prevalent in our society. We all have a responsibility to recognise that reality, but also to recognise the role that we can play in challenging that injustice. I am proud that the Lib Dems are committed to fighting for racial equality, and that means unequivocally condemning racism in all its forms and tackling injustice wherever we see it. In her opening, very powerful remarks, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) rightly laid out that the previous Government failed to deliver the justice that Windrush victims so deeply deserve. The Government dithered and delayed on implementing the recommendations of Wendy Williams’ lessons-learned review. Liberal Democrats will keep pushing the Government.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Windrush Day 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the huge contribution of Hongkongers in his constituency. I have asked the Minister before about some of the changes the Government propose to the time period for indefinite leave to remain. The Minister has answered that a consultation is under way, and I am sure that she will talk about that in her closing remarks. I feel that we need to value the contribution made by those who are new arrivals in our country, and I agree with my hon. Friend’s comments. The Liberal Democrats will keep pushing the Government to right the wrongs forced on to the Windrush generation, including by urgently implementing the lessons-learned review in full and making the compensation scheme independent of the Home Office. Like the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), I hope very much that the Minister is in a position to update the House on the progress being made on righting those wrongs and delivering justice. The Lib Dems have long pushed for the implementation of a comprehensive race equality strategy, which would include provisions aimed at reducing the disproportionately high and utterly shameful maternal mortality rates for black women and for eliminating racial disparities in maternal health, as other right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned this evening.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Energy Efficiency · Hansard source

  More

  Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. My Lib Dem predecessor, the much-missed Andrew Stunell, pushed for the zero carbon homes programme during his time in the 2010 to 2015 Government, having brought in his first Bill on that subject back in 2004. Sadly, those standards were scrapped as soon as the Conservatives were governing on their own. The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit has estimated that, had those standards been reached in 2016, households would have paid £5 billion less in energy bills as a result of living in better insulated and more energy-efficient homes. The Secretary of State earlier mentioned the future homes standard, which is bringing in welcome steps on solar panels and so on. When will the Government go further to reach zero carbon homes standards with a fabric-first approach?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Energy Efficiency · Hansard source

  More

  10. What steps he is taking to improve the energy efficiency of homes.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is laying out many of the issues that my constituents face. He talked about his constituent using the right to choose. A number of my constituents have taken that route and got a diagnosis, but they cannot access medication because of the shared care model. That is a problem my constituent Helen raised with me—it is having a massive impact, and her ability to pay is being stretched. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government would do well to review the shared care model, so that those with an ADHD diagnosis can get the treatment they need?

• 5 Jun 2025 · Free School Meals · Hansard source

  More

  As a Liberal Democrat, I warmly welcome the announcement today. I stood on a manifesto that mentioned this policy at the previous four general elections, and it is good news. However, it would be the best news if the Minister could explain more about what he means by fully funded. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, where I proudly report that I am in my 19th year as a primary school governor, so I know that school budgets are stretched to the limit. Will the Minister explain what he means when he says fully funded—does that mean fully funded from existing school budgets?

• 5 Jun 2025 · Bank Closures and Banking Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  A point that has not yet been made is the importance of credit unions and access to responsible lending. One thing that people can do at a high street bank but cannot do at a banking hub is get a loan, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for mentioning credit unions. In my area, Nationwide on the A6 in Hazel Grove has shut, which is having a massive impact on what people can do beyond access to cash.

• 4 Jun 2025 · Regional Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I warmly welcome the news that the tram is finally coming to Stockport. I have also warmly welcomed that announcement every time it has been made previously, so I am delighted that the Chief Secretary will deliver it. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) rightly acknowledges the sterling campaigning that has been done by businesses, residents and elected politicians over many years. This is how we get things done in Greater Manchester: on a cross-party basis. Will the Chief Secretary assure my local authority colleagues on Stockport council that the money is ready to go? They are as keen as mustard to crack on and deliver the project so we can get on with the next phase, which is a tram-train to Marple, from which my Hazel Grove residents will really benefit.

• 2 Jun 2025 · Neighbourhood Policing · Hansard source

  More

  Peaceful protest is a fundamental right in any free society, but for protests to remain safe and orderly, a visible, well-trained and effective police presence is often needed on top of existing neighbourhood police teams. Cities such as Manchester are seeing rising numbers of demonstrations, which the combined authority estimates will cost up to £2 million this year to police. While the Met receives specific grants to cover the cost of policing protests, Greater Manchester police receives no such allocation. That is not only unfair to my constituents, but unsustainable. In the light of the worries highlighted by police leaders about their funding being cut in the upcoming spending review, can the Home Secretary ensure that areas such as Greater Manchester receive the funding they need to police protests properly without taking away from the neighbourhood policing our communities deserve?

• 2 Jun 2025 · Qualifying Period for Settlement · Hansard source

  More

  Another group for whom the immigration White Paper is creating uncertainty is refugee families. Family reunion is a vital route by which refugees can safely reach the UK, free from the grasps of criminal trafficking gangs. The Government should be looking for more ways to facilitate refugee family reunion, not hindering it. It is unclear how the White Paper’s reforms on English language requirements will apply to refugee family reunion. Will the Minister acknowledge the needs of this unique and vulnerable group? Is she able to provide clarity on the level of English language proficiency that people who apply for refugee family reunion will be expected to have once the reforms are implemented?

• 21 May 2025 · Ukraine: Forcibly Deported Children · Hansard source

  More

  I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for talking about the Ukrainian communities who are contributing so much in our country. I have asked the Government to give further clarity and more than an 18-month visa extension, to continue to show support for the Ukrainians living in all our constituencies. We know that far too many Ukrainians are being rejected from tenancies, jobs and studying opportunities because they do not have that length of visa ahead of them. The point about mis and disinformation is absolutely right. It is not a new tool, but it is being used in many more sophisticated ways. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to work across Government and internationally to combat it. In closing, I repeat the calls that I and others have previously made for the Government to move from freezing to actively seizing Russian assets—both the principal and the interest—because we need to support Ukraine’s defence and reconstruction. The Government are taking the right approach in co-ordinating these efforts multilaterally, but the UK should be in a position to lead on this and, should progress stall, we must be willing to act unilaterally. These children must be returned, and Putin and his flunkies must pay for their crimes.

• 21 May 2025 · Ukraine: Forcibly Deported Children · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. May I join all colleagues in thanking the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter)? She has led on the issue with determination and relentlessness, and she is an example to all of us. The people of Ukraine are fighting for their country and their continued existence, but they are also fighting for us. There is no way Putin will stop in Ukraine if he gets what he wants. It is right that the UK is supporting Ukraine, and we should continue to do so until a just and lasting peace—on Ukraine’s terms—is found. I was most recently in Kyiv three weeks ago as part of a delegation of Liberal MPs from across Europe. I was fortunate enough to meet Ukrainian MPs in the Rada and to meet the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights—the ombudsman—who is undertaking incredible work in documenting the extent of the various international crimes committed by Russia in Ukraine and in working with international partners to bring these children home. One of the most moving moments of my recent visit came when we met two of the children who had experienced for themselves the brutal policy of forced deportation and assimilation. One had had to work relentlessly to have his younger brother returned, and the other had escaped Russian re-education by walking for days to get to safety. Their stories are not isolated tragedies; they are part of a wider state-sponsored strategy to destroy the nation of Ukraine. Last year, the UK rightly helped to launch the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children, which was designed to co-ordinate joint efforts. I commend this Government for their commitment to that, but it is clear that much more is needed. We must demand the full implementation of the 2024 recommendations to Russia from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. We must push for humanitarian and monitoring access to any facilities that are holding these children. We must facilitate communications with authorities to ensure safe returns. The Ukrainian ombudsman himself told me that the international community needs a special tribunal to take full account of these crimes and to properly hold Putin and his flunkies to account. Each day that these children remain outside their homes and outside their homeland is a day that justice is denied. Our role is clear: we must help to bring them home. The stealing of thousands of Ukrainian children is a particularly heinous crime, but there are also millions more Ukrainian children who have lost their childhoods because of Putin’s actions. On my recent visit, I also visited Chernihiv to see the extent of the damage caused by constant attacks. I saw for myself the basement in Yahidne where, in the early days of Russia’s full-scale invasion, dozens of nearby inhabitants, including babies and children, were rounded up by Russian soldiers and tortured for weeks before being liberated by the Ukrainian army. We know that one of the weapons of war used by the Russian Government is mis and disinformation. In their programme of trying to dehumanise the Ukrainian people, they also try to paint them as not telling the truth. I saw for myself, and the look in the eyes of the people who told me of their experience will stay with me for a very, very long time.

• 20 May 2025 · Public Spending: Value for Money · Hansard source

  More

  Bear with me on this, Mr Speaker. The previous Conservative Government did not get absolutely everything wrong. They rightly identified that Treasury spending was a powerful tool to rebalance our economy in favour of areas like ours in the north of England. They then failed to deliver, and voters delivered their verdict at the ballot box. This Government have the opportunity to use this powerful tool and ensure that regional disparities are not further entrenched when they look at the Green Book. What reassurance can the Chancellor give my constituents that projects such as repairing Stepping Hill hospital, or bringing the tram-train to Marple, will get a fair crack of the Treasury spending whip?

• 20 May 2025 · Public Spending: Value for Money · Hansard source

  More

  4. What progress she has made on updating the Green Book.

• 20 May 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  The Foreign Secretary rightly talks about a two-state solution being the only framework through which we can find a just and lasting peace, and this has long been the case. He also talks about bilateral and multilateral talks at the upcoming conference. If that conference does not achieve the hoped-for success, will the Government consider unilaterally recognising the state of Palestine?