Rachel Gilmour MP: speeches

Speeches

• 22 Jun 2026 · School Rebuilding Programme · Hansard source

  More

  Tiverton high school has been on various lists for a rebuild since 1999. I am genuinely grateful to the Department for Education for the work that has gone on behind closed doors since my election in 2024. However, there is still a worrying lack of commitment in public from the Department. Will the Minister give a commitment in the House to have the Department write to me, to Mid Devon district council and to Devon county council with a full update on the specifics of the school rebuilding programme for Tiverton high school, to provide the certainty that my constituents require.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Legacy of Jo Cox · Hansard source

  More

  I never met the hon. Lady’s sister, but I absolutely remember when she was taken from us. I admired her hugely, and I still do. The fact that there are so many new Members of Parliament in the Chamber this afternoon tells a story—that her memory is still alive and well, and we still hold her dear. On the hon. Lady’s point about children needing more education, the late Sir David Amess was very keen that we set up something called the Children’s Parliament, and I was very privileged to be asked to be the chair of the relevant APPG. Again, Jo’s memory goes on, hopefully not just for my rather elderly generation but for children and generations afterwards. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is a commendable aspiration?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Community Pharmacies · Hansard source

  More

  I do not have time to go through the list of hon. Friends and hon. Members who have made fantastic contributions. Suffice it to say that there is only one negative aspect of this debate: the fact that not a single Conservative Member of Parliament is here is shocking. I just want to say happy birthday to the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer). I do not suppose she imagined that she would start her birthday by debating community pharmacies, but I hope she has a wonderful day. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the future of community pharmacies.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Community Pharmacies · Hansard source

  More

  I agree wholeheartedly. I want to turn to two issues that I consider to be the systemic failures underlying all others: workforce and integration. On workforce, the community pharmacy network lost 3,000 full-time equivalent pharmacists between 2021 and 2025. That is not a sustainable trajectory. There is a specific incoherence in current policy that I must name. If one arm of the national health service is funded to recruit pharmacists away from community pharmacy while community pharmacies are simultaneously expected to take pressure off the same system, that is not joined-up workforce planning; it is quite simply the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. The introduction of independent prescribing is laudable and long overdue, and I note that it is expected to come later this year, but I ask for more specificity from the Minister. What is the Government’s current timetable for making independent prescribing a routine, commissioned part of NHS community pharmacy services? If we train pharmacists to prescribe and then fail to commission services that let them do so in community settings, we will have wasted a major opportunity, and we will have trained a cohort of professionals whose skills are systematically underused. On integration, Pharmacy First will not reach its full potential if GPs, hospitals, NHS 111 and patients all have a different understanding of how it functions. The incongruence within the system is hobbling pharmacy practice. What is required is proper system-wide integration, with pharmacies recognised as a fundamental pillar of our NHS. As the NHS modernisation Bill progresses through Parliament, that must be recognised. Pharmacies are already doing the work that the Government say they want the NHS to do. They are the first port of call, the most accessible point of contact and the trusted face of healthcare on high streets and in rural communities across this country. The Government have taken some positive steps, and I reiterate that the 10.3% uplift is very important. The direction of travel towards community care, independent prescribing and neighbourhood health is right, but direction without sufficient resource is just aspiration.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Bill makes great strides in Ministry of Defence housing standards, and the enshrinement of the covenant is to be lauded. However, I cannot help but feel that there is a sense of strategic lethargy, with a lack of serious worked-through policies to tackle the crisis in recruitment and retention. For example, from what I can see, there is no mention of incentives or bonuses. Is that an oversight or a deliberate decision to put those issues on the back burner? To put it another way, are the Government now simply content to sit on their hands while the crisis deepens?

• 28 Apr 2026 · International Parental Child Abduction · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his inclusive and thorough response to some of the concerns raised today. I will certainly be writing to him on behalf of my constituent who is sitting behind me. I also thank the obviously doting father and grandpapa, the omnipresent hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for his contribution—quite an imaginative one it was, too—and, as ever, my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), who put the right, honourable and proper Liberal Democrat policy at the heart of her contribution. It was a real privilege to listen to the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who brings a great deal of experience and knowledge to the debate. As a new Member of Parliament, I have learned a lot from that. I thank her very much for her contribution. Some Members might have heard a little noise going on behind me. The little noise is called Kit, and he is three months old. Kit is beautiful, articulate and vocal, but Kit too is a victim of child abduction, because Kit will never meet his half-brothers and sisters. What we have talked about in this debate can affect the oldest and the very youngest. That is why it is so important. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the matter of international parental child abduction.

• 28 Apr 2026 · International Parental Child Abduction · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of international parental child abduction. It is a privilege to make my remarks under your very capable stewardship, Dr Murrison. I understand that these issues are very sensitive and of huge human significance, so I feel privileged to be able to bring the eyes and ears of the House to them. I salute the left-behind parents, some of whom have joined us in the Gallery this afternoon, for their indefatigability and courage. I know that they will take little comfort in such words, but I must say them anyway. I think it important to emphasise the need not to prejudice ongoing legal proceedings, but as representatives of our constituents we feel a natural and proper inclination to advocate for them. According to Reunite International, more than 500 children are abducted from the UK by a parent every year. Among the families that attended the most recent roundtable on this subject in Parliament, there was upwards of half a century in lost years—that is to say, lost contact with their children. The testimonies I have heard, although individually unique, paint a troubling, consistent picture of deliberate misleading, ill-fated recovery attempts and financial costs running into the millions. Many have travelled to foreign jurisdictions, time after time, in the hope of recovering their children. The human toll on both sides is staggering. The Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction provides the principal international framework governing these cases. Crucially, it mandates the expeditious handling of abduction proceedings, yet according to testimonies that I have received, months often elapse before the first substantive hearing, in a clear breach of the convention. Such delays risk the factual entrenchment of the abducted child in the new jurisdiction, entirely undermining the notional remedy of return. The convention exists precisely to prevent that outcome, but far too often it does not. Several structural concerns recur across the cases that have been brought to me. The first is about the undermining of established jurisdictional findings. In one instance, the High Court here had already determined the child’s habitual residence to be in England. The Polish first instance court was aligned, ordering return. However, the appellate outcome reversed that position, despite there being no dispute as to the original wrongful removal and no clear finding that the article 13 threshold had clearly been met at the first instance. That raises a concern about consistency in applying Hague principles at an appellate level and about the degree to which appellate courts revisit or expand factual assessments beyond convention limits. The second concern is about the creeping expansion of article 13(b) welfare arguments as a basis for refusing return. These provisions were always intended to be narrow exceptions, not an open door for wide-ranging allegations. Where such arguments are routinely entertained without proper substantiation, there is a considerable possibility that summary return proceedings will be converted into de facto welfare determinations, which is not what the convention intended. The third concern is about the insufficient use of protective measures. In the case I mentioned, the UK had jurisdiction and capacity to implement protective measures upon return, with an active High Court framework available. These mechanisms should be taken seriously and fully operationalised. Failure to do so risks theoretical concerns hardening into grounds for non-return. The post-decision consequences of such outcomes are stark: the child remains outside the jurisdiction of the habitual residence, there is no effective restoration of the pre-removal status quo and contact arrangements remain limited and unresolved. That illustrates how delay, combined with appellate intervention, can effectively neutralise the convention remedy entirely. I am, of course, conscious that not every parent who crosses a border with a child is a wrongful abductor in the conventional sense. There are genuine cases—we must be clear-eyed about this—in which a parent flees with a child from real, documented domestic abuse, and the law must be sensitive to that reality. Article 13(b) exists precisely for such circumstances. Where the threshold is genuinely met, it should of course be engaged. The concern is not about the protection itself, but about its expansion and, at times, its misapplication. The difficulty is that the very features that make these cases so emotionally charged also render them susceptible to the weaponisation of abuse allegations as a litigation strategy. It is therefore incumbent on courts and authorities to apply rigorous scrutiny to such claims, neither dismissing them reflexively nor accepting them uncritically, so that the protection is reserved for those who genuinely need it rather than becoming the means by which the convention’s core remedy is routinely frustrated. The Child Abduction Act 1984 does not provide for the occurrence of a criminal offence when a parent has consent to take a child out of the country but then fails to return them. That legal loophole became known as the Nicolaou problem, following a 2012 judicial review process. The Law Commission’s 2014 report identified this legal blind spot and recommended a change in the law. I am pleased to say that the Crime and Policing Bill, which completed its passage through Parliament late last night, will finally close that loophole. All abductions from the UK will now be criminal. Based purely on the volume of human stories, Poland appears to be at the sharp end of these affairs. I must set out the record plainly as it stands. The European Commission launched infringement proceedings against Warsaw, and the European Court of Justice concluded that steps taken by the Poles to disrupt and ignore UK convention orders were in contravention of EU law. A financial penalty was imposed for such intransigence. I would very much welcome the Minister’s reflection on the status of the British Government’s support for the European Commission’s proceedings in relation to Poland’s infringements in this area. The European Court of Human Rights found that although initial steps were timely, subsequent enforcement actions were marred by delays, ineffective procedures and a lack of co-ordination. Moreover, the court determined that authorities repeatedly relied on flawed or misleading information and failed to adjust their strategy when previous steps had failed. The failures were primarily attributable to the authorities, and not solely the abductors’ actions. It therefore held that there had been a violation of article 8 of the convention. The bottom line is this: abductions to Poland often endure because of the incompetence, deliberate or otherwise, of the authorities. At the very least, the conduct of the Polish authorities has been marked by wilful negligence, if not a sinister concerted effort to frustrate enforcement orders. That speaks to practices that have seemingly been institutionalised. On listening to some of these stories, it is hard to shake a distinct impression of conspiracy—that the abducting parent is in co-ordination with the authorities, aided and abetted to evade enforcement. Britain and Poland have a close bond. I think of the brave Polish pilots who fought with distinction, with British wings, in our country’s finest hour. In recent decades, many of Poland’s sons and daughters have made their home on these shores. They say that friends should be able to talk candidly, openly and earnestly with each other, even when it comes to uncomfortable discussions—in fact, especially when it comes to tricky home truths. The Government line is that these issues are raised at every opportunity with Polish counterparts. I appreciate that this is a delicate diplomatic dance, but Poland’s famous intransigence on the issue has hardly been subtle. Beyond the diplomatic niceties, I would like to know what the response is when the question is put pointedly to Polish officials. When sincere representations are made at the highest level, they should not be met with prevarication. There is much angst about how the current default position is to enforce the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders without any scrutiny at all. In practice, that can result in maintenance being enforced against a left-behind parent, even in cases in which there has been an abduction and an existing Hague return order. REMO case hearings are typically held abroad, without the involvement of the other parent and with no opportunity for defence. Amounts are often arbitrarily assigned, with no consideration given to affordability. To the best of my knowledge, REMO enforcement has been successfully challenged on only one occasion, and even then only on a technicality. For left-behind parents, it adds insult to profound injury that they are expected to fund the illegal abduction of their own children and are often forced to spend thousands of pounds pursuing appeals in UK courts against REMO enforcement. This mechanism is problematic, for clear reasons. Hague convention return orders are effectively disregarded in financial enforcement proceedings. Left-behind parents may be required to pay backdated and ongoing maintenance. Worse still, the system risks inadvertently incentivising abduction, because it can have the perverse result of delivering a financial reward to the abducting parent. Surely any case in which there is a Hague convention return order should not qualify for maintenance payments of this kind. That should be enshrined in law here. I ask the Minister to help us understand what measures the Government can take to ensure the adequate protection of abduction victims against being penalised in this way when foreign courts reward abductors with high maintenance orders in unreasonable circumstances. There is also understandable concern that Britain’s position outside the European Union may be influencing how such cases are handled in EU jurisdictions. There is a prevailing sense that the UK has been left out in the cold and perhaps even punished, and that other states have used the Brexit farrago as a smokescreen allowing them to turn a blind eye. Although the precise impact is unclear, it is a mood worth acknowledging as part of the broader context. Will the Minister reflect on that point? I am told that the European Commission has a team actively working on these cases. Is there an argument for a dedicated taskforce within the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office? I absolutely understand the pressures under which our foreign service finds itself in these times of geopolitical turmoil, but I would welcome the Minister’s view on that point. Much has been said recently about the fragility of international law. It is for countries with shared values that believe in the primacy of the rule of law and international treaties to make the case for it by practising it. I remind Warsaw that Poland was a signatory to the Hague convention too. As I bring my remarks to an end, I ask the Minister to outline what support children and families who have been victims of abductions can access. Will he furnish us with the statistics on repatriation, specifically from Poland? If he does not have the figures to hand, will he commit to providing that information to me in writing? I also ask, perhaps naively, whether sufficient consideration is given to the child’s perspective in these often highly fraught cases. The child’s voice is a good place to start and to return to throughout. Our role is not to litigate constituents’ cases in the Chamber, but to push the Government to ensure that our counterparts honour the decisions of our courts, call on them to fulfil their obligations under international law, and oversee the safe and timely return of abducted children back to the country whence they were taken. I implore the Government to bring to bear all the diplomatic power that we have on this matter, because British children, wherever they are sent or taken, deserve nothing less.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Independent Water Commission: Final Report · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for securing the debate. I also thank my many constituents who, quite rightly, have grave concerns about this matter and have written to me about it. My party has made its dissatisfaction with the White Paper clear, and my colleagues are making the case strongly again today. We have been leading the charge in calling for a comprehensive approach to tackling what is nothing short of a crisis in the water sector. The Government made tackling this crisis an important pillar of their election campaign, so it is deeply disappointing that the reforms set out in the water White Paper fall far short of what the situation demands. The system is in dire straits and requires a complete overhaul, but instead the Government offer only the lightest of plans that fail to beef up regulations in a meaningful manner or provide funding provision for enforcement. Although the abolition of Ofwat is welcome, the uncertainty around its replacement is unhelpful. Farmers need proper support to tackle agricultural run-off, which accounts for around 40% of water pollution. As stewards of the land, they are inevitably stewards of our water as well. How can it be that we have allowed corporate greed to run rampant, and allowed these companies to have presided over the routine pumping of filth into the waterways of this land? It is quite remarkable. All the while, the good people of the west country have seen their bills soar, some by as much as threefold. The Government offer only the lightest of plans: weak regulation, no meaningful enforcement and no funding to ensure compliance. As my constituency straddles the Somerset-Devon border, we are in the unenviable position of having two water companies: Wessex Water and South West Water. I think it is fair to say that I have made my views on South West Water clear before, and I will once again direct my ire at South West Water, because its behaviour, inertia and refusal to acknowledge the gravity of situations of its own making has been pitiful. Just a week ago, I raised the matter of my poor constituents at Bawdens bakery in Bampton, who have been forced to close and sell up because their property has flooded so many times. I had a most unhelpful meeting with the director of South West Water, who showed only his complete complacence and, I have to say, arrogance, to such an extent that I had to ask him and his staff to leave. The public health implications are grave. I have heard horror stories from constituents whose children have fallen seriously ill after swimming in local rivers. The beaches at Dunster and Blue Anchor now carry the dreaded brown flag status. It is a shameful state of affairs. Is it really too much for the British public to expect clean water as a basic right? At the risk of being blunt and somewhat crude, suffice it to say that the Tiverton sewage works absolutely reek every time it rains—and anyone familiar with the west country will know how often that is. It is inexcusable and utterly foul. It is a stench and a situation more in character with the 12th century, certainly not the 21st. I could be more colourful with my description, but I will spare colleagues and preserve my own sanity.

• 2 Feb 2026 · US Department of Justice Release of Files · Hansard source

  More

  As so many of my colleagues have rightly said, our thoughts today should be first and foremost with the victims. I hope that no political party in this Chamber would use this as an excuse to cover the backs of some of the less fragrant Members of the House of Lords. The fact that Lord Mandelson was, as ever, interested only in the ruthless pursuit of financial gain will come as a surprise to no one. No. 10 is now saying that Mandelson should lose his peerage, and I wholeheartedly concur. However, is it not staggering that Members of this House seemed more aware of Mr Mandelson’s skeletons in the wardrobe than the Prime Minister who appointed him?

• 29 Jan 2026 · River Habitats: Protection and Restoration · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Ms Butler. It is a pleasure to serve under you. I thank the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) for his kind words. I should start by declaring a couple of interests: before I came to Parliament I was head of strategy for the Environment Agency, specialising in water flooding and the water framework directive. Before that, I was the director of communications for the National Farmers’ Union—the first woman to sit on their board in 100 years. Despite my nerves about my first outing, I feel calmly confident that I have got a grip on things. I congratulate my colleague from the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton), on securing the debate. I was particularly interested in his comments about the beavers on the Isle of Purbeck, because we have had similar issues in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Ian Roome). I was touched to hear the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) talk about the rivers of this country being like veins in a body, echoed by the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner). The edifying and incisive observations in the debate show that this is clearly a matter close to all our hearts, whatever political party we come from—although it matters to a couple of us more than others. Across the country, we are witnessing storms of increasing frequency and ferocity, and it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the devastating flooding that has swept across my part of the world in the south- west in recent days. Events that were once expected every 300 years and then once every 100 years now seem to strike with alarming regularity. Our rivers, which are among Britain’s most precious wildlife habitats, are bearing the brunt of environmental decline. According to the Rivers Trust, and it is not the first time this has been mentioned, not a single English river is in “good chemical health” and only 15% are considered to be in good ecological condition. That is a sobering reality. Freshwater ecosystems are collapsing and this country now has some of the unhealthiest rivers in Europe. The species that depend on the waterways, from fish to invertebrates to birds, are struggling to survive. Our rivers desperately need a reprieve. England is home to 85% of the world’s chalk streams: rare, crystal-clear, ecologically distinctive waterways found almost nowhere else on earth. Part of the challenge lies in the withdrawal of the Environment Agency from stewardship of many of our rivers. For years, maintenance of watercourses has been inadequate; now, with the EA stepping back for whatever reason in further parts of the country, including my own, the burden of looking after the waterways has become heavier still. We must recognise that farmers are on the frontline of environmental challenges and that the relationship between land and water has changed significantly and dramatically over the past century, encapsulated in the European water framework directive, which is not a complicated piece of legislation. That is why my party consistently emphasises the vital role of farmers as custodians of the natural world. They work tirelessly to reduce run-off and protect habitats, but they need support. Agricultural run-off, slurry, fertilisers and other such chemical cocktails continue to enter our waterways. That has patently been exacerbated, given the recent devastation caused by Storm Chandra in which huge swathes of the west country were submerged, washing pollutants into rivers and compounding the ecological damage. It will come as a surprise to no one that blame must be laid at the feet of water and sewage companies and their conduct. I had a meeting with South West Water on Monday, and it was obvious that their obscene greed and incompetence had inflicted immense harm on river habitats across the country and, indeed on my constituents in Bampton. Grotesque quantities of sewage have been allowed to spew into British waterways and there have been discharges on an industrial scale, with catastrophic consequences for aquatic life. It is an absolute insult; heads, I fear, must roll. The Liberal Democrats are sadly disappointed by the Government’s water White Paper, as it falls short of the promise to bring about fundamental regulatory reform. We believe that the current model of private ownership has utterly failed. Frankly, only a complete overhaul will do. The Liberal Democrats would introduce a system in which water companies are mutually owned by customers and run professionally in the public interest. We also call on the Government to finally end the scandalous sewage cover-up by forcing those crooked water companies to publish the volume of dumped sewage and not just the duration of spills. After all, sunlight is the best disinfectant. The Government’s plans—I am really sad about this because I am usually on side—do not cut the mustard. The decision to abolish Ofwat is welcome, but it is only the first step. We will continue to press the Government to establish a new, robust regulator, with real teeth and real accountability, as a matter of urgency. Turning to other causes of harm, water abstraction has risen sharply, reducing river flows and placing ecosystems under severe stress. Many rivers now run perilously low, especially during dry periods. Moreover, centuries of physical modification—straightening, damming, embanking, diverting and disconnecting—has fundamentally altered the natural character of our rivers. Those changes have inevitably disrupted fish migratory patterns, fragmented habitat connectivity and in turn diminished resilience to climate change. A river that cannot move, meander or naturally flood is a river that simply cannot thrive. Restoration efforts should focus on allowing our rivers to re-wiggle—I love that word, which means to return to their natural meanders—reconnecting them with flood plains, and rebuilding the diverse physical habitats that sustain life. In many cases, the best thing that we can do is to step back and let mother nature take her course—in essence, to rewild herself. That would include removing barriers such as weirs and small dams to aid fish passages, creating riffles, pools, wetlands and woody debris to enhance biodiversity, establishing nature-rich corridors along river banks and expanding natural flood management systems. Interventions such as these are not just environmentally beneficial; there is a major economic element to this. Healthy waterways provide essential services to all our systems. They are our lifeblood.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Water (Special Measures) Act 2025: Enforcement · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous. As the Member of Parliament for Tiverton and Minehead, I represent two water companies, Wessex Water—who are no angels—and South West Water—who I have been chasing for several months in order to get a meeting on behalf of a constituent whose bakery was flooded to such an extent that she has now had to shut up shop and go home. I am supposed to be meeting them on Monday, but it has taken at least four days to get a time out of them. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a disgrace that these companies are able to literally stick their fingers in their ears when people raise concerns on behalf of their communities?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Curriculum and Assessment Review · Hansard source

  More

  As the Member of Parliament for Tiverton and Minehead—Minehead being one of the most deprived areas in the country, standing 324th out of 324 in the social mobility index—I wholeheartedly commend what the Secretary of State has announced. However, I have grave concerns about the state of the schools in my constituency, particularly Tiverton high school, and the paucity of teachers, particularly in the arts subjects that the Secretary of State has quite commendably supported.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  I wanted to speak earlier on social mobility, which the hon. Lady mentioned. If anybody wants to see what happens to social mobility under the Conservatives, all they need do is come to Minehead in my constituency, which is ranked 324th out of 324 for social mobility in the entire country, having had a Conservative Member of Parliament for 23 years who did nothing.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Lasting Power of Attorney · Hansard source

  More

  Minehead has a very large elderly and deprived population. Could we, as Members of Parliament, help the hon. Gentleman in his best endeavours by encouraging our constituents, particularly if we live in or represent constituencies with large elderly populations, to come forward and talk to us as their MPs, so that we can pass on their representations to him, because he is doing an excellent job?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) on securing this debate. Like everyone in the Chamber, my thoughts are first and foremost with the victims of that dreadful man whose name I refuse to mention. A week is a long time in politics. Last week, we saw the Prime Minister stand at the Dispatch Box to back, and then sack, the now former ambassador to the US. At Prime Minister’s questions last week, my party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), questioned the Prime Minister on Lord Mandelson’s appointment. The Prime Minister stood by it, confirming that rigorous background checks had taken place. This entire situation has left a nasty taste in the mouth, to put it mildly. The fact that the ambassador to the US—the most coveted ambassadorial position in the United Kingdom by many metrics—was seemingly okay with the moral turpitude of the man whose name I will not mention, even after his conviction, casts a long shadow on Britain’s place in the world. The timing and nature of this episode—not that it could ever be anything other than terrible—is catastrophically bad. The optics are dreadful. While we should be demonstrating moral leadership in an increasingly volatile international climate, our emissary to our closest ally has been discredited by scandal. The President of the United States lands in this country today for his unprecedented second state visit. When the Prime Minister wines and dines him, will he take a principled stand on the matters of great importance to the people of this country? Will he press on Gaza? Will he make progress on our long awaited bespoke trade deal to insulate ourselves from Trump’s tariffs? Will he be supporting our NATO allies in making the case for better US engagement in the defence of Ukraine and shoring up Europe’s eastern flank to Russian incursions into Poland and Romania? As if not already bad enough, this murky affair has been thickened by the fact that a source from MI6 has reportedly claimed that they failed to clear Mandelson and warned that his links to the man I refuse to name “would compromise him”. Downing Street pressed ahead with the appointment anyway. It is vital that the Civil Service Commission investigates whether the ambassador broke the diplomatic service code by failing to come clean over these revelations sooner. If it is true, it raises wider questions about what other advice from the security services was neglected. Why did Downing Street officials fail this most basic duty? Why did the team in No. 10 send the Prime Minister out to bat sticking to the line of confidence in Mandelson, only to defenestrate the ambassador a few hours later? Why was the Prime Minister not on top of his brief? If it is the case that key details and information were withheld from the Prime Minister, why has no one been outed and swiftly given the boot? In the late 1920s, a German philosopher called Karl Popper famously said that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. It is my sincere hope that that is not the case for this Government, for whom I usually have a degree of respect. There are so many questions. We on these Benches and my constituents in Tiverton and Minehead demand answers.

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I count a great many hereditary peers among my friends, and I know that they do excellent jobs. However, Britain stands, alongside Lesotho, as a complete anomaly in the 21st century by preserving legislative roles based on lineage. Serving in this House, as in any other, is a privilege of the highest order. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that our legislators should be there on the basis of merit rather than DNA?

• 9 Jul 2025 · Early Years Providers: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that although expanding nursery-based provision in schools is unquestionably laudable in improving access to childcare, we must guard against inadvertently passing on to primary school teachers the responsibility for teaching basic life skills that could and should have been nurtured earlier, thereby stretching resources and risking the lowering of standards? Perhaps the Minister could outline what steps his Department is taking to correct the funding and support imbalance so that childminders who provide vital individualised care are not sidelined.