Rachel Gilmour MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 Jun 2026 · Draft Digital Waste Tracking (England) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, who broadly support the establishment of a digital system to track the movement of controlled waste. We have long campaigned—as people would expect us to—for stronger waste regulation and enforcement to protect our environment and tackle waste crime after years of inaction by the Conservative Government. As waste is a devolved matter, with separate legislation and systems being developed in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the Government must work closely with the devolved Administrations to ensure that these digital systems are interoperable and provide effective coverage across the whole UK. Although we support the draft regulations, we urge the Government to go further in tackling the waste crime national emergency by taking up our calls to increase fixed-penalty notices for fly-tipping to £2,500, transferring responsibility for investigating major waste crime to the National Crime Agency, and introducing rewards of more than £5,000 for information leading to a successful prosecution of criminal gangs.

• 19 May 2026 · Family Court: Harassment of Domestic Abuse Victims · Hansard source

  More

  About one in 20 rural households experience some form of domestic abuse, although experts believe that this figure is significantly understated owing to chronic under-reporting. Evidence shows that financial control and exclusion from business decisions are a particular feature in rural areas. The pressures of multigenerational living, the unique stresses of farming life and the combination of geographic and digital isolation can all heighten vulnerability. Will the Minister set out what specific steps the Government are taking to address those rural risk factors and improve reporting pathways, and will she consider setting up a special committee to look into this issue?

• 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.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Gurkha Veterans · Hansard source

  More

  I commend my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for bringing forward the debate, and for his wonderful and kind introduction to so many of his Gurkha friends. It would be easy for my remarks to simply be an ode to the Gurkhas and to shower them with honeyed words, because that is what they deserve, but this debate is really about burning injustices—injustices faced by those who have served our nation with distinction. I have had the privilege to meet Gurkha soldiers on many occasions. They are a wonderful people: tough, brave and humble—qualities, I am sure, shaped by the stunning but harsh Himalayan environment. After all, they do hail from the roof of the world. For over 200 years, Gurkha soldiers have served this country with honour in conflict theatres in all corners of the globe, through the world wars—perhaps most famously in the campaign against imperial Japan—the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan. Wherever a British flag has been raised, you will so often find loyal Gurkhas there too. And every time, they have demonstrated themselves to be among the finest soldiers to don a British uniform—indeed, a reputation that truly precedes them. Yet despite this long and storied connection, we now facing a moment where the Nepalese Government have made overtures suggesting that Gurkha recruitment could be halted if the issue of these injustices is not addressed. I say to the Government and to the Minister—for whom I have a lot of time and respect, because he is a good Minister, if not a Secretary of State—that the noble principle of reciprocity, which has come to characterise this most special relationship over two centuries, must not be allowed to fall into disrepute. It would be a stain on our nation. This is an old and legendary bond, forged in blood and sacrifice, and in the fires of war, and it requires a renewal fit for 21st-century Britain. The pre-1997 settlement, based on Indian army rates, does not reflect the financial reality of living in Britain in 2026, with much higher associated costs and diminished purchasing power. Frankly, the tripartite agreement of 1947, the year of India’s independence, is now an outmoded covenant. British and Indian regiments are now separate, so for India to remain under this arrangement is otiose. The fact is that we have Gurkha veterans today who are victims of the legacy of a system that is no longer fit for purpose. How can it be that men who served our country in uniform are still not entitled to the same pension settlement because of a technicality rooted in the date—1997—that their service concluded? Finally, an ode to the Gurkhas is richly desired and deserved, but justice for the Gurkhas is required—now.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that the original clause 39 of Magna Carta has guaranteed an individual’s right to due process in the court for 800 years, and that trial by jury is at its heart? This Bill asks the right question but gives a reckless answer. There is no modelling or evidence to show that this move will reduce the backlog.

• 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?

• 4 Dec 2025 · War in Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to finish—sorry. We risk returning to a brutish bygone era in which tyrannical thugs take what they want. Who wants to live in such a world? We all want peace, but appeasement of the Kremlin is not the chess move of a pacifist or an anti-imperialist. It is not anti-war; it is the acceptance of revanchist thuggery over the will of a people to live free from an occupying power. Peace cannot be on the aggressor’s terms, and Ukrainian submission cannot be on the table. After all, peace is not just the absence of war; without justice, there is no peace. Slava Ukraini.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Illegal Waste: Organised Crime · Hansard source

  More

  It is not just my opinion that Tiverton and Minehead is the most beautiful constituency in the country. It contains Exmoor national park, the Brendon hills, the Blackdown hills and the Quantock hills, all of which are areas of outstanding natural beauty. These are criminals who effectively run corporations that decimate our countryside. Please can the Minister make sure that the fine meets the crime and that they are penalised in their pockets, where they deserve it most?

• 13 Nov 2025 · Police Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Government’s decision, which I think is long overdue. I thank Clare Moody, the PCC for Somerset, who has worked very hard with me over the last 18 months and has visited my constituency three times. She is an inspiration. May I seek some reassurance on behalf of my constituents that extra resources will be put into tackling rural crime? As a result of the austerity under the last Conservative Government, people in my constituency have had bullocks, sheep and, in one incident, an entire flock of 1,500 chickens rustled from their farms.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Support for Disabled Veterans · Hansard source

  More

  My office is supporting a veteran with complex PTSD who has experienced a judicial process that simply does not adequately reflect the specific needs of some veterans. Does the Minister accept that veterans with conflict-related PTSD can function well in many or most aspects of life but may be especially affected or triggered in confrontational or adversarial settings such as court proceedings? Will she endorse the adoption of trauma-informed practice and proper training within the judiciary on the presentations of complex PTSD to help ensure fair treatment and, crucially, to ensure that veterans are not retraumatised by the system? I want to add that I had very good conversations with the previous Veterans Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), on this issue before the hon. Lady took on the role.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I sit on the Public Accounts Committee. Earlier this year, we investigated the state of our prison system and all the sorts of things that one should describe as restorative justice. The facts are that our prisons are overflowing, they are not making anybody any better or turning people around, and they do not provide restorative justice. As I know to my own cost, it costs four times more to keep a prisoner in prison for a year than it does to send a boy to Eton.

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

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

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

  More

  This is a deeply sensitive debate. Two of my brothers served as officers in Northern Ireland, and the memory of Operation Banner has been raised time and again by many of my constituents. The truth is that many of the soldiers in Northern Ireland were young lads from working-class communities sent by their Government and deployed to areas not dissimilar to those they had grown up in. They found themselves operating in some of the most stressful scenarios imaginable. I had a meeting with the Minister for Veterans an hour ago; does the hon. Lady with me and with him that we must focus on the orders that were given higher up the chain of command rather than pursuing non-commissioned veterans in their old age? Does she also agree that there is a desperate need for reform to ensure that avenues to justice for bereaved families are reopened and that all armed forces personnel are treated with dignity and understanding of the complexities of their experiences?