Sarah Pochin MP: speeches

Speeches

• 13 Apr 2026 · Social Housing Standards · Hansard source

  More

  In my Runcorn and Helsby constituency, Riverside housing association is flattening 365 properties, demolishing them to build new homes. Residents have been left with no communication, no support and no number to ring—residents such as John and Barbara Wheldon, now in their 80s, who have lived in the same property for more than 50 years and are facing the trauma of that move without knowing where they are going. Will the Minister agree with me that housing associations have a duty of care to residents and that, where they fail in that duty of care, they should be held to account?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Social Housing Standards · Hansard source

  More

  17. What steps his Department is taking to help ensure that housing associations improve the quality of social housing.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T10. Is the Home Secretary comfortable with the reality that, as a woman, she could not stand and pray alongside the Mayor of London at last week’s event in Trafalgar Square?

• 23 Mar 2026 · Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I am concerned about the motivation behind the trials. I went to the initial meeting hosted by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, where we met the panel of so-called experts, and came away with the impression that this was nothing more than a spine-chilling, state-sponsored experiment on our children, with no regard to safeguarding them. In the main Chamber, I asked the Secretary of State to introduce statutory legislation to access the extensive data that is already available from Tavistock; yet again, I was not provided with an answer as to why he could not do that. I am concerned about the profile of the children being used. I asked at the initial meeting for a lower age limit, but I was refused. I asked whether the Government would consider not including vulnerable children, children in care, or children on drugs for anxiety or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, but I was refused. We have all talked about the long-term damage that seems to be ignored, but one of the most important things that has not really been covered is parental consent. We have heard that consent would be needed from only one parent, if a parent was present in a child’s life. This can cause irreversible damage to families. Last week, I hosted a roundtable about the indoctrination of our children in schools on this very subject, and I heard horrific stories from isolated parents whose children were lost to them because of brainwashing and the fantasy world they had been taught about at school.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial · Hansard source

  More

  No, I will not. Overall, we are creating a generation of lost, anxious young people who are confused about their identity, socially insecure and physically scarred.

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

  More

  I speak today in favour of the reasoned amendment standing in the names of Reform UK MPs. Although it has not been selected for debate, I would like to draw hon. Members’ attention to the wording, particularly where it says that “the right to trial by one’s peers…has been an essential part of UK freedoms for centuries.” As a magistrate of 20 years and a chairman of the court for 17 of those years, I hope that I have something to offer this debate. During those 20 years, I was part of a judicial process in which I, together with two fellow magistrates, sent many defendants to prison. I will never forget the first time I was part of a bench that sent someone to prison. I can still see that young man’s face, and see his distraught parents at the back of the court. I had to fight back my own tears, as a mother feeling for his mother and her pain, knowing the life-changing impact that our decision would have on that young man’s life. I should say that I toughened up pretty quickly. On many occasions, I found myself chairing a trials court that would inevitably start late or end up with magistrates twiddling their thumbs when trials cracked or fell apart. That could be for a variety of reasons, but it was often due to last-minute pleas by defendants who had been presented with irrefutable evidence, or to the failure of the Crown Prosecution Service to prepare adequately for the case. The process in the magistrates court is already inefficient, and a sizeable backlog of cases exist—reportedly, over 370,000. It is worth pointing out that a magistrates bench operates as a mini-jury, with three magistrates sitting on a trial to ensure a majority verdict, so it represents trial by the people, not the state. Be in no doubt: a prison sentence of up to three years will change someone’s life forever. A prison sentence of that length will mean the loss of employment, and therefore the loss of one’s ability to pay a mortgage or rent, often resulting in the loss of one’s home, which may in turn lead to a family being made homeless. A prison sentence often means the break-up of a family, with permanent damage inflicted on the partner and children in that family, whether by becoming outcasts in their community, being bullied at school, or adopting learned behaviour and offending themselves later in life. For one individual—one judge—to have the power and to be the only perspective in administering a prison sentence is not justice. Furthermore, a single justice acting alone may come under pressure from politicians not to send defendants to prison due to a lack of prison space available, regardless of whether that defendant should in fact receive a custodial sentence. There may also be cases where a single justice is more lenient towards defendants from ethnic minorities for fear of being called racist if custodial sentences are frequently given by that judge to such defendants from ethnic minorities, regardless of the demographics of that court area. With this Bill, there is no scrutiny of a judge, no ability to question that judge’s decision and no majority vote. A life-changing prison sentence can be given on the judgment of an individual with a single perspective and prejudice, without any checks and balances. The state will be administering justice, not the people. Everyone deserves the right to trial by their peers. In this Bill, the Government are removing trial by jury for serious crimes that attract prison sentences of up to three years. These could be serious domestic violence incidents, sexual assault, theft, fraud and so on. This Bill is intended to speed up justice and cut court waiting lists, but there is no credible evidence to suggest that will be achieved by these changes. Courts need investment and to be run more efficiently to speed up justice. Solicitors need to be on time and ready for trial. So much of the delay is caused in the process before the case even comes before a jury. These proposals are the exact opposite of justice. These proposals go against the foundations of law and order in this country.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Many of my constituents are anxious about the consultation process and the environmental impact of the Peak Cluster project in rural Cheshire. Will the Secretary of State commit to meeting me and local representatives to ensure that community concerns are properly addressed before the development consent order is submitted?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Victims of Domestic Abuse: Criminal Justice System · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in congratulating Cheshire police, led by the exceptional Chief Constable Mark Roberts, on its well-executed Operation Crossbow, which I witnessed yesterday? More than 40 perpetrators of domestic violence wanted by the police and the courts were arrested and detained by a police force committed to the safety of women. Does he agree that such operations in Cheshire will be put at risk by the Government’s desire to merge 43 forces into 12, which will increase the risk to victims of domestic violence?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Just a minute—I do not know who is first. Due to higher birth rates among foreign nationals, a significant amount of this additional expenditure is expected to go to households in which at least one parent was born outside the UK. To be clear, and to conclude, Reform will only lift the cap for British families where both parents are in full-time work.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Although the reasoned amendment tabled by my Reform UK colleagues and myself has not been selected, I would still like to speak to the contents of that important amendment. Scrapping the two-child benefit limit does nothing to help hard-working parents who set their alarm clocks every morning, and does everything to encourage families who are already on benefits to have more children in the full knowledge that the state will pay for them. Removing the two-child benefit cap without imposing any other restrictions, such as limiting it to working families with British-born parents, fails to incentivise work.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Let me make some progress. It increases the support to non-working families beyond that given to working parents earning above the benefit level, so those who work are being punished while those who play the system are rewarded. The cost to the taxpayer of scrapping the cap is estimated at £15 billion over the next five years, with families affected by the cap estimated to gain an average of £25,000 per family over that period, and the more children they have, the more they get. That is not sustainable, and it is not fair—it is another step towards crippling our economy instead of introducing policies to grow it. We cannot advocate for a society in which work does not pay. Furthermore, due to higher birth rates among foreign nationals—

• 27 Jan 2026 · Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I recently spoke to a doctor in my constituency who was concerned about resident doctors going abroad to get a training place in their chosen specialty. We in Reform welcome this Bill. Can the Secretary of State make a commitment that we will prioritise our own UK-trained resident doctors ahead of those trained abroad, and will he assure me that the Bill will help UK-trained resident doctors to secure a training post in their chosen specialty?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  This remedial order is just another step by this Government towards repealing and overriding the previous Government’s legacy Act. This Government, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Prime Minister and the Attorney General, Lord Hermer—who has, in the past, represented Gerry Adams—claim that the 2023 legacy Act is contrary to the European convention on human rights. There again, we have the ECHR wrongly being allowed to interfere in our justice system. The legacy Act put a stop to lawfare. Although not perfect, it was a step in the right direction as it outlawed lawfare against veterans. However, it also prevented legal action against and the prosecution of terrorists. The Government want to reopen inquiries, leading to the return of years of misery and stress for, and the persecution of, our brave veterans in their retirement years, after they served this country so loyally during the troubles. In the meantime, on-the-run letters of comfort remain in place for IRA terrorists—letters sent by Tony Blair and Jonathan Powell, the current National Security Adviser. The return of civil suits will lead to the return of slow justice and a cost of millions more to the taxpayer This legislation will serve no purpose other than to pursue our brave veterans. This legislation is unfair and against their human rights. I will not vote in favour of the remedial order today.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Mobile Phones and Social Media: Use by Children · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In response to my perfectly reasonable question, the Secretary of State said I had “got this wrong”. She did not explain in what way exactly I had got it wrong. Does she not agree that all Members in this Chamber—

• 20 Jan 2026 · Mobile Phones and Social Media: Use by Children · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Secretary of State confirm to the House that the Government have no intention of introducing criminal sanctions against parents or guardians of children who access social media through parental accounts?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Proposed Chinese Embassy · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister stated several times that national security is a priority for this Government, so why are they letting a hostile state that wants to sabotage and spy on us into the very heart of Government?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Iran: Protests · Hansard source

  More

  Given the horrific scenes of pro-democracy protesters being attacked by the police in London over the weekend, what steps will the Minister take to ensure that peaceful protest can take place in this country?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Local Elections: Cancellation · Hansard source

  More

  Last year, a junior Housing Minister, the hon. Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), stood at the Dispatch Box and said that “local council elections are happening in 2026. We are cracking on with it”. —[ Official Report , 4 December 2025; Vol. 776, c. 1164.] For some communities, this is the second year in a row that elections have been cancelled. How does the Minister expect the British people to believe anything this Government say, or have any faith in their commitment to democracy?

• 15 Jan 2026 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister accept that announcing mandatory digital ID, only to then retreat to voluntary digital ID, has merely created an expensive and chaotic shambles? Will he rule out unequivocally that this retreat is not a trojan horse for compulsory digital ID being imposed on the public at a later date—yes or no?

• 14 Jan 2026 · Northern Powerhouse Rail · Hansard source

  More

  As a north-west MP, I of course welcome all efforts to improve connectivity across the north for my constituents, but the devil is always in the detail. I have looked at the Liverpool to Manchester proposals, and the journey would actually be 20 minutes slower than it is currently. The Secretary of State also talked about improving access to Manchester airport, but the link stops a mile outside the airport, and people have to take a bus from there. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that she will review the points that I have made?

• 14 Jan 2026 · Northern Powerhouse Rail · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I do withdraw that. I am sorry. I apologise. However— [ Interruption. ]

• 14 Jan 2026 · Northern Powerhouse Rail · Hansard source

  More

  No, we haven’t. That’s a lie! [ Interruption. ]

• 14 Jan 2026 · Northern Powerhouse Rail · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I believe that the Secretary of State has inadvertently misled the House on Reform’s voting record. We have always supported more transport in the north. I ask your advice on how we can correct the record.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Iran · Hansard source

  More

  We join the Foreign Secretary in her support for the brave Iranian protesters standing up against this brutal regime. Will she confirm that if the United States does take targeted military action, she will join us in supporting it in that action?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Social Media: Non-consensual Sexual Deepfakes · Hansard source

  More

  Given the devastating harm caused by non-consensual sexual deepfakes and the reality that the Online Safety Act is ineffective against international social media platforms, how will the Secretary of State ensure the immediate removal of this material? How will she deliver practical support to women and girls from the moment that they become victims?