Tom Gordon MP: speeches 2025

259 published records · newest first.

Speeches

10 Jun 2025 · Mass Transit: West Yorkshire · Hansard source
More
Will the Minister give way?
10 Jun 2025 · Mass Transit: West Yorkshire · Hansard source
More
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) on securing this debate on such an important topic. The recent announcement of local transport investment marks a significant milestone for West Yorkshire—particularly the long-awaited mass transit system, which will finally bring trams back to the region. The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for a mass transit network across Leeds and West Yorkshire; as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, Leeds is the largest city in western Europe without one, so the funding is very welcome. Transport challenges do not stop at city boundaries, however. People’s lives span towns, villages and rural areas, and so must the solutions. We need a truly Yorkshire-wide approach that encourages cross-boundary collaboration, unlocks regional growth and serves all communities, not just urban cores. In that spirit, I want to focus on the fantastic work of Liberal Democrat councillors across West Yorkshire, who have been campaigning tirelessly on public transport issues over a number of years. To wind the clock back a bit, I was at one point a West Yorkshire Liberal Democrat councillor. Interestingly, at that point in time, my council ward was wrapped around on three sides by North Yorkshire. I was raised in West Yorkshire, but educated at Selby college, so I know all too well the issues with cross-boundary transit. Therefore, while the Liberal Democrats and I welcome this new funding, a proper Yorkshire-wide approach is key to ensuring that infrastructure does not end at those arbitrary lines. Let us look around West Yorkshire: councillors on the ground in Bradford, including Jeanette Sunderland, have been campaigning for over a decade to improve bus connections to Apperley Bridge rail station—a vital link that is still missing for over 15,000 homes. Without it, many are cut off from easy rail access, limiting opportunities for work and education. Councillor Brendan Stubbs has rightly been calling for urgent action to secure funding for a new Bradford bus station. The current station, as we know, is crumbling and unsafe, and new facilities must integrate effectively with the proposed tram network to serve Bradford’s future needs. In Kirklees, local councillors John Lawson and Baroness Pinnock have raised concerns about the Dewsbury-Cleckheaton bus lane proposals. Objections are focused mainly on safety risks, disruption from construction and potential congestion. Many argue that simpler, lower-cost measures, such as improved traffic light control and enhanced bus reliability, would provide better value for money and cause less disruption. Turning to the White Rose shopping centre that the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley mentioned, I think it is good that announcements have been made for phase 1. My concern is that the work on the train station there was already under way, but it was paused after it went over budget of the £26 million originally anticipated. If we are being honest, there has been a bit of a face-saving exercise put on by the combined authority.
10 Jun 2025 · Nuclear Power: Investment · Hansard source
More
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask the Secretary of State what guarantees are in place to ensure that these jobs go to local people rather than to overseas contractors? Also, what investment in training and skills will be provided to make sure that they go to local people on the ground?
20 May 2025 · Adoption and Kinship Placements · Hansard source
More
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for allowing me to intervene first. In the Adjournment debate that I held on this subject, the Minister responded, “support for adopted children is critical. It can decrease the likelihood of adoption disruptions or breakdowns.” —[ Official Report , 3 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 555.] In real terms to people on the ground, this is a cut, so will she acknowledge that the actions of her Government will have an impact on adoption breakdown and disruption?
20 May 2025 · Adoption and Kinship Placements · Hansard source
More
rose—
16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source
More
I will make progress. Let me speak to the reality of my amendment with a story from a constituent who does not wish to be named. She wrote to me about her brother, who died at age 58 from MND. Prior to his diagnosis, he was strong, healthy and, as she put it, a lot of fun. He was a great family man, but it was dreadful to watch his illness progress, and it had a profound impact on the family. It took 18 months of effort, worry and deep distress before he finally passed away. He wanted to have control over the time of his death, knowing what was to come. My constituent wrote: “A difficult subject for most of us to contemplate, but in his particular case the possibility of assisted dying would have given him much comfort.”
16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source
More
I am bringing my remarks to a close. If we believe in dignity, let us ensure it is a dignity that includes everyone; if we believe in autonomy, let us not deny it to those who may lose their voice tomorrow; and if we believe in compassion, let it be a compassion that recognises the lived reality of all terminal illnesses and does not consign those with MND to the status quo.
16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source
More
I will make some progress. The amendment is not about eroding the careful work that the Bill Committee has done to expand the rigorous safeguards already in the Bill; it is about ensuring that some people with the cruellest terminal conditions are not left out of the options that we are seeking to give others.
16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source
More
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. It was really interesting how the debate was conducted on Second Reading and in Committee, and how we were meant to be having that respectful debate, and it is disappointing to hear comments from opponents already. Amendment 4 seeks a simple yet crucial change to extend the eligibility period for those with neurodegenerative conditions, from six months to 12 months, something that is already reflected in legislation in five of six Australian states. My amendment mirrors the wording used in that legislation, and it is based not on conjecture but on medical reality, international precedent and, most importantly, the lived experiences of those facing some of the most harrowing diseases imaginable. Amendment 4 would not expand the Bill’s reach beyond terminal conditions; it simply acknowledges that for people with conditions such as MND and other neurodegenerative diseases, the current six-month prognosis requirement creates a cruel and unnecessary barrier.
16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source
More
The right hon. Member makes a pertinent point about other jurisdictions and the different Bills and conversations around them that they have. I tabled my amendment in order to ensure that we have that debate in this place. I extend my condolences to the family. These are progressive, irreversible diseases; their trajectory is well understood; and their toll is devastating. People with MND, for instance, often face a relentless loss of muscle function, leaving them unable to move, speak or even swallow. Before they reach the six-month prognosis threshold, they may already be enduring intolerable suffering. Crucially, many will lose the capacity necessary to make an application before they ever qualify. The Bill already contains the most robust protections of any assisted dying Bill in the world, with mandatory capacity assessments, a multi-step approval process and a clear requirement for terminal illness. We have gone further than any other jurisdiction in terms of safeguards.
16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source
More
I start by thanking the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) for introducing the Bill and for giving me the opportunity to serve on the Bill Committee. I rise to speak in favour of my amendment 4, which goes to the very heart of what the Bill is all about: dignity, compassion and choice at the end of life.
16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source
More
I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful and compelling intervention. We risk creating a two-tier system. We say that we want to fix the status quo because we know that it is not working, but if the Bill forces people such as my constituent’s brother to consider dying earlier—or worse, to have to travel abroad for an assisted death in another far-off, distant country under different laws—then have we really changed anything? We may be telling people with cancer that they can access a dignified death under the Bill, but also telling those with neurodegenerative conditions such as MND that they must either endure prolonged suffering or act prematurely, just to stay ahead of a ticking clock. That is not justice, in my view, and it is certainly not compassion. International experience backs up the amendment. In Victoria, where a 12-month limit applies to neurodegenerative conditions, only 7% of applicants lose capacity before they can proceed. In New Zealand, where the six-month threshold remains, many people are excluded because they lose that ability too soon. We know that MND takes more than 2,000 lives a year in the UK alone—six people every single day. I ask colleagues not to turn away from those people; not to dismiss their fears, their hopes or their pleas for fairness.
16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source
More
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The amendment is designed to stop our having a conversation about eligibility after this Bill. I want to see a Bill that stops the argument about a slippery slope and gives equitable access to people with all health conditions.
16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source
More
I will make a little progress, as I was in the middle of a quotation. It continues: “Unless you are actually affected by something as desperate as MND, you cannot understand what it really means to have such an option.” My constituent is right. We can debate legal safeguards, ethics and precedents all day in this Chamber, but for those who are living with devastating diseases, this is not theoretical; it is personal, it is urgent and it is real.
16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source
More
I will make a little progress. We have gone further than any other jurisdiction in terms of safeguards. Why, then, if we are satisfied that our safeguards are robust, are we excluding those with neurodegenerative diseases—people who are terminally ill—on the basis of an arbitrary timeframe? We say that the Bill is about choice, but for someone who has already lost the ability to speak or move and who knows that they are on a rapid decline, what choice do we offer? Are we saying, “Wait until your prognosis hits six months, if a doctor can say so with confidence, and then hope that you will still have the cognitive ability to apply”?
15 May 2025 · Accountability for Daesh Crimes · Hansard source
More
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine, and a privilege to speak on this important statement on the Joint Committee on Human Rights report “Accountability for Daesh crimes”. The report represents the shared conclusions of a cross-party group of parliamentarians from both Houses, a rare show of unanimity in one of the most disturbing human rights failures of our time. Let us begin with the facts. Between 2014 and 2017, Daesh—also known as Islamic State—waged a campaign of brutal violence and terror across Syria and Iraq. They targeted ethnic and religious minorities, including Christians, Muslims and particularly the Yazidi people, with a clear intent to destroy them as a group. Thousands of Yazidis were executed. Women and girls were abducted, raped, sold and enslaved, and many remain unaccounted for. Children were indoctrinated or taken for use as child soldiers. These were not isolated atrocities. They were systematic and intentional. They were acts of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. In 2023, the UK Government formally recognised that Daesh had committed genocide against the Yazidi people. That recognition matters, but recognition without justice is not enough. The uncomfortable truth is that nearly 3,000 women and girls were taken by Daesh and that, while a number of UK nationals were involved in these crimes and some have since returned to this country, not a single one of them has been prosecuted in the UK for international crimes such as genocide. Only around 32 returnees have been prosecuted for terrorism-related offences. Although it is welcome that those prosecutions have taken place, they fall short of the accountability that the scale and the nature of these crimes demands. Let me be blunt: it is a stain on the UK’s human rights record that we have not prosecuted a single individual for some of these crimes, despite having the legal tools and the moral obligation to do so. Other countries have stepped up; in Germany, several Daish perpetrators have been successfully prosecuted for war crimes and genocide. There is no reason the UK cannot do the same, except for a failure of political will and legal infrastructure. Our report makes a serious of clear, practical recommendations that would begin to put that right. First, we call for a reset in the UK’s approach to investigating and prosecuting international crimes. The current emphasis by UK law enforcement is overwhelmingly on terrorism offences. While that focus is understandable, it is currently insufficient. Genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity are distinct crimes under international law and must be treated as such. The Government must develop a strategic framework that enforces and ensures that law enforcement, intelligence and prosecuting agencies work together to gather the necessary evidence to bring these cases to court. This is not just about justice for victims abroad; it is about our credibility at home too. British citizens should not be able to participate in genocide abroad and return to the UK without facing the full weight of the law. Secondly, we call for a change in the law. At present, under the International Criminal Court Act 2001, the UK can only prosecute individuals for international crimes such as genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity if they are UK nationals or residents. That is a major gap in our legal framework. Those are not crimes that should be subjected to jurisdictional loopholes. We urge the Government to amend legislation, specifically the Crime and Policing Bill currently before Parliament, to enshrine universal jurisdiction for those crimes in UK law. Doing so would mean that anyone, regardless of nationality or residency, could be prosecuted in the UK courts for the worst crimes known to humanity. That is not a radical proposal, but a long-overdue alignment of our legal system with our moral and international obligations. Thirdly, we raise serious concerns about the deprivation of citizenship. The Government have used their powers to strip some individuals, particularly those suspected of involvement in terrorism abroad, of British nationality. We are concerned that in some cases the power has been used as a substitute for prosecution—in effect, removing people from our jurisdiction without holding them accountable for the crimes that they have committed. We call for greater oversight of the power. It should be subject to independent review and transparency mechanisms. Citizenship deprivation should never be used to avoid prosecution, nor to wash our hands of British nationals involved in the most serious international crimes. Fourthly, we cannot ignore the humanitarian and security crisis in Syria. There are still UK nationals, including children, detained in camps that are overcrowded, dangerous and inhumane. Children face the daily risk of malnutrition, disease and violence. The camps have been described as, in effect, open-air prisons. They are not places for recovery or rehabilitation. The UK cannot simply look away; these are British citizens, many of whom are minors. Some of them were taken to Syria by parents, while others may have been born there. None of them should be condemned to a life of statelessness or radicalisation. We call on the Government to identify the number and status of those children, and to bring forward proposals for their resettlement and care. Where British adults in these camps are suspected of involvement in Daesh crimes, the UK must take all steps to prosecute them here at home, in accordance with due process and the rule of law. The failure to prosecute those crimes sends a dangerous message to perpetrators, victims and the world. It tells perpetrators that they can get away with genocide if they are clever about which passport they hold, it tells victims that their suffering does not matter unless it happens within our own borders, and it tells the world that the UK is willing to tolerate impunity for the worst atrocities committed in modern times. The Joint Committee on Human Rights believes that Britain must do better. Justice delayed is justice denied, and impunity is injustice enshrined. Let us be clear: the UK has the legal tools, the institutional capacity and the moral responsibility to act. What we need now is political leadership from the Government. I thank everyone who gave evidence to the Joint Committee, whether written, in person or in any other form. I also thank those people who were brave in speaking out and sharing the situations that they and their families had been through. I acknowledge the work of the Committee support staff throughout this inquiry. I commend the report to the House and urge the Government to implement its recommendations without delay.
15 May 2025 · Accountability for Daesh Crimes · Hansard source
More
The Government could do more to look at, collate and document that information, so that we have something that we can refer back to for similar situations that may, sadly, occur in the future. The evidence sessions were carried out in the last Parliament, before my election, but I have read some of the transcripts, and they were truly harrowing. I cannot imagine what it must have been like for people who had to listen to that evidence, or for the people themselves giving it. We owe it to them, and to all victims of such crimes, to ensure that we never allow their words to be forgotten.
15 May 2025 · Accountability for Daesh Crimes · Hansard source
More
I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. Throughout our discussion, our deliberations and the formulation of the report, the Committee talked extensively about that. A number of issues pertain to the rights of a child, and one of the key structural points of the report is the deprivation of citizenship. We tried to avoid talking about specific individuals, but the report clearly sets out what we think the appropriate mechanisms are for the Government: namely, that the power should not be used as a tool routinely and that, where it is used, there should be review, accountability and scrutiny.
15 May 2025 · Solar Farms · Hansard source
More
I have a solar development in my constituency, and there are proposals for a battery storage solution. The hon. Gentleman mentions safety. I am hoping to address that through an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that would require relevant fire authorities to be statutory consultees. Would he support that?
15 May 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source
More
A number of weeks ago, I mentioned the inaugural Harrogate town council elections. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating all those who were elected? May we have a debate in Government time on local government reorganisation? Harrogate borough council used to receive 0.5% of profits from Harrogate Spring Water, but that has now been taken away by North Yorkshire council. We want them to go back to the new Harrogate town council to ensure that local communities do not miss out when we have the new super councils that are not so super.
14 May 2025 · Infected Blood Inquiry: Government Response · Hansard source
More
A constituent of mine infected with hepatitis C and under the special category mechanism has written to express their distress that earlier this year supplementary regulations removed the provisions, which they had previously been promised, to bring their compensation in line with those with cirrhosis. The group were assured that there would not need to go through another round of evidence gathering, yet they have been left without recourse through this mechanism. Will the Minister explain why these provisions were changed, what redress is available to this cohort of approximately 915 people, and what steps will be brought forward to ensure that further reassurances are not breached?
12 May 2025 · British Nationals Murdered Abroad: Support for Families · Hansard source
More
I have been helping a constituent whose relative was murdered abroad over 10 years ago, and it is still an ongoing issue. My constituent tells me that the responses from the FCDO have not always been prompt or clear, that there has not always been a named point of contact and that, sadly, in some instances there have been mistakes in emails that were labelled “official” by the FCDO. In addition to offering support to colleagues through talking about their experiences, would the Minister and her colleagues consider setting up some sort of drop-in to which MPs could bring their cases, so that we can all help our constituents to get the justice they deserve?
12 May 2025 · British Nationals Murdered Abroad: Support for Families · Hansard source
More
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He eloquently outlined the steps that would ensure that people who suffer bereavement abroad receive justice. Does he agree that as well as having a framework for going forward, we also need the Foreign Office to look retrospectively at historical cases to ensure that people who have previously suffered get the justice they deserve?
8 May 2025 · Climate Resilience Plans · Hansard source
More
With the effects of climate change already being felt, the Institution of Civil Engineers and others have urged the Government to prioritise infrastructure resilience. Following the Court ruling on the third national adaptation programme, the Government pledged to strengthen the approach, but the Climate Change Committee called this “ineffective”. When will the Department publish its updated plans, and how will it strengthen them?
8 May 2025 · Climate Resilience Plans · Hansard source
More
11. If he will publish updated climate resilience plans.

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →