Al Pinkerton MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak in this debate at the start of Armed Forces Week, and as a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme—it has been the honour of a lifetime to be a member for the past couple of years. It has been wonderful to get to know friends and colleagues across the House on that programme. There is truly no better way to understand the challenges and opportunities of our armed forces than through participating in that scheme. I encourage all Members to consider it. In that spirit, I also encourage Members to engage with the defence showcase currently being held in Speaker’s Court. I had the privilege to speak to the bomb disposal unit based in Aldershot today, who do incredible work in hugely dangerous circumstances. The Liberal Democrats have tabled an amendment because Britain needs a serious defence policy for a dangerous age. That sentiment is shared across this House, even if we sometimes disagree about how to get there. I will be clear about our position on the Conservative motion, because parts of it identify genuine and real problems. Britain does, undoubtedly, need to restore its military capability. Recruitment, retention and morale must be rebuilt. Service personnel and veterans deserve dignity, from suitable housing to mental health support. Recognising a problem, however, is different from offering a credible solution. We cannot support a motion that asks this House to forget—or at least fail to properly acknowledge—who hollowed out our armed forces in the first place. The motion talks of rebuilding the Army, after the Conservatives cut troops by 10,000. It proposes to pay for new commitments by punishing struggling families and targeting the two-child benefit cap, sacrificing human security for strategic security without doing the hard work to genuinely move people into the workplace. The motion fails to meet the central strategic reality facing Britain: Europe is rearming, the United States is less reliable than it once was, and Britain must be at the heart of European defence co-operation.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—and, if I may say so, my friend; he has supported me in debates in the past—for his intervention. We are opposed to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which delivers neither justice for victims nor protection for veterans. I will talk a little more about that as I conclude my speech—in fact, I will move on now to talk about the issue of legacy.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—my near neighbour and friend—for his intervention. The private Member’s Bill that he describes sounds entirely consistent with the argument that I am making today. I shall take the opportunity to study the precise wording of the Bill before fully committing to it, but it certainly sounds consistent with my argument today, and I am grateful to him for bringing it to my attention. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) and I have engaged extensively with veterans associations. The amendments we will propose reflect their concerns by calling for enhanced oversight and the protection of veterans’ rights. At a time of acute threat, our military needs urgent restoration, but Labour has previously moved too slowly to undo the damage. The delay to the defence investment plan has created uncertainty for our armed forces, our industry and our allies. I note that His Majesty’s Opposition failed yesterday to back our new clause 22 to the Armed Forces Bill, which would have required a report into the damage done to British business by the delay to the DIP. That was a missed opportunity.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has asked me to speculate on elements of the DIP that I have not seen; he has the privilege of the insights he has gained from his recent visit. I simply point out that investment in the kind of structures and networks that he talks about pays multiple dividends in defence co-operation and long-standing and sustainable defence diplomacy. At a time when the threats facing the United Kingdom are the greatest since they have been since the end of the cold war, that is particularly important. Vladimir Putin continues his brutal invasion of Ukraine, while expanding hybrid war, sabotage and disinformation across the United Kingdom and Europe. At the same time, Donald Trump’s wavering commitment to European security casts doubt on NATO’s collective defence. That is the world in which this debate takes place: one that is more fragmented and unstable, and in which Britain cannot afford delay, drift or self-deception.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  I would absolutely be delighted to.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend speaks from a position of authority from his personal experience and his role in Committees in this House. I defer, as always, to his superior insights on the matter, and would not differ on anything he has suggested. Britain’s European allies share our values and commitment to collective defence. We cannot be a spectator while Europe rebuilds its defences; instead, we should shape and lead that effort. On the Conservatives’ watch, our Army fell to its smallest size since the Napoleonic wars, while the Navy’s surface fleet fell to its smallest size since the English civil war. We saw crises of recruitment, retention and morale and a failure to look after our service personnel and veterans properly, with shoddy housing and one of the worst privatisation deals in British political history.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is absolutely right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) acknowledged, parties across this House sought to leverage too much from the so-called peace dividend. While my hon. Friend and I have acknowledged that, will the hon. Member’s party do the same? On the question of defence investment bonds, it is about engaging the wider public and private finance institutions in common participation and the recognition that we need to invest more in defence. It is borrowing, but it is money that can be injected into the defence economy instantaneously, whereas the proposals from the official Opposition will take years to filter through, because cuts to welfare are not instant.

• 22 Jun 2026 · G7 Summit · Hansard source

  More

  The Government lauded the EU-UK reset deal as potentially delivering a modest yet none the less material 0.2% uplift to GDP per annum. That equates to about £6 billion per year, or £500 million per month. Given that the EU has announced a delay to that summit, does the Deputy Prime Minister consider £500 million to be a price too high, a price too low, or about right for the latest palace coup within the Labour party?

• 11 Jun 2026 · Point of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you and Members across the House know, there has been widespread speculation in the press and this House over the last 24 to 48 hours that either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Defence will announce the defence investment plan in whole or large part tomorrow, on a non-sitting day and in a non-parliamentary location. I wonder whether you can advise the House on the correct protocols for announcing such nationally consequential measures. What should our expectations as Members of this House be, and is there anything that we can do to compel the Government to make nationally significant announcements here in the House, where democratic scrutiny can immediately follow?

• 11 Jun 2026 · Road Junction Safety · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency of Surrey Heath, the M3/A322 junction between Bagshot and Lightwater remains a serious congestion bottleneck for local residents and a serious source of frustration for motorway users—it is notorious on all morning travel reports. Poor advance signage and a confusing road layout cause frequent near misses and dangerous last-minute manoeuvres. We can add to the mix a doubling of housing targets in our local area. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that critical junctions are safe, clearly signposted and fit for future population growth?

• 11 Jun 2026 · Road Junction Safety · Hansard source

  More

  6. What steps she is taking help improve safety at road junctions.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Freedom of Religion or Belief: Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I believe that this might be the first occasion on which I have done so. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who, not untypically, asked the right question with the deep care and compassion that always moves us. He was kind enough to reference the fact that I was in Sudan in 2022, so I speak from some limited personal experience in these matters; I will reflect on that shortly. It is important to acknowledge from the outset, though, that the conflict in Sudan today is the world’s largest humanitarian crisis. It is a catastrophe unfolding before our eyes—and what is so disappointing at times is that we do not seem to see it, to hear it or to read about it. As we focus on other events around the world, those terrible atrocities in Sudan fall away from the public gaze. That is deeply regrettable, because of the appalling tragedies that are unfolding there, which the hon. Member for Strangford has just spoken about: millions of people enduring unimaginable suffering, families are being forced from their homes, communities being shattered and many now facing starvation. I was in Sudan in 2022 working on an academic project. We were tracing the border between Sudan and Egypt—a British creation. There are two different borders constantly under negotiation, drawn at the end of the 19th century and the start of the 20th century, leaving a curious geographical anomaly called Bir Tawil between them. We started our journey in Khartoum, working alongside Sudanese guides, who were extraordinary in their care, service and hospitality. As we travelled north through the Nubian desert, we came across one of the key actors that has driven the conflict to where it is today. Just outside one of the stations on the old British railway that used to run from Wadi Halfa down to Khartoum, we came across the Wagner Group, the Russian paramilitary organisation. They were stationed in the Nubian desert, extracting tons of gold from the sands—transporting it back to Russia to fuel the war in eastern Europe—and training Sudanese paramilitaries at the same time. We were warned by local members of the Ababda tribe, who inscribed the symbol of the skull and crossbones—the symbol of the Wagner Group—into the sand, that we should not proceed any further along that particular wadi. As the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned, there are forces internal and external to Sudan who are driving this conflict. He has mentioned the United Arab Emirates, which I will talk about, but we should not forget the malign forces of the likes of Russia and its proxies, including the Wagner Group. The scale of the violence we are seeing today is truly horrifying. Across the country, civilians are living in fear, insecurity and hardship every single day. Amidst this devastating conflict, fundamental human rights, including freedom of religion or belief, are increasingly under threat. At a time when the very concept of human rights is under sustained threat globally, some might find it controversial to suggest that freedom of religion or belief is indeed a universal human right. The truth is that it should not be a controversial concept or principle, and we should continue to hold on to it. Every individual should be free to practise the faith of their choice, change their beliefs or hold no religious belief at all, without fear of discrimination, persecution or violence. However, reports from Sudan paint a deeply troubling picture. Religious minorities have faced discrimination and intimidation, places of worship have come under attack, and restrictions on religious practice have affected people from a wide range of faith communities and backgrounds. Those abuses are unacceptable and must not be ignored. The international community has so far failed to do enough. More must be done to safeguard religious freedoms, protect vulnerable minorities and uphold the basic rights and dignity of all Sudanese people. To make one party political reference, in our 2024 general election manifesto, the Liberal Democrats reaffirmed our commitment to protecting, defending and promoting human rights, including the rights of those persecuted because of religious or other faith-based beliefs. An unwavering commitment to human rights and the rule of law is frankly why I am a Liberal Democrat, but I also recognise that those commitments have long defined who we are as a nation and a people, and there is no better place to express them than in this Chamber. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the appointment of an ambassador-level champion for freedom of religion or belief, ensuring that those issues remain a priority in British foreign policy. We continue to support a robust, rights-based approach to tackling the persecution of religious minorities around the world, and that means applying diplomatic pressure where necessary, strengthening protections for those seeking asylum, supporting international accountability mechanisms and backing civil society organisations that work tirelessly to defend religious freedom. In Sudan, that begins with the UK Government working more closely with international partners to protect religious rights and challenge those—both indigenous and exogenous to Sudan—who are responsible for persecution and violence. It must include a clear commitment to upholding article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights, which guarantees “the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”. As the hon. Member for Strangford said, the United Kingdom has a particular responsibility in this area as the United Nations Security Council penholder on Sudan. Therefore, it is uniquely placed to lead international efforts on this crisis. I encourage the Government to use that position to work with allies and partners to push for a ceasefire and prevent further loss of life. The Liberal Democrats have also called for stronger international action to establish a Sudan-wide arms embargo to stem the flow of weapons that continue to fuel this conflict. Alongside that, the Government might usefully redouble their efforts to establish a multilateral contact group capable of co-ordinating the international response and building consensus among key partners. The international community must resist attempts to legitimise those driving the conflict within and outwith Sudan. It must ensure that individuals responsible for war crimes and serious human rights abuses are held accountable. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the United Arab Emirates, and it is important that we do, because the role it plays in Sudan has often gone unmentioned in this place. I hope the Minister will offer some comments and reflections on what can be done to ensure that its deeply toxic relationship with Sudan is affected by British diplomacy. Sudan’s future should be determined by civilian leadership, not by armed forces. At home, the Government should do more to raise public awareness of the crisis and work closely with the Disasters Emergency Committee to support a nationwide humanitarian appeal. Humanitarian workers continue to risk their lives delivering aid to those in the most desperate need, yet they are too often targeted by attacks and reprisals from the RSF and the Sudanese armed forces. The UK should work with international and regional partners to secure guarantees for their protection, and should press all parties to allow safe and unrestricted humanitarian access across Sudan. We must also take stronger action against the smuggling networks that sustain the conflict and prolong the suffering of ordinary Sudanese people. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the humanitarian catastrophe. The United Nations appeal and the regional refugee response must be properly funded. The Government should reverse their plans to cut official development assistance and should set out a clear pathway towards restoring aid spending. Particular attention must be given to Sudanese children, who have borne a disproportionate share of the conflict’s consequences. Millions have been denied access to education, healthcare and basic security; an entire generation has been placed at risk. Individuals and entities responsible for perpetrating, providing arms for or enabling serious human rights abuses in Sudan already face sanctions from the United Kingdom, the United States, the European Union and others. Those measures should remain under constant review and should be strengthened where necessary. I would go as far as to say that they should be expanded to include the role of the United Arab Emirates. The people of Sudan deserve peace, dignity and the freedom to live according to their beliefs, without fear. The international community, and the United Kingdom in particular, must not look away. We must act with urgency, defend human rights, uphold freedom of religion and belief, and stand alongside the people of Sudan in their time of greatest need.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I associate myself and my hon. Friends with the condolences paid to the families of the crew who died in the tragic helicopter crash last week. The defence investment plan is still not published, and after nine months, industry waits for certainty, our allies for clarity and our armed forces for the investment they were promised. At a time of acute threat, defence cannot be switched on overnight. We cannot rebuild industrial capacity, train personnel, modernise equipment or restore deterrence through vague promises about working at pace. Small and medium-sized enterprises are clear that investment decisions are delayed, expansion is on hold and our contracts are being lost overseas. British firms stand ready to grow and hire, but this delay is freezing procurement, paralysing the supply chain and creating doubt about Britain’s commitment to rearmament. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether he has assessed the economic damage caused to British businesses by the delayed defence investment plan? Given the apparent deadlock between the Treasury and the MOD, will he seriously consider our proposal to issue £20 billion of defence bonds?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The relocation of Frimley Park hospital in my constituency is a £1.8 billion project, but none of the costs of the essential infrastructure to enable the new site to go ahead have been costed or budgeted for. The chief executives of the hospital simply have said that those costs will have to come from the new hospital programme contingency fund. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is no way to start a project of such size, scale and significance, and will he meet me to address those concerns?

• 9 Jun 2026 · North Belfast: Violent Attack · Hansard source

  More

  The reports from Kinnaird Avenue are deeply distressing. My thoughts are with the victim and his family. I pay tribute to the residents who did the extraordinary thing of running towards danger, intervening to restrain the attacker and helping to protect another person’s life. I also thank the police officers and paramedics who responded with such speed and professionalism. Their actions almost certainly saved a life yesterday evening. What I know of north Belfast is that it is a community that has worked hard to build trust across long-standing divides, and residents will be as horrified by this attack as the rest of us. Will the Secretary of State reassure residents that they will be kept safe in the days ahead, confirm that the PSNI has the support it needs to maintain a visible presence, and make it clear that no one should exploit one individual’s actions to cast suspicion on a whole community?

• 8 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent, Richard, has been unable to work for four months because of Disclosure and Barring Service delays. Things are getting desperate at home, and he faces the prospect of defaulting on his mortgage this month. There has been a 10-month delay from the point of application to now. Will one of the Front-Bench team look at his case in particular, to help him out, but also try to take a hand of the DBS more generally?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Children: Development of Essential Skills · Hansard source

  More

  I have been contacted in the past week by pupils from Collingwood college in Surrey Heath—it is very close to Bracknell, but I can still claim it. They have been talking to me about mis- and disinformation, and they have said how important it is to receive citizenship education, which is excellently delivered at Collingwood. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that citizenship is one of the core, critical skills that gives children exactly the kind of awareness of mis- and disinformation that is vital as we approach the mid-21st century?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I should like to quote a few words from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), speaking just a couple of months ago in this Chamber: “This month marks 20 years since I returned from serving on Operation Telic 7 in Iraq. While I was there, we patrolled Basra in Snatch Land Rovers, and 34 British soldiers died in Snatch Land Rovers. They were called “mobile coffins” and “suicide wagons” for a reason. In 2006, it was highlighted to the Government that those vehicles were unsuitable, and it was not until years later that they were replaced.” —[ Official Report , 15 April 2026; Vol. 783, c. 842.] It was not the ECHR that put British soldiers’ lives at risk in Iraq, but it was the ECHR that provided the legal basis for the families of those victims to seek justice. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is looking through the wrong end of the telescope on this one. By seeking to remove us from the ECHR, he is potentially putting British service people at greater risk, rather than offering them protection.

• 2 Jun 2026 · EU Internal Electricity Market · Hansard source

  More

  10. What recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the UK’s participation in the EU’s internal electricity market.

• 2 Jun 2026 · EU Internal Electricity Market · Hansard source

  More

  At a time of intense geopolitical instability, British households remain particularly exposed to volatile global energy prices. Indeed, Ofgem has announced a 13% rise in the energy price cap from July. Given that there are interconnectors with six European countries already, does the Minister agree with a coterie of esteemed energy economists that the single greatest thing that this Government could do to strengthen our energy security, drive long-term investment in renewable energy and bring down bills would be to recouple our electricity market with that of the European Union? [ Interruption. ]

• 1 Jun 2026 · Child Sexual Offender Data · Hansard source

  More

  A few moments ago, my hon. Friend mentioned data. The House of Commons Library has compiled some information from 2021 to 2025, which shows that the single largest ethnic group of perpetrators of child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom was white British men, who were responsible for 58.35% of all such incidents. I do not say that to reinforce points that have already been made; I do so to emphasise the second most prominent category of ethnicity, which is simply “Unknown”. That data shadow is shameful. It fails the victims of child sexual exploitation, but it also creates the space in which speculation and distrust have been allowed to flourish. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need not only to gather better data, but to robustly and systematically analyse it, in order to finally allow the truth about child sexual exploitation to be brought out into the light?

• 19 May 2026 · Family Courts · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for that response. My constituent Olivia is an extraordinary survivor of sustained coercive control involving psychological, physical and financial abuse—a set of abuses that continued even after her separation from her partner, because of child contact arrangements, which left her in persistent fear for both her safety and that of her child. What steps are the Secretary of State and his Front Bench team taking to strengthen safeguarding in the family courts and to protect domestic abuse survivors from re-traumatisation, particularly when perpetrators use mechanisms such as child contact arrangements to continue their abuse?

• 19 May 2026 · Family Courts · Hansard source

  More

  1. What steps he is taking to reform the family courts.

• 21 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the Conservative Lords on insisting on amendment 37. However, I wonder whether the shadow Secretary of State might have a word with the Surrey Heath Conservative Association, which has campaigned vigorously against parish councils in my area. It has described parish councils as gravy trains that allow most councillors to do very little—if anything at all—and collect a financial allowance. However, setting that inconsistency to one side, in the context of local government reorganisation in Surrey, where we will have a new West Surrey of 650,000 people that will be bankrupt on day one, parish councils actually represent an incredible receptacle through which to move key local assets so that they can be secured for the future. Does my hon. Friend agree?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  When the Prime Minister asked his officials in January 2025, as he surely did—perhaps with an element of surprise in his voice—“So, Peter actually passed his security clearance, did he?”, what was the scenario that then unfolded? Did Sir Olly Robbins declare, “I’m sorry, I can’t tell you, Prime Minister, I’m not at liberty to say”? Did he actively seek to mislead the Prime Minister by simply saying “Yes, Prime Minister”, or, as seems more likely, did that scenario never take place because the Prime Minister never thought to ask?