Al Pinkerton MP: speeches

Speeches

• 13 Jan 2026 · Airport Drop-off Charges · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) for securing this debate. We have had unanimity across the House, with a real feeling of injustice at the rising charges that we see at almost every airport that has been mentioned today. It should be of concern to all of us, and indeed to our constituents. Many of us receive letters and correspondence about this issue; I certainly do, given my constituency’s proximity to both Heathrow and Gatwick. I will focus on three themes, two of which are directly related to the drop-off charges issue and one of which is a slight shoehorning of another issue that I feel passionately about, which corresponds to the topic of today’s debate. The first issue is about the rising cost of the charges, particularly for people who have no realistic alternative to get to an airport. The second is about the transparency and fairness of the payment processes themselves. The third is about the wider enforcement and security consequences of poorly designed payment systems involving ANPR, and about the insecurities in our ANPR system. I am the Member of Parliament for Surrey Heath. Camberley, our main market town, is 19 miles from Heathrow airport and about 45 miles from Gatwick, but we have incredibly poor public transport systems to take us to those airports, so people rely on driving and therefore incur the £10 charge, for example at Gatwick, which my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) mentioned. These are not lifestyle choices; they are structural necessities, driven by poor public transport infrastructure as we come out of central London and head towards the shires in the likes of Surrey. I absolutely welcome the recent introduction of a fantastic new express bus service from some of the villages in my constituency to Heathrow, but its connect only three of the communities in my constituency to the airport, so lots of people are left beyond that system. For those people, driving is the only realistic option. Of course, the lack of choice disproportionately affects the disabled, people with young children, older people and those travelling to or from regional airports, where public transport systems are even more limited than in my area. That all reflects the wider national picture. The Business Travel Association has been clear that public transport is frequently not a viable substitute for accessing airports, and that pricing people out of kerbside drop-off does not make it suddenly accessible. That leads me to my second point, which is about the fairness and justice of the payment systems themselves. The hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) made a series of excellent points, and I have been a victim of exactly the situations to which he referred. I have driven around the loop at Heathrow airport and incurred the charge that he mentioned, purely by accidentally turning the wrong way. I appealed to get my money back, but I did not get it. Then I had to go and park in a multi-storey car park, so I felt doubly aggrieved, and nobody ever got back to me when I called the number. The problem is that the system seems to be baking in penalties as a form of revenue-raising. I do not know whether that is entirely fair, but that is how people feel and that is the perception. Why do people feel like that? Because the companies involved are not making it straightforward by issuing clear signage and they are not making it easy to make payments. The hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden talked about some of the scenarios in which people go to airports, such as late at night or early in the morning, and they often do multiple other things during the course of the day, so it is easy to forget the act of payment. That leads me to my third point, on ANPR. Because of the increasingly punitive nature of some of the costs, we are seeing a huge rise in the use of ghost plates and in number plate cloning. Constituents of mine have received fines from both Gatwick and Heathrow airports because their number plates had been cloned, perhaps by taxicab companies that are apparently seeking to avoid the repeated application of charges at airports. If the system is driving increased criminality to avoid fines, we have a problem that needs to be explained, because the costs and inconvenience are falling back on constituents. That issue is perhaps not something people will have considered—I think it is the first time it has been raised today—but it is really important. Although the previous Aviation Minister, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), said that there was no intention to review the process, I urge the Government to look at it again. There need to be proper, fair payment systems and a cap on how much airports are allowed to charge, because I do not want to have any more constituents writing to me about it.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Back in November, the Chancellor promised to support the great British pub by introducing permanently lower tax rates in more than 750,000 retail and hospitality properties. In my constituency, the Half Moon will experience an 157% rise in business rates, the Inn at West End an 87% increase and the Frog in Deepcut an increase of 128%. Does my hon. Friend agree that this feels less like support and more like last orders?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Arctic and High North · Hansard source

  More

  Prior to our brief interruption, the Minister described a part of the world that is undergoing considerable change and turbulence, not least from climate change. Will he reflect on how UK procurement and military doctrine might have to go to a similar scale and rapidity of change in order to respond to, and reflect, the challenges of an increasingly liquified Arctic that is no longer in a frozen state?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Leasehold Reform · Hansard source

  More

  May I take the Minister back to the circumstances of constituents who are living in retirement communities? I have a community of constituents who live at Mytchett Heath, owned by Cognatum Estates. They are experiencing very high service charges, and I have written to the Minister about that before. They are made nervous by talk of delay. They are often on a fixed income with fixed-income pensions. They are getting older, and they want to enjoy their retirement in peace. Can the Minister offer them any reassurance today?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Call for General Election · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Call for General Election · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful. More than 1,800 of my constituents have signed the petition that has prompted today’s debate. It would be arrogant for me to assume that those people are necessarily indicating their support for an EU customs union, although it would be sensible if they did. But what I hear from them is that they are feeling worse off than they did yesterday and face the prospect that their children will be worse off tomorrow than they are today. They have signed this petition asking for an urgent general election. The Government have to reconcile this point: unless they can deliver meaningful growth that people can actually feel, there may not be a general election tomorrow but they will be made to pay a high political price the next time one comes. What are they going to do to give the UK the massive dollop of economic growth that this country needs and our constituents need to feel?

• 8 Jan 2026 · Human Rights Abuses: Magnitsky Sanctions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank and congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this important debate. I seem to remember that he once referred to himself as a “quiet man”, but he has had a loud voice on this issue. I also congratulate the other excellent speakers we have heard today. The hon. Members for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton), for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) and for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) took us on a journey through different territories, spaces and countries, and reminded us of the history of the important name that we associate with the kind of sanctions we are talking about. We are living through a period marked by rising authoritarianism, escalating human rights abuses, and the increasing use of corruption and repression as tools of state power. In that context, Magnitsky-style sanctions are among the most powerful instruments in our armoury to uphold human rights, defend international law and promote democracy. Their strength lies in the fact that they target perpetrators, not populations, and individuals, not states, holding those responsible to account without inflicting further humanitarian harm on civilians—at least they do when they are working at their best. Magnitsky sanctions were designed to establish both legitimacy and intent. As Members have noted, they include asset freezes, travel bans, and restrictions on financial transactions, aimed directly at individuals who violate international law or commit serious human rights abuses. Their purpose is to reduce the humanitarian costs associated with blanket sanctions, to draw a clear line between civilians and abusers, and to provide a mechanism for accountability where domestic justice systems very often fail. When used consistently and in co-ordination with our democratic allies, these sanctions carry real power. They deter future abuses, impose reputational and financial consequences, and challenge the assumption among perpetrators that they can act with impunity. Yet despite their importance, the United Kingdom’s current approach is, I contend, still falling short, and in so doing it is undermining the very purpose of the sanctions. Application remains inconsistent, enforcement is insufficient, as we have heard, and transparency and oversight are often inadequate. Sanctions retain their power only when they are applied coherently, consistently and with the political will to enforce them. The Liberal Democrats believe that Magnitsky sanctions remain essential, yet too many individuals credibly implicated in serious abuses and corruption remain unsanctioned. Even where sanctions are imposed, those targeted continue to exploit evasion methods. Delays, gaps and selective application fundamentally weaken deterrence and erode confidence in that regime. We have consistently argued that the UK must be prepared to act decisively, rather than hesitating or allowing political convenience to override principle. On human rights and the rule of law, the United Kingdom must be a leader, not a follower. A key weakness lies in how Magnitsky sanctions are operationalised. There is no clear, strategic approach to when and how the powers are used, leading to narrow and often selective application that ultimately undermines deterrence. Structural complexity has discouraged bold action, and weakened the overall effectiveness of the Magnitsky regime in the UK. That problem is compounded by a lack of alignment with our allies. A significant number of individuals sanctioned by partners such as the United States, the European Union and Canada are not mirrored by the UK, reducing the collective impact of co-ordinated action. In fact, in 2022 the UK failed to replicate 69% of global Magnitsky designations. Let me be clear: these sanctions will not serve their intended purpose without close international co-ordination. Moreover, unlike the United States, the UK does not operate under a single, clearly defined Magnitsky Act. Instead, our framework risks producing narrower and less transparent criteria for designation, particularly in cases involving serious human rights abuses and grand corruption. If we are serious about accountability, we must be bolder, clearer and more decisive in how we use these powers. That is why the Liberal Democrats would prioritise the defence of democracy and the promotion of human rights globally, deepen co-ordination of sanctions policy with our democratic allies—particularly in relation to Russia—and strengthen economic crime legislation to close loopholes that allow sanctioned individuals to evade accountability. Sanctions must be backed by rigorous enforcement and tougher vetting of major investments, or they simply will not work. That principle applies just as strongly to the protection of British nationals overseas. Arbitrary detention is not diplomacy; it is coercion. That is why, as well as appointing a dedicated envoy for arbitrary detention, Magnitsky sanctions must be a tool for enforcement, ensuring that hostage-taking carries a personal cost to those who seek to perpetrate it. Looking ahead, the future development of the UK’s sanctions policy must be genuinely joined up across Government. Only a whole-of-Government approach can ensure effective enforcement, close loopholes and maintain both the credibility and the moral authority of our sanctions regime. The Liberal Democrats are clear about what that means in practice. Sanctions must target the individuals responsible for human rights abuses, not just states. Economic crime legislation must be strengthened to prevent evasion. Magnitsky sanctions must be used proactively, not reluctantly, as they so often appear to be used now. Arms export controls must reflect our human rights obligations, and asset freezing and seizure must be used to stop the flow of dirty money through our financial system. That clarity must be reflected in our response to events around the world. In Hong Kong, a territory that has been mentioned several times during the debate, the Liberal Democrats want to see Magnitsky sanctions imposed on those responsible for the erosion of freedoms and the unacceptable targeting of pro-democracy activists, including those here in the United Kingdom. The arrest warrants recently issued by Beijing are disgraceful attempts to interfere in our democracy, and they must be met with actions that befit the words that are so often spoken in this place and elsewhere. The same boldness is required in response to Russia. We must work with our European partners to seize and repurpose frozen Russian assets, up to £30 billion of which are held in the UK, and direct them towards humanitarian, financial and military support for Ukraine. Sanctions that are not enforced do not constrain aggression, but enable it. That consistency must be extended to Israel too. The Liberal Democrats were the first major UK-wide party to call for a full ban on military exports to Israel, and we continue to demand sanctions against Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Cabinet Ministers for their conduct in Gaza. International law must apply to everyone, without exception, and that includes senior figures in the UAE for their personal and institutional support for the still unfolding atrocities in Sudan. In conclusion, Magnitsky sanctions are undoubtedly a powerful tool, but they cannot be deployed only when politically convenient. If the United Kingdom is to retain credibility on the world stage, our sanctions regime must be principled, consistent and enforced with resolve. Only then can it serve its true purpose: accountability for abusers, justice for victims and the defence of the values we claim to uphold.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Future of Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend describes the tankering of sewage from his constituency. In 2023, those tanks arrived in my constituency and the sewage was stored in open tanks on a Thames Water site for an entire summer, casting a stinky pall over the whole of Camberley town centre. It was an environmental crime and Thames Water promised to pay my constituents compensation, which they have never received. Does he agree that we need a far tougher regulator to bear down on these appalling environmental practices?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Venezuela · Hansard source

  More

  There is an old warning from Benjamin Franklin: “If you do not hang together, you will hang separately.” Given the events in Venezuela in recent days, and given the active threats against Cuba and Mexico, in the past against Canada, and today against Greenland, I ask the Foreign Secretary, where is the line? For the United Kingdom, what now is the Rubicon, the crossing of which would force us to recognise that our silence today will lead only to greater challenge tomorrow? Is it not time that we hang together with our values-based allies to stand up against Trump’s colonial possession taking in central America, whether that is in the western hemisphere or elsewhere?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Housing Development: Cumulative Impacts · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency we have had a 113% increase in our housing targets. A seven-year land supply has now dropped to little over three and a half years, making us susceptible to the very speculative developments that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Does he share my concern that in the circumstances in which speculative developments come forward, we lose the opportunity to plan strategically the infrastructure upgrades that a community needs, and each development brings only a small, incremental increase?

• 17 Dec 2025 · UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations · Hansard source

  More

  We welcome the Minister’s announcement. As a recovering academic—a distinction that I think I share with him—I have witnessed at first hand the impact of our exiting the Erasmus scheme on university student intake. Welcoming students from across the EU into our education institutions and giving our own students opportunities to study abroad have undeniably strengthened our education system, so after years of campaigning, the Liberal Democrats welcome the news that the UK is finally set to rejoin the Erasmus scheme in 2027. However—I am sure the Minister expected there to be a “however”—while this represents an important first step towards building a closer relationship with Europe, I urge him to go further and faster. Beyond this fixed-term experience of Erasmus+, will the Government commit to a proper youth mobility scheme for the benefit of the next generation, and can he update the House on what progress has been made in such negotiations? How confident is he that our food, drink and sanitary and phytosanitary scheme will be agreed by 2026, and how long thereafter will it take to fully implement the scheme? Agrifood and horticultural businesses cannot afford any further delays. Finally, on the subject of unnecessary barriers to trade—which is where the Minister began his statement—will his Department commit itself at the very least to conducting a transparent assessment of the potential economic growth benefits of a UK-EU customs deal of the kind that the House voted for last week?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  The introduction of a remedial order is welcome and necessary, even if its timing is potentially vexed. The order promises to finally end the policy of conditional immunity that was integral to the 2023 legacy Act—a policy that may have had benign intentions, but that put us at odds with our international legal obligations and regrettably drew a moral equivalence between UK service personnel and terrorist paramilitaries. I note that the second report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, published last week, recommended the order’s approval. However, I note also the Committee’s concern regarding the unusual sequencing and timing of the remedial order, in relation to the forthcoming primary legislation. Given the overtly political processes that led to the 2023 Act, I suggest there is an additional responsibility on the Government to ensure that this process is handled properly and that the process, as much as the policy, is seen to be fair-handed. There is broad recognition of the need to repeal and replace the 2023 legacy Act, but we also need to acknowledge that the removal of conditional immunity has created real anxiety, particularly among veterans groups, who fear the risk of prosecution. I particularly welcome the Secretary of State’s letter, circulated yesterday, at annexe A. If I may, I will ask the Secretary of State three things. First of all, to clarify—

• 16 Dec 2025 · Grassroots Cricket Clubs · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) for securing this important debate, despite what may be happening down under at the moment. Grassroots cricket plays a fundamental role in shaping us as individuals. Although such cricket clubs clearly help to keep us fit and healthy, their influence extends far beyond physical activity. They are often where we first learn what it means to be part of a team, and how to respond to frequent setbacks, stay motivated and take responsibility, both individually and collectively. I am sure that many Members present, as well as those of our constituents who are watching from home, will reflect on their own experiences of grassroots sport, whether in childhood or in later life, and recognise how profoundly those moments have stayed with them. Lessons learned on the pitch or in the clubhouse so often translate directly into later life, such as working with others towards a shared goal, striving to meet clear objectives, and developing the discipline required to train early in the morning or late into the evening, just as we do in our professional lives. Grassroots sport therefore contributes significantly to quality of life for individuals and families, building not only physical health but resilient, confident characters. I am very proud to have seven grassroots cricket clubs in my Surrey Heath constituency—Camberley, Frimley, Valley End, Bagshot, Chobham, Pirbright and Normandy —each of which plays a vital role in shaping lives and strengthening our community. These clubs support both children and adults, providing opportunities that promote physical and mental wellbeing. Indeed, my wife and son have both played for Camberley cricket club over recent seasons, so I have seen at first hand the positive impact that it has had on our whole family—I only wish that my diary as a Member of Parliament allowed for more time to watch my son play on sunny weekend afternoons. More broadly, those clubs have had a profound impact on the people they serve, particularly women and girls. Although girls are of course encouraged to participate in sport, there remain far too many barriers to their continued involvement, especially as they reach adolescence. Factors associated with puberty, including changes in body confidence, concerns around kit and facilities, and a lack of appropriate female role models or coaching provision can all contribute to girls disengaging from sport at a critical stage in their development. That is why access to welcoming, inclusive grassroots environments is so important. Outreach initiatives such as the ECB’s All Stars cricket programme play a vital role in encouraging girls and boys to start playing cricket early, build confidence and foster a sense of belonging before the effect of those barriers takes hold. Just as importantly, clubs that actively invest in girls’ pathways through dedicated coaching, suitable facilities and clear progression routes can help to ensure that participation does not fall away as girls grow older. This summer, I had the great privilege of visiting Pirbright cricket club to observe a training session involving girls and boys. Seeing girls confidently taking part in a summer training session, supported by coaches who understood their needs and fostered an inclusive culture, was a genuinely fantastic sight. It is so important to have environments just like that, where girls feel visible, and are supported and valued. However, it is also important to recognise the challenges that grassroots cricket clubs face. While my constituents are fortunate to benefit from seven clubs in the constituency, each with strong outreach and summer programmes, growing participation in cricket is limited in part by the availability of high-quality cricket grounds. A cricket pitch is a highly specialised and bespoke facility, and unlike football or rugby pitches, it does not easily lend itself to multi-purpose use. As a result, cricket facilities are too often overlooked in the planning of new developments and communities. That is why it is so welcome to see an exception at the new Mindenhurst development in my Surrey constituency, where a brand-new cricket pitch and pavilion are being created right now. Indeed, we are looking forward to the first summer of cricket on that ground in just a few months’ time. I truly hope that that example will be replicated across the country, ensuring that future communities have access to the facilities that they need in order to support and expand grassroots cricket for generations to come. With that in mind, I ask the Government: what investment and incentives are being put into grassroots sport infrastructure, particularly given the changes to the national planning policy framework and the overwriting of so many of the protections that are currently in the planning process? What steps will be taken to ensure that facilities such as cricket pitches are properly considered and provided for as part of future planning? Finally, I pay tribute to the volunteers, club coaches, PE teachers, participants and parents—and the parents who are also participants and volunteers—who dedicate their time, week after week, to supporting grassroots sport. Their commitment is the foundation on which those clubs that I have mentioned rely. I wish the best of luck to all the budding cricketers who are honing their skills in winter nets over the coming months, in readiness for next summer—some of whom may go on, one day, to represent their county or even their country.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Africa: New Approach · Hansard source

  More

  The Government are absolutely right to say that the United Kingdom needs a new relationship with Africa. Many Members in this House had hoped that that partnership would be sustainable, strategic and built on mutual trust. Africa, after all, has one of the youngest populations in the world and incredible economic potential, yet the Government are cutting aid to Africa by 12% this year alone, with further reductions likely in years to come. Over the last decade the Liberal Democrats criticised the constant churn in Ministers under the previous Conservative Government, and we are very disappointed that the Africa Minister has recently again been changed. That has come as hard news in continental Africa, where the Minister was appreciated and the hard work that had been undertaken was bearing fruit. Warm words are not enough when the overall trajectory that we see from the UK is arguably one of a diminishing partnership and diminishing influence. The Government are cutting overseas development aid from 0.7% to 0.3%—the lowest this country has ever seen—at a time when debt costs are rising in continental Africa. It is important to invest in the work of the FCDO, because trade commissioners, for example, provide the in-country expertise that is needed to develop the new economic relations that the Minister talks about. On migration, upstream investment in poverty reduction and conflict prevention is more important than ever, as is support for organisations such as the British Council. Africa is an essential strategic partner in an increasingly contested world, so may I ask the Minister directly, how can the Government seriously claim that they are strengthening partnerships and seeking to influence Africa while cutting aid and hollowing out the very tools that make engagement sustainable?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Chagossians: Trust Fund and Resettlement · Hansard source

  More

  The Liberal Democrats have been clear from the start: nothing should be happening to the Chagossian people without the full democratic input of Chagossians themselves, who, in the custom of other overseas territories citizens, we should recognise as a self-governing and self-determining people, even if the UK has deprived Chagossians access to their homeland for more than 50 years. Those principles, if they are to mean anything to our overseas territories family, must be both immutable and universal. In recognising that, I note that I am now joined by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which last week reported that the proposed agreement on the future of the Chagos islands should not be ratified on the grounds that it risks “perpetuating longstanding violations of the Chagossian people’s rights.” I am also concerned about the requirement—made, I think, explicit in the Minister’s statement yesterday—that Chagossian people will only be able to partake in the resettlement programme if, and only if, they accept Mauritian citizenship, even in circumstances where individuals and families have no historical connection, cultural or civic, to that state. Will the Minister therefore set out whether any negotiations have taken place that would have enabled Chagossians to exercise their right of return without being required to subscribe to Mauritian citizenship? Were there any discussions about a Hong Kong-style arrangement, whereby permanent residency and freedom of movement may have been granted outside of citizenship? Finally, how does the Minister reconcile last week’s UN report with his stated desire to conform with our international obligations?

• 9 Dec 2025 · UK-EU Customs Union (Duty to Negotiate) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to place a duty on the Secretary of State to enter into negotiations with the European Union to agree a customs union between the United Kingdom and the European Union; and for connected purposes. Up and down the country, businesses know it, the public feel it and it is time that this House found the courage to lift our whispered voices and admit it: Brexit has been an abject economic failure. It has choked business investment, shattered economic resilience, strangled trade, shrunk the economy and left every single one of us poorer. The economic benefits of Brexit were only ever illusory and a mirage—the kind of shimmering promise you see in the desert in the midday heat that lures you towards it, only to find it always agonisingly out of reach; a promise that dissipates altogether as the cool of the evening returns. Well, that chill has descended, and now we can see clearly that the promises of 2016 and the oven-ready deals of 2021 were nothing more than the lukewarm figments of political opportunists who sought, and in some cases still seek, advantage in populism, in fragmentation and in fear. Far from “taking back control”, today our country feels more precarious than ever. We lurch from crisis to crisis, uncertain of who we are, what we stand for or whether our children will be better off tomorrow than those who came before. Far from becoming a buccaneering “global Britain”, the United Kingdom is today weaker and more isolated than at any point in our recent history. Far from lowering food and living costs or slashing regulation, British businesses are now buried under 2 billion bits of red tape that stretch 15 times around the circumference of the Earth, all while the cost of living spirals even higher. Far from securing the transformative trading arrangements they promised, the Government have delivered only Australia and New Zealand deals worth a combined 0.1% to UK GDP and exposed British farmers to tougher competition and diluted protections. The India deal would add just 0.13%, and the much-heralded US agreement has shrunk from a growth opportunity into damage limitation following Trump’s tariffs. Meanwhile, we have erected new barriers to our largest market, the European Union, which continues to represent around half of our global trade. The result? Tiny wins at the margins and a massive permanent hit at the core. That is not “global Britain”, and nor was it ever going to be. It is economics by consolation prize, and the country is paying the price. Just last month, the National Bureau of Economic Research, a leading US think-tank, published a decade-long analysis concluding that Brexit has reduced UK GDP by between 6% and 8%. The House of Commons Library shows that Brexit is now costing the Treasury up to £90 billion every single year in lost tax receipts—money that could be supporting our NHS, our defence spending and our public services. In practical terms, the average Briton today is between £2,700 and £3,700 worse off than if we had remained in the European Union. That is the reality of the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal. Let me put this plainly. The most dishonest campaign in modern British political history promised that Brexit would save £350 million a week. Instead, Brexit is now costing this country £250 million every single day—[Hon. Members: “Rubbish!”] That is why we have the highest tax burden in 70 years. That is why families face sky-high bills. That is why we remain trapped in a cost of living crisis. This is the lived reality of the very working people the Government claim to champion, but for whom they show neither the resolve nor the political will to protect. Conservative Members and Reform Members behind me may chunter, but it is the former leader of the Conservative party and Prime Minister, Sir John Major, who has noted: “Brexit is a flop. It will not leap up from its death bed.” The Liberal Democrats believe that the most effective route to sustainable economic growth in our country is to rebuild our relationship with the European Union, our single most important trading partner. Just last week, the Prime Minister himself said: “The Brexit deal significantly hurt our economy…so for economic renewal we must keep reducing frictions and move towards a closer relationship with the EU.” That view was echoed by the Deputy Prime Minister, who described a customs union as an inevitable “journey of travel”. My Bill would propel us along that journey. It proposes a UK-EU customs union covering most goods, with a formal mechanism for UK consultation on new EU trade deals that affect us. It would lift the man-made constraints that are strangling our small and medium-sized enterprises, many of which have stopped trading with Europe altogether. This Bill is on the side of British business. The Federation of Small Businesses is clear that the greatest burdens fall on firms with the fewest resources to adapt. Crocus, one of the largest horticultural businesses in the UK based in my Surrey Heath constituency, tells me that trade barriers add friction, inflate supply chain costs and cause damaging delays at our borders. Others warn that British-developed innovations risk being lifted and relocated to the continent—British ideas nurtured by British universities lost because electoral expediency was placed above economic reality. Even if the Government stayed within their own self-defeating red lines, which merely replicate, of course, Theresa May’s failed framework, a better deal with Europe could generate £25 billion extra per year for the Treasury. But the British public and British businesses want this Government to go further and faster. At a time when Office for National Statistics data shows rising numbers of young Britons leaving to work overseas, we have a national duty to support growth, ease household pressure and give young people a compelling reason to build their futures here in the UK. As my party’s former Northern Ireland spokesperson, I worked across the political divide to consider the practical implications of the Windsor framework. Red lanes, green lanes, parcel movements across the Irish sea—these barriers still hamper our internal market. A bespoke customs union would cut costs, smooth trade and reduce daily frictions for businesses in Northern Ireland. Those who value the Union should see more clearly than anyone that co-operation strengthens it far more than isolation ever could. We do not strengthen the British economy by raising barriers to the market that takes 41% of our exports. We strengthen it by removing the barriers that were created so that a weak Prime Minister could pretend to be tough. A survey by the British Chambers of Commerce shows that nearly half of exporters cite customs procedures as their biggest barrier and 39% cite documentation complexity. The message from businesses is unambiguous: reduce friction and unleash growth. A closer economic partnership with Europe is also a matter of our national security. Russia is defined by military expansionism and destabilisation. China grows more coercive and authoritarian by the year. Under a second Trump Administration, the United States has demonstrated a willingness to threaten and coerce even its closest allies in pursuit of hemispheric pre-eminence. In its recent national security strategy, the US welcomes “the growing influence of patriotic European parties” and says its goal “should be to help Europe correct its current trajectory”— a clear signal of intent to interfere in allies’ domestic politics. In an increasingly fractious multipolar world, we must stand closest with those who share our values, our trade and our common security. If we are serious about lifting this country out of stagnation, we must get Britain growing again, get Britain exporting again and make Britain competitive again. A bespoke UK-EU customs union would cut red tape, unlock investment and restore certainty to British business. To sit on our hands is to choose stagnation. To oppose this Bill is to prolong the cost of living crisis. To reject it is to hold back the small and medium-sized businesses that form the backbone of our economy. Today the House has a clear choice: we can remain on a path of managed decline, or we can choose a future built on growth, confidence and opportunity. We can unleash once again the resilience, creativity and innovation of British business. I commend this Bill to the House.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman and I represent different political traditions, but I am glad to know that we are bound together by a shared sense of what a liberal society looks like. The only purpose of having an ID of this kind—a mandatory ID—is to enable people to ask for it. When we enable the conditions to be asked to prove our identity in society, we swiftly move from the freedoms he talks about to a permissions-based society, which should concern us all. Does he share that concern?

• 4 Dec 2025 · Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee for her report. It has been a pleasure to serve under her chairship on that Committee for the past year, and it is a personal sadness that I no longer serve on it. She mentioned that the Committee received evidence about a collective loss of confidence and faith in the ICRIR. Will she take this opportunity to make it clear that we also received evidence setting out that there was no loss of personal faith or confidence in the leadership of that organisation? Sir Declan Morgan impressed us all with his honour, decency and candour. He just happened to be leading an organisation that was compromised for the very fact of its birth.

• 4 Dec 2025 · EU Relations · Hansard source

  More

  16. What progress his Department has made on implementing the agreement made with the EU in May 2025.

• 4 Dec 2025 · EU Relations · Hansard source

  More

  On “The News Agents” podcast yesterday evening, the Deputy Prime Minister, when asked about a UK-EU customs arrangement, said “that journey of travel…is self-evident”. Given that the botched Brexit deal is costing the UK Exchequer £90 billion a year, can I ask what that self-evident journey means for the Government’s own red lines? Will the Government take the opportunity to take a giant leap on that journey by supporting my ten-minute rule Bill next Tuesday?

• 4 Dec 2025 · War in Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member mentioned the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter). Recently, she was good enough to organise an extraordinary showing of a film called “Children in the Fire” in one of the Committee rooms. It explained in detail, through some very personal stories, the devastation that children have faced during the conflict, and we had the privilege of meeting some of the children, some of whom had been previously abducted and had escaped Russia. It was an extraordinary moment that was deeply revealing and emotional. I am grateful to the hon. Member for paying such close attention to the plight of children in this conflict: it is a horror that none of us should accept.

• 4 Dec 2025 · War in Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for securing this very important debate. There have been plaudits and praise enough for all the speeches made by Members across this House—they have been an extraordinary collection of speeches and thoughtful interventions that show intellectual clarity and deep emotional connection. I am grateful to all Members who have spoken. It is absolutely clear that Vladimir Putin poses an existential threat to Ukraine and a once-in-a-generation threat to European security. For far too long, he has been allowed to wield grotesquely disproportionate influence over global diplomacy and security, and the consequences have been catastrophic. While the global geopolitical scene may have been shaken and upended by his imperial ambitions, the true cost of this war—the fullest cost—has been borne by the people of Ukraine, in the form of the atrocities committed and the suffering of the Ukrainian families who are the direct victims of his malicious and destructive impulses. Today in Ukraine, there is active hand-to-hand combat, the military lines are active and volatile, and Ukrainian cities face relentless bombardment. Critical infrastructure is targeted, civilian lives are under constant threat and the human toll grows. Since February 2022, Ukraine has reported more than 14,000 civilians killed and more than 38,000 injured. More than 1 million Russian personnel have been killed or injured, and the Ukrainian military toll is more than 46,000 killed and 380,000 wounded. How many more lives need to be lost? This war did not begin in 2022, with Russia’s full-scale invasion. As we know, it began in 2014, with the illegal seizure of Crimea. That annexation set the stage for the violence, brutality and inhumanity we see today. Russia’s aggression now threatens European security as a whole. Millions of Ukrainians have been displaced from their homes, entire communities destroyed and the social fabric torn apart, leaving trauma that will span generations. As we have heard several times today, the most harrowing horror of all is the systematic abduction of Ukrainian children. At least 19,000 children have been taken, stolen, cynically and evilly—abduction and exploitation as a most appalling weapon of war. A moral red line has been crossed, and crossed again. This vile human injustice is yet another cost that Ukraine has had to bear. Against that backdrop of human suffering and strategic fragility, we must give Ukraine the leverage it needs in any negotiations and support its efforts to push Russian forces back. Let me be absolutely clear: Trump’s original 28-point proposal was not a peace deal; it was a horrific geopolitical compromise—a foul capitulation that would serve only to embolden the aggressor. It would force Ukraine into neutrality; limit Ukraine’s ability to defend itself; ban NATO deployments; lock Ukraine out of NATO; recognise Russian sovereignty over Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk; lift sanctions on Russia; invite Russia back into the G8; and even force Ukraine into elections within 100 days. That is not peace—not even close. It rewards and legitimates Russia’s decade-long aggression, and signals to every authoritarian regime around the world that conquest works. Yes, peace talks have taken place, and the Liberal Democrat position is clearer than ever. First, emergency legislation is vital to seize frozen Russian assets and repurpose them to fund Ukraine’s defence, reconstruction and humanitarian rehabilitation. Secondly, the return of every abducted Ukrainian child is a non-negotiable red line. Thirdly, there must be no reward for Putin: no G7, no G20 and no rehabilitation into the international community. Finally, no settlement can force Ukraine to concede territory. If lands are ceded, one question will echo loudly: what about the children stolen from those territories? Russia already claims them as Russian, and ceding territory may be taken as tacit confirmation of that appalling logic. That is precisely why peace cannot be built on appeasement directed from Mar-a-Lago. It must be justice as seen from Kyiv. It must be built on a foundation that allows Ukraine not only to survive the war, but to rebuild afterwards: rebuild its infrastructure, its communities, and its way of life as a coherent, bordered, bounded and fully sovereign state. Ukraine’s right to freedom and self-determination is immutable. Any settlement must respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity and its sovereign choice to make alliances and coalitions, free from the long arm of Russia and Putin. This moment is about more than rebuilding Ukraine; it is about rebuilding European security. Russian aggression has made one truth clear: Europe must take greater responsibility for defending Europe. We face the greatest challenge to European security in several generations. The United States has, regrettably, shown itself to be unpredictable and capricious. At any moment, President Trump could shift his attention, whether by choice or necessity, towards the genuine threat of China or the somewhat more local distractions that he sees in Venezuela, Mexico, Greenland or, dare I say it, even Canada, leaving Europe exposed. That is a strategic reality that we cannot ignore. Multipolarity brings both opportunities and new responsibilities. Europe can and needs to act collectively. Europe can and needs to co-ordinate defence procurement, intelligence sharing and economic solidarity. Europe can and needs to step up to the moment, and the United Kingdom can and needs to take a leading role. We are living through an unusual moment in geopolitics. We can see the future with rare clarity and certainty. Our Prime Minister and Chancellor have hinted repeatedly, particularly in the lead-up to the recent Budget, about the need to rebuild bridges with Europe for the sake of our productivity and our economy. To that, I would add Europe’s collective security, defence, resilience, military-industrial procurement and innovation. Yes, it is a challenge and it requires political courage, but the UK should keep pursuing the deepest possible participation in Security Action for Europe, deepen co-operation, strengthen shared defence planning and align ourselves once again with the partners who share our values and our security. Those in Europe who are dragging their heels need to lift their heads to the horizon and see the bigger picture. We face a generational challenge. We are stronger together. If we fail to act now, we will be judged by history as the generation who allowed these atrocities to take place, who allowed invasion and occupation by violence to redraw Europe and reshape the future, and who failed to put national self-interest aside to secure the cause of freedom, liberty, democracy and the international rules-based order. To conclude, we cannot afford to be bystanders in this fight. Justice is what we owe Ukraine and what we now must deliver.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have been contacted by many Surrey Heath constituents who often worked for very large American companies such as Atos. These companies are refusing to offer the pre-1997 uplift, and from what I understand, the pensions fall outside both the PPF and the FAS. Can the Minister offer any reassurance to those pensioners today and explain how they can continue to survive on such diminishing returns from the pensions they paid into?

• 3 Dec 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady mentioned Atos. I have several constituents who worked for that company who find themselves in precisely the situation she describes. I thank her for the speech she is making and, on behalf of my constituents, I hope that those on the Front Bench are listening to her suggestions.

• 2 Dec 2025 · UK-EU Relations · Hansard source

  More

  12. What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on strengthening the UK’s relationship with the EU.