Helen Maguire
MP for Epsom and Ewell · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“That is why we support increased funding to the EA to ensure that it can enforce environmental standards and hold operators to account where sites cause harm to local communities, as in Epsom. The Government must also commit to an independent review into the entire waste crime system.”
“There are four systemic failures: planning by Surrey county council; enforcement by Epsom and Ewell borough council; the environment, whether dust, noise or the potential contamination of water, which is the responsibility of the Environment Agency; and accountability, because there is no single lead on this and one agency passes the buck…”
“Despite that, permissions continue to be granted, undermining confidence that local views and feedback carry any meaningful weight at all. Let us talk about enforcement. There are many planning conditions that could have been regulated, such as the operating hours.”
“Instead of action, the response has included more inspections, more monitoring, more meetings, revised management plans, additional planning conditions and permit reviews—and still nothing changes. The same complaints continue. How many complaints are needed to trigger change? How many reports need to be conducted?”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) for securing this very important debate. I must emphasise that this is a nationwide issue: it affects not just working-class constituencies but leafy Surrey, including Epsom and Ewell.”
“Then there is the impact of heavy vehicles: lorries regularly exceed the speed limit of 30 mph on roads that are simply not designed for them. Tests cannot fully capture the human impact and the unintended disruption to daily lives, for years.”
The complete record
Every one of 602 lines we hold for Helen Maguire, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 13.
“North East Surrey College of Technology in my constituency is not accessible by bus, leaving students having to travel even further for their education because local bus services are simply not serving young people. Does the hon. Member agree that the Bill must expand the definition of socially necessary local services to explicitly include schools and colleges?”
“The E5 bus service for Langley Vale in my constituency has a woefully inadequate timetable and a route that does not stop at the local hospital. Local bus routes are simply not servicing my residents. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill must tackle poor services and restore the £2 fare cap, reversing the devastating effect of route cuts administered under the Conservatives?”
“Over the summer, I held a drop-in surgery for the Hong Kong community in Epsom and Ewell—there are over 1,000 of them—and I heard from many residents who were concerned about the proposal to extend the qualifying period from five to 10 years. They told me that this could have a profound impact, including disrupting their financial planning and causing increased stress and uncertainty for those individuals and their families. Does the hon. Member feel that it is imperative that this Government provide urgent clarity and reassurance to those affected?”
“I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones)—a fellow female veteran—and the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) on their new appointments. Reserve forces are a vital component of the British Army, and I welcomed the Government’s commitment to increasing their number by at least 20%, but the lack of a clear timeline, plan and funding is not good enough. The Public Accounts Committee agreed with that in its report, and revealed that many training sites are in the wrong locations and that their condition has declined. Good training sites in the right locations are vital to increasing our reserves. Will the Government today give a firm timeline for completing the estate optimisation programme and securing funding for the next stages?”
“It is clear that Vladimir Putin remains hellbent on the conquest of Ukraine, while he drags Trump along with false promises of peace. It is right of the Government to have taken steps such as putting in place the recent price cap cut, to hurt Putin’s oil profits, but the Government must go further. Analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air think-tank shows that the UK has sent over £500 million in tax receipts to the Kremlin by continuing to import petroleum products derived from Russian oil from third countries. Will the Government commit to finally closing this loophole, which is currently filling the Kremlin’s coffers?”
“To create a forward-thinking defence industry, will the Minister support an innovative approach to the development of new defence capabilities that continue to give businesses opportunities to innovate, even when the product is in use? While the Type 26 deal with Norway is a positive step in working closely with our allies, will the Minister confirm that the delivery timeline for expanding the UK’s own Type 26 fleet will not be delayed? Finally, last week my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) asked the then Foreign Secretary to assure the House that the Government would not award a £2 billion contract to Israeli defence manufacturer Elbit, to which he replied with a resounding yes. Will the Minister reconfirm that position today?”
“Will the Minister ensure that all British individuals working in the defence sector in offices abroad will also have the skills that they need to support our allies? As the need to work closely with our European allies continues to grow, will he provide an update on what progress the Government have made on securing the UK’s access to the EU Security Action for Europe fund? It is vital that we properly incorporate small and medium-sized companies into the defence supply chain across Britain. While I welcome the Government’s commitment to a new defence office for small business growth, will the Minister set out how the new office will effectively support the integration of small and medium-sized companies into supply and procurement? It is crucial that the UK is prioritising spending its money at home and with the best businesses.”
“I thank the Minister for advance sight of the defence industrial statement. I welcome the announcement today of the new defence industrial strategy because for too many years, the Conservatives chose to ignore the challenges across our defence industrial base. In light of the threats that we face from an imperial Putin and other revisionist powers, it is right that this Government have a serious approach to the defence industrial base in our country. The opportunities offered through the defence skills passports will add vital channels for people who are already in employment to make the transition to the sector. UK businesses are playing a vital role in supporting military operations in Ukraine, yet we know that many businesses operate internationality.”
“Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Ministry of Defence itself says that the MOD housing standard is already higher than the decent homes standard, the Government should do the decent thing and accept Lords amendment 39 and put it on the face of the Bill?”
“Our task is to embrace their potential while also guarding against the vulnerabilities. We need investment in technology but also in people. The Government must work to balance technological innovation with conventional strength and ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of research and development, so that we are not only consumers of new technologies but leaders in shaping how it is used responsibly in defence.”
“They are rapidly working to advance their drones as well; if we are to maintain our edge, sustained research and development is a necessity. That means investment not only in next-generation drones, but in secure communications, anti-jamming technology, counter-drone systems and resilient AI. It also means collaboration, working closely with universities, private sector innovators and start-ups that can bring new technologies quickly to the table. It is essential that the UK can quickly adapt to the rapidly evolving nature of warfare. Drones are not just another tool; they are reshaping the character of conflict. They save lives by keeping soldiers out of harm’s way, they improve precision and they provide persistent surveillance and awareness, yet they also carry risks—ethical, strategic and technological.”
“A fleet of advanced drones is only as effective as the people who operate and maintain it, and all three services will need drone pilots. That should form part of basic training. Drone warfare requires highly skilled professionals—pilots trained to control aircraft in contested environments, engineers able to maintain complex systems, data analysts capable of interpreting live feeds and AI specialists who can design resilient autonomy. Without those skills, our investment risks being underutilised or, worse, ineffective. Recruitment, training and retention must therefore be a central part of any strategy. We need a robust pipeline of talent if we are to scale drone operations responsibly and securely. We must also recognise the speed of innovation because our adversaries are not standing still.”
“That has forced Ukrainian forces to innovate using frequency-hopping communications, deploying fibre-optic cables up to 50 km long, and even experimenting with AI-based navigation when comms fail. The lesson is clear: we must be realistic about what drones can do. Overreliance on them would be reckless. Ground forces remain indispensable for holding territory, engaging with civilian populations, providing humanitarian relief and responding to dynamic battle conditions. Drones can enhance these missions, but they cannot replace them. A balanced force of combined arms structure is essential. I welcome the Government’s announcement of a £2 billion drone investment package and the establishment of a drone innovation centre. Those are important steps, but technology alone is not enough.”
“However, alongside those advantages, we must acknowledge the challenges. Drones are not a silver bullet. They come with ethical concerns about remote warfare, accountability and lethal decision making, and the potential for escalation when operators can strike from thousands of miles away. Technically, they are also highly vulnerable. Drones depend on data links—radio or satellite based—and GPS signals to navigate and communicate. Adversaries with electronic warfare capabilities can jam, spoof or hijack those links. That is not theory: as has already been mentioned, in 2009 Iraqi insurgents intercepted live US drone video feeds using cheap, commercially available software. In Ukraine, Russian jamming and interference has disrupted as many as 60% to 80% of drones before they reach their targets.”
“AI-enabled drones can patrol throughout the night, automatically detecting and flagging suspicious activity, which reduces the pressure on human surveillance teams and cuts the risk of fatigue. Cost is another factor. Compared with tanks, aircraft or armoured vehicles, drones are relatively cheap to produce, quick to deploy and often expendable. Ukraine’s experience shows how even commercial drones adapted for reconnaissance or artillery targeting can deliver immense tactical advantage. Their real-time video and geolocation data have significantly improved artillery accuracy, reducing waste of ammunition and increasing strike precision. Drones have also enabled Ukraine to conduct long-range strikes deep into Russian territory, disrupting logistics and undermining morale.”
“Drones allow us to project force and gather intelligence without putting soldiers directly in harm’s way. They give commanders a real-time picture of the battlefield, overcoming traditional line-of-sight limitations and extending awareness deep into enemy territory. They have become central to surveillance, targeting, logistics and even battlefield medical support. For example, drones equipped with advanced thermal imaging can locate casualties hidden in rubble, smoke or woodland. They can deliver medical supplies, bandages, medication and even defibrillators into remote or inaccessible areas, providing rapid aid while reducing the need to send medics into danger. In defensive operations, tethered drones are able to remain airborne for hours, providing uninterrupted surveillance and protecting bases from surprise attack.”
“It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) for securing this important debate; I was sorry not to be able to hear from him yesterday in the battle of Britain debate. The integration of drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles, into defence has transformed the way that nations think about security and the battlefield. Over the past decade, we have seen a steady growth in their use, and the war in Ukraine has made clear to the world just how central they have become. What was once considered cutting-edge technology is now an everyday feature of modern warfare. It is alarming that more soldiers today are being killed by drones in Ukraine than by any other form of warfare. However, the benefits of drones are undeniable.”
“It set out three options: first, improving the current process under which local authorities can ban pavement parking; secondly, giving local authorities civil enforcement powers to act against unnecessary obstruction of the pavement; and thirdly, banning pavement parking throughout England. My position and that of many of my residents and campaign organisations is that a default national prohibition with local exceptions, where needed, is the right choice. That would bring the rest of England into line with London, provide clarity for drivers and restore our pavements to the people they are meant for.”
“When pavements are blocked people are not just delayed; they are put in harm’s way, their dignity diminished and their right to use public space denied. The law is clear in London and Scotland: parking on the pavement is prohibited unless the council has judged that it is safe and necessary on that street. But in England, outside London, there is no such national prohibition and the result is a patchwork of inconsistent rules, limited enforcement and pavements increasingly blocked by vehicles. The Government have already consulted on the issue. The consultation entitled “Pavement parking: options for change” closed on 22 November 2020, nearly five years ago.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of pavement parking. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue that is long overdue for a solution. Every day people are forced into the road, into moving traffic, because the pavement is blocked by a vehicle. Parents with prams, wheelchair users and people with sight loss must choose between risking the road or turning back. These are not minor inconveniences but moments of danger, frustration and exclusion. Pavements are meant to be for the safe, independent movement of older people, disabled people, families with young children and everyone who simply wants to walk without obstruction.”
“According to research from Guide Dogs, four out of five blind or partially sighted people say pavement parking makes it difficult to walk on the pavement at least once a week, and 95% have been forced into the road because of it. Among wheelchair and mobility scooters, that figure rises to a staggering 99%. Vehicles blocking pavements creates both a physical and psychological barrier, discouraging those with disabilities from leaving their homes. At a time when the Government are claiming to support more disabled people into work, it is essential that they tackle the issue.”
“Yes, I absolutely agree that councils should have the power to decide where cars can be parked on pavements. Despite cross-party agreement in the Transport Committee’s 2019 report, clear public support and the examples already in place across the UK, the Government have still not published their response. Each time the question is raised we are told only that the Department is considering all the views expressed. After five years, that is simply not good enough. Inaction is leaving our most vulnerable residents at risk every single day. The impact is undeniable. Living Streets found that 62% of over-65s in England are worried about obstructions on the pavement.”
“On one evening earlier this year, a constituent reported 23 mopeds and motorbikes clustered on the pavement, forcing pedestrians into the road and creating congestion as they pulled in and out without warning.”
“I absolutely agree. We need to be encouraging active walking and encouraging people to use local businesses, and they cannot do that if they cannot access them by walking or being in a wheelchair on a pavement. Parents also face the same challenges, with 87% of parents saying that they have had to walk in the road because of pavement parking. They would be more likely to walk their child to school if there was not pavement parking. They are not simply statistics; I have heard directly from residents about delivery motorcycles on Epsom High Street riding up on to the pavement in front of pedestrians, blocking footways outside fast food outlets and creating a hazardous obstacle course.”
“In England, nearly a million older adults suffer outdoor falls each year, and Living Streets’ “Pedestrian Slips, Trips and Falls” report estimates that the resulting healthcare and personal injury costs could reach £500 million annually. Just the other day, I did a walkabout on Epsom High Street with Russell and Tracey from Swail House, a property in Epsom that is run by the Royal National Institute of Blind People. As we walked, they pointed out many potential hazards on the pavement, including many broken and uneven paving slabs that could easily cause an accident. Poorly maintained pavements also deter walking: 48% of adults over 65 say that they would walk more if pavements were in better condition.”
“I absolutely agree. My constituency is just outside London, so for my constituents, it is even more confusing because many of them will drive in and out of London on a regular basis. One visually impaired constituent, Russell, told me that when food delivery riders choose to park their vehicles, such as motorbikes, on the pavement it makes the simple task of walking down the street difficult and hazardous. We also cannot ignore the damage that pavement parking does to the pavements themselves. Driving on to and parking on them cracks and breaks paving slabs, leaving trip hazards long after the vehicle has gone.”
“Those are largely restricted to specific streets, and due to the requirements for advertising consultation and signage they are a costly and impractical way to tackle this problem.”
“They bring increased footfall, spend more time at the shops and spend more money, which is what we want for our local businesses on our local high streets. The current legal framework is fragmented and confusing. Driving on to the pavement is in fact already illegal under section 72 of the Highways Act 1835, but enforcement is inconsistent and largely reliant on police resources. In some cases, parking on a pavement can be treated as obstruction, but that too is a criminal offence enforced by the police, not a civil contravention enforced by local authorities. Local councils struggle to tackle pavement parking, although they can use their existing powers to make traffic regulation orders.”
“I welcome the intervention. It is an absolute hazard that pedestrians or individuals pushing wheelchairs are continually pushed into the road, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we also need to talk to the troublemakers. In my case in Epsom, those are the many companies running fast food delivery services and so on. We need to talk to them. The poor condition of the pavement is fuelling physical inactivity and social isolation. Because the pavements are not in great condition, individuals cannot walk on them and they are not getting out as much. Making our high streets more walkable also boosts local businesses, and Living Streets’ research shows that people who walk or wheel to the shops spend more overall.”
“I absolutely agree. We need to invest in better public transport for our constituents. According to the 2023 YouGov polling, 74% of councillors in England supported a national law. As it stands, just 5% of drivers know all aspects of the laws that put them at risk of a fine. A national default prohibition would give the power and clarity to act to remove the ambiguity for drivers. That system would also allow for local exemptions so that streets where pavement parking is genuinely unavoidable could be identified and signed accordingly.”
“I ask them to, first of all, publish the long overdue response to the pavement parking consultation before the fifth anniversary of its closing, which is this November; secondly, commit to a default national prohibition on pavement parking in England, with exemptions decided locally; and thirdly, back this up with a public awareness campaign so drivers understand both the law and the reasons for it. Every day that we delay, more pedestrians are put at risk, more pavements are damaged and more people are excluded from moving safely and independently in their communities. If we cannot guarantee that the simple act of walking down the street is safe, we are failing at one of the most basic duties of public life. Today I am asking the Minister to end the wait, end the excuses and end pavement parking once and for all.”
“I absolutely agree that councils need the support to implement this if the Government should wish to introduce it, which is what I am pressing for today. We are not asking for something radical; we are simply asking for safe and accessible streets. MPs have raised this issue repeatedly, and charities such as Living Streets, Guide Dogs, RNIB and Transport for All support a new law with clear guidance. It is time for the Government to listen. The steps are clear. Today I am asking this Government to put the safety of pedestrians first.”
“The story of the battle of Britain must continue to be remembered in ways that reach future generations, whether through services of commemoration in our communities or through museums, exhibitions or teaching in our schools. Access to local stories, such as those from Epsom and Ewell, should sit alongside the national narrative so that young people see that this history is not distant; it happened on the very streets where they live today, and for their freedom and the peace that we enjoy today. Eighty-five years ago, the few gave everything to defend the many. Today we honour their courage, but the greatest tribute we can pay is to ensure that their legacy lives on not only in words, but in the way that we care for those who serve today, and in the way we continue to tell their stories for generations to come.”
“The Liberal Democrats are calling for regular mental health check-ups at key stages of veterans’ lives, better recording of outcomes, and a campaign to end the stigma that still too often prevents people from seeking help. For today’s serving personnel we must get the basics right. It is shameful that some members of our armed forces are housed in substandard accommodation. Peers reintroduced to the Renters’ Rights Bill the Liberal Democrat amendment to extend the decent homes standard to Ministry of Defence housing. I urge the Government, when the Bill returns to the Commons next week, to accept that amendment as a positive safeguard for our service personnel. They deserve that decent standard as a minimum. Remembrance is also about education and awareness, as many have already alluded to.”
“It is a scandal that in 2025 veterans continue to fall through the cracks. More than 2,000 veterans’ households were assessed as homeless in 2022-23, which is unacceptable. A fair deal for veterans must mean access to high-quality, affordable accommodation. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the building of 150,000 new social homes every year. Mental health support must also be a priority. Between 2017 and 2023, more than 30,000 referrals were made to the NHS veterans’ mental health service. Over half of veterans surveyed said they had experienced mental health problems. These are men and women who put their lives on the line for us. It is not right that so many are left suffering with depression, anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder without timely support.”
“Having engaged a Dornier bomber, his aircraft was raked with fire. He was injured but managed a forced landing near the clubhouse in an act of skill and courage that left its mark on our town’s history. A painting of that moment still hangs in the clubhouse, a vivid reminder that Epsom itself lay beneath the skies of the battle, and that this is not just a national story, but a local one as well. Commemoration must go hand in hand with commitment. Just as the country pulled together to defend our liberty in 1940, so too must we pull together now to support those who have served. The UK Government must provide better care for all veterans, ensuring that their contributions are not forgotten and that they receive the recognition and support that they so rightly deserve.”
“The battle of Britain was in every sense a collective endeavour. It was fought not only with Hurricanes and Spitfires, but with morale. Ordinary people endured blackouts, bombings and sleepless nights in the shelters. Yet the blitz spirit, stoicism, humour and neighbourly solidarity carried communities through. Churchill’s words and the sight of duels overhead helped forge a powerful sense of national unity—that resilience, both military and civilian. In my constituency of Epsom and Ewell, the war touched daily life. Residents sheltered in Anderson shelters through long nights filled with anti-aircraft fire. On 18 August, remembered as the “hardest day”, Flying Officer Peter James Simpson of No. 111 Squadron was forced to bring his stricken Hurricane down on the RAC golf course at Woodcote Park, Epsom.”
“But we must also honour the many—the engineers and fitters, the armourers, the women of the Women’s Auxiliary Air Force who tracked raids on vast plotting maps, and the factory workers, many of them women, who ensured that damaged aircraft could be replaced. Their unseen work sustained our pilots in the air. Their story is one of collective effort, resilience and sacrifice. This was an international battle. Pilots and personnel came from across the Commonwealth and from occupied Europe, Canada, New Zealand, Czechoslovakia and, most famously, Poland, whose 145 pilots played a decisive role. Indeed, the Polish No. 303 Squadron was the highest scoring unit of the entire campaign. Even volunteers from neutral countries such as Ireland and the United States chose to fight for Britain’s freedom.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for securing this important debate. The battle of Britain remains one of the most decisive victories in our nation’s history. In the summer of 1940 the Royal Air Force, outnumbered and under immense pressure, faced down the Luftwaffe. In doing so, it prevented invasion and gave our nation hope. Victory was a turning point in the war, a symbol of resilience and testament to the power of co-ordinated defence. We rightly honour the few—the young pilots whose courage inspired a nation.”
“The UN has now confirmed famine in Gaza City. More than half a million people face catastrophic conditions of starvation, destitution and death. This is a man-made disaster, described by the UN Secretary-General as “a failure of humanity”. At least 600 daily truckloads are needed to avert further famine-related deaths, yet Israel continues to block aid. Will the Government commit today to concrete actions to pressure the Israeli Government to lift the obstruction, including sanctioning all members of the Cabinet, including Netanyahu, who are complicit in the illegal aid blockade?”
“The Government have claimed that the measures in this Bill, including merging councils, will save significant amounts of money. However, the County Councils Network has revealed that reorganisation could make no savings and cost money. Does my hon. Friend agree that the measures in this Bill are based on out-of-date reports that risk further bankrupting local authorities?”
“I am pleased that the Government have taken a step to further cut the Kremlin’s profits through a reduction in the oil price cap, but that measure must be accompanied by more work to crack down on Russia’s shadow fleet, as it continues to trade and transport oil sold above that price cap. A joined-up approach between us and our allies is vital, so will the Secretary of State commit to expanding the UK’s designation of vessels in the shadow fleet, including those already sanctioned by the EU, Canada and the US, and will he seek reciprocal designations from those partners? As we reach a critical moment in negotiations, we need to be taking all the steps we can to provide Ukraine with the leverage and military matériel it needs, so will the Secretary of State consider sending UK Typhoon jets for use by the Ukrainian air force?”
“In that vein, can the Secretary of State update the House on what progress, if any, has been made on seizing the billions in frozen Russian assets across the G7? Can he update us on whether any assessment has been made of the volume and quality of weaponry that the seizure of those assets could help fund for Kyiv, or to what use they could be put in supporting the rebuilding of Ukraine? We must also tighten the screws on Putin’s war chest. I welcome the new £10 billion contract with Norway and the British jobs and businesses that it will support in the UK, which further demonstrates the need for us to work with our northern European allies in the fight against Russia’s aggression.”
“I thank the Defence Secretary for advance sight of his statement. I join others in the House in thanking Admiral Sir Tony Radakin for his service, and wish him well in his next steps. I was relieved to see the Prime Minister join fellow European leaders in Washington last month, standing shoulder to shoulder with President Zelensky in the wake of Donald Trump’s fawning appeasement of Vladimir Putin in Alaska. Despite that show of support, I still fear that Trump would prefer to secure a quick and easy carve-up of Ukraine, rather than work to secure a peace that provides justice for Ukraine and guarantees its sovereignty against future Russian aggression. That is why I believe that the Government need to continue to lead from the front, but to take our European partners with us we really need to bolster Ukraine’s defence and punish Putin.”
“We welcome the Government’s commitment to cutting water bills by 50% in the next three years. However, given the stark increases that consumers have paid because of failed water company finances, this commitment will not touch the sides, especially for the most vulnerable customers. Will the Secretary of State do what Conservative Ministers failed to do: commit to implementing a single social tariff for water bills to help eliminate water poverty?”
“Remembrance is about not only the past, but the present and the future; and as threats to freedom rise again in our world, we must remember why they fought and ensure that we honour their legacy in our teachings, in our words and in our deeds.”
“It is a basic principle: if someone is willing to put their life on the line for our democracy, they should at the very least have a warm, safe home. The injustices faced by many Commonwealth and other overseas armed forces personnel and their families must also be rectified. Some are still being asked to pay thousands of pounds in visa fees just to live in the country they served. Those fees should be scrapped. No veteran’s family should be priced out of their place in our society. Finally, we must ensure that this 80th anniversary is a living act of remembrance, and we must teach our children the full story of the blitz and the Burma railway. In doing so, we preserve the memory of those who fought and those who never came home, and we pass on their stories with honesty, pride and gratitude.”
“A fair deal means action on homelessness, by building 150,000 more social homes every year to allow every member of society access to their own home; a fair deal means proper mental health support, by providing mental health support and easy access to professional help; and a fair deal means making sure veterans count, by ensuring there is better recording of the physical and mental health outcomes of veterans, including waiting times for treatment. Those who now carry the torch—current service personnel—must have a fair deal. I am proud that last week my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the other place defeated the Government to extend the decent homes standard to Ministry of Defence accommodation. I hope that that remains in the Renters’ Rights Bill when it returns to the Commons.”
“The Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s torch for peace is a vital symbol of remembrance, passed from one generation to the next. As we commemorate, we must also recommit to supporting those who serve today and those who have served. It is not acceptable that, in 2025, veterans continue to fall through the cracks, struggling with mental health, homelessness or poor housing. The Liberal Democrats believe in a fair deal for our veterans.”
“Captured soldiers faced inhumane treatment, while many of those who served in that theatre felt forgotten in the decades that followed, earning the title “the forgotten Army”. Today, we remember them. We remember the soldiers from India, the Caribbean, Africa and all those from the Commonwealth who fought under the British flag. Theirs was one of the most diverse fighting forces in history: men and women from across the empire, speaking dozens of languages, united by duty. Their contribution should be recognised not as an afterthought, but as a central part of our national narrative. I want to recognise and commend the efforts of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and its global “For Evermore” tour, which has worked to preserve the memories of those who served, from Singapore to Kenya, from Hong Kong to Thailand.”