UK-France Relations

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Chris Murray]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The UK and France have substantial military technology sectors, which are critical for not only our security but the rules-based international order that the relationship between the two countries props up. When it comes to new technologies, whether it is AI or military hardware and kit, the rules-based international order needs—the liberals in the world need—the UK and France at the forefront. They need our technology and defence industries to work with our political objectives to achieve that. I think that is the point my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) was about to make.

That takes me to exactly the point I was about to make in my speech. At the UK-France summit last year, the Prime Minister and President Macron reaffirmed in the Northwood declaration the declaration from 1995 about our nuclear posture and our shared nuclear weapons objectives. They said:

“we do not see situations arising in which the vital interests of either France or the United Kingdom could be threatened without the vital interests of the other also being threatened.”

There are not many countries in the world that we could say that so baldly and so clearly about. In other words, we are saying that British security is French security, and French security is British security. Despite all the bumps in the road, that strategic truth endures.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

My constituency was home to the Free French forces during the second world war, and that is representative of the kind of security relationship our countries have had in the past. May I urge the Government, through the hon. Gentleman, and in the spirit of strategic futures, to get back round the table and to ensure that we have a safe and secure SAFE—Security Action for Europe—deal to allow the UK to take part in common European defence?

[Chris Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for sharing the history of his constituency on this important issue. SAFE is an issue that the Government and other actors in both France and the UK are working quite deeply on. Obviously, we are not in SAFE now, but we can still hope for the future.

The point about UK-France relations is not just that they are good for British or French security, but that they are good for world security, and nowhere is that clearer than in Ukraine. For example, the Storm Shadow long-range missile developed by MBDA, a joint Franco-British company, has been one of the most effective weapons supplied to Ukraine in terms of repelling Russia’s invasion.

However, this is not just about kit; it is also about political leadership. The UK and France have been at the heart of the coalition of the willing, convening 35 countries to support Ukraine’s security. That includes last week’s incredibly significant announcement that both countries are prepared to contribute ground forces in support of a future peace settlement.

At a time when we are seeing a change in strategic posture in the United States—if I can put it like that—Russian aggression in Europe, the rise of China, and crises in the middle east and South America, it is no small thing that Britain and France stand shoulder to shoulder in defence of the rules-based international order.

Nigeria: Freedom of Religion or Belief

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[David Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I have been very pleased to meet Mubarak Bala twice now, most recently in person in Warsaw. He is a great credit to himself. He has suffered very unjustly as a result of being a humanist. I am sure we will hear this from the Minister, but the Government seem to be very clear that we should not be supporting blasphemy laws, and we do see people suffering as a result of them.

In the interests of time, I will move on and maybe not take any interventions for a moment.

Why does this matter to us? We are 3,000 miles away from Nigeria, but we are linked by history, culture and language, and we are linked by friendship. Nigeria and the United Kingdom have a very strong relationship. It would be easy to dismiss Nigeria’s problem as something “over there” and think that persecution of religion or belief abroad is not our problem, but that position would be irresponsible, immoral and ultimately untenable.

It is immoral because when we see other humans in need, we want to respond, as humans. How could we turn away from the suffering in Nigeria when we see families ripped apart, innocent people killed and power brokers restricting the agency, liberty and conscience of others? We in the UK have a rich history of experiencing and rejecting religious intolerance that we can share in humility, hopefully, with others. We had civil wars and riots. Those riots became debates, debates became freedoms, and those freedoms led to flourishing. The hallmark of freedom is wanting freedom for others.

That brings me to irresponsibility. It would be irresponsible to assume that Nigeria’s problems are not our own. Nigeria is playing an increasingly influential role globally. It is young, resource-rich and growing. The UN has projected that Nigeria will become the third most populous country on Earth by 2050, and as I have said, the UK is home to a substantial and growing community of Nigerian-born residents. They are a hard-working, law-abiding, enterprising part of our nation, and we are privileged to have them with us. Working well with Nigeria is in our interest for the sake of all.

Nigeria also represents a genuine democracy in a region where military Governments are common and civil society precarious. As climate change disrupts the Sahel and central Africa further, the promise of a resilient Nigeria with a strong sense of its future as a pluralist democracy cannot be understated.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

I am hugely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for his excellent speech. He is giving a powerful evocation of the significant crisis that exists within Nigeria in terms of intolerance and faith-related death. Can he indicate—this is a genuine question of inquiry—to what extent there are intersections with other sources of conflict such as terrorism and the resource competition he mentioned, and potentially even climate change? To what extent are those drivers of the kind of religious intolerance that we see playing out in his speech?

[David Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is right to draw other factors into the equation, whether it is competition over land in the middle belt of Nigeria, the climate change that leads to it, or other forms of identitarian conflict and competition for resources. Those things are true, without question. In my estimation it is also true that there is a specifically religious dimension, and at times a political dimension, to the persecution—I would say it can be both at the same time.

I am concerned that this can lead to a slippery slope. For example, we could compare it with the situation in China, where Tibetan Buddhists have been persecuted for years. That was later followed by a crackdown on Falun Gong and Christians, and religious prisoners ultimately end up joined by journalists, activists, trade unionists and other rabble rousers who the state would prefer not to deal with. We must robustly defend freedom of religion or belief, to avoid that slippery slope.

Human Rights Abuses: Magnitsky Sanctions

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

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.

Venezuela

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

We do not currently have a timeline for that transition. The Venezuelan opposition have said that the first step has to be an end to political repression, the release of political prisoners and the safe return to Venezuela of opposition politicians, because without that there cannot be free and fair elections. So the first step that we are pressing for is an end to political repression, and that is what we are urging the acting President to do.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

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?

[Yvette Cooper]

Again, to draw equivalence between different countries is the wrong approach. It does not recognise the scale of damage done by the Maduro regime or the fact that, in order to promote international law, we must promote the partnerships that underpin it. We need to work closely with the coalition of the willing, which is meeting tomorrow to discuss Ukraine, and ensure that there are US security guarantees in place, which are an important part of our security alliance with the US. On Greenland, we and other European countries have made our position clear.

Africa: New Approach

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

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?

[Mr Falconer]

As I set out, at the centre of the new strategy is a move from simply donation to investment. We are hearing that that new partnership is demanded from across Africa.

Let me join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the previous Minister for Africa, who I worked closely with. He was a diligent servant of the FCDO and the country, and I know that he continues to do important work in the other place. The new Minister for Africa is excellent. I have been the Minister responsible for North Africa consistently throughout the period, so I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that while some things have changed, others have not.

We will set out the ODA allocations in due course in the new year. On the point about whether or not we can truly have influence in Africa given the decisions we have made on ODA, I think that the hon. Gentleman has heard clearly from the continent itself the valuable work that the Minister for Africa, both past and present, is able to do, and that work will continue.

Chagossians: Trust Fund and Resettlement

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

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?

[Mr Falconer]

In relation to the UN report, I am sure that it will be discussed on Third Reading, when the House of Lords further considers the treaty, and again in this House if that is where it returns. On the trust fund, the written ministerial statement yesterday set out the position of the Mauritian Government. There will be further discussions between the UK and Mauritius in the new year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

We will not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics in the UK or overseas. UK Ministers have raised directly with Hong Kong and Chinese officials our concerns about what is happening in Hong Kong, and we will continue to do so. Such actions are also damaging to Hong Kong’s reputation as an open and international city.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

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

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)]

We are working across Government to build a new strategic partnership with the EU. The Foreign Secretary and I meet regularly with European partners, and I will be doing so later this week. Last month I joined the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary for the first foreign and security policy dialogue with EU High Representative Kallas. Collaborative relationships are key to building this partnership and delivering what the British people want—on growth, the cost of living, security and action to counter irregular migration.

[Dr Pinkerton]

With growing Chinese espionage, Russian aggression on the European continent and a capricious President in the United States, it is more important than ever that we deepen our security co-operation with our European allies. Can I ask the Minister explicitly whether he recognises, as I do, that the UK’s deepest possible participation in the EU’s Security Action for Europe scheme is vital to common European security? What have he and the Government done to try to prompt the restart of the negotiations with the European Union that sadly broke down last week?

Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I am honoured to support the passage of this Bill, along with my Liberal Democrat colleagues. It is a real pleasure to see people across the House who have been long-time champions for the ocean. Many people would have liked to have been here tonight, but are forced to be absent by COP30. They will be watching from afar and wishing us well.

I thank the Minister for taking us in detail through the provisions of the Bill, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), for setting out his amendments. It perhaps falls to me to remind those in the House and beyond of just how significant a step this Bill takes. It may not be enough to save the oceans from their catastrophic decline in health, but it is certainly a big step in the right direction.

The oceans cover two thirds of the planet. The high seas—the areas of the ocean beyond national jurisdictions —make up nearly half the world’s surface and much of its liveable volume. Up until now, they have existed in a legal grey zone, vulnerable to exploitation, and they certainly have been egregiously exploited. The high seas are essential to life not just in the seas, but on dry land, too. With this Bill, the UK finally places itself in a position to uphold the new global agreement to protect ocean biodiversity. It is long overdue and much damage has been done, but it is none the less deeply welcome.

We often speak about forests and land ecosystems, yet the ocean is the Earth’s most powerful driving force, regulating our climate, generating oxygen, absorbing carbon and heat, feeding billions, sustaining cultures and anchoring our weather systems. As anyone who has spent much time out there knows, the ocean’s power is matched only by its fragility. During my crossings of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans, I came to understand the sea in an intimate way. Alone in a small boat, weeks or months from the nearest coast, you are immersed in the rhythms of the ocean, with its long rolling swells, the astonishing wildlife that appears from the deep, and the immense silence that settles when the wind drops away to nothing. At times, the ocean felt overwhelmingly powerful, and at others unexpectedly tender.

The lessons that I learned on the ocean have stayed with me, especially the lesson that survival depends not on domination, but on partnership. It is not survival of the fittest; it is about the species that fits in best with its surrounding ecosystem. Humans would do well to remember that. That is why I am particularly heartened to see that today we have genuine cross-party alignment. When Parliament chooses collaboration over confrontation, we show what is possible. It echoes the spirit that I felt when I first introduced the Climate and Nature Bill earlier this year, and I give huge credit to my co-sponsors, a genuinely cross-party group of Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem, Green, SNP and Plaid Cymru MPs. That consensus across the House was based on the understanding that long-term environmental policy works only when it transcends party politics, rather than being used as a political football. I am proud that the Climate and Nature Bill campaign contributed to the ratification of this treaty, and I commend the Government on following through on their promise to all the hard-working campaigners.

We must recognise the headwinds internationally and domestically. Some voices are questioning climate ambition, watering down commitments or treating environmental progress as optional. We cannot afford that drift. Climate and ocean policy must be future-proofed against short-term politics. Nature does not bend to electoral cycles.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

As my hon. Friend well knows, 94% of the UK’s biodiversity lies within the waters of our overseas territories. Just north of the Falkland Islands is the so-called blue hole, an area of unregulated fishing beyond national jurisdiction. It is an area where trackers are turned off and illegal fishing takes place. Does she agree that the ratification of the BBNJ agreement may provide the opportunity—the common cause—to tackle intractable geopolitical issues that have led to that lack of regulation, and may point to a way forward for the international co-operation of which she speaks?

[Dr Savage]

I agree with my hon. Friend that the treaty can help to provide clarity about previously unregulated areas. Many countries have already ratified it, which shows that ocean conservation really can unite us where, in the past, there has been disunity.

While I welcome the speed with which the Government have introduced the Bill following the Climate and Nature Bill, thus giving us a seat at the table at the first ever ocean COP next year, it is a little disappointing that the UK was not one of the first 60 nations to ratify the agreement. We hope to be a country that leads on climate diplomacy, so we should not arrive late at the crucial environmental treaty of the decade. While many of our colleagues are in Belém, and with the world preparing for that first ocean COP, the UK must demonstrate not only that it supports global ocean governance in theory, but that it is prepared to deliver it in practice. It is also vital to recognise that the health of our oceans depends on the health of our land-based environment; one cannot heal without the help of the other. We need to decrease our carbon emissions on land if we are to slow ocean acidification, which threatens plankton, ecosystem health, and the millions of people whose lives and livelihoods depend on the ocean.

This responsibility starts at home. That is why the Liberal Democrats have long been pushing for the strongest possible marine environmental targets, both domestically and internationally. If we want credibility internationally, we need coherence domestically. Our own marine protected areas must live up to their name, which means ending destructive practices such as bottom trawling and implementing a clear, science-driven ocean strategy that rises above and goes beyond departmental silos and party-political lines. A strong stance on the high seas will ring hollow if our waters remain vulnerable. The public understand that, the environmental community understand it, and I know that many Members on both sides of the House understand it too. I join my Liberal Democrat colleagues in calling for a coherent oceans policy that joins up our commitment to international waters with stronger protections at home.

As I draw to a close—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I am getting there! Let me just say this. If we choose to pursue a strategy of high ambition, the UK can once again be a leader in global ocean protection, championing the first generation of high-seas sanctuaries, pushing for robust monitoring and enforcement, supporting small island states, and ensuring that the benefits of marine science are shared fairly. So yes, the Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill. It enables the UK to participate fully in the new regime for marine scientific resources, for marine protected areas, and for stronger environmental impact assessments. It is necessary, but it is not sufficient. The work that follows will determine its true legacy, and I trust that the Government will continue to draw on the support and perspectives of Members on both sides of the House to secure the wellbeing of the oceans for generations to come.

Parkinson’s Disease

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on securing this debate. I have had the honour in the past of being the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Parkinson’s, which is very forceful, and rightly so.

I want to address a couple of things, starting with the workforce. It is crucial to situate the point about shortages within the context of the forthcoming refreshed workforce plan. The Government have a golden opportunity to fix problems that have blighted Parkinson’s diagnosis and care for years. As with many other conditions, people rely on Parkinson’s diagnosis to access vital support. However, recent research by Parkinson’s UK suggests that up to 21,000 people are undiagnosed. The neurology waiting list stands at more than 226,000, and only half are seen with the 18-week target. At the root of that is our lack of neurologists.

However, for many patients, receiving a diagnosis is only part of the battle. Around one in five do not have access to a specialist nurse. There are also alarming shortages of occupational therapists, physiotherapists and speech and language therapists. Adequate access to specialists and multidisciplinary care is crucial for managing such a complex condition and preventing unplanned hospital visits.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

In advance of this debate, my constituent Tony contacted me to say that he had been diagnosed with Parkinson’s in 2019 but has only seen a specialist three times in the six years that have followed. Does the hon. Lady agree that access to a specialist is vital, not least for quelling anxiety, but also to help those with Parkinson’s to develop plans to help them to live independent lives?

[Mary Glindon]

The hon. Gentleman has eloquently described the very real problem of what happens after diagnosis.

Sitting alongside the Government’s workforce plan, a new, modern service framework for neurological conditions would set clear, evidence-based objectives and standards for care delivery.

Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Mundell. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) for securing this important debate, and other Members—most of them, at least—for their contributions.

The Council of Europe is one of the post-war generation’s quiet triumphs. It was Winston Churchill, speaking in Zurich in 1946, who called for the creation of a Council of Europe to safeguard peace and freedom across our continent. Just three years later, the UK became one of its 10 founding members, and from the outset it represented something profoundly British: a belief that democracy, human rights and the rule of law should not stop at our own shores; they are international values.

Of course, the Council’s crowning achievement is the European convention on human rights. For decades, the convention and the European Court of Human Rights, which enforces it, have protected the rights of millions, including our own citizens—defending free speech and fair trials, advancing equality for women, securing justice for our military veterans, the LGBT community and those with disabilities, and holding Governments of every colour to account.

Today, the Council of Europe, membership of which is predicated on ECHR adherence, helps us to combat terrorism, cyber-crime, corruption and money laundering, as well as human trafficking and other forms of organised crime, yet there are some in this House who would turn their back on that legacy and those instruments. They would align us with Russia, a nation expelled from the Council of Europe in 2022 after its unlawful invasion of our close ally Ukraine. Russia, our clearest adversary—that is the company that some would have us keep.

[Sarah Russell]

The only other country that has willingly left the ECHR is Greece, under the fascist military dictatorship in 1969. Of course, once the dictatorship was overthrown, it rejoined. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is not company that we wish to be in?

[Dr Pinkerton]

It is truly shameful company for us to maintain, and there is nothing virtuous or patriotic about calling for our withdrawal.

Indeed, those calling for withdrawal, in pursuit of a single policy objective—ending illegal migration—should heed a deeper warning. In “A Man for All Seasons”, the playwright Robert Bolt, through the character of Sir Thomas More, observes of England:

“This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down…do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”

If we cut down the laws that shield even the unpopular or the accused, we will soon find that there is no shelter left for any of us.

As authoritarianism rises and war returns to our continent, the Council’s role has never been more vital. Its expulsion of Russia was an act not of punishment, but of principle—a reminder that tyranny cannot co-exist with liberty. What becomes of Britain’s claim to moral leadership if we abandon the very human rights system we helped to build? What becomes of the rule of law, at home and abroad, if the United Kingdom decides that it no longer needs to be bound by it? Our rights—our particular British rights—have been formed over a millennium of conflict, struggle and reform. We surrender them at our peril.