Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

I rise to speak in support of Lords amendments 2 and 3, which were tabled by Conservative peer Baroness Goldie and supported in the other place by my Liberal Democrat colleagues. I urge Members on both sides of the House to reject the Government’s proposals to remove them and replace them with a watered-down version. The amendments do something simple but profoundly important: they embed within the commissioner’s role a clear and explicit whistleblowing function, one that empowers service personnel and their families to raise concerns about welfare and wrongdoing safely and with confidence, and, crucially, one that provides statutory protections for those who speak up.

A complaints process and a whistleblowing system have two different purposes. A complaint is often about personal redress whereas a whistleblowing disclosure is about drawing attention to serious wrongdoing, often at great personal risk in the public interest. The Government’s amendment in lieu acknowledges the importance of anonymity, but it does not go far enough. It merely inserts a provision to protect identifying details in publishing reports and only where the disclosure was “in response to a request”. It neither defines nor protects whistleblowers in statute.

Whistleblowing is a vital tool in surfacing systemic failure—something that our service personnel clearly need. It seems like almost every month brave service personnel and veterans come forward with shocking accounts of misconduct. Their accounts underline how much courage it takes to speak up and how easily that courage can be crushed by fear of social backlash, reprisal or career damage. The Government argued that anyone can raise a concern with the commissioner and that data protection law already protects anonymity, but data protection is not the same as whistleblower protection. It is passive and does not actively encourage disclosures, does not instil confidence and does not grant status or safeguards against retaliation.

The whistleblowing amendments would not overburden the commissioner; they would simply recognise whistleblowing for what it is: a unique and necessary channel for uncovering wrongdoing that might otherwise be buried. They are tightly drawn, limited to welfare matters, and designed to ensure that information reaches someone with the authority to act. The commissioner will be tasked with improving the culture and confidence among our armed forces. Nothing would do more to support that mission than keeping the amendments, which would introduce a whistleblowing function, giving our brave service personnel and their families an independent, trusted person to whom they can speak safely and be heard without fear.

I will vote against the Government motion to remove Lords amendments 2 and 3, and I urge colleagues to do the same. The amendments give confidence to those who wish to speak up, but who are afraid of the consequences. “Whistleblowing” is a simple, clear and well-understood term that can provide extra assurance. It could make this Bill truly transformative to the armed forces culture.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

Yesterday’s strategic defence review rightly put our brave service personnel at the heart of defence plans, and this Bill is a fundamental part of renewing the nation’s contract with our armed forces. It was an honour to serve on the Public Bill Committee, and I am pleased to see the amendments made in the other place, which improve the Bill. However, I support Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendments 2 and 3.

Lords amendments 2 and 3 would introduce a new general function for the commissioner to investigate concerns raised by whistleblowers in relation to the welfare of persons subject to service law and relevant family members, but the House will know that the commissioner can already investigate any general service matters that they choose, and the Bill already allows anyone who wishes to raise such issues to do so. While the Lords amendments have been important in raising issues around anonymity for whistleblowers, Government amendment (a) would go further by ensuring genuine protection for people who raise an issue that later features in an investigation and report by the commissioner.

Strategic Defence Review

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend rightly raises the scale and nature of the increasing cyber-attacks that this country faces. When I had the privilege of taking this job 10 months ago, I was taken aback to find that in the last year, defence across the piece had been subject to more than 90,000 cyber-attacks that could be linked directly to other states. That is why in this SDR, we pick up the recommendation to establish a new cyber-command, so that we can build on the pockets of excellence across defence and ensure that we can more effectively defend against and use offensive cyber to deter such attacks.

On funding, the spending review next week is an important moment for the Government, but the Prime Minister settled the funding for defence in his statement in February. The Chancellor has already put an extra £5 billion into the defence budget this year. We will hit 2.5% of GDP three years before anybody expected us to, and we have an ambition to hit 3% in the next Parliament. As the Prime Minister confirmed this morning, we will spend what is needed to deliver the vision of the strategic defence review over the next 10 years and beyond.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

I thank the Defence Secretary for advance sight of his statement, although I am more than disappointed that I only received the SDR two hours ago at 3.30 pm, after the journalists.

The Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister are absolutely right. We have entered a new era—one defined by international instability, geopolitical conflict and global uncertainty. Perhaps not since the end of the cold war have we faced such myriad threats to our defence: a barbaric Russian imperialism under Putin threatening Ukraine’s freedom and NATO’s security; a Trumpian White House defined by its total indifference to, and even antagonism towards, the defence of Europe; and the rising threat posed by China, as well as by regional pariah states such as Iran and North Korea. Taken together, these threats pose a once-in-a-generation risk to our country’s defence. Meeting generational risks will require making generational commitments, so I welcome the Government’s readiness to accept all the recommendations outlined in today’s strategic defence review.

It is frankly staggering, however, that we still do not have a clear answer to the vital question: where is the money coming from to fund these ambitions? This is a shopping list without the money to pay for it. The Government have flip-flopped on whether we can expect defence spending to rise to 3% of GDP—the figure on which the proposals of the SDR are premised. Putting the cart before the horse when it comes to funding the nation’s defence sends entirely the wrong message to Putin and our other adversaries. Will the Secretary of State commit to holding cross-party talks on how to reach 3%?

While I welcome the announcement of new funding for military housing and urgent repairs, fixing our recruitment crisis and doing right by our service personnel requires more than sticking-plasters. Will the Government legislate to require all military homes to be brought under the decent homes standard? It is desperately disappointing that despite having had 11 months to consider how to stem the decline in the number of soldiers in the Army, the Government appear to have sat on their hands. The shameful decline in troop numbers has only continued on their watch. Does the Secretary of State agree that if the Government are serious about delivering for Britain’s defence, reversing the utterly reckless troop cuts overseen by the Conservatives must begin now?

[John Healey]

I welcome what the hon. Lady said on Ukraine. She will recognise that this Government have been supported by all parties in the House in providing steadfast support to Ukraine to fight Putin’s illegal invasion. She will also recognise that since this Government were elected in July, we stepped up the support for Ukraine. I hope that she will recognise that we have also stepped up the leadership that the UK can offer on European security more widely. As well as convening meetings, I chaired the first Ukraine support group meeting after 26 meetings in which the US had led the way. Alongside the French, we are convening the 30-odd nations that are looking at securing a long-term peace in Ukraine, if a ceasefire can be secured. This week at NATO, I will continue those discussions with Defence Ministers.

The SDR is a vision for the next 10 years and beyond. It can be delivered within the spending commitments that this Government have made. As the Prime Minister underlined this morning, those spending commitments were baked into the terms of reference, and have been confirmed by the reviewers. As he has said, we will spend what we need to deliver this review, and I am totally confident that we will meet the ambition of 3% in the next Parliament.

On military homes, the hon. Lady is right to mention the scandal, which has gone on for years, of making the families of those who serve live in substandard homes, which are often mouldy and damp, with leaking roofs and doors. We can change that, and we have acted to start to do that. This year, for the first time, we bought back family military homes, and we now control 36,000 of them. Last month, also for the first time, we set out a consumer charter, with the basics of what people can expect from the MOD as their landlord. We have also confirmed an extra £1.5 billion over this Parliament to deal with the worst military family homes. We can start to develop for the long term, and build the homes that we need for our forces, and in the country more widely. We will be able to use better the huge asset that MOD land offers.

UK Nuclear Deterrent

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

We face a once-in-a-generation set of threats, including an imperialist Putin and a completely unreliable President Trump, who we cannot depend on to support our defence. Our nuclear deterrent remains the best and ultimate guarantor of the UK’s security. We must ensure that it meets the scale of those challenges, so it is right that the Government should look at ways to guarantee its effectiveness. Delivering the Dreadnought class on time is crucial to that, and I welcome the update that the Secretary of State provided before the recess on those timescales. Looking ahead, it is important that the House understands the purpose of any future addition to our nuclear deterrent, so will the Minister outline what discussions his Department has had on how further additions to the deterrent would positively bolster the UK’s security?

[Luke Pollard]

The United States remains the UK’s most important security partner: no two nations on earth are as integrated in their defence, intelligence and communications systems as the United States and the United Kingdom. That is a position that this Government intend to continue, because it is in our national interest to ensure we remain strongly connected with our partners in the United States. I am open to conversations about how we bolster our deterrence. Indeed, I believe the Defence Secretary may have more to add on that matter in his statement on the strategic defence review.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

There we are. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

In dodging last week’s peace talks in Turkey, President Putin proved once again that he has no interest in stopping the fighting; his goal remains the subjugation of Ukraine. Moreover, this afternoon’s reported phone call between Putin and President Trump once again presents the alarming possibility that, between them, the Kremlin and the White House will agree a carve-up of Ukraine, which would be utterly intolerable. What more are the Government doing to invest directly in Kyiv’s weapon production to ensure we strengthen Ukraine’s ability to resist Putin’s war machine, resist attempts at a carve-up by Putin and Trump, and secure maximum leverage for any peace negotiations?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

A career in the armed forces or a defence industry is a good career for any school leaver in Bristol, in Plymouth or anywhere across our country. I commend my hon. Friend on the work that he and people in Bristol are doing to promote a career in our armed forces and the defence industries. There are good, well paid careers available in every part of our country—indeed in every single constituency—in defence.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Last week’s “Panorama” documentary brought fresh allegations of war crimes by Special Air Service and Special Boat Service forces, raising grave new questions about the conduct of the special forces during Operation Herrick in Afghanistan. It also highlighted the vital importance of promoting transparency and accountability across our armed forces. In the light of these developments and the ongoing public inquiry, will the Secretary of State consider looking at how Parliament could scrutinise the work of the special forces?

[John Healey]

The previous Government, with our support, set up the Haddon-Cave inquiry, whose job it is to get to the bottom of any allegations and investigate them fully. That is the job it is doing, and it has our full support—and, I hope, the continued support of the House —in doing it. The hon. Lady mentioned the “Panorama” programme. Anybody who is willing to talk to the media about the information they have and what they allege must be willing to do the same to the Haddon-Cave inquiry.

UK Airstrike: Houthi Military Facility

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and I thank the Minister for the Armed Forces for his briefing earlier today.

The Houthis’ destabilising military campaign in the Red sea has had a chilling effect on trade through that vital waterway, threatening lives while imposing costs on British businesses and consumers. The Houthis cannot be allowed to act with impunity and hold the global economy to ransom by restricting freedom of navigation. It is important that their military capabilities are degraded to ensure that trade can flow freely, which is why the Liberal Democrats support the case for limited strikes. We thank the service personnel involved for their bravery, and we are pleased that they have returned home safely. However, it is vital that we fully understand the operational goals behind the mission, as well as the intelligence planning and co-ordination of the strikes.

Can the Secretary of State explain to the House why the Government have chosen this occasion to join US forces in a joint strike, rather than doing so on previous similar missions? The recent leaks from President Trump’s Cabinet, also pertaining to military action in Yemen against the Houthis, raise concerning questions about how secure US intelligence is and the possible impact on British service personnel. In the light of those leaks, can the Secretary of State reassure us that intelligence-sharing with the US is completely secure, and can he tell us whether the Government have undertaken an assessment of the security of our intelligence-sharing networks with the US? I was reassured to hear from him that the Government have no evidence of any loss of civilian life, but can he update the House on what steps were taken ahead of the mission in an effort to minimise civilian casualties?

[John Healey]

Before I respond to the hon. Lady, may I point out that I neglected to respond to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) on the subject of the SDR? When it is published in the spring, all his questions will be answered.

I welcome the hon. Lady’s recognition of the importance of degrading the military capabilities of the Houthis, and I welcome her support for the action that we took last night. I say to her with confidence and reassurance that our own UK intelligence and communications systems remain secure.

The hon. Lady asked, “Why now?” First, the decision and the action that we took were in line with long-established policy, both UK policy and the United Nations charter. Secondly, it was a reflection of the fact that, as I have reported to the House, the US is stepping up and we, as a close ally, are alongside it in this action. Thirdly, our purpose is to protect our economy at home, because most of the shipping in this busiest of international sea routes makes a big detour that pushes up prices and has a direct impact on not just our security interests but our economic interests in Britain. That is why we are acting.

Ukraine Update

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

I thank the Defence Secretary for advance sight of his statement.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the £200 million of support to the frontline in Ukraine. Over Easter, Putin proved that he had no interest in securing peace. Within hours of declaring a supposed Easter truce, Putin unleashed a fresh wave of drone and artillery attacks across many parts of the frontline. Meanwhile, President Trump has shown once again his utter indifference towards the Ukrainian people’s struggle. After boasting that he would end the war within 24 hours of taking office, he now threatens to withdraw US support for mediating talks altogether. It is no wonder his efforts have failed, given his warped approach of applying pressure to Kyiv while offering the hand of friendship to the Kremlin.

We cannot rely on President Trump if we want to secure a just peace in Ukraine, one that respects Ukraine’s right to self-determination and proves that aggression towards neighbours does not pay. That is why the UK needs to go further and faster, together with our partners in Europe and the Commonwealth, to support Ukraine and increase the pressure on Putin. Will the Defence Secretary update the House on what steps have been taken to seize the £25 billion-worth of frozen Russian assets across the UK and deploy them to Ukraine? Will he also update the House on whether the Government plan to expand the UK’s designation of vessels that are part of Russia’s shadow fleet and subject to sanctions, helping to further reduce Putin’s ability to fund his war through exported oil revenues?

We welcome the Government’s work to convene discussions on creating a reassurance force for Ukraine. The credibility of the UK’s commitment to such a force would be significantly enhanced by reversing the staggeringly irresponsible 10,000 troop cut to our Army which the Conservatives undertook while in government. Will the Defence Secretary commit to reversing those cuts today?

[John Healey]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s welcome for the surge in UK support to Ukrainian troops on the frontline. It is important to support them at this point in their close fight. That is what we are determined to do, as well as preparing for the longer term peace that we hope will be secured.

On the peace negotiations, I would just say to her that it is President Trump who has created this opportunity for negotiations and for peace, and it really is too soon to call failure on those negotiations. Everything about the determination of some significant US figures and the work they are doing, the discussions we will help support and play a part of in London tomorrow, demonstrates that there is a broad coalition of nations that wants to see a peace in Ukraine, wants to see Putin negotiate seriously, and is willing to take the steps to help bring that about.

On the question of the pressures on Putin, whether we can make any further use of the seized Russian state assets is something we are looking closely at. It is not just a question or a judgment for the UK. It will be much more powerful if that is done with other allies, particularly through the G7. If we make any progress on that front, that is the way we will do it.

Royal British Legion

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Thank you for your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) on securing this debate. As defence spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, a veteran of the Royal Military Police and someone who has worked closely with the Royal British Legion in my community, I warmly welcome this discussion.

The Royal British Legion makes a significant contribution, both locally and nationally. Its crucial work supports veterans, advocates for their rights and promotes remembrance. I am proud that the RBL and the Liberal Democrats share many values, such as fair treatment for veterans, mental health support and ensuring that the armed forces covenant is properly upheld.

The work of the RBL is vital. Those who have served put their lives on the line to protect the freedoms and values we cherish, and their sacrifices do not end when they leave the forces. Many veterans and service families face ongoing challenges, from physical and mental health struggles to difficulties transitioning back into civilian life. As the UK’s largest armed forces charity, the RBL has 180,000 members, 110,000 volunteers and a broad network of partners and charities. It is essential that, as MPs, we continue to support its work.

The RBL has played a fundamental role in fostering the UK’s strong culture of remembrance. It launched the first poppy appeal in 1921, selling 9 million poppies and raising £106,000 to support veterans of the great war with health and housing. Over a century later, the poppy appeal remains a cornerstone of remembrance, raising funds for financial aid, healthcare support and transition services for veterans. The local footprint of the Royal British Legion across the country and overseas provides a tried and tested structure to help us all play our part in supporting the armed forces community every day. That is even more important now, as our serving personnel deploy on operations and prepare for an uncertain future. The RBL is both a pillar of support for the armed forces community and a guardian of our national memory.

On a personal note, I was proud to take part in the RBL’s cycle challenge in November, in which I was the fastest female MP. I was happy to see the number of MPs who eagerly took part in that challenge to support the RBL, and many of them are here today. Perhaps less well known, but no less important, is the role that the RBL plays in our local communities. In my county of Surrey, I have seen just how well the RBL helps to mobilise support across the community.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

In my constituency of Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme, the RBL’s integration within the local authority is massively important because it is the voice of the people it represents, and their warmth, passion, consideration and expertise. Does the hon. Lady agree that co-operation with local authorities in providing services around housing and financial management, as well as emotional management, is massively important?

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Maguire]

Yes. It is absolutely vital, and I will come on to that point in a moment.

As I was saying, the RBL does a lot, from sharing a moment of reflection while commemorating the 80th anniversary of VE Day on 8 May this year by lighting the beacon on Epsom Downs to organising the Remembrance Sunday parade each year.

My local Epsom and Ewell branch raised over £79,000 during the 2024 poppy appeal, the highest amount raised by any Surrey branch and the most the Epsom and Ewell branch has ever raised. I extend my thanks and gratitude to the organiser, Amy Johnson, and to all the amazing volunteers who stood for hours collecting donations—I was proud to be a volunteer myself. However, there is a national shortage of volunteers like Amy, so I encourage everyone to donate their time.

My local branch runs a monthly veterans community hub, offering ex-servicemen and women a place for community and companionship. This initiative has been a lifeline for over 30 veterans, many of whom had felt isolated before attending. I have been delighted to meet so many wonderful individuals and to hear stories about their time in the armed forces. One woman who stands out is Mildred, who is 101 and was in the Special Operations Executive in Italy, running messages to and from the resistance on her bike—she spent her 21st birthday in a cave with other resistance fighters. I was honoured to celebrate her 100th birthday with her at the veterans hub.

The group, which is led by the incredible Barb Warwick and so many volunteers, has also taken veterans on trips, including a visit to the D-Day Story Museum in Portsmouth, and it gets them to participate in activities such as archery and model-making. The group is extremely grateful to 135 Geographic Squadron Royal Engineers and Major Quintin Locke for allowing it to use the Army Reserve centre free of charge.

It is inspiring to see communities come together to support the RBL’s work, but we must do more to ensure that veterans receive a fair deal. Branches such as Epsom and Ewell, which have worked closely with borough councils, are anxious about the transition to unitary local government. We must ensure that RBL branches continue to have opportunities to work with devolved Governments under the new system.

Branches also struggle with membership, despite the presence of many veterans, as many veterans are unaware of the support available to them. GPs are now pledged to support veterans in any way they can as part of the military covenant, and it is vital that they are equipped with the resources to connect veterans to the RBL and other resources.

Additionally, the RBL is keen to break the misconception that it primarily serves veterans from world war one and world war two. It actively supports veterans from conflicts such as those in the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

I noted when I spent time with the RBL in Tunbridge Wells that there has been an age shift, and that it is the old and the bold who are manning the barricades, as I am sure that many of us have seen that in our local branches. Will my hon. Friend join me in urging the Minister and the Government to connect service leavers—people of our generation, as my hon. Friend and I served at the same time—and the RBL in the areas where they are going to live?

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Maguire]

Absolutely. I totally agree with my hon. Friend, and his point could be considered in the resettlement schemes for people leaving the armed forces.

The RBL is involved in a number of campaigns to improve the lives of all members and veterans of the armed forces, but it needs our help here in Westminster. We can start by backing the RBL’s “Credit Their Service” campaign to stop military compensation being treated as income in the means-testing of welfare benefits, which causes veterans and their families to lose out on thousands of pounds a year. Compensation awarded by the Government for service-related injuries should not be treated differently from civil compensation awarded by the courts. The current practice violates the armed forces covenant, and it is time for change.

Another pressing issue is the impact of welfare reforms on disabled veterans. With one in five working-age veterans living with a disability, the proposed welfare changes risk making it harder for them to claim essential support. And narrower eligibility criteria for personal independence payment and changes to universal credit could negatively affect veterans with service-related conditions.

Additionally, delaying access to incapacity benefit until the age of 22 could disproportionately harm young veterans, particularly early service leavers and those who are medically discharged. Upon leaving the armed forces, many veterans struggle with complex mental health issues. It is unacceptable that those who served our country and are left suffering with depression, anxiety or PTSD receive inadequate support. The new Government must do more to assist these brave men and women by providing regular mental health check-ups and ensuring timely access to professional help.

The Liberal Democrats are committed to improving the recording of veterans’ physical and mental health outcomes, including waiting times for treatment. We must also continue to combat the stigma surrounding mental health, so that veterans feel able to seek the support they need.

For over a century, the RBL has supported serving and former service personnel and their families. However, despite these efforts, more than half of veterans have faced mental health challenges and 60% hesitate to seek support due to stigma. Organisations such as the RBL play a vital role in reducing such stigma by fostering connections between veterans of different generations who have shared experiences.

The failure to provide a fair deal for the armed forces is not just morally wrong; it also affects recruitment and retention, leaving our country less secure. At a time when our national security is increasingly under threat, we must remember the sacrifices made in military service. I am proud of the Royal British Legion’s contributions, both in Epsom and Ewell and across the country. We must stand with the RBL as it continues to support those who have sacrificed so much for us, and I hope that all Members here today will join me in signing up to become a member of the Royal British Legion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

I welcome the creation of the violence against women and girls taskforce, which is an important step towards enabling complaints to be heard and addressed outside the chain of command, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for raising this important issue. Like the taskforce, the Government have committed to a new veterans strategy focusing specifically on the experience of women who have left the service. Will the Minister outline the timescale for the development and implementation of that strategy, given how vital it is that women come and serve in the armed forces, and that they feel safe and secure in doing so?

[Al Carns]

As part of our future veterans strategy, a women veterans annexe will provide specific guidance on females wanting to leave the armed forces. It is also important to mention that we are not just setting up the violence against women and girls taskforce; we have the sexual harassment survey going out, the tri-service complaints system, the review of our zero-tolerance policy by a KC to move to 100% action, an international culture and behaviours conference to learn best lessons from our international partners, and the modernisation of our military appraisal system to ensure that people who get involved in unacceptable behaviour are tracked through the system so they can be held to account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

We support the Government’s commitment to strengthening defence ties with our European partners, but they need to go further and faster to ensure that the UK does not get left behind. Has the Defence Secretary spoken with his counterparts in the EU about the value of the new stand-alone UK-EU defence pact, which will enable the UK to better influence decisions around new finance programmes, such as a rearmament bank to support defence investment across Europe?

[John Healey]

Yes. Last week I met with High Representative Kallas and spoke with Commissioner Kubilius, and that was exactly the subject of our conversations.

Military Co-operation with Israel

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) on securing this important debate.

I want to start by saying that the return of Israeli strikes on Gaza is horrific for all Palestinians, for the remaining hostages and their families, and indeed for the world. We need a return to the ceasefire now. I thank the hon. Member for raising so many points that I was not aware of; it would be good to hear the Minister’s response on those particular issues.

As early as April 2024, the Liberal Democrat leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), called for the UK Government to suspend arms exports to Israel. Today I reaffirm that position: the UK must immediately halt all arms exports to Israel. During Foreign Office questions in October, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), pushed the then Minister for Development to

“agree that the UK should…cease all arms exports to Israel”.—[Official Report, 22 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 168.]

In response, the Minister talked around the issue and gave no clear response. That is unacceptable: we need decisive action, not evasion.

Liberal Democrats have long championed tougher controls on UK arms exports, to ensure that British-made weapons do not contribute to human rights violations. We support a presumption of denial for arms exports to all Governments listed in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s human rights and democracy report as human rights priorities, which include Israel.

Ultimately, the Liberal Democrats believe that only a political resolution, based on a two-state solution, can bring lasting peace, security and dignity to Palestinians and Israelis. However, developments in recent weeks have undermined efforts by moderates on both sides to maintain a ceasefire and move towards a durable peace in the region. The Israeli Government’s decision to block the supply of aid into Gaza and their cutting of the electricity supply are unlawful and must be unequivocally condemned. It is crucial that we see a return to the ceasefire, with its conditions respected by all sides, and negotiations advanced to agree on phase 2. Electricity and essential supplies must flow into Gaza to alleviate the immense human suffering. Blocking aid threatens the lives of the millions of Gazans dependent on humanitarian assistance after the destruction of the past 17 months. The UK Government must apply pressure to ensure a return to a ceasefire, and supplies must resume without delay.

Hamas must move immediately to release the remaining hostages, including the bodies of those killed in captivity. The treatment of hostages at the hands of Hamas, both in captivity and during their release, has been despicable. It is also clear that the expansion of Israeli settlements in the west bank is illegal and is fuelling further tension, undermining the efforts of Israeli and Palestinian moderates to move towards peace. The UK Government must outline concrete steps to put pressure on Prime Minister Netanyahu to address rising settler violence and the illegal expansions. Inaction on this issue must end. The Liberal Democrats have called for a ban on the import of goods from illegal settlements.

An increasing number of our allies, including Spain, Norway and Ireland, have formally recognised a Palestinian state. It is now time that the UK joins them. Recognition of Palestine on 1967 lines would send a strong signal that we are committed to a two-state solution and to supporting the work of Israeli and Palestinian moderates to that end. Given the calls by far-right Israeli Ministers such as Smotrich for the annexation of the west bank, the urgency of that recognition cannot be overstated.

President Trump’s return to the White House adds further layers of complexity and urgency. His reckless comments on the future of Gaza, including suggestions that Palestinians should be removed from the strip, have further inflamed tensions. It is crucial that the UK steps up and pushes for a diplomatic resolution that recognises both an Israeli and a Palestinian state. Recognising Palestine would also inject hope into Palestinian society that having its own state is possible, which in turn would help to wrest control back from the extreme actors at the edges of Palestinian society.

In conclusion, the UK must have a principled and strategic approach: halt arms exports to Israel, hold all parties accountable under international law, and champion a two-state solution. This Government must stop ducking those critical issues and take a stronger stance, one that can contribute to a just and lasting peace.

War in Ukraine: Third Anniversary

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

While I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, it is one that we all hoped we would never have to have, but I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing it.

For more than three years, the brave people of Ukraine have heroically defended their country against a full-scale invasion, defying Putin’s expectations and showing the world their courage, resilience and unwavering determination. They have reminded us all of what is at stake: the right of a sovereign nation to choose its destiny, free from coercion and tyranny.

Today, we are at a pivotal moment, with our Prime Minister in the US. This is a moment that will determine the future of our continent for generations to come. Now more than ever, we must stand firmly in support of our Ukrainian friends, resist Trump’s dangerous flirtation with a deal that rewards Russian aggression, and work with our European allies to defend freedom and democracy.

The UK must act decisively. That starts with working with our European allies to unleash the £40 billion-worth of Russian assets currently sitting idle in banks, in order to give Ukraine a critical boost at this critical moment. The UN General Assembly has recognised Russia’s obligation to make reparations for this illegal war, yet history shows us that Russia will never voluntarily pay those reparations. By redirecting these funds to Ukraine, we are not undermining the rule of law, but upholding it. Some fear that seizing those assets sets a dangerous precedent. I argue the opposite—it sets a necessary precedent. It tells the world that the international community will act decisively against those who wage unprovoked wars of aggression. It is only right that those assets are repurposed for military aid, humanitarian support and rebuilding efforts.

Any negotiations about Ukraine’s security must involve Ukraine itself. This war is about Ukraine’s sovereignty, and its fate cannot be decided in backroom deals between Washington and Moscow. I cautiously welcome reports that the White House is engaging respectfully with Kyiv, but this commitment must extend beyond words. There can be no ceasefire or security negotiations without Ukraine at the table; anything less would be an insult to the sacrifices made by its people and a betrayal of the values we claim to uphold.

Supporting Ukraine means more than military aid alone. It requires long-term investment in defence manufacturing, joint procurement with Ukrainian companies, and a recognition that Ukraine’s innovation in defence technology, robotics, artificial intelligence and prosthetics is unparalleled globally. The UK should actively support and invest in those sectors, helping to strengthen Ukraine’s economy while also bolstering our own security and technological capabilities. We must also stand with Ukrainian veterans and refugees. More than 250,000 Ukrainians now call the UK home, and many of those who arrived here in 2022 will soon need to apply for visa extensions under the Ukraine permission extension scheme. While that scheme grants those Ukrainians an 18-month extension, it provides no certainty about their long-term future. We must ensure that Ukrainians in the UK have clarity about their right to remain, while understanding that so many of them will return to their country once the war is over.

If the US retreats from its role in global security, Europe must step up, and Britain should lead. The Government’s pledge to raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027 is welcome, and we hope it will mean a reversal of the Conservative party’s short-sighted cut of 10,000 troops, but we must go further. Given the increasingly volatile global landscape, the UK needs to plan to further increase defence spending. Now is not the time to play politics. The Government should recognise this and host cross-party talks to discuss a pathway to 3% as soon as possible.

However, we must fund this increased defence spending in the right way. At a time when Ukraine’s economy has contracted by nearly 30% and its reconstruction needs are estimated at nearly $500 billion, it is incomprehensible that the UK has chosen to cut its international aid budget to fund the increase in defence. Slashing funding for global development while increasing defence spending is like robbing Peter to pay Paul. The UK’s soft power is a vital tool in this fight, and we must restore our aid budget to 0.7% of gross national income, ensuring that our support for Ukraine does not come at the cost of abandoning other vulnerable nations. Defence, after all, is based on defence, diplomacy and development. The Liberal Democrats have set out how an increase in defence spending could be fairly funded by increasing taxes on social media firms and other tech giants, but the Government have chosen to finance it by cutting the international aid budget. This is a dangerous mistake; weakening the UK’s global influence will only play into the hands of Russia and China.

We must also lead discussions about the creation of a European rearmament bank. Led by the UK and other like-minded European NATO allies, such a bank would allow us to collectively increase defence spending further and faster by raising additional private capital. That model would mean a more stable long-term financing system, enabling the defence industry to innovate and increase production capacity.

The question is not whether we act, but what happens if we do not. Failing to stand with Ukraine will embolden Putin, undermine NATO and threaten European security. Three years into this war, the stakes could not be higher. We must take bold action to stand up for democracy, for our allies in Ukraine and eastern Europe, and for our own security.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.