Russian Attacks on Civilian Infrastructure

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

The right hon. Member is right to pay tribute to Sir Alex Younger. I recognise the right hon. Member’s work in relation to the horrific Salisbury attack and the impact it will have had on the community, and I know that the work continues with him. He will be aware that the strategic defence review and the national security strategy have identified the Russian state as the most acute threat to the UK’s national security. We will continue to keep that matter under review and work with our international allies to ensure that we keep our country safe, put a stop to Russian state threats wherever they are happening, and continue to give Ukraine our iron-clad support.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

The latest attacks by Russia should be condemned in the strongest terms. Russia has rightly been made a pariah on the international stage for its ongoing invasion of Ukraine and the crimes associated with it, but it is slowly slinking its way back into cultural and sporting events, such as last month when Eurovision boss Martin Green said that Russia could return to the stage while the war in Ukraine continues. What steps will the Government take with their international allies and across Departments to ensure that such normalisation and rehabilitation of Russia’s image is not allowed while egregious breaches of international law and war crimes continue?

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He will have seen the assessment of Russian state threats that we have made through our security reviews, and he will have heard earlier about our concerns in relation to Russia’s failure to advance on the battlefield, which is of course why it is escalating matters now. We must look at all measures we can take to keep the pressure on Russia; we do so through our economic sanctions, but we will continue to do all we can to send a message to Russia that its behaviour and its violations of international law—for which it has no respect—are unacceptable, and that we will continue to back our allies across the world.

Equality Act 2010: Code of Practice

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

I know that my hon. Friend would not expect me to comment on individual cases. It is important to note that there is guidance in the draft code, with worked examples, and if an organisation is unsure, it will be important for it to be able to consult that guidance and to take legal advice, should it so wish, but there is also experience and common sense involved in this, as well as the application of the draft code with its examples that I think will provide answers to all organisations as to how they should proceed with the services they provide.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I am really appalled, frankly, with the response from the official Opposition. Just a few Prime Ministers ago, Theresa May said:

“Indeed when it comes to rights and protections for trans people, there is still a long way to go.”

Well, how far the Tory party has fallen from those words. As a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I attended the evidence session when we interviewed the new chair of the EHRC, and for the Minister to say that that was an independent process when the Government rammed it through despite cross-party consensus that the new chair was not fit for the role is, quite frankly, surprising. I also want to pick up on the fact that the Minister said that we should “treat these issues sensitively”. Today is the start of Pride Month. To do this today, of all days, is not just a kick in the teeth but a slap in the face for LGBT people across this country. I want to know what the Minister would say to my constituents who have told me how they have been challenged in toilets because they live their lives as trans people already, before this guidance was put forward. Why does she think this will make it any better? What basis does she have for that suggestion?

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Member will be aware that people have operated in society with respect for each other in relation to single-sex spaces for a long time, and that will continue to be the case. It is important to note that access to a toilet should be very clear, and to recognise the Supreme Court ruling in relation to toilets: toilets that are designated as male or female should be for those of that biological sex. However, facilities can be provided in other ways, and a large number of organisations across the country already do so, whether by providing unisex toilets or individual lockable toilets. That means that those facilities are accessible by anybody.

Community-owned Assets: Government Support

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making that really important point, and she is absolutely right. The flexibility that community-owned assets often have cannot be underlined enough, and the fact that they can respond to community needs is just one of the many positive aspects of these very special assets. Of course, community ownership shapes who holds power within organisations and over assets. It shapes who makes decisions about them and who benefits from them, as in the cases she talks about.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

The right hon. Lady is outlining a really clear case for community-owned assets. Can she elaborate on that and tell us if the UPP is an asset of community value? We have recently had to fight a campaign to stop Harrogate Spring Water chopping down the much-loved Rotary Wood, which is an asset of community value. If that planning decision had gone ahead and not been voted down, there would have been a moratorium that allowed the community to come together and put in a bid to try to purchase it, but there needs to be more support to make sure that those bids are prioritised, and that multinationals like Danone cannot simply swoop in and outbid a local community.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the “asset of community value” designation can be a really powerful tool. Yes, that has been applied in the case of UPP; it is something that the cinema itself and local people pushed for. I am really pleased that the council granted that designation, and in the case of important community assets, we really need to guard against the kind of development that he mentions.

A recent measure that the Government have been working on, and which will help in this area, relates to the community right to buy, which I know the Minister is really passionate about. The community right to buy is about giving local people the right to own and protect the places that matter to them, from pubs and parks to community centres and sports grounds. When communities have a real stake, as they do with the UPP, they do not just preserve assets; they make them thrive. This reflects a core co-operative belief—fundamental for the Co-op party, of which I am a member—that communities are best placed to shape their future. Where communities have succeeded in ensuring that vital shared spaces can continue to exist, they have done so despite the system, not because of it. The current situation brings into sharp relief how many hurdles communities face in trying to take control of the places that matter most.

The Ultimate Picture Palace is just one example of a community-owned asset facing blockages. We know that communities elsewhere are not eligible for funding streams or tax relief, and that there often is not the correct development support for those trying to pursue community ownership. The community right to buy will mark a landmark shift, but we need to go further, and I know that the Co-op party has argued this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

But funding alone is not enough, as my right hon. Friend pointed out. Communities also need stronger rights. Too often, valued local assets are sold off, left empty or lost entirely, with residents having little say in the process. That is why this Government are strengthening community power through legislation. Through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, we will introduce a new community right to buy. This gives communities the first opportunity to purchase a registered asset of community value when it comes up for sale. Communities will have more time to raise funds, access a fair and independent valuation, and rely on rights that carry real weight.

[Tom Gordon]

I just want to acknowledge the Government’s fantastic work, which the Minister is outlining, on this particular issue. Does she agree that one of the biggest worries people have in areas undergoing local government reorganisation is that cash-strapped councils will have to sell off such assets? Often when councils are merged, they can be further removed from local people on the ground. Does she agree that these steps will help to give people certainty, in the light of local government reorganisation?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We have had this exchange at the Dispatch Box previously; the Government embarked on local government reorganisation as a point of necessity, not because we either desired it or thought it would be fun to do so. Ultimately, local government is under huge amounts of pressure. We need to have local councils—the beating heart of our communities—that are sustainable, that have a footprint local people can recognise and that can do the job of enabling our communities. That is our firm intention through the local government process, but we recognise that alongside that it is critical that we build and support at community level. That is why, in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, we are introducing the roll-out of neighbourhood governance and why, through our Pride in Place programme, we are fundamentally empowering communities, which should be at the very heart of how we drive change in our places.

Consular Assistance

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

My Department would be very happy to take up the specifics of my hon. Friend’s case. Airlines are seeking to manage very complex caseloads, and we are grateful for their work with us. The British Government are obviously prioritising our most vulnerable nationals, and we are encouraging commercial partners to do the same.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I thank the Minister, Government officials and all our casework teams dealing with our constituents on this matter. Many of my constituents have been affected, and I too have encouraged them to register for the scheme. I am particularly concerned about vulnerable people with health conditions. I understand that they will be prioritised for repatriation flights. One of my constituents, who hopes to be on a flight tomorrow morning, has a heart condition and will run out of medication at some point. The Minister said that the Government hope to get medication into those countries. Will he elaborate on that to give reassurance to constituents like mine, who are understandably concerned about the management of their health conditions while this situation continues?

[Mr Falconer]

I understand that British nationals abroad with medical conditions will be worried about whether they can get access to the medicines that they require. The vast majority of British nationals are in the United Arab Emirates, where there are good supplies of all reasonable medicines that people would want access to. However, those with particular concerns should get in touch with my officials. We will work to ensure that British nationals who need medicine but cannot get access to it on their own are supported. Some of my officials have helped to take British nationals to pharmacies, for example.

UK-France Relations

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Chris Murray]

I will first declare an interest: I worked at the UK embassy in Paris—the quality has improved a lot since I left. I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman: the UK staff in France, both in Paris and in the consulates, and the French staff here in the UK, both in the embassy in London and in the consulates—including the consulate in Edinburgh, in my constituency —do fantastic work to smooth the relationship and stop crises erupting, which is so important. Of course, they also support nationals in the two countries, which is important, because tourism and business relationships, as well as political relationships, are what make this relationship so important to the country.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned tourism. Does he have any thoughts about the fantastic work that organisations such as Harrogate International Partnerships do in town twinning—a lot of which was set up off the back of world war two—and about how the educational, cultural and tourism exchange that such organisations provide can deepen the France-UK relationship?

[Chris Murray]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Speaking as an MP whose constituency is a tourist centre—we welcome people from across the world, and particularly from France—I know that such organisations contribute so much. Many businesses in my constituency are dependent on tourism from France but find it difficult to navigate, so organisations that have helped to mitigate bumps in the road are the backbone of the economy in places such as Edinburgh and Harrogate, and I pay tribute to them.

International Human Rights Day 2025

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I congratulate the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) on securing the debate. This year marks 75 years since the European convention on human rights, and 25 years since the implementation of the Human Rights Act in UK law. The longevity of these institutions can make them feel permanent and secure, but history teaches us the opposite—rights endure only when they are actively defended.

One of the great privileges I have in this place is serving as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I see frequently how human rights shape real lives—not just in high-profile cases, but in decisions about housing, healthcare, liberty, safety, family life and the right to protest. That is why the theme of this year’s International Human Rights Day, “Our Everyday Essentials”, matters so deeply. Human rights are not abstract legal theories; they are the foundations of ordinary freedom.

As the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway outlined so eloquently, Britain has helped to lead the world on human rights. After the devastation of the second world war, it was the British Government who helped to create the European convention, and the UK was its first signatory. We should be proud of that legacy, but today, in a more unstable, polarised and authoritarian global climate, the legacy is under direct strain.

We have heard from many hon. Members, from across the Chamber, about many examples of human rights abuses and horrendous situations happening in Palestine, Sudan and other places. I will pick up just a couple of those. In Sudan for the past two years, there have been repeated warnings about the re-emergence of the pattern that had been seen there before. Whistleblowers inside the Foreign Office have revealed that explicit warnings of impending genocide were removed from official documents as early as 2023, despite the assessments of the Government’s own analysts. That is not just a failure of foresight; it is a complete lack of responsibility. I would like to hear from the Minister what more could be done to understand how that happened.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights has already published major reports in this parliamentary session, including on transnational repression, the impact of slave labour in global supply chains, and the failure to prosecute British nationals for the crimes of genocide against Yazidis and others. I encourage and invite Members to read them if they have not already done so. The JCHR report on transnational repression documents how authoritarian regimes extend their reach into Britain, placing bounties on dissidents, harassing families, issuing threats and, in the most severe cases, making attempts on lives on British soil.

In our work on slave labour, we have exposed in further detail, from lived experience and evidence, how Uyghur Muslims and children in the DRC are trapped into forced labour that is linked directly into western supply chains. Let us be clear: human rights abuses are not a distant history; they are embedded in the modern global economy.

We know that China has sanctioned several British parliamentarians and we know that Chinese-linked espionage has penetrated the Palace of Westminster. We know about the mass repression in Xinjiang, yet the Government appear willing to approve a vast new Chinese embassy in central London regardless. What I would like to know, as I am sure many Members would, is: what will be said when the Prime Minister goes to Beijing? Will he raise concerns? Will he raise those cases? The House of Commons had previously placed on the record—it is logged in Hansard—its recognition of the genocide in Xinjiang at the hands of President XI. Will the PM demand an end to transnational repression and slave labour, or will he simply hand over the deeds to a new embassy as a reward for repression, espionage and sanctions against British MPs?

If we are serious about the theme of human rights as everyday essentials, it is important that we look at home, too. We must be serious about defending the rights of trans and non-binary people. Trans rights are human rights, full stop. They have the right to live with dignity, the right to safety, the right to healthcare and the right to exist without fear. Yet trans people have been relentlessly targeted by culture war politics, hostile media narratives and irresponsible rhetoric by politicians of all parties. Their healthcare has been politicised, their identities turned into ideological battlegrounds, and the result is not abstract. It is rising hate crime, worsening mental health and people driven out of living lives as they would wish.

I have recently had a number of trans people reaching out to my office. They have experienced horrendous situations and even ended up with suicidal ideation. It is clearly happening and should not be hidden or ignored. A society that picks and chooses whose rights deserve protection is a society that has already abandoned the universality of human rights. Across the world and here at home, we are witnessing the rise of populist movements that deliberately seek to weaken human rights. We hear that the rights protect the wrong people, that judges are the enemy, and that international law is a foreign imposition. This is a textbook strategy: undermine the courts, discredit the media, erode democratic institutions, and then hollow out the protections that restrain power. History tells us exactly where that path leads.

Human rights were not created to be convenient. They were created to protect people when it is most inconvenient, when fear runs at its highest and minorities are most vulnerable. The assault on rights is no longer confined abroad. The Government have failed to repeal repressive protest laws and are now proposing to restrict jury trials. They are even flirting with diluting the European convention on human rights as we speak. It took the Liberal Democrats to stand up to Reform in October when it tried to scrap the UK’s participation in the convention with a 10-minute rule Bill, while the Labour Front Bench abstained. Ministers claim they want to confront the far right, but the surest way to fuel extremism is to concede the ground of principle.

Undermining protections for the vulnerable is not strength; it is surrender. This is not reform; it is not responsible scrutiny. It is a systematic attempt to weaken the architecture that shields every one of us from the abuse of power. Human rights are not a gift from the Government. They are not conditional and not a political favour. They are the bedrock of a free society protecting the protester, the journalist, the minority, the prisoner, the refugee and ultimately the citizen.

On this International Human Rights Day, the challenge before us is stark. Either we defend those everyday essentials—imperfect, hard won and absolutely vital—or we allow them to be dismantled in the name of short-term politics. I know which side of that choice I am on, and so does my party. I urge this House and the country to choose human rights not just in words today, but in action every single day.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

T8. Last month, I met Anoosheh Ashoori and opened his exhibit “Surviving Evin” at a Harrogate district Amnesty International branch event at Ripon cathedral. Given the continued use of arbitrary detention and state-sponsored kidnapping and hostage-taking by Iran, what steps are the Government taking to strengthen protections for British nationals when abroad?

[Mr Falconer]

I am familiar with the case that the hon. Member mentions. On all the other detention cases in Iran, we are working to ensure that those individuals have full access to consular assistance where they need it, as British nationals have across the world.

UK Ambassador to the US: Appointment Process

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

My understanding is that Lord Mandelson is still an employee, and proper employment processes will take place, but I will write to the hon. Member to confirm my answer to that question. Lord Mandelson has recently been asked to withdraw as ambassador, and I will come back to the hon. Member with a detailed answer, but I do not want in any way to inadvertently mislead the House on an important matter.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

It seems that there is a broad consensus across the whole House that this felt as though it was a question of when, not if. So during the extended vetting procedure, was there ever any interference or pressure from either No. 10 or the Prime Minister?

[Stephen Doughty]

As the hon. Member will know, I simply am not going to go into the vetting procedures, which are conducted independently. He can certainly look at the detail of how vetting processes are under- taken in the diplomatic service code, which outlines the processes.

China Audit

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the powers to counter foreign interference and transnational repression under the National Security Act.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

The Foreign Secretary mentioned Hong Kong in his statement. Would he consider speaking to colleagues in the Home Office about rethinking the changes to indefinite leave to remain, to ensure BNO passport holders do not end up facing questions about their status?

Genocide Convention: UK Compliance

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Falconer]

I was not at the event and I cannot speak to who was invited or why, but obviously I speak to Dr Zomlot on a regular basis. He is personally affected by the crisis in Gaza and across the Occupied Palestinian Territories. There is no doubt in the Government about the depth of human suffering that is being experienced each and every day—that was experienced overnight—by people desperate to access aid in Gaza. The position that I am laying out in relation to the legal tests that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire mentioned is to reassure the House that we take our obligations under the convention incredibly seriously. The long-standing position about determination is that it is for a competent court. That does not stop us taking action in response to the tragedy that is unfolding before our eyes.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

Recently, the Joint Committee on Human Rights published a report about accountability for Daesh crimes, including genocide. A number of recommendations in that report pertain to issues applicable to other situations that have been referred to today. I want to press the Minister on the issue of universal jurisdiction. Would he and the Government consider a change in the law to allow for the prosecution of genocide regardless of a perpetrator’s nationality?

[Mr Falconer]

I am of course very happy to consider the recommendations of the Committee. We do have extrajudicial—I will be careful on the legalities of it, but as I understand it, British courts can look into crimes of genocide outside the UK where a UK national is involved. If the recommendation of the Committee is that that should be expanded, we can take a look at that, but that is the current position. At the risk of stating the absolute obvious, it is a criminal offence to commit genocide in the UK and it is a criminal offence to commit genocide outside the UK if you are a UK national, and our courts have competence to hear that.

I want to be clear on our position in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We strongly oppose the expansion of Israel’s military operations in Gaza and its stated intention to hold territory indefinitely. Israel’s denial of essential humanitarian assistance is unjustifiable. Israeli settlements in the west bank and East Jerusalem are illegal under international law and settler violence against Palestinians is unacceptable. Extremist rhetoric inciting unlawful violence against Palestinians is abhorrent. The House has heard about steps we have taken in recent days to respond. We have equally been clear in our condemnation of Hamas for its heinous terrorist attacks on 7 October, which the hon. Member for North Herefordshire referred to, its cruel holding of hostages and its use of civilian infrastructure in conflict, which places civilians at huge risk.

The hon. Member for North Herefordshire talked of the International Court of Justice, which is considering a case brought under the genocide convention by South Africa against Israel. It has issued provisional measures, including on humanitarian access. We respect the Court’s independence and its authority to issue binding orders, and expect Israel to follow them under international law. Separately, the International Criminal Court is investigating what is happening in Israel and the OPTs. We fully support that Court’s role in investigating and prosecuting serious international crimes and holding those responsible accountable, including delivering justice for victims.