Regional Transport Inequality

Debate between Richard Foord and Tom Gordon

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

I was listening to Radio 4 yesterday evening, and I was hearing about transport problems in London. Let’s face it: when we hear about transport problems in London, we know exactly what they mean, but pity also the poor people in the provinces who rarely come to London but have to hear all about London’s daily problems. In Devon, the struggle with our rail infrastructure is not just an occasional disruption; it is an everyday reality. Every year, there are around 50 million rail journeys to, from or within the south-west of England, yet according to the Office of Rail and Road, between January and March this year, only 67% of South Western Railway services ran on time, meaning that one in three trains arrived late.

Those figures were collected even before the disruption on South Western Railway over the summer, when speeds were reduced because of the hot, dry weather caused by the “soil moisture deficit”. A journey from Honiton to London, which should take a little over three hours, was dragged out to nearly four. Services from Axminster, Whimple and Feniton to Exeter were reduced to just one every two hours. That is not a service that people can rely on for work, for getting to college or for family life, and with hotter summers set to become more frequent, we need a lasting solution.

Even in normal times, the line is fragile. It depends on a long single-track section, which means that if one train is late, other trains are delayed, too. Trains back up at passing points, delays ripple down the line, and at busy times South Western Railway has to cut—or it has been cutting, at least—carriage numbers in half, leaving people crammed in.

One solution would involve increasing rail capacity along the line between Axminster and Exeter. At its heart, there would be a new 3-mile section of dual track near Whimple and Cranbrook. That single improvement would make a huge difference. With the double track in place, South Western Railway could run an additional hourly shuttle service between Axminster and Exeter, which would give Honiton and Axminster two trains every hour to Exeter and would mean that Whimple and Feniton would get a reliable hourly service. People would have better onward connections from Exeter St Davids to Plymouth, Barnstaple, Bristol, Birmingham and beyond.

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

My hon. Friend makes a really interesting point about dualling of line. I have been campaigning in my constituency of Harrogate and Knaresborough to dual the line between Knaresborough and York for the exact same reasons and benefits that my hon. Friend is describing. Does he agree that, if this Government want to get on with the job of growth, going further and faster on investing in dualling lines like ours would be a way to do it?

[Richard Foord]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He points to how it is much more affordable simply to dual a piece of track than it is to invest in new railway lines, as we talked about a lot in the last Parliament.

For students studying at Exeter college, for workers heading into Exeter and for businesses trading across the south-west, such a solution would be transformative. It would make the railway more resilient. When there are delays, whether they are because of flooding, autumn leaves or dry clay embankments, trains could pass more easily. With the Government planning around 20,000 new homes along the line between Axminster and Exeter, demand on this stretch of railway will only increase.

Finally, we cannot ignore the rolling stock—the trains themselves. The diesel fleet is nearly 40 years old. Reliability is failing and spare parts are running out. We need Government decisions on new trains—battery, electric or hybrid—so that by the early 2030s we might have a modern, clean, reliable fleet. Rural and coastal communities such as Honiton and Sidmouth must not be left behind. South Western Railway is doing what it can. Since I asked the Rail Minister a question this morning at Transport questions, South Western Railway has announced replacement buses from Axminster to Exeter, and between Feniton, Whimple and Exeter. But that is a sticking plaster. What we really need is investment that would allow it to run reliable trains, not just replacement bus services. People in the south-west pay many of the same taxes as those in London, but face long delays, overcrowding and fewer trains. It is time for the Government to demonstrate that attention to transport in the south-west is just as necessary as that in London.

Accountability for Daesh Crimes

Debate between Richard Foord and Tom Gordon

Thursday 15th May 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine, and a privilege to speak on this important statement on the Joint Committee on Human Rights report “Accountability for Daesh crimes”. The report represents the shared conclusions of a cross-party group of parliamentarians from both Houses, a rare show of unanimity in one of the most disturbing human rights failures of our time.

Let us begin with the facts. Between 2014 and 2017, Daesh—also known as Islamic State—waged a campaign of brutal violence and terror across Syria and Iraq. They targeted ethnic and religious minorities, including Christians, Muslims and particularly the Yazidi people, with a clear intent to destroy them as a group. Thousands of Yazidis were executed. Women and girls were abducted, raped, sold and enslaved, and many remain unaccounted for. Children were indoctrinated or taken for use as child soldiers. These were not isolated atrocities. They were systematic and intentional. They were acts of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

In 2023, the UK Government formally recognised that Daesh had committed genocide against the Yazidi people. That recognition matters, but recognition without justice is not enough. The uncomfortable truth is that nearly 3,000 women and girls were taken by Daesh and that, while a number of UK nationals were involved in these crimes and some have since returned to this country, not a single one of them has been prosecuted in the UK for international crimes such as genocide. Only around 32 returnees have been prosecuted for terrorism-related offences. Although it is welcome that those prosecutions have taken place, they fall short of the accountability that the scale and the nature of these crimes demands.

Let me be blunt: it is a stain on the UK’s human rights record that we have not prosecuted a single individual for some of these crimes, despite having the legal tools and the moral obligation to do so. Other countries have stepped up; in Germany, several Daish perpetrators have been successfully prosecuted for war crimes and genocide. There is no reason the UK cannot do the same, except for a failure of political will and legal infrastructure. Our report makes a serious of clear, practical recommendations that would begin to put that right.

First, we call for a reset in the UK’s approach to investigating and prosecuting international crimes. The current emphasis by UK law enforcement is overwhelmingly on terrorism offences. While that focus is understandable, it is currently insufficient. Genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity are distinct crimes under international law and must be treated as such. The Government must develop a strategic framework that enforces and ensures that law enforcement, intelligence and prosecuting agencies work together to gather the necessary evidence to bring these cases to court. This is not just about justice for victims abroad; it is about our credibility at home too. British citizens should not be able to participate in genocide abroad and return to the UK without facing the full weight of the law.

Secondly, we call for a change in the law. At present, under the International Criminal Court Act 2001, the UK can only prosecute individuals for international crimes such as genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity if they are UK nationals or residents. That is a major gap in our legal framework. Those are not crimes that should be subjected to jurisdictional loopholes. We urge the Government to amend legislation, specifically the Crime and Policing Bill currently before Parliament, to enshrine universal jurisdiction for those crimes in UK law. Doing so would mean that anyone, regardless of nationality or residency, could be prosecuted in the UK courts for the worst crimes known to humanity. That is not a radical proposal, but a long-overdue alignment of our legal system with our moral and international obligations.

Thirdly, we raise serious concerns about the deprivation of citizenship. The Government have used their powers to strip some individuals, particularly those suspected of involvement in terrorism abroad, of British nationality. We are concerned that in some cases the power has been used as a substitute for prosecution—in effect, removing people from our jurisdiction without holding them accountable for the crimes that they have committed. We call for greater oversight of the power. It should be subject to independent review and transparency mechanisms. Citizenship deprivation should never be used to avoid prosecution, nor to wash our hands of British nationals involved in the most serious international crimes.

Fourthly, we cannot ignore the humanitarian and security crisis in Syria. There are still UK nationals, including children, detained in camps that are overcrowded, dangerous and inhumane. Children face the daily risk of malnutrition, disease and violence. The camps have been described as, in effect, open-air prisons. They are not places for recovery or rehabilitation. The UK cannot simply look away; these are British citizens, many of whom are minors. Some of them were taken to Syria by parents, while others may have been born there. None of them should be condemned to a life of statelessness or radicalisation. We call on the Government to identify the number and status of those children, and to bring forward proposals for their resettlement and care.

Where British adults in these camps are suspected of involvement in Daesh crimes, the UK must take all steps to prosecute them here at home, in accordance with due process and the rule of law. The failure to prosecute those crimes sends a dangerous message to perpetrators, victims and the world. It tells perpetrators that they can get away with genocide if they are clever about which passport they hold, it tells victims that their suffering does not matter unless it happens within our own borders, and it tells the world that the UK is willing to tolerate impunity for the worst atrocities committed in modern times.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights believes that Britain must do better. Justice delayed is justice denied, and impunity is injustice enshrined. Let us be clear: the UK has the legal tools, the institutional capacity and the moral responsibility to act. What we need now is political leadership from the Government.

I thank everyone who gave evidence to the Joint Committee, whether written, in person or in any other form. I also thank those people who were brave in speaking out and sharing the situations that they and their families had been through. I acknowledge the work of the Committee support staff throughout this inquiry. I commend the report to the House and urge the Government to implement its recommendations without delay.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

More than 900 people left the UK to engage in the conflict in Syria and Iraq. There was a lot of media attention at the time on the case of one of them, Shamima Begum, who was 15 when she left the UK to join Daesh. Did the Joint Committee consider her case in particular, and does it have any recommendations for the UK Government?

[Tom Gordon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. Throughout our discussion, our deliberations and the formulation of the report, the Committee talked extensively about that. A number of issues pertain to the rights of a child, and one of the key structural points of the report is the deprivation of citizenship. We tried to avoid talking about specific individuals, but the report clearly sets out what we think the appropriate mechanisms are for the Government: namely, that the power should not be used as a tool routinely and that, where it is used, there should be review, accountability and scrutiny.