Ben Maguire MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. I suspect that this is just a small start, and that this issue goes much, much wider. I imagine that there is much more information to come. As the House turns its attention to the matter of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, I want to use this moment to refocus our minds on those who have been most consistently forgotten throughout all this: the victims and survivors of Jeffrey Epstein and the justice they have been denied for far too many years. It is only because of their bravery in coming forward that we know the true extent of Epstein’s crimes and the deeply troubling implications that those crimes hold for our own establishment. When we talk of these survivors, we must confront an uncomfortable truth: many UK victims are simply too afraid to come forward right now. Their fear is well documented in UK reporting, which describes a “greater sense of fear and reticence” among British survivors: a fear of stigma, of being disbelieved and of the powerful networks that have long silenced these women and girls. Yet abuse did happen here in the UK. Epstein carried out wrongdoing during extensive and repeated trips to London. These were not distant or abstract harms; they took place here on UK soil, under UK jurisdiction, and they demand a UK-led response. Instead of justice here at home, victims were effectively steered, and are still steered, into the US justice system. They are told to seek redress through the Epstein victims’ compensation programme—a fund that ultimately paid $120 million to around 135 survivors, and did so more quickly and confidentially than litigation could. That programme has been open internationally, and victims here in Britain could apply without needing a lawyer, making it less costly and traumatic, but what does it say about our own UK justice system when British victims who were abused here, on British soil, are left seeking justice 4,000 miles away? We are asking traumatised people to navigate foreign bureaucracies because we in the United Kingdom have nothing equivalent to offer them. What does it say that less than a handful of UK victims even approached a solicitor? That is not because abuse did not happen—we know that it did—but because the absence of any UK prosecution meant that they did not feel empowered to speak. We can draw a stark contrast between figures such as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Peter Mandelson, who have allegedly enriched themselves through their associations, and the survivors, who were left fighting for justice. The Epstein files reveal a powerful network of wealthy people colluding with Epstein, using their privilege to silence and dismiss survivors—a pattern that has been highlighted by the End Violence Against Women coalition. The files expose how powerful men evade consequences while their victims struggle even to be heard, reinforcing the very fear that continues to keep British survivors in the shadows. Surely the role of this House and of any democratic institution worth its name is not simply to reinforce that silence, but to finally break it. That is why we call clearly and firmly today for the UK to open criminal prosecution and survivor-led inquiries into London-based offences. These alleged crimes fall squarely in the UK’s jurisdiction. The nationality of offenders and victims is irrelevant; what matters is that the harms occurred here, and those harms deserve justice here. Justice for British victims must not be outsourced abroad. Justice must not be dependent on the bravery of a handful who are willing to defy enormous pressure. Justice must not be conditional on navigating a foreign compensation scheme; it should be delivered transparently, confidently and compassionately here in Britain.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  Before we turn to the wider implications of the debate, it is important to acknowledge why the Liberal Democrats are pressing for full transparency today. Serious allegations have been raised about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s conduct during his time as the UK’s trade envoy, including reports that he claimed taxpayer-funded expenses for so-called “massage services” and other inappropriate costs. Former senior officials have described a culture of deference, in which such claims were barely questioned, expenses were rubber-stamped and scrutiny was effectively absent.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention; I could not agree more. We very much need a public inquiry to expose all the harms done to the victims and how the establishment in our country has seemingly played such a central role in that. If our Government are sincere when they speak of a fairer, safer and more accountable society, they must show leadership rather than continued deference. They must show survivors that they will be believed, protected and heard in the UK. At the heart of this matter are not titles, reputations or institutions, but people—survivors, whose lives, like the victims of domestic abuse, have been shaped by fear, silence and power wielded against them, rather than for them. They deserve far better; they deserve a justice system that will fight for them. Now is the time for immediate action. Will the Minister please consider not redacting any of the documents that do not relate to the ongoing police investigation? As my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) suggested, will the Government look at a full public inquiry into Epstein and his links to the British establishment? Finally, will the Minister go away and look to end the appalling negative privilege that prevents MPs in this House from speaking freely about members of the royal household? This matter is a disgusting symptom of the deference that we have shown to those in positions of power at the cost of victims. Our constituents should no longer be silenced in what should be our proud British democracy.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  As recently as 22 January, this Government formally committed to delaying local elections again, but facing defeat in the judicial review, they suddenly realised that the delay was unlawful. This U-turn has cost £63 million at a time when my own local authority in Cornwall faces a massive funding shortfall. Legal advice does not usually suddenly change without a material change in facts, so did the Secretary of State ignore the Attorney General’s legal advice on this matter until it became obvious that the Government would lose, or did the Attorney General provide incorrect legal advice to the Secretary of State? Which is it?

• 5 Feb 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  Jury trials are not a peculiar way to run a public service; they are a fundamental pillar of our justice system, being eroded under this Government’s proposed court reforms. Serious reforms should focus on reducing inefficiencies that waste sitting days, increasing court capacity and making use of vacant courtrooms, not scrapping the right to trial by jury. If the proposals are intended to reduce the Crown court backlog, should this House not be given clear evidence before core constitutional protections are weakened? Will the Solicitor General please tell us whether the Government will publish an estimate of what proportion of current Crown court backlog would be sent to judge-only trials as a result of the reforms? Also, given that it is Sexual Abuse and Sexual Violence Awareness Week, what assessments have been made of how the judge-only proposals will affect vulnerable victims of domestic abuse?

• 5 Feb 2026 · Water Infrastructure: Inspections · Hansard source

  More

  During Prime Minister’s questions on 17 December, the Prime Minister promised me a meeting with the Water Minister to discuss the scourge of constant sewage dumping in my constituency and the Lowermoor water poisoning scandal. I have followed up repeatedly, including a visit to No. 10 just last week to speak with the PM’s team, who assured me that they would chase up that meeting as soon as possible—I appreciate that they may be somewhat busy at the moment—and agreed that the delay was unacceptable. The Water Minister is still yet to respond to me, so can I ask the Secretary of State when this vital meeting will take place?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Animals in Science Regulation Unit: Annual Report 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) on securing this really important debate today. I congratulate all the speakers who have participated. I thought they all made powerful and useful contributions to the debate. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East powerfully highlighted some of the horrific and unacceptable treatment of animals in research. The Liberal Democrats are champions of animal rights, and I am proud to speak on behalf of the hundreds of animal rights campaigners from my constituency today. I must add a special mention of my constituent from Bude, Steph Jones-Giles, who is a true animal rights champion and has spoken to me about this on many occasions. I see Isobel Martin from Animal Free Research UK in the Gallery; she is also an excellent advocate on this issue. Fundamentally, Liberal Democrats believe that this country should expect only the absolute highest standards of animal welfare in the scientific experimentation and cosmetic industries. We want to get this country back on track as a world leader in this area and take concrete steps to raise animal welfare standards and get the balance right. The latest annual report by the Animals in Science Regulation Unit, the subject of our debate, shows a number of welcome steps and intentions facing the right direction of travel. It rightly places a strong focus on avoiding the use of animals in scientific testing wherever possible. I am proud that we Liberal Democrats are at the forefront of raising these issues. Lord Clement-Jones, a colleague from the other place, is applying the right pressure to ensure that regulation in this area remains precise and adequate, with encouragement to properly prevent and punish any non-compliance that causes undue harm to animals, which has been mentioned by many hon. Members today. However, it is alarming to read, in the latest report, of the 146 cases of non-compliance in 2024. As many Members have pointed out, those are only the cases that have been reported. Although marking a drop in cases compared to the previous year, those were largely failures to provide proper care such as food and water to the animals being tested on, as we have heard, and to adhere to the strict licence conditions. Those countless cases of malpractice involved more than 22,000 individual animals, with most being mice. It is a truly shameful statistic. In October 2024, the Regulation Unit made some welcome reforms by increasing their team of full-time inspectors and establishing a new governance board for the unit for greater oversight, which has made a welcome and positive impact. On a wider point, I am proud to have voted against the draconian measures that were put before the House just over two weeks ago, along with my Liberal Democrat colleagues. We stood firm against expansion of the Public Order Act 2023, which bans legitimate and peaceful animal rights protests and criminalises those activists demanding better welfare for animals involved in testing. I reiterate that once more: I am talking about peaceful campaigners who are raising genuine ethical concerns being treated like terrorists under the guise of threats to our national security. Time and time again in years gone by, the Conservative party undermined our right to peaceful protest by introducing sweeping, overreaching powers that go far beyond what is needed to maintain public safety. The police already had strong powers to deal with dangerous or obstructive behaviour before the current Government and their Conservative predecessors imposed those totally unnecessary extra measures. I will briefly refer to some hon. Members’ speeches. The hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) highlighted the starvation and injury of primates and, again, the possible under-reporting of non-compliance in the self-reporting system we find ourselves with, which means we may have only scratched the surface of illegal animal abuse. The hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) highlighted the 5 million animals that are to be used in experiments in the coming years, and made a powerful case for Herbie’s law. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) has been a long-standing champion on this issue; I think I am already a member of her APPG but, if I am not, I will make sure to join. The hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) mentioned how experiments have been made on more than 2,500 dogs and 1,000 primates, and, again, highlighted the cases that have not been reported. Liberal Democrats are unapologetic in wanting to see minimal use of animals in scientific testing and the phasing out of testing altogether wherever possible and as soon as possible. We urgently call on the Government to provide greater funding into viable alternatives. In her response, will the Minister commit to a full, new animal health and welfare Bill that looks at the wider issue of animal welfare and delivers a comprehensive national strategy to safeguard animal wellbeing in this sector? As part of their ongoing reset talks with the European Union, will the Government sign a veterinary and phytosanitary agreement as soon as possible to ensure closer alignment on standards and quality with the trading block? Finally, will the Government commit to solidifying minimum standards for all imported food, so that our own animal standards are met by every other nation looking to do business? That would prevent our British farmers being undercut by poorer-quality foreign imports that do not have the same standards.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Tolled Crossings and Regional Connectivity · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. Finally, my Launceston constituents in North Cornwall frequently use the Tamar bridge crossing, on which they rely to access healthcare at Derriford hospital in Plymouth, so they absolutely have to make that journey. It is not a shopping trip or a leisure trip; they really need to make that journey. It takes around two hours by public transport to get to the hospital, and it takes almost one hour to get there by car, which is still quite staggering. On top of the fuel costs and the costs of running a car, they have to pay this £3 charge, and that is before we get to the extortionate cost of the hospital car park once they arrive. I urge the Minister to factor that into the Department’s thinking, because this is not just about leisure trips. We are talking about vital healthcare.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Tolled Crossings and Regional Connectivity · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that a real devolution deal, similar to those enjoyed by our Celtic cousins, must include a roads budget that is equivalent to the Cornish proportion of the strategic road network? Equating to around £95 million a year, it could easily make the Tamar toll free, at around £15 million a year, and leave further funds for urgent upgrades such as the A38 in her constituency, a Camelford relief road and—

• 2 Feb 2026 · Tolled Crossings and Regional Connectivity · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and hopefully he and I can make the argument to the Minister and her colleagues that some of that money should go to the Tamar bridge. There are certainly other road projects across Cornwall. The hon. Member for South East Cornwall spoke passionately about the A38, which my constituents frequently raise with me, and hopefully that is another project that can be funded from the large amount of money we are hearing is coming to Cornwall’s road network. There are also much-needed safety upgrades at Plusha in my constituency. I have met the Minister on numerous occasions, so I know she is aware of the upgrades to the Camelford relief road, which have been promised for many years. As I have mentioned, I really hope that a devolution deal will now be forthcoming in which we see the equivalent of the Cornish proportion of the strategic road network, which is around £96 million a year. This evening, we have talked about making the Tamar toll crossing cheaper for local residents, or potentially removing the toll altogether at a cost of around £15 million a year. In their devolution deals, our Celtic cousins enjoy a budget equivalent to the amount of the road network they have in their nations, and that would leave plenty of money left over for the A30 upgrade that the hon. Member for South East Cornwall mentioned, and for lots of other upgrades across Cornwall.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Tolled Crossings and Regional Connectivity · Hansard source

  More

  I take up your kind invitation to make a short speech, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) for making an excellent speech and raising this important issue. I want to make a few brief points, particularly while we have the Roads Minister here. The national focus in recent times has been on train connectivity in the north, so I am pleased to see Cornwall, Devon and the wider south-west getting a proper share of the debate this evening. One point I want to make while the Minister is here is that National Highways does not currently contribute any maintenance moneys to the Tamar bridge, despite the fact that the bridge is a critical part of its roads network. I understand that it recently cost as much as £6 million to resurface the bridge, because the method used is complex, but not a penny spent was from National Highways; it used the tolls generated.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Tolled Crossings and Regional Connectivity · Hansard source

  More

  I humbly ask the Minister to write to the Cornish MPs so we can see what proportion of that £2 billion—I think she said by 2030—might come to our region. Perhaps then we can see how it might contribute to reducing, or maybe even removing, the tolls on the bridge.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Storm Goretti · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on securing the urgent question and showing leadership on this crisis in the absence of a Government response. There has been no Cobra meeting and no declaration of a national emergency, and many of my North Cornwall constituents did not even receive the emergency alert. I have great respect for the Minister, but he does not even seem to have the correct number for households currently without power. The Bellwin scheme, which is activated in emergencies such as this, reimburses local authorities for the extra costs incurred, but the scheme is unfair for larger authorities such Cornwall council, which can apply only once it has spent 0.2% of its budget—£1.6 million. If the storm had hit South Hams, for instance, the district council would need to spend only £260,000. Now that Cornwall council faces a real-terms cut in funding over the next three years, will the Government commit to emergency financial support for it to assist those who have been drastically affected by this storm?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to pick up on the point raised by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) about the ludicrous situation where a farm that is worth £5 million if it is owned under a certain ownership model will not be subject to tax, but a farm worth less than that could be subject to tax. Graham, a farmer from my constituency, visited my surgery on Friday. He is in that exact situation. He is a sole trader slightly over the £2.5 million mark. We ended up discussing for more than 10 minutes whether he should marry his long-term partner to get away from this tax. Does that not illustrate just how ludicrous the situation is, Minister?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to slightly correct the record there. We are having a technical debate about who opposed the tax first. I remind the Committee that it was the Conservative party that negotiated those disastrous New Zealand and Australian trade deals that decimated farming in my North Cornwall constituency.

• 8 Jan 2026 · Road Safety Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  Ryan Saltern was hit and left for dead by a drunk driver in 2019. The perpetrator received a four-month suspended sentence. In 2021, Ryan’s family launched their Ryan’s law campaign to increase sentences for hit-and-run offences, and in October I introduced a Ryan’s law amendment to the Sentencing Bill. We all know that there can be lots of talk in this place, but not always much action. Last year, I met the road safety Minister with the family; she clearly listened and has now acted, and I thank her. I pay tribute to my incredible North Cornwall constituents Mark and Helen, Ryan’s parents, and Leanne, his sister, for never giving up—they are a true inspiration. Once the consultation closes, how long will it take the Minister to bring draft legislation to the House?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Rural Fuel Duty Relief · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) on securing this important debate. Constituencies like mine, which borders my hon. Friend’s constituency, are among the most rural in this country. My constituents rely on their cars to cover vast areas to get to work, to take their children to school and to attend vital healthcare appointments, and they quite literally pay the price when it comes to the cost of fuel. People living in rural areas such as North Cornwall spend, on average, £800 a year more in fuel costs than those living in urban centres. These people make about 75% of their journeys by car. In Cornwall, about four times fewer people than in the rest of England are able to travel to work via public transport. Fuel can in some cases be 10% to 15% more expensive at the pump in Cornwall, compared with other areas. If we extrapolate that across a full year or several years, adding in our increased reliance on our cars, my North Cornwall constituents end up facing astronomical costs, at a time when money is extremely tight. Under Liberal Democrat proposals, we would double the number of areas covered by the rural fuel duty relief scheme to include places, such as Cornwall, that are in dire need of respite in the face of these extremely high fuel prices. The Government, in the recent Bus Services Act 2025, missed a clear opportunity to ensure that vital healthcare routes have statutory protection, as schools and other education routes do, to ensure proper access to healthcare in Cornwall’s hospitals and GP surgeries. I have just got off the phone to Go Cornwall Bus, which explained to me once again that this Government are not providing enough bus funding. The logical conclusion is that we have to use our cars for essential trips such as for healthcare. These are not leisure trips; they are essential. My constituents have no other options. They are forced to drive for hours to access hospital and GP appointments in north Devon, Truro, Derriford and elsewhere. Additionally, we would introduce an official, Government-funded pumpwatch scheme, which my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) mentioned. That would allow Cornwall’s commuters to compare fuel prices at nearby petrol stations to prevent them from being ripped off. As we have heard from so many Members, prices vary across the country and sometimes within the same region. Northern Ireland already has a comparison scheme in place and, as a result, benefits from some of the lowest fuel prices in the country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) said. Will the Minister kindly confirm whether he and the Government will adopt our proposals to double the number of areas included in the rural fuel duty relief scheme and launch an official pumpwatch programme? Please, Minister, give those proposals the consideration they deserve.