Ben Maguire MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2026 · Medical Services (Rural Areas) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to prepare a strategy for expanding the provision of Minor Injuries Units and Urgent Treatment Centres in rural areas; to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament annually on the implementation of the strategy; and for connected purposes. Since my election as North Cornwall’s MP almost two years ago, I have worked on far too many cases with constituents who face huge barriers in accessing healthcare. The first is the issue of getting to hospitals and healthcare centres. Bus services in my constituency are few and far between, to put it mildly, and the transport network lacks direct bus services from every single one of my major towns to their nearest district hospitals. Bude to Barnstable hospital is a five to six-hour round trip involving three buses. Bodmin to Treliske is a four-hour round trip involving two buses and a lengthy train journey. Launceston to Plymouth is a four-hour round trip involving three buses. Wadebridge to Treliske is a five-hour round trip, and Camelford to Treliske is a six-hour round trip. That is not to mention the many villages across North Cornwall that have even worse bus connectivity. To access her 20-minute chemotherapy appointment, one constituent was forced to travel from Bude to Derriford hospital, which is a three-hour round trip, even by car. She did that journey every day for three weeks. Another constituent undertook a 120-mile round trip to Tiverton last week, only to be told that the appointment had been cancelled when she got there. The hospital told her that this was down to staff shortages due to sickness, but why was there no adequate cover in place for vital appointments? Staff shortages due to sickness caused major problems for my constituents in Launceston last summer when, during the peak tourist season, those shortages caused the town’s minor injuries unit to close its doors. The “shortages” were just one staff member being off sick. The remaining staff were then distributed to other MIUs, none of which I would describe as being nearby, leaving my constituents and North Cornwall’s visitors travelling much further to access minor injury treatment—that is, if they were able to travel at all. Many told me that during that time, they had vital aid administered at home, instead of being seen by a healthcare professional. My constituents have also urged me to raise the issue of the lack of dementia care. Despite having one of the oldest populations in the UK, Cornwall sadly ranks among those with the lowest capacity for dementia care, due to its lack of specialist care home beds and community support. Despite being one of the worst affected areas, Cornwall has less than half as many specialist care home beds per 100,000 people as Surrey, even though about one in three people in Cornwall are over the age of 70. On a personal note, my grandmother suffered from dementia towards the end of her life, and my father and I shared her care in her final years. Through this experience, I saw at first hand how dedicated the care home and medical staff were, but also how dangerously overstretched they were. Had I not gone in to feed her every evening, she would not have eaten. For dementia patients interacting with the rest of our creaking health system, the situation gets even worse. One constituent with advanced dementia fell and sustained a head injury. After an hour-long journey to the nearest major hospital, he was forced to wait outside in an ambulance for over eight hours. During this time, he was brought in for an assessment and then taken back outside again. As night fell, he became more confused and more agitated, and his family had no choice but to take him home to Launceston, without blood tests, and without confirming the suspected brain bleeding, and with no testing and no treatment. On the subject of waiting times, those suffering from mental health issues in Cornwall can be stuck on referral waiting lists for months and months. When they reach crisis point, their options are limited. Some attend their local urgent treatment centre or MIU. In rural areas like mine, people can be extremely isolated, and their mental health can really suffer. Our farmers in particular face a mental health epidemic. In Cornwall, mental health patients can be sent from one end of the duchy to the other, or even to the other end of the country. They are often driven miles and miles from their family and support systems, and are isolated even further. One constituent who attended my surgery just last week had waited 313 days for accommodation back near his family. I urge the Government to ensure that rurality is factored into their ongoing mental health consultation, as part of the 10-year health plan commitment. I come to one of the most pressing issues for my constituents of all ages: the total lack of NHS dentists in North Cornwall. This massive issue puts huge strain on our major hospitals, but it also has a serious knock-on effect; patients visit their local MIU with serious dental problems. That is not to mention the huge pressure on A&Es, if patients can get to one. In the strategy required by this Bill, I would ask the Government to address the chronic lack of NHS dentistry in rural areas. We know that the NHS dental contract needs urgent reform, but will the Government also look at stopping integrated care boards handing back unused ringfenced funding, such as the unspent £1.2 million recently handed back by the Cornwall ICB? All the issues that I have raised affect thousands of my constituents. They have paid their taxes and national insurance contributions for decades, and they have put their faith in a national health service, but they have been very badly let down when they most needed support. What I have described sounds like the sort of access to healthcare that would shock us if we were looking at a third-world country, but sadly this is the reality that my constituents face, and there is seemingly no help on the way on healthcare transport. Both the Government and Cornwall council regularly tell me that there is no money available for any more buses, even if routes are a matter of life or death. Of course, I recognise the absolutely incredible and tireless work of our nurses, doctors and other staff at our hospitals and medical facilities; I want to make that clear. They work in incredibly stressful environments, and with stretched resources, dealing with patients who have been let down by the system. However, this Government must put in more effort on the recruitment and retention of MIU staff. That must include expanding the provision of key worker housing for MIU nurses. The lack of that housing seems to be a key reason why Cornwall is failing to attract a workforce, and it further exacerbates our problem of closure due to constant short-staffing. Our local GP surgeries also experience enormous pressure during MIU closures. The Minister for Secondary Care, who is in her place, has helped me and my constituents to finally secure a desperately needed new GP surgery building in Bodmin, but unfortunately the battle continues, and I will come back to her for further assistance with that. We have needed help, funding and more support in North Cornwall for decades, but we have not just sat by and waited for it. Our amazing volunteers and their excellent initiatives have demonstrated that we can offer real value for money and great healthcare outcomes, even compared with more urban areas. Barry Cornelius runs a pioneering healthcare transport system, and Cym Downing and many others run amazing memory cafés. The mental health charity Man Down provides excellent mental health services, and countless other charities, staffed by incredible volunteers, fill in the service gaps. To end, I would ask the Government to set out for my constituents in writing how they plan to ensure minimum staffing levels at MIUs and urgent treatment centres in rural areas like North Cornwall. I ask the Government to let my constituents know exactly how they will expand the provision of medical facilities in the rural areas that need them most. I commend this Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Ben Maguire, Andrew George, Steff Aquarone, Mr Joshua Reynolds, Ian Roome, Edward Morello, Rachel Gilmour, Dr Danny Chambers, Layla Moran, David Chadwick, Freddie van Mierlo and Charlie Maynard present the Bill. Ben Maguire accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the F irst time; to be read a S econd time on Friday 16 October , and to be printed (Bill 108) . Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 56), That the Bill be now read a Second time. Question agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Question put forthwith, That the Bill be now read the Third time. Question agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed. Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill (Business of the House) Ordered, That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill— Timetable (1) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting in accordance with this Order. (b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order. (c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order. (d) This paragraph shall have effect notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the intervals between stages of a Bill brought in upon Ways and Means Resolutions. Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put (2) When the Bill has been read a second time: (a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put; (b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given. (3) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chair shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question. (b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put. (4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chair or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply: (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair; (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed; (c) the Question on any amendment, new Clause or new Schedule selected by the Chair or Speaker for separate decision; (d) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown; (e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and shall not put any other questions, other than the question on any Motion described in paragraph (10)(a) of this Order. (5) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chair or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill. (6) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(d) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chair or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions. (7) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(e) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chair shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out. Miscellaneous (8) Standing Order No. 15(1)(Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill. (9)Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies. (10) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order. (b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion. (c) Such a Motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly. (d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed. (e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion. (11) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown. (b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith. (12) The start of any debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall be postponed until the conclusion of any proceedings on that day to which this Order applies. (13) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House. (14) (a) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at a time falling after the commencement of proceedings on this Order or on the Bill on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders or by any Order of the House, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day. (b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business so far as necessary for the purpose of securing that the business may be considered for a period of three hours. —(Mark Ferguson.)

• 30 Jun 2026 · High Streets · Hansard source

  More

  Unfortunately, Cornwall was unsuccessful in the latest Pride in Place funding round. Does the Minister agree that Cornwall desperately needs a proper devolution settlement so that Cornwall council can fill the many empty shops in Bodmin, in Launceston, elsewhere in my constituency and across Cornwall? The council does not currently have the power to easily put shops back in community use or put them to other excellent uses.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Rail Freight · Hansard source

  More

  I have been supporting a project called Kernow Connect alongside Cornwall council, and it looks to advance freight capacity to Cornwall significantly. We have Falmouth, one of the deepest ports in the world, and fantastic resources such as critical minerals, but we do not have the infrastructure to take the freight to the rest of the country. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister could start thinking about such projects, which are potentially ready to go, and get some feasibility study money to see if they are viable so that we can have the freight revolution the country needs?

• 27 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will keep my contribution brief and speak once again on Lords amendments 98 and 98A, to allow other hon. Members to speak. Along with many of my constituents, I was very disappointed last Tuesday that the Minister failed to mention Cornwall once in her closing speech, despite my pointing out the dangerous powers that the Government are still trying to instil into law—powers that could be used by this Government or a future Government, which could force Cornwall to merge with another authority without the consent of the Cornish people. Cornwall still faces the prospect of having no legal protections in the Bill. Liberal Democrats have made efforts here and in the other place to secure protections that would take our national minority status into account under the European Framework convention for the protection of national minorities. I fear that my constituents are being held to ransom by this Government, who say, “Accept our terms, effectively give up your national minority status, be forced into a merger with another region, and we might give you more money—and if you don’t accept our terms, we have the powers to force you to do so in two years’ time anyway.” In my eyes, that amounts to nothing more than economic coercion against a national minority. The Minister keeps repeating, as she did last week, that the Government have already committed not to use these powers for two years. How does that provide comfort for my constituents? Either a future Government or this one could use that power after two years. I therefore hope that all my Cornish colleagues and Members from across the House will join me this time to vote against the Government’s latest attempt at blocking Lords amendment 98. Let us please not hand this Government or future Governments this unlawful power to combine authorities against the will of local people—our constituents. To the Minister, I say again that she has not considered Cornwall’s national minority status, contrary to the European framework convention, and so she will likely expect a legal challenge if the Bill becomes law.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Some of the most shocking stories that I heard during the general election campaign on doorsteps throughout North Cornwall were of people pulling out their own teeth because they could not afford the high cost of private dental care. This week, all parties at Cornwall council unanimously passed a Lib Dem motion to tackle the urgent dentistry crisis we face by focusing on prevention, outreach services and workforce shortages. The Lib Dem sponsors, Councillors Rosie Moore and David Garrigan, emphasised urgent action over more talk. If Cornwall council can come together cross-party and act with such urgency, why can’t the Government? Will the Leader of the House please commit to a debate in Government time on fixing the NHS dentistry crisis in rural and coastal communities, like mine in Cornwall?

• 21 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will briefly speak to Lords amendment 98. When it comes to regions such as Cornwall and my constituency of North Cornwall, this Bill neither respects nor gives due consideration to our unique national minority status. In a letter sent to the leader of Cornwall council in November last year, the Secretary of State said that he recognised Cornwall’s “distinct local identity” and said that the Government were “minded, on an exceptional basis, to work” with the leader to explore a bespoke deal for Cornwall. Five months later, the Bill has progressed through both Houses and still we have nothing in writing about that bespoke Cornwall-only deal, or even provisions to allow for one. Instead, we see efforts by this Government to undermine Lords amendment 98. The Secretary of State plans to force his MPs to vote against that vital amendment, which would prevent the Bill from giving overreaching powers to Ministers, through which they could essentially force local authorities to combine, against the will of local people. On 24 March, on Report in the other place, the Government Whip responded that discussions are “positive and ongoing” and urged my Lib Dem colleague in the other place, Lord Teverson, to withdraw his amendments that were specifically designed to provide appropriate legal protections for Cornwall. The Minister in the other place said: “While the United Kingdom is a proud signatory to the charter and the framework convention, accepting these amendments risks creating uncertainty over the status and interpretation of those treaties in domestic law.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 24 March 2026; Vol. 854, c. 1413.] Instead, the Government seem to have chosen to completely ignore the European framework convention and charter for languages, which opens up the Bill to potential legal challenges. Our national minority status in Cornwall has been completely ignored, and now risks being ignored by future Governments as well. This essentially means that the current or any future Secretary of State could force Cornwall to combine with other authorities, and disregard its national minority status. Let me be clear: Cornwall does not want that, and my constituents regularly urge me to make this point. We do not want to be dragged kicking and screaming into a combined authority with Plymouth or any other wider south-west authority. Without Lords amendment 98, we risk having a diktat from the Westminster Government that tells us what to do. That is not devolution. I urge Members from across the House to vote against the Government’s attempt to disregard this vital amendment, and I respectfully ask the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and set out what protections for Cornwall’s national minority status the Government will bring forward, and when.

• 21 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 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?

• 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?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q2. I thank the Prime Minister for having confirmed a Cornwall-only devolution deal since my last question to him. In 1988 more than 20,000 North Cornwall constituents were poisoned by the then South West Water Authority, and in a recent BBC documentary strong suggestions were made of a cover-up by the Thatcher Government. None of those victims have ever been properly compensated, and today South West Water poisons my constituents with impunity through its constant sewage dumping. Christmas swims across Cornwall have been cancelled again, while constituents such as William Howells in Padstow have been hospitalised. Will the Prime Minister please meet me to finally deliver justice to all water poisoning victims, and ensure that this never happens again?

• 13 Nov 2025 · Rogue Builders · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) on securing this important debate and giving an excellent and comprehensive speech. Many people will be familiar with this topic. In fact, half of all homeowners have had a bad experience with builders at some point. Of course, those cases vary in value and scale, but fundamentally they represent consumers—many of whom are sadly vulnerable or elderly—being taken advantage of by rogue builders and traders. Those people are all victims, whether they are in desperate need of emergency repairs or have committed to an extension they have saved up for over many years. They can be in a range of difficult situations: financial hardship, poor health or bereavement—some of those harrowing personal stories were outlined by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis)—and for them, seeking a fair resolution can seem impossible. Two months ago, I pressed the Solicitor General on the deeply troubling case of Launceston primary school in my constituency, a brand-new building that had to be demolished just as it was ready to be opened because it failed to meet basic safety and building standards. When the developer went bust, it was us—the taxpayers—who were left carrying the cost of rebuilding the entire school to the tune of around £7 million. Our communities deserve better safeguards and real accountability. Nationally, those stories are all too familiar, and those problems persist even in our sewage and road infrastructure systems, with many developers going bust before such vital infrastructure is finished. The hon. Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) made a powerful case for mandating infrastructure before the sale of homes. Many of my constituents near Bude reached out to me to explain how a developer abandoned a site after going into liquidation, leaving unfinished roads and sewage works. The developer directly contravened planning conditions by not paying the bond, and yet the local authority had no power to act or hold it to account. The Government cannot stand by any longer while those rogue developers fail to fulfil their promises. Those cases are shocking to hear, and the wider implications are clear. In the past five years, it is estimated that rogue builders have cost the public around £14 billion. That demonstrates the necessity of an efficient and effective justice system to resolve such disputes, protecting consumers and discouraging cowboy behaviour from builders. Concerningly, as we have heard today, too many individuals in those situations find the justice system slow, complex and expensive to navigate. These are people in unexpected situations, without the time or resources to rectify them effectively. The Liberal Democrats believe that justice should be on the side of all consumers, not just those who can afford costly legal battles, as was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon). The Government should ensure that there are accessible redress routes, such as small claims courts and ombudsman schemes, that work quickly and fairly for everyone. They should also support alternative dispute resolution mechanisms that save consumers time, stress and money, giving them a fair outcome without the burden and cost of going to court. That is important for the victims, and for the hundreds of thousands of honest builders who provide brilliant services for consumers up and down the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) made the point that the reputation of those businesses is damaged by widespread concerns about the trustworthiness of the industry as a whole. They, too, will benefit if we can effectively deter and catch rogue builders. Since 2019, there have been more than 125,000 official complaints about rogue builders in England alone. The justice system must ensure that those responsible are properly held to account. It is crucial that proactive steps are taken against these traders through the Competition and Markets Authority and local trading standards bodies, to ensure that they are effectively punished and, where necessary, publicly named and shamed. To that end, what are the Government doing to ensure that investigations by those bodies are properly resourced and supported? Crucially, to the point made by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand), how can the Government stop some of these repeat offenders going into liquidation time and again, and then committing the same frauds somewhere else? How will the Government ensure that victims of rogue builders are provided with accurate and clear information regarding their options? What are the Government doing to support accessible redress routes, as well as out-of-court resolutions for these victims? Finally, will the Minister look into providing greater powers and resources to local authorities so that they can properly hold rogue developers to account and enforce planning permission?

• 13 Nov 2025 · Support for Victims of Crime · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Solicitor General to her place. Domestic abuse survivors face serious barriers to accessing legal aid in the family courts. The current legal aid means test takes the abuser’s income into account when assessing a victim’s eligibility, unless the survivor can prove economic abuse, which is extremely difficult, or prove that they no longer live with the abuser. Abusers typically control finances and can withhold documentation, disqualifying victims from receiving the support that they need. Will the Solicitor General consider the recommendation of the Bar Council and make an exemption for domestic abuse survivors from the means test?

• 13 Nov 2025 · Police Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. The Liberal Democrats warmly welcome the news that police and crime commissioners are being scrapped. We have been calling for it for years, and I personally called for this in one of my first contributions in this House, after the PCC election turnout in Cornwall was abysmally low, at just 18%. The model was a failed Tory experiment that has cost taxpayers dearly. The Minister is right to point out the countless flaws in the overly politicised PCC model, which has diverted much-needed funding away from frontline and community policing. PCCs cost the public millions in council tax every year, yet the impact on their local communities has been negligible. However, transferring the role to mayors is not the answer; it would give even more power to single individuals with dubious democratic mandates and little scrutiny or accountability. The Government must learn the lessons of this expensive and failed experiment. Instead, the Government should see through their plans for these “temporary” local police and crime boards, but give them the powers on a permanent basis. They should ensure that the money saved from PCCs goes where it is needed most: getting more officers out on our streets and repairing the damage done by years of Conservative mismanagement and underfunding. That is particularly urgent in the light of the slow progress the Home Office has made on its promise to deliver 13,000 new neighbourhood officers; only 200 were added last year, while the number of officers in frontline roles went down. Will the Minister commit to investing the money saved from these unnecessary PCCs straight into frontline policing and towards proper, effective community policing? Could she outline the safeguards that will be put in place to hold mayors to account with their new-found policing responsibilities? Finally, could she elaborate on her estimated £100 million in savings from scrapping PCCs—has that figure been independently verified, and can she confirm that the funds will be not just transferred to mayors’ budgets but spent on frontline policing?

• 15 Oct 2025 · Pride in Place · Hansard source

  More

  I was really disappointed that Cornwall, despite having some of the most deprived towns in the country, will not receive a penny of pride in place funding. At a time when our shared prosperity funding is to stop, I am concerned to hear the Minister mention that the north and the midlands will receive pride in place funding. I hope she clears that up. Will she meet me and my constituent Fin Irwin, who has really exciting plans for Bodmin’s Fore Street in my constituency? They could be the basis for a great pilot involving social housing, opportunities for small businesses and community spaces, and it would prove that the Government want regional growth everywhere.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Regional Transport Inequality · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to Teignmouth station. Despite its large size, my constituency does not have a single mainline train station, but our closest station, Bodmin Parkway, also has severe accessibility challenges. It has been put on the list for accessibility upgrades, but that could happen as late as 2032. Will he join me in calling on the Minister to make those upgrades as quickly as possible, so that our constituents do not miss out?

• 2 Sept 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to make the case for Kernow, or Cornwall, and its unique status in this United Kingdom. My constituents have been crystal clear with me: Cornwall must never be forcibly joined with Devon or merged into any wider regional authority. But that is not to say that Cornwall wants to go it alone. It is not about separatism at all; this is about respecting our distinct status and history. Cornwall has proudly partnered with other UK regions for decades. It has a proud and unique language, culture, history and—crucially—national minority status, which was granted over a decade ago. We were afforded the same status as our Celtic brothers and sisters in Scotland, Ireland and Wales, and so the people of Cornwall deserve a devolution deal that recognises that. This status is not just symbolic. It creates a duty on public authorities to promote equality for the Cornish people, to support our culture, language and identity and, specifically, to avoid any assimilationist policies. Under the UK’s Equality Act 2010 and the public sector equality duty, Ministers and local authorities alike must consider the impact of their decisions, including in this Bill, on the Cornish people. If they fail to do so, their actions can be challenged in the courts using an array of legal claims, including judicial reviews, an Equality Act claim and a Human Rights Act 1998 article 14 differential treatment claim. Therefore, these rights carry real legal and political weight. To disregard or dilute Cornwall’s status in this Bill would be insulting, unlawful and dangerous. I am alarmed that the Bill would grant the Secretary of State power to force combined authorities without local people’s consent. Devolution, in essence, should give power to the communities, regions and counties that it aims to empower, not to a mayor, a Secretary of State or an unelected commissioner. At Prime Minister’s questions last October, the Prime Minister told me that he believes that “Those with skin in the game know what is best for their communities.” —[ Official Report , 16 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 834.] The Secretary of State has repeated that today. I agree with them both: decisions should be made for Cornwall and in Cornwall by a fully elected Cornish assembly—and not in Plymouth, Bristol or Westminster. They should be made by those from within the duchy who understand our unique way of life and our unique economic and social challenges—the immense challenges of funding rural transport; the unfair and unequal investment in our schools over decades; the plight of our farmers and fishers, who seem to be left out in the cold by Government after Government; and the enormous proliferation of second homes and holiday lets, which lock local people out of our housing market, generation after generation. In my office, I proudly display a famous painting of the Cornish rebellion of 1497. It illustrates the Cornish spirit of fairness, justice and persistence, of proud Cornish men and women who had taxes imposed upon them by the Government in London. That spirit lives on. Given Cornwall’s history and that strength of feeling, if the Secretary of State imposed a mayor of Devon and Cornwall —completely disregarding Cornwall’s national minority status, as well as legal battles—she might have a full uprising on her hands. The Bill would likely limit Cornwall to a foundation strategic authority with limited powers, funding and control. That is why we are fighting for a bespoke devolution deal. The Bill should have mechanisms in place to allow such a bespoke deal to take place. Cornwall’s MPs look forward to working together for the good of Cornwall, onen hag oll—one and all—to make that happen. I call on the Government to fully respect Cornwall’s national minority status; to create a Minister for Cornwall, who could sit in the Wales Office; to consider the feasibility of an elected Cornish assembly instead of a mayor; and to commit to a devolution deal that respects Cornwall’s historic identity by excluding it from combined strategic authorities with other regions. Kernow bys vyken!