Ben Maguire MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 12 Mar 2026 · Defending Democracy Taskforce · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his statement; it stood in very stark contrast to the response from the Opposition, which was chilling. Many Members have referenced the horrific online abuse that we see on a daily basis, which often originates, as has been said already, from foreign states. What steps are the Minister and the taskforce taking to protect our democracy from foreign interference, which is often subversive, especially following the recent arrests based on allegations of spying for China?

• 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.

• 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.

• 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 · 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?

• 23 Oct 2025 · Alleged Spying Case: Role of Attorney General’s Office · Hansard source

  More

  Throughout these revelations, Ministers and the Prime Minister’s spokesperson have repeatedly claimed that the Government had no sight of the witness statements and no input. The PM himself said that at Prime Minister’s questions last week. But the Government Legal Service’s own guidance requires the Attorney General to be consulted on the most sensitive legal cases involving the Government. In a case as high profile as this, where the very integrity of Parliament and our national security was at stake, did the Attorney General—the Government’s top legal adviser—really not review the witness statements before they were submitted on behalf of the Government? If not, please could the Solicitor General tell us why not? Given the very serious national security implications, will the SG commit to a statutory independent inquiry into why the case collapsed, and will she please update the House as to when the Government will share the full China audit with the Intelligence and Security Committee?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Mandatory Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  I have just come from a meeting with WASPI women here in Parliament who are asking for £3 billion in compensation, which they are rightly owed. The Government have said that they do not have that money—they have actually taken that group to court—yet here we are: they have pulled £2 billion out of the hat. Does my hon. Friend agree that the priorities are really wrong here?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Police: Professional Standards · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree we must hold our police officer to the highest standards, particularly when it comes to complaints. If those standards do not meet the threshold that we all rightly expect, we need to have a robust complaints system, in which we can have proper trust and confidence. I will quickly mention one more constituent case—that of another teenage girl, who was sexually assaulted by a close neighbour and has had to move away from the family home while the investigation continues for months and months, without any updates at all from the police. I am afraid that the list goes on. I am sure that other Members will agree that one of the greatest privileges of being a Member in this place is meeting some really inspiring constituents. The bravery of those young girls, and Lisa’s relentless campaigning on behalf of her son, have inspired me. I am proud to bring their cases before this House. To conclude, I ask the Minister to please clarify some of the following questions. What can my constituents do when they have legitimate concerns that have not been properly addressed by the complaints process? Clearly, a judicial review is completely out of reach for most of our constituents.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Police: Professional Standards · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree that it is essential we have police officers with the experience, skills and knowledge, to ensure that people have proper trust and confidence in our police and confidence that complaints will be dealt with properly.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Police: Professional Standards · Hansard source

  More

  I hope that the Minister heard that suggestion of complaints about one police force potentially being reviewed by another. That seems like a sensible suggestion that, importantly, would give a much-needed sense of independence in our complaints system. Will the Minister consider introducing a statutory time limit for a response to such complaints, given the long delays faced by my constituents and by myself, when I have inquired on behalf of my constituents—almost a year, in the case I mentioned? The guidance of the Independent Office for Police Conduct is to give complainants 28-day, regular updates on their complaint. That guidance clearly was not followed in any of the cases I mentioned. What can our constituents do to ensure that those 28-day updates happen? Also, what is the current backlog of complaints? Will it be brought back to an acceptable level? How many extra staff have been recruited or are in the process of being recruited to bring it down? Importantly, have frontline officers been drafted away from their duties on the frontline to help reduce the backlog? Finally, as I said at the start, confidence and trust in our police force are so important. Many people know of the soap opera at Devon and Cornwall police. We have had three chief constables under police and crime commissioner Alison Hernandez. We eagerly await the Government’s rural crime strategy—something that my private Member’s Bill, the Rural Crime (Strategy) Bill, also called for earlier this year. I urge the Minister to act quickly to restore that trust and confidence in the professional standards of our police.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Police: Professional Standards · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister to her place. I requested this debate following some shocking constituency cases that I have dealt with since my election to this place last summer. I am sure that I am not the only Member to have serious concerns about the police complaints and professional standards process. It is important that I make it clear from the outset that this is not a criticism of the hard-working police officers who do a fantastic job with limited resources. I must take this opportunity to pay tribute to my excellent local sector inspectors Adam Stonehill and Gregory Hodgkiss for their dedication and hard work. However, I must always give voice to my constituents when they feel that a justice has occurred and there is a clear need for wholesale institutional change. Systemic issues in the professional standards department at Devon and Cornwall police have shattered my constituents’ trust in the police. While knocking on doors during the general election last summer, I met one such constituent. Lisa Rufus had completely lost faith in the police and felt that she would never see justice for her son, Kye, who was involved in a motorcycle accident involving a collision with a car back in 2019. He suffered life-changing injuries. Kye was found by the police to be entirely at fault, and he was therefore not entitled to any compensation from his insurance company for his resulting 24-hour care needs. Kye’s mother Lisa raised a series of serious issues about the way the investigation was conducted. Crucially, the investigating officer had decided not to close the road in accordance with usual procedure when a fatality is likely, and, quite incredibly, a forensic collisions investigator was not called to the scene by the investigating officer, even though the explicit guidance in the College of Policing’s authorised professional practice is that the roles of forensic collision investigator and lead investigator are completely separate, and an individual should not perform both roles, as occurred in this case. Other concerns about the case included the fact that Kye’s bike was later removed and destroyed without Lisa or any of her family being informed. The police initially told Lisa that there was no body-worn camera footage from the scene, yet it later emerged that there was—but only after Kye had been taken to hospital. The initial police report described how Kye must have slid across the road uphill, yet his clothes showed little sign of tearing or scuffing. A report from paramedics and a car mechanic mentioned serious damage to the car, but that was not detailed anywhere in the police report. Lisa made a complaint to the professional standards department at Devon and Cornwall police and received a detailed response eight months later, on 12 February 2021. It took oral evidence from police officers who had attended the scene that day. Lisa’s complaint that an investigation of poor standard reached its conclusion at too early a stage was upheld by the investigating officer, as was her complaint that Kye’s motorbike was scrapped without her or her family’s knowledge, and that no photographs of it were taken beforehand. In that report, one police constable explained how they felt reluctant to share photos of the scene with Lisa and her family because she did not feel it was a true representation of the scene. She said, “I felt these photographs would raise more questions for the family and would not instil confidence in the investigation”.” Another PC stated that he was “astonished by the poor quality of the evidence package.” The investigation report was then reviewed by a chief inspector who, quite incredibly, overruled all the report’s findings, and stated that the service provided by Devon and Cornwall police was “acceptable” and that there was “no further action to be taken.” No reasons or rationale were given for this decision. Lisa then complained to the police and crime commissioner’s office, who again found that the service she had received was unacceptable and requested that reasons be given for this dramatic change. The chief inspector then followed up on 23 September 2021, detailing his reasons for reversing the decisions made in the original report and reiterating that the service was acceptable, though he did admit that there were “investigative issues which could have been done better”— this despite reversing the decision to uphold Lisa’s original complaint that a poor standard of investigation had occurred. On the complaint that Kye’s motorbike was destroyed without informing the family, the chief inspector explained that there is no “written record of this” ever taking place that, but from the information available, it appears every effort was made to inform Lisa of the intention to scrap the motorbike. He goes on to conclude that, given the conflicting accounts, no definitive resolution can be determined—and yet he reversed the decision to uphold that complaint to “not upheld”. I wrote to the professional standards department back on 5 November 2024, highlighting my serious concerns about this entire process that had arisen from the responses Lisa had received to her complaints. I finally received a response almost one year later, on 10 September, just a few days ago. This letter said that the chief inspector had been mistaken in setting out a second right to review and pointed Lisa to her right to seek a judicial review through the High Court if she was not satisfied with the responses she had received. I ask the Minister, is that really the only recourse for our constituents in this kind of situation? Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case. A neurodivergent woman who was raped by her partner raised a complaint with the professional standards department last year due to the lack of any updates on her case, which, quite rightly, increased her anxiety that the perpetrator may retaliate for reporting him. When I requested an update from the police, they advised me that a complaint was already pending in the system so they could not access or update us on the case. Quite incredibly, the PC suggested that if she remained unsatisfied, she could “make a complaint”. Another constituent, a teenage girl who is also neurodivergent, was raped by her partner on a night out. The crime was reported nearly two years ago, and the family had the impression that the case was already with the Crown Prosecution Service. They were recently told that the suspect was being re-interviewed. If they make a complaint, can they have any confidence that they will get a satisfactory response?