Ben Maguire MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is giving an impassioned speech about areas that are underserved by rail connections. My constituency is one such areas—it does not have a single mainline station, despite being the largest constituency by land in Cornwall. Unfortunately, the North Cornwall railway was a victim of the Beeching cuts. Will the hon. Member ask the Minister how the Bill will help such areas to bring back vital rail links? There are initiatives such as Kernow Connect, which has the potential to connect my constituency at Launceston, but does the hon. Member agree that the Bill does not go far enough in that regard?

• 4 Jun 2026 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  Recent CPS data shows a welcome reduction in victim attrition in domestic abuse cases where the defendant was charged. However, the same CPS dataset shows little evidence of corresponding improvements in charging rates, timeliness or wider prosecution performance. By what metrics will the Solicitor General measure the success of the recent £5 million investment in CPS pre-trial support for victims of domestic abuse across pilot regions, alongside the CPS’s “Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy 2025-2030”? What specific outcomes do the Government expect to see in order to determine whether they are delivering meaningful improvements for victims and the wider criminal justice system?

• 21 May 2026 · Family Justice System: Domestic Abuse and Safeguarding · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing this really important debate. I congratulate him on his excellent speech. I also welcome the new Safeguarding Minister to her place. I thank the hon. Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan), who reiterated calls for domestic abuse specialists to be embedded in our family courts. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) spoke movingly about the case of his constituent Sara Sharif, and about how the family court in that case did not question children’s services and the appalling culture that was described. I thank the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), who described the case of a paedophile and an abuser accessing legal aid to use the court system against his ex-partner and effectively continue that abuse. I also thank the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), who highlighted the value of the FDAC’s role in domestic abuse cases and the way it proactively supports victims to break cycles of abuse, but also the fact that it needs expansion and long-term and more secure funding. As many Members have pointed out, the family courts are in serious need of reform. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Dame Nicole Jacobs, has worked tirelessly to ensure that children are recognised and understood as victims in their own right. The statistics alone are staggering. The crime survey for England and Wales for the year ending March 2025 estimated that in the past year alone around 3.8 million people in England and Wales experienced domestic abuse. At the same time, one in five children in the UK experienced domestic abuse, with only one in 10 child victims receiving any support, according to Women’s Aid. That reinforces wider findings that despite the introduction of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, children are too often overlooked as victims of domestic abuse by police, social care and health services. As other hon. Members have set out, perpetrators continue to manipulate loopholes in the Child Maintenance Service system to further coerce and control victims emotionally, economically and physically. I entirely support colleagues calling for urgent reshaping of the CMS system and for the Ministry of Justice to fully implement the findings of its own 2020 harm panel report. That report identified harmful practices including a pro-contact culture, adversarial court processes, resource constraints and siloed working between agencies, all of which allowed abuse to go unnoticed or even continue through the system itself, as we heard earlier. I wish to focus on economic abuse, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham highlighted so well. Research by Surviving Economic Abuse has found that a third of UK women with a child under 18 have had child maintenance payments deliberately blocked or manipulated by an ex-partner, despite that ex-partner being able to afford those payments. Meanwhile, the National Audit Office estimates that CMS arrears could reach £1 billion within five years. That is only one example of where change is urgently needed. The Government’s child poverty strategy promised an overhaul of the system, yet there is still no clear timeline for implementation, and our children are the ones suffering. We Liberal Democrats welcome the continued roll-out of child-focused courts, which have shown reductions in case length and therefore in the re-traumatisation of victims who are forced through drawn-out proceedings. I sincerely hope that the Government fulfil their promise to expand those courts nationally. I also recognise the important steps that have been taken in recent months, on which I will take this opportunity to congratulate the Government. The removal of the long-criticised presumption of contact established under the Children Act 1989 finally places children’s voices and experiences back at the centre of decisions that affect them. However, survivors now need clarity on its implementation. When will the repeal come into force? Before the Minister claims that some of these matters fall outside her direct remit, I would like to make it clear that I and organisations including Surviving Economic Abuse, Rights of Women, Women’s Aid and Refuge have jointly written to her to underline the urgent need for a practical, cross-departmental action plan to protect and support victims of domestic abuse. The violence against women and girls strategy must be matched by that cross-Government delivery. Economic abuse frequently involves perpetrators controlling finances, restricting access to income and withholding key documents. As a result, many victims are unable to provide the evidence required under the legal aid system, and are therefore excluded from support precisely when they need it the most. That heavily ties into the safeguarding aspect of today’s debate. Victims feel completely at a loss and deserted by the justice system. There is also a significant cliff edge for working victims of domestic abuse. Many individuals earning slightly above the eligibility threshold are deemed to be ineligible for legal aid, yet cannot realistically afford legal representation without sacrificing substantial portions of their income. That gap risks deterring victims from pursuing protection, or even from resolving cases safely through the courts. Even when the grant of legal aid is technically possible and victims make the means test cut, access to justice is again undermined by the severe shortage of family law legal aid solicitors. In rural communities such as mine, the legal aid deserts are among the worst in the country. I would welcome further discussions with the Minister and the Justice Minister responsible for legal aid, the hon. and learned Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), on increasing legal aid fee rates in line with inflation, similar to the increases that we have already welcomed for immigration and housing law. Only then will we attract more legal aid solicitors to where they are most needed. That is particularly important given that legal aid was mentioned only fleetingly in the Government’s 2025 violence against women and girls strategy, despite legal representation often being one of the most important protections that victims have when facing their abusers in court. The Law Society and the Legal Aid Practitioners Group have long called for urgent improvement in this area. From my constituency casework, I know that many victims face severe bias once they enter the family court system, even when they are represented. I therefore echo Women’s Aid in calling for all family court professionals, including judges and court staff, to receive high-quality, mandatory and regularly updated domestic abuse training. This issue cuts across every aspect of domestic abuse within the justice system. Around 75% of child arrangement cases in the family courts involve allegations of domestic abuse. Although much of the issue falls within the remit of the Ministry of Justice, I must take the opportunity to reinforce Refuge’s demand that the VAWG strategy should explicitly reflect plans to improve the response of the family justice system to domestic abuse. As we have heard, too many victims still feel that the courts minimise their experiences and fail to understand the realities of coercive and controlling behaviour. We cannot continue with a system where victims are forced to act as litigants in person because they cannot access or afford legal representation. I therefore share the disappointment expressed by many VAWG charities and organisations regarding the lack of substantive focus in the recent King’s Speech on protecting women and girls in practice. Warm words are not enough. Victims deserve a justice system that protects them, listens to them and enables them to access safety without traumatisation and without financial ruin. I urge the Minister to ensure that this year’s violence against women and girls strategy is accompanied by meaningful cross-departmental implementation, including vital action on legal aid, family court reform, judicial training and economic abuse.

• 19 May 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Cornwall continues to face some of the UK’s worst legal aid deserts, with rurality and lack of transport adding to the postcode lottery. According to the Law Society, a third of domestic abuse survivors were forced to represent themselves in court, as even when advice is available, eligibility criteria often stand in their way. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss raising the income threshold for the legal aid means test in line with inflation and removing the capital assets requirement altogether to ensure that victims of economic abuse can access justice?

• 25 Mar 2026 · Victims and Courts Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This Bill returns to us from the other place, where my Liberal Democrat colleagues tabled a number of crucial amendments that come before us today, which concern changes to the unduly lenient sentence scheme, the victims code, access to free court transcripts and more. I am really pleased to hear the Minister support those amendments in principle, and to hear her commitment that she will take them away with her team to make sure that they are workable before bringing them back to this place. Of course, the Liberal Democrats will hold the Government to account on all those amendments and make sure that they are implemented as quickly as possible for the sake of victims. On Lords amendment 1, I am proud that my colleagues in the other place have been building on the successes of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who has fought a long-running campaign for free court transcripts for victims. The amendment would give victims a right to receive court transcripts of the route to verdict, and of bail decisions relating to their particular case, free of charge. At present, such transcripts are available to victims only where a defendant has been convicted of an offence. We Liberal Democrats will vote for the amendment in order to build on this Bill and to make further much-needed progress by extending the current scheme. I urge all colleagues from across the House to join us in doing so. On Lords amendments 5 and 7, we Liberal Democrats, led by Baroness Brinton in the other place, have sought to clarify and amend the unduly lenient sentence scheme. The scheme ensures that victims who feel that an offender’s sentence is unduly lenient can appeal to the court. However, in practice, many victims are completely unaware that this mechanism exists, and are often told about it after their short 28-day appeal window has closed. Some of these cases involve families of victims who have faced some of the most horrific crimes, including brutal murder cases, with harrowing details about what has happened to them or to members of their family laid out before them in court, in full, for the first time. Understandably, this can put them through severe emotional strain and trauma, and have other distressing effects. For many families of victims, the last thing on their mind are procedures such as appeals. Once they reach a stage where they have processed their grief, the short 28-day window has sometimes already passed—and they may not have even been aware that they could appeal. To address this issue, the new clauses tabled by the Liberal Democrats seek to make allowances for the 28-day timeframe to be extended in exceptional circumstances, and to place much greater responsibility on criminal justice agencies to ensure that victims are fully aware of their rights to appeal and of how quickly they must do so. For example, greater awareness of victims’ rights in relation to the unduly lenient sentence scheme could form part of a judge’s sentencing remarks following a trial, rather than being left as an afterthought that might not be covered at all. Lords amendment 2 relates to changes to the victims code. It would require the Secretary of State to outline how the rights in the victims code apply to the families of those killed as a result of murder, manslaughter or infanticide outside the UK. The amendment follows the outstanding work of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), who pushed for these changes at an earlier stage of the Bill’s passage. Although I understand that it would be unreasonable for us to mandate other countries to enforce the UK’s victims code, we are seeking to afford the families of such victims the same rights and to treat them as victims under the code. I am therefore very pleased that our colleagues in the other place have given this sensible and much-needed amendment a chance in this place once again. I urge all colleagues to vote for all these excellent Lords amendments, which are incredibly important to victims and their families. I hope the Minister will come back to the House to confirm precisely when they can be brought forward by the Government in workable legislation. For the record, I commend the work of our colleagues, both in this House and in the other place, on these issues, which are so vital to victims’ rights and to our justice system as a whole.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Violence against Women and Girls: Prosecutions · Hansard source

  More

  First, can I ask the Solicitor General to please follow up on her kind offer to chase the Justice Minister responsible for legal aid, the hon. and learned Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), about meeting me to discuss support for domestic abuse victims? The 2024 domestic abuse joint justice plan aims to improve early co-ordination between police and the CPS. I am aware that a review was conducted as part of the plan, highlighting concerns about the quality and timeliness of police referrals and CPS decision making. However, based on recent cases I have heard about from my North Cornwall constituents and from other Members, I am rather concerned that the plan’s focus on high-risk victims does not ensure accurate identification of those genuinely at high risk. Professionals could misinterpret or overlook risk factors, meaning that some of those high-risk cases might be wrongly assessed and their severity underestimated. Does the Solicitor General agree that while the plan has improved investigations and prosecutions, a needs-based approach is absolutely essential, especially to show victims that coming forward is worthwhile and the justice system will not fail them?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Domestic Abuse Survivors: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for that excellent point—I will come on to accommodation issues and the impact on children. I recognise that really important steps have been taken in recent months, on which I congratulate the Government. For instance, many people will agree that the removal of the presumption of contact puts children’s voices and experience back at the heart of contact decisions, which is a genuine step forward for their safety. The 2025 statutory reforms to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 updated the terminology to align with the Domestic Abuse Act 2021—replacing “domestic violence” with “domestic abuse”, and “financial abuse” with “economic abuse”—and recognised that abuse against an individual may consist of behaviour directed at another individual, such as their children. However, from speaking to my North Cornwall constituents and the charity sector, I realised that the VAWG strategy does not yet place arguably the most crucial protection for victims at the centre of its aims. Of course, societal change is urgently needed to prevent so-called normal people becoming perpetrators of abuse, but what about those victims who are caught up in the cycle of abuse now? How can we help them and free them from harm?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Domestic Abuse Survivors: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being such a champion on this issue, and I completely agree with his condemnation of Travelodge’s frankly despicable response. His point regarding Airbnb is interesting, and I have been making the same point recently, because it crosses over with the Travelodge issue. I am sure that many Members have heard from survivors in their constituencies who tell them they have spent all their savings on legal fees or they have accrued tens of thousands of pounds worth of debt. We know that survivors often face crippling financial barriers when trying to protect themselves and, in many cases, their children. Would the Minister tell me why the review period for the threshold has not yet been changed and why the gap between those who are eligible for legal aid and those who can afford to pay for legal services has not received closer scrutiny during the means test review? The previous Government completed their review in 2022 and then proposed new criteria in 2023. Implementation was later delayed and, as far as I am aware, the current Government have not yet indicated that they intend to progress the work. I would therefore appreciate an update from the Minister on the status of the legal aid means test review. I welcome the Government’s steps to include economic abuse in the Domestic Abuse Act, but claiming that if a victim can prove they are economically abused, they will become exempt from the means test is a bit like asking victims who are under a severe threat to their health—in the most vulnerable state of their life—to sift through a haystack to find a purposefully and impossibly well-hidden needle. The £100,000 capital exemption recently introduced for the means test has been powerfully rejected by Women’s Aid and domestic abuse charities, which say that it does not go nearly far enough. Sitting on a £1 million property that is co-owned with their perpetrator, who—guess what?—will not sell, excludes someone from any legal support. Such trapped capital should not be included in the financial eligibility calculation. I would go as far as stating that such inaccessible capital should be exempt from the means test, particularly as many victims are too afraid to leave their homes with their children as they are not certain that the family courts will bring them a positive outcome, as I have highlighted in Louise’s case. According to the Surviving Economic Abuse 2026 report, almost 1 million women in the UK who experienced economic abuse last year said that the abuse prevented them from leaving their dangerous abuser. In the worst-case scenario, that decision, which is forced on them via our systematic failure to understand the reality of domestic abuse for victims, can be fatal. Another recent study covering a 12-year period, which included 400 homicide reviews, found that one person died every 19 days in cases that involved economic abuse. In other words, every three weeks a victim dies because an abuser uses economic abuse as a tool of control. Refuge recently evidenced how 75 women were killed as a result of domestic homicide in the year ending 2025. Those numbers should spark outrage across our society. This final act of violence could have been prevented had there been proper legal resources in place for victims, or proper housing support that meant victims could be safe. Too many victims are forced to return to their perpetrators because they do not receive the levels of legal support needed to continue with the legal process. That means that many are unable to obtain things such as protective orders against their perpetrator, or obtain safe child contact arrangements. Victims could even end up homeless. Those brave victim survivors who do leave their homes and apply for urgent homelessness protection can receive immediate legal support, but they end up having to go through the legal aid means test. If they are seen to have an income above the threshold, they have to support their own legal representation, when it is actually their abuser who has forced them out. Victims therefore become stuck between staying in their family home and enduring their suffering, or ending up potentially homeless—due to, again, this destructive means test. A Cornish women’s protection centre recently reached out to me, detailing the following case that it was dealing with—for which I have again changed the name. Katy’s ex-partner abused and controlled her, both during and after their relationship ended. The ex-partner controlled contact with their children and locked Katy out of their property, resulting in her sleeping on the streets. During the family court process, which lasted 18 months, Katy had no legal aid or legal advice, and minimal support throughout the court proceedings, representing herself at the family court. Eventually, the judge granted a non-molestation order, an occupation order, a prohibited steps order, and a full care order for the children. However, after achieving that without any access to legal advice, Katy and her children have still not been given access to their home and remain homeless. Reporting by Women’s Aid reinforces this reality. Survivors frequently cannot secure a legal aid solicitor due to the combined effects of eligibility barriers and a national shortage of legal aid providers. That leaves many women unable to challenge refusals, missing deadlines and remaining in unsafe or unsuitable accommodation because they cannot navigate the process alone. All of that continues despite official homelessness data showing that large numbers of households become homeless or are threatened with homelessness due to domestic abuse, which means they should be treated as vulnerable and properly protected, not forced through a rigid financial test that was never designed for people fleeing violence.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Domestic Abuse Survivors: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister. Perhaps she can follow up on that point in her speech. I ask the Government urgently to reform evidence requirements for economic abuse in favour of more accessible evidential criteria. The lack of clarity regarding acceptable forms of evidence causes already limited legal aid solicitors to pre-emptively refuse to take on survivors’ cases. Having discussed and highlighted countless reasons to reform the legal aid means test for victims of domestic abuse, I must ask why legal aid is barely mentioned in the VAWG strategy, despite it being such a vital tool for victims to seek justice and crucial support. The Justice Secretary in the previous Government, Alex Chalk, is acknowledged by many in the women’s rights sector to have been open to committing to reform the legal aid barriers that victims face. I am sure, and hopeful, that the Government will be open to working with all of us to fix the legal aid means test, which, as I hope I have set out clearly, is the biggest obstacle to so many victims. I recently launched a petition to reform the means test, and I hope to widen the campaign further. How much more loss—how many more needless deaths—do we as a country need to endure? How many more debates are needed in this place for the Government to consider the issue properly? Until they commit to removing the legal aid means test for all domestic abuse victims and survivors, including those who are not currently accessing universal credit or fleeing the abuser, I hope to see urgent implementation of the delayed legal aid reforms, as pushed for by the VAWG sector. Those include the mandatory disregarding of inaccessible capital for victims of domestic abuse; the raising of the income threshold, which needs to include an annual review of the means test; and reformed evidence requirements when trying to prove economic abuse. I will end my speech there, in the hope that, by the time of the next Westminster Hall debate on domestic abuse, we will have seen tangible progress to show survivors that we stand with them, we fight with them and we will do everything we possibly can to change the system for them.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Domestic Abuse Survivors: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree; I have actually had some similar casework. I will come back to that point. In a deeply troubling case brought to me by a wonderful Cornish advice clinic, a female client, who I will call Louise for this debate, was refused legal aid on the basis that she supposedly had too much disposable income and assets, despite the reality that, at the time, she was sofa surfing, effectively homeless and earning only minimum wage. Although she may have passed the merits test, she failed the means test, because she was not paying rent and was not on benefits, so the system deemed her ineligible for legal support. After Louise fled her partner, who had reportedly abused her, both parties applied for residential custody of their child. Although the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service recommended that the child live with their mother, the judge awarded custody to the ex-partner, arguing that the mother had not followed the correct legal route when she fled from home. She is now permitted to see her child only by travelling hundreds of miles back to the area from which she fled, and the ex-partner refuses phone contact altogether. She is terrified of returning to a family court and knows from experience how one-sided the system can be, especially as her ex-partner has the money and the legal representation, while she would be forced to represent herself. How many women consider the reality that Louise currently faces and, as a result, end up staying with their abuser? The legal aid Minister assured me that an eligibility waiver is available for victims of domestic abuse who are applying for urgent protections, such as non-molestation orders, yet a survey commissioned by the charity Surviving Economic Abuse found that more survivors had to represent themselves in legal proceedings than were able to access legal aid. The Ministry of Justice’s own harm report found: “The most important and frequently mentioned form of structural disadvantage was lack of access to legal representation.” Most cases I have reviewed end with a victim—whose abuse has not yet reached so-called dangerous levels—applying for a child protection order, anti-stalking order or non-molestation order, which means they do not qualify to skip the legal aid means test. On the contrary, victims will be assessed on their income through a test that has not been uprated with inflation since 2009. An applicant is not eligible for legal aid if their monthly disposable income exceeds £733. That threshold is clearly blind to reality. So far, the Government have chosen to ignore rising food and energy costs, as well as the huge debts that can be caused by an abuser. Even if someone has £750 left at the end of the month including those costs, which is farcical, the fact that solicitors can cost anything from £120 an hour to £400 or £500 an hour speaks volumes about the poorly executed calculations that are applied to the legal aid means test threshold.

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

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for making that powerful point. That is a really important consideration; I hope that the Minister listened and can respond to it. These concerns naturally lead to further questions. What did those around Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor know? What did police protection officers, civil servants and officials who accompanied him, travelled with him and were present during official duties observe? What did they record? What did they raise? Crucially, what was dismissed and what was ignored? These are not trivial matters; they speak directly to how an individual in public office was able to behave in ways that would never be tolerated from anyone else and how the institutions around him seemingly completely failed to act.

• 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

  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.

• 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?

• 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?

• 18 Dec 2025 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker; I also wish you and your excellent team, and everyone across the House, a very merry Christmas. Following on from my question on the legal aid means test for domestic abuse victims, I want to highlight the danger that scrapping jury trials for sentences under three years poses for domestic abuse cases. It is highly questionable that this will bring the backlog down, as has been claimed. A Cornish legal aid clinic got in touch with me to detail a judge’s deeply troubling conduct towards a woman seeking justice against her abuser; the judge reportedly described her as “difficult” and effectively blamed her for the abuse she endured. The complex nature of domestic abuse cases requires the breadth of perspective and understanding that jury trials provide. What assessment will the Solicitor General make of the impact that reducing jury trials will have specifically on domestic abuse cases heard in the Crown court?

• 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?

• 11 Nov 2025 · Legal Aid · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for that response. Would she please join me in congratulating Coodes Solicitors, which provides a weekly pro bono surgery to my constituents in Bodmin? Firms such as Coodes face, in its own words, so much unnecessary bureaucracy and hoops to jump through when providing legal aid. As the Minister highlights, I understand that the Government have made some progress towards making the financial investment in the system that is needed, but is she aware of the incredible burden of this needless bureaucracy and will she please commit to simplifying public funding contracts?

• 11 Nov 2025 · Legal Aid · Hansard source

  More

  5. What steps he is taking to increase access to legal aid for people in rural areas.

• 29 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister, my former Home Affairs Committee colleague, to his place. I urge all Members to support the excellent amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), particularly new clause 11 on the suspension of driving licences during bail on driving-related offences, which is a common-sense proposal. I echo her praise of our hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for his excellent, passionate and successful campaign on tagging for domestic abuse crimes—a policy that the Government have adopted. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester in urging the Government to go further than that by supporting new clause 8, which would make those aggravated crimes. I tabled new clause 35, which has already received support from across the House, on behalf of the of the Saltern family from my North Cornwall constituency. Their campaign—known as Ryan’s law—was launched a few years ago by Helen and Mark Saltern after their son Ryan was tragically hit and killed by a car after leaving the village carnival in St Teath. The driver did not stop to check on Ryan, administer first aid or even phone the police or other emergency services. Instead, Ryan—a father of one—was left in the road to die. The driver drove into work the next day as if nothing had happened. What punishment was the offender given for that fatal hit and run? He avoided prison entirely and was handed just a four-month suspended sentence by the magistrates court. The family of course acknowledge that accidents happen, but the driver left a young man dying in the road, did not even give it a second thought as he sped off—too cowardly to do the right thing—and did not spend a single day in prison for his crimes. I cannot imagine the pain that the family must feel. In response to that enormous injustice, they launched their “Ryan’s law” campaign and a petition that received overwhelming national support, reaching 167,000 signatures. Countless other families have been affected by similar cases right across this country.

• 29 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  There was one small omission there. Can the Minister confirm that legal aid provision, which has been brought up by several Members today, will be addressed by the Government?

• 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?