Charlie Maynard MP: speeches

Speeches

• 7 Jan 2026 · Advanced Brain Cancer: Tissue Freezing · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend speaks to the point. Of course, those people have been dead for many centuries, but we believe it is worth being able to access that information, and at the moment it is not accessible in most cases. That is something we really want to change. I look to Denmark’s registry-first legal architecture, with mandatory health registries covering cancer diagnoses, pathology, genomics, and treatment and outcomes. The Danish cancer registry automatically records tumour data, covers the entire population and is used for research, oversight and quality improvement. Participation is automatic, with opt-outs rather than being consent-based. Our Government are seeking to rapidly expand our national genomics capabilities, and I applaud them for that, but without far better and more sensible access to the base tissue, with appropriate safeguards, there is no genomics-based, population-wide health service.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Advanced Brain Cancer: Tissue Freezing · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) for securing the debate, and I thank Ellie for all her work, as well as Hugh and the others who are pushing very hard on this issue—many thanks indeed. I want to try to make this debate a bit broader in two directions. My sister, Georgie, also has a glioblastoma. She was diagnosed two and a half years ago and has been incredibly brave and determined, working with the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) and Ellie to try to get more brain cancer justice, and driving that debate. That also applies to many people in my constituency of Witney who have brain tumours but also tumours of all sorts of cancers. We ought to be considering two things. First, I ask the Minister to consider making tumour tissue freezing standard for all cancerous tumour tissues, not just brain. However close the issue is to my heart, I think it is inequitable to just focus on brain tumours. We have to try to get all tumour tissues frozen as standard, and the economies of scale mean that makes sense. The other thing is how we have equitable and public health-oriented access to that tissue once it is stored, which we as a country are massively failing on. I ask the Minister to consider reforming the Human Tissue Act 2004, which could be broadened in terms of what is legally permitted in research contexts. That would create explicit legal pathways for retrospective clinical samples. First, clinical tissue, such as biopsies and diagnostic archives, could be routinely made available for public health research under clear safeguards, without requiring separate project-by-project consent. Secondly, requirements for de-identified tissue could be simplified, clarifying that truly anonymised, non-identifiable samples can be used without consent or an HTA licence for a wider range of research, rather than just narrowly defined exceptions. Thirdly, licences could be converted to broader authorisations. Instead of a licence for each tissue bank, accredited biobanks could be allowed to supply samples under nationally recognised frameworks. Fourthly, DNA analysis rules could be reworked. Barriers to genomic public health research could be reduced by redefining or narrowing the offence of having tissue for DNA analysis, provided that strong data protection is ensured. That is one big chunk. The second big chunk I am asking for—there are only two—is that we reform the Human Tissue Act 2004 to apply a default system similar to the one we now use nationally for organ donation to tumour tissue data. To do so, Parliament would need to amend the HTA to introduce a deemed consent regime for residual tumour tissue and derived data. That would be limited to public interest cancer research, with a statutory and simple opt-out, strict purpose limits and enhanced oversight by the Human Tissue Authority. The model would mirror the Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Act 2019, but apply just to data derived primarily from tumour tissue. In plain English, that means that we have something that works for organ donations and saves lives day in, day out. If any of us die, our organs are taken and our next of kin can opt out if they choose. The great majority of people do not opt out. That has meant that many more organs have been available, which has saved lives. Somebody may want to dispose of their tumour tissue, but the great majority of us do not; we would want it used for public health and science, so having it as an automatic—

• 6 Jan 2026 · Less Survivable Cancers · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing this fantastic debate. I also thank the Members in the room for all the work they have done, and the Minister for her engagement, particularly with the Brain Cancer Justice team. I really appreciate it. My sister Georgie received a glioblastoma multiforme diagnosis two and a half years ago. She is well, has survived longer than they gave her and is fighting like hell for Brain Cancer Justice, alongside many in this room. I praise her and her colleagues, as well as so many people in my constituency in Witney who have helped her and who suffer with this range of cancers. I will say only two things today. First, we should explore reforming the Human Tissue Act 2004 to apply to tumour tissue a default system similar to the one we now use nationally for organ donation. To do so, Parliament would need to amend the Act to introduce a deemed consent regime for residual tumour tissue and derived data, limited to public interest cancer research, with a statutory opt-out, strict purpose limits and enhanced oversight by the Human Tissue Authority. The model would mirror the Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Act 2019, which means that if someone dies their organs are automatically taken, although people or their families can opt out. We are advocating the same for our tumour tissue. Very few of us really want to hang on to our tumour tissue if we are unfortunate enough to be in that situation, but that tumour tissue has huge scientific value and we should use the data as much as we can for the public good. Denmark is a fantastic model: it has a registry-first legal architecture with mandatory health registries covering cancer diagnosis, pathology, genomics, treatment and outcomes. Secondly, we need to double the survival rates for all less survivable cancers in the next decade. If we put that mark in the sand as our goal, and it gets into the national cancer plan, it will draw global attention and will drag resources and talent to our cause and our country. It would be good for our country, good for our patients who are suffering, and good for our economy too. If we can make that a key demand of our national cancer plan, that will be a huge plus.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Future of Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 6 Jan 2026 · Future of Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. West Oxfordshire is very much ground zero for Thames Water. We have the Thames itself, the Evenlode and the Windrush. West Oxfordshire district council has done great work in going after Thames Water. We have WASP—Windrush Against Sewage Pollution—and we, as a team, have also gone after Thames Water through the High Court and the Court of Appeal, all the way up to the Supreme Court. I thank the legal team that fought pro bono with us last year on behalf of the 16 million Thames Water customers who are being royally stiffed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) mentioned, the bills people are paying are completely outrageous. I have had constituents whose bills have gone up by 50% and 70%. Somebody got a 93% increase through the post. It is outrageous.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Future of Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  We have interest costs of 9.75% being paid. We have massive advisory fees coming out of the company. All the class A creditors’ legal fees—£15 million a month, give or take—were being paid for by Thames Water. To say that this is not all hitting the customers is not true. Who else is paying for this, if it is not ultimately the customers?

• 6 Jan 2026 · Future of Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree—well said. What is so depressing is that the Labour Government have embraced the Conservative’s mistakes over Thames Water, and our water sector more broadly, and then doubled down on them. The Government have been and continue to be hoodwinked by a bunch of hedge-funds whispering about financial Armageddon into ears of the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs and Ofwat. They need to follow through on their regulatory obligations, because we need regulators that have teeth and backbone and will actually deliver. Instead, we have hedge-funds making vast fees with outrageous interest expenses, at the cost of us as consumers. It is not fair. It is a great shame, and it is also unnecessary, because the company’s financial and environmental positions are completely unsustainable. With every day that passes, this becomes more Labour’s problem. We now need to cut the rope and put the company into special administration, on account of its many breaches of its licence obligations, so that its debt can be written down to around three times cash flow and it can come out of the special administration regime mutually owned by 16 million customers, and run on behalf of them and the environment, and with Government-guaranteed funding mechanisms in place to fund the investment required over the next three, five and 15 years. Will the Government please answer my letter to the Minister responsible for sewage and flooding, sent at the start of October? I asked whether the Minister believes that Thames Water’s ad hoc group of class A creditors now exerts material influence over it, thereby meeting the “ultimate controller” criteria. I would really like an answer on that. Last February, a High Court judge found that they have material influence over the company, and it would be great to have a straight answer from the Secretary of State or the Minister on that point. I would not like the Government to give Thames Water, or any other water company, a free pass on paying environmental fines in full. When there are breaches, we need regulators that enforce the fines that are in place. Similarly, given the extreme precarity of the company’s finances, as my hon. Friends have mentioned, the Government should not entrust it with delivering a huge and costly infrastructure project in Oxfordshire in the form of the south-east strategic reservoir option, about which my hon. Friends the Members for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) and for Oxford West and Abingdon spoke in detail. Given all our constituents’ low level of faith in Thames Water, the future of which is precarious, to put it extremely mildly, it is no wonder that this is causing such alarm to residents in my constituency and those of my hon. Friends. Please do not be bamboozled by the hedge funds; instead, show some backbone—and do not own the Tories’ mistakes. That is the key thing, because this Government still have a chance to leave it with them. Please do so and put the company into a special administration regime.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Future of Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  I concur with those views from the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), but can the Minister confirm that those discussions with class A creditors will not involve forgiving the company for its fines?

• 6 Jan 2026 · Future of Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 18 Dec 2025 · Point of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In response to a recommendation by the Committee on Standards, I would like to apologise to the House for failing to register several interests within the 28-day period set by the House. They included my receipt of pro bono legal advice to support my intervention, at the High Court and subsequently at the Court of Appeal, in the sanctions hearing of Thames Water Utilities Ltd’s restructuring plan. Nor did I appreciate that I should have registered an informal arrangement with a family member to use her London flat without charge while I was staying in Westminster. I also owned and subsequently sold shares in a Vietnamese company that exceeded the threshold for registration. Finally, I failed to update my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests when my role as a councillor at West Oxfordshire district council ended. Those failures were a result of my own errors. I am grateful to the Committee for recognising that I neither gained nor sought to gain any advantage, and that I acted honestly in repeatedly drawing the commissioner’s attention to failings as I identified them. I fully accept that those are breaches of rule 5 of the code of conduct. I apologise to the House and commit to take a more diligent approach to the registration of my interests in future.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Free School Meals: Auto-enrolment · Hansard source

  More

  19. What assessment the child poverty unit has made of the potential merits of auto-enrolling eligible children for free school meals.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Free School Meals: Auto-enrolment · Hansard source

  More

  As many as 11% of pupils are missing out on the free school meals to which they are entitled. In many cases, they are not registered for reasons such as a fear of stigma or language barriers. In my Witney constituency, that means that around 230 children from the most disadvantaged homes may be missing out on a hot, healthy meal to get them through the school day. Council pilots of auto-enrolment have been shown to be effective. If implemented nationwide, auto-enrolment would make a huge difference to struggling families and it has overwhelming support from parents, so my question to the Minister is: what is the hold-up?

• 3 Dec 2025 · Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor · Hansard source

  More

  East West Rail is a huge project and will bring a lot of benefits, but my hon. Friend’s constituency of Ely and East Cambridgeshire is at the far end in Cambridgeshire and my constituency of Witney is at the far end in the west. Does she agree that such projects need to be spread county-wide? We desperately need transport infrastructure, such as rebuilding the railway line that links Oxford, Eynsham, Witney and Carterton, to support the 18,000 houses that are coming our way.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 3 Dec 2025 · OBR: Resignation of Chair · Hansard source

  More

  On behalf of my party, I thank Richard Hughes for his service. We respect his resignation. I also thank Laura Gardiner, Professor Ciaran Martin and Huw Stephens for the very quick turnaround of the investigatory report on the leak. In that report, the point is made that, unlike all other IT systems and services, the OBR’s website is locally managed and outside the gov.uk network. That decision was made, apparently, to ensure the OBR’s full independence from the Treasury. Will the Minister soon report back to the House with a timeline for decisions—between now and the OBR’s next report in spring 2026—on how these matters will be managed in future? Will he provide an outline of how the OBR website will be operated so that it is secure and maintains appropriate separation from the Treasury?

• 2 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 2 Dec 2025 · Gambling: Regulatory Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), as well as all the Members who attended the debate; and you, Sir Desmond, for chairing it. I appreciate the sensible, fair and respectful way that we have handled the debate and the shared recognition that gambling can be fun but can also do a whole lot of damage. We have to try to balance that as best we can. I think we have all tried to do that in our own way. I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) for doing his best to make the other case. He did a fair job of that. I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) did excellent jobs in detailing the damage done, particularly so with regard to M, who my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury mentioned. After the debate, I will be asking about where he is now. I also thank the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) and my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) for bringing a great range of thought with regard to the public health aspects of this issue. They made very valuable contributions on that. The shadow Minister did a great job of making the case for the other side of the argument. I thank the Minister for all his input. It was very helpful that he explained where the Government are on the gambling levy, local authorities and the cumulative impact assessments. I will admit to being less clear about the Government’s position on online advertising and what they are planning to do with that £2 billion—when, where and how. I look forward to staying in touch on that. Similarly, the issue of the ombudsman was not covered in detail. I would welcome an intervention from the Minister to provide some clarity on that.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Gambling: Regulatory Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for that. I believe we have covered everything. I appreciate everybody’s being here. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered reform of gambling regulation.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Gambling: Regulatory Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I fully agree and will cover that shortly. The Lancet commission concluded that “gambling poses a threat to public health, the control of which requires a substantial expansion and tightening of gambling industry regulation”. So what should we do? First, we should limit the impact of gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship, especially the extent to which children and young people are exposed to it. The industry spends £2 billion a year on gambling advertising and would not be putting that money in without a high degree of certainty that it will be more than paid back in profits. Some 80% of that is spent online, which is why children so often come across gambling and gambling companies. Research undertaken by the Gambling Commission found that 34% of British bettors admitted to being influenced by advertising, and 16% stated that ads caused them to increase their gambling. Research published this year found that 96% of people aged 11 to 24 had seen gambling marketing messages in the month before the study, and were more likely to bet as a result. On Twitter—or X—alone, there are more than a million gambling ads in the UK each year. Football matches are saturated by gambling ads; there were thousands of gambling messages during the opening weekend of the English premier league alone, across various channels. Many of our neighbours have taken action. In 2018, Italy banned all online advertising of gambling products. Spain added strong restrictions in 2020. Germany did the same in 2021, as did the Netherlands and Belgium in 2023. Finland and Sweden are set to implement restrictions in 2027. By contrast, here in the UK, the 2023 White Paper on reforming gambling for the digital age acknowledged the harm caused by marketing but opted to continue with a mostly self-regulatory approach. I think such an approach means a huge amount of harm will continue, so I urge the Minister to look again at that, given the damage the sector does and the action already taken by others to mitigate it in their countries. There is strong public support for greater restrictions, too, with polling showing that 51% of people think all gambling advertising, promotion and sponsorship should be banned, and 78% think that nobody under the age of 18 should be exposed to it. Secondly, underpinning all this, we need a statutory independent gambling ombudsman with real power, exactly as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) stated. That was recommended in the 2023 gambling White Paper and was intended to be established and operational within 12 months, and yet no progress has been made. I also understand that the Government have asked the gambling industry, of all people, to come up with ideas on how the ombudsman should be run—a case of poacher turned gamekeeper if ever there was one. If that is the case, are the Government really serious about setting up an ombudsman with effective powers that it actually uses? Will the Minister please clarify what steps are being taken to achieve that? Thirdly, another area where our regulation has a disconnect is licensing frameworks. Pubs are licensed by local authorities. Licensing for vape shops, requiring retailers to obtain a personal licence to sell the products and a premises licence for their storage and sale, is currently under consideration in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. Given that, why do local authorities not have the powers they need to prevent new gambling premises from opening? We should review and implement the relevant commitments in the 2023 gambling White Paper, which seeks to strengthen local authority discretion and better reflect community harm. I would welcome an update from the Minister on plans to review and progress the recommendations in the White Paper. Finally, I welcome the Chancellor’s decision to increase gaming duty in last week’s Budget—that was an important step. I now encourage the Government to consider directing some of the revenue raised from that towards taking steps better to regulate the industry and reduce the personal and social harms it contributes to in the long term.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Gambling: Regulatory Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered reform of gambling regulation. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. We are here to talk about gambling regulation and to discuss the scale of the problem. There is clear evidence that current regulation of the gambling industry is not adequate to protect people from harm, including children and young people. Figures published by the Gambling Commission this October showed that 1.4 million people in Britain have a gambling problem. That number is not spread equally: young men aged 25 to 34 are most affected, with 5.5% experiencing at least moderate-risk gambling, and rates are much higher in more deprived communities, with men in the most deprived areas twice as likely as those in more well-off areas to be moderate-risk gamblers. Evidence suggests that while many people gamble a bit, the vast majority of profits derived by gambling firms come from a small number of gamblers. The House of Lords Gambling Industry Committee found that 60% of the industry’s profits come from just 5% of customers, who are either problem gamblers or at risk. Recent Gambling Commission figures also show that the harms caused by gambling are increasingly being experienced by children, with the proportion of young people being exposed to significant harms more than doubling between 2023 and 2024. Moreover, the harms caused by gambling are not isolated to the individuals who take part; when it reaches a harmful level, it can have devastating impacts for families and right across communities, in every constituency. Gambling is linked to addiction, debt and other serious harms, and can negatively impact mental and physical health, relationships, finances, employment and education, but it is comparatively less regulated than other harmful industries and not taxed to directly reflect the harms it causes. In my home patch of Witney, Oxfordshire county council identified gambling addiction as a key risk factor in its recently updated suicide prevention strategy. Research by Gambling with Lives, a charity established in 2018 by families bereaved by gambling suicides, shows that, shockingly, there are hundreds of gambling-related suicides each year, an average of around one a day. The impact on the public purse is also significant. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research found that a person experiencing problem gambling leads to an additional £3,700 spend per year in higher welfare payments, healthcare and criminal justice costs, and the cost of homelessness. A research report from the University of Oxford by Dr Naomi Muggleton showed that as many as one in four gamblers are harmed. The industry continues to develop rapidly, and regulation must keep pace and remain fit for purpose. The Lancet public health commission on gambling found in 2024: “Digitalisation has transformed the production and operation of commercial gambling… The commercial gambling industry has also developed strong partnerships in media and social media. Sponsoring and partnering with professional sports organisations provides gambling operators with marketing opportunities with huge new audiences.”

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  This is a Budget driven far more by political calculation than by the economic realities that the country faces. The Chancellor has an enormous majority—on paper, at least—and the country desperately needs change, but we now have a second Budget in which the Government have failed to demonstrate that they have any big ideas to get the economy moving. However, before I go into that, I want to focus on some positives. I welcome some of the announcements that the Chancellor made last week, which will help households that have been struggling with the cost of living. Lifting the two-child benefit cap will be worth up to £5,000 a year to each of the more than 500 families in my constituency who have been impacted by the cap. Too many children and families have been trapped in poverty because of the decision to impose it and the Government’s previous stubborn decision to keep it. I just wish that this had been done a year ago, and I give my commiserations to the brave Labour Members who lost the Whip after standing up for a policy that their party now finally accepts. I also welcome the Government’s action to cut energy bills by removing the renewables levy, which is something that we Liberal Democrats had been calling on the Chancellor to do. It will make a difference to families struggling with sky-high fuel bills. However, I wish that the Government had gone further, rather than removing just 75% of the levy and only for three years. We were proposing to fund the renewables obligation instead from a windfall tax on the excess profits in the banking sector that have resulted from quantitative tightening—something that would have happened now, unlike the deferred taxation that the Chancellor is proposing, which may or may not happen. Both those changes will make struggling families’ lives a little easier, and are very much welcomed. Similarly, doubling remote gaming duty—something we have also been calling for—is clearly a sensible move. It is one way to raise much-needed revenue without increasing the burden on hard-working families, but it is comparatively small, raising only £1 billion a year. The sad truth is that these are all small wins in the context of the huge challenges we face.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I welcome it. The OBR has marked down economic growth for each of the next four years, which is bad news. We have a ballooning debt, which now sits at £2.9 trillion. Our debt costs have tripled in the last five years—yes, that is the Conservatives’ fault—and our Government debt is now more expensive than Italy’s. Yes, this all happened on the Conservatives’ watch, but we now have a situation in which 11% of Government spending goes on covering the interest payments, not on paying down the debt itself, and the Chancellor has given no indication that she is serious about addressing that. Across the five years of the forecast, the Chancellor proposes to deliver a reduction in our net borrowing of just 0.04% of GDP, and I question her tactics. What is the sense in taxing salary sacrifice schemes when we know the strain that the state pension and social care systems are under and when we need people to save more, not less? Does common sense not tell us that discouraging people from saving for retirement now will only lead to a greater burden on the public purse in the long run? Then there is the desperate state of our special educational needs and disabilities provision. The SEND national deficit overspend is forecast to reach £17.8 billion by March 2028. The Government have said they will cover costs directly from that point on, but they have given no answer as to how this huge bill will be settled up. In Oxfordshire alone, the SEND annual overspend is expected to reach £153 million by March 2026. Why are we waiting two and a half years to do something about that? As per policy decision 37, the Government determine that they will go further on efficiencies and savings in public services, but not just yet. There are zero governmental cost savings in each of the next three years and then, miraculously, we expect £4 billion in savings in 2029-30—the other side of a general election. How can the country take the Government seriously when they take this approach? That last instance highlights the problem with the fiscal framework the Government have set themselves. The rule that the current Budget must be in surplus in 2029-30, and the aim of ensuring that debt is falling as a share of the economy by ’29-30, are all well and good, but entirely excluding the intermediate years from the calculation serves our country extremely badly. This Government are gaming the system, in the same way the Conservatives did before them, by adjusting everything in year five to perfectly line up, with more spending early on and tax rises deferred, possibly into the never-never. Let us look at international examples of how national Budgets are set to understand why the UK is so ineffective at controlling its debt. The Government could take inspiration from the Swedish model of tax scrutiny. Thirty years since introducing changes, and aided by strong economic growth, Sweden has reduced its national debt from nearly 80% to 32%—and yes, Sweden had covid too. Meanwhile, our national debt stands at around 95%. A key component of the solution is that we need to substantially strengthen the scrutiny powers of this Chamber when it comes to the Government’s financial management. This four-day debate clearly does not provide an effective scrutiny function, and there is no meaningful ability for Parliament to amend the Budget once it is announced. Our country is the poorer for this approach. Secondly, of course, we need to seek a deal with Europe that captures the economic benefits of the European market, which is five times bigger than our own, while maintaining control of our borders. This should start with negotiating a new customs union with the EU. Last month, the US’s National Bureau of Economic Research published a paper that found that Brexit had cut UK GDP by between 6% and 8%, with the economy now £170 billion smaller than it would otherwise have been. The House of Commons Library found that we are losing £90 billion in tax revenues every year as a result of Brexit—an enormous number. That is equivalent to two thirds of the UK’s entire annual Budget deficit of £138 billion; to nearly 80% of our entire annual debt expense of £114 billion; or to our defence, security, prisons and courts budgets combined. The Government now finally acknowledge that Brexit has left our country poorer, weaker and more divided, but they are still unwilling to do almost anything material about it. I was elected by my Witney constituents in 2024 to do all that I can to make their lives better and our country better. This Budget is a key lever through which to do so, and I am deeply dismayed at the lost opportunity that it represents.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Business and Trade Committee · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his help and work on this issue. I want to ask his opinion on the efficacy of our arms export control regime. We had two sessions in which we were looking into the F-35 in Gaza, and essentially it seems like the UK has outsourced its arms export controls to the Americans for F-35 replacement parts. Also, we continue to sell a lot of weapons to the United Arab Emirates, and it has been widely reported in the international press that the UAE is arming the Rapid Support Forces, which is creating enormous numbers of atrocities in Sudan. Does the right hon. Member think that our arms export control criteria are up to scratch?

• 20 Nov 2025 · Injury in Service Award · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) for securing this excellent debate. I want to seek the Minister’s help with the case of my Witney constituent, Bill Maddocks. Bill was an on-call firefighter at Witney for 22 years and contracted covid at work, while seconded on a whole-time contract to assist the ambulance service during the pandemic. This became long covid and, as a result, he was retired from the fire service due to ill health. During this process, he was assured by senior managers that a pension equivalent to a whole-time firefighter would be his, and he was independently medically assessed as having a tier 1 level and 100% disability, entitling him to a compensation pension equivalent to a whole-time firefighter wage. There has been a long-standing dispute about his disablement and the apportionment. Even though it was independently assessed and agreed by Oxfordshire fire and rescue service as legally binding, the amount awarded was equivalent only to on-call pay rather than the full-time wage. As a result, the Pensions Ombudsman became involved, as well as the Fire Brigades Union. There has continued to be a Byzantine maze and the Pensions Ombudsman has walked away saying that the case lies outside its brief. Four years on, Bill remains incredibly debilitated and suffering deeply, supported wonderfully by his wife, Nikki. I would like your help in finding a way through this situation monetarily, but the man also deserves an award, exactly as we have named here today.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Power Station: Wylfa · Hansard source

  More

  New small modular reactors have real potential to help reduce our reliance on foreign gas and bring down energy bills, as well as bringing a welcome boost to jobs and investment in Anglesey. SMRs should be where the focus is when it comes to nuclear, not big, expensive nuclear power stations that cost multiples more and take far longer to build. The Liberal Democrats are pleased to see SMRs coming forward as part of a mix of cost-effective and safe decarbonised power generation, but will the Government please confirm that they will also maintain focus on boosting wind and solar power generation in order to bring down everyone’s energy bills? My hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) has been working closely with constituents who will now be disappointed that the alternative site of Oldbury has not gone forward, so can the Minister clarify what the future is for that site?