Charlie Maynard MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Mar 2026 · National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. It sends the wrong message and puts in place the wrong incentives, and that is a real problem. Ministers will have seen the analysis produced by the Office for Budget Responsibility in response to the former Lib Dem Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, highlighting the flaws in the Government’s claim that these changes will not impact most lower and middle earners—that is, those not saving more than the £2,000 threshold in any case. The OBR’s new analysis highlights three main ways that the Bill could affect the wider workforce. First, employers may move away from salary sacrifice altogether by increasing ordinary employer pension contributions in place of wage growth, all by reducing contractual pay in exchange for higher contributions. The OBR’s analysis makes it clear that any change of this kind would necessarily have to be applied across all of the workforce and could not be limited to higher earners, so the impact of these changes could indeed see lower pay rises or reduce base pay for employees who contribute less than £2,000. Secondly, the new analysis spells out that some employees may move to make standard pension contributions, including through relief at source schemes, thereby losing the NICs advantages of salary sacrifice and increasing their NICs bill, even if they contribute small amounts. Thirdly, OBR modelling shows that employers would pass down around three quarters of the additional NICs cost to employees, mainly through lower wages, which again would likely hit all workers regardless of the amount they save through salary sacrifice. Not only does this OBR analysis indicate that the Government have been wrong to frame these changes as something that will impact only those with broader shoulders, but, crucially, when the OBR assumed a significant behavioural response from employers and employees, the estimated amount this policy will raise fell by almost half, from £4.7 billion in 2029-30 to £2.6 billion in 2030-31, as these impacts feed through. I am interested to understand whether or not the Minister agrees with that point. Raising the threshold from £2,000 to £5,000 will not solve these issues entirely, but it would mitigate them by exempting a larger number of people on lower and middle incomes from the key change in the Bill. That would, in turn, reduce the number of employees impacted. Lords amendment 2 relates to the repayment of student loans. This issue was also explored in the Lords, but I think it should be reiterated here, because although it is probably an inadvertent effect, it is none the less a significant issue. I appreciate the Minister’s words, but the fact remains that for any graduate who saves above the threshold, not only will their NICs payments go up, but so will their student loan repayments. This Bill is a double whammy on a group who are already struggling with high interest payments, escalating debt and a very challenging jobs market. To conclude, with four in 10 people in the country, whether in my Witney constituency or any other Member’s, already not saving enough for retirement, and with the pressures on the state pension and social care system well known, it is counterproductive to reduce the incentives for those who can afford to do so to save towards their retirement. Once again, the measures in the Bill are short-sighted, and the Government’s justifications for them do not add up. I support the Lords amendments, which seek to iron out problems and mitigate the negative impacts. Overall, my party and I cannot support the Bill.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Brain Tumour Survival Rates · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for securing this really important debate. She has been excellent in driving forward this issue, and is so determined. She demonstrates how to go after an issue and pursue it relentlessly. That is great, but ultimately, as she points out, words are pointless. We have a real problem here, and our loved ones are being taken down far too effectively. My sister Georgie is alive, and I am very grateful for that. She was diagnosed with GBM two and three quarter years ago, and has had surgery, chemo and radio. The survival rates are not good. I resent the fact that we always have to churn out our own stories in this Chamber; that, it seems, is what counts. Yes, I am going to churn out my own story, but it is irritating that I have to. She has been brave as hell and utterly determined, and is up there with the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden. Like her, Georgie takes no prisoners. She has gathered people to her cause and has never taken no for an answer. That is obviously to her credit, but more importantly, it has made a difference to this debate. Well done, Georgie. I also give a shout-out to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), whose Rare Cancers Bill has made a real difference, and to Labour Front Benchers. I know that I am on the Opposition Benches, but I do not really care, because this issue is too important for us to mess around. I do not know about the Secretary of State, but I think he is interested. I do know about the Minister for cancer, who has her own story, and who stood up in front of a room of angry people. Those of us affected by brain cancer do anger quite effectively, and she has withheld it, despite having her own cross to bear. She has worked extremely hard in this area, and I am very grateful to her for that. I am not going to rehash all the points that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden made so well, but we obviously have some very bad issues. Pinned in front of me in my office is a chart, with arrows going from left to right, which basically shows how survival rates for different cancers have changed over the last 40 years. Up at the top, there are testicular cancer and thyroid cancer, and down at the bottom left, with virtually no arrows, are pancreatic, brain, oesophagus and a number of other cancers. People do not believe that they will be able to change that situation; they are not spending any money on them, because they are really difficult. There is no point pretending that these cancers are not really difficult, and brain cancer is particularly difficult because of the blood-brain barrier. The body does everything it can to stop things getting into the brain, which is mostly good for us, but when it comes to treating a brain tumour, it is bad for us. I am grateful for the national cancer plan, but we need more, and we should be taking steps to deal with that issue. The plan says: “Some rare cancers, such as brain and pancreatic cancer, have stubbornly low survival rates—and few treatment or diagnostic breakthroughs. We need new diagnostic tools, research into biomarkers, and targeted therapies to achieve any major changes to survival.” What we need on the back of the plan is a comprehensive, actionable strategy, with specific, measurable goals and targets, each with clear deadlines, so that we can ensure accountability in critical areas such as workforce recruitment and retention, infrastructure development, and incentives for pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs for cancers on which so little progress has been made. I get that the Minister has just published a plan, but I look to him to take this further and set out as concrete a set of goals as possible, with a clear timeline. I will go through a few headings. On participation and research, the regulatory landscape is too restrictive. It often pushes families to seek treatment abroad, where clinicians have greater freedom to investigate novel therapies. A lack of accessible, up-to-date information is contributing to missed opportunities to partake in research. Although some registries exist, such as the National Institute for Health and Care Research’s “Be Part of Research”, they are often difficult to navigate—there are over 120 types of brain tumour to search for—and they quickly become outdated. The cancer plan states: “We will make increasing research into rare cancers a priority for DHSC”— the Department of Health and Social Care— “and NIHR (with the support and oversight of our new national lead for rare cancers research).” I would welcome the Minister providing further details on how he and his team plan to effect that.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Brain Tumour Survival Rates · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. I am going to talk out of two sides of my face here, because on the one side, the UK has a lot going for it, but on the other, it does not. Since Brexit, clinical trials in the UK are down 60%, which is really bad news. That is just business logic talking. Businesses say, “Why would I do my trial in the UK, when the market there is six times smaller than the EU’s? I’ll do it in the EU.” We are living this, and some of us are dying as a result. However, we just plough on, saying, “Never mind. That’s a bit of a mistake, but there we go.” It would be a delight to find a way through that, and to get our clinical trials up and running, exactly as my hon. Friend says. I do not have the answer to that one, apart from the obvious; I am really looking for that. I come to whole genomic sequencing. The Minister understands the issue better than me; I remember him mentioning it when I was having a coffee with him just after I joined the House. I really like what the team are doing, so well done to them. However, brain cancer patients lack the legal right to request whole genomic sequencing of their tumours. Instead, healthcare decisions on genomic testing are made solely by clinicians. As a result, many patients are systematically excluded from genomic testing, which significantly limits opportunities for tailored treatment options, and potentially affects their prognosis. The Government really need to rectify this injustice. We are after whole genomic sequencing for everybody who has brain cancer. Vaccine programmes do exist, and it is now time—I do not often do this—for me to be polite about the Conservative Government. They launched an ambitious initiative aimed at improving outcomes for all cancer patients: the NHS cancer vaccine launch pad, which is a great achievement. As the Minister has said, it is “speeding up access to clinical trials for cancer vaccines and immunotherapies”. However, brain cancer is not included on that platform, despite ongoing efforts to expand its scope to cover this disease. Furthermore, it remains unclear whether the pharmaceutical industry is fully aware of the platform. My question is: why are brain cancer patients still left out of this programme? On workforce and infrastructure, the key to achieving the Government’s cancer plan is encouraging multidisciplinary teamwork among oncologists, neurosurgeons, artificial intelligence professionals, imaging experts and immunologists. The Government need to clarify how many—I am looking for numbers—new research, fellowship and training positions will be introduced across neuro-oncology, neurosurgery, neuropathology and radiography. What are the plans for setting up laboratories and trial facilities at major centres, and when are they expected to be up and running? On tumour tissue, we have a real mess, and I am looking to the Minister for help in sorting this out, because it is a real thicket of legal and medical complexity. Tumour tissue excised from the brain really matters, but how is it stored, what consents are used, and what control does the patient have over it, not only when they are alive, but after their death? What are the rules around tumour tissue, because we have a whole load of tumour tissue around the UK that is locked down and not accessible for research? I think many of the families would be absolutely delighted if that tumour tissue was used for research. I ask the Minister to have a look at that. What I am really asking is for the Secretary of State or the Minister to convene a series of meetings with all the key parties—the Human Tissue Authority, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the NHS and anybody else he thinks needs to be in the room—to work through that issue. We have made great progress on organ donation; the law changed a few years ago, and consent is now given by default. We have good laws on what happens to egg and sperm tissue, so can we try to get our laws for cancer tumour tissue up to date? I am wrapping up. Will the Minister give a commitment to improving public and patient awareness of consent, including for tissue use in research and treatments; ensure that clear, consistent national messaging is developed with experts, patients and carers about how consent works in cancer care; and ensure that there is support for the public giving advance, informed digital consent, rather than doing so at moments of crisis?

• 21 Jan 2026 · National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree—well said. The Government may well say that the Bill will not affect low earners, who are likely not to be saving £2,000 in a given year, as the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) has just said. However, that is too simplistic a way to look at this issue. The impact assessment by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs found that an estimated 7.7 million employees currently use salary sacrifice to make pension contributions—that is around 25% of all employees. Of these, 3.3 million sacrifice more than £2,000 of salary or bonuses. That leaves millions of middle earners who are already feeling a significant squeeze as a result of myriad other cost of living pressures, who have had their taxes raised by the previous Conservative Government, and who are now facing an even greater hit due to this Government’s jobs tax and the extension of frozen income tax thresholds. If this Bill discourages those people from putting money away for their safety net in later life, the Treasury will pay the price in the long run. Before the Budget, the Association of British Insurers warned that two in five Brits will save less in their pension if a cap on salary sacrifice schemes is introduced. With social care budgets also stretched to breaking point, we should be doing everything we can to incentivise people who are able to put money aside for a comfortable and supported retirement to do so. As the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales pointed out in its response: “At a time when there is a pensions commission considering the adequacy of pension saving, this demonstrates a lack of joined-up thinking from the government.”

• 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—

• 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.

• 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.