Helen Maguire MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Jan 2025 · Rivers, Lakes and Seas: Water Quality · Hansard source

  More

  The River Mole flows through my constituency. In 2024, it suffered over 2,000 additional hours of sewage discharge in comparison with 2023, despite similar rainfall. Does the hon. Member agree that despite recent efforts to protect our waterways—we appreciate what the Government are doing—the problem continues to worsen, and the Government must be more ambitious in their action to hold water companies to account?

• 15 Jan 2025 · UK Submarine Fleet · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which gives me the opportunity to clarify that we do indeed support the at-sea deterrent, as was confirmed by a motion at conference recently; I cannot remember which conference it was, but it was a few conferences ago. As I was saying, as part of the AUKUS partnership, the UK will provide Australia with nuclear-powered conventionally armed submarines based on our next-generation SSN-AUKUS design. This not only strengthens our shared security interests in the Indo-Pacific but reaffirms the UK’s role as a leading global defence partner. We must ensure that we continue to show our strong support for the AUKUS programme, particularly given potential policy shifts in the United States. Reports suggest that the Trump Administration might renegotiate the AUKUS agreement or deprioritise the commitments that are part of it. In addition to their role in deterrence and warfare, submarines are critical for safeguarding undersea infrastructure, including the data cables that underpin global communications and commerce. The rise of seabed warfare, particularly by hostile states such as Russia and China, poses a serious threat to these assets, and a robust submarine fleet is essential to protect the UK’s interests in this domain. Finally, we must tackle the long-standing issues in defence procurement. Delays and cost overruns in major programmes have hindered progress in building and maintaining our submarine fleet. A comprehensive industrial strategy is needed to provide a reliable pipeline of equipment procurement. Such a strategy would not only ensure the readiness of the Royal Navy but support the growth of the UK’s defence industry. The UK submarine fleet is a vital component of our national security, our economy and our international partnerships. Although challenges remain, the benefits of continued investment in the sector are evident, and I urge the Government to prioritise the manpower, infrastructure and procurement reforms necessary to ensure that this critical capability is preserved and indeed enhanced for generations to come.

• 15 Jan 2025 · UK Submarine Fleet · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the second time today, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing this debate. I am disappointed that we did not somehow co-ordinate so that today the music that so often blares out on a Wednesday afternoon was “Yellow Submarine”. That song tells of the adventures of a submariner and reminds us to thank all those who serve as submariners in such confined conditions. It is so important that we recognise them, because the UK submarine fleet is critical to national security, economic development and defence of the rules-based international order. As we have heard, the Royal Navy’s submarine fleet comprises nine vessels: five Astute-class nuclear-powered attack submarines and four Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines. The fleet plays a central role in the UK’s defence strategy, providing a continuous at-sea deterrent and contributing to global security through intelligence, surveillance and undersea warfare capabilities, but the submarine fleet faces significant challenges. Issues such as manpower shortages, delays in maintenance and ageing infrastructure risk undermining the fleet’s operational readiness, and extended maintenance periods have raised concern about the Royal Navy’s ability to meet its current commitments as well as new obligations, such as deployments to Australia under the AUKUS agreement. The UK submarine industry is critical not only for national defence but as a significant driver of economic growth and skills development. His Majesty’s Naval Base, Clyde, known as Faslane and home to the UK’s entire submarine fleet, has received over £1.8 billion in infrastructure investments since 2015, supporting over 6,000 military and civilian jobs, and making it one of Scotland’s largest employers. In addition, the construction of next-generation Dreadnought-class sub-surface ballistic nuclear submarines and the AUKUS submarine programme is projected to create more than 20,000 jobs across the UK, including, as has been mentioned, 17,000 new roles at Rolls-Royce in Derby. These projects foster expertise in engineering, nuclear propulsion and advanced manufacturing, ensuring that the UK remains at the forefront of global submarine technology. It is essential that we continue to invest in training and apprenticeships to attract young people to this critical sector. Our young people need to develop the skills necessary to carry out these critical projects. Maintaining the UK’s nuclear deterrent is a cornerstone of our national security policy. For over 50 years, the continuous at-sea deterrent has been an unbroken line of defence against nuclear threats. Although I believe that the end goal should be multilateral disarmament, the reality is that the global security environment, which includes threats from state and non-state actors, makes it imperative to retain a robust deterrent. The AUKUS trilateral security agreement with Australia and the United States marks a significant step forward in international defence co-operation. As part of this partnership, the UK will provide Australia with nuclear-powered conventionally armed submarines based on our next-generation SSN-AUKUS design.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, I asked the Government to ensure that all service family accommodation meets the minimum standards of social housing, as set out in the decent homes standard. The Minister for Veterans confirmed that this is already done, so will the Government support amending the Renters’ Rights Bill officially to extend the decent homes standard to Ministry of Defence service family accommodation?

• 13 Jan 2025 · Hospice and Palliative Care · Hansard source

  More

  I start by thanking the compassionate, dedicated and caring hospice staff and volunteers who, year round, support patients and their families through some of the most difficult moments of their life. I welcome this debate, which highlights the need for greater, more consistent Government support for the work of delivering that vital care. Most pressingly, we must ensure that fiscal policies do not negatively impact our hospices, because hospices are pillars of our healthcare system. They support over 300,000 people annually and provide not just outstanding clinical care, but emotional and psychological support. I have seen at first hand the many ways in which hospices work to bring some sense of comfort and normality at a very distressing time, from providing group activities and special events to creating quiet spaces for reflection. Hospices are not just care providers; they are vital partners in the healthcare system, reducing pressure on NHS services by offering specialist in-patient care and community-based services. Hospices prevent unnecessary A&E visits and facilitate timely hospital discharges. When hospices are forced to cut services, the burden on the NHS only grows. That makes long-term support for hospices not just compassionate but practical. A constituent recently contacted me to tell me about her husband’s experience. Unfortunately, there was no room for her husband at my constituency’s local hospice, the Princess Alice hospice. My constituent strongly believes that her husband’s end of life experience would have been more peaceful and less painful had he been admitted there. Instead, he was left at home, in extreme pain for hours. The community nurses did eventually come to administer pain relief, shortly after which he passed away, but my constituent has expressed that the whole experience was deeply traumatic for her and her children, and urged me to call for more funding, so that other families can be spared such distress. Despite the crucial role of hospices, the hospice sector is at breaking point. As a fundraiser, I work closely with hospices, and I know just how precarious their financial situation is. Many people do not realise how little of hospice care is funded by the Government. On average, the Government fund only one third; for the remaining funding, hospices are reliant on charitable donations. This imbalance leaves hospices vulnerable to financial crises as, thanks to rising costs and inconsistent donations, they fail to bridge the gap. This funding model does not work. One in five UK hospices has had to cut services in the last year, or was planning to, due to insufficient funding, and this trend will continue unless action is taken. Although I welcome the Government’s £126 million package for hospices, we must see it for what it is—a stopgap, not a long-term solution. We need a plan to put hospices on a sustainable, fair and consistent financial footing. A long-term reform of hospice funding is needed as part of the NHS’s 10-year plan. Hospices such as Shooting Star and Princess Alice embody the values of compassion and community. They provide comfort where there is pain, hope where there is despair and dignity where there is loss. It is our responsibility to ensure that they continue this vital work.

• 13 Jan 2025 · Developing AI Capacity and Expertise in UK Defence · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for the report, and it was helpful to understand the point about the Lords report. Does she know when the Government will outline the timetable for that report on the ethical and moral issues to be considered, and for those issues to be incorporated in Government policy? How effectively will the MOD work with international companies—this is obviously an incredibly complex area—to ensure that the security risk is massively reduced?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  I very much welcome the Government bringing this important debate to the House today. Every single day, 3,000 crimes of violence against women and girls are recorded. That is 3,000 acts of harm inflicted on women in our society. Yet according to the End Violence Against Women coalition, the true figure is likely far higher, as so many victims simply never come forward. One in 12 women will become a victim of these crimes each year, while it is estimated that one in 20 people will be a perpetrator annually, although, again, the actual number is thought to be significantly greater. These figures are not just statistics; they represent lives disrupted, confidence eroded and safety stolen. Violence against women and girls is horrifyingly prevalent in our society. Too many women feel unsafe walking down their own streets, in their homes and workplaces, and online. The reality of this violence has been felt profoundly in my constituency: in 2023, Emma Pattison and her seven-year-old daughter were brutally killed by her husband. There were warning signs of coercive, controlling behaviour, but they were not picked up on. The loss of Emma and Lettie Pattison should serve as a reminder of how domestic abuse can escalate rapidly, and how we must be ready to listen to women and pick up on these signs of abuse. We must learn from such tragedies and act decisively to prevent others. Our criminal justice system is failing women, survivors are not supported as they should be and, far too often, perpetrators evade justice. Online abuse, workplace harassment and daily intimidation are all too common, and they reveal a society that continues to let women down. We need a whole-system approach to tackle this issue. Criminal justice partners, Government bodies, voluntary organisations and industry must come together to improve early identification, risk assessment and the provision of support for survivors. Most importantly, when there are reports of any sort of violence or sexual misconduct, they must be taken seriously. We will not end this surge of violence against women and girls in our society if the police do not take women seriously, investigate the reported crime and bring the perpetrators to justice. The Liberal Democrats believe in a clear path forward that includes making misogyny a hate crime; fully implementing the Istanbul convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, with protections for all survivors, regardless of nationality or immigration status; and ensuring sustainable funding for refuge spaces and rape crisis centres to meet the overwhelming demand. Survivors deserve better. They deserve domestic abuse specialists embedded in every police force, mandatory trauma training for officers and prosecutors, and real action to address the delays in the justice system that put women at further risk. Social media companies must also play their part by addressing the appalling abuse faced by women online, including Members of the House today. This is often how abuse starts. Transparency and accountability must be non-negotiable. No woman should have to live in fear of violence; no girl should grow up thinking this is the norm. We have the tools and knowledge to make a difference; what we need now is the will to act. I welcome the announcements from this Government and the fact that they are maintaining this as a key priority, and I stand ready to work with anyone in this Chamber to build a safer, fairer society for women and girls.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Playgrounds · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) on securing this important debate. This issue matters personally to me as a mother of three children—two boys and a girl. I have watched each of them grow through unstructured play. Indeed, we chose to live near a park because I recognise the importance of parks and outdoor play. I want to ensure that every child across the country, and future generations of children, have the same opportunities to play as my children have had. As the former chair of a charity that ran the local recreation ground, I know the importance of spaces like playgrounds as hubs for the community. As policymakers, we often focus on the physical education of our children, but playgrounds are about so much more than exercise. They are where children learn to navigate risk, build relationships and develop the resilience that will serve them for life. However, according to the 2024 green space index, 2.3 million children in Britain under the age of nine, which is nearly one third, live more than a 10-minute walk from their nearest playground. That is a stark indicator of a growing play crisis in our country. Playgrounds are vital spaces where children explore their world and themselves. Through play, they develop social skills, creativity and cognitive abilities. They learn to assess and embrace risk, make decisions and form friendships. Playgrounds are incubators for resilience, teaching children the skills to thrive in a challenging world. As a former scout leader who led teams on hikes up mountains, I have seen how giving children the chance to push themselves through outdoor physical challenges really builds their self-esteem. They climb up a mountain and are scared at the top, but then they realise how successful they have been in their achievement and how brilliant the experience has been. Playgrounds offer the chance for young people to challenge themselves—to climb higher, to swing faster and to jump that little bit further. Despite the clear benefits of playgrounds for our youth, local authority budgets for playgrounds have declined drastically, with a 14% fall in annual park funding in England between 2009 and 2020. Nearly 800 playgrounds have been lost since 2013 and some councils now warn that they may need to remove or repurpose play areas simply to save money. It is shocking that, compared with the 1970s, children now spend 50% less time in unstructured outdoor play, and the 2020 British children’s play survey revealed that children aged five to 11 spend just over three hours a day playing, mostly at home or in the garden rather than in nature and community spaces. During this period of playground decline, social media and smartphones have become increasingly pervasive, replacing active play, exploration and in-person socialising with passive scrolling, socialising through their phones and being less physically active. I was a physical trainer for over 15 years and I am passionate about encouraging everyone to be more active. As a parent, I volunteered at my local primary school to support it in setting up its running club, and I saw at first hand the positive impact that physical activity has on young people. They were excited to be outside and loved focusing their energy on something other than the stress of homework. When they returned to class, they then felt calm and able to focus, which is also a benefit for teachers. The public health implications of the decline in safe public spaces to play are profound. Over half of children fail to meet the recommended daily activity levels and 37% of 10 and 11-year-olds in England are now overweight or obese. The mental health impact is equally concerning, with nearly one in five children having a probable mental health condition. The reduction in access to unstructured outdoor play, alongside the rise in children’s access to the digital world, has reshaped childhood, leading to isolation and inactivity. Every child has the right to play—to feel energised and free—yet the opportunities for that freedom are shrinking. Without urgent action, generations of children will grow up deprived of the spaces that are so essential for their development and wellbeing. I urge this Government to prioritise access to play spaces in planning and funding decisions. Decades of under-investment and poor planning must be reversed. Play is not just a part of childhood; it is the foundation for healthy, happy and resilient adults.

• 6 Jan 2025 · Housing: Military Personnel and Families · Hansard source

  More

  In 2023, there were over 5,000 reports of damp and mould in service accommodation. Members of the armed forces are willing to put their lives on the line to support the freedoms that we take for granted, so it is inconceivable that they and their families are forced to live in homes filled with damp and mould. Now that the MOD has agreed to buy back thousands of these family homes, will the Government commit to ensuring that all service family accommodation meets the minimum standards for social housing as set out in the decent homes standard?

• 6 Jan 2025 · NHS Backlog · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree that it is partly a failure of the previous Conservative Government that the hospitals have not been built. It is vital that the Epsom and St Helier hospitals trust is put at the top of the list as a priority for a new hospital. A new hospital will improve outcomes by consolidating critical services under one roof, easing the strain on staff who are currently stretched across two sites. Moreover, it will enable the Epsom and St Helier hospitals to focus on elective care, diagnostics and out-patient services, which will help them to tackle the backlog more efficiently. Crucially, the new hospital will expand the overall number of beds. Centralising major acute services will address estate challenges, strengthen staffing levels and improve patient outcomes, which will reduce the intolerable waiting times experienced at Epsom and St Helier hospitals. I turn to the distressing delay in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder assessments. In September 2024, the Darzi report highlighted the stark reality that demand for ADHD assessments has grown so significantly that it risks overwhelming available resources. Nationally, it could take an average of eight years to clear the backlog at the current rate. My constituent Sophie has been facing the brunt of this backlog. She has been waiting since June 2020 for an adult ADHD assessment, and she will wait quite a bit longer, as Surrey and Borders partnership NHS foundation trust has informed me that it is addressing referrals from as far back as March 2019. The root cause is a mismatch between demand and funding. The service was commissioned to support 400 assessments annually, but it receives 400 referrals every two months. Sophie, like many others, has been advised to seek private assessment, an option that is financially out of reach, as she has been unemployed due to her symptoms. This inefficient system should be reconsidered to help reduce the enormous backlog. The situation is wholly unacceptable.

• 6 Jan 2025 · NHS Backlog · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this debate. The backlog in the NHS is a national crisis, and it is acutely felt in my constituency. Patients, families and staff are bearing the brunt of an overstretched and under-resourced healthcare system. This morning I was delighted to see the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary at Epsom hospital in my constituency—part of the Epsom and St Helier trust—to announce this Government’s plans to tackle the backlog of tests, checks and treatments. I welcome many aspects of today’s announcement. Direct access to checks will cut unnecessary waiting times and, if implemented well, will result in better patient outcomes as health issues are found earlier. The location of this announcement at a hospital connected to St Helier hospital was particularly potent. Over the Christmas period, St Helier hospital, which has been at the heart of healthcare in the community for generations, made the news again. Its sinking floors and leaky ceilings illustrate the failings of our NHS. The facility is failing. Some of the buildings are older than the NHS itself and are plagued by damp, mould and structural issues that impede patient care. The hard-working staff at St Helier hospital are doing their best in impossible circumstances, but the reality is that the current infrastructure hampers their ability to provide the level of service and the quality of care that my constituents deserve. Epsom hospital, too, is struggling to cope with demand. Over the winter recess I heard harrowing stories from constituents who faced unacceptable A&E waiting times. One mother brought her child to Epsom hospital with a suspected broken wrist and endured a seven-hour wait for an X-ray, finally leaving in the early hours of the morning. While there, she encountered another mother with a nine-month-old baby who had a bump on its head. They left after six hours without being seen because they simply could not wait any longer. One constituent’s 86-year-old mother was told by the 111 service to go to A&E at Epsom hospital after an injury, only to be informed that there would be a 10-hour wait, meaning she would have to stay up until 2 am after a potentially serious injury. These are not isolated incidents, but rather the lived reality for many families. These delays stem from a combination of rising demand, staff shortages and an ageing infrastructure that cannot keep pace. While I welcome the fact that elective care capacity will increase, hopefully reducing the waiting times for care for many patients, this must also come with a focus on improving emergency care. Ring-fencing elective beds while people waiting for emergency care are dying in corridors or leaving without being checked is nonsensical. We must increase the number of staffed hospital beds to end degrading corridor care. Further, there must be a qualified clinician in every waiting room to ensure that any deteriorating conditions are picked up on. Locally, it is vital that the Epsom and St Helier hospitals are at the front of the queue for necessary repairs and that the new specialist emergency care hospital in Sutton is at the top of the priority list for this new hospital programme.

• 6 Jan 2025 · NHS Backlog · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree that prevention is key. If we do not deal with issues immediately, they will just take longer to deal with and be more costly in the long term. The people of Epsom and Ewell simply deserve better. They deserve a healthcare system that works for them, not against them. I urge the Government to act swiftly to address these issues, and to deliver the investment and reforms that our NHS so desperately needs.

• 6 Jan 2025 · Frozen Russian Assets: Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) so much for securing this debate. Does the hon. Member agree that if the west fails to act decisively in seizing Russian assets, that simply signals to authoritarian regimes worldwide that aggression and the violation of international law come with little consequence, which will destabilise the global order and increase the likelihood of future conflicts?

• 6 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  We face serious national defence vulnerabilities, with no land-based anti-ballistic-missile systems to protect critical infrastructure, military bases or population centres. Recent suspected sabotage of undersea cables in the Baltics highlights the hybrid threats for which we must also prepare. What steps is the Ministry of Defence taking to address the UK’s deficiencies in anti-ballistic-missile defences, and how are we preparing for potential hybrid attacks on our critical infrastructure?

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I am aware of that and I agree that it is a good way forward. Another business in my constituency, the Family Building Society, is also facing substantial repercussions. Last Friday I met its chief executive officer, Mark Bogard, who shared that this national insurance increase will cost him approximately £300,000 every year. He said: “Even as a mutual building society, with no shareholders to generate returns for, we cannot simply swallow that cost. So, going forward, we will inevitably now employ five or six fewer people.” Madam Chair, these are real-world examples of the damaging ripple effects of the Bill. It will hit not just businesses, but employees, with fewer jobs, lower wages and missed opportunities. This Government claim that they want to kickstart economic growth, but how can firms grow when they are forced to cut jobs instead of investing in their business. How can the economy thrive when ambition is replaced with survival? This Bill does not kickstart economic growth; it slams on the brakes. Across the board, this Bill threatens sectors vital to our economy and to society. Social care providers, GPs and hospices, already at breaking point, will now face further financial strain. Most of these organisations do not qualify for the employment allowance, meaning that they are exposed to these increases. The Liberal Democrats have called on the Government to exempt these essential providers from the tax rise, but those calls have been ignored. This decision will worsen the crises in our NHS and social care system, pushing more providers to the brink of bankruptcy. Six in 10 care homes in the UK are operated by companies vulnerable to even mild economic shocks. How then can the Government justify imposing additional financial burdens on a sector already struggling to stay afloat? Let us be clear: the Government’s own analysis admits that nearly four times as many employers will lose out under this Bill as will benefit. For many employers, this will translate into an average annual tax increase of over £26,000. This is not just a jobs tax, but a growth tax, a productivity tax and, ultimately, an attack on people’s living standards. This is a deeply inefficient way to raise funds, especially when fairer alternatives exist. The Liberal Democrats have proposed several measures that would raise revenue without harming jobs and growth. These include reversing Conservative tax cuts for big banks, increasing the digital services tax and introducing a fairer form of capital gains tax to ensure that ultra-wealthy people pay their fair share. These measures would protect small businesses, support families and safeguard essential services, while still addressing the country’s fiscal challenges. The people of Epsom and Ewell deserve better. They deserve a Government who support, not stifle, innovation, enterprise and community spirit. They deserve a Government who listen to small businesses, healthcare providers and families who are already struggling under the weight of rising costs and stagnant wages. This Bill is not the solution to our economic challenges; it is a blunt instrument that will do more harm than good, jeopardising jobs, living standards and essential services. I urge the Government to reconsider this unfair and counterproductive measure and to work with us to develop a fairer, more sustainable approach to taxation that prioritises people and communities.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am greatly concerned about the consequences of this Bill. There are consequences for businesses, for employees and for essential primary care providers in my constituency and across the country. The Bill represents an unfair jobs tax that risks harming the livelihoods of countless individuals and the viability of small businesses at a time when they are already grappling with a multitude of challenges. I wish to begin by highlighting the impact that this legislation will have on community pharmacies, which are at the frontline of healthcare in our local areas. The owner of Horton Pharmacy and Travel Clinic in Epsom has expressed grave concerns about the financial burden that this increase in employer national insurance contributions will impose. He told me: “We are estimating that it’s going to cost an extra £12,000 a year. It’s very distressing and making it harder to keep our doors open and help reduce the burden on other parts of the NHS.” Community pharmacies such as Horton Pharmacy play a critical role in alleviating pressure on our overstretched NHS by providing accessible healthcare and advice, yet the Bill threatens their financial viability, which in turn risks leaving constituents without the local care they rely on, thus increasing the burden on the NHS.

• 16 Dec 2024 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  My constituency is home to two significant rivers: the Hogsmill, a pristine chalk stream; and the River Mole, which tragically ranks as one of the most polluted rivers in the country. The River Mole, stretching 50 miles from Sussex to the Thames, is more than a waterway; it is a much-loved amenity for families, walkers and wildlife. Yet it is fighting for its life. Sewage discharges surpassed 2023 levels by November this year, with over 12,500 hours of raw sewage polluting the river through storm overflows. That is unacceptable. The crisis has been caused by water companies’ mismanagement, enabled by Ofwat’s failure to hold them to account. Thames Water has prioritised shareholder dividends over infrastructure investment, and Ofwat has issued no fines for sewage treatment failures since 2021—an extraordinary regulatory failure. The Water (Special Measures) Bill introduces vital provisions to block bonuses for water company executives and to impose fines. Although these measures are welcome, they do not go far enough. Ofwat is a regulator that does not work, and it must be replaced with a new regulator with powers to ban bonuses comprehensively, to revoke licences for poor performance and to set legally binding sewage targets. Bonuses must be blocked not just for pollution, but for persistent leaks, missed investment targets and failing infrastructure improvements. The Liberal Democrats would ensure that the companies are held accountable for all their failures, not just the most egregious ones. We must also rethink water company ownership. Since privatisation, those companies have accumulated £68 billion of debt, while paying out £70 billion in dividends. Customers are now paying for that debt in their bills. In a public-benefit model operating as not for profit, debt-free mutuals would reinvest all profits into upgrading our water system. That model works. Denmark, whose not-for-profit utilities have some of the lowest water losses, ranks among the top EU countries for bathing water quality. Closer to home, I commend the River Mole river watch group in my constituency. Those dedicated volunteers test water quality and report pollution online. Their work is extraordinary, but they should not have to do it alone. Water companies must publish detailed and transparent data on sewage spills so that the public understands the full extent of the problem. Such local groups deserve more than praise; they need a seat at the table. Those environmental champions should have representation on water company boards, bringing community-driven accountability to decision making. My constituents and the rest of the public are sick of seeing their rivers turned into open sewers. They are sick of paying higher water bills to subsidise shareholder profits and executive bonuses while vital investment is neglected. The Government must go further by replacing Ofwat with a new regulator that has stronger powers, expanding the ban on bonuses, empowering local communities, and reorganising water companies into public benefit organisations. This is our chance to turn the tide on water mismanagement and restore our rivers to health. The people of Epsom and Ewell, and indeed of the whole country, deserve no less.

• 16 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In Epsom and Ewell, local charities such as the Sunnybank Trust are seeing a lack of employment opportunities for people with learning disabilities. In fact, only 6.9% of people with learning disabilities are currently in paid work. What measures is the DWP taking to support employers to help individuals with learning disabilities to get into work?

• 16 Dec 2024 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK must uphold its obligations to the International Criminal Court by supporting investigations into alleged war crimes in the region and enforcing any resulting rulings?

• 12 Dec 2024 · LGBT Veterans: Etherton Review · Hansard source

  More

  We are here today to discuss the implementation of the recommendations laid out in Lord Etherton’s independent review into the treatment of LGBT veterans, following the unjust and appalling treatment of LGBT+ veterans who served in our armed forces under the shadow of a discriminatory and dehumanising ban. It is not just a matter of historical injustice, but an ongoing fight for dignity, recognition and fairness for those who gave so much to our country and were repaid with shameful betrayal. We must also recognise all those who served before 1967, and the injustice they faced before that time. Between 1967 and 2000, thousands of LGBT+ personnel were dismissed or forced out of the military simply because of who they were. The anti-gay ban had and continues to have an enormous impact on people’s lives; careers were destroyed, lives upended and futures taken away. LGBT+ veterans were outed to their friends and family without their consent, facing extreme stigma. Not only did they lose their jobs, but they had their medals removed and were stripped of their pensions. In some cases, a conviction made it impossible for people to move on and rebuild their lives due to the barriers a criminal record creates when trying to find employment. It is indefensible that those who put their lives on the line for our country should continue to be treated with disregard. The independent review by Lord Etherton lays bare the devastating impact of this discriminatory policy on LGBT+ veterans and makes 49 recommendations to address those wrongs. While progress has been made, this process is far from complete. The Government must ensure that all the review’s recommendations are acted on as swiftly and comprehensively as possible. Let me share two harrowing examples from constituents of my colleagues, which illustrate the enduring trauma caused by this policy. This morning, I met Michael Sansom, who sits in the Public Gallery today, who is a constituent of Monica Harding MP. He joined the Royal Air Force—

• 12 Dec 2024 · LGBT Veterans: Etherton Review · Hansard source

  More

  My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. Michael joined the Royal Air Force at just 16 years old, filled with pride and ambition, and served with distinction for five years before his life was shattered in 1992. After innocently sharing details about attending London clubs, Michael became the target of a covert investigation: his barracks were searched in a humiliating manner, exposing deeply personal items such as a romantic letter; he was extensively and inappropriately questioned about his personal life, offered electroconvulsive “conversion” therapy, and underwent what at the time was described as a “medical examination”, but would today be called sexual assault. Ultimately, Michael was charged with homosexuality and detained for 14 days before his discharge, during which time he was subjected to cruel physical and verbal abuse. Following his discharge, Michael lost not only his career, but his home and his sense of purpose. He was left homeless, battling severe depression and rejection from his family. Despite his immense contributions to lifting the military ban, Michael continues to struggle with the deep scars of his past. He now seeks justice for himself and others who endured similar horrors. The current compensation scheme, capped at £70,000, is an inadequate acknowledgment of the profound harm suffered by individuals such as Michael. Michael said to me that he was proud to serve his country, and his country was ashamed of him. David, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), also served in the RAF during the 1980s, fulfilling a lifelong dream. However, his career was marred by persistent rumours, bullying and verbal abuse. Despite never being charged, he was subjected to constant surveillance and intimidation. After years enduring shame and distress, David left the RAF following an interview with his commanding officer, who bluntly stated that there was no place for him “in this man’s RAF”. To add insult to injury, David had to buy his way out of the RAF. He spent years unable to live openly as himself, and has faced diminished career prospects and a significantly impacted pension. Like Michael, David finds the proposed compensation deeply disappointing, and urges the Government to reconsider their approach. These stories are not isolated incidents. They represent a systematic failure that affected thousands of LGBT+ veterans. Lord Etherton’s review revealed the immense toll this policy took on mental health, with 87% of LGBT+ veterans reporting that their dismissal impacted their mental health, and 75% stating that their finances had been affected. The Government have accepted 38 of the 49 recommendations made in the review, which I acknowledge, and have also acknowledged the need for compensation. I am also pleased that the total budget for the compensation scheme has now been increased. However, the flat cap of £50,000 for dismissed or discharged applicants is inadequate. Veterans charities have rightly called it “inadequate and unacceptably low”. For people who lost their careers, homes and futures, it is a small offering. Justice demands better. It is unconscionable that veterans such as Michael and David are left fighting for recognition and fairness after already enduring so much. The LGBT impact payment of between £1,000 and £20,000 is also unacceptably low for what one veteran described as “state-sanctioned sexual assault”. The Liberal Democrats are unequivocal in our stance: LGBT+ veterans deserve full and fair compensation for the harm they suffered. We call on the Government to reassess the compensation scheme, ensuring that it truly reflects the gravity of the injustices endured. We welcome the four non-financial measures outlined by the Secretary of State today for veterans who served before 1967, but it is vital that all 49 recommendations of the Etherton review are implemented swiftly and comprehensively, including the return of medals, clarification of pension rights and the establishment of a memorial to honour LGBT+ veterans. Justice delayed is justice denied, and the Government must expedite support for elderly or ill veterans such as Joe Ousalice, who served with distinction for 18 years but now fears he may die before seeing justice. Joe deserves to have suitable compensation swiftly. He dedicated his life to serving our country and asks for very little in return. This debate also reminds us that discrimination in the armed forces has not been limited to LGBT+ personnel. The 2021 Atherton report highlighted the pervasive challenges faced by women in the military, including bullying, harassment and sexual assault. Some 62% of female veterans reported experiencing some form of abuse during their service. Such systemic issues are unacceptable and undermine the very values our armed forces are meant to uphold. We must ensure that the recommendations of the Atherton report are fully implemented and that diversity, inclusion and respect become cornerstones of military culture. The armed forces represent the best of our nation. They are made up of individuals who have pledged to protect us, often at great personal cost. For too long, LGBT+ veterans were denied the respect and recognition they deserved. It is time to right that wrong. The Liberal Democrats stand firmly with our LGBT+ veterans. We will continue to fight for fair compensation, the implementation of all recommendations from the Etherton and Atherton reports, and a culture of inclusivity in the armed forces. Let us honour the sacrifices of these brave individuals by delivering justice swiftly.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Am en d men t, by leave, withdrawn .

• 12 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, at end insert— “(5A) The Commissioner must— (a) uphold and give due regard to the principles and commitments of the Armed Forces Covenant when carrying out their functions; (b) monitor and report on compliance with the principles and commitments of the Armed Forces Covenant in all areas of their responsibility.” This amendment would require the Commissioner to uphold and abide by the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant when carrying out their functions. The armed forces covenant is “a promise that together we acknowledge and understand that those who serve or have served in the Armed Forces, and their families, including the bereaved, should be treated with fairness and respect in the communities, economy, and society they serve with their lives.” I feel that it is important for the covenant to be incorporated into the Bill, and so far I do not see any reference to it. It is a binding commitment between the armed forces and the Government, and I would like to see it included in the Bill.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his reassurances. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment , by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On amendment 3, we feel that the financial and practical assistance of the commissioner must be absolutely appropriate. It is crucial that there is this resource, and that the commissioner can carry out the dual role of both promoting the welfare of service personnel and their families and improving public awareness of these issues. If those ambitions are to be met, alongside the existing responsibilities of the ombudsman role that are to be assumed into the commissioner’s remit, the commissioner needs to be properly resourced. That is why we feel that amendment 3 needs to be included in the Bill.