Helen Maguire MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Jun 2025 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in support of Lords amendments 2 and 3, which were tabled by Conservative peer Baroness Goldie and supported in the other place by my Liberal Democrat colleagues. I urge Members on both sides of the House to reject the Government’s proposals to remove them and replace them with a watered-down version. The amendments do something simple but profoundly important: they embed within the commissioner’s role a clear and explicit whistleblowing function, one that empowers service personnel and their families to raise concerns about welfare and wrongdoing safely and with confidence, and, crucially, one that provides statutory protections for those who speak up. A complaints process and a whistleblowing system have two different purposes. A complaint is often about personal redress whereas a whistleblowing disclosure is about drawing attention to serious wrongdoing, often at great personal risk in the public interest. The Government’s amendment in lieu acknowledges the importance of anonymity, but it does not go far enough. It merely inserts a provision to protect identifying details in publishing reports and only where the disclosure was “in response to a request”. It neither defines nor protects whistleblowers in statute. Whistleblowing is a vital tool in surfacing systemic failure—something that our service personnel clearly need. It seems like almost every month brave service personnel and veterans come forward with shocking accounts of misconduct. Their accounts underline how much courage it takes to speak up and how easily that courage can be crushed by fear of social backlash, reprisal or career damage. The Government argued that anyone can raise a concern with the commissioner and that data protection law already protects anonymity, but data protection is not the same as whistleblower protection. It is passive and does not actively encourage disclosures, does not instil confidence and does not grant status or safeguards against retaliation. The whistleblowing amendments would not overburden the commissioner; they would simply recognise whistleblowing for what it is: a unique and necessary channel for uncovering wrongdoing that might otherwise be buried. They are tightly drawn, limited to welfare matters, and designed to ensure that information reaches someone with the authority to act. The commissioner will be tasked with improving the culture and confidence among our armed forces. Nothing would do more to support that mission than keeping the amendments, which would introduce a whistleblowing function, giving our brave service personnel and their families an independent, trusted person to whom they can speak safely and be heard without fear. I will vote against the Government motion to remove Lords amendments 2 and 3, and I urge colleagues to do the same. The amendments give confidence to those who wish to speak up, but who are afraid of the consequences. “Whistleblowing” is a simple, clear and well-understood term that can provide extra assurance. It could make this Bill truly transformative to the armed forces culture.

• 2 Jun 2025 · Government Announcements · Hansard source

  More

  Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder if the Minister wants to correct the record because, yes, I was offered a private briefing this morning, but it was absolutely clarified that I would not receive the SDR until the Minister stood up. I received it 40 minutes ago.

• 2 Jun 2025 · Strategic Defence Review · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Defence Secretary for advance sight of his statement, although I am more than disappointed that I only received the SDR two hours ago at 3.30 pm, after the journalists. The Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister are absolutely right. We have entered a new era—one defined by international instability, geopolitical conflict and global uncertainty. Perhaps not since the end of the cold war have we faced such myriad threats to our defence: a barbaric Russian imperialism under Putin threatening Ukraine’s freedom and NATO’s security; a Trumpian White House defined by its total indifference to, and even antagonism towards, the defence of Europe; and the rising threat posed by China, as well as by regional pariah states such as Iran and North Korea. Taken together, these threats pose a once-in-a-generation risk to our country’s defence. Meeting generational risks will require making generational commitments, so I welcome the Government’s readiness to accept all the recommendations outlined in today’s strategic defence review. It is frankly staggering, however, that we still do not have a clear answer to the vital question: where is the money coming from to fund these ambitions? This is a shopping list without the money to pay for it. The Government have flip-flopped on whether we can expect defence spending to rise to 3% of GDP—the figure on which the proposals of the SDR are premised. Putting the cart before the horse when it comes to funding the nation’s defence sends entirely the wrong message to Putin and our other adversaries. Will the Secretary of State commit to holding cross-party talks on how to reach 3%? While I welcome the announcement of new funding for military housing and urgent repairs, fixing our recruitment crisis and doing right by our service personnel requires more than sticking-plasters. Will the Government legislate to require all military homes to be brought under the decent homes standard? It is desperately disappointing that despite having had 11 months to consider how to stem the decline in the number of soldiers in the Army, the Government appear to have sat on their hands. The shameful decline in troop numbers has only continued on their watch. Does the Secretary of State agree that if the Government are serious about delivering for Britain’s defence, reversing the utterly reckless troop cuts overseen by the Conservatives must begin now?

• 2 Jun 2025 · UK Nuclear Deterrent · Hansard source

  More

  We face a once-in-a-generation set of threats, including an imperialist Putin and a completely unreliable President Trump, who we cannot depend on to support our defence. Our nuclear deterrent remains the best and ultimate guarantor of the UK’s security. We must ensure that it meets the scale of those challenges, so it is right that the Government should look at ways to guarantee its effectiveness. Delivering the Dreadnought class on time is crucial to that, and I welcome the update that the Secretary of State provided before the recess on those timescales. Looking ahead, it is important that the House understands the purpose of any future addition to our nuclear deterrent, so will the Minister outline what discussions his Department has had on how further additions to the deterrent would positively bolster the UK’s security?

• 19 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Last week’s “Panorama” documentary brought fresh allegations of war crimes by Special Air Service and Special Boat Service forces, raising grave new questions about the conduct of the special forces during Operation Herrick in Afghanistan. It also highlighted the vital importance of promoting transparency and accountability across our armed forces. In the light of these developments and the ongoing public inquiry, will the Secretary of State consider looking at how Parliament could scrutinise the work of the special forces?

• 19 May 2025 · Defence Sector Jobs · Hansard source

  More

  In dodging last week’s peace talks in Turkey, President Putin proved once again that he has no interest in stopping the fighting; his goal remains the subjugation of Ukraine. Moreover, this afternoon’s reported phone call between Putin and President Trump once again presents the alarming possibility that, between them, the Kremlin and the White House will agree a carve-up of Ukraine, which would be utterly intolerable. What more are the Government doing to invest directly in Kyiv’s weapon production to ensure we strengthen Ukraine’s ability to resist Putin’s war machine, resist attempts at a carve-up by Putin and Trump, and secure maximum leverage for any peace negotiations?

• 13 May 2025 · Flooding: Planning and Developer Responsibilities · Hansard source

  More

  Earlier today, I met Thames Water and Sutton and East Surrey Water representatives to discuss that very issue. They all agreed that, as professional consultees, their contributions are not given the same weight as those of statutory consultees. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) has already mentioned this, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that some thought should be given to making them statutory consultees, as a minimum for medium to large developments?

• 13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is making a good case. Would he agree with me that closer UK-EU defence ties do not diminish our role in NATO, but complement it, especially at a time when transatlantic security simply cannot be taken for granted? Would he also agree that securing access to programmes such as the Security Action for Europe fund would be a win for British manufacturers and for our strategic capability?

• 13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  On the issue of red tape, Epsom and Ewell constituents are facing preventable delays on essential medication for conditions such as diabetes, ADHD and mental ill health. Does my hon. Friend agree that now is simply not the time to play politics, and that we must urgently seek a comprehensive mutual recognition agreement with the European Medicines Agency to cut the red tape that is so detrimental to the health of all of our constituents?

• 13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 30 Apr 2025 · Safety of Humanitarian Workers: Conflict Zones · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that bomb disposal experts, such as the British national recently injured in Gaza, play a vital humanitarian role in conflict zones, and that attacks on humanitarian facilities are a grave breach of international law, which must be addressed urgently through prosecutions?

• 30 Apr 2025 · UK Airstrike: Houthi Military Facility · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and I thank the Minister for the Armed Forces for his briefing earlier today. The Houthis’ destabilising military campaign in the Red sea has had a chilling effect on trade through that vital waterway, threatening lives while imposing costs on British businesses and consumers. The Houthis cannot be allowed to act with impunity and hold the global economy to ransom by restricting freedom of navigation. It is important that their military capabilities are degraded to ensure that trade can flow freely, which is why the Liberal Democrats support the case for limited strikes. We thank the service personnel involved for their bravery, and we are pleased that they have returned home safely. However, it is vital that we fully understand the operational goals behind the mission, as well as the intelligence planning and co-ordination of the strikes. Can the Secretary of State explain to the House why the Government have chosen this occasion to join US forces in a joint strike, rather than doing so on previous similar missions? The recent leaks from President Trump’s Cabinet, also pertaining to military action in Yemen against the Houthis, raise concerning questions about how secure US intelligence is and the possible impact on British service personnel. In the light of those leaks, can the Secretary of State reassure us that intelligence-sharing with the US is completely secure, and can he tell us whether the Government have undertaken an assessment of the security of our intelligence-sharing networks with the US? I was reassured to hear from him that the Government have no evidence of any loss of civilian life, but can he update the House on what steps were taken ahead of the mission in an effort to minimise civilian casualties?

• 28 Apr 2025 · SEND Support · Hansard source

  More

  I often hear accounts of constituents waiting over two years for education, health and care plan assessments from Surrey county council. When those assessments finally come, they are frequently carried out remotely, with assessors never actually meeting the child. Headteachers report that these delayed and inaccurate assessments result in inadequate funding, leaving schools under-resourced and simply unable to meet the children’s needs. Families in Surrey deserve assessments that are timely, thorough and centred around the child. What reassurances can the Minister offer families in Surrey that the broken system will be fixed, and when?

• 28 Apr 2025 · SEND Support · Hansard source

  More

  17. What steps her Department is taking to help ensure that SEND children are being adequately assessed.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency in March, phosphate levels in the River Mole surged by 50% and nitrates doubled. This is pollution that can cause algal blooms and suffocate wildlife. Does my hon. Friend agree that we urgently need a clean water authority with real enforcement powers to protect our rivers, before it is simply too late?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hospitals · Hansard source

  More

  The crisis in our NHS and the scandal of crumbling hospitals are a daily reality for my constituents and all communities served by the Epsom and St Helier university hospitals NHS trust. We have allowed our healthcare infrastructure to decay to a point where it hinders the delivery of care. These are not minor cosmetic issues; many of our hospital buildings predate the NHS and are riddled with damp, mould and leaking roofs. Yet we expect our dedicated doctors, nurses and support staff to deliver world-class treatment under those appalling conditions. The consequences run far deeper than peeling paint: patient safety is jeopardised, staff morale is crushed, and the basic functioning of our hospitals is compromised. Staff are stretched to their limits, struggling to provide the care that our communities deserve in facilities that are simply not fit for purpose. They deal with the consequences of decades of under-investment, where patching up failing infrastructure has become the norm—a short-sighted and ultimately more costly approach. The impact of the ageing estate on elective recovery has meant that since April 2024, more than 600 operations have had to be cancelled. The lifts break down and cannot be fixed simply because they do not make the parts any more. Over the past five years, over £60 million has been spent on improving the Epsom and St Helier estate just to keep it operational. At St Helier, 46% of repairs are identified as high risk. The human cost of this crumbling infrastructure is evident. Patients are forced to endure unacceptable waiting times, often in undignified conditions. A&E waiting times at the Epsom and St Helier trust are among the worst in London, with over a third of patients waiting more than 12 hours for a bed.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hospitals · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry to hear that story. It is just one among a catalogue of incidents that we hear of on a regular basis. This past winter, more than 2,000 patients waited over half a day just to be seen. The delays not only cause distress and anxiety but can have serious and long-term consequences for patient outcomes. The Epsom and St Helier university hospitals NHS trust has worked diligently, developing detailed plans for a new specialist emergency care hospital alongside the modernisation of Epsom and St Helier hospitals. This state-of-the-art facility would be a beacon of hope, improving outcomes for our sickest patients and consolidating acute services in a way that strengthens staffing and keeps care local. But that promise has been left to wither. The Health Secretary’s latest announcement pushes the start of construction of the new specialist emergency care hospital to 2032 at the earliest, adding to decades of false promises that have let my constituents down time and again. That is why, this Friday, I will be abseiling 125 feet down St Helier hospital to raise funds for the Epsom and St Helier Hospitals charity and shine a spotlight on the urgent need for investment in our hospitals. The funds raised will provide extra support to our hospitals, over and above what the NHS can currently deliver. Charity can only fill so many gaps; it cannot substitute for the Government action that our hospitals desperately require. The Government should reverse the delay to the new hospital programme and urgently deliver the new hospitals that patients have long been promised. They must prioritise the construction of the specialist emergency care hospital and fund the long-overdue repairs at St Helier. My constituents deserve nothing less than modern, safe and high-quality healthcare.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Residential Estate Management Companies · Hansard source

  More

  One of my constituents, Mr Vivian Lythgoe, is here today because of FirstPort. Unfortunately, he has had to make the painful decision to sell his home because he is fed up with dealing with management companies that are not interested in leaseholders. He has been fighting FirstPort to try to make it carry out basic maintenance, which residents have already paid for. Residents are not cash cows for management companies or footnotes in company accounts; they are people. It is time that they were treated as such. Does my hon. Friend agree?

• 22 Apr 2025 · Ukraine Update · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Defence Secretary for advance sight of his statement. The Liberal Democrats welcome the £200 million of support to the frontline in Ukraine. Over Easter, Putin proved that he had no interest in securing peace. Within hours of declaring a supposed Easter truce, Putin unleashed a fresh wave of drone and artillery attacks across many parts of the frontline. Meanwhile, President Trump has shown once again his utter indifference towards the Ukrainian people’s struggle. After boasting that he would end the war within 24 hours of taking office, he now threatens to withdraw US support for mediating talks altogether. It is no wonder his efforts have failed, given his warped approach of applying pressure to Kyiv while offering the hand of friendship to the Kremlin. We cannot rely on President Trump if we want to secure a just peace in Ukraine, one that respects Ukraine’s right to self-determination and proves that aggression towards neighbours does not pay. That is why the UK needs to go further and faster, together with our partners in Europe and the Commonwealth, to support Ukraine and increase the pressure on Putin. Will the Defence Secretary update the House on what steps have been taken to seize the £25 billion-worth of frozen Russian assets across the UK and deploy them to Ukraine? Will he also update the House on whether the Government plan to expand the UK’s designation of vessels that are part of Russia’s shadow fleet and subject to sanctions, helping to further reduce Putin’s ability to fund his war through exported oil revenues? We welcome the Government’s work to convene discussions on creating a reassurance force for Ukraine. The credibility of the UK’s commitment to such a force would be significantly enhanced by reversing the staggeringly irresponsible 10,000 troop cut to our Army which the Conservatives undertook while in government. Will the Defence Secretary commit to reversing those cuts today?

• 2 Apr 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  Following yesterday’s intervention by President Trump, it appears that the White House has the final say on the future of sovereign British territory. Meanwhile, the Chagossians continue to be ignored. The process of securing the deal has been shambolic. Chagossians have been denied their right to a say, and it is shameful how they have been treated. Will the Minister confirm whether there are any plans to ensure that the Chagossians are finally included in discussions at this eleventh hour of the negotiations? Hard-working families around the country will rightly be questioning why the Government seem to be willing, reportedly, to negotiate such significant payments to Mauritius at a time when winter fuel payments have been scrapped. The confected consternation of the Conservatives is also bemusing, given that it was their Foreign Secretary who first signalled the UK’s intention to secure an agreement. As the Minister confirmed, the treaty must come before the House for scrutiny, especially given its importance to our national security. Can he confirm when that will happen and that this House will have a vote on any final deal?

• 2 Apr 2025 · School-based Nursery Capital Grants · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Government’s announcement today, but not every parent needs a full childcare place; many just need somewhere to go with their child, especially in the early months, as parenting can be an isolating and overwhelming experience. What are the Government doing to support community-based options such as one o’clock clubs and the Sure Start centres, which provide vital spaces for parents and children alike?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Lithium-ion batteries are essential for achieving our net zero goals, but as demand grows for products containing such batteries we need to do more to protect consumers against dangerous lithium-ion batteries. Since 2020, e-bike and e-scooter fires have—

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that there should be a mechanism to recognise and regulate high-risk products so that we can protect consumers?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Relationship Education in Schools · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for that intervention; it is absolutely key to understand both, and to understand what the signs of an unhealthy relationship could be. We need to stop treating violence against women and girls as something that can be addressed only after the fact—after a woman has been assaulted, coerced, or has lost her life. We need to act before it happens, and that starts with education and empowering our young people with the knowledge of what a healthy relationship is. The recent Netflix series, “Adolescence”, has brought national attention to the dangers facing young people today. It follows a 13-year-old boy accused of murdering a female classmate, sparking difficult but necessary conversations about online misogyny and extremist online communities. Teachers and parents are struggling to keep up with the ever-evolving nature of those threats. Teachers need greater support to tackle these issues in schools. Too often, they are simply ill-equipped and unprepared to teach relationships, sex and health education. Fifty per cent of pupils reported that power imbalances and pornography were not covered in their lessons, and 56% said that what a healthy relationship looks like was not covered either. Surely that should be absolutely key. Incels, the red pill and the manosphere are relatively new terms, but the attitudes that they promote are not new. It is sexism and male chauvinism repackaged for the digital age, amplified and spread faster than ever before. That is why we must ensure that our education system evolves to counteract this harmful narrative before it takes root in young minds. The Centre for Social Justice’s latest report, “Lost Boys”, highlights that boys in the UK are struggling in education, more likely to take their own lives, less likely to find stable employment and more susceptible to being drawn into crime. It also notes the increasing appeal of right-wing and regressive ideologies among young men. We must address the core challenges that our young men face and understand how misogyny is evolving, educating parents, teachers and, most importantly, young people themselves—we need to support them. A whole-school approach is essential in addressing these issues effectively. This approach encourages schools to review their existing procedures and culture, to ensure that they model respectful relationships and gender equality practices across the entire school community. By embedding those values into the fabric of the school environment, we create a culture that actively challenges harmful stereotypes and promotes positive, healthy relationships. Yet last year, we saw the RSHE review become unnecessarily politicised and hijacked by sensationalist headlines and anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric, serving only to fuel division. We cannot afford to play politics with the health, safety and wellbeing of our children. The focus of any review of RSHE should be on how we can equip young people with the knowledge and tools that they need to navigate the modern world safely. It should address the urgent need to tackle the rise of online misogyny, the increasing prevalence of violence against women and girls, and the damaging impact of pornography and exploitative media on young people’s perceptions of relationships. I recently heard from a young constituent, Maddie, who is here today. She was deeply affected by the loss of a teacher in our community and wrote to me expressing her frustration that while the conversation on violence against women and girls often focuses on policing and reporting, prevention is often overlooked. She told me how her cousin, a newly qualified teacher, was asked to deliver RSHE lessons despite feeling completely unprepared to do so. She is right to be frustrated. Young people overwhelmingly support strong education on relationships, with 87% saying that there should be more teaching about relationships, abuse and sexual health. We owe it to them to listen. RSHE is often an afterthought, added in as an extra and delivered by teachers who are not specifically trained for it. Many are simply given a sheet of paper to read from and do not know how to answer the follow-up questions. That is why I am calling for urgent reforms to RSHE, including: updating the outdated 2019 guidance to reflect the realities of young people’s lives today; extending RSHE up to key stage 5 so that it reaches 16 to 18-year-olds; making RSHE a key component of initial teacher training, ensuring that new teachers are properly equipped to deliver it; and investing in training for school leaders, teachers and governors to understand the online spaces that young people navigate today. We cannot afford to wait until another young woman becomes a statistic. We must act now to equip the next generation with the knowledge and resilience that they need to build safe, healthy relationships. Teaching children about harmful gender stereotypes, consent, respect and healthy peer relationships from the earliest stages is key to preventing violence against women and girls. I urge the Government to prioritise prevention, invest in education and listen to the voices of our young people who are asking us for change. The time for action is now.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Relationship Education in Schools · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered relationship education in schools. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again today, Sir Jeremy. Sadly, the relationship education that our young people currently receive does not address the realities of what it means to be a young person today. If we fail to urgently adapt and strengthen our approach to relationship education, we will fail to counter the inappropriate and often misogynistic ideas that our young people are exposed to, and we will therefore fail to protect women and girls from the violence that these ideas spur. Prevention starts with education and the creation of a space for our young people to have conversations about relationships. As a mother of three teenagers—two boys and a girl—I have spent many years having open and honest conversations with them about relationships. I have done my best to ensure that they understand what a healthy relationship looks like and how to treat others with respect. However, as every parent knows, children do not always see their parents as the ultimate source of wisdom; they look to their peers, the internet and the world around them. That is why relationship education in schools is so vital. If we get it right, relationship education creates a safe space where young people can discuss these ideas openly with their peers, guided by teachers who are knowledgeable about the challenges that young people face. The statistics paint a worrying picture: 41% of teachers have seen aggressive misogyny in classrooms, 51% have witnessed pupils advocating sexual violence, and only 43% of students feel personally represented and included by relationships and sex education. Young people are turning elsewhere to learn: 22% say online sources are their main source of information, while 15% say their primary source is pornography. The charity Let Me Know found that 60% of the young people polled did not know the signs of a healthy or unhealthy relationship. Those are shocking figures, which underline the urgency of getting this right.