Helen Maguire MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2026 · Department of Health and Social Care · Hansard source

  More

  Today we are being asked to approve a motion on the main estimates for the Department of Health and Social Care for 2026-27, in which pharmaceutical spending is not separately identified, in either the estimate or its accompanying memorandum. We are being asked to approve spending without clear visibility of exactly how much is budgeted for medicines. That is against the principle of estimates day, which is to scrutinise spending before it is authorised. This is yet another example of the lack of transparency around the murky UK-US pharmaceutical deal. It was drawn up in secret and the Government are refusing to publish the impact assessment. The Government must be clear on how much is budgeted for medicines, how much they expect the deal to cost and the risks to the frontline associated with diverting money from elsewhere in the NHS. The UK-US pharmaceutical deal should never have been allowed to go ahead. The deal will see the NHS paying out at least £1.5 billion more in higher medicine costs by 2028, rising to over £9 billion by 2036. The Government have made it clear that there will be no additional money to fund that over the next spending period. That means frontline NHS services will be plundered at the behest of a foreign Government, while patients suffer in crammed hospital corridors and cannot get a GP appointment. We must support the British life sciences sector. We can find ways to achieve that, but it must be a domestic matter for the UK Government to solve holistically through negotiations with the sector. It should not be dictated from Washington. The Government refused to publish an assessment of the impact of the deal. What are they trying to hide? The bottom line is that medicine procurement should be based on sovereign health needs. This is not a matter of being pro or anti the pharmaceutical industry. We need to find a solution that works for patients, the NHS and the life sciences sector. Rather than defund vital NHS services in a knee-jerk deal, the Liberal Democrats would take real action to strengthen our life sciences sector by: developing a long-term plan with the sector to ensure certainty on issues such as VPAG—the Voluntary Scheme for Branded Medicines Pricing and Access—and rapid licensing by ensuring that the needs of our society are reflected in the approach of NICE and other regulatory bodies; promoting investment into upscaling UK life sciences manufacturing; encouraging investment in vaccine, medicine and antibiotic medicine manufacturing plants; reviewing the relationship between research and development tax credits and manufacturing; and establishing a fellowship programme for scientists working on health conditions, such as cancer, so they can continue the research Trump has defunded in the US. We would also cut the cost of visas for researchers, as well as boost R&D funding to 3.5% through a decade-long programme of public investment. Rather than spending billions to pay off a bully in the White House, the Liberal Democrats would oppose the deal, develop a plan for our life sciences that reflects our national interest and invest money in vital frontline services that are in dire need of funding. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has indicated that the deal could cost as much as £9 billion by 2036. That money would be transformative for so much of the NHS: it would end corridor care, hire thousands more staff, buy countless radiotherapy machines, or deliver high-quality care and help for elderly and disabled people. Any choices over money spent in our NHS must be made by the British people, not Trump. It is unacceptable that Trump thinks he can meddle in our NHS, and, worse still, that the Prime Minister lets him. That is why the Liberal Democrats wrote to the Prime Minister in December, demanding that the deal was put before Parliament for a vote. If the Prime Minister cares as much about the NHS as he claims, I encourage him to set the record straight, show his true feelings on the deal and, at the very least, bring it before the House for approval. This House, and the voters who elected us, decide matters of national importance, not the White House. That is why the Liberal Democrats tabled new clause 76 to the Health Bill, which would bring the deal before the House for a vote. Any deal that diverts billions of pounds away from NHS frontline services must be subject to democratic process and parliamentary scrutiny.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Cabinet Office · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member believe, like I do, that the Russian hybrid warfare we are seeing in the UK at the moment is further fuelling disinformation, including online? We know that the arson attack on the Prime Minister’s car was directly linked to Russian state operatives. If there was ever a moment when we needed to stipulate a specific budget, now is that moment.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Cabinet Office · Hansard source

  More

  I also recently met the ambassador to Canada—this goes back to the point raised by the hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), who stated that one reason for the infrastructure in the High North was so that there was something sovereign to defend. That is incredibly important. The ambassador also explained how, when selling that to the general public, when most people talk about defence they think about different toys—bullets and ships—whereas in Canada was talking more about investing so that they have something to defend that is about their country, jobs, industry and everything else. Does the hon. Member agree that we should also get that important message out to UK residents?

• 23 Jun 2026 · Role of Big Tech in Society · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) for securing this important debate and for raising the very real issues of the impact of big tech on democracy. Big tech has in many cases become synonymous with US tech, but that is not something that we should accept. The UK’s technology ecosystem is worth nearly £1 trillion. It is the third most valuable tech ecosystem in the world and the most valuable in Europe. The UK has a long history of technological innovation, from the industrial revolution to the creation of the world wide web. That legacy is still very much alive today, but we must continue to foster it. The shortage of STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—skills in the UK has been a concern for the past two decades, along with scale-up funding. Start-ups in the UK repeatedly say that their main challenge is finding funding to scale up, and that that is hindering the UK’s chance of having a thriving technological ecosystem with as large an impact as that of America. If we look at our pensions, for example, foreign pension funds invest 16 times more into UK start-ups than our own pension funds do. Overseas funds recognise the talent that we create, so why don’t we? Why are we allowing our brilliant British start-ups to be sold abroad? Backing British technology has never been so important, as we have heard in the debate, because big technology exists in every corner of our society. Even the Government run their computer systems on overseas cloud providers. As alluded to, the NHS data system is run by Palantir. The online systems used every day by workers across the UK’s economy are run by big tech companies, neither owned nor run from the UK. That is a question of not only economic security but, increasingly, national security. We cannot ignore the risks posed by overreliance on foreign technologies. That became apparent when the US Government switched off, across the globe, access to Anthropic’s Fable 5 and Mythos 5. While Fable 5 may only have been a feature for a day, a worrying precedent has been set for the US’s role in turning off international access to its big tech. What if that tech had been powering public services, such as our NHS records, when it was suddenly cut off? This must be a wake-up call. Our reliance on the technology that fuels our economy and underpins our services shows how desperately we need a digital sovereignty strategy to support British tech. The Liberal Democrats are not willing to take the risk, which is why we tabled and voted in favour of a digital sovereignty strategy during proceedings on the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill. We would have required the Government to establish a digital sovereignty strategy that placed British tech procurement at its centre. In an increasingly unstable world, the case for British digital resilience, technology and sovereign capability has never been stronger, but the Labour Government voted the proposed strategy down. I ask the Minister to explain what his alternative strategy is. Unfortunately, we cannot talk about big tech’s role in society without also thinking about the online harms. The world is increasingly moving towards the regulation of social media, and the Liberal Democrats welcome the action that the Government finally took on that issue, but the fine print really matters. The burden of safety must be on big tech, not on parents. The Liberal Democrats are clear that we must implement film-style age ratings based on harm, addictiveness and mental health impact. That is supported by the NSPCC, the Molly Rose Foundation and over 40 charities. Social media companies must also play a stronger role in tackling misinformation. The UK Government must introduce stricter regulations for social media companies to ensure that they challenge harmful misinformation and reduce its spread across their platforms. Social media companies must issue fact-checked corrections to scientifically inaccurate posts and ensure that those are seen by everyone who shared or saw the original inaccurate posts. They must also change their algorithms to de-promote misinformation and fake news. I recently witnessed the devastating and real-life impact of unregulated dis and misinformation in Epsom and Ewell when riots took place there in April. In analysing the social media around those riots, the Council for Countering Online Disinformation found that 62 right wing UK accounts produced 70% of the misinformation. It also found that 42 video posts containing misinformation reached 4.2 million views, accounting for nearly 25% of misinformation views, despite accounting for less than 1% of all Epsom misinformation posts. That false information reached at least 21.8 million views between 11 April and 23 April. It was also promoted by X’s algorithm and, alarmingly, it continued to sit in X’s trending tab for at least two consecutive days after it had been clarified by the police that the events in question never took place. Social media is not the only cause of online harms. Despite their transformative potential, evidence shows that AI and bots are also a cause of harm online. NBC News reported that 57.4% of search requests online are now initiated by bots, compared with 42.6% coming from humans—a terrifying reality where bots are outpacing and outnumbering humans online. At the same time, 70% of people are unable to correctly identify real and fake AI-generated content online. Those online harms have been driven by big tech, and current legislation does not actively prevent them. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the Government to create a new online crime agency to effectively tackle illegal content online. We would also introduce a digital Bill of Rights to protect everyone’s rights online, including the right to privacy, free expression and participation. The Liberal Democrats believe that the UK must lead the world in building a future where AI is developed and deployed ethically. That is why we would establish a cross-sector AI regulator that combines flexible, ethical oversight and technical expertise to ensure that the UK keeps pace with the rapid advances in technology. The AI legislation promised in Labour’s manifesto and the 2024 King’s Speech has not yet materialised. Internal conflicts and leadership challenges cannot be allowed—

• 11 Jun 2026 · Compassionate Use Medicine Schemes: VAT · Hansard source

  More

  I was deeply shocked to hear about the change in HMRC’s policy. It is extremely worrying that pharmaceutical companies must now pay VAT on drugs available through compassionate use and early-access schemes. In April, HMRC told the pharma industry that it would pause enforcing VAT bills while the Government considered measures to support the industry in supplying patients who desperately need these drugs. The changes have been mired in uncertainty and misunderstanding, and there has been poor communication from HMRC from the start. The Government must ensure that they create a workable long-term solution for the pharmaceutical industry to support these patients who are in desperate need. Patients must not lose access to medicines as a result and HMRC must communicate with pharma and patients effectively. For patients of all ages with rare cancer types, schemes such as these are the only way to access potentially life-extending treatment. Has the Minister spoken to cancer charities about the real-life effects that the changes will have? We should be making it easier for patients to access life-extending drugs, not harder. Will the Minister confirm that patients will not be denied lifesaving drugs as a result of these changes?

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is talking about the small business protections Bill. Small and independent businesses are the backbone of the economy in my constituency. Many of them are really struggling at the moment, and they are not seeing much else in the King’s Speech. They are struggling with the increase in national insurance costs and the cost of living. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that more needs to be done to support small businesses?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Disability Equipment Provision · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing this debate. I also thank you for your chairmanship today, Mr Betts. There are fantastic organisations in Epsom and Ewell that support my disabled constituents, including Mid Surrey Mencap, which I met last year. Its work is profound, but without the right equipment, organisations can only do so much. A lack of equipment often leaves people reliant on family members to manually help them with essential tasks, including going to the toilet and washing. From grab rails to shower seats, equipment can mean the difference between dependence and independence. The report on this issue from the APPG for access to disability equipment revealed that staff shortages, supply chain delays and inconsistent local authority processes cause widespread delays to equipment provision. It is clear that we need structural change, and the NHS reform Bill provides an opportunity to deliver a co-ordinated, national approach on disability equipment. Will the Minister commit to using that legislation to deliver this? It is widely recognised that access to wheelchairs varies significantly across the country, and demand is skyrocketing. In September 2025, the charity Whizz Kidz was forced to close its wheelchair waiting list for the first time in its 35-year history because of high demand. Moreover, the average wait time between being discharged from hospital after life-altering injuries and being assessed for a wheelchair is 10 months. Although the Liberal Democrats welcome NHS England’s wheelchair quality framework, I am concerned that with ICBs facing cuts and reorganisation, a framework may not have the impact necessary to deliver change. What makes matters worse is that equipment wastage in the NHS is huge, and we only need to go to the local tip to see it. In July, I wrote to the Minister for Secondary Care following concerns from a constituent about NHS equipment wastage. In her response, she highlighted the Design for Life road map, which includes a framework for decontamination infrastructure across NHS trusts to enable the safe sterilisation and reuse of medical equipment. I find it shocking that disabled people are waiting months or even years for equipment, while other patients are forced to throw away useful equipment that could be reused once they have recovered. Will the Minister confirm how much equipment has been diverted from waste since the road map was published over a year ago? The debate has reinforced a simple but vital truth: everyone deserves to live independently and with dignity. After the Conservatives left social care in disarray, the Liberal Democrats are committed to ensuring that people with disabilities have access to suitable housing, meaningful employment and the opportunity to enjoy the activities that make life fulfilling. I ask the Minister to make the simple commitment that specialised services and disabled equipment will no longer be treated as an afterthought but as an essential part of enabling people to live full and independent lives, and to work if they can do so, and that more equipment is reused.

• 3 Mar 2026 · SEND Provision: Local Authorities · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise for being late for the debate; business was going more rapidly than I expected. Many of us strongly believe that it is important that children are educated as close to home as possible. Unfortunately, I have a piece of casework in my constituency where one child is doing a three-hour round trip every single day just to get to school, which is unacceptable. With the new changes, will there be an option to change that? It would be helpful if the Minister could expand on that.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Town and City Centre Safety · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased that the night-time economy is on the rise in Epsom, and although I have not sampled the new Labyrinth nightclub I have been to many restaurants and pubs with local residents. The thriving night-time economy contributes to our high streets but, as the hon. Member mentioned, they must be safe. Does he agree that, even at night time, a visible, trusted police presence deters crime?

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  One of my constituents is incredibly distressed: they are a dependant of a local business owner and they contacted me about the European Community association agreement route. They are concerned that the proposed earned settlement skilled worker metrics cannot be applied to ECAA entrepreneurs, who must demonstrate a genuine business rather than meet salary thresholds. Does the hon. Member agree that any changes to indefinite leave to remain must properly consider those on the ECAA route, and any other specific routes?

• 28 Jan 2026 · Defence Industry: Environmental, Social and Governance Requirements · Hansard source

  More

  It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) for securing this important debate. Private investment is the lifeblood of our defence industry—now more than ever. In an era defined by geopolitical volatility, from Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine to the unpredictable actions of global leaders, defence preparedness must be at the heart of the Government’s agenda. The landscape is shifting. World leaders are recalibrating their strategies, and the private sector is doing the same. ESG-focused funds are increasingly recognising the strategic and ethical imperative of investing in defence. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, exposure of ESG European equity funds to aerospace and defence has surged by a factor of 2.7. That is not an anomaly; it is a trend. There is often confusion from some stakeholders who claim that ESG rules exclude defence companies from sustainable finance, but ESG disclosure and labelling rules do not require defence exclusion. Let me be clear: ESG rules do not exclude defence companies. The confusion is misplaced. Many sustainable funds invest in defence, and those that exclude it typically do so for voluntary ethical reasons or because of reputational concerns, not because ESG rules mandate it. I am pleased that the Government have been clear that they agree there is nothing contradictory between ESG considerations and defence. This position is shared by the Liberal Democrats, who see the industry’s broader structural problems, such as political uncertainty over defence procurement, long production cycles, export controls and delays in Government payments, as the much bigger issue. Having met many defence companies, including SMEs, I have heard how they are lacking long-term certainty, making it difficult to invest in capacity, innovation and workforce development. Take Labour’s recent indecision on the new medium helicopter contract, which my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) recently alluded to. Delays risk jobs and investment. Meanwhile, the defence investment plan remains unseen. Will the Minister confirm when the plan will be published? Defence companies, especially SMEs, need certainty. They need to invest in capacity, innovation and their workforce. The war in Ukraine has shown what is possible when industry and Government work together at pace. Yet our current system is failing them. Will the Minister commit to replacing rigid defence reviews with a flexible, continuous assessment of security threats? As part of this, the Government must look to improve collaboration with European and NATO partners to develop new technologies, equipment and training, including via the northern group. Will the Minister therefore give us an update on the UK’s access to the Security Action for Europe fund? Prioritising interoperability with NATO allies and other strategic partners means that we can support each other during peace and war; in times like these, that is paramount. SMEs are the backbone of the UK defence industry, providing flexibility, innovation and supporting high quality jobs across the UK. However, they face unique challenges that limit their potential to contribute fully to defence capability and UK prosperity. They receive just 5% of the procurement budget, with 42% of contracts going to the same 10 suppliers. That is not just unfair; it is short-sighted, so will the Minister update us on the defence office for small business growth? We know that the previous Conservative Government bungled defence procurement in our country, overseeing budget overruns and insufficient equipment supplies. It is time for a concerted effort to get behind the defence industry. That means no more delays to vital contracts, and timely and relevant investment plans. That is why the Liberal Democrats will partner with industry to provide the confidence to boost private sector investment in research and development, training and facilities, securing key skills and employment opportunities and ensuring that the economic benefits build the prosperity of UK regions. To incentivise defence spending, we have also shared our plans for war bonds. Members of the public could loan the Government money in the form of a bond that would run over a period of two to three years and pay out the same interest as standard Government bonds. The bonds could raise up to £20 billion for the military, and would give the public a chance to support our defence patriotically, so has the Minister reviewed those proposals and will she set up a meeting to discuss it in more detail? The world is changing rapidly. We can no longer rely on old certainties, and thanks to Donald Trump, we can no longer depend on our closest allies. The UK’s defence industry must come first. Will the Minister stand with defence businesses of all sizes and private investors and commit to making the UK a global leader in defence, innovation and resilience?

• 28 Jan 2026 · Firearms Licence Holders: Mandatory Medical Markers · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of mandatory medical markers for firearm licence holders. It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Ms McVey, and have the opportunity to raise such a critical issue. In 2021, three-year-old Sophie Martyn was one of six people in Plymouth who lost their lives in a mass killing. At the inquest it emerged that the murderer’s GP had not placed a marker on the medical notes when requested to do so by the police. The murderer had already had his gun taken away previously and concerns about his health had been reported by his mother, who was the first person killed. When it mattered most, the system failed. That cannot be allowed to happen again. Almost a year after the anniversary of those horrific killings, the previous Government rolled out medical markers for new firearms licence holders. Medical markers, once applied to a patient’s record, flag that an individual has a firearms licence and automatically alerts doctors if there has been a relevant change in their medical situation. That could include a change in their mental health or evidence of substance abuse. That allows the GP to have a conversation with the patient and, if necessary, inform the police. Here is the catch: those markers are not mandatory. There is currently no obligation on GPs to use the marker. Their use is left to the best endeavours of GPs. I have written to the Minister for crime, policing and fire to ask for the number of GPs who have downloaded the marker, but I have yet to receive a response. That is a missed opportunity to save lives, to safeguard vulnerable adults with access to firearms, and to protect public safety. A survey carried out by the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners found that 87% of existing certificate holders believe that GPs should inform the police if they become aware of a change of health that could impact a certificate holder’s ability to own a gun safely. Why are the Government dragging their feet? In 2008, Christopher Foster shot his wife and teenage daughter. He then shot the family animals and burned his house down, dying of smoke inhalation. He had previously seen his GP on several occasions to discuss his depression and suicidal thoughts. Markers on medical notes for firearms owners were not then available, and there was no way that his GP could have known that he had licensed firearms. With medical markers still being optional, if that horrific attack were carried out today there is still no guarantee that a medical marker would be on his GP record. Our country is home to proud rural communities and individuals who rely on gun ownership for their work. The shooting industry makes up a vital part of the rural economy.

• 12 Jan 2026 · New Medium Helicopter Contract · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) on securing this important urgent question. There is a resounding threat on our doorstep from Russia and international order rests on a knife edge; at this time, the efficiency of the UK’s defence procurement process must be a priority. Businesses simply cannot afford to wait while the Government dither and delay on contracts. Thousands of jobs are at risk. That is the exact opposite of what this Government say they want to deliver, so can the Secretary of State provide UK business with confidence that the defence investment plan will be announced this year?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Call for General Election · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency of Epsom and Ewell, more than 1,500 people have signed this petition; I hear regularly on the doorstep how disgruntled and frustrated they are. They are tired of working so hard and barely making ends meet. Although the Conservatives left a complete mess, Labour has simply not delivered either. People are not any feeling better off. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must grow the economy? A great way to do that would be to have a bespoke customs union with Europe.

• 4 Dec 2025 · War in Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I do, wholeheartedly, and thank the hon. Member for intervening on that important point. In 2020, a delayed report into Russian interference in the UK led the then Foreign Secretary to tell the House that it is almost certain that Russian actors sought to interfere in the 2019 general election through the online amplification of illicitly acquired and leaked Government documents. This trend of Russian interference is only increasing. Yesterday, I read a report from GLOBSEC on how Russia is using criminality as a tool of hybrid warfare in Europe. If Members have not already read it, I urge them to do so. The brazen and dangerous act of the Yantar ship endangered the lives of RAF pilots and showed the lengths to which Putin will go to ascertain his military power and undermine Britain’s defence. Tomorrow is too late; this Government must act further today. They must stand up to Putin’s belligerence, seize the £30 billion in frozen Russian assets across the UK, and funnel those into Ukraine’s defence. I have the highest hopes for a peace deal, but am concerned about Trump’s deal. The President treats this deal as if it is a business transaction; he is throwing out the international diplomacy rule book and ignoring history. Trump’s plan would displace thousands, rip territory from Ukraine and weaken Ukraine’s military capability. With Putin rejecting the latest peace proposal, the stakes are higher than ever before. There can be no deal that impinges on Ukrainian sovereignty. Russia is the aggressor here. Russia lined up its troops at the border and launched an illegal invasion. There was no provocation by Ukraine. The UK must lead on the robust defence of Ukraine in considering any peace plan that now comes forward. A peace plan for Ukraine cannot weaken its defence capabilities, cede territory to Russia or refuse Ukraine NATO membership. Putin has already said that he is ready for war with Europe, and as we speak, Russia is provoking our maritime ships, attacking our cyber-security and destroying undersea cables. Ukraine has already experienced what happens when it is weakened and is forced to give up its nuclear weapons. Let us ensure that that does not happen again. It may be 1,379 days since Russia invaded Ukraine, but that is also 1,379 days of solidarity. We stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine. Slava Ukraini!

• 4 Dec 2025 · War in Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on securing this debate and setting out so many key points in his opening speech. It has been 1,379 days since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in Ukraine—1,379 days of Ukrainians fleeing for their lives, 1,379 days of Ukrainians forced from their homes, and 1,379 days of Ukrainians fighting for their country and for Europe. As we stand in this House and debate today, the devastating war continues. The UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine has reported that the total civilian casualties from January 2025 to October 2025 are 27% higher than during the same period last year. The number of casualties for the first 10 months of 2025 has already exceeded the total for all of 2024. Since the full-scale invasion began in 2022, there have been over 53,000 civilian casualties and 14,500 deaths. Alongside civilians, the number of military casualties stands at around 400,000 for Ukraine and over 1 million for Russia. It has been a complete loss of human life. I begin with those horrific statistics not to overwhelm Members with numbers but to confront us with the brutal reality that they represent. Each figure we cite serves a purpose. They help us to understand the scale of the suffering in Ukraine and the enormity of what is at stake. We must never let statistics blind us to the truth behind them, which is that these are people just like us—parents trying to protect their children, the elderly refusing to abandon the homes that they built, and young people who only ever asked for the chance to live in people. Lives full of hope and routine have been interrupted and devastated by a barbaric war that they did not choose, yet they fight. As we consider these numbers, let us remember the Ukrainians whose stories we cannot fully capture and let that guide the seriousness of our debate. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is not only an assault on a sovereign nation, but an assault on democracy itself and a flagrant violation of international law. Yet despite this brutal aggression, I know that Ukraine remains unyielding in its fight for freedom. When I visited Ukraine in October, I witnessed the resilience of a nation at war. I was told that, just hours after bombs tear through towns and cities, shattered buildings are boarded up, not simply to hide the destruction, but so that children, families and ordinary citizens can wake the next morning and try as best they can to live their lives, striving for normality in the shadow of war. Every day, the world is witness to military vehicles rolling through towns and cities, missiles striking innocent civilians and drones patrolling the skies with the intent to kill both military and civilian personnel. This is a war without morality, driven not by principle but by a hunger for territory and the attempted annihilation of Ukrainian identity. Amid the rubble, the grief and the dust lies another, silent and enduring threat. When I was in Ukraine, I saw at first hand the immense challenge of explosive ordnance contamination. Ukraine is now the most heavily contaminated country on earth, with 139,000 sq km polluted by unexploded ordnance. This is a nation that once fed much of Europe. Before 2022, 71% of Ukraine’s land was agricultural, more than half of it arable, the highest proportion of any European country, but today farmers cannot work their land. Their fields, once the breadbasket of Europe, have become battlefields. In one extreme case, I learned of a farmer going out to farm his land in the tractor while his son was on the lookout at the side, shooting down drones to protect him. Farmers are so desperate to reclaim their livelihoods that they try to clear the land themselves, with horrific consequences. Children, tragically unaware, pick up pieces of unexploded ordnance, believing them to be toys. Save the Children’s recent blast injury report cites the figure of more than 3,000 children having been killed or injured by explosive weapons in Ukraine since 2022, while the number of children maimed surged by 70% in just one year, from 339 in 2023 to 577 in 2024. There can be no greater tragedy and no greater moral failing than a war in which the innocent and the vulnerable, our children, become its casualties. The cost of explosive ordnance is not only human. A joint report by Ukraine’s Ministry of Economy and the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change estimates that landmine contamination is costing Ukraine an estimated $11.2 billion annually, the equivalent of 5.6% of its pre-war GDP. What further exacerbates the issue is Russia’s errant use of anti-personnel mines. Human Rights Watch has reported that Russian forces have used more than a dozen types of anti-personnel mines since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began. In Ukraine, I was shown the POM-3. This device is barbaric. Once delivered and deployed, the mine operates on the seismic principle, which means that once it detects a human footstep, it will detonate. These mines cannot tell the difference between a soldier and a civilian, and Russia does not intend them to. Innocent civilians are at risk from mines that they cannot even see. The Ottawa treaty, which Russia is not party to, prohibits the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of these weapons, and requires action to be taken to prevent and address their long-term effects. In recent months, five European states have formally withdrawn from the convention entirely, and in July Ukraine communicated its intention to introduce a suspension. Countries including Austria, Belgium, Norway and Switzerland have formally objected to the suspension, while others are still considering such steps. It risks seriously undermining the convention’s object and purpose, as well as broader international humanitarian law instruments, by suggesting that states can opt out of humanitarian obligations during war. I stand unequivocally with Ukraine, and I recognise that there are no easy decisions when states confront the terrible reality of war, but I remain deeply concerned that any step away from international conventions risks further harm to civilians. As the Mines Advisory Group has warned: “International Humanitarian Law…including the Ottawa Convention, is designed precisely for times like these.” International law is not a luxury for peace; it is the foundation of humanity amid conflict. The UK must lead in its commitment to international law and uphold the standards that the world will depend on in future conflicts. Alongside sustaining the international pressure, we must look to our own responsibilities. With global mine action programme funding due to end in 2026, the Government should commit to allocating a proportion of the UK’s de-mining assistance through the Ministry of Defence budget and should recognise eligible mine action activity as contributing towards relevant defence spending targets. Given the ever-dwindling humanitarian funds in the FCDO, utilising the MOD budget would safeguard continuity beyond 2026 and maintain the operational tempo necessary to confront the largest explosive ordnance contamination that Europe has faced since the second world war. I hope the Minister will address that later. Surrey Stands with Ukraine is an amazing charity in my constituency. It provides medical aid and supports physical and mental rehabilitation for Ukrainians. It has told me of the urgent need for a register of trusted UK-Ukrainian humanitarian aid organisations, so that people can see instantly that they are credible. The charity has received medical kit from Government organisations and private companies, but if it was on a trusted list, that would empower more businesses to come forward and support its work. So far, it has shipped an incredible 168 vans of aid, £4 million of medical aid, a long-reach-ladder fire engine called Dinah, and 250 generators to communities in Ukraine. Anything that this Government can do to empower businesses to offer support, and encourage individuals to donate, would make a difference to the lives of the thousands of people affected by this war. While we wait with bated breath for a peace plan that delivers for Ukraine, this Government must continue to support Ukrainians. The proposed Ukraine-UK health collaboration would help those providing vital services, such as the Superhumans clinic, which offers free prosthetics and reconstruction to children, civilians and military personnel affected by the conflict. When I was in Ukraine, I met Zakhar Biryukov, a former member of the Ukrainian special forces. Zakhar had been warning civilians to stay away from mined areas when his helicopter came under fire. He lost both his legs and an arm, and suffered severe facial injuries. Zakhar now dedicates his time to supporting new amputees arriving at the clinic, telling them that everything will be okay. His hope, courage and optimism, his refusal to be broken, and his will to never give in to the Russians is something that I will never forget. He left a deep impression on all of us who met him. A health partnership would also deliver experience, knowledge and relationships. It would greatly support UK conflict preparedness and NHS resilience to related shocks and mass casualty incidents. Russia is becoming increasingly aggressive across Europe and even more bold in its quest for knowledge. The former leader of Reform Wales was recently jailed for accepting bribes to help pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have a similar constituency case with a similar example of discretionary increases. Those were 80% of RPI, but in 2023 that was reduced to half. That has left my constituent, among others, unable to afford their bills and their home. Although I am pleased to see the pre-1997 pension indexation in the Budget for PPF and FAS members, I remain concerned for constituents such as mine. Does my hon. Friend agree that there needs to be a plan for those impacted by a sudden decrease in inflation payments?

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I have listened carefully to the Chancellor, and while the Budget contains many claims, it offers little reassurance to my constituents, who will continue to feel the impact of decisions announced today. Epsom and Ewell is home to fantastic hospitality businesses, from independent cafés such as Charlie & Ginger to charming local pubs such as the Penny Black in Leatherhead. Only last week, I had the pleasure of pulling pints at the Jolly Coopers, a fantastic community venue in Epsom. Hospitality businesses are still reeling from the increase in employer national insurance contributions announced in the previous Budget—a rise that has placed real strain on already tight margins. The Liberal Democrats want to see an emergency VAT cut of 5% for hospitality, accommodation and attraction businesses until April 2027, funded by a new windfall tax on big banks that would raise £30 billion. A transformative measure like that would have driven footfall, eased pressure on prices and given our high streets the breathing space they desperately need. Instead, bankers are celebrating today, as there was not a single new tax on bank profits despite those profits having doubled in the past five years. Middle-income earners in my constituency are being squeezed from every direction, with mounting household costs, spiralling food prices and eye-watering rail fares just to get to work, and now this Government are piling on yet another burden with the freeze on income tax thresholds. Let us call it what it is: a stealth tax that drags more people into paying more when their wages are only just catching up. If that was not enough, the Government’s cut to the pension salary sacrifice scheme shows no regard for the longer-term consequences on people’s future pensions. It is fundamentally wrong to disincentivise pension saving, especially when so many have already been forced to cut back during the cost of living crisis. How do this Government expect working people to save responsibly for retirement when they are effectively being taxed for planning ahead? It is hard to see how this measure will not affect ordinary people. Then there is the question of household energy bills, which the Government can and should be doing more to bring down. The UK continues to pay some of the highest electricity and gas prices in Europe. It is welcome that this Government have partly implemented the Liberal Democrat proposal of removing the renewables obligation levy from bills, but we would like to see the Government go further and break for good the link between gas and electricity prices. All this comes as the Chancellor herself has acknowledged the economic impact of Brexit on our public finances. Instead of squeezing families and savers even further, could the Government not finally commit to growing the economy by repairing the damage of the previous Conservative Government’s botched Brexit deal, starting with negotiating a new UK-EU customs union? That is the responsible way forward, not continuing to squeeze those who are already struggling to make ends meet. St Helier hospital is literally crumbling. Large windows are held together by masking tape and corridor floors are sinking into the ground. This is simply unacceptable, and has been going on for years. NHS staff are left to treat patients in abysmal conditions. Today, the Government did not say anything about the delayed new hospitals programme promised to patients or pledge new investment so that we can go further and faster on tackling the patient backlog. What does that say to staff and patients who are already crying out for help? Frontline NHS services urgently need support, and taking certain appointments and treatments out of hospitals could help to reduce waiting times and staff pressures. That is why a national eye health strategy is a necessity; not only would it take the heat off one of the busiest out-patient departments in NHS hospitals by identifying opportunities for eyecare in the community, but it would deliver a true partnership between qualified optometrists and ophthalmologists while setting out a clear, long-term plan for eyecare. Community health services are always welcome, and so I look forward to the roll-out of the 250 new neighbourhood health centres announced today, but we cannot ignore the fact that GP wait times are through the roof. For those health centres to work, we urgently need proper investment to ensure that everyone can see a GP within seven days and that staff feel supported. The Government cannot pick and choose which parts of healthcare they invest in when the people the Chancellor wants to get back into work need to be fit and healthy to do so. I am disappointed in the lack of support for hospitality businesses and that the Chancellor is punishing working people trying to save for retirement, and I am disappointed that our hospitals have been left in disarray.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Queen Elizabeth’s Foundation for Disabled People, a charity based in my constituency with nationwide partners, has been active for over 90 years. It has gone into administration and is now on day three of a 28-day wind down, causing severe disruption to the 20,000 disabled people a year it supports. One family member told me that she has not slept properly since hearing that the charity will close. The organisation has treated 132 NHS patients in the past year, and there will be an overall loss of 48 NHS beds. [ Official Report , 18 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 652.] (Correction) The NHS has agreed to buy the building, but it will not be using it immediately. Another offer from a separate charity would allow it to keep operating, but its hands are tied by the Pension Protection Fund. Does the Leader of the House agree that the Government must urgently set out plans to save this essential service for disabled people, rescue 250 jobs and meet urgently in the next week to discuss the situation?

• 30 Oct 2025 · Ageing and End-of-life Care · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this important debate. It is well known that our population is ageing, with the latest census showing that people aged 65 and over account for 19.1% of the total population in Surrey. That figure is predicted to increase to 25% by 2047. In my constituency of Epsom and Ewell, there are brilliant charities working to support the older population, including Age Concern, which empowers older people to live the most fulfilling lives they can while providing services, including advice, medical transport, social support and befriending. Organisations such as Age Concern are a vital lifeline for many, especially following the Conservatives’ failure to fix social care and invest in preventive measures that support older people to stay in good health. Our older and ageing communities also need to be able to access public services, including GP provision. According to Age UK, the number of full-time equivalent GPs, including trainees, increased by just 2.5% between 2023 and 2024, which is not keeping pace with the population growth of older people aged 75 and over. Many GPs are heading towards retirement, leaving an even bigger gap, so the Government must go further with plans for recruitment. There needs to be a concerted effort to build a strong, resilient GP workforce that prioritises retention and delivers services that stop older people from ending up in hospital due to delays in primary care. Along with GP provision, access to social care services is vital. With an ageing population, we are seeing more and more older and frail carers supporting their spouses, putting a further strain on the carer’s own health. We need to do more to support, protect and empower older people, so will the Minister commit to reversing the Conservatives’ cuts to public health funding and facilitate a social care system that is accessible to older people, encourages preventive care, and tackles key issues such as loneliness and frailty? As our population ages, more people will be living with—and dying with—multiple complex conditions. Marie Curie reports that by 2050, the number of people in need of palliative and end-of-life care will rise to over 745,000 people per year, which is 147,000 more than at present. One local family in Epsom and Ewell have shared their experience of struggling to access hospice care for a loved one with a terminal illness. Despite their efforts, no hospice place was available, and delays in pain relief made their loved one’s final days distressing, something that could have been alleviated by better funding and co-ordination of end-of-life services. Funding cuts and years of neglect under the previous Conservative Government have led to reduced services, which has a direct impact on patients and their families, who deserve dignity and support in their final days. The Liberal Democrats have proposed exempting health and care providers from increases in employer’s national insurance contributions, yet the Government have ignored that proposal and have not provided much-needed support to the social care sector. In a further damning development, a report released just this week by the National Audit Office revealed that nearly two thirds of independent hospices in England reported a deficit in 2023-24. As a result, services have been slashed and hospices have been forced to cut the number of beds available, due to a lack of Government funding. With hospices and care services under strain, people desperately need support, and families often have no place to turn. There have been a number of successful and ongoing pilots by local NHS trusts of dedicated phone lines for palliative and end-of-life care needs. The Thames Valley pilot advice line led to a reduction in ambulance conveyances, a 35% reduction in referrals to out-of-hours primary care, and a fourfold increase in calls closed with no further intervention required. NHS 111 is a brilliant service, but it is not always appropriate. Access to a specialised palliative care expert can alleviate patient anxiety, streamline support and facilitate better care. That is something that I urge the Minister to investigate. Will the Minister commit to ending the postcode lottery of funding for palliative care, create a dedicated hospice workforce plan, expand carer’s allowance, and provide guaranteed respite care before end-of-life care eligibility begins? As we manage the ageing population and navigate end-of-life care, this Government must put patients first and prevent a devastating erosion of public services, tackle dangerous understaffing, and support people to age well in their community.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  It is clear that Vladimir Putin remains hellbent on the conquest of Ukraine, while he drags Trump along with false promises of peace. It is right of the Government to have taken steps such as putting in place the recent price cap cut, to hurt Putin’s oil profits, but the Government must go further. Analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air think-tank shows that the UK has sent over £500 million in tax receipts to the Kremlin by continuing to import petroleum products derived from Russian oil from third countries. Will the Government commit to finally closing this loophole, which is currently filling the Kremlin’s coffers?

• 8 Sept 2025 · Defence Industrial Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of the defence industrial statement. I welcome the announcement today of the new defence industrial strategy because for too many years, the Conservatives chose to ignore the challenges across our defence industrial base. In light of the threats that we face from an imperial Putin and other revisionist powers, it is right that this Government have a serious approach to the defence industrial base in our country. The opportunities offered through the defence skills passports will add vital channels for people who are already in employment to make the transition to the sector. UK businesses are playing a vital role in supporting military operations in Ukraine, yet we know that many businesses operate internationality. Will the Minister ensure that all British individuals working in the defence sector in offices abroad will also have the skills that they need to support our allies? As the need to work closely with our European allies continues to grow, will he provide an update on what progress the Government have made on securing the UK’s access to the EU Security Action for Europe fund? It is vital that we properly incorporate small and medium-sized companies into the defence supply chain across Britain. While I welcome the Government’s commitment to a new defence office for small business growth, will the Minister set out how the new office will effectively support the integration of small and medium-sized companies into supply and procurement? It is crucial that the UK is prioritising spending its money at home and with the best businesses. To create a forward-thinking defence industry, will the Minister support an innovative approach to the development of new defence capabilities that continue to give businesses opportunities to innovate, even when the product is in use? While the Type 26 deal with Norway is a positive step in working closely with our allies, will the Minister confirm that the delivery timeline for expanding the UK’s own Type 26 fleet will not be delayed? Finally, last week my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) asked the then Foreign Secretary to assure the House that the Government would not award a £2 billion contract to Israeli defence manufacturer Elbit, to which he replied with a resounding yes. Will the Minister reconfirm that position today?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Use of Drones in Defence · Hansard source

  More

  It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) for securing this important debate; I was sorry not to be able to hear from him yesterday in the battle of Britain debate. The integration of drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles, into defence has transformed the way that nations think about security and the battlefield. Over the past decade, we have seen a steady growth in their use, and the war in Ukraine has made clear to the world just how central they have become. What was once considered cutting-edge technology is now an everyday feature of modern warfare. It is alarming that more soldiers today are being killed by drones in Ukraine than by any other form of warfare. However, the benefits of drones are undeniable. Drones allow us to project force and gather intelligence without putting soldiers directly in harm’s way. They give commanders a real-time picture of the battlefield, overcoming traditional line-of-sight limitations and extending awareness deep into enemy territory. They have become central to surveillance, targeting, logistics and even battlefield medical support. For example, drones equipped with advanced thermal imaging can locate casualties hidden in rubble, smoke or woodland. They can deliver medical supplies, bandages, medication and even defibrillators into remote or inaccessible areas, providing rapid aid while reducing the need to send medics into danger. In defensive operations, tethered drones are able to remain airborne for hours, providing uninterrupted surveillance and protecting bases from surprise attack. AI-enabled drones can patrol throughout the night, automatically detecting and flagging suspicious activity, which reduces the pressure on human surveillance teams and cuts the risk of fatigue. Cost is another factor. Compared with tanks, aircraft or armoured vehicles, drones are relatively cheap to produce, quick to deploy and often expendable. Ukraine’s experience shows how even commercial drones adapted for reconnaissance or artillery targeting can deliver immense tactical advantage. Their real-time video and geolocation data have significantly improved artillery accuracy, reducing waste of ammunition and increasing strike precision. Drones have also enabled Ukraine to conduct long-range strikes deep into Russian territory, disrupting logistics and undermining morale. However, alongside those advantages, we must acknowledge the challenges. Drones are not a silver bullet. They come with ethical concerns about remote warfare, accountability and lethal decision making, and the potential for escalation when operators can strike from thousands of miles away. Technically, they are also highly vulnerable. Drones depend on data links—radio or satellite based—and GPS signals to navigate and communicate. Adversaries with electronic warfare capabilities can jam, spoof or hijack those links. That is not theory: as has already been mentioned, in 2009 Iraqi insurgents intercepted live US drone video feeds using cheap, commercially available software. In Ukraine, Russian jamming and interference has disrupted as many as 60% to 80% of drones before they reach their targets. That has forced Ukrainian forces to innovate using frequency-hopping communications, deploying fibre-optic cables up to 50 km long, and even experimenting with AI-based navigation when comms fail. The lesson is clear: we must be realistic about what drones can do. Overreliance on them would be reckless. Ground forces remain indispensable for holding territory, engaging with civilian populations, providing humanitarian relief and responding to dynamic battle conditions. Drones can enhance these missions, but they cannot replace them. A balanced force of combined arms structure is essential. I welcome the Government’s announcement of a £2 billion drone investment package and the establishment of a drone innovation centre. Those are important steps, but technology alone is not enough. A fleet of advanced drones is only as effective as the people who operate and maintain it, and all three services will need drone pilots. That should form part of basic training. Drone warfare requires highly skilled professionals—pilots trained to control aircraft in contested environments, engineers able to maintain complex systems, data analysts capable of interpreting live feeds and AI specialists who can design resilient autonomy. Without those skills, our investment risks being underutilised or, worse, ineffective. Recruitment, training and retention must therefore be a central part of any strategy. We need a robust pipeline of talent if we are to scale drone operations responsibly and securely. We must also recognise the speed of innovation because our adversaries are not standing still. They are rapidly working to advance their drones as well; if we are to maintain our edge, sustained research and development is a necessity. That means investment not only in next-generation drones, but in secure communications, anti-jamming technology, counter-drone systems and resilient AI. It also means collaboration, working closely with universities, private sector innovators and start-ups that can bring new technologies quickly to the table. It is essential that the UK can quickly adapt to the rapidly evolving nature of warfare. Drones are not just another tool; they are reshaping the character of conflict. They save lives by keeping soldiers out of harm’s way, they improve precision and they provide persistent surveillance and awareness, yet they also carry risks—ethical, strategic and technological. Our task is to embrace their potential while also guarding against the vulnerabilities. We need investment in technology but also in people. The Government must work to balance technological innovation with conventional strength and ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of research and development, so that we are not only consumers of new technologies but leaders in shaping how it is used responsibly in defence.

• 1 Sept 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Defence Secretary for advance sight of his statement. I join others in the House in thanking Admiral Sir Tony Radakin for his service, and wish him well in his next steps. I was relieved to see the Prime Minister join fellow European leaders in Washington last month, standing shoulder to shoulder with President Zelensky in the wake of Donald Trump’s fawning appeasement of Vladimir Putin in Alaska. Despite that show of support, I still fear that Trump would prefer to secure a quick and easy carve-up of Ukraine, rather than work to secure a peace that provides justice for Ukraine and guarantees its sovereignty against future Russian aggression. That is why I believe that the Government need to continue to lead from the front, but to take our European partners with us we really need to bolster Ukraine’s defence and punish Putin. In that vein, can the Secretary of State update the House on what progress, if any, has been made on seizing the billions in frozen Russian assets across the G7? Can he update us on whether any assessment has been made of the volume and quality of weaponry that the seizure of those assets could help fund for Kyiv, or to what use they could be put in supporting the rebuilding of Ukraine? We must also tighten the screws on Putin’s war chest. I welcome the new £10 billion contract with Norway and the British jobs and businesses that it will support in the UK, which further demonstrates the need for us to work with our northern European allies in the fight against Russia’s aggression. I am pleased that the Government have taken a step to further cut the Kremlin’s profits through a reduction in the oil price cap, but that measure must be accompanied by more work to crack down on Russia’s shadow fleet, as it continues to trade and transport oil sold above that price cap. A joined-up approach between us and our allies is vital, so will the Secretary of State commit to expanding the UK’s designation of vessels in the shadow fleet, including those already sanctioned by the EU, Canada and the US, and will he seek reciprocal designations from those partners? As we reach a critical moment in negotiations, we need to be taking all the steps we can to provide Ukraine with the leverage and military matériel it needs, so will the Secretary of State consider sending UK Typhoon jets for use by the Ukrainian air force?