Helen Maguire MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree with me that changing life-critical benefits in a rush, gambling with people’s futures without evidence, and only listening when their Back Benchers rebel is simply not how Governments govern at their best?

• 23 Jun 2025 · Personal Independence Payment · Hansard source

  More

  One of my constituents, who has epilepsy, responded to the “Pathways to Work” consultation and highlighted that the questions implied that the Department views PIP as a pity payment, rather than a benefit designed to offset the extra costs of disability, such as seizure alert devices or accessible transport. Without such support, disabled people are less able to live independently. Does the Minister agree that cutting PIP payments simply pushes more disabled people further from living independently and from employment?

• 12 Jun 2025 · Gibraltar · Hansard source

  More

  Our thoughts also go out to all those families involved in the tragic air crash in India today. I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. The Conservatives’ botched deal with Europe left Gibraltar in a state of limbo for years. Our hope is that this new agreement will work to the genuine benefit of Gibraltarians, leaving no lingering questions over the status of Britain’s sovereignty of the territory and our commitment to the self-determination of Gibraltarians. There are a number of vital principles at stake. To ensure that the deal effectively secures the future of the Gibraltarian economy, it is vital that Parliament is given the opportunity to scrutinise the details of the agreement and vote on it. Will the Minister therefore commit to bringing the deal before the House for a review and outline when MPs can expect to vote on it? It is also vital that the Government provide further clarity on the timeline for implementing the deal. Will the Minister therefore confirm whether a provisional date has been agreed for its implementation and whether that timeline provides enough of an opportunity for parliamentarians to provide adequate scrutiny? Another principle is that nothing about Gibraltar should be agreed without Gibraltarians. Will the Minister provide further details on what steps have been taken to consult them, including representatives of business, to ensure that their interests have been front and centre in the negotiations? The Spanish Government have been willing in the past to act unilaterally over Gibraltar and to the detriment of Gibraltarians. Will the Minister outline what mechanisms will exist in the deal to ensure compliance and effective dispute resolution in the event of future possible unilateral action, thus giving confidence to Gibraltarians that the deal will be enforceable? Finally, will the Minister confirm the lifespan of the deal and whether it will include an opt-out clause, ensuring the ultimate guarantee of Gibraltar’s sovereignty?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Royal British Legion · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. I totally agree with my hon. Friend, and his point could be considered in the resettlement schemes for people leaving the armed forces. The RBL is involved in a number of campaigns to improve the lives of all members and veterans of the armed forces, but it needs our help here in Westminster. We can start by backing the RBL’s “Credit Their Service” campaign to stop military compensation being treated as income in the means-testing of welfare benefits, which causes veterans and their families to lose out on thousands of pounds a year. Compensation awarded by the Government for service-related injuries should not be treated differently from civil compensation awarded by the courts. The current practice violates the armed forces covenant, and it is time for change. Another pressing issue is the impact of welfare reforms on disabled veterans. With one in five working-age veterans living with a disability, the proposed welfare changes risk making it harder for them to claim essential support. And narrower eligibility criteria for personal independence payment and changes to universal credit could negatively affect veterans with service-related conditions. Additionally, delaying access to incapacity benefit until the age of 22 could disproportionately harm young veterans, particularly early service leavers and those who are medically discharged. Upon leaving the armed forces, many veterans struggle with complex mental health issues. It is unacceptable that those who served our country and are left suffering with depression, anxiety or PTSD receive inadequate support. The new Government must do more to assist these brave men and women by providing regular mental health check-ups and ensuring timely access to professional help. The Liberal Democrats are committed to improving the recording of veterans’ physical and mental health outcomes, including waiting times for treatment. We must also continue to combat the stigma surrounding mental health, so that veterans feel able to seek the support they need. For over a century, the RBL has supported serving and former service personnel and their families. However, despite these efforts, more than half of veterans have faced mental health challenges and 60% hesitate to seek support due to stigma. Organisations such as the RBL play a vital role in reducing such stigma by fostering connections between veterans of different generations who have shared experiences. The failure to provide a fair deal for the armed forces is not just morally wrong; it also affects recruitment and retention, leaving our country less secure. At a time when our national security is increasingly under threat, we must remember the sacrifices made in military service. I am proud of the Royal British Legion’s contributions, both in Epsom and Ewell and across the country. We must stand with the RBL as it continues to support those who have sacrificed so much for us, and I hope that all Members here today will join me in signing up to become a member of the Royal British Legion.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on securing this important debate. In Epsom and Ewell alone, 5,420 women have been affected by the changes to the state pension age, and their voices echo the sense of betrayal felt nationwide. These women have been wronged, not just by the failure to properly notify them of significant changes to their pensions, but now by this Government’s refusal to act on the clear recommendations of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. The ombudsman concluded that there was maladministration by the Department for Work and Pensions dating back to 2005. It found that delays in communication meant too many women did not understand how the changes would affect them. Despite that, this Government have refused to pay any compensation. A constituent of mine captured the heartbreak that so many feel. She wrote: “I am absolutely devastated and I feel betrayed. For years, senior Labour representatives and even the Prime Minister himself pledged to deliver fair compensation to those impacted. They have now made a political choice to break that promise and to ignore the findings of an independent watchdog…The Government failed to properly inform women of the changes, and many were plunged into poverty as a result.” Many women were blindsided by the changes, left unable to prepare for the financial shock that followed and plunged into hardship through no fault of their own. I am proud that the Liberal Democrats have long called for justice for these women. We remain steadfast in our belief that the Government have a moral duty to act in line with the ombudsman’s recommendations. The decision to deny compensation sets a dangerous precedent, undermines the role of independent watchdogs and erodes public trust in governance. The Government’s refusal to act on the issue is heartless and short-sighted. These women are asking for fairness, for recognition of the injustice they have suffered and for the means to rebuild their lives. I urge the Government to reconsider their position, listen to the ombudsman and do right by these women. It is time we ended this injustice.

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

  More

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