John Glen MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Paymaster General’s remarks on the acceleration of the delivery of payments in relation to infected blood. It is very welcome for one of my constituents who has had it. I also welcome his response to the additional report by Sir Brian Langstaff in July. Given that, can he update the House on the lifetime of the public inquiry and any conversations he has had about ending the inquiry, which seems to be going on rather a long time given that the legislation was passed in May last year?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Rape Gangs: National Statutory Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I acknowledge the Minister’s commitment to get to justice on this issue, and I recognise the frustration that she expresses, because I was responsible for the infected blood compensation scheme, which involved meeting a diverse group of 40 different charities and representative bodies that did not agree with one another. However, I gently and respectfully say to her that we face a credibility gap on this issue, and I urge her to examine how she can get ahead with the communications so that she can continue to demonstrate her commitment to get to justice. Frankly, we as Members of Parliament have to come to this place when things get into the media and public concerns are expressed. I understand her frustration, but getting the communications right and maintaining a pathway to the delivery of justice is critical.

• 14 Oct 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister, and I am also grateful to him for what he said about my constituent. There are so many codes of best practice, and so many guidelines. Can he say a little more about what force the code would have, so that we can have some reassurance that the risks that were so tragic in the case of my constituent will be eliminated?

• 14 Oct 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 14 Oct 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to support new clauses 29, 28 and 39. First, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley), who mentioned my constituents and the tragic case of the loss of their daughter, Ruth. My experience of listening to her story has made me support the new clauses. I want to finish my remarks with what Kate asked me to say in this House. Kate Szymankiewicz is a GP in Salisbury and her husband is a surgeon. Their daughter, Ruth, took her own life aged 14. She was unlawfully killed while in a child mental health facility—that is what actually happened. That is what was exposed in the court case this summer. What happened to Ruth was a tragedy. The system did not work as it was supposed to work. I am anxious today that the Minister should not rely on the advice and understandings of officials, or on the guidance that is in place. I ask that he is really assured in his own mind that the legislation he is going to take forward will mean that this will not happen again. I will not go into the whole story but, essentially, Ruth was placed in a facility that was a two-hour drive from her home. She was not technically placed out of area, but the family would spend more time driving to see her than they would be allowed to actually spend with her. These are wonderful, loving parents who did everything they could—everything in their power—to support their daughter through a condition that she could and should have recovered from. But because she was sectioned under the Mental Health Act to allow her to be force fed, her parents technically lost many of their rights to involvement in their daughter’s care. They had a wonderful, loving relationship with their daughter. She was a happy child who was determined to get better, and her family were keen to see that that happened. She was sectioned only to allow her to be fed, but the knock-on consequence was that the dynamic between the parents and their daughter, who was a patient, changed as adult protocols were put in place. When Kate visited Parliament yesterday, I asked her, “What would you like me to say on your behalf?” And she said this: “If your child is unwell and must go into hospital, whether that is because of a physical illness such as cancer, or a mental health illness like an eating disorder, they need to know that their mum, or dad, or caregiver, can be there with them, whenever they need, to help them through a scary and vulnerable time. Children cannot be treated in isolation. They need the support of those who love and know them best—their family. Families need to be at the heart of our health system in order for children to heal and for their families to heal with them. When the next child is in crisis, which is right now, I ask you all not to turn away, but to grasp this opportunity to make the Mental Health Act a champion for their wellbeing. Please include all these…amendments to safeguard this generation of young people”.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Court Backlogs · Hansard source

  More

  9. What steps he is taking to reduce the court backlog.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Court Backlogs · Hansard source

  More

  I wish the right hon. Gentleman the very best in his new appointment, but he is presiding over a complicated system, in which, today, 74 out of 516 Crown courtrooms are empty. Will he comment on that, and on when the second part of the Leveson report will come into effect so that we know when action will be taken on the greater complexity that is yet to be evaluated?

• 11 Sept 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new role. May I echo the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) in drawing his attention to the reply that his predecessor gave to me on 27 February concerning the Government’s response to the report on valproate? It really is necessary that we get a response. Janet Williams and Emma Murphy from the Independent Foetal Anti-Convulsant Trust came to see me this week. They are grateful for the opportunity to meet a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, but they really need a formal response to the commissioner’s report of 19 months ago.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Life Sciences Investment · Hansard source

  More

  At Porton Down in my constituency, there is a hub of life science businesses. I have listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and I recognise the difficult dilemmas that all Governments have in where to focus investment. However, the Minister must surely recognise that the additional cost of employing people, with the additional rights and burdens that that puts on employers—particularly small employers—plus 11 weeks of speculation about further tax increases will not make any sector feel more comfortable about where to invest in this country.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Transport: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  On Friday, I had the privilege of meeting Lawrence Bowman, the new chief executive of South Western Railway, who brings with him over 20 years of experience in the industry. We travelled from Salisbury to Tisbury. He says that he has to write a five-year plan. I am keen to ensure that that has the maximum impact and deals with the Tisbury loop. Salisbury is on the gateway to the south-west. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State delegated an official or a Minister to meet me so that, as the five-year plan is constructed, there are no unreasonable constraints or misunderstandings over what is necessary to ensure that the railway is at the centre of economic growth in the south-west.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Financial Services Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I warmly welcome the new Economic Secretary to her role. Over the summer I looked at issues around liquidity in the London Stock Exchange and the deterioration that has happened. Given that only 15% of share trades attract stamp duty and much more trading is conducted in a dark environment, will the new Economic Secretary meet with me to hear my concerns and the concerns of those in the City so that we can move forward in a positive direction?

• 4 Sept 2025 · Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case, and I echo the sentiment that she has expressed so far. My constituent Sara Taylor came to me to make the case for the restoration of the fund. Her key point was that the economic and fiscal consequences, as Members across the House have said, are so obviously detrimental. If we do not spend the money on this, that means that the costs are displaced to society in other ways for the whole generation to come. Does my hon. Friend agree with that sentiment?

• 4 Sept 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  A month ago, I met Oliver Robinson from the British Trout Association. The association has produced an excellent report on the trout farming industry in the UK, but Oliver is struggling to get engagement from Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers. I tried to ask the Secretary of State about this in DEFRA questions earlier, but it would be much appreciated if the Leader of the House could make representations and try to set up that vital conversation.

• 1 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T5. Last week, Policy Exchange published a very insightful report, “Out of Control”, looking at the pathways to benefit entitlements. It made this point:“Fifty years ago, just one in 2,500 people was said to have Autism; today that has risen to one in 36 children”.Will the ministerial team undertake to look at the implications for the Department of that definitional creep and the specific implications for benefit entitlements?

• 17 Jul 2025 · Freedom of Religion or Belief: UK Foreign Policy · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for the role that he has taken on and the work ahead of him, which he has set out. The whole Chamber and the whole of Parliament will agree that the tone and manner with which he is approaching this complicated and difficult work will serve him and our country very well. As I suspect he would be happy to acknowledge, he is building on the legacy of his predecessor Fiona Bruce, the former Member for Congleton, who did so much to fill the role and build credibility for the United Kingdom across the globe. The envoy is at the centre of a web of relationships with great people in this country who do so much to champion the input and the enthusiasms of our constituents across the United Kingdom and motivate us as MPs to raise these matters in the House of Commons. One of them is Merv Thomas, the president and founder of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, who said to me recently that he is always being told that religion is the cause of so many problems in the world. He said, “Well, I look at it this way: freedom of religious belief is perhaps one of the solutions.” That gets to the heart of what the role is about. I am grateful to the envoy for setting out how his work will fit with the different elements of the Government’s foreign policy. That is critical. When we talk about matters such as national security and stability, trade and economic partnerships, the leadership role that we seek, the alliance building and the soft power that comes from being present in conversations about preventing humanitarian crises, we need to recognise that we gain a lot more credibility if we can be collaborative but principled and persistent in our willingness to engage on all those matters and able to have difficult conversations with countries with which we have relationships across those realms. It is not a binary question; it is not that we cannot talk about what is happening with the Uyghur Muslims in China while recognising that China is an important economic actor in the world that needs to be respected. We need to find ways of interacting well together and respecting, as far as we can, what common ground exists. It troubles me sometimes that when we have statements in the House, we revert to a binary: “It’s all good or it’s all the opposite.” The hon. Member for North Northumberland grasps the right way to approach this. Having said that, I want to put on the record some challenges that exist in a number of countries and some of the awful circumstances that people of minority religions in those countries endure. In North Korea, authorities are likely to round up the extended family of Christians and punish them, even if the family members themselves are not Christian. That is what Christians endure. Let us remind ourselves that according to Open Doors, another excellent organisation, there are 400,000 Christians in that country. It is very sensible that the envoy has set out a priority list of 10 countries, because we want to be able to measure progress, make an impact and influence those relationships. In Pakistan, blasphemy is punishable by death. If Christians are subject to accusations of blasphemy, it can result in torture or death at the hands of violent mobs. Christian and Hindu girls remain particularly vulnerable to forced religious conversion, abduction, trafficking, child, early and forced marriage, domestic servitude and sexual violence. It is important that the envoy is able to work with his colleagues and Ministers in the Foreign Office, even if it is awkward or inconvenient. Sometimes, perhaps, officials on a certain desk will say, “We don’t really need to be too explicit about the religious element.” We do. That religious element is fundamental to the oppression that is happening. Importantly, in his speech last week, the hon. Member said: “The fourth strand of our approach is…ensuring that FORB considerations are mainstreamed throughout the FCDO’s work and the need for a holistic human rights approach understood.” I totally recognise that there needs to be a holistic human rights approach, because of course not everyone has religious belief, but it is important not to lose clarity on the motivation behind some of the oppression that exists in some of these countries. Finally, as a country and in our national Parliament, we need to think through how we treat our Christian faith. We should be more open about how it motivates and influences us. The more transparent we are about it, the more reasoned and reasonable we can be in dealing with the implications for how we approach public policy. I lament the way it can be weaponised. It should not be. The hon. Member is very open about his Christian faith, as I am about mine. It was wonderful to see an envoy giving a speech, reading from a press release, but quoting from Proverbs 31. I wish him well in his role, I thank him for what he has set out today, and I urge him to be bold and courageous in all that he does.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T3. On Monday, Tina McKenzie, the policy chair of the Federation of Small Businesses, said: “For the first time in the history of the Small Business Index more small businesses are predicting they will shrink than expand, meaning that as a country we are potentially facing a very dangerous situation.” I have listened carefully to what the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has said about the concierge service, which I welcome, and have seen the Leeds reforms this week, much of which I welcome. However, will the Minister respond to that stark warning from a very credible source of information?

• 16 Jul 2025 · Financial Services Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I warmly welcome the Leeds reforms; they build on many of the things that were done under the previous Administration and I acknowledge the consumer-facing changes on mortgages and ISAs and the aspiration to get more people investing. Those are positive things. I will just say two things. First, on the listing review, we did one about four years ago and it is all just about implemented. I urge the Minister to look at culture and fiscal issues as much as at regulatory issues. Secondly, on the PRA and the scale of ambition on that side of the regulatory framework, in conversations with senior leaders at Mansion House last night, it was felt that the FCA’s level of ambition is high but that there must be wariness about a constant shifting of the goalposts and a lack of real change, particularly on the internal rating base and how banks can get their regulatory capital treated differently more quickly. It is taking too long and that needs to change urgently.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. One area the Opposition would be looking at is a coherent reform of the welfare system so that, by changing the pathway to entitlement to benefits, we get that whole budget under control, which would make a meaningful difference to the fiscal position that the Government are in.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. [ Interruption. ] I am told that I ought not to take any more interventions, but I will say that Liz Truss’s insight about the imperative for growth was right; we do need to look for growth. What she did not do was examine the conditions to do that in a way that the market could understand, and it had catastrophic effects. We now have a Labour Government, and we now have working people being massively affected by tax changes. We have Andrew Bailey, Governor of the Bank of England, saying that as a reaction to the national insurance changes, businesses have made changes to employment—that means firing people—and we have Paul Johnson downgrading growth prospects, alongside virtually every other independent analyst. The winter fuel payments were an absolute disgrace. The changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief were put on my desk at every fiscal event, but one just has to say no, because they are the wrong thing to do. The political capital that has been lost by the Government and the damage to their reputation for their stewardship of the economy is catastrophic. I say to those on the Labour Benches that we are facing some really tough challenges as we approach the next Budget. The choices that this Government need to make on taxes will define their future. What happened last week was the worst possible situation. Several times today we have been asked, “What would you do?” What we would have done and what we would do now is take a root-and-branch look at the welfare system to see what the Government should do. We would focus on the most vulnerable and look after them well. We would recognise that one of the legacies of covid is that the pathway into benefits has gone fundamentally wrong and the country cannot afford it. Unless we grip that major driver of costs for this country, we shall see taxes rise and rise to meet those iron-clad fiscal rules, and we will be in a spiral of decline.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  A few months ago, I met a former civil servant. He told me that when he was working in government in the run-up to the ’97 election, Ed Balls would come into the Department and say, “Look, this is what our manifesto says, but here is the three-page memo on what we are actually going to do in government.” In fairness to that Government, they achieved quite a lot. In their first two years, of course, they stuck rigidly to the Conservative spending plans, and Tony Blair’s economic adviser, Derek Scott, said that they had a golden economic legacy. I have listened very carefully this afternoon to the speeches made by Government Members. Of course, I can acknowledge where we were, in terms of the economy, and the fact that the country wanted change; I recognise that. Government Members, however, have failed completely to acknowledge the scale of the once-in-100-years covid experience, what that did to our public finances, and the challenges it gave us in the Treasury—the tough decisions we had to make, and the inevitable scarring to the economy.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  No, I will a bit of progress now. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later, even though he did not give way to me earlier. The Chancellor came to the Treasury Committee in November. She said, “We have now set the envelope for spending for this Parliament, and we will not be coming back for more tax increases or, indeed, more borrowing. We now need to live within the means that we have set ourselves in the Budget and in the allocations of those spending totals.” What has happened in a year? Of course, I recognise that events occur, and I have referred to those under the previous Government. They do present challenges, but the Labour party’s fundamental problem is understanding the effect of high burdens of tax on wealth creators and their motivation to employ people and to invest in the productive capacity of the economy—more jobs and more tax revenues from lower rates. This Government are saying that we can do a little bit more on national insurance; that we can just put a few more burdens of regulation; that the long-term capital investment of £190 billion will transform our economy. However, what I hear from businesses in Salisbury—small or large—is that the motivation to grow a business, to employ more people, and to say that they are determined to do so because there are some rewards from that is rapidly diminishing. What we hear is speculation about which additional taxes will be imposed after the next three months. Today, Government Members have suggested equalisation of capital gains tax, a flat rate of pension relief, a wealth tax, or higher bands of council tax—although they may have been ruled out. The overall effect on top of what we have already had is for businesses to say, “I’m not going to do this anymore.” We have now had two consecutive months of negative growth. That may well continue, which is bad for everyone. It is bad for the capacity that we have as a country to invest in the transformation that we all seek to deliver on—some things we will agree on—and it is not sustainable if the Government do not recognise that businesses will not grow and expand if that tax level rises beyond a certain amount.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  I shall just finish my point and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. The typical refrain is then to say, “What about Liz Truss?” I was not a member of Liz Truss’s Government, but I am sure that my colleagues who were did the very best that they could. She was in office for seven weeks. I acknowledge that, politically, it was catastrophic for my party, and there are lots of lessons on which we will have time to reflect, but the failure to acknowledge properly the dominant reason for losing that last election, which was related to the scarring of what happened with covid and the fundamental challenges, does not do credit to this House. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman if he still wants to intervene, presumably on Liz Truss.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  I will come on to address the fundamental dynamics of spending and that area in particular, but first I want to draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention back to the subject.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend acknowledge the words of Richard Hughes of the OBR, who said in a report last week: “The UK cannot afford the array of promises that it has made to the public”? He also said that debt is on a trajectory that the UK “can’t sustain”.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?