Joshua Reynolds MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2026 · Draft Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) and Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Company Law) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. Tackling economic crime and financial secrecy is vital for our economic and national security. The registration of overseas entities is an important step in improving ownership transparency, and we welcome any measures that make it work better in practice. However, I note with concern the temporary removal of the LLP address reporting requirements. The Government have stated that the reason is that Companies House systems are not yet equipped to receive and process that information, but that raises broader questions about pace and resourcing in Companies House more generally. We have known for a significant period of time that it has been underperforming, under-resourced and not doing what it should be in the appropriate manner. Having some transparency and clarity from the Minister would be beneficial. The Government must set out a clear and binding timetable for when the LLP reporting requirements will be reinstated, and ensure that Companies House receives the investment that it needs to deliver the reforms that Parliament has already passed. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q12. Yesterday the Prime Minister visited Maidenhead to announce his new defence investment plan. However, we now know that he is leaving it to his successor to decide how to fund the majority of it. We cannot fund our armed forces without growth, and we cannot get growth in Britain without dismantling the red tape that businesses face and trading closer with our closest neighbours. Does the Prime Minister agree we can properly fund our forces with a new growth and defence partnership with Europe, and will he urge his successor to drop Labour’s red lines to get it done?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Steel Tariffs: Northern Ireland · Hansard source

  More

  Businesses across Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom are concerned that from tomorrow they may face tariffs on the steel that they are importing even if that steel is not manufactured in the United Kingdom in the quantities or grades they need. The Under-Secretary has requested that we write to him with specific examples, and I did so on 19 June on behalf of Hewland Engineering in my constituency, but it is concerned that it has not heard back yet and 1 July is coming quickly. The Minister mentioned in his response to the urgent question that he was working hard to ensure a single market in this area between us and the European Union. The Liberal Democrats are really grateful to hear that, because we have long argued that this friction is an inevitable result of our leaving the European Union and the single market. Will he help support the Liberal Democrats’ campaign to ditch the Government’s red lines and have a new, bespoke UK-EU customs union, along with joining the single market for our new growth and defence partnership with the EU, to help protect British companies and help get Britain growing again?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Magistrate Numbers · Hansard source

  More

  Magistrates are a humongous volunteer force, which the Magistrates’ Association says are close to breaking point. With the Government aiming to increase the number of magistrates to almost 21,000, what will the Secretary of State do to attract more young people and working-age people in full-time roles to that challenging volunteer role, for which they might have to give up some of their paid employment?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Media Green Paper · Hansard source

  More

  Over recent weeks, one of the most frequent adverts served to me and many others on X is an AI-generated fake image of a Member of this House fighting with the Governor of the Bank of England. When half of adults cite social media as one of the sources from which they get their news, can the Secretary of State confirm what conversations she has had with colleagues in DSIT to make sure that these fake-news social media adverts do not become our news?

• 17 Jun 2026 · Steel Tariffs · Hansard source

  More

  Firms such as Hewland Engineering in Maidenhead face a 50% tariff on their specialist steel, but there is no approved British supplier to make the grades they need. That is not a steel strategy, but a tax on British manufacturing. I know the Minister understands their concerns, so will he go further and exempt categories for which there is no realistic British manufacturing or supply?

• 17 Jun 2026 · Customs (Tariff and Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  Steel matters for our national security, for our defence and for our critical infrastructure, and it sustains jobs in every single part of the United Kingdom. British Steel supports thousands of jobs and more than £1 billion-worth of economic activity through its own operation and supply chain, as well as underpinning hundreds of thousands of jobs and several more billion pounds-worth of activity across the industries that depend on it. This is an industry that is worth defending. It has been battered by President Trump’s trade war and by years of unfair practices from China. But supporting the goal is not the same as supporting the method, and the method before us today—a flat 50% tariff, sweeping away the preferential rates across 20 categories of steel—gets the balance badly wrong. It risks protecting one part of British industry by punishing another. Two of those categories make the point very sharply: category 14, which covers stainless bars and light sections, and category 27, which covers cold-finished bars. Those are not commodity steel products bought by the tonne; they are long precision products on which aerospace, defence and motorsport rely, machined to fine tolerances and certified to exacting grades. Those are also categories in which Britain has little or no production at the volume that we need. A 50% tariff here will not redirect demand to British mills, because there are no British mills to redirect that demand to; it simply lands a 50% tax on those British businesses that need those products. Hewland Engineering in my constituency is a fine example. It employs more than 120 people and turns over £15 million. It sells precision drivetrains for aerospace, defence and motorsport across the UK, Europe and Japan. The Government’s answer to Hewland and many other businesses is to buy British, but Hewland has looked at the list of approved domestic suppliers, and not a single one meets the grades or certifications that its customers require. This is not a company that is choosing to buy foreign steel over British steel. There is no domestic option, and yet from 1 July, Hewland faces a 50% tariff on the specialist steel that it needs. That is the central flaw in the Government’s proposals: non-domestic availability. The specialist steel that is required for aerospace, defence and other sectors is not made here at the volumes that we need. It therefore should not have this 50% tariff applied to it. Who bears the cost of the 50% tariff that the Government are proposing? All the downstream industries that put steel into engines and aircraft parts. They employ around 300,000 people across the country, but this blanket tariff, which is meant to protect, risks weakening that workforce and making it smaller. The Government know that there is a problem here—that is why Ministers have been meeting industries about this issue for a long time—but it feels as if they are just ignoring these sectors entirely. In an urgent question today, I asked the Industry Minister about this. He said that if I wrote to him, he would help with the quotas and set out the proposals. If we are suggesting that this will happen on 1 July, writing to a Minister on 17 June to ask for some thoughts when we know it will take several weeks to get a response—probably beyond 1 July—will not be of any benefit. This is not a steel strategy; it is a steel tax on domestic business. We will not support the regulations today, but if the Government intend to press ahead with them, I have some questions for the Minister. Will he consider delaying or tapering start dates to agree some mitigations with industry, removing categories with no realistic domestic capability, particularly in categories 14 and 27, and committing to exemptions for specialist steel that cannot be made at scale in the United Kingdom? Those businesses are crying out and sounding the horn to say that they are at risk of going under. I am worried that, if the Government do not listen to them, swathes of organisations and businesses in my constituency and others will just fold overnight.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Buses: Tariff Harmonisation · Hansard source

  More

  Bus companies and local authorities are rightly being encouraged to buy electric buses. However, half of new buses in the United Kingdom are bought from China, which does not support our great British bus industry. Will the Minister elaborate on whether the current procurement rules for electric buses are suitable for encouraging bus companies to buy British?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Suicide Prevention Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  Early intervention saves lives, yet far too often support arrives only at the point of crisis, especially for young people in our education system. Will the Minister support the Liberal Democrats’ calls for a dedicated mental health professional in every primary and secondary school as well as mental health hubs in our communities, so that fewer young people reach that point of crisis?

• 28 Apr 2026 · Park Home Owners · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is completely right. Park home residents have had consultation after consultation over many years. Site owners will respond to the current Government consultation, because they have lawyers to back them up and support them in putting in their thoughts, but the park home owners I have spoken to worry that there is no point in submitting responses to yet another consultation when, as they see it, nothing is going to happen. I worry that far fewer park home owners will respond to this consultation, and we will therefore end up with a one-sided consultation.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Park Home Owners · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing the debate. We have discussed these issues multiple times on the all-party parliamentary group on park homes, of which he is also a member. Park home residents are often the forgotten home owners in our housing system. In this place we rightly discuss leaseholders, renters and first-time buyers, but we almost never talk about the 160,000 people who own park homes in England, four in five of whom are over 65. The quiet injustice that they have faced for many years is overwhelming. These people are overwhelmingly older residents, and most of the time are on fixed incomes. They choose this way of life, in park homes, because it is settled, affordable and within reach, when so much of the rest of the housing market is not. They pay their site fees and maintenance charges, and keep their homes in good order, often for decades. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) talked about the issues with the agreements— eight months or 12 months—when people buy their homes. One reason for those issues is that when people buy their park homes, they are often told, “Don’t worry about conveyancing or solicitors. You don’t need that. It’s not important.” They would never have been told that if they bought another property, but that is okay when it comes to park homes. That is where quite a lot of the issues, including those faced by the hon. Lady’s constituent, come from. When people come to sell their park home, the law steps in and takes 10% of the sale price—not the gain or profit, but the price. That is handed straight over to the site owner. That is not for services rendered at the point of sale, for an obligation that has been discharged, or for anything that we as Members can quantify and put our fingers on—or that the industry itself can explain—but just because they are selling their park home. For most park home owners, selling is not a choice, but a last resort: they are downsizing and moving closer to relatives, or, in quite a lot of cases, they are going to pay for care costs that age has made unavoidable. At the precise moment when every single penny matters most, the system reaches into their pockets and takes a 10% slice. On a £300,000 park home, that is £30,000, but many park homes in my Maidenhead constituency go for upwards of £500,000, £550,000 or £600,000. That is a massive amount of money. It could pay for a lot of years of social care, but it is being taken out of the system—being paid for now by our local authorities—because of that 10%. That can determine whether someone dies in dignity or experiences difficulty at a time that should be secure. I have at various times called the 10% commission unfair and illogical, and I stand by that. It singles out one group of home owners for a deduction. No leaseholder, freeholder or shared owner would ever tolerate that.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Park Home Owners · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my constituency neighbour for that point. It is incredibly important that everybody responds to the consultation, so we must encourage more people to do so. The financial cost of the 10% commission is only part of the story. We have heard time and again about unscrupulous site owners who have used intimidation to drive residents off their pitches. There are fewer bad actors who own sites than there were a number of years ago, but some still know that if they intimidate residents and force a sale, they will get a 10% commission. We see that time and again. In my constituency, one owner bought a site for £200,000. They then intimidated countless park home residents, who sold their properties, and made that £200,000 back within less than 12 months. That is the business model of unscrupulous site owners. We need to think about where the 10% commission came from. It has not always been 10%: it was 15% a number of years ago, so it is an arbitrary number. I pay tribute to Sonia McColl OBE and the Park Home Owners Justice Campaign. Over decades, she and the campaign have done what many in this place only wish we had been able to do. They secured two legislative changes: ending sale blocking, and shifting pitch fees from RPI to CPI, which the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) spoke about. Sonia and the Park Home Owners Justice Campaign have driven lots of the work that is happening here. Another petition is going to Downing Street later today. I was lucky to be able to present one to Downing Street last year, and I know that many of us are willing to submit them in future. We need to be honest about what we are going to do. There is a consultation on the table, but lots of residents have been consulted before. I ask the Minister for a clear timeline for when we will see action, when we will have a conclusion with published responses, and when the 160,000 residents will get the fair deal that has been promised for so long but postponed for much longer.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Park Home Owners · Hansard source

  More

  Many park home residents in Maidenhead have told me that complete swathes of the consultation are not relevant to residents but are to site owners. Can the Minister clarify which questions he expects residents to be able to respond to, because many feel that those questions are just not relevant to them?

• 27 Apr 2026 · Draft Vaping Duty Stamps (Requirements, Reviews and Appeals) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister knows we spoke at length about this subject in Committee stage of the 2026 Act, and I seek confirmation on a few points that we made back then. We spoke quite a lot in the Public Bill Committee about enforcement action, which will obviously be a key element. We discussed who would face enforcement action if they were selling products that were not licensed and did not have the correct stamps on them. “The seller” was mentioned as the person responsible, against whom enforcement action would be taken. Can the Minister explain who is meant by “the seller”? Is it the shop owner? Is it the brand? Is it the potentially 18 or 19-year-old shop assistant behind the till, who is just doing the job they are told to do? What assurances can the Minister give that, in using the enforcement powers, we will not penalise young shopworkers, who are simply doing their job as directed and who have no power, if they are doing something that is later found not to be compliant because of what their managers or retailers are doing?

• 22 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes · Hansard source

  More

  Capita has failed time and again, yet it is constantly awarded more contracts. Sally, one of my constituents, had been told multiple times that her lump sum payment was coming or had already been paid, but it was not paid. She and other civil servants would have been worried to hear in March that Capita is to be awarded a £700 million contract for the civil service payroll. Is that not just another example of how when Capita fails, the Government award it yet more of our money?

• 22 Apr 2026 · Government Procurement Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office was asked several times about trade union requirements in public procurement contracts, yet Hansard records him as saying on 4 December that “The Government’s social value model provides opportunities to reward suppliers that recognise a trade union”. —[ Official Report , 4 December 2025; Vol. 776, c. 1144.] Could I seek your guidance as to how I could ask the Minister to confirm those two points together?

• 22 Apr 2026 · Government Procurement Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  On the Business and Trade Committee, we have heard time and again that if we want to transform the economic health of small and medium-sized enterprises, we need to direct a greater share of public procurement towards them. However, the British Chambers of Commerce has said that we are “stuck in a rut” at 20% of spending going to SMEs. What is the Minister doing to join up the approach across Whitehall to ensure that a greater amount of spending goes to SMEs?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister once promised to end the chaos, and to restore honesty and integrity to Government. Does he think that appointing a man who called a convicted child sex offender his “best pal”, and whose connections with Epstein were already well known, is consistent with that promise? If it is not, will he step aside and let someone else end his chaos and restore honesty and integrity to Government?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is using words such as “may”. What she has outlined is incredibly important, but Lords amendment 342 obviously goes further than “may”—it insists that diversion orders will involve those necessary consultations. Will the Minister commit today to making sure that the police will have all these statutory duties, not just that they may have them, and that the consultation will be required?

• 15 Apr 2026 · Single Status of Worker · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), with whom I sit on the Business and Trade Committee, for securing this debate. The world of work has changed beyond recognition in the past several decades, but our employment laws have been severely left behind. We still sort people in work into three rigid categories—employees, workers and the self-employed. The framework for that was built in a different era, when people had one job, one employer and the reasonable expectation that the law would protect them if things went wrong. That is obviously not the reality for millions of people today. It is not the reality for the delivery drivers who log into apps and spend hours under the management of an algorithm; they cannot set their prices and they are disciplined if their ratings drop, yet when they fall ill or are injured on the job, they are told, “Sorry, you are self-employed—you are on your own.” It is also not the reality for the agency care worker who has been looking after the same vulnerable residents for years without ever accruing a single day of redundancy protection, and it is not the reality for the freelance designer who depends entirely on one client but has no holiday pay, parental leave or pension contributions. These people are trapped in a gap in the law. They are doing essential work, but they are being denied the essential rights that go along with that. The legal case that created those gaps was rooted in case law going back to 1968 and relied on concepts designed for the factory floor, not for the platform economy. It means that the rights of many workers depend not on the work they do or the hours they put in but on how cleverly designed their contract is. Let us be completely honest about who benefits from those contracts and that complexity: it is most certainly not the worker. The problem has not gone unexamined. The Taylor review reported in July 2017 and recommended significant reforms. The Government of the day responded with the “Good Work Plan” in December 2018 and committed to legislate. Although the previous Government identified the problem and promised to fix it, they never did, and that has left people waiting for far too long. The current Government have taken important steps in the Employment Rights Act 2025: guaranteed hours for workers if they want them, a day one right to make flexible working requests and the establishment of the Fair Work Agency. Those steps are all welcome, but the Act did not address the fundamental structural problem that the categories themselves are broken. The Government can strengthen the rights attached to the “worker” category, but if people cannot tell which category they fall into, those rights remain words on the page. The Government’s next steps document commits to consulting on a simpler two-part framework for employment status, but we have been here before, and consultation commitments alone are not enough. The Liberal Democrats believe that reform in this area should be built on clear principles. First, we need a dependent contractor status that sits between those who are fully employed and those who are genuinely self-employed. If someone works personally for another party and is not guaranteed business on their own account, they should have access to minimum levels of earnings, sick pay and holiday entitlement. The idea that someone can work full time for a single company and have fewer rights than a Saturday shop assistant is an indictment of our current system. Secondly, the tax and national insurance treatment for employers in different categories must be aligned, because the current framework creates fiscal incentives for businesses to push people out of the protections they deserve. When it is cheaper to classify someone as self-employed, that is exactly what happens, and the cost is borne by the worker, and ultimately the Government. The third principle concerns the burden of proof in disputes, which should shift from the individual to the employer, because asking someone on low or irregular pay with no savings and no legal protection to take on that legal risk against the company that controls their livelihood is not a fair fight. If an employer has classified someone as self-employed, it should be for the employer to justify that decision. Fourthly, the Liberal Democrats believe that pension provision for those in non-standard work must be addressed urgently. Far too many people in the gig economy sector are building no retirement security whatever. They are invisible to the auto-enrolment system, and when they reach retirement with nothing, that cost will fall on us. In the Commons, we are currently going through the Lords amendments to the Pensions Schemes Bill. The Government should be acting on the issue in the Bill. Finally, where zero-hours contracts remain, there is a strong case for a higher minimum wage at times of normal demand to begin rebalancing the risk that currently falls entirely on the shoulders of those people who are least able to bear it. I urge the Minister to confirm when the promised consultation on employment status reform will come forward and to commit to a timetable for legislation that does not repeat the sorry patterns of promises and retreats that we have seen from Government time and again, because the people caught in the gap have been patient for a long time. They have been told time and again that reform is coming and they deserve more than warm words; they deserve the law to be on their side.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Access to GPs: Bracknell Forest · Hansard source

  More

  The Bracknell Forest wards of Maidenhead constituency have seen massive amounts of house building in recent years, many without the GP facilities to join them. In a recent health survey of mine, 70% of respondents said they found it difficult or very difficult to get access to a GP appointment. Will the Minister back the Lib Dem plan for all new house building developments to come with new or expanded GP facilities in time for those first residents moving in?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Statutory Menstrual Leave · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for introducing the debate and I congratulate the lead petitioner on securing more than 109,000 signatures on their petition. That number should stick in all of our minds, because it sends a clear signal that this issue has been ignored for far too long and that the people affected by it are exhausted by the neglect they are feeling. One of the women affected, a constituent of mine, wrote to me ahead of this debate. She talked about how endometriosis has shaped her life through pain, exhaustion and suffering for far too long. From a young age, she knew that her symptoms were not normal, enduring irregular cycles, severe clotting, chronic pain and debilitating symptoms that were too often dismissed or ignored. She was told that she may never have children, and although she was fortunate enough to have two, she told me that her condition worsened, bringing miscarriages, severe blood loss, iron deficiency, IBS and relentless pain. My constituent said that, time and again, she would visit the GP, hospitals and specialists, and she was often told—as we have heard many times today—to simply manage the pain. Women with endometriosis are expected to suffer in silence, while their health, careers, families and quality of life deteriorate around them. She told me that she was not asking for miracles; she was asking to be heard, to be taken seriously and to receive the care that she deserves. My constituent’s testimony is not exceptional; it is representative, and it is backed up with data. Last year, Endometriosis UK found that the average wait time for a diagnosis has now reached nine years and four months. That has gone up significantly in the last six years. During those nine years, the condition progresses, fertility is affected, and women are forced to manage debilitating pain in workplaces, education and at home. Shockingly, 83% of respondents to Endometriosis UK’s survey were told by a healthcare practitioner prior to their diagnosis that they were making a fuss. On top of that, women wait an average three and a half years after first noticing symptoms before seeking medical help at all, largely because severe period pain has been thoroughly normalised in our society. That women wait such a long time before they get their diagnosis is simply not acceptable. We also need to think about women from ethnically diverse communities, whose average time to diagnosis is even longer, at 11 years. The House should find that inequality unacceptable. This is not just a health crisis. Endometriosis UK estimates that the economic loss to the UK from absenteeism due to severe period pain, heavy periods, endometriosis, fibroids and ovarian cysts is about £11 billion a year. The case for investment in women’s health and women’s support is not just moral; it is economic. I wanted to touch on a point that Members have made multiple times about the arbitrary hit points for absence in absence management systems. When I was working in the private sector, we had a very similar system: if someone hit three absences within a defined period of time, they would go through an investigation and a disciplinary meeting—just like that. Although there may be mitigations for long-term conditions, the stress of the idea of going through an investigatory meeting because of their long-term condition adds to the cycle of women not wanting to go to their doctor or talk to professionals about what they are experiencing. They have been told for so long to just get on with it and manage the pain, and the absence management system in this sector does not help at all. The Government’s response to the petition acknowledges the hardship that women are facing, but the action they talk about falls short. Ministers point to the Equality Act, reasonable adjustments and the Employment Rights Act, specifically on flexible working. I want to be clear that the Liberal Democrats support the right to day one flexible working, and we are glad to see these changes coming into force, we think, in April next year. Flexible working genuinely helps people to manage conditions such as endometriosis, and employers should be actively engaged in using it, but it relies on individual employers, and it cannot be a substitute for proper medical care or compensate for decades of misdiagnosis. Before women can be properly supported in the workplace, they need to be diagnosed, and before they can be diagnosed, healthcare professionals need training. Time and resources need to go into being able to recognise and act on the symptoms. When over half of women with endometriosis are forced to attend A&E before receiving a diagnosis, we know that there is a failure in primary care, and that is adding to the pressure on our hospitals. We need to invest in GPs and other healthcare professionals to ensure that anyone with long-term conditions such as endometriosis has access to named GPs who know their history and can provide continued support. We also need to make sure that people are actually able to receive a GP appointment and be seen when they need it; far too often, they are unable to do so. I want the Government to commit to a new target to bring down substantially the average endometriosis diagnosis time, working towards the one year or less by 2030 target that Endometriosis UK is calling for. I also want them to put in place a proper awareness campaign and ensure that National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines are fully implemented across the primary care sector, with standardised referral pathways in place. The Government must also take seriously the role of mental health support, which, after years of pain and dismissal, many women will require. Such mental health support is currently severely lacking. The petitioners and individuals who signed the petition —100,000 across the country and the many more they represent—are not asking for the impossible. They are asking to be heard, taken seriously and to receive the care that they need. I urge the Minister to match that urgency with her response today.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Victims and Courts Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak to Lord’s amendment 2, which requires the Secretary of State to issue an appendix to the victims code setting out how the code applies to the families of British nationals who are the victims of murder, manslaughter or infanticide abroad. This is not a new argument in this Chamber. I tabled amendments on Report to make precisely this case, I secured an Adjournment debate last year, and I have raised questions with the Minister several times. I thank her for the work she has done with me and others on this topic. It is also important to thank the charity Murdered Abroad, and specifically Eve Henderson who has been working on this issue for a long time, as well as the late Baroness Newlove who, in her time as Victims’ Commissioner, worked with Murdered Abroad and me to ensure that the amendments tabled to the Bill were workable in the view of the Victims’ Commissioner. Murdered Abroad is a campaign made up of bereaved families who have turned their grief into a distinct call for change. Families who are part of Murdered Abroad all have one thing in common: a family member of theirs, a British citizen, was murdered while they were outside the UK. Their calls ask for one simple thing: equal treatment. They are asking for the structured statutory support that any family would receive if tragedy struck on British soil, because a British life lost is a British life, no matter where in the world that loss occurs. Each year around 80 families receive the news that one of their loved ones has been murdered abroad. Sometimes that is via a police officer, but all too often it is from a journalist who has found out the news first and is asking for comment. When tragedy strikes, it sends any family into an unimaginable position, but when it happens outside the UK, families are left with so many other complications they must contend with. They must navigate foreign legal procedures, untranslated documents and distant court proceedings with patchy and often inconsistent support from their own Government, all at a time of trauma, vulnerability and mourning. Matthew was sitting in a bar when two door staff rushed over and grabbed him. They were joined by two more, who threw him down a metal staircase. At the bottom, witnesses saw them kicking and hitting him. A UK post-mortem identified over 20 injuries on Matthew’s body. When his mother called the FCDO, she was told that he died of alcohol consumption. That same morning, newspapers in Greece ran the headline, “Teen Drinks Himself to Death”. Matthew’s mum had to fight tooth and nail to get a family liaison officer. She also had to fight tooth and nail for translation support to get documents in English. They ended up being paid for by Derbyshire police, because the FCDO would not pay for them. Alison and Paul’s son Danny was killed in Amsterdam in 2022, aged just 22 years old. They explained how navigating lengthy and complex Dutch judicial procedures in foreign languages, while also having to arrange matters such as repatriation without any support, was an immense challenge. All the while, they were dealing with the trauma of their son having been killed. That loaded on to them and their daughter an untold amount of stress at a time when they needed support from our Government. In such circumstances, the Government should be supporting families in any way they can. Let me be clear about what Lords amendment 2 does and does not do. It does not seek to interfere with foreign judicial systems and it does not place unworkable demands on the FCDO. What it does do, however, is establish a statutory baseline, ensuring that bereaved families have access to the support and guidance that any other family of a homicide victim would receive. Lords amendment 2 inserts an appendix into the victims code which states that families must be provided with specific guidance explaining what support they can access. It explains that they must be given information by the British Government about how the foreign criminal justice process works—not getting involved in that process or interfering with it, but explaining what families can expect. It outlines that they should be given a dedicated family liaison officer to support the family at the worst time. Some police forces do that already, but many do not. We have heard that many police forces will tell families they are not entitled to a family liaison officer. Only immense pressure from families makes those police forces back down and give them the family liaison officer they need. When everything else in the world has gone wrong, it should not be up to these British families to have to push the police to give them the family liaison officer they should be entitled to. The amendment outlines that the Government must provide translation services for such families. Far too many families tell me that they were told by the Government to use Google Translate to get death certificates translated into English. That is not acceptable—that is not something we can accept ever again. One family told me recently how they found out through Google Translate that their son’s organs had been removed from his body. It is not acceptable that Google Translate told them that. We cannot accept that and the Government need to go further to provide translation services for families. The Government’s position, set out in a letter to Members on 23 March, is that the amendment would “raise expectations” that cannot be met and that it risks “confusing the legislative framework”. Those arguments are remarkable. We are talking about an appendix to the victims code, laying out what support families can expect from the British Government. The suggestion that setting out in statute what support a bereaved family can expect will somehow undermine the coherence of the entire victims code does not stand up to scrutiny. And it is not just me and the Liberal Democrats saying that. The Victims’ Commissioner must believe that too, because she was pleased that the Lords successfully voted for the amendment. I cannot understand how the amendment would raise expectations that cannot be met and confuse the legislative framework, and neither can the Victims’ Commissioner. I do not understand how the Government can think that. The Minister points to guidance published in January 2026 as evidence of the Government’s commitment. I welcome that guidance, but guidance is guidance. Guidance is not the law. Guidance can be ignored. It has no real enforcement mechanism. If the Government genuinely believe that families deserve support, we must ask the question: why do they not say so in statute? Last month, I met families from across the country whose loved ones were murdered abroad. Among that group were families who lost loved ones this year, after the new guidance had come into force. The guidance has not protected them. They have fallen through exactly the same gaps that were in the system before the guidance. The reason is clear: guidance is not statutory; it is a guide. It can be ignored and it too often is. What we need is a statutory appendix to the victims code setting out what support victims will receive, and how the Victims’ Commissioner and her team can support it. There is a lack of consistency. Some families are given a family liaison officer and some are told they cannot receive one. That is the problem we are looking at and we must do better. I will ask one question of the Minister about transparency in the needs assessment carried out by the Victim Support homicide service. What criteria are used to decide on a family’s needs following homicide abroad? Neither the Victims’ Commissioner nor Murdered Abroad charity members are able to find out what results are coming through and what criteria are being used. That is why families so often feel that there is a lack of consistency and accountability.

• 23 Mar 2026 · National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that at times like these, we want the Government to be encouraging those on low and medium incomes to invest in their pensions and their futures—and increasing the threshold would help people to do that—rather than disincentivising people from doing so, as they seem to be doing at the moment?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right about pensioners being dragged into paying income tax. Does he agree that millions of those pensioners will want to be able to contact HMRC and ask it about those changes? Millions of people never manage to get through to HMRC and figures from a written question I put in recently show that HMRC has lost 2,000 customer service staff in the past few years. Does he agree that we need a red phone hotline to allow pensioners to get hold of HMRC for support and advice when they need it?