Wendy Chamberlain MP: speeches
4 Jul 2026–16 Oct 2026 · year in progress
How these years work
Our reporting years run from 4 July to 3 July, starting with the 2024 general election. They are not official parliamentary sessions. Office costs keep IPSA’s April–March financial years. Records may cover only part of a year; a missing record does not mean no work was done.
Read what this MP said, asked and contributed in Parliament.
4 published records · newest first.
Speeches
- 15 Sept 2026 · Civil Service Pension Scheme · Hansard source
More
I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) on securing the debate. Like everyone here, I have constituents who, after years of dedicated public service in our armed forces, prisons and vital public services, are now struggling to make ends meet because of failures by Capita. I raised those issues back in April, when the then Minister made a statement on this matter, but sadly it is now like a conveyor belt: just as we get one case resolved, another one appears from a constituent who cannot access the pension they have worked for and earned. The most important point I want to make today is that behind every delayed pension is a person whose life has been put on hold. One of my constituents is grieving the loss of her husband, who passed away in July. As if that were not already enough, she cannot access his civil service pension. She spoke with Capita last week and was told that her case was “progressing”—exactly the same update as she had a month earlier. I attended Cabinet Office questions last week, at which the Minister outlined the Government’s insourcing plans and the penalties that Capita is experiencing, but I want her to address two questions today. First, what are the timescales for insourcing? “Plans” do not help our constituents right now. Secondly, what criteria are being applied in relation to penalties for Capita? Constituents need answers and reassurance.
- 15 Sept 2026 · English Whisky: Single Malt Definition · Hansard source
More
I declare an interest as chair of the Scotch whisky all-party parliamentary group, and I also hold a Chartered Institute of Brewers and Distillers general certificate in distilling. On Friday evening at 5 pm, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced that it had approved the English Whisky Guild’s application for English whisky to receive geographical indication status, despite objections from the Scotch, Welsh and Irish whisky associations. Let me be clear that my objection is not to English whisky obtaining geographical indication status. English whisky has a long and legitimate history in its own right. My concern is specifically about the definition of English single malt whisky that DEFRA has now approved. Under that definition, English single malt whisky requires only distillation at a single distillery, rather than for all the stages of production to take place at a single site. The term “single malt whisky” carries a long-established reputation and meaning for consumers. It risks disadvantaging Scotch producers, who have invested heavily to comply with the traditional single-site production model, including distilleries in my own constituency such as Kingsbarns, Eden Mill, Daftmill and Lindores. Scotch whisky is one of the UK’s most important export industries, supporting jobs, investment, tourism and economic growth across rural communities. Weakening an internationally recognised definition risks damaging consumer confidence and diluting brand value at a time when the Scotch whisky industry is not in the rude health that the Government mistakenly think it is. The new definition could also be misleading for consumers who reasonably understand a single malt whisky to be a product produced entirely at one distillery. I ask the Minister: why was this announcement made after the House had risen on a Friday evening, and why does the appeal period finish before the House returns from recess? I ask the Minister also to explain why a decision that undermines the integrity of the single malt definition—a decision that creates an uneven playing field across the UK and risks disadvantaging distilleries that have invested to uphold long-standing industry standards—was approved. Why did the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury tell the House in March last year that DEFRA would not be watering down the definition of single malt whisky? Because I can assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that that is exactly what the Government are doing now. Will the Minister also set out what discussions he has had with the Scotland and Wales Offices and what assessment has been made of the implications of this decision for the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and how those implications were considered?
- 10 Sept 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source
More
I echo the comments made in relation to the anniversary of the September 11th attacks. Nearly 25 years ago, in the April after the attacks, my husband and I visited the site of the twin towers. We were both police officers at the time, and realising that we and our colleagues would have faced the same dangers that others had faced really brought home for us the scale of the sacrifice made. Having attended a debate on confidence in policing yesterday, I know how important trust in policing is. Reform UK’s disdain for British electoral law was broadcast to the nation last week in undercover footage involving the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—I have emailed him—and some of his closest advisers. The Metropolitan police were already investigating Reform UK, and they have now confirmed that they are broadening their inquiry to include foreign donations involving polling. I find it ironic that a party that stakes so much of its reputation on claims of patriotism spends far more time trying to get around British law than strengthening it. Will Reform MPs share with the country whether they and their campaigns have ever benefited from any foreign money? I also reiterate the calls I made over recess for Reform’s home affairs spokesperson to provide evidence for the damaging claims he made online against a business in my constituency. Several weeks on, that business and I are still waiting. We are living in an unstable world, where dodgy donations are routine and corruption is common. Bad actors such as Elon Musk, Vladimir Putin and Reform pin-up boy Donald Trump are dedicated to destroying our democracy. The Government and all parliamentarians should be standing up against those threats. Again, for a party so keen to ensure relationships with our nearest neighbours, Reform UK seems happy to jeopardise our sovereignty by encouraging foreign interference. However, the Representation of the People Bill that passed through the Commons last week did not include a donation cap and therefore failed to protect our political system from the corrupting influence of foreign money. Given that the Bill was debated before MPs were aware of these concerning allegations, will the Government find time to legislate to protect British democracy?
- 9 Jul 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source
More
I associate myself with your remarks, Mr Speaker, and the remarks by the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House of both congratulations and condolences. On the business the Leader of the House has announced, I have to say that I am very disappointed that it means the Deputy Prime Minister’s remarks yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) about the Hillsborough Bill were not accurate. I hope we will see it return after the summer recess. On the world cup, all I will say is that, like fellow Scots, I am probably looking for my Viking helmet at the moment. We all know that the former Member for Clacton’s resignation is nothing but a stunt designed to distract the country from the raft of allegations facing him and, it increasingly appears, his colleagues. Such allegations must be fully investigated, so that voters have all the facts about the candidates they are voting for, whether they be a bin or a politician who sees being a Member of Parliament as a part-time job. Now that the writ has been moved, does the Leader of the House share my regret that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards investigation into the former Member for Clacton must pause? Does he agree that, in circumstances where the nature of an allegation is sufficiently serious, there is merit to it continuing, even if the Member is no longer an MP? Does he agree that it could and should continue regardless? Obviously, those of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches wish Count Binface well. It was interesting to read overnight that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has plans for changing the culture and narrative of the Labour party. I am sure those on the Government Benches are looking forward to that new-found freedom. But for all the talk of collaboration and modernisation, we still do not know anything about the legislation that the new Labour Government are planning to bring to the House. We know more about the right hon. Member’s love of guitar and rugby league than we do about his plans for fixing the problems facing the country. The Liberal Democrats would welcome detail on his plans to fix social care, tackle the special educational needs and disabilities crisis and support the small businesses bearing the brunt of the Government’s jobs taxes. Will the Leader of the House commit to doubling the length of Prime Minister’s questions next week, and give the Prime Minister-in-waiting the opportunity to answer questions and outline his views on the issues that really matter?
Explore activity by topic or department
Contributions by debate topic
4 Jul 2026–16 Oct 2026. Existing keyword taxonomy applied to official debate titles and contributions; a contribution may appear in more than one topic and unclassified records are retained.
View as listWhat this shows and doesn't show
Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →