Freddie van Mierlo
MP for Henley and Thame · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice on whether the Minister for Digital Government and Data, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), may have given an incomplete answer that risks being seen as misleading the House.”
“My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We have seen docudramas such as “Dirty Business”, in which water companies have sought to evade scrutiny. This amendment would correct that anomaly. The companies are supposed to perform the same public functions with the same public impact, but without the discipline of market competition.”
“Requiring companies in England, such as Thames Water, to adopt such a code of conduct by law is one clear and immediate way the Government could reduce the problems we currently see with such companies. Constituents of mine tell me just how much they struggle to raise a complaint with Thames Water and are often ignored when they do so.”
“I start by paying tribute to the victims and survivors who have got us to this point, and to the many hon. Members across the House who have shared personal testimonies and those of their constituents from many different disasters, including Hillsborough.”
“By holding these companies to the same standard, we can reinforce the public interest obligations inherent in their statutory role and ensure consistent ethical standards across all providers of essential services.”
“Although privately owned water companies operate under the Water Industry Act 1991 and are designated as statutory undertakers, they exercise public functions of fundamental importance to health, the environment and daily life; they hold exclusive regional monopolies, meaning that consumers have no alternative provider; and they benefit f…”
The complete record
Every one of 288 lines we hold for Freddie van Mierlo, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 6.
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice on whether the Minister for Digital Government and Data, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), may have given an incomplete answer that risks being seen as misleading the House. In a response to a question about cuts to funding for the Science and Technology Facilities Council, the Minister noted: “funding for STFC has not been cut.” —[ Official Report , 1 July 2026; Vol. 788, c. 894.] Yet it is only true that there are no cuts if we exclude funding for time-sensitive projects. This has led to confusion among my constituents who are affected by the cuts. Madam Deputy Speaker, could you advise me on how one may seek to ensure that Ministers communicate clearly on matters of such importance?”
“Although privately owned water companies operate under the Water Industry Act 1991 and are designated as statutory undertakers, they exercise public functions of fundamental importance to health, the environment and daily life; they hold exclusive regional monopolies, meaning that consumers have no alternative provider; and they benefit from statutory powers and privileges normally associated with public authorities.”
“I start by paying tribute to the victims and survivors who have got us to this point, and to the many hon. Members across the House who have shared personal testimonies and those of their constituents from many different disasters, including Hillsborough. If the House will allow me, I will change the context of the debate a tiny bit and talk about amendment 149, tabled in my name, which seeks to include water companies in the scope of the code of conduct and duty of candour.The amendment has been sponsored by 33 Members from across the House. Under the Bill, privately owned water companies do not have to follow the same code of conduct as publicly owned water companies in Scotland or Northern Ireland, which is absurd.”
“By holding these companies to the same standard, we can reinforce the public interest obligations inherent in their statutory role and ensure consistent ethical standards across all providers of essential services. If the Government are serious about holding the water companies to account, they must close the loopholes that allow them again and again to escape judgment for their wrongful actions. It should not be one rule for them and another for everyone else.”
“Requiring companies in England, such as Thames Water, to adopt such a code of conduct by law is one clear and immediate way the Government could reduce the problems we currently see with such companies. Constituents of mine tell me just how much they struggle to raise a complaint with Thames Water and are often ignored when they do so. They include Judy Washington, whose case I raised directly with the Prime Minister at PMQs. Time and again, we have seen Thames Water prioritise its own shareholders and debt, taking more from consumers in bills and delivering less in quality of infrastructure and water. These actions would simply not be acceptable under the code of conduct in this Bill. There would be ethical standards for these companies to follow and clear consequences for subverting these goals.”
“My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We have seen docudramas such as “Dirty Business”, in which water companies have sought to evade scrutiny. This amendment would correct that anomaly. The companies are supposed to perform the same public functions with the same public impact, but without the discipline of market competition. In the Bill, publicly owned water companies such as those that exist outside of England and Wales must follow standards of ethical conduct, including following the principles of integrity, accountability and openness. They must adopt a code that sets the standards expected for those who work at the authority, and make people aware of the consequences of failing to act in accordance with it. There must be a clear way for people not working at the authority to complain about their conduct.”
“Normally when this occurs, I tend not to chase it, but this is a really important time-sensitive case, so I seek your guidance on how we may receive a response from the Department.”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 2 June, my hon. Friends the Members for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) and for Witney (Charlie Maynard) and I sent a letter to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care concerning the decommissioning of important mental health services in Oxfordshire, including: the Infant-Parent Perinatal Service, the Child and Adolescent Harmful Behaviour Service, and the Family Assessment and Safeguarding Service. We invited the Secretary of State to exercise powers under the Health and Care Act 2022 to call in the decision. I am aware that there is a 20-day timeframe for ministerial responses to Members’ correspondence. However, that has passed.”
“The makers of the Louis Theroux documentary “Inside the Manosphere” showed the all-party parliamentary group on fatherhood, which I chair, that within 15 minutes of looking at YouTube, young boys could be shown misogynistic content when they are simply trying to search for gym content. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the ban on social media will include platforms that do not require an account, so that children can be protected from that as well?”
“The Minister has rightly spoken of the flood resilience grant scheme, which is an important scheme, but residents of Wheatley in my constituency found out in September 2024 that they were ineligible for grants, because 2,000 homes need to be flooded before payments are triggered. That fundamentally disadvantages rural areas, because many villages will never reach the threshold, even if the entire village is flooded. That is really unfair and advantages urban areas over rural areas. Will the Minister look at that with Cabinet colleagues, so that we can better support rural areas?”
“Protected land and villages, such as Stoke Row and Park Corner in my constituency, are being sold off in small lots. Auctioneers subtly encourage buyers into paying over the odds for land that has no prospect of planning consent. The result is disappointed and ripped-off buyers. Plot holders, left with failed investments, try to monetise them in ways that go against planning rules. We have also seen some members of the Gypsy and Traveller community move ahead with unauthorised development, using their ownership of the land to their advantage in the planning system. My residents are sick and tired of that, and expect the Government to act through the national planning policy framework and planning rules. Will the Leader of the House support my efforts to secure a Westminster Hall debate on the topic so we can discuss it further?”
“However, I am concerned by my most recent correspondence on this topic with the Minister for Women’s Health and Mental Health, who sits in the other place, in which she said: “Should the evidence continue to increase, organisations such as the NICE will consider updating clinical policy”. My reading of this is that there is no clear commitment that clinical guidance will be adopted by NICE, and I would be grateful if the Minister here today could comment specifically on that point.”
“I know as a parent that I would do anything for my child, and Albie’s mum is no different, but the financial pressure placed on ordinary, hard-working families like hers is devastating. The lack of specialist clinicians and knowledge within the NHS appears to be a major cause of this, with too many clinicians misidentifying the condition and refusing treatments being deployed in the private sector. We urgently need better guidance for the NHS to close this gap. Families are fighting to be heard by professionals who all too often dismiss or do not recognise PANS and PANDAS. I therefore welcome the announcement that NICE will review independently produced guidelines from the PANS clinical guideline development group and PANS PANDAS UK through the guideline collaboration programme.”
“He feels compelled to do it because the NHS and successive Governments have failed families like his. His family have had a difficult time getting the diagnosis and treatment needed, and that is not unusual. When surveyed, only 2% of patients and families said that GPs recognised that their child could have PANS/PANDAS. The path to diagnosis can take months or years, with persistence from parents required to advocate for children. Many are forced to spend thousands of pounds on private assessments and treatment because NHS support is inadequate. When asked by a show of hands at the all-party group meeting, every single young person said their family had paid for private treatment. It is unacceptable that an entire condition requires, by default, private care. It bakes in inequality and places extreme stress and strain on parents.”
“I am proud to have on my wall in my office here in Westminster a thank you card from Albie, with his trademark drawing of a panda. His next campaign is to write to all 26 main children’s hospitals, asking them to send a doctor or member of staff to the PANS PANDAS UK clinical professionals conference in October in Royal Leamington Spa. His hope is that if more clinicians learn about recognising and treating PANS/PANDAS, children like his brother will receive help more quickly. Albie is an inspiration to all of us and is driven by love for his brother. I wish him continued success, and he has assured me today that he is already dusting off his pencils to write to the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham). However, at just 10 years old, Albie should not be having to do this.”
“One young advocate at the meeting was my constituent, 10-year-old Albie and his mother, who are watching the debate today from the Gallery and braved the heat to come here from Oxfordshire. Albie’s brother is diagnosed with PANS/PANDAS, and Albie has become a tireless and devoted campaigner on his brother’s behalf. Albie has launched a letter-writing campaign. He is already 19 months deep into his campaign and has become pen pals with the most powerful and influential people in the country, including His Majesty the King, the high sheriff of Oxfordshire, the Prime Minister, various Ministers, NHS leaders and leading clinicians and, of course, the Speaker’s Office. Albie proudly showed me in a constituency surgery and again this afternoon his beautiful handwritten letters and the responses, all stored safely in a binder.”
“I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for securing the debate and for her advocacy in raising the profile of PANS/PANDAS. I also thank the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) for the comments she made. I hope that she gets a response from her ICB very soon—I am waiting for one from mine. Last month, I attended a meeting organised by the all-party parliamentary group on PANS PANDAS, which my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife leads, to hear from young people directly on their experiences of the condition and the impact on their lives. What stuck with me from that meeting was a powerful comment by one of the young people there, who said, “We don’t want your sympathy. We want your action.” Let that comment last with the Minister, too—action, not sympathy.”
“Thousands of families are fighting for support from multiple systems while taking care of unwell children. It is time for the Government to do their part, and eliminate the barriers to diagnosis and treatment for those living with PANS/PANDAS.”
“It is currently unknown how many people are affected by PANS/PANDAS in the UK, and there is no official guidance on the diagnosis and treatment of those conditions in the NHS. Secondly, we need training of health professionals to recognise and treat the condition. PANS and PANDAS are conditions with a high risk of long-term disability, exclusion from society and failed education. Families express that if only their children’s condition had been recognised sooner by health professionals, it could have had a significant impact on their child’s wellbeing and outcomes. Thirdly, we must improve the support offered to children in education. The publication of local authority guidance is anticipated this summer, and it is important that it ensures that schools and services meet their statutory duties for children with PANS/ PANDAS.”
“Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 is in place to stop that happening, and it requires local authorities to arrange suitable education for children who cannot attend school due to illness. However, the provision is not always effective for children living with PANS/PANDAS, and parents still need to be advocates for their own rights, rather than being proactively told them and guided through the process. There is a wider point. Families are often left fighting for support from multiple systems at the same time, including healthcare, education and local authorities, while trying to take care of a very unwell child. It is the last thing they need. There are steps that the Government can take to limit the challenges. First, PANS/PANDAS must be researched in greater depth.”
“I wholeheartedly agree with the right hon. Gentleman. There are very few downsides of prescribing an antibiotic, especially in this instance, given the seriousness of the condition. As he says, there is really no good reason to withhold this medication. A second challenge facing families is the impact on a child’s ability to participate in education, as they miss months of school because they are too unwell to attend. That not only affects their learning but limits opportunities to socialise, make friends and have a community beyond home. Every child has a right to an education. PANS/PANDAS does not limit ambition or ability, but our education system is placing limits on children with the condition.”
“I thank the Secretary of State for the way in which he delivered the statement and the apology that he issued, which I think will be received as sincere and heartfelt. Hearing the details in the report, I am not angry but ashamed—ashamed that women and babies have suffered so grievously in this country at their most vulnerable moment. It is a moment of shame for all of us. The report and the Secretary of State speak of failed regulation. I was shocked to learn that a “good” rating can be issued by the Care Quality Commission even when there are still ongoing safety failures at a trust. Does he agree with me that no trust should be labelled “good” if it still has the “requires improvement” rating for safety?”
“Ten months ago, the Government appointed FTI Consulting to advise them on taking Thames Water into special administration. Can the Secretary of State update the House on the outputs of that work and how much it has cost to date?”
“Q14. Every time there is heavy rain, Judy Washington’s driveway and garden are flooded with raw sewage. The same happens to her neighbour, and it happened again last week. Thames Water told my office that it will not even look at the situation until the end of winter 2027. It is unacceptable that a lady in her retirement is shovelling sewage from her drive and waiting for human waste to decompose in her garden. Will the Prime Minister write to Thames Water on behalf of Judy and her neighbour to compel it to sort this out?”
“It is not just the number of health visitors that needs to be improved. Women report to me that they have skipped appointments due to negative experiences with health visitors, especially around breastfeeding. Will the Minister commit to improving the training of health visitors, so that women receive the best quality care?”
“RAF Benson primary school in my constituency is struggling with a temporary reduction in its rolls as a result of the scrapping of the Puma fleet. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how the school can continue to thrive into the future as we anticipate the new medium helicopter coming online?”
“What steps will be taken to protect data and confidentiality? Finally, I want to discuss how the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommendations are implemented. Trusts have 90 days to implement NICE technology appraisals, yet this Bill confers on the Secretary of State the right to change that. How will that be handled? It should definitely be considered further in Committee.”
“What of areas that have been slow to get mayors? Although the Bill addresses ICBs, there is no reform of the sclerotically slow-to-act Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation or UK National Screening Committee; they have been painfully slow to act on spinal muscular atrophy screening. Although I welcome the single patient record, I would like to raise a serious concern. In my constituency, I was recently made aware of a case of a patient’s record being accessed multiple times, unrelated to their care. In fact, they were not receiving care at the hospital at the time; instead, they were campaigning on maternity care. Clinicians had no business looking at the record. Although a single patient record of this scope is welcome, it opens up the abuse of data privacy on steroids.”
“My ICB has one of the worst offers on IVF, it has been far too slow to adapt to new dynamics in ADHD and autism, it has left commissioning gaps in palliative care and closed down step-down beds, and now it wants to close down child and adolescent mental health services. I make this prediction: the office of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will balloon under this legislation, because every Back Bencher will appeal to him to make sure that they get their local commissioning arrangements sorted. This reform is, of course, fully in line with the UK’s overly centralised Whitehall system, but it is not in line with the Government’s supposed devolution agenda. Mayors could be the answer, but the Government have been too timid about the role of mayors, who merely sit as members of the ICB.”
“All too often in my role as a local MP, I have been frustrated by the buck-passing in the NHS. My local ICB cuts a service, pleading no money, or refuses to fund a new one. It tells me to ask the Government, the Government tell me it is a local decision for the ICB, and the cycle goes on. With this Bill, I welcome the accountability conferred on the Secretary of State, but I am slightly gobsmacked that he has agreed to it. Every Back Bencher should be rubbing their hands with glee. This legislation makes the Secretary of State personally responsible for commissioning arrangements in all ICBs. I look forward to sending him a letter on the day the Bill receives Royal Assent listing every change I want him to make.”
“I thank the Minister for delivering this really important update in the House, rather than at party conference as the previous Tory Prime Minister did. What has really struck me about this statement is that the cost of HS2 is now measured in the hundreds of billions, but what we are spending on active travel is measured in the hundreds of millions. I think the Government previously committed only £600 million until 2030 on active travel. Projects such as the Thame to Haddenham greenway would deliver an enormous benefit to my constituents. Will she reflect on the differential between how much is being spent on active travel and this project?”
“Speaking of idyllic rural areas, there is none more so than my constituency of Henley and Thame. The average house price is more than half a million pounds, so park homes offer an affordable alternative, yet the 10% charge when people come to sell the homes makes it really difficult. Does the hon. Member agree that it is a good thing that the Government have launched a review, but that more detail is required on the timeline?”
“My hon. Friend will know that down in leafy Oxfordshire, we have far fewer mountains in our proximity than she does, but we do have rolling countryside and hazardous waterways. Lowland rescue plays a really important role as the counterpart to mountain rescue. It is also a charitable, volunteer-led organisation. Will she join me in praising its work to find vulnerable people and make sure they come home safely?”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for outlining those additional benefits, which would definitely be useful for mountain rescue teams. Does he agree they should also be extended to lowland rescue?”
“Young girls are particularly vulnerable to eating disorders, which are a parent’s worst nightmare. We are seeing social media companies push content on to young girls that encourages eating disorders. What is the Minister doing with Cabinet colleagues to take on this problem?”
“Thames Water is lurching from crisis to crisis. Last year, it was let off record fines for pumping sewage into rivers by Ofwat. Ofwat is allowed to do that, under rules laid out in the Water Industry Act 1991. Will the Prime Minister consider scrapping those rules, to stop Ofwat letting water companies off the hook?”
“I welcome the Secretary of State’s reference to the rights of British overseas electors and the cap on donations as a proportionate response, yet their right to cast their vote is constantly stymied by late arrivals of the post. While the Secretary of State is considering amendments to the Representation of the People Bill, will he meet me to consider my amendments that would address that issue and seek to secure the voting rights of overseas citizens?”
“I first entered the job market in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, and it was a difficult time for young people, yet today they face even more difficult and uncertain times. The Chancellor’s jobs tax is bearing down on opportunities, and AI is making this worse by potentially pulling up the ladder on graduate jobs that previously included things such as note taking and supporting senior employees in meetings. Will the Chancellor correct course on the unemployment of young people and do more to support their career progress?”
“T10. The £100,000 tax trap means that some residents, if they have a student loan, are paying 71% marginal rates. That is one of the reasons why salary sacrifice is so popular—but those people want to use that money in the economy now. What is the Chancellor doing to address the tax trap at £100,000?”
“The Government already had an opportunity to raise the age of digital consent from 13 to 16 with the amendments put forward to the Data (Use and Access) Bill by the Liberal Democrats, but they are dithering yet again while children could have been benefiting from that change. Why does the hon. Member think the Government are continuing to dither on this issue?”
“New clause 15 would require the Government to review the security risks posed by critical suppliers and essential service providers, and to flag which of those are linked to foreign states. It would also push the Government to evaluate whether current powers are sufficient to address these threats. I intend to push new clause 15 to a vote.”
“The threat to British democracy from foreign interference is clear and present. From Russian money flooding into politics, and Chinese surveillance and intimidation, to foreign oligarchs buying influence, our democratic institutions are under sustained attack. The previous Conservative Government failed the UK. They failed to take the threat posed by Russia seriously, they weakened the Electoral Commission and they allowed foreign money to distort our politics. They withdrew from international commitments at precisely the wrong moment. This Government have made some welcome moves, but they do not go far enough. Over the last few years, we have seen a rise in cyber-attacks on critical infrastructure. Across the country, schools have closed, airports have been shut, local councils have been hacked and retail stores have been crippled.”
“New clause 13 would require the Government to explain how they intend to mitigate the risks associated with reliance on foreign technologies. It would also require the Government to assess the need to encourage and support the use of domestic technologies. That would turn cyber-security into an engine for growth. By identifying high-risk foreign vendors, and pivoting to trusted, home-grown alternatives, we could improve our security and create high-skilled jobs here in the UK. For those reasons, I will press new clause 13 to a vote. I now turn to new clause 15. How can we be serious about national resilience when the very infrastructure protecting our critical systems could be entirely outsourced abroad? New clause 15 would ensure transparency and force the Government to look at the threat of foreign ownership.”
“I rise to speak to new clauses 13 and 15, standing in my name. New clause 13 would require the Secretary of State to publish, within 12 months, a comprehensive statement on how the Government intend to manage the risks of foreign interference in our critical systems. It calls for steps to be taken to assess the need for a digital sovereignty strategy. We need to know not just how we will fight cyber-threats but whose technology we will rely on to do it. The new clause would force the Government to set out a plan to explicitly assess risks in hardware, software and supply chains. We should ask what is being done to support UK tech and home-grown cyber-security. We cannot claim to be serious about national resilience if the very infrastructure protecting our critical systems is outsourced abroad to vendors we cannot fully trust.”
“I know from having worked in SMEs at the start of my career that companies experience growing pains and need support in navigating complex statutory requirements. It is not just support for SMEs before an attack takes place that the clause would provide for, but also after. For SMEs, a cyber-attack is not just a disruption; it can be an existential threat to their existence. The clause would ensure that when an SME is hit, they have access to the support they need.”
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to establish a support service dedicated to improving the resilience of small and medium-sized enterprises and, crucially, to provide them with assistance when the worst happens. SMEs are the backbone of our economy. Their growth and continue operation are essential to a strong economy. We heard evidence that even large corporations find it hard to justify the investment in cyber-security and resilience when faced with competing priorities and investment needs. It forms the rationale of the Bill putting this need on a statutory footing, but small and medium-sized businesses undoubtedly find it even harder to make the investments required in cyber-security.”
“The thresholds have been set out in the new clause. Australia already provides support for small businesses during and after attacks. The clause would simply bring the UK up to speed with international partners, ensuring our businesses are not at a competitive disadvantage on cyber-security support. If Australia can support its SMEs, why can we not? It is only fair that if we are increasing the regulatory burden, the Government provide the support required to navigate it. I will press the new clause to a vote.”
“It asks a simple question: does the Computer Misuse Act 1990 help or hinder the resilience of our critical infrastructure? For that reason, I wish to seek a vote on new clause 18.”
“New clause 18 would place a duty on the Government to review within 12 months whether our over-30-year-old Computer Misuse Act is holding back the very cyber-resilience that the Bill seeks to build. The Government’s own impact assessment for the Bill identifies a key market failure: imperfect information. It states that businesses lack awareness of their own cyber-risks, leading to under-investment in security. We must ask why that information is imperfect. We believe that it is partly because the Computer Misuse Act 1990 prevents cyber-security professionals from undertaking legitimate public interest activity to identify those risks, so ethical hackers cannot provide the necessary information. New clause 18 ties the review specifically to the security and resilience of network and information systems regulated by the Bill.”
“I am grateful to the Minister for his reassurances on the ongoing review of the Computer Misuse Act. On that basis, I would like to say that I will withdraw the new clause.”