Ben Maguire
MP for North Cornwall · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“Mia received lifesaving treatment on the roadside because her condition had worsened and she had suffered a second prolonged seizure while her family tried to rush her to the hospital.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“After Lewie was winched to the clifftop by the coastguard, critical care paramedics onboard the air ambulance helicopter were able to administer pain relief, apply a pelvic binder and transfer him safely into the helicopter.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this vital debate.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It has said that improved collaboration between the NHS and regional air ambulance charities could help to create a more seamless process, increasing resilience to challenges through shared resourcing and more cohesive long-term planning.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In my North Cornwall constituency, 15-year-old Lewie received lifesaving care from the Cornwall Air Ambulance after falling from a cliff in Bude and becoming trapped in an inaccessible cove in the cold water. Lewie was hypothermic and drifting in and out of consciousness.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is essential that we ensure that our emergency services are equipped to manage the rurality of our region, ensuring that urgent lifesaving care is not based on a lottery postcode. The Cornwall Air Ambulance is on the frontline of getting people who may otherwise be stranded for hours to hospital for lifesaving treatment.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
432 held · 427 searchable for Ben Maguire. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 9.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“Professionals could misinterpret or overlook risk factors, meaning that some of those high-risk cases might be wrongly assessed and their severity underestimated. Does the Solicitor General agree that while the plan has improved investigations and prosecutions, a needs-based approach is absolutely essential, especially to show victims that coming forward is worthwhile and the justice system will not fail them?”
House of Commons19 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“First, can I ask the Solicitor General to please follow up on her kind offer to chase the Justice Minister responsible for legal aid, the hon. and learned Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), about meeting me to discuss support for domestic abuse victims? The 2024 domestic abuse joint justice plan aims to improve early co-ordination between police and the CPS. I am aware that a review was conducted as part of the plan, highlighting concerns about the quality and timeliness of police referrals and CPS decision making. However, based on recent cases I have heard about from my North Cornwall constituents and from other Members, I am rather concerned that the plan’s focus on high-risk victims does not ensure accurate identification of those genuinely at high risk.”
House of Commons19 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Refuge also found that, on average, one woman is killed by an abusive partner or ex-partner every five days in England and Wales. The fact that we use words like “on average”, “approximately”, and “estimated” on such a serious topic beckons us to acknowledge that those numbers still suffer from severe under-reporting, highlighting just how much more work we have to do. In the light of International Women’s Day having just passed, and with the Government’s long-awaited violence against women and girls strategy still fresh in our minds, I want to take this opportunity to assess how Government support for domestic abuse survivors holds up in practice.”
House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for domestic abuse survivors. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate, Mr Twigg. I thank all Members for attending the debate and standing up for survivors of domestic abuse in their constituencies. I also thank the excellent women’s rights campaigners, some of whom have joined us today. Without their relentless research, activism and day-to-day support for victims, we would be unable to fully represent domestic abuse survivors. I must open today’s debate with a sad reality: according to Refuge, an estimated 2.2 million women and 1.5 million men have experienced domestic abuse in this country in the last year alone, and according to a 2025 report by the Office for National Statistics, this issue is far from niche.”
House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“However, from speaking to my North Cornwall constituents and the charity sector, I realised that the VAWG strategy does not yet place arguably the most crucial protection for victims at the centre of its aims. Of course, societal change is urgently needed to prevent so-called normal people becoming perpetrators of abuse, but what about those victims who are caught up in the cycle of abuse now? How can we help them and free them from harm?”
House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the hon. Member for that excellent point—I will come on to accommodation issues and the impact on children. I recognise that really important steps have been taken in recent months, on which I congratulate the Government. For instance, many people will agree that the removal of the presumption of contact puts children’s voices and experience back at the heart of contact decisions, which is a genuine step forward for their safety. The 2025 statutory reforms to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 updated the terminology to align with the Domestic Abuse Act 2021—replacing “domestic violence” with “domestic abuse”, and “financial abuse” with “economic abuse”—and recognised that abuse against an individual may consist of behaviour directed at another individual, such as their children.”
House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On the contrary, victims will be assessed on their income through a test that has not been uprated with inflation since 2009. An applicant is not eligible for legal aid if their monthly disposable income exceeds £733. That threshold is clearly blind to reality. So far, the Government have chosen to ignore rising food and energy costs, as well as the huge debts that can be caused by an abuser. Even if someone has £750 left at the end of the month including those costs, which is farcical, the fact that solicitors can cost anything from £120 an hour to £400 or £500 an hour speaks volumes about the poorly executed calculations that are applied to the legal aid means test threshold.”
House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The legal aid Minister assured me that an eligibility waiver is available for victims of domestic abuse who are applying for urgent protections, such as non-molestation orders, yet a survey commissioned by the charity Surviving Economic Abuse found that more survivors had to represent themselves in legal proceedings than were able to access legal aid. The Ministry of Justice’s own harm report found: “The most important and frequently mentioned form of structural disadvantage was lack of access to legal representation.” Most cases I have reviewed end with a victim—whose abuse has not yet reached so-called dangerous levels—applying for a child protection order, anti-stalking order or non-molestation order, which means they do not qualify to skip the legal aid means test.”
House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Although the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service recommended that the child live with their mother, the judge awarded custody to the ex-partner, arguing that the mother had not followed the correct legal route when she fled from home. She is now permitted to see her child only by travelling hundreds of miles back to the area from which she fled, and the ex-partner refuses phone contact altogether. She is terrified of returning to a family court and knows from experience how one-sided the system can be, especially as her ex-partner has the money and the legal representation, while she would be forced to represent herself. How many women consider the reality that Louise currently faces and, as a result, end up staying with their abuser?”
House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I completely agree; I have actually had some similar casework. I will come back to that point. In a deeply troubling case brought to me by a wonderful Cornish advice clinic, a female client, who I will call Louise for this debate, was refused legal aid on the basis that she supposedly had too much disposable income and assets, despite the reality that, at the time, she was sofa surfing, effectively homeless and earning only minimum wage. Although she may have passed the merits test, she failed the means test, because she was not paying rent and was not on benefits, so the system deemed her ineligible for legal support. After Louise fled her partner, who had reportedly abused her, both parties applied for residential custody of their child.”
House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That leaves many women unable to challenge refusals, missing deadlines and remaining in unsafe or unsuitable accommodation because they cannot navigate the process alone. All of that continues despite official homelessness data showing that large numbers of households become homeless or are threatened with homelessness due to domestic abuse, which means they should be treated as vulnerable and properly protected, not forced through a rigid financial test that was never designed for people fleeing violence.”
House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The ex-partner controlled contact with their children and locked Katy out of their property, resulting in her sleeping on the streets. During the family court process, which lasted 18 months, Katy had no legal aid or legal advice, and minimal support throughout the court proceedings, representing herself at the family court. Eventually, the judge granted a non-molestation order, an occupation order, a prohibited steps order, and a full care order for the children. However, after achieving that without any access to legal advice, Katy and her children have still not been given access to their home and remain homeless. Reporting by Women’s Aid reinforces this reality. Survivors frequently cannot secure a legal aid solicitor due to the combined effects of eligibility barriers and a national shortage of legal aid providers.”
House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Those brave victim survivors who do leave their homes and apply for urgent homelessness protection can receive immediate legal support, but they end up having to go through the legal aid means test. If they are seen to have an income above the threshold, they have to support their own legal representation, when it is actually their abuser who has forced them out. Victims therefore become stuck between staying in their family home and enduring their suffering, or ending up potentially homeless—due to, again, this destructive means test. A Cornish women’s protection centre recently reached out to me, detailing the following case that it was dealing with—for which I have again changed the name. Katy’s ex-partner abused and controlled her, both during and after their relationship ended.”
House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In other words, every three weeks a victim dies because an abuser uses economic abuse as a tool of control. Refuge recently evidenced how 75 women were killed as a result of domestic homicide in the year ending 2025. Those numbers should spark outrage across our society. This final act of violence could have been prevented had there been proper legal resources in place for victims, or proper housing support that meant victims could be safe. Too many victims are forced to return to their perpetrators because they do not receive the levels of legal support needed to continue with the legal process. That means that many are unable to obtain things such as protective orders against their perpetrator, or obtain safe child contact arrangements. Victims could even end up homeless.”
House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I would go as far as stating that such inaccessible capital should be exempt from the means test, particularly as many victims are too afraid to leave their homes with their children as they are not certain that the family courts will bring them a positive outcome, as I have highlighted in Louise’s case. According to the Surviving Economic Abuse 2026 report, almost 1 million women in the UK who experienced economic abuse last year said that the abuse prevented them from leaving their dangerous abuser. In the worst-case scenario, that decision, which is forced on them via our systematic failure to understand the reality of domestic abuse for victims, can be fatal. Another recent study covering a 12-year period, which included 400 homicide reviews, found that one person died every 19 days in cases that involved economic abuse.”
House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I welcome the Government’s steps to include economic abuse in the Domestic Abuse Act, but claiming that if a victim can prove they are economically abused, they will become exempt from the means test is a bit like asking victims who are under a severe threat to their health—in the most vulnerable state of their life—to sift through a haystack to find a purposefully and impossibly well-hidden needle. The £100,000 capital exemption recently introduced for the means test has been powerfully rejected by Women’s Aid and domestic abuse charities, which say that it does not go nearly far enough. Sitting on a £1 million property that is co-owned with their perpetrator, who—guess what?—will not sell, excludes someone from any legal support. Such trapped capital should not be included in the financial eligibility calculation.”
House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Would the Minister tell me why the review period for the threshold has not yet been changed and why the gap between those who are eligible for legal aid and those who can afford to pay for legal services has not received closer scrutiny during the means test review? The previous Government completed their review in 2022 and then proposed new criteria in 2023. Implementation was later delayed and, as far as I am aware, the current Government have not yet indicated that they intend to progress the work. I would therefore appreciate an update from the Minister on the status of the legal aid means test review.”
House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being such a champion on this issue, and I completely agree with his condemnation of Travelodge’s frankly despicable response. His point regarding Airbnb is interesting, and I have been making the same point recently, because it crosses over with the Travelodge issue. I am sure that many Members have heard from survivors in their constituencies who tell them they have spent all their savings on legal fees or they have accrued tens of thousands of pounds worth of debt. We know that survivors often face crippling financial barriers when trying to protect themselves and, in many cases, their children.”
House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Those include the mandatory disregarding of inaccessible capital for victims of domestic abuse; the raising of the income threshold, which needs to include an annual review of the means test; and reformed evidence requirements when trying to prove economic abuse. I will end my speech there, in the hope that, by the time of the next Westminster Hall debate on domestic abuse, we will have seen tangible progress to show survivors that we stand with them, we fight with them and we will do everything we possibly can to change the system for them.”
House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am sure, and hopeful, that the Government will be open to working with all of us to fix the legal aid means test, which, as I hope I have set out clearly, is the biggest obstacle to so many victims. I recently launched a petition to reform the means test, and I hope to widen the campaign further. How much more loss—how many more needless deaths—do we as a country need to endure? How many more debates are needed in this place for the Government to consider the issue properly? Until they commit to removing the legal aid means test for all domestic abuse victims and survivors, including those who are not currently accessing universal credit or fleeing the abuser, I hope to see urgent implementation of the delayed legal aid reforms, as pushed for by the VAWG sector.”
House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Minister. Perhaps she can follow up on that point in her speech. I ask the Government urgently to reform evidence requirements for economic abuse in favour of more accessible evidential criteria. The lack of clarity regarding acceptable forms of evidence causes already limited legal aid solicitors to pre-emptively refuse to take on survivors’ cases. Having discussed and highlighted countless reasons to reform the legal aid means test for victims of domestic abuse, I must ask why legal aid is barely mentioned in the VAWG strategy, despite it being such a vital tool for victims to seek justice and crucial support. The Justice Secretary in the previous Government, Alex Chalk, is acknowledged by many in the women’s rights sector to have been open to committing to reform the legal aid barriers that victims face.”
House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I acknowledge and appreciate the Minister’s point about this not being the responsibility of the Home Office. I will say, though, that I excitedly awaited the VAWG strategy to see a cross-departmental approach to this vital issue—not action by one Department or another, but a whole-of-Government approach. I hope that she might agree with me on that point.”
House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Minister for his statement; it stood in very stark contrast to the response from the Opposition, which was chilling. Many Members have referenced the horrific online abuse that we see on a daily basis, which often originates, as has been said already, from foreign states. What steps are the Minister and the taskforce taking to protect our democracy from foreign interference, which is often subversive, especially following the recent arrests based on allegations of spying for China?”
House of Commons12 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I wholeheartedly endorse what the hon. Member is saying in support of new clause 11 tabled by the Liberal Democrats. Lots of my farmers in North Cornwall are constantly telling me that they are pleased with the Government’s decision to change course on the family farm tax, but it is essential that they keep rising prices in mind, exactly as the hon. Member says.”
House of Commons11 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I met constituents in Boscastle last week who reminded me about the terrible events of 2004, when there were huge floods that were devastating. The hon. Member mentioned the one hour of battery back-up, which is absolutely farcical and totally inadequate, but it was explained to me that even if someone had a back-up battery in their house, they could have problems, because the internet service provider’s unit and the street unit could be completely without power. Even if those battery back-ups had unlimited usage hours, people would still not have internet access in those emergencies.”
House of Commons10 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Before we turn to the wider implications of the debate, it is important to acknowledge why the Liberal Democrats are pressing for full transparency today. Serious allegations have been raised about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s conduct during his time as the UK’s trade envoy, including reports that he claimed taxpayer-funded expenses for so-called “massage services” and other inappropriate costs. Former senior officials have described a culture of deference, in which such claims were barely questioned, expenses were rubber-stamped and scrutiny was effectively absent.”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank my hon. Friend for making that powerful point. That is a really important consideration; I hope that the Minister listened and can respond to it. These concerns naturally lead to further questions. What did those around Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor know? What did police protection officers, civil servants and officials who accompanied him, travelled with him and were present during official duties observe? What did they record? What did they raise? Crucially, what was dismissed and what was ignored? These are not trivial matters; they speak directly to how an individual in public office was able to behave in ways that would never be tolerated from anyone else and how the institutions around him seemingly completely failed to act.”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is why we call clearly and firmly today for the UK to open criminal prosecution and survivor-led inquiries into London-based offences. These alleged crimes fall squarely in the UK’s jurisdiction. The nationality of offenders and victims is irrelevant; what matters is that the harms occurred here, and those harms deserve justice here. Justice for British victims must not be outsourced abroad. Justice must not be dependent on the bravery of a handful who are willing to defy enormous pressure. Justice must not be conditional on navigating a foreign compensation scheme; it should be delivered transparently, confidently and compassionately here in Britain.”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We can draw a stark contrast between figures such as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Peter Mandelson, who have allegedly enriched themselves through their associations, and the survivors, who were left fighting for justice. The Epstein files reveal a powerful network of wealthy people colluding with Epstein, using their privilege to silence and dismiss survivors—a pattern that has been highlighted by the End Violence Against Women coalition. The files expose how powerful men evade consequences while their victims struggle even to be heard, reinforcing the very fear that continues to keep British survivors in the shadows. Surely the role of this House and of any democratic institution worth its name is not simply to reinforce that silence, but to finally break it.”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That programme has been open internationally, and victims here in Britain could apply without needing a lawyer, making it less costly and traumatic, but what does it say about our own UK justice system when British victims who were abused here, on British soil, are left seeking justice 4,000 miles away? We are asking traumatised people to navigate foreign bureaucracies because we in the United Kingdom have nothing equivalent to offer them. What does it say that less than a handful of UK victims even approached a solicitor? That is not because abuse did not happen—we know that it did—but because the absence of any UK prosecution meant that they did not feel empowered to speak.”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Their fear is well documented in UK reporting, which describes a “greater sense of fear and reticence” among British survivors: a fear of stigma, of being disbelieved and of the powerful networks that have long silenced these women and girls. Yet abuse did happen here in the UK. Epstein carried out wrongdoing during extensive and repeated trips to London. These were not distant or abstract harms; they took place here on UK soil, under UK jurisdiction, and they demand a UK-led response. Instead of justice here at home, victims were effectively steered, and are still steered, into the US justice system. They are told to seek redress through the Epstein victims’ compensation programme—a fund that ultimately paid $120 million to around 135 survivors, and did so more quickly and confidentially than litigation could.”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I completely agree. I suspect that this is just a small start, and that this issue goes much, much wider. I imagine that there is much more information to come. As the House turns its attention to the matter of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, I want to use this moment to refocus our minds on those who have been most consistently forgotten throughout all this: the victims and survivors of Jeffrey Epstein and the justice they have been denied for far too many years. It is only because of their bravery in coming forward that we know the true extent of Epstein’s crimes and the deeply troubling implications that those crimes hold for our own establishment. When we talk of these survivors, we must confront an uncomfortable truth: many UK victims are simply too afraid to come forward right now.”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Will the Minister please consider not redacting any of the documents that do not relate to the ongoing police investigation? As my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) suggested, will the Government look at a full public inquiry into Epstein and his links to the British establishment? Finally, will the Minister go away and look to end the appalling negative privilege that prevents MPs in this House from speaking freely about members of the royal household? This matter is a disgusting symptom of the deference that we have shown to those in positions of power at the cost of victims. Our constituents should no longer be silenced in what should be our proud British democracy.”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention; I could not agree more. We very much need a public inquiry to expose all the harms done to the victims and how the establishment in our country has seemingly played such a central role in that. If our Government are sincere when they speak of a fairer, safer and more accountable society, they must show leadership rather than continued deference. They must show survivors that they will be believed, protected and heard in the UK. At the heart of this matter are not titles, reputations or institutions, but people—survivors, whose lives, like the victims of domestic abuse, have been shaped by fear, silence and power wielded against them, rather than for them. They deserve far better; they deserve a justice system that will fight for them. Now is the time for immediate action.”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As recently as 22 January, this Government formally committed to delaying local elections again, but facing defeat in the judicial review, they suddenly realised that the delay was unlawful. This U-turn has cost £63 million at a time when my own local authority in Cornwall faces a massive funding shortfall. Legal advice does not usually suddenly change without a material change in facts, so did the Secretary of State ignore the Attorney General’s legal advice on this matter until it became obvious that the Government would lose, or did the Attorney General provide incorrect legal advice to the Secretary of State? Which is it?”
House of Commons23 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“During Prime Minister’s questions on 17 December, the Prime Minister promised me a meeting with the Water Minister to discuss the scourge of constant sewage dumping in my constituency and the Lowermoor water poisoning scandal. I have followed up repeatedly, including a visit to No. 10 just last week to speak with the PM’s team, who assured me that they would chase up that meeting as soon as possible—I appreciate that they may be somewhat busy at the moment—and agreed that the delay was unacceptable. The Water Minister is still yet to respond to me, so can I ask the Secretary of State when this vital meeting will take place?”
House of Commons5 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Also, given that it is Sexual Abuse and Sexual Violence Awareness Week, what assessments have been made of how the judge-only proposals will affect vulnerable victims of domestic abuse?”
House of Commons5 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Jury trials are not a peculiar way to run a public service; they are a fundamental pillar of our justice system, being eroded under this Government’s proposed court reforms. Serious reforms should focus on reducing inefficiencies that waste sitting days, increasing court capacity and making use of vacant courtrooms, not scrapping the right to trial by jury. If the proposals are intended to reduce the Crown court backlog, should this House not be given clear evidence before core constitutional protections are weakened? Will the Solicitor General please tell us whether the Government will publish an estimate of what proportion of current Crown court backlog would be sent to judge-only trials as a result of the reforms?”
House of Commons5 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In her response, will the Minister commit to a full, new animal health and welfare Bill that looks at the wider issue of animal welfare and delivers a comprehensive national strategy to safeguard animal wellbeing in this sector? As part of their ongoing reset talks with the European Union, will the Government sign a veterinary and phytosanitary agreement as soon as possible to ensure closer alignment on standards and quality with the trading block? Finally, will the Government commit to solidifying minimum standards for all imported food, so that our own animal standards are met by every other nation looking to do business? That would prevent our British farmers being undercut by poorer-quality foreign imports that do not have the same standards.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) highlighted the 5 million animals that are to be used in experiments in the coming years, and made a powerful case for Herbie’s law. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) has been a long-standing champion on this issue; I think I am already a member of her APPG but, if I am not, I will make sure to join. The hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) mentioned how experiments have been made on more than 2,500 dogs and 1,000 primates, and, again, highlighted the cases that have not been reported. Liberal Democrats are unapologetic in wanting to see minimal use of animals in scientific testing and the phasing out of testing altogether wherever possible and as soon as possible. We urgently call on the Government to provide greater funding into viable alternatives.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Time and time again in years gone by, the Conservative party undermined our right to peaceful protest by introducing sweeping, overreaching powers that go far beyond what is needed to maintain public safety. The police already had strong powers to deal with dangerous or obstructive behaviour before the current Government and their Conservative predecessors imposed those totally unnecessary extra measures. I will briefly refer to some hon. Members’ speeches. The hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) highlighted the starvation and injury of primates and, again, the possible under-reporting of non-compliance in the self-reporting system we find ourselves with, which means we may have only scratched the surface of illegal animal abuse. The hon.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a truly shameful statistic. In October 2024, the Regulation Unit made some welcome reforms by increasing their team of full-time inspectors and establishing a new governance board for the unit for greater oversight, which has made a welcome and positive impact. On a wider point, I am proud to have voted against the draconian measures that were put before the House just over two weeks ago, along with my Liberal Democrat colleagues. We stood firm against expansion of the Public Order Act 2023, which bans legitimate and peaceful animal rights protests and criminalises those activists demanding better welfare for animals involved in testing. I reiterate that once more: I am talking about peaceful campaigners who are raising genuine ethical concerns being treated like terrorists under the guise of threats to our national security.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Lord Clement-Jones, a colleague from the other place, is applying the right pressure to ensure that regulation in this area remains precise and adequate, with encouragement to properly prevent and punish any non-compliance that causes undue harm to animals, which has been mentioned by many hon. Members today. However, it is alarming to read, in the latest report, of the 146 cases of non-compliance in 2024. As many Members have pointed out, those are only the cases that have been reported. Although marking a drop in cases compared to the previous year, those were largely failures to provide proper care such as food and water to the animals being tested on, as we have heard, and to adhere to the strict licence conditions. Those countless cases of malpractice involved more than 22,000 individual animals, with most being mice.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I see Isobel Martin from Animal Free Research UK in the Gallery; she is also an excellent advocate on this issue. Fundamentally, Liberal Democrats believe that this country should expect only the absolute highest standards of animal welfare in the scientific experimentation and cosmetic industries. We want to get this country back on track as a world leader in this area and take concrete steps to raise animal welfare standards and get the balance right. The latest annual report by the Animals in Science Regulation Unit, the subject of our debate, shows a number of welcome steps and intentions facing the right direction of travel. It rightly places a strong focus on avoiding the use of animals in scientific testing wherever possible. I am proud that we Liberal Democrats are at the forefront of raising these issues.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) on securing this really important debate today. I congratulate all the speakers who have participated. I thought they all made powerful and useful contributions to the debate. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East powerfully highlighted some of the horrific and unacceptable treatment of animals in research. The Liberal Democrats are champions of animal rights, and I am proud to speak on behalf of the hundreds of animal rights campaigners from my constituency today. I must add a special mention of my constituent from Bude, Steph Jones-Giles, who is a true animal rights champion and has spoken to me about this on many occasions.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does the hon. Member agree that a real devolution deal, similar to those enjoyed by our Celtic cousins, must include a roads budget that is equivalent to the Cornish proportion of the strategic road network? Equating to around £95 million a year, it could easily make the Tamar toll free, at around £15 million a year, and leave further funds for urgent upgrades such as the A38 in her constituency, a Camelford relief road and—”
House of Commons2 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I understand that it recently cost as much as £6 million to resurface the bridge, because the method used is complex, but not a penny spent was from National Highways; it used the tolls generated.”
House of Commons2 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I take up your kind invitation to make a short speech, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) for making an excellent speech and raising this important issue. I want to make a few brief points, particularly while we have the Roads Minister here. The national focus in recent times has been on train connectivity in the north, so I am pleased to see Cornwall, Devon and the wider south-west getting a proper share of the debate this evening. One point I want to make while the Minister is here is that National Highways does not currently contribute any maintenance moneys to the Tamar bridge, despite the fact that the bridge is a critical part of its roads network.”
House of Commons2 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As I have mentioned, I really hope that a devolution deal will now be forthcoming in which we see the equivalent of the Cornish proportion of the strategic road network, which is around £96 million a year. This evening, we have talked about making the Tamar toll crossing cheaper for local residents, or potentially removing the toll altogether at a cost of around £15 million a year. In their devolution deals, our Celtic cousins enjoy a budget equivalent to the amount of the road network they have in their nations, and that would leave plenty of money left over for the A30 upgrade that the hon. Member for South East Cornwall mentioned, and for lots of other upgrades across Cornwall.”
House of Commons2 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and hopefully he and I can make the argument to the Minister and her colleagues that some of that money should go to the Tamar bridge. There are certainly other road projects across Cornwall. The hon. Member for South East Cornwall spoke passionately about the A38, which my constituents frequently raise with me, and hopefully that is another project that can be funded from the large amount of money we are hearing is coming to Cornwall’s road network. There are also much-needed safety upgrades at Plusha in my constituency. I have met the Minister on numerous occasions, so I know she is aware of the upgrades to the Camelford relief road, which have been promised for many years.”
House of Commons2 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗