Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

1. What discussions she has had with Ofcom on the potential merits of updating the crisis response protocol measures to include a uniform set of standards.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)]

Keeping people safe online at moments of real danger is a top priority for this Government. That is why we have asked Ofcom to expedite its work on updates to its codes of practice under the Online Safety Act 2023. All services face strict duties to deal with illegal content. Of course, it is right that platforms with a greater risk of viral content spreading must do even more to prepare for and manage periods of heightened risk.

[Helen Maguire]

The limits in the Online Safety Act only cover misinformation that meets the threshold for illegal content. The riots in Epsom and Ewell highlighted a need for a clear crisis protocol, because false information was viewed over 2 million times and it was trending on X two days after that information had been clarified by the police. Will the Minister commit to directing Ofcom to establish a single set of mandatory crisis response standards for platforms so that we have clear accountability and rapid action following such incidents?

[Kanishka Narayan]

Do we want tougher accountability? Absolutely. That is why the codes published mean stronger review mechanisms, a direct line to law enforcement and a clear crisis playbook required of risky platforms. Do we want it to be faster? Absolutely. That is exactly why we have asked Ofcom to expedite those codes in particular. On whether we take a risk-based or uniform approach, it is right that we focus our resources, in law enforcement and regulatory action, on those that are the greatest risk. We will continue to review that.

Cabinet Office

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, which could not be more timely given the crucial NATO summit next week in Ankara. I was hoping that we would be inundated with contributions from across the House, but sadly it looks as though we might be limited to one or two.

Keeping the country safe is the first responsibility of any Government. The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, which I chair, has undertaken a huge amount of work during this Parliament to examine the Government’s approach to protecting the UK’s national security interests. From critical national infrastructure to the defence of our very democracy, our Committee has been working hard to highlight areas in need of vital improvement.

There is no one “National Security Department”, of course, but the Cabinet Office co-ordinates the Government’s approach to national security and is the home of the national security secretariat. The Cabinet Office’s main estimate states that it plans to spend about £1.1 billion on day-to-day running costs and £600 million on investment projects, of which around £200 million in day-to-day costs and £25 million in investment will go towards keeping the country safe. However, national security is, at its core, a whole-of-Government responsibility, and it is therefore often difficult to get a handle on how much is being spent on the UK’s security and resilience—a point that I made to the Backbench Business Committee.

In an era of unprecedented uncertainty and hybrid warfare, the case for increased spending on security and resilience could not be stronger. We see a proliferation of threats not just from hostile state actors, but from organised proxy groups and radicalised individuals. Take the cyber-attack on Jaguar Land Rover in August 2025. The New York Times now reports that it was Russian in origin, and the evidence suggests that the Kremlin was either directly responsible for it or responsible for facilitating it through proxy actors. The impact was severe: it cost the British economy £2.5 billion, directly cost Jaguar Land Rover £485 million in the quarter and affected more than 5,000 firms. It was so significant that it impacted our quarterly growth figures.

Threats are increasingly facilitated through the weaponisation of emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence and quantum. Those who would seek to destabilise our democracy, our safety and our way of life have more opportunities than ever before to do so, and they know that. Meanwhile, the Government and NATO allies have already acknowledged this reality with their commitment to spend 5% of GDP on defence by 2035, with 1.5% of that being earmarked for security and resilience.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Does the hon. Member believe, like I do, that the Russian hybrid warfare we are seeing in the UK at the moment is further fuelling disinformation, including online? We know that the arson attack on the Prime Minister’s car was directly linked to Russian state operatives. If there was ever a moment when we needed to stipulate a specific budget, now is that moment.

[Matt Western]

That is such an important point, and I do not think that we as a Chamber have given it enough airtime. If we think about what would happen if any other premier of any other country was attacked like that—their home attacked and their car set on fire—the reaction from the media was quite muted. Now that it has become more obvious what happened, despite all the nonsense that circulated on social media at the time, it is important that that conversation happens.

We are at a crucial juncture, as the hon. Member suggested. We are running out of time to ensure that we are prepared for a worst-case scenario of increasing Russian aggression, both conventional and hybrid. At a time when the United States’ security presence in Europe is being questioned, the threat from China looms ever larger, and the UK finds itself in a difficult position as a middle power in the midst of global strategic competition between the United States and China. As such, it is imperative that the Government are robustly held to account in delivering their spending commitments on defence, security and resilience.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have not been to Canada in recent decades, but I am hearing that its approach should be of real interest to us, including how it is prioritising certain sectors and has identified certain capabilities. Although people are protective about what those capabilities might be, I would certainly welcome conversations behind closed doors with Ministers about what we are looking to do in a similar vein.

It is striking that the Canadians are outlining their major projects and how they will spend their money, but they are also focusing on their capabilities. Here we have suffered from a lack of long-term commitment to investing in national security and preparedness. Our Government must also clearly outline what additional capabilities they are committed to developing through the target spend, prior to the start of the NATO summit next week. We need a national conversation about our nation’s defence and security. Over the last 18 months my Committee has heard repeatedly about the need to get the public on board when it comes to increased spending on defence, resilience and security. With the public purse under such strain, our constituents must understand why spending on such areas must be prioritised.

[Helen Maguire]

I also recently met the ambassador to Canada—this goes back to the point raised by the hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), who stated that one reason for the infrastructure in the High North was so that there was something sovereign to defend. That is incredibly important. The ambassador also explained how, when selling that to the general public, when most people talk about defence they think about different toys—bullets and ships—whereas in Canada was talking more about investing so that they have something to defend that is about their country, jobs, industry and everything else. Does the hon. Member agree that we should also get that important message out to UK residents?

[Matt Western]

As if on cue, the hon. Member’s point is one I am just about to develop. The strategic defence review called for a national conversation, and during our inquiry on societal resilience we heard much about how our allies are engaging their citizens with that essential work. The UK is, I am afraid, a little behind the curve. Beyond the Baltic and Scandinavian nations, whose security and resilience is well documented, other nations are also moving up a gear. Their Governments engage significant numbers of military reserves, volunteers, firefighters, private defence organisations and NGOs in that conversation. In certain countries, everyone between the ages of 18 and 65 has a role in resilience—every single person. Some countries conduct wargame exercises on civilian defence, to identify weaknesses in their systems. Less obvious countries such as the Netherlands and Canada are making painful choices that are necessary to ensure that societal resilience can be strengthened. The situation warrants a reset of our whole approach to resilience and security, but to do that we must bring the public with us through a national conversation.

Security Vetting

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Peter Mandelson got DV clearance before he took up his post as ambassador. That clearance was given by the Foreign Office. I found out that that was against the recommendation on Tuesday evening of last week.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

I have two quick questions. First, was the decision not to give Mandelson DV the view of the head of security in the FCDO, or only that of Olly Robbins? Secondly, what information did the Prime Minister know after sacking Peter Mandelson that made him change the appointment process so that

“now an appointment cannot be announced until after security vetting is passed”?

It seems odd to me that this decision was made if the Prime Minister did not know that Peter Mandelson had failed the vetting process, so what key information did the Prime Minister know then that made him review the appointment process?

[The Prime Minister]

The decision to grant clearance was made by the FCDO. In September, it became clear to me that the answers to the due diligence that Peter Mandelson had given were not truthful, and that is why I set in place the various reviews that I did and also changed the approach in relation to when developed vetting checks are carried out.

Middle East

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for that reminder. I did mention it in my opening statement, but she is quite right that we must be clear that we will protect all those who need our protection. Obviously, where people need to get out, we are working with all of them to get them out as quickly and as safely as possible.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

After the fall of the regime in Iraq, there was no long-term plan and civil society collapsed. In 2004, I was in Op Telic 4 in Iraq, retraining the Iraqi police service. One day I asked my lance corporal, “How do we know if the recruits are former Ba’athist regime supporters or not?” He said, “We don’t. We’ve no idea who we’re training.” The US has attacked Iran with no clear strategy, and now this Government have agreed that UK bases can be used for defensive attacks. I am seriously concerned about the potential for mission creep when there is no clear understanding of Trump’s military objectives. In deciding to allow the US to use UK bases for defensive actions, UK military and civilian lives have been put at risk. Military operations with no clear objectives tend to fail, so can the Prime Minister explain how such a decision—which could lead to mission creep—was made when we have no understanding of Trump’s long-term military aim or post-conflict plan?

[The Prime Minister]

The decision was taken to allow the bases to be used to protect our nationals. It is worth considering the alternative, which is to recognise the risk to our nationals, have the opportunity to do something about it and take the decision not to. That would be a dereliction of duty, in my view.

EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I was going to talk about business, trade and many other factors, but let me focus my remarks on young people. When I go to schools and speak to young people across Beckenham and Penge, they describe the significant impact Brexit has had on them. Young people in my constituency and across the country continue to face the brunt of such a consequential decision that they had no say in whatsoever. In January last year, YouGov found that over 75% of 18 to 24-year-olds thought Brexit was a mistake. Behind that percentage are real people whose aspirations and ambitions are being held back.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman find it bizarre that at the moment British citizens can spend only 90 days out of every 180 in Europe, yet reciprocally EU nationals can spend six months in the UK? Does he think that at the next EU-UK summit we could pursue a reciprocal visa travel arrangement?

[Liam Conlon]

That is something the Government are looking at, and I would welcome the Minister’s response.

This week, I have had the pleasure of being joined by two university students from Beckenham and Penge, Zoe and Isaac, who are in the Public Gallery today. I asked them what Brexit has meant for them in practical terms. Zoe said that although her course offers a year abroad, which is something she has always wanted to do, it is now implausible for her to go because of how expensive it has become given increased mobility, visa and administrative costs. Likewise, Isaac would like to study in the EU after he graduates or to work abroad, but current restrictions mean he is unlikely to be able to do so.

I therefore welcome the Government’s steps to address some of these issues through plans to rejoin the Erasmus scheme in 2027 or indeed through the EU-UK youth mobility scheme, which would give those aged 18 to 35 the chance to study and work for up to four years abroad. Will the Minister tell us how quickly that will be rolled out?

Call for General Election

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lisa Smart]

No Government is perfect, but I am immensely proud—and will be to my dying day—that some of my friends in a same-sex relationship can get married, when they were not allowed to do so under the previous Labour Government. I am immensely proud—I say this as a school governor for 20 years—that the kids who need the most support get it through the pupil premium. And I am immensely proud, that that showed that a grown-up, consensual coalition Government can work. The hon. Member will know—I am sure he read Alistair Darling’s budgetary plans in the run-up to the 2010 election—that the then Labour Government planned to cut more than either the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives. So although I did not agree with everything the 2010 to 2015 Government did—no sane person possibly could—I am proud that we delivered what so many people wanted and needed. There is always work for every Government to do.

The million or so members of the public who signed this petition, including 1,987 of my Hazel Grove constituents, are calling for a change via a general election. They are feeling frustrated and disappointed that this Government have failed to deliver the change that they promised at the 2024 election.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

In my constituency of Epsom and Ewell, more than 1,500 people have signed this petition; I hear regularly on the doorstep how disgruntled and frustrated they are. They are tired of working so hard and barely making ends meet. Although the Conservatives left a complete mess, Labour has simply not delivered either. People are not any feeling better off. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must grow the economy? A great way to do that would be to have a bespoke customs union with Europe.

[Lisa Smart]

I am delighted that I am not going to be the first Liberal Democrat to mention a bespoke customs union with the EU. I strongly agree with my hon. Friend on that point; it is the biggest single lever that the Government could pull to boost growth in our economy.

Recently, we have seen the Government U-turn—rightly, in some cases—including on the family farm tax, following 14 months of calls for change from farmers, the Lib Dems and others. That has been alongside U-turns on winter fuel and benefit reform, to name just two others. I understand why a million people are underwhelmed. The Government have introduced a growth-crushing jobs tax that has stretched their manifesto pledge not to raise income tax on working people. As a result, jobs are being lost, economic growth is flatlining and the Government are not showing a clear enough vision to get us out of this mess.

While the Government now increasingly acknowledge that Brexit has been detrimental to economic growth, they have failed to take sufficiently meaningful action to address that reality. The figures are stark. According to the House of Commons Library, as of 2025 Brexit is costing British tax payers £90 billion annually in lost tax revenue. That is billions of pounds not funding our public services. The Government must move beyond merely attributing blame on Brexit and begin implementing solutions.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) mentioned, we Liberal Democrats are urging the Government to negotiate a new UK-EU customs union, which could raise more than £25 billion annually for the Exchequer. A customs union would be the most effective means of dismantling trade barriers and stimulating economic growth. We must be far more ambitious in securing the best possible arrangements for UK relations with the EU—our largest trading partner.

G7 and NATO Summits

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I do. It is very important that when we send those missiles to Ukraine, we emphasise: first, that we are supporting Ukraine, as we have done throughout; and secondly, that that is paid for not by the British taxpayer, but with the interest on Russian assets that have been frozen.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that, in the context of the threat posed by Putin, we must provide more guidance and support to Britons to prepare them for the possibility of a future conflict, and that that should involve a national resilience campaign?

[The Prime Minister]

I do think we need to focus on resilience. In a sense, the shift to 5% is a reflection that national resilience is becoming ever more central in our own national defence, in particular on: cyber, where there are frequent attacks from other states; energy, where we have seen from the Ukraine conflict that energy has been weaponised; and counter-terrorism, with state-backed actions in this country, many of which have been thwarted. But the hon. Lady is absolutely right that we need to do more on resilience.

UK-EU Summit

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and businesses up and down the country will benefit from a reduction in trade barriers.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

The Minister is making a good case. Would he agree with me that closer UK-EU defence ties do not diminish our role in NATO, but complement it, especially at a time when transatlantic security simply cannot be taken for granted? Would he also agree that securing access to programmes such as the Security Action for Europe fund would be a win for British manufacturers and for our strategic capability?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that that is in the UK’s interests, and this would be the worst possible moment to start fragmenting defence across Europe.

Let me just say that on the three pillars of this negotiation—safety, security and growth—this Government will deliver for our country’s future, reducing the cost of living and creating jobs. The Opposition motion is stuck in the past. Everybody else has moved on and, frankly, it is time for them to move on, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

rose—

[Helen Maguire]

rose—

[James MacCleary]

I will, if I may, make a little progress, because I am conscious of the amount of time that I am taking up.

Only a customs union can give businesses the long-term certainty they need, which will help to shield British jobs from the looming threat of Trump’s trade wars. I will take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman first and then from my hon. Friend.

[James MacCleary]

Just to be clear, I was talking about one of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth. But on the hon. Member’s point, the reason was the trade barriers put up by the Conservative party as part of the Brexit deal. It is as simple as that. It was a protectionist party putting up trade barriers, and it continues to advocate for it.

[Helen Maguire]

On the issue of red tape, Epsom and Ewell constituents are facing preventable delays on essential medication for conditions such as diabetes, ADHD and mental ill health. Does my hon. Friend agree that now is simply not the time to play politics, and that we must urgently seek a comprehensive mutual recognition agreement with the European Medicines Agency to cut the red tape that is so detrimental to the health of all of our constituents?

[James MacCleary]

That is a really important point. We have seen shortages of key medications—my hon. Friend mentioned ADHD medication, which has a detrimental impact on the lives of children and parents—like insulin and others.

The Liberal Democrats understand that Britain belongs at Europe’s heart, not on its periphery, isolated and diminished. We recognise that rebuilding these ties requires patience and skilled diplomacy, but unlike the Tories, we will not bury our heads in the sand. Unlike Labour, we will not settle for tepid tinkering. As such, we will abstain on the Government’s amendment. We believe in Britain’s potential and in Britain’s future. We believe that our future is brighter, stronger and more prosperous when we work closely with Europe. Today, the Conservatives’ motion offers no solutions, only distraction from their disastrous record. Britain deserves leaders who will properly rebuild relationships, deliver genuine prosperity and restore our standing in the world. This is the vision that the Liberal Democrats offer—not Tory and Reform fantasies and not Labour fence-sitting. We believe in practical solutions, clear direction and an unwavering commitment to Britain’s best interests. Let us be honest, many on the Labour Benches agree with what I am saying. They know that this fence-sitting will not cut it, but they are not allowed to say so. Fear not, we will say so.

The Conservatives have nothing to say on Europe. Labour has tied itself up in red lines. The public know that our country’s future is European. For businesses and jobs, for our nation’s security and our children’s futures, it is time to put the divisions of the past behind us and act in the national interest. We will vote against this nonsensical motion, and we stand ready to work constructively with the Government to build a closer, more pragmatic relationship with our European friends and neighbours.

European Union: UK Membership

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The end of January marked five years since the UK left the EU. Although a majority of people in the UK, and indeed in Wales, voted to leave the EU at that time, the majority do not think it was a good idea any more. Polling shows that 55% of Britons now say that it was wrong for the UK to leave the EU, with just 11% seeing Brexit as more of a success than a failure. Let us also not forget that young people voted decisively to remain.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Last week, I asked the Prime Minister whether he would negotiate a youth mobility scheme with the EU. He replied that we are not returning to free movement, but seemed to forget that we already have similar schemes with countries such as South Korea and Australia, based on work and travel for a specified duration of time. Does the right hon. Lady agree that a youth mobility scheme would mean not a return to free movement, but a fantastic opportunity to boost our economy and the prospects of people in Epsom and Ewell, and the rest of the UK?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I absolutely agree. It is a priority for us as parliamentarians and for the Government to ensure that we do everything we can to widen the horizons for our young people and to give them the best opportunities.

According to polling data from YouGov, three quarters of 18 to 24-year-olds voted to stay in the European Union in 2016. There was a myth peddled at the time that they did not turn out to vote, but that is wrong: around 70% of registered young voters went to the polling booth. Nine years later, the next generation remains decisively opposed to Brexit, with 75% saying it was a mistake. As we look to the future, we must think seriously about the effect of the decision on young people who entered the workforce under its cloud, although many of them would not have been able to vote in 2016. What has “getting Brexit done” meant for them?

The UK no longer allows young people to take part in the Horizon Europe or Erasmus+ programmes, which is a huge loss to students the length and breadth of the UK. Those vital exchanges provided opportunities for young people to live and study in other countries, and their many benefits included improved language skills, cultural immersion and personal growth, leaving the sort of memories that stayed with somebody for ever.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes. At home we are watching “Adolescence” with our children—I have a 16-year-old boy and a 14-year-old girl. It is a very good drama to watch. The violence carried out by young men, influenced by what they see online, is a real problem. It is abhorrent and we have to tackle it. We are putting in specialist rape and sexual offences teams in every police force and doing work on 999 calls, but this is also a matter of culture. It is important that, across the whole House, we tackle this emerging and growing problem.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats have long called for a UK-EU youth mobility scheme. Polling has repeatedly shown that the majority of Brits support the idea, including my constituents in Epsom and Ewell. A well-structured and controlled scheme would show that the Government are serious about providing opportunities for young people and backing British business. Will the Prime Minister stop sitting on the fence and finally commit to a youth mobility scheme?

[The Prime Minister]

We are working closely with our European colleagues, and the EU in particular, on a reset of the relationship. We will not be returning to freedom of movement—I have made that clear repeatedly —but we are making good progress.