Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor
Ben Maguire Excerpts(6 days, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
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.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
We rightly say that no one in the country is above the law, and recent weeks have reinforced that principle. Surely it must also be true that no one is above our democracy. Does my hon. Friend think that the Government should consider bringing the royal household within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to strengthen confidence in our institutions?
Ben Maguire
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.
Luke Taylor
Does the point about what the protection officers knew not show the outrageous power imbalance between a royal and an employee? We are talking about whistleblowing and reporting what has been seen. Is the prospect of having somebody in that situation—whereby they are being held to account for not calling out the behaviour of someone whose privilege and birthright have put them into such a position—not outrageous? Does my hon. Friend agree that this shows how the structure of our constitution has put us into such an outrageous twist and how difficult it will be to unwind that?
Ben Maguire
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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that having a public inquiry would be a very public way for the British authorities and the state to show survivors that they have been the victim of some heinous crimes and to give them more confidence to come forward? We know that survivors of all kinds of sexual abuse and rape across this country—whether they are part of some big scandal, such as those of Mohamed Al-Fayed or Epstein, or something much more local and individual—are being retraumatised again and again by seeing this matter splashed across the front pages of the papers and all over the media, day after day. We have to make a stand and say, “Enough. We will not tolerate this in this country.” We have to stand up to these powerful men who silence their victims and ensure that they have to fight for justice every step of the way.
Ben Maguire
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. 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.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Rogue Builders
Ben Maguire Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) on securing this important debate and giving an excellent and comprehensive speech.
Many people will be familiar with this topic. In fact, half of all homeowners have had a bad experience with builders at some point. Of course, those cases vary in value and scale, but fundamentally they represent consumers—many of whom are sadly vulnerable or elderly—being taken advantage of by rogue builders and traders.
Those people are all victims, whether they are in desperate need of emergency repairs or have committed to an extension they have saved up for over many years. They can be in a range of difficult situations: financial hardship, poor health or bereavement—some of those harrowing personal stories were outlined by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis)—and for them, seeking a fair resolution can seem impossible.
Two months ago, I pressed the Solicitor General on the deeply troubling case of Launceston primary school in my constituency, a brand-new building that had to be demolished just as it was ready to be opened because it failed to meet basic safety and building standards. When the developer went bust, it was us—the taxpayers—who were left carrying the cost of rebuilding the entire school to the tune of around £7 million.
Our communities deserve better safeguards and real accountability. Nationally, those stories are all too familiar, and those problems persist even in our sewage and road infrastructure systems, with many developers going bust before such vital infrastructure is finished. The hon. Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) made a powerful case for mandating infrastructure before the sale of homes.
Many of my constituents near Bude reached out to me to explain how a developer abandoned a site after going into liquidation, leaving unfinished roads and sewage works. The developer directly contravened planning conditions by not paying the bond, and yet the local authority had no power to act or hold it to account.
The Government cannot stand by any longer while those rogue developers fail to fulfil their promises. Those cases are shocking to hear, and the wider implications are clear. In the past five years, it is estimated that rogue builders have cost the public around £14 billion. That demonstrates the necessity of an efficient and effective justice system to resolve such disputes, protecting consumers and discouraging cowboy behaviour from builders.
Concerningly, as we have heard today, too many individuals in those situations find the justice system slow, complex and expensive to navigate. These are people in unexpected situations, without the time or resources to rectify them effectively. The Liberal Democrats believe that justice should be on the side of all consumers, not just those who can afford costly legal battles, as was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon).
The Government should ensure that there are accessible redress routes, such as small claims courts and ombudsman schemes, that work quickly and fairly for everyone. They should also support alternative dispute resolution mechanisms that save consumers time, stress and money, giving them a fair outcome without the burden and cost of going to court. That is important for the victims, and for the hundreds of thousands of honest builders who provide brilliant services for consumers up and down the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) made the point that the reputation of those businesses is damaged by widespread concerns about the trustworthiness of the industry as a whole. They, too, will benefit if we can effectively deter and catch rogue builders.
Since 2019, there have been more than 125,000 official complaints about rogue builders in England alone. The justice system must ensure that those responsible are properly held to account. It is crucial that proactive steps are taken against these traders through the Competition and Markets Authority and local trading standards bodies, to ensure that they are effectively punished and, where necessary, publicly named and shamed.
To that end, what are the Government doing to ensure that investigations by those bodies are properly resourced and supported? Crucially, to the point made by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand), how can the Government stop some of these repeat offenders going into liquidation time and again, and then committing the same frauds somewhere else?
How will the Government ensure that victims of rogue builders are provided with accurate and clear information regarding their options? What are the Government doing to support accessible redress routes, as well as out-of-court resolutions for these victims? Finally, will the Minister look into providing greater powers and resources to local authorities so that they can properly hold rogue developers to account and enforce planning permission?
Oral Answers to Questions
Ben Maguire Excerpts(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jonathan Reynolds
I can reassure my hon. Friend and all colleagues that those decisions will always be in the domain of this Government and this Parliament in the UK. There has been a lot of speculation, during the trade negotiations, about what may or may not be involved, but we have shown that we deliver on jobs, goods and services, and that is the basis of sound trade negotiations.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Gareth Thomas
I sympathise with the hon. Member’s constituents on the difficulties that they face. On the challenges that he says they face with HMRC, he may want to get in contact with my colleague, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, who has responsibility for HMRC.
Closure of High Street Services: Rural Areas
Ben Maguire Excerpts(1 year ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Torcuil Crichton
I do. I mentioned that the building in which in the main post office—the Crown office—in Stornoway is housed in is beautiful and over a century old. Although I understand that the Stornoway post office may itself be retained, it may be converted into a franchise and moved elsewhere. That would have a detrimental effect on the town centre. The post office is right smack in the middle of town and easily accessible. It is, ironically, next to a closed TSB bank branch—the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross highlighted the problems of banks closing across the United Kingdom.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I am delighted that Bodmin in my constituency recently got a banking hub, but other towns like Wadebridge that are an 8 mile, £20 taxi ride away do not have one. Does the hon. Member agree that we could think about mobile banking hubs that would go out to rural areas such as those in his constituency and mine?
Torcuil Crichton
We are lucky that we have retained a mobile banking service in the highlands and islands, with the bank van a familiar sight in villages throughout the islands and parts of the highlands, but a central post office in any town in a rural constituency is vital for businesses to deposit their cash as well as for cruise ship tourists and islanders and town dwellers to exchange their currency. I am concerned that the downgrading of Stornoway’s directly managed branch to a franchise counter would leave many of my constituents disadvantaged.
The Crown post office provides services such as currency exchange, banking services and passport services that many franchised post offices do not. To go to another Crown office or to find bureaus elsewhere would involve an hour-long bus journey, which would be preceded by a three-hour ferry journey, because the nearest branch would be on the mainland somewhere near the constituency of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. The limited services offered by a franchised post office would not be adequate for my town or any other, because, as I understand it, there is no requirement for them to accommodate the full spectrum of post office services that directly managed branches currently offer.
Concerned MPs have met Post Office executives and highlighted their concerns to the Minister. I hope that the Post Office and the Government take into account rurality and the unique circumstances of island constituencies when considering the future of post offices and the rural high street.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall today. I am proud to represent the constituency of Rushcliffe, which includes large swathes of rural Nottinghamshire. From Cotgrave to East Leake, rural communities across my constituency are facing ongoing challenges, as the services that many residents rely on are slowly disappearing. Banks, post offices, pharmacies and even pubs, once the lifeblood of villages and towns, are shutting their doors, leaving many residents increasingly isolated and without the essential services they need.
For me, and I think many hon. Members present, this issue is not just about convenience. As has been described, it is about social cohesion, economic sustainability and the fundamental right of rural residents to access the same level of services as their urban counterparts. If we are to ensure that our rural communities are thriving rather than declining, we must take action to address the concerning trends that we have witnessed over the past decade.
The statistics paint a worrying picture. Between 2015 and 2023, more than 6,000 bank branches closed across the UK, with rural areas hit hardest. We have talked about post offices, which often serve as a replacement for lost banking services, but they are also under immense pressure: in 2000, the UK had more than 17,500 post offices; today, that number has fallen to 11,500.
Also key are pharmacies, which I do not believe have been mentioned yet. They too are vanishing from our communities. The National Pharmacy Association warns that closures are accelerating, leaving many rural residents, especially elderly and disabled individuals, without easy access to prescriptions and essential healthcare advice.
Ben Maguire
Bodmin, in my rural constituency of North Cornwall, has lost almost all its pharmacies; it has one on the high street. The Cornwall health and wellbeing board has stipulated that no two pharmacies can be within 1 mile of each other, meaning that any future pharmacies will have to be at least 1 mile out of town. Does the hon. Member agree that that rule is not helpful to our high streets, and certainly not helpful to our residents in rural areas, who struggle to get to pharmacies?
James Naish
I absolutely agree. I am strong supporter of the Pharmacy First initiative, and it is essential that as a Government we look at ways to expand that scheme, so that more and more people use their pharmacies and the pharmacies are therefore more sustainable.
On average, 29 pubs close every week in the UK, and in many cases there is no alternative place for our communities to gather. We need urgent action to reverse this decline, and in my view Government support is critical.
I welcome initiatives around banking hubs, but we also need to press our banks harder to ensure that they fulfil their moral obligations to our communities. I welcome the high street auction initiatives, which allow vacant properties to be brought back into use. It is vital that we unshackle funding to empower local councils and decision makers to support their areas. I also encourage the Government to accelerate business rates reform, which I know we are committed to.
We must ensure that rural communities have the same access to essential services as urban centres. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how we can all work together to safeguard vital community assets and keep our rural high streets alive.
Budget Resolutions
Ben Maguire Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
What a privilege it is to follow so many accomplished and particularly moving maiden speeches. I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on her first Budget. It shows the first steps of this new Labour Government as the work of change really begins. I hope that it will mark a turning point from decline to investment, from instability to security and from self-interest to public service. The choices made in the Budget certainly turn the page on the last 14 years. They begin to restore our public services and improve the rights and rewards of low and middle-income earners.
In the short time that I have, I want to touch on three areas of particular concern to my constituents. First, I welcome the £25 billion-plus of investment to get our national health service back on its feet, cut waiting times and deliver 40,000 extra elective appointments a week. That move will give real hope to people worrying about their healthcare. It recognises our NHS staff across the service, such as those at Aintree university hospital in my constituency and in specialist facilities like the Walton centre.
Dan Carden
I will not. I also welcome the intention to shift the focus to prevention in healthcare. My constituency is one of the most deprived in the UK, and far too many suffer the health impacts of poverty, addiction and despair. I hope to work with the Government to address those long-term public health crises.
Next, and crucially, the Budget delivers some long overdue justice and fairness for those who have been failed by the state. It will transfer the investment reserve fund in the mineworkers’ pension scheme to its members, and will fund compensation schemes for the victims of the Post Office Horizon scandal and the infected blood scandal, including a number of my constituents. It gives me hope that the Government have shown a commendable will to right historical wrongs. I hope that in the months and years ahead, the Chancellor will also consider the claim of the Women Against State Pension Inequality—women born in the 1950s, including 5,000 in my Liverpool Walton constituency.
Finally, I want to mention the hospitality industry, which is central to Liverpool’s visitor economy. The 40% relief on business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure is welcome, but with costs continuing to rise, there remains a climate of uncertainty for far too many local businesses. We need to level the playing field between bricks-and-mortar businesses and the online global giants, and we need to prioritise our high streets and take the necessary steps to give relief to local businesses.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
We know that growth comes from investing in productivity and skills, and I, too, welcome the £22 billion for the NHS. Long-term public investment is essential for the security and stability that the UK needs. However, we heard about the issues relating to employers’ NI contributions, which will hit doctors, dentists, care homes and local hospices, adding a significant amount to their annual cost base per employee.
There is also pressure on voluntary, community and social enterprises. In my district, Teignbridge Community and Voluntary Services tells me that the sector employs some 3% of the local population, who are now all subject to the NI increase. Although it is better than nothing, the business rates reduction from 75% to 40% will disappoint local retail, hospitality and leisure businesses—not forgetting the inheritance tax threat to Devon’s family farms. There is nothing in this Budget for social care, for Devon’s crumbling hospitals or for Devon’s essential transport.
Ben Maguire
Bank shares are soaring following this Budget. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Liberal Democrat proposal to reverse the Conservative Government’s cut to the big bank levy, raising around £4 billion a year, would mean that we would not need the GP tax, the family farm tax or the winter fuel cut and that we could fund upgrades to the Treliske, Derriford and North Devon hospitals—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. This is too long an intervention.