Space Industry

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) on setting out the important case for the role of the space sector in the UK economy.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell), who outlined the importance and significance of the totemic Jodrell Bank. Likewise, I will refer to an important and growing contributor to the space sector in my own constituency at Goonhilly—people have different ways of saying that, with some preferring a phonetic pronunciation—on the Lizard peninsula. In the early 1960s, the Post Office established a telecommunications and satellite base there that became a British Telecommunications base. In 2014, it was taken over by Goonhilly Earth Station Ltd, a local company that is cutting a significant reputation in the space sector.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest for mentioning Newquay as a potential launch site. All those experiments are important. They may come with failures along the way, but as he said, we learn from things that do not go fully to plan to improve our technologies. There will be successes and failures at the cutting edge of the space sector, but we will learn from that process.

When I previously represented St Ives, before my nine-year sabbatical from this place, it took four or five years to get Goonhilly Earth Station on to the former BT site in 2014. Since then, it has been doing incredibly well, despite a difficult start on a small base. It has regenerated the site and generated a reputation as a place with world-leading capability. Its core business is deep space research and activity, as well as commercial and defence-focused communication services. It is currently supporting missions around Mars and observing solar weather, and it provided communications and support to enable last year’s private moon landing.

The space sector is important to the UK economy, but we cannot take a “little England” approach to global communications because Earth turns on its axis and exists in a wider universe. In that context, as the hon. Member for Wyre Forest said, the positioning, navigation and timing—the PNT—of our sites in relation to the global sphere in which space science is being advanced is important. Goonhilly is in a critical location for tracking and managing satellites. The UK is an important geographic location from that point of view, but of course the context is one in which it has to establish contracts with companies and nations around the world.

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

On the point about other countries and companies around the world, UK firms have been locked out of EU space programmes such as Galileo since Brexit, and the lack of a UK alternative has stunted the growth of dual-use military space innovation. Does my hon. Friend agree that long-term funding in this area is vital to secure both economic resilience and defence sovereignty?

[Andrew George]

Of course I agree. Clearly, the stronger the links made internationally, the more they will benefit the UK economy. Having seamless relationships with other countries is important. My hon. Friend mentions the Galileo programme, but also relevant is US GPS. All these connections clearly need to be maintained and fostered.

Not only is funding an issue, but so are contracts. As well as making the point that the sector operates essentially in the global sphere, I want to highlight the need for co-operation with other countries on contracts. There is an essential role for the UK Government in fostering contracts, not just with the European Space Agency but with NASA. A lot of companies in the UK will be looking to the Government to play that role.

I do not wish to take up anyone else’s time, so my final point is that we—and the Government—must back smaller enterprises such as GES in my constituency and many others. After all, they are the source of innovation and growth in the sector. Yes, the larger companies to which the hon. Member for Wyre Forest drew attention are very important; as he says, the space sector underpins 16% of UK GDP. A day without space would cost our economy £1.2 billion in its impact on financial transactions and so much else in how we live our lives in the modern world. This is an essential sector, but the small enterprises are there to expand the innovation frontier of the sector, and they are forging very strong links internationally as well. I urge the Minister to do all she can with the industry to facilitate contracts with NASA, the ESA and elsewhere internationally.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Helen Maguire Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

I welcome this Bill, which will address the alarming proliferation of unsafe products in online marketplaces. I would like to talk particularly about the hazards of unsafe toys, which are increasingly being sold online.

As a very recently retired ear, nose and throat surgeon—yesterday actually—I know the very real harm that these dangerous toys cause. I have operated on young children who inhaled small components from unsafe toys, detachable parts or parts that were unsafely secured and were a choking hazard, and ribbon or string that exceeded the legal limits, creating strangulation hazards. These are frightening life-threatening situations that no family should have to put up with.

Those are not isolated incidents. A Which? investigation found that over 90% of toys purchased from some online marketplaces were unfit for sale in the UK. Shockingly, these toys falsely displayed UK and European safety marks, misleading parents into believing that they were buying something safe for their children. The tragedy is that in many of these cases the sellers simply disappear, vanishing from the platform, and the families are left with no way to seek redress from the harm caused.

That is why we must act. I am glad that the Bill will give the Government the opportunity to address this issue. It will give them the power to regulate new and emerging business models and marketplaces, which previous laws did not allow.

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

Lithium-ion batteries are essential for achieving our net zero goals, but as demand grows for products containing such batteries we need to do more to protect consumers against dangerous lithium-ion batteries. Since 2020, e-bike and e-scooter fires have—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. It is an intervention, not a speech.

[Helen Maguire]

Does the hon. Member agree that there should be a mechanism to recognise and regulate high-risk products so that we can protect consumers?

[Peter Prinsley]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. I would point out the particular danger of button batteries—something that is well known to ENT surgeons—which cause perforation of the oesophagus and the trachea by a chemical reaction.

In the last two years, 95% of consumers have purchased from online platforms, with approximately 23 million monthly transactions in UK. We certainly need strong accountability for these marketplaces. Without that, dangerous items will continue to resurface, putting children at risk. I urge the House to ensure that the Bill puts more pressure on the sellers of unsafe toys, forcing them to take responsibility for their actions.

Career Breaks: Parents of Seriously Ill Children

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore]

The hon. Member must have read my speech, because I will come later to the importance of all employers and employees being aware of the rights that already exist. There are a number of protection measures out there. The challenge is that employers and employees do not necessarily know what support is available.

Through the survey conducted by the Petitions Committee, we can see, as in Christina’s case, that when an employer is less flexible—or outright unhelpful, as we have seen in certain circumstances—things quickly get worse. Some 99% of respondents believed that employers should be required to provide career breaks for parents of terminally ill children. What Christina and thousands of other people are calling out for is statutory reassurance that, as soon as they are able to go back to work, the job will be available for them, at least for a limited period.

That reassurance—that as soon as treatment is complete, life can go back to normal—is hugely important for the parents’ mental health and to help them plan their future financial situation. Many families can afford to take a short-term hit to care for their child, although not all can, and they cannot do so without a guaranteed time period within which they can get back into the workplace at the end of that employment break. That is why I reiterate the importance of the petition.

The key point about reassurance was raised with me by It’s Never You, a charity run by two individuals who care deeply about the issue because they suffered the tragic loss of their own child from the terrible illness of cancer in 2021. When I met them, they passionately explained that getting support in place from day one is a major issue. For the first 90 days after a child has been diagnosed with a terrible illness, parents have to go through an incredible amount of restructuring in their life, so having their employer’s support from day one is vital. As employers themselves, those individuals are all too aware of the burden that a statutory requirement for a career break would have on smaller businesses, but they correctly highlighted to me that the lack of any Government-directed standard or benchmark is a recipe for chaos—and, as has already been indicated, many employers and employees do not necessarily know what level of support is available when a child is diagnosed with a serious illness.

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

We have heard so many stories of individuals who lost their jobs as a result of taking time off due to having seriously ill children, adding stress to an already unbearable situation. We have heard stories of good employers and not-so-good employers. Does the hon. Member agree that it is vital that we understand the extent of the situation, and that the Government should commission research into the number of families impacted each year? If we had more information, that would help us to determine the best solution.

[Robbie Moore]

I always agree that it is fine in this place for us to be designing guidance, regulations or indeed other legislation, but unless it practically works and has the positive impact it was designed to have, it benefits no one. More datasets and data collected and available to Government to help them make the right decisions is always welcome. I endorse the hon. Lady’s point.

Employers and their employees often struggle to come to an acceptable arrangement, as the group It’s Never You has indicated, so it is important that the Government outline the support that is already available to those employees and employers, whether that is a break or flexible working. We should also be encouraging businesses to think outside the box, as highlighted to me by the Rainbow Trust and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development when I was preparing for this debate. They told me that flexible working is vital; for the parent of a sick child with complex needs, it is so important that flexible working, or part-time work, can be put in place. But, as many employers said to me during my preparation for this debate, although good employers do as much as they can to facilitate the needs of a parent with a seriously ill child, not every job environment allows flexible working to take place. That has to be recognised.

One problem that was raised by all the parties I spoke to about this issue was just how long it can take for support, such as carer’s allowance, to kick in. Again, we come back to the crucial first 90 days, a period that is in part defined by how long it takes state aid to arrive. In those 90 days, parents can feel completely lost when it comes to knowing their rights and how they can use those rights to ease their situation. Businesses may be just as ignorant of the rights and support mechanisms actually available, and time spent researching that, once a challenge has been put to them by a parent with a seriously ill child, can delay support being put in place. I therefore urge the Government to ensure that, through the best means possible, employers are well equipped with the right amount of support, and that their rights and those of employees are laid out.

My first question, which I hope the Minister will be able to answer today, is: how will the Government ensure that employees are aware of their rights before a crisis is put before them; and how often are employers made aware of the obligations on them? Secondly, what work are the Government undertaking to ensure that support such as carer’s allowance is delivered as quickly as possible? For many families, their income can drop to zero overnight, and reaching the end of the first month can be the greatest challenge. With a doctor’s note or an employment record, it should not be difficult to determine the truth of an applicant’s status.

Finally, the key point, which has been reiterated throughout the evidence given to me in preparation for this debate, is that the most important change is about giving certainty to struggling families, to allow them to get through and recover quickly from these terrible ordeals. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that the Government are looking at providing some clarity through statutory requirements for the provision of career breaks for parents of seriously ill children. We know from the work undertaken on neonatal complications that the Government are open to the concept, so what logical reason can there be for this support to end with an arbitrary cut-off, based on the age of the child?

I hope the Minister will listen carefully to the contributions that are made in this debate. I thank Christina and the more than 100,000 signatories who have provided support for this debate to happen in this House. I also thank everyone who contributed to the work of the Petitions Committee in preparation for this debate and those who responded to the survey undertaken by the Petitions Committee. I look forward to hearing hon. Members’ contributions to this debate.