Helen Maguire

Party affiliation

Parliament's party history for this member: Liberal Democrat (4 Jul 2024 – present).

Register of interests

Register on Parliament's site

Latest on this tracker 379

1. 3 Nov 2026·Parliament·Helen Maguire

   Equality Act 2010 Guidance: Gynaecological Conditions

   I also have a constituent who suffers with endometriosis and who has been unable to work as a result; she, too, has not received the support that she requires. Although the Equality Act protects pregnancy, does the hon. Member agree that it should also protect gynaecological conditions such as endometriosis? There are other conditions to consider, too. We know that currently one in six women leave the workplace due to endometriosis, because they just experience apathy, lack of understanding and so on, so it is really important that we empower women with conditions such as endometriosis to be able to remain in work.

   Hansard source
2. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Helen Maguire

   Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

   I welcome much of what the Chancellor has shared today, but I believe that the Budget falls short in several areas. In Epsom and Ewell, hard-working people are being stretched in all directions. One constituent has shared how, even though she is earning more than ever before, she just cannot keep up with the increasing costs of everyday life. That is not a unique experience. Rising costs are making essentials feel like luxuries, and working hard simply is not enough. Food prices are mounting, and energy bills are spiralling. The Chancellor offers a few pennies off a jar of marmalade, which will save households only £21 a year. While Paddington Bear will appreciate the cost of sandwiches going down, that marmalade relief will not help my constituents. We need to bring costs down. No one should have to worry about the cost of energy because of the whims of Westminster or geopolitical instability. I welcome the £100 cash payment for homes in council tax bands A to D, but if energy bills keep rising, it will only offset the escalation in price. Today, the Government’s <span id="351" class="column-number" data-column-number="351"></span>tax band checker crashed as people checked to see if they were eligible. That just shows how desperate people are. Instead of offering a one-off reprieve, why not offer a sustainable solution, such as an essential energy guarantee that would save the average family £100 a year, every year? Epsom and Ewell is home to many hard-working businesses—independent restaurants such as Bamboo Basket and family-run shops such as Fudge &amp; Sons. When I speak to local businesses, one word repeatedly comes up again and again: uncertainty. Only one in six small businesses anticipate growth in the next 12 months. That is a dire assessment, and Labour has only added pressure with its previous jobs tax and national insurance hikes. I welcome the slashing of the endless form filling and pointless paperwork and the introduction of founders’ relief, and I am glad that the Chancellor has finally listened to Liberal Democrat calls to support business and reward entrepreneurial ambition, but more must be done. Businesses deserve a fair deal. I welcome the efforts to ease business rates, but they do not go far enough. Dawn, the director of Word on the Street bookshop in Ashtead, told me that she fears the changes will not help. Her business is a microbusiness; it has a turnover of less than £1 million, a balance sheet of less than £500,000 and fewer than 10 staff, but her current business rates are more than £6,000. To pay that, she must sell around 1,300 books a year. The current system continues to punish high street businesses and, due to the high rateable value in Surrey, businesses will not benefit from the new exemption. The Government must overhaul business rates now. Hospitality is on its knees, and the Government have failed to throw businesses a lifeline. Every week, I am told that the cost of doing business is suffocating. Fiona, the landlady at the Marquis of Granby, was forced to increase the price of a pint from £6.50 to £7.15 just in the last year, and now there is a rise in beer duty. Green &amp; Bean coffee shop in Epsom told me that it did not have any hope for this Budget, and quite frankly it was right. Hospitality is not just about pubs, cafés and restaurants; it is a vital entry point into the world of work, giving young people, including NEETs, a chance to gain skills, earn a wage and build a future. When hospitality businesses close, we lose jobs, local growth and the heart of our high streets. We cannot let that happen. High energy costs put real pressure on small businesses. It seems that big industry gets a discount today, but the high streets get the bill, and Fatima’s Hair Boutique in Epsom is no exception. Hairdressing is energy intensive, and Fatima needs hot water, salon machines and heating. In summer, her salon’s energy bills are around £390 a month; in the winter, they average a staggering £600 a month. The Government have announced that electricity bills will be cut by up to 25% for more than 10,000 businesses through the British industrial competitiveness scheme, but will the Chancellor confirm whether high street businesses are included in that scheme? Small businesses need a cut in their energy bills, not a trim around the edges. Epsom and Ewell is a strong net contributor to the Exchequer and is home to major businesses such as Aviva, Wates and Slitherine, but that success depends on strong rail infrastructure, and I did not hear anything <span id="352" class="column-number" data-column-number="352"></span>about that in the Budget today. Cuts to train frequency post-covid are having a huge impact on local businesses. Growth relies on people being able to get to work and contribute to the economy. We must restore train services in Epsom and Ewell to at least four an hour—an investment that would pay dividends back to the Treasury. I have been in Parliament for just over two years, and in that time I have seen three Health Secretaries come through. What I have not seen is the Government deliver on fully funding the new hospital programme. St Helier is being held together by patchwork repairs, and now we are seeing the result of that chronic under-investment—pipework so old that Legionella and Pseudomonas have been found in the water in St Helier’s maternity ward. My constituents deserve better. The Government must stop dragging their feet and speed up the construction of the new specialist emergency care hospital. I welcome today’s abolition of the cliff edge on carer’s allowance, but the details are less welcome. It will not take effect for four years, and it will act as a 100% tax rate for working carers. The Chancellor did not acknowledge the crisis in primary care—GP waiting times are through the roof, while dental deserts are the default. It is not good enough. There was also no mention of funding for the national cancer plan. We need action to save lives and increase cancer survival rates. Treatment must begin within 62 days of diagnosis. The Chancellor resigned as Defence Secretary because, in his own words, the plan fell “well short of what is required for defence”. That was an honourable decision, but now that he holds the purse strings, he has failed to set out a clear route for defence spending with the urgency that is needed. With the general public being told to stockpile, it appears that Britain’s kitchens are going to be better resourced than our armed forces. As such, although I welcome much of what has been announced today, for many of my constituents this Budget has not been bold enough. We need real guarantees that support constituents and businesses, because life should not be this hard.

   Hansard source
3. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Helen Maguire

   Strengthening Community Resilience

   I very much welcome the Be Ready campaign today. This Government have been pushing for devolved responsibilities, particularly at the mayoral level, but in his statement today, the Minister made no mention of the vital role that local authorities can play. Could the Minister expand on the role of local authorities in community resilience and preparedness?

   Hansard source
4. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Helen Maguire

   Prostate Cancer Screening

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for securing this important debate. Prostate cancer is now the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men in the UK. Around 540,000 men are living with or after prostate cancer. Each year, more than 64,000 men are diagnosed and over 12,000 will die from prostate cancer. One man dies of prostate cancer every 45 minutes—two lives will be lost in the short time of this debate. The estimated lifetime risk is one in eight for men overall, but that rises to one in four for black men. In England, black men are also twice as likely to die from prostate cancer as white men, with a lifetime risk of one in 12 compared with one in 24. Like with all cancers, the earlier the stage at diagnosis, the better the chances of survival: five-year survival rates are almost 100% at stages 1 and 2, around 95% at stage 3 and around 50% at stage 4. Who is diagnosed late also follows a pattern. In England, men in the most deprived areas have an 11% higher chance of a metastatic diagnosis. Men in the most deprived areas also have a 19% lower chance of receiving a prostate cancer diagnosis than men in the least deprived areas. Prostate cancer mortality rates in England mirror that diagnosis trend. Mortality rates are 14% higher for men in the most deprived areas than for men in the least deprived areas, and around 740 deaths from prostate cancer each year are linked with deprivation. Incidence rates of prostate cancer have risen by 54% since the early 1990s and are projected to rise a further 14% by 2038-40. That means around 85,100 new cases of prostate cancer each year. Part of the rise in diagnoses reflects much greater awareness, with more men coming forward for PSA tests. The issue of prostate cancer screening could not be more important. The Liberal Democrats applaud the tireless hard work of all cancer survivors, bereaved families and campaigners in securing a screening programme. However, we must do more to fight this devastating disease, and that is something the Liberal Democrats have continuously campaigned on. The Liberal Democrats are proud that our campaigning played a role in driving the Government to take action on this issue and ultimately deliver a prostate cancer screening programme. The programme will save thousands of lives, and it is unacceptable that no screening programme existed previously. Screening programmes are standard across a range of cancers, but until recently there was no screening programme for prostate cancer at all—there is now only a targeted programme. The Government must urgently guarantee the delivery of the targeted screening programme across the country. That will lay the foundations and establish the infrastructure needed to further broaden screening as soon as possible. The Government must make improved testing for prostate cancer a priority; it is fundamental to saving lives. The Liberal Democrats will hold them to account on delivering better testing and ensuring that more men can be protected from this devastating illness. The issue of prostate cancer testing has been handled, in many instances, very insensitively. Alongside the announcement of the screening programme, the NHS <span id="20WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="20WH"></span>quietly tried to change the rules around a man’s right to request a PSA blood test. That is not right. It is shocking that it then told campaigners and NHS staff that that had been the case all along. It is simply not good enough. Patients and their families deserve honesty and transparency. Is it really the Minister’s position that we should change years of standard practice and prevent men from making an informed choice to request a test? What has changed in the past few months to cause such a backward step in access? Was there any new evidence that informed the decision? Improved screening must go hand in hand with faster treatment and a guarantee: it must be written into law and backed by investment that every patient, including those with prostate cancer, is treated within 62 days. The Liberal Democrats recognise that speed and quality of treatment are central to increasing survival rates of prostate cancer. To achieve that, we would introduce a guarantee that 100% of patients will be able to start treatment within 62 days from urgent referral, and we would replace ageing radiotherapy machines and increase their number so that no one has to travel too far for treatment. Liberal Democrat research last year found that eight in 10 hospitals are using outdated medical equipment, such as MRI scanners. Those machines are essential to fully diagnosing prostate cancer. We would recruit more cancer nurses so that every patient has a dedicated specialist supporting them throughout their treatment. We would expand the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency’s capacity in order to halve the time for new treatments to reach patients. The Liberal Democrats also want to make the UK a world leader in cancer research, and we are calling for a cancer survival research Act. That would require the Government to co-ordinate and ensure funding for research into cancers with the lowest survival rates, including brain cancer. We would also start a fellowship programme for US cancer scientists who have seen their funding slashed by President Trump. That would waive the burdensome fees and bureaucracy for international researchers on the whole. Global talent visas for top researchers currently cost £6,000 per person for a five-year visa—that is £18,000 for a family of three. That is significantly more expensive than most of our competitor countries, where a similar visa is typically £200 or £300 per person. The cost of visas for Cancer Research UK alone is £900,000 a year, which is the equivalent of setting up two new research labs every year. The fellowship scheme would also deliver more funding for salary and research costs for researchers by expanding the share of GDP being spent on research and development to 3.5%. That would unlock hundreds of millions of pounds per year for cancer research and billions more for our life sciences sector generally. We would deliver that through a decade-long programme of public investment into R&amp;D. I therefore urge the Minister to reflect on all the contributions and the calls made by me and my colleagues for the 540,000 men who live with or after prostate cancer, for their loved ones, and for the two men who will have lost their lives to prostate cancer in the short 90 minutes of this debate.<span id="21WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="21WH"></span>

   Hansard source
5. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Helen Maguire

   Illegal Use of Electric Bikes and Scooters: Policing

   <Question HRSContentId="{97577BCF-2C77-48C3-A199-913BE0FFB573}">5. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{3B8C2603-81B7-4907-8271-76EB77BD4918}">What plans she has to bring forward legislative proposals to support police to tackle the illegal use of e-bikes and e-scooters. </QuestionText></Question>

   Hansard source
6. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Helen Maguire

   Illegal Use of Electric Bikes and Scooters: Policing

   I welcome the new police powers to seize illegal e-scooters and e-bikes that, quite frankly, are out of control. In Epsom and Ewell, Operation Scramble seized 15 vehicles and made six arrests in two days, but some police are hesitant to engage in pursuits because of concerns for wider public safety. It is clear that the police cannot address this issue alone. With Christmas approaching, will the Minister commit to a national awareness campaign to ensure that the general public understand the law around e-scooters, and appreciate that they are legal only if they are part of a rental scheme or are being used on private land?

   Hansard source
7. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Helen Maguire

   E-scooters and E-bikes: Regulation

   I beg to move, That this House has considered the regulation of e-scooters and e-bikes. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I am pleased to have secured this debate and really grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue, which we urgently need to see progress on. This is a timely debate because I hosted a roundtable on this very topic last week. Twenty-five individuals attended. There were senior-ranking representatives from nine police forces across the country, five police and crime commissioners, one borough commander and one assistant chief constable. The officers who were present were from the Met, Derbyshire, Merseyside, Surrey, Lancashire, Gloucestershire, Warwickshire, Hertfordshire, and Devon and Cornwall. There were industry representatives, campaigners, policy experts, academics, doctors and MPs. I am thankful to all those who attended and shared their insights and expertise with me and the other MPs who were there. The fact that so many individuals representing diverse groups and interests travelled across the UK to London to speak about this issue highlights the urgency and the need for action. How did this issue become so important to me? It all started when I was canvassing to become an MP, and I met so many constituents who raised the issue of e-scooters and e-bikes in my constituency of Epsom and Ewell. It became a top issue. One of my constituents, Ed Dark, told me that his little boy is now too scared to go to the beautiful park that is next to his house.

   Hansard source
8. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Helen Maguire

   E-scooters and E-bikes: Regulation

   I agree with everything the hon. Member says, and I will talk about those points in my speech. Edward Dark’s son was walking home from school one day when he was nearly hit by an e-scooter. That could have been fatal. Thankfully, it was not. Another constituent told me they have even considered moving house—just consider that: moving house—because of the e-scooter misuse in their neighbourhood.

   Hansard source
9. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Helen Maguire

   E-scooters and E-bikes: Regulation

   I am really sorry to hear about the hon. Member’s constituent; I hope she is okay now. I will indeed be raising those issues. One constituent told me that her car was hit by an illegally ridden e-bike on the wrong side of the road. She got the individual’s details and reported it to the police, but she was told that they would keep a lookout rather than seize the bike from the known address. This issue goes far beyond Epsom and Ewell, as Members have already demonstrated. Across the country, we are seeing young people on e-scooters riding at high speed through red lights, parks and pedestrianised areas.

   Hansard source
10. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Helen Maguire

    E-scooters and E-bikes: Regulation

    I absolutely agree: this is one of the matters that the Minister needs to take forward. We have the issues of illegally modified e-scooters, which can now reach speeds of up to 70 mph; e-bikes, which are catching fire due to uncertified lithium-ion batteries; and the use of e-vehicles in criminal activity and antisocial behaviour, as the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) alluded to. Pedestrians have the fundamental right to feel safe. They should not need to worry about being hit or knocked over when simply walking in the park or on the streets. That is particularly important for vulnerable groups, especially those with vision loss or mobility needs.

    Hansard source

2024 General Election: Epsom and Ewell

Election result on Parliament's site

Parliamentary career

Career on Parliament's site

Published contact details

Only the details Parliament publishes for this member. Contact page on Parliament's site