Freddie van Mierlo MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Sept 2026 · Tourism: Overnight Visitor Levy · Hansard source

  More

  Several times, the Minister has referenced other European countries having a tourist tax, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) highlighted, those countries have much lower tax rates for hospitality overall. Will the Minister commit to reducing VAT on hospitality? Secondly, on the tourist tax, will he clarify whether the levy will be listed separately to the price of the room, so that those who use those facilities have clarity and transparency?

• 10 Sept 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  When I met constituents who are family members of people living with dementia in Thame, their overwhelming response and emotion was anger at the lack of support for them, and concern about what would happen to their family members if they themselves became ill. Will the Leader of the House outline what the Government are doing to support carers of people living with dementia, and will he support a debate on the subject in Government time?

• 10 Sept 2026 · National Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  Over the summer, I met two fire resilience experts in my constituency, who have experience of fires in California. They told me that simple measures taken locally can have a significant impact, including things like clearing vegetation around a house and making sure that there are no log piles next to a home. That can all be done through parish councils and local resilience planning, so what steps will the Minister take to support parish councils as they develop local resilience?

• 8 Sept 2026 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  Before the recess, a group of schoolchildren from my constituency handed in a petition to No. 10 as part of their “Courageous Advocacy” project. They wanted children in Palestine to have the same right to education as they do. Will the Foreign Secretary respond to their petition now and say what steps he is taking to ensure that their words are heard?

• 8 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 2 Sept 2026 · Rewiring the State · Hansard source

  More

  My summer tour took me to such wonderful villages as Forest Hill, Little Milton, Stanton St John and Warborough, and no one I met wants to be part of the new proposed Greater Oxford authority. These parishes have been pressganged into a new authority they do not want to be part of. Will the Government review the decision to split Oxfordshire into three—a messy solution—and support other solutions, such as the two-and-one local authority proposals?

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Lady give way again?

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Is the right hon. Lady suggesting that all 3.5 million overseas electors should not be able to donate to political parties?

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to speak to new clause 19, in my name, which concerns overseas voters. It would require the Secretary of State to conduct feasibility studies on improving voting arrangements. It has more than 50 signatures from Members from across the House, including many of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, but also Conservatives, Greens and Independents, demonstrating a clear call for change. It also briefly had a Labour Member supporting it, before the Government Whips presumably intervened. We are demanding change on behalf of the 3.5 million overseas voters, including members of our armed forces stationed abroad. Postal ballots all too often arrive too late for them to be returned to the UK in time. The postal ballot return rate was just 48% in the last general election. Proxies, which are a potential solution, are problematic to arrange if people no longer have contacts where they previously resided. The UK is lagging on the international stage. In France, voting is allowed at overseas embassies. In the Netherlands, constituents can print their own secure ballot, as I have previously done. Estonia permits the use of electronic voting, and New Zealand’s voters can download and return ballot papers online. Of course, any change to our voting arrangements would need to be secure, and to be adapted to the UK context, but if other countries can improve their participation of overseas electors, so can we. However, the Government have so far refused to act. In a recent meeting with the former Minister for Democracy, the hon. Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), I was disappointed by the lack of ambition. I was told that it is not possible to make the printing of ballots secure, yet other European and Commonwealth countries do it. What is so unique about either the UK electoral system or the British state that means we are incapable of enfranchising our overseas voters? Under a Bill that is supposed to ensure the representation of the people, the Government have made only negligible and limited changes to support the 3.5 million eligible voters abroad. The Minister’s response, if there is one, will refer to minor changes made to the timeline for registering for postal voting and the mailing of ballots, but this will not be enough. Half of all overseas voters were registered before the last election, and they still suffered from delayed ballots, so we already know that the changes proposed will not be effective. One voter got in touch with Liberal Democrats in Europe to share her story. Angela, a voter in Oldham living in France, was registered to vote before the election, but she received her ballot in the post the day after polling day. If this is the experience in France, what hope is there for those in Australia? Under the new leadership, can the previous Prime Minister’s incrementalism be dropped in favour of a solution that meets the size of the problem? As we have heard, there is interest in this Bill from Members from across the House, and not all amendments will be voted on, but I do hope that my new clause, or something similar, will be pursued in the Lords, and will, in the spirit of cross-party co-operation expressed by the Prime Minister, get a fair hearing.

• 15 Jul 2026 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice on whether the Minister for Digital Government and Data, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), may have given an incomplete answer that risks being seen as misleading the House. In a response to a question about cuts to funding for the Science and Technology Facilities Council, the Minister noted: “funding for STFC has not been cut.” —[ Official Report , 1 July 2026; Vol. 788, c. 894.] Yet it is only true that there are no cuts if we exclude funding for time-sensitive projects. This has led to confusion among my constituents who are affected by the cuts. Madam Deputy Speaker, could you advise me on how one may seek to ensure that Ministers communicate clearly on matters of such importance?

• 14 Jul 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We have seen docudramas such as “Dirty Business”, in which water companies have sought to evade scrutiny. This amendment would correct that anomaly. The companies are supposed to perform the same public functions with the same public impact, but without the discipline of market competition. In the Bill, publicly owned water companies such as those that exist outside of England and Wales must follow standards of ethical conduct, including following the principles of integrity, accountability and openness. They must adopt a code that sets the standards expected for those who work at the authority, and make people aware of the consequences of failing to act in accordance with it. There must be a clear way for people not working at the authority to complain about their conduct. Requiring companies in England, such as Thames Water, to adopt such a code of conduct by law is one clear and immediate way the Government could reduce the problems we currently see with such companies. Constituents of mine tell me just how much they struggle to raise a complaint with Thames Water and are often ignored when they do so. They include Judy Washington, whose case I raised directly with the Prime Minister at PMQs. Time and again, we have seen Thames Water prioritise its own shareholders and debt, taking more from consumers in bills and delivering less in quality of infrastructure and water. These actions would simply not be acceptable under the code of conduct in this Bill. There would be ethical standards for these companies to follow and clear consequences for subverting these goals. By holding these companies to the same standard, we can reinforce the public interest obligations inherent in their statutory role and ensure consistent ethical standards across all providers of essential services. If the Government are serious about holding the water companies to account, they must close the loopholes that allow them again and again to escape judgment for their wrongful actions. It should not be one rule for them and another for everyone else.

• 14 Jul 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I start by paying tribute to the victims and survivors who have got us to this point, and to the many hon. Members across the House who have shared personal testimonies and those of their constituents from many different disasters, including Hillsborough. If the House will allow me, I will change the context of the debate a tiny bit and talk about amendment 149, tabled in my name, which seeks to include water companies in the scope of the code of conduct and duty of candour.The amendment has been sponsored by 33 Members from across the House. Under the Bill, privately owned water companies do not have to follow the same code of conduct as publicly owned water companies in Scotland or Northern Ireland, which is absurd. Although privately owned water companies operate under the Water Industry Act 1991 and are designated as statutory undertakers, they exercise public functions of fundamental importance to health, the environment and daily life; they hold exclusive regional monopolies, meaning that consumers have no alternative provider; and they benefit from statutory powers and privileges normally associated with public authorities.

• 8 Jul 2026 · Point of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 2 June, my hon. Friends the Members for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) and for Witney (Charlie Maynard) and I sent a letter to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care concerning the decommissioning of important mental health services in Oxfordshire, including: the Infant-Parent Perinatal Service, the Child and Adolescent Harmful Behaviour Service, and the Family Assessment and Safeguarding Service. We invited the Secretary of State to exercise powers under the Health and Care Act 2022 to call in the decision. I am aware that there is a 20-day timeframe for ministerial responses to Members’ correspondence. However, that has passed. Normally when this occurs, I tend not to chase it, but this is a really important time-sensitive case, so I seek your guidance on how we may receive a response from the Department.