Martin Wrigley MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Sept 2026 · Fracking Ban · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that not only did the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) exaggerate the amount of available gas that might be in the UK—less than 10% of such gas is usually recovered, and that normally trails off after a year—but that such gas is not actually pulled out of the ground by nodding donkeys? Typically, a structure called a Christmas tree is used, not the nodding donkeys described by the hon. Gentleman.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Fracking Ban · Hansard source

  More

  I understand that the hon. Gentleman thought the summer, while being the hottest on record, was more of a millionaire’s paradise than the awful situation it was for many in our country. Does he not understand the science of climate change that he is encouraging us to continue to aggravate, or is he simply a flat-earther entirely?

• 15 Sept 2026 · Fracking Ban · Hansard source

  More

  Perhaps my hon. Friend, like me, saw several screenings of “The People’s Emergency Briefing” over the summer recess. It paints a devastating picture of what will happen if we continue down this route, and that includes fracking. Does she agree that we need a national briefing to educate people on the issue?

• 14 Sept 2026 · Water Sector: Public Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  I will make progress. I welcome the change to a single regulator, which was set out in the White Paper, but it has been clear for years that Ofwat has not had the teeth or the understanding to avoid the water companies turning into financial instruments dealing with very complex debt deals. That is where things have gone wrong, and we have to change it. We should look differently at how we fine companies for their behaviour, prior to taking them into some form of public ownership. I strongly believe that when we find them funds, the money cannot simply come from customers’ bills. We see companies such as Thames Water putting off paying their bills for years, and that must not happen. Personally, I believe that we should look at other ways of fining the water companies, perhaps even through shares or something that hits shareholders, rather than customers. That is the only way we will have any control over these companies until we make the change. In the meantime, we have had citizen science groups such as Friends of the River Teign and Friends of the River Exe testing water daily over the summer. It is rarely green; it is always polluted. This is a major problem. We have people swimming in the seas who rely on citizen science testing to see what is happening. I congratulate campaign groups on their efforts, but the fact that they have to do such testing is reprehensible, and it should not be happening in the 21st century. We have to take the water companies out. We have to put them under public ownership. I urge the Minister to do so quickly.

• 14 Sept 2026 · Water Sector: Public Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy). There is only one place where money comes from to make those investments. The water companies cannot borrow more money. Their money does not come from the investors. The investors are sitting there; that is the original £5 billion that was made available to buy the companies in the first place. That money comes only from the customers’ bills or from Government—the customers’ tax. That is why water companies must move into public ownership and more particularly into mutual ownership so that the customers own the company. They would then be investing in their own future, not in somebody else’s profits.

• 14 Sept 2026 · Water Sector: Public Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I am delighted to speak to this petition. It is about a really important issue, particularly in my constituency of Newton Abbot where we have Dawlish Warren, which is the place where “Dirty Business”, which showed the tragic death of Heather Preen, was filmed. I met Heather’s mother Julie when she came to this House, which was truly sobering. I have the River Exe and the River Teign in my constituency. Both of them suffer. We are not dealing with water in the right way; I think that is plain to see. Quite how much hon. Members will say anything different in this debate I am not sure, but it is clear that we need to make a change. The experiment of 1989 failed. Heather died only 10 years after that, and we can see that investment was not being made. South West Water proudly says that it invests £13 billion in the system, but it pays out more than half of that in dividends. That is just wrong.

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Member give way?

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: Devon · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the Secretary of State on her return to her place in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. I welcome her team, too. I thank her for her upcoming statement and the review that she has just started, which address my question and that of my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), about the Devon local government reorganisation, which had been described as bonkers. Next time around, will the Government include the local MPs in the process? Will the local councils be refunded the costs incurred this time around?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: Devon · Hansard source

  More

  12. For what reason the local government reorganisation model in Devon was selected.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that that element of trust is even more important when we get the single patient record, and critical to enabling GPs and medical professionals everywhere to use it, and patients to trust it?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On that very point, does my hon. Friend agree that the recent NHS cost-benefit analysis showing that the Palantir project will cost £1.1 billion and deliver benefits of £800 million—a net loss of £300 million for the NHS—underlines the fact that we need to get rid of it now?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that it is a fundamental principle of anything like the SPR that it must have privacy by design at the centre of it, and that therefore a firm such as Palantir—which has a US, slightly cavalier and somewhat casual attitude to how data privacy should be controlled—should not be allowed anywhere near it?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On interpreting statistics, does the hon. Gentleman agree that when it comes to data, GP confidentiality—in respect of the Palantir federated data platform, for example—is critical, certainly when we come to the single patient record, and that the Bill should not reduce confidentiality or data privacy to achieve the single patient record?

• 3 Sept 2026 · Global Biodiversity and Ecosystems: National Security · Hansard source

  More

  I think that this is an emergency on every level: it is a local, regional, national, international and global emergency, which is happening in the climate and in biodiversity at the same time. That is why we need action now. The report mentions making radical change to farmland usage, but farmers need Government support for that. I recently discussed the issue with a constituent who has great knowledge of sustainable farming initiatives. He proposed a joined-up approach, with farmers working together on a 1000-acre challenge to research and develop sustainable farmland programmes. That is the kind of initiative that we must be developing now, before it is too late, and I urge the Minister to work on it. I hope the Minister will listen to the concerns that I and many other colleagues have raised today and take urgent action to protect our ecosystems and promote sustainability globally for years to come.

• 3 Sept 2026 · Global Biodiversity and Ecosystems: National Security · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. Like many Members, I have been inundated by constituents writing to me about this issue and explaining at great length their concerns about climate change and their fears for the future. The existential risk of ecosystem collapse and biodiversity loss at home and abroad is a common feature of those concerns. Wildfires across Devon, as well as in Stourbridge, have caused a catastrophic loss of biodiversity. It is therefore no surprise that my constituents have told me that reading this biodiversity report has made them worry for the future. They fear what will happen to the world as a whole, and to our national security, if what is set out in the report is allowed to come true. I have been consulting people across my constituency for many months to hear their concerns face to face, including by attending as many screenings as possible of the “People’s Emergency Briefing”, which I encourage the Minister to see. I also held a local climate assembly with my constituents, which was an important step in hearing how I can work with them to share their concerns, and how we can work together on long-term and sustainable solutions to biodiversity and ecosystem collapse, albeit only locally. The report makes for very worrying reading. One constituent told me that the briefing went “far beyond” anything she had “feared for the future”, and that she was frightened by the real and imminent global risks that we face from climate change and biodiversity loss. Although the report is a worst-case scenario, about what could happen without action, the very suggestion that this is a possibility should worry us all.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Direction of Government · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Prime Minister to his place with his message of optimism, hope and change for water, climate change and procurement. On procurement, may I be presumptuous and give him a quick win? We can remove Palantir from the federated data platform in the NHS and replace it with a Greater Manchester model that works today and supplies more than Palantir does or ever can. That is an easy win.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q11. US big tech has exploited us for far too long, so I am delighted that the Met police followed my advice and pushed Apple and Google to implement the stolen handset blacklist, curbing resales and cutting mobile theft by almost half. Likewise, does the Prime Minister agree that it is time to stand up to social media companies and reclassify them from platforms to publishers, holding them responsible for the harmful and addictive content that they recommend, promote and profit from?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Social Media Ban for Under-16s · Hansard source

  More

  It sounds like the Secretary of State is hearing a fairly unanimous view from members of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, which is good. Today’s ban is a welcome start, but it is only a start and is not sufficient. Does the Secretary of State agree with me and the Committee that, in addition to parents and children taking action, the responsibility must be on the companies, as well as enforcement, because they are providing the product? Recommendation engines make them publishers of dangerous and addictive content; they are not passive platforms, as they would put forward, and they are doing it for financial gain.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Police: AI Trials · Hansard source

  More

  5. What discussions her Department has had with police forces on the adequacy of competitive tendering for trials of AI.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Police: AI Trials · Hansard source

  More

  Palantir appears to have a habit of avoiding competitive tender and scrutiny by using free trials and locking up the contract specifications after getting a foot in the door. I congratulate the London Mayor on stopping the recent potential contract offered by the Met police without a competitive tender process. However, last week, the estimated £17 million contract for the National Firearms Licensing Management System was won by a bid from Palantir of just £7.5 million, just 44% of the expected price. That suggests either a massive error in estimation, or Palantir buying the job, giving it unfettered access to whisper in the ear of all 43 police forces. Will the Minister pause the signing of that contract, which is due this Thursday, so that appropriate scrutiny can take place to ensure that a competitive tendering process has been followed transparently?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  I was trying not to interrupt his flow— [Interruption.] Until I did. Throughout the files there are mentions of Palantir and Peter Mandelson, including a memo in which he tries to introduce Peter Thiel to No. 10 staff in June last year. Even though Mr Louis Mosley has written to me today suggesting that Peter Mandelson was not intervening regarding Palantir business with the Government, does the Minister agree that he still was doing so?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. We heard earlier how Kevin Dixon of Devon gives us excellent reports of what is happening with Healthwatch. The modern NHS must run on data, but critically, on data that carries the consent of patients. A single patient record is undeniably critical to see the data of patients all in one place, but it must be built from a patient’s point of view, not from a centralised data-analysis point of view, and with privacy by design from day one. We obviously need GPs to see hospital data and vice versa, and ambulances to see everything that they need to help, but we do not need the new regulation to do that. The single patient record already exists in a federated model; in Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Shropshire and more, trusts already run interoperable access for care services, GPs and hospitals. The Government admit that but claim it is partial and fragmented. They also claim that the data will remain in the systems where it currently exists. However, with the Bill, the Government are asking to remove all protection of patient data—look at proposed new sections 250E(1) and (3) to the National Health Service Act 2006 as set out in clause 47(2) of the Bill. We are asked to trust somewhere below primary legislation that it will all be okay—we should trust the regulation. It is a big-tech approach to deliver an overreaching centralised system, rather than a distributed interoperable solution. NHS England has ignored and discounted UK sovereign systems that can and do provide what is required along with patient trust. Systems built over years with focus on patient treatment and defined use cases could be rolled out today with no change required in law and privacy by design built in from day one. Greater Manchester and others have the single patient record capability and the hard-won foundation of trust. I will be tabling amendments to remove the relaxation of data privacy from the Bill. The measures are unnecessary if NHS England does not follow the Palantir advice and instead follows what has been proven to work in Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Shropshire and many other places. Perhaps it is an example of something that has worked in Manchester that might work everywhere.