Back to Westminster with local priorities in focus
18 September 2026
Parliament recently returned after the summer recess, and the mood in Westminster has shifted considerably since we left in July. Labour now has its second Prime Minister since the General Election, with Andy Burnham entering No 10, alongside reshuffles on both the Government and Opposition front benches.
But the noise from No 10 does not change my focus: representing Epsom, Ewell, Ashtead and Leatherhead. My priority this autumn is making sure the Government is held to account on the issues that matter to my constituents – NHS access, train frequencies, e-scooters and the state of our water supply.
I am continuing my work as Liberal Democrat spokesperson for Primary Care and Cancer, pressing the Government on delays in securing GP appointments, cancer treatment waiting times and the need to improve access to dental care.
Alongside that, I am taking on a new responsibility after being selected by my party to sit on the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. I will be putting my experience of serving in the military abroad to good use in scrutinising our security at home.
The publication of this column follows an Epsom and Ewell tradition that was supported by Helen Maguire’s predecessor Chris (now Lord) Grayling and prospective Parliamentary candidates of other parties.
This addition does not mean any of my other work as your MP is being put on the back burner. I will shortly be hosting a roundtable of police chiefs to press the Government for clearer guidance on e-scooters.
I will also be working with a research group to launch a report in Parliament on disinformation – a subject I take very personally following the unrest our constituency experienced earlier this year.
Party conference season is under way, and I will be in Brighton later this month for the Liberal Democrat conference, making the case for stronger action on primary care.
Once the conferences conclude, attention will turn to the Autumn Budget. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I will be watching closely to see whether our new Chancellor, John Healey, will deliver on defence spending and hospital funding without placing a greater burden on taxpayers.
It is a tall order, but we Liberal Democrats have plenty of ideas about how to improve services without leaving taxpayers to foot the bill.
I also want to use this column to highlight something closer to home. Horton Cemetery in Epsom is the largest abandoned hospital cemetery in the UK. It is the resting place of more than 9,000 patients from the old Epsom Cluster asylums, most of whom lie in unmarked graves and have long been forgotten.
Earlier this year, I brought campaigners into Parliament to meet the Justice Minister, who confirmed that the site is protected from development under the Burial Act.
That was welcome news, but there is still work to do before this place receives the recognition and public access it deserves. I am thrilled that it was recently shortlisted in Findmypast’s Everyday History Heroes awards, and I know that meant a great deal to the families who remain connected to this history.
Finally, an update on a topic that dominated many of my conversations this summer: Thames Water.
The constituency has been consistently plagued by leaks and burst pipes, with interruptions to the water supply affecting homes and businesses across our area.
The irony is not lost on me that the worst of these failures peaked at the same time as Thames Water introduced a hosepipe ban during one of the driest summers on record.
I brought Sir Ed Davey to the constituency to see the effect on local businesses first-hand and have raised the issue directly with the company on several occasions.
Thames Water’s finances remain precarious and its infrastructure is ageing, but my constituents continue to pay more for a service that repeatedly lets them down.
I will keep pushing for a Westminster Hall debate this autumn to put that accountability on the record. I will not stop arguing that customers should not have to foot the bill for years of underinvestment.
Helen Maguire MP Member of Parliament for Epsom and Ewell Liberal Democrat spokesperson for Primary Care and Cancer
Two years on: Helen Maguire’s record as Epsom and Ewell MP
18 September 2026
Helen Maguire marks two years as Epsom and Ewell’s MP today, having won the constituency for the Liberal Democrats at the General Election on 4 July 2024.
Her victory, by 3,686 votes, ended the 23-year Commons tenure of Conservative Chris Grayling and made her the first Liberal Democrat and first woman to represent the seat.
Two years later, her record combines a continuing Westminster front-bench role, a highly visible constituency operation, claims of progress on local health and transport issues, and an unusually public breakdown in relationships with leading local Liberal Democrats.
From Defence lead to specialist health brief
Maguire’s first major Commons appointment came quickly after her election. In September 2024 she became the Liberal Democrats’ spokesperson for Defence, placing her at the head of the party’s Commons work on defence policy, service welfare, veterans and the Armed Forces.
She took part in detailed scrutiny of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill and has remained active on military accommodation, veterans’ compensation and support for bereaved service families.
In October 2025, she moved to the Liberal Democrat front-bench role of spokesperson for Primary Care and Cancer. She remains a front-bench spokesperson, but the change altered her place within the party’s portfolio structure.
Her Defence post was an umbrella departmental brief. Her current role is a specialist health position within the wider Liberal Democrat Health and Social Care operation, headed by Helen Morgan MP.
Maguire’s focus has since included GP access, pharmacy provision, cancer treatment, NHS dentistry, women’s health, hospital services and patient access to care.
Hospitals, health and primary care
Healthcare has become one of Maguire’s most prominent local themes.
She has repeatedly raised the condition and future of St Helier Hospital, including in her maiden speech and an abseiling adventure at St Helier Hospital. Her office says that, following a sustained campaign involving meetings with hospital stakeholders and parliamentary pressure, St Helier has secured £57 million for its A&E department.
The office also highlights £12 million in funding for Epsom Hospital. It says Maguire has secured commitments to improve endometriosis services after constituents raised concerns about their treatment, including increased clinical capacity, enhanced surgical provision, improved follow-up and stronger administrative oversight.
Her office further says she has supported the national pharmacy funding package in connection with Horton Pharmacy, visited local dentists while pressing for better NHS dental provision, and promoted neighbourhood health centres intended to bring services closer to residents.
At Westminster, she has used her new health role to raise issues including cancer medicines, primary care, breast cancer, patient access to treatment and the impact of NHS policy on people facing complex health conditions.
Rail services, access and local infrastructure
Rail services have been another major local campaign.
Maguire has pressed South Western Railway over reduced train frequencies since the pandemic and argued that passengers in Epsom and Ewell should have greater influence over future timetables. Her office says SWR is expected to launch a formal public consultation on a new timetable, describing this as a step towards restoring services closer to pre-Covid levels.
Accessibility at Ewell West station has also featured. Her office says that, following discussions with SWR, two additional Blue Badge spaces were created alongside a painted pedestrian route, zebra crossing and dropped kerbs providing a step-free route to the station entrance.
She has also raised accessibility issues in Parliament, including concern that some disabled and visually impaired passengers can be disadvantaged by ticket-machine systems and reduced staffed facilities.
Other local campaigns listed by her office include pavement parking, Thames Water sewage discharges, electric-vehicle charging infrastructure and persistent dust and noise complaints connected with the Chalk Pit.
Casework, community activity and local presence
As with any MP, much of Maguire’s work is carried out through individual constituency cases rather than Commons speeches.
Her office says more than 17,000 constituents have received casework, campaign or policy responses over the past two years. That figure covers different forms of contact and assistance, rather than necessarily 17,000 separate individual cases.
Examples cited by her office include help with Personal Independence Payment claims, SEND cases, passport and visa delays, taxi licensing, Blue Badges, housing-association repairs and other departmental or local-authority problems.
The office says she has held regular surgeries and meetings across Epsom, Ewell, Ashtead and Leatherhead, alongside visits to schools, clubs, businesses, health providers and community organisations.
Among the examples highlighted are meetings over the Bridge Youth and Community Centre, the cost-of-living crisis and violence against women and girls; police walkabouts in Epsom and Leatherhead; engagement with the local Hong Kong community over BN(O) visa changes; visits to local dentists and independent businesses; support for sports clubs and park improvements; and activity around Chamber Mead wetlands and the release of water voles.
Armed Forces, veterans and international work
Maguire’s military background remains visible in her parliamentary and constituency activity.
Her office says she has helped press for improved housing standards for service personnel and their families, campaigned for free rail travel to remembrance events for bereaved military families, and maintained links with the local Armed Forces community through Remembrance and Territorial Army events.
She also retains an international profile. Her parliamentary interests include Ukraine, Russia (which has sanctioned her), conflict prevention, humanitarian demining and the impact of explosive weapons on civilians. She has held roles in cross-party groups addressing explosive weapons and conflict-related humanitarian concerns.
Registered interests and comparisons with predecessors
Maguire’s Commons register of interests contains 18 current entries. These include campaign and constituency-event support, hospitality, overseas visits, former rental-property interests, shareholdings held jointly with her husband and an unpaid directorship.
Her register does not show current paid outside employment or a second job. That is a different profile from her two predecessors.
Chris Grayling, now Lord Grayling, has a House of Lords register focused principally on paid advisory roles and rental income. Before him, Sir Archibald Hamilton developed a reputation in the 1990s for holding a large number of outside interests. Contemporary reporting placed him among the Conservative MPs with the highest number of paid external roles.
The comparisons are imperfect because disclosure rules have changed substantially over the decades. But Maguire’s register is materially different from the paid consultancy and directorship profile associated with Hamilton. Her entries are mainly donations, hospitality, travel, shareholdings and historic property interests rather than paid outside work.
All such entries are published under parliamentary disclosure rules and do not in themselves imply wrongdoing.
Local Liberal Democrat rupture
The most difficult political aspect of Maguire’s first two years has been the breakdown in relationships within the Epsom and Ewell Liberal Democrat organisation.
Cllr Julie Morris, the long-serving College Ward councillor and now Deputy Mayor, resigned from the Liberal Democrats Group she led and became an Independent. She was later followed by Cllr James Lawrence, her successor as leader of the Liberal Democrat group on Epsom and Ewell Borough Council, who also left the party to sit as an Independent.
Their departures reduced the Liberal Democrat group on the Borough Council and strengthened the Independent group.
Lawrence was explicit in linking his resignation partly to Maguire. He said he believed the MP had become too focused on “leafleting and electioneering” rather than meaningful national policy change. He also referred to concerns about the effect of her approach on volunteers who gave time to the Liberal Democrat Party.
Morris likewise referred to difficulties within the local Liberal Democrat organisation and the MP’s political operation as part of the background to her own decision.
A later episode during the East Surrey Unitary Council election campaign added to the political controversy.
At the count on 8 May 2026, Epsom and Ewell Times reported that Helen Maguire’s communications officer directed newly elected Liberal Democrat candidates not to speak to the media and said journalists should instead seek interviews with Maguire.
Maguire publicly disputed EET’s account at a Westminster reception. However, in subsequent correspondence her communications officer, Esther Holland, accepted that a restriction on media engagement had been in place, while denying that Maguire herself had imposed a “gag”.
The explanation given was that, though on a Parliament sanctioned salary, Holland was also acting as East Surrey Liberal Democrat communications officer and that the temporary restriction was for electoral purposes. Maguire’s office said she knew of the arrangement but had not personally directed it.
The episode did not establish that Maguire herself ordered the media restriction though she was an integral part of its workings and presumably agreed with it. But it became politically significant because it reinforced criticism from former Liberal Democrat councillors that messaging and decision-making were being tightly controlled from the MP’s wider political operation.
Maguire has rejected that overall characterisation. She has defended regular canvassing, community visibility and campaigning as essential ways to identify residents’ problems and take them into Parliament.
A busy and politically mixed first two years
Maguire’s first two years have been active and politically consequential.
She has maintained a high local profile through surgeries, campaigning, site visits, community meetings and casework. Her office identifies progress or claimed successes on hospital funding, rail accessibility, pharmacy provision, sports facilities, local infrastructure and individual constituent cases.
At Westminster, she has remained on the Liberal Democrat front bench throughout, although her role has changed from leading the party’s whole Defence brief to holding a specialist primary care and cancer portfolio.
Her critics within the former local Liberal Democrat leadership argue that her approach has placed too much emphasis on political control, campaigning and messaging. Her supporters will see an energetic MP using visibility and local contact to pursue practical outcomes.
The next stage of her parliamentary term will test whether the activity of the first two years turns into durable local gains: more reliable rail services, improved hospital provision, better primary-care access, effective action on environmental and infrastructure concerns, and stronger support for residents dealing with SEND, housing and public-service delays.
Former Epsom job centre worker hopes to question next PM in Parliament
18 September 2026
A local marketing entrepreneur seeking Conservative parliamentary selection once went on television’s Blind Date with the woman who later became Andy Burnham’s wife — and was working at Epsom Jobcentre by the time the programme was screened.
The story was reported by The Sunday Times on 28 June 2026 in an article by chief news correspondent Rosamund Urwin.
Will Harris was chosen by Marie-France “Frankie” van Heel on Cilla Black’s ITV dating show in 1992. Van Heel was then studying at Cambridge University and was already in the early stages of a relationship with Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester and former Labour Cabinet minister.
According to The Sunday Times, Burnham gave his blessing for van Heel to appear on the programme. She selected “Will from Surrey” from three unseen contestants.
Harris, then 21, was studying English at Nottingham University. He told the newspaper that he had spotted posters seeking Blind Date contestants and decided to audition on impulse.
“I had never watched Blind Date — I’m not a big TV guy — but I just thought it would be fun to go on a date and a holiday,” he recalled.
By the time his appearance was broadcast, however, Harris had apparently taken a job at a Jobcentre in Epsom. The article reports that he referred to himself as “signing John Major’s unemployment dole”.
The pair were sent to Gibraltar for their television date and spent about three days there, including visiting the Barbary macaques, dining together and filming sequences for a later programme.
Harris said there was no romantic spark. He described van Heel as “clever and cool” and said they got on well, but compared the atmosphere to being with a sister rather than on a conventional date.
The programme-makers later asked them to return for a follow-up, apparently believing the original encounter had not produced enough drama. Harris said that he found the idea uncomfortable, particularly when production staff urged him to say that van Heel was cold and lacking fashion sense.
He declined a further appearance. Harris said Cilla Black later told him: “Sorry, Will, it’s just good TV.”
Van Heel married Burnham in 2000 and the couple have three children.
Harris’s later career, as described in The Sunday Times, was separate from van Heel’s. He became marketing director of the Conservative Party in 2003 and later met van Heel and Burnham again in a House of Commons bar after both had been sent on the same training course.
The report says Harris now runs Bridge F61, an AI-powered business intended to help private-equity firms assess the marketing strategies of companies they may wish to acquire. He is also seeking selection as a Conservative parliamentary candidate.
Don’t Believe Everything You Read Online? EET Stands By ‘Gagging’ Report After Epsom MP’s Westminster Jibe
18 September 2026
A row over media access to newly elected Liberal Democrat councillors has escalated after Epsom & Ewell MP Helen Maguire publicly challenged an Epsom and Ewell Times report – only for subsequent correspondence to confirm that a restriction on councillors speaking to the media did in fact exist.
The dispute centres on events at the Count for the East Surrey Unitary Council elections at Bourne Hall on 8 May.
In an earlier report, Epsom and Ewell Times’ (EET) Lionel Blackman described being in a media interview room speaking with a soon-to-be-elected Liberal Democrat candidate when Helen Maguire’s communications officer entered and stated that Lib Dem candidates were not to talk to the press and that journalists should speak only to the MP.
The report described the instruction as neither “liberal” nor “democratic” and criticised what it characterised as a “gag” on successful candidates.
Ten days later, at a reception at the Palace of Westminster hosted by Ms Maguire and attended by a couple of hundred leading figures from Epsom and Ewell’s business and voluntary sectors, the MP appeared to reference the controversy directly.
Introducing newly elected councillors present at the event, she said: “There are a number of our new Councillors present today and contrary to what you may have read in the press they are free to speak and if there are any members of the press here you may talk to them. Do not believe everything you read online.”
The remark prompted EET to challenge the implication that its reporting had been inaccurate.
In a subsequent email exchange, Helen Maguire’s communications officer, Esther Holland, denied that the MP had imposed any “gag” on councillors but acknowledged that a restriction on media engagement had indeed been in place.
Ms Holland wrote: “Helen can confirm that while she knew the East Surrey campaign team had asked for a pause in media engagement during the election week, this was entirely the East Surrey campaign team’s decision. Helen played no part in directing this; she did not ‘gag’ her new councillors.”
She later provided a statement attributed to an East Surrey Liberal Democrats spokesperson saying: “The pause in media engagement was a decision made by the central campaign team for the Liberal Democrats in East Surrey — not Helen Maguire MP — based on the advice to make the incoming leadership contest as democratic and fair as possible.”
That explanation narrows, but does not extinguish, the dispute.
EET’s original report did not merely allege that Helen Maguire personally invented the policy. It reported that the instruction was delivered by her communications officer, directing journalists away from councillors and towards the MP.
Mr Blackman replied that, in the circumstances, it had been entirely reasonable to report the matter as “Helen’s gag”, noting that the instruction had been communicated by an employee acting under the MP’s banner and that the strategy would have been ineffective without at least some degree of cooperation from the MP’s operation.
The exchange then moved into more sensitive territory concerning the role of MP’s parliamentary staff in party political activity.
Responding to questions raised by EET, Ms Holland stated she had been acting “in my capacity as local party communications, not as an employee of Helen Maguire MP” when communicating the media strategy at the Count, adding that her role was “split between parliamentary and local party work.”
That explanation may itself invite wider questions about the sometimes blurred boundary between parliamentary communications roles and local party political operations.
No evidence has been produced that any parliamentary or IPSA (Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority) rules were breached. However, parliamentary staffing arrangements are ordinarily expected to distinguish between parliamentary duties funded through MPs’ allowances and party political campaigning or organisation.
The issue here is not merely semantic.
If, as the correspondence confirms, a restriction on councillors speaking freely to journalists existed, then the remaining questions become who owned it, who delivered it, and whether the MP’s Westminster remark – “Do not believe everything you read online” – fairly represented EET’s reporting or risked leaving a large public audience with the impression that the newspaper had reported something untrue.
EET stands by the factual accuracy of its original report.
Ex-local LibDem leader explains part of her departure
18 September 2026
Dear Editor
It is indeed regrettable that our (otherwise rather good) MP, Helen Maguire, wished to control what each and every new Liberal Democrat councillor has to say, and presumably fears they are not competent to string a few words together and celebrate their victory.
Not every Liberal Democrat victory in Surrey belongs to Ms Maguire, much as she wishes it does.
It seems to be a problem for Ms Maguire to be a team player, to delegate and trust — and one of the reasons I left the Liberal Democrats after 25 years, the majority of those years leading the Opposition on Epsom and Ewell Borough Council.
It was also partly the reason Cllr James Lawrence left the Liberal Democrats more recently and similarly became an Independent councillor for the final year of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council.
She would do well to concentrate on giving the new team in Surrey the respect and degree of autonomy they have earned — and will cherish — in local government, and which will be necessary for them to run East Surrey Council and fulfil the promises made in their election literature and on the doorstep.
Cllr Julie Morris
Independent Councillor for College Ward – Epsom and Ewell Borough Council
Surrey County Council death throes debate
18 September 2026
Tensions boiled over in the council chamber as outgoing Surrey County Council leader Conservative Cllr Tim Oliver defended his administration and staff against accusations from local MPs and opposition councillors. He accused them of “cheap political mudslinging” against “the very people dedicating their working lives to helping others”.
Speaking at the final full council meeting before the May elections, Cllr Oliver said a “small number of recently elected MPs have crossed the line multiple times” despite repeated attempts to engage with them on sensitive issues and the complex services the council provides.
Liberal Democrat MPs said after the meeting they make “no apologies for sticking up for residents”.
“They continually undermine the work of dedicated expert staff, largely from a position of naivety and ignorance, all to try and score political points,” Cllr Oliver said. “Cheap political mudslinging impacts the very people dedicating their working lives to helping others.”
Cllr Oliver read aloud the words of a staff member from the Children, Families and Lifelong Learning Directorate, describing how political attacks felt like a “personal blow”. He read: “Most people will never see the hours spent untangling difficult cases, the compassion behind tough decisions, or the sheer persistence required to get things right […] Words have consequences beyond political point scoring.”
The criticism comes after a damning BBC report revealed the county council had been formally sanctioned by the SEND tribunal in 38 cases over a five-month period. The council said barring notices were issued during an “exceptionally high period of activity”, according to the report. An ITV report claimed Surrey adults with learning disabilities face “dangerous” cuts to care; meanwhile the council insists it is increasing investment in the service and encouraging people to speak up if they feel the assessment does not meet their needs.
Cllr Oliver has urged MPs to engage constructively with staff and warned that the workforce would not easily forget years of political attacks. “While you may claim that your words are not directed at officers, I’m afraid there is no avoiding the impacts of cheap politicisation of serious and complex work,” he said.
A statement later issued after the meeting read: “Liberal Democrat MPs make no apologies for sticking up for their constituents’ interests and raising the failures of Surrey County Council, whether it is SEND provision, safeguarding, adult social care or potholes.
“No Surrey MP mentioned SEND in Parliament before 2024. They were all Conservative. As soon Liberal Democrats were elected in 2024 we relentlessly focused on making people’s lives easier in Surrey – as we were elected to do. We hope the Leader of Surrey will work with us in trying to achieve that instead of his blatant electioneering.”
Opposition councillors also pushed back. Cllr Paul Follows said he was “bored of the ‘let’s not be political’ speeches followed by a version of ‘everything is fine and nothing is broken’.” He acknowledged Cllr Oliver’s desire for a professional approach to the Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) but said implying scrutiny from MPs or councillors was “unwelcome” and “simply a waste of everybody’s time.”
Clashes continue
The debate quickly turned into a wider clash over finances and priorities. Liberal Democrat councillors questioned whether the council’s debt levels and budget planning were as secure as Cllr Oliver claimed, while Cllr George Potter described the leader as “thin-skinned” and accused him of dodging accountability by apparently “cancelling elections”.
Despite the tension, Cllr Oliver called for a focus on collaboration across party lines. “Residents don’t want to get caught in the crossfire of politics,” he said. “They want their elected representatives to improve their lives, not score points.”
As Surrey approaches its first Unitary Council elections in May, the row highlights the delicate balance between navigating political rivalries and council staff reputation, all while preparing for a major shake-up of local government. By the time Surrey’s County Council meets again, the political map will look very different.
Local LibDem leader slams Helen Maguire MP in shock resignation
18 September 2026
In a shock development in the politics of Epsom and Ewell Liberal Democrat Council Group Leader Cllr James Lawrence (College Ward) has resigned from his Party and joined the growing Independent Group on Epsom and Ewell Borough Council.
The Independent Group, led by former Residents Association Councillor Alex Coley (Ruxley), has been joined by ex-LibDem and long serving Councillor Julie Morris (College) and former Residents Association Councillor for Nonsuch Ward, Christine Howells.
The Liberal Democrats once formed the largest opposition group on the Council. Now the group is the smallest. The Independent Group has four councillors, Labour four and the Liberal Democrats just two.
The first version of this report overlooked the little known fact that Cllr Chris Watson (Ewell Court) defected from the RA to Labour on 10th February this year.
The Residents Association remain predominant with the remainder of the total 35 seats in the Chamber.
In Cllr James Lawrence’s resignation letter he takes wounding Parthian shots at both Epsom and Ewell’s first woman and first Liberal Democrat MP Helen Maguire, who was elected in the July 2024 General Election and her Party’s leader. He pulls no punches in his critique of Sir Ed Davey, MP for Kingston-Upon-Thames.
Resignation letter of Cllr James Lawrence
Dear Resident
I joined the Liberal Democrats in 2018 because I believed that the Party had both the strong intellectual foundations Britain needs and the pragmatism to achieve them. A principled commitment to liberalism, socially responsible markets, and devolved power differentiated the Liberal Democrats from other parties. Moreover, the Party’s understanding that it existed to influence politics from the outside by winning public support for important issues was tried and tested.
In 2023, I decided to play an active role in this mission and stood for election. I was fortunate enough to win and become a councillor representing College Ward. Serving the community where I grew up has been a great privilege. I’m proud to have co-led a cross-party coalition working for better outcomes at the Chalk Pit site, increased Council lease scrutiny, and passed a motion requiring all urgent council decisions to be published. Navigating an overly complex housing payments system to keep a roof over the head of a vulnerable resident is an experience that will stay with me.
While I have been doing all I can to serve our community, I have unfortunately been undermined by both the national and local Liberal Democrats Party. Under Ed Davey’s leadership, the Party has become rudderless. What do the Liberal Democrats stand for? I wish I could tell you. Davey’s Mr. Tumble-style stunts cover up a lack of direction, policy, and commitment to seriously engage with the challenges this country faces, particularly the economy. As the two-party system collapses, the Liberal Democrats should stand to benefit. But Davey’s Party is incapable of taking advantage, and given its purposelessness, that’s probably a good thing.
Locally, I have been disappointed with our Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament who seems more interested in leafleting and electioneering than engaging in meaningful policy change at the national level. Having worked with the MP closely on local matters, I am also concerned by her ability to alienate volunteers who freely give up their time. While I was pleased to support the successful campaign to displace the Conservatives in Epsom and Ewell, I now feel a sense of guilt at having played a role in enabling her to be elected.
For these reasons, I am resigning from the Liberal Democrat Party with immediate effect. I sincerely hope that the Party returns to the seriousness of its past, but I unfortunately no longer have faith it will. I will continue to serve the people of College Ward and the Borough to the best of my ability as an Independent councillor.
James Lawrence
In response Helen Maguire has issued the following statement:
I understand that Cllr James Lawrence has decided to step away from the Epsom and Ewell Liberal Democrats and will finish his term as an independent.
While I wish him well in his future endeavours, I am saddened to see his portrayal of my values and priorities as a Member of Parliament working for local matters at a national level.
The feedback I receive from local residents is consistently positive. I frequently receive correspondence from constituents who value the regular literature they are sent informing them of the important work I am conducting in Parliament. It is equally vital to me that constituents know how accessible and visible I am as their MP, engaging with them on their doorsteps each week. It is because I am an MP who strives to be a truly present voice within Epsom and Ewell that I am able to understand these concerns and raise them at a national level.
I recently met a constituent during one of my canvassing sessions, who told me that they were having difficulties accessing a breast cancer drug. I raised this issue directly with the responsible Minister, who then intervened with our local NHS organisation, and consequently the constituent received their medication. I do not need to debate the merits of consistent canvassing when the importance of it is so clear in cases such as this.
I am proud to be a very visible and active Member of Parliament within the Epsom and Ewell community, and will continue to fight for every single one of my constituents at both a local and national level.
Surrey young people using NHS mental health services have taken their artwork to the heart of government, with an exhibition at the House of Commons offering MPs an insight into their experiences and the support they received.
The exhibition, taking place from 10-15 February, showcases work created by young people supported by the STARS and New Leaf services, part of Mindworks Surrey. STARS supports young people affected by sexual abuse and assault, while New Leaf supports those who are in care, leaving care, adopted or under special guardianship orders.
Young people are sharing their artwork with MPs to showcase how creativity supports young people’s mental health and to highlight the positive impact of the services.
The pieces explore identity, hope, growth and recovery, capturing what can be difficult to articulate in words and offering an honest reflection of young peoples’ lived experiences of mental health support.
One young person whose artwork is being exhibited said: “STARS has changed my life, I can be me now. I was shocked when I heard my art would be at the House of Commons, I am really proud that people like my picture and what I created.”
Rebecca Robertson, Specialist Mental Health and Art Therapist said: “The young people we support have expressed their thoughts and feelings around their life experiences using art materials.
“Art making can provide an important alternative to more traditional verbal therapies and can be a vital part of helping young people to engage in support, particularly when working with trauma.”
The House of Commons event was sponsored by Helen Maguire, MP for Epsom and Ewell, who attended the exhibition last summer and supported bringing the art to Parliament.
Helen said: “I’m delighted to see this exhibition come alive. It demonstrates the powerful work that New Leaf and STARS do and the importance of young people getting the right care and support for their mental health.”
Emina Atic-Lee, Service Manager for STARS and New Leaf services, said: “We are incredibly proud to see the voices of the young people we support take to the stage at the House of Commons. Each piece offers an honest and powerful window into how young people use creativity to make sense of their experiences, express emotions that are hard to put into words, and recognise their own strength.
“To showcase this work in such a nationally significant setting is a truly special moment for them and for everyone involved in the services.”
Press release from Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
Epsom and Ewell’s MP champion’s Friends of Horton Cemetery mission on “Time to Talk Day”
18 September 2026
On the edge of Epsom lies Horton Cemetery — quiet, overgrown and easy to miss. More than 9,000 people are buried there. Most never had headstones. Many never had visitors. Almost all were patients of the former Epsom Cluster of psychiatric hospitals, men and women whose final resting place reflects how society once viewed mental illness: something to be hidden, managed and ultimately forgotten.
In 2026, on Time to Talk Day, [5th February] Horton Cemetery forces us to ask an uncomfortable question: how far have we really come?
Horton Cemetery was created to serve what was once the largest cluster of psychiatric hospitals in Europe. At its height, the Epsom hospitals housed thousands of people with severe mental illness, learning disabilities and complex needs. Those who died without family or money were buried together anonymously. This was not ancient history. Horton Hospital closed in 1997. Some of those buried there lived into the late twentieth century — into the era many of us think of as modern and progressive.
Sites like Horton Cemetery challenge us to ask not just whether we are talking more openly about mental health, but whether we have truly confronted the stigma that shaped places like this, and whether we are prepared to protect the dignity of those still buried there.
Today, the cemetery has been sold to a private owner, with hopes of future development. Like many historic pauper burial sites nationwide, it sits under pressure from land values and planning decisions. I have urged the government not to grant exhumation licences at Horton Cemetery and to properly safeguard similar sites as places of remembrance, not obstacles to development. These are not empty plots. They are graves. How we treat them matters, because how we remember the dead reflects how we value the living.
Friends of Horton Cemetery, families, and Professor Alana Harris of King’s College London have worked tirelessly through initiatives such as the Lost Souls Project, which seeks to recover the names and stories of those buried anonymously in former asylum cemeteries. Their work is a quiet act of justice — restoring identity where the system erased it, and dignity where stigma once prevailed.
But local efforts can only go so far. That is why there are growing calls for a national memorial to those who lived and died in Britain’s historic mental health institutions. Such a memorial would not rewrite history, but it would acknowledge it, signifying that now is the time to talk.
Time to Talk Day is often framed around everyday conversations — a coffee and a chat, a poster on a train reminding us to check in on loved ones. These things matter. They help chip away at silence and shame. Horton Cemetery asks us to go further.
Epsom tells the story of how this country has treated mental illness. It was once the centre of a system built on isolation and control. Today, it hosts the headquarters of the Samaritans — an organisation rooted in compassion and listening. That journey should give us hope. But it also gives Epsom, and Horton, a responsibility. If we are serious about confronting mental health stigma, this is one of the places where that conversation must begin.
Because today, people with severe mental illness still face some of the deepest inequalities in our society. Recent data paints a stark picture: those facing the longest waits for mental health care are now waiting nearly two years — an average of 658 days — more than twice as long as people waiting for elective physical health treatment. The consequences are devastating. Adults living with severe mental illness, including bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, have a life expectancy 15 to 20 years lower than the general population.
These are not abstract statistics. They reflect lives cut short, needs unmet, and a system that still too often talks about people with severe mental illness rather than listening to them.
The Government now has the opportunity — and the responsibility — to show that mental health reform means more than warm words. Safeguarding sites like Horton and recognising the historic mistreatment of people with mental illness would be a powerful signal that dignity is not conditional and remembrance matters. I look forward to discussions with ministers about how we protect Horton Cemetery and similar sites across the country — not as relics of an uncomfortable past, but as places of reflection and learning.
Time to Talk Day should not only ask whether we are speaking openly. It should ask who we are hearing, whose voices are still missing, and whether, finally, we are willing to restore dignity to those whose voices were never heard.
Horton Cemetery is a quiet reminder that stigma thrives in silence. In 2026, are we ready to listen to what it is telling us?
From Epsom and Ewell Member for Parliament – Helen Maguire
The new year often brings a quieter moment. A chance to take stock once the noise and festive chaos of December fades. This year, that moment felt especially important to me.
Politics in Britain feels deeply unsettled right now, and the wider world even more so. One day brings news of geopolitical relationships breaking down in violent and inhumane acts; the next, warnings of democratic fragility from our neighbours across the Atlantic. It can all feel relentless. I don’t blame anyone who feels disillusioned, or let down by establishments and leaders that are meant to provide stability and reassurance. I feel that frustration myself at times.
When that sense of turbulence sets in, I remind myself where my focus belongs. My responsibilities are not abstract; they are here. My priorities and primary interest are with the people of Epsom and Ewell, my community. That clarity matters. It keeps my work grounded, and it shapes what my work in Westminster will be this year.
One tangible example of that focus is recent progress on the issue of pavement parking. Residents have raised this issue with me consistently since before my election in July 2024, and for good reason. Obstructed pavements are not just a minor inconvenience; they affect people’s safety. Parents with pushchairs, wheelchair users, people with visual impairments, and older residents are often the ones forced into the road just to get by.
After sustained campaigning, both locally and in Parliament, we are finally going to see meaningful change. This month, the Government gave councils new powers to tackle problematic pavement parking. What this means is that councils, not the police, can act where pavements are clearly blocked or unsafe, without long, street-by-street processes every time. Here’s what it doesn’t mean: this is not a blanket ban. Councils can still allow exemptions on narrow or busy residential streets where pavement parking is genuinely needed.
This is an important change that puts safety and accessibility first. I’m proud of this progress, not just for the outcome, but for what it represents: local voices being heard and practical problems taken seriously. I was pleased to receive recognition of my campaigning in a letter from Lilian Greenwood MP, the Minister for Local Transport, announcing the changes, and this year my priority will be ensuring that this change is implemented properly and consistently.
Another issue that comes up repeatedly is antisocial behaviour. This can take many forms, from vandalism and loud noise to the misuse of shared spaces. These issues can quietly have a real impact on our community and sense of belonging.
One specific concern constituents raise with me regularly is the growing problem of illegal or unsafe e-scooter use. I hear from parents worried that pavements or public pathways are no longer safe, and from older residents who no longer feel confident on their quick walk to the shops. One parent described a moment where their young child was mere millimetres from being knocked over by an e-scooter travelling far faster than it should have been, on a pathway it had no business being on. I dread to think what kind of irreparable damage could have been done if it weren’t for just a few millimetres of space.
When e-scooters are used responsibly and legally, they can have a place in society. But reckless riding and a lack of coordinated enforcement create real and costly risks. Last year I worked with campaigners, police and transport partners to push for a more cohesive, joined-up response to the problem. This isn’t about targeting young people or stifling new technology; it’s about, as with the pavement parking issue, ensuring our public spaces are safe for everyone who uses them.
For anyone doubting just how much devastation an electric scooter can bring to someone’s life and family, I would encourage them to read about Jacob’s Journey, and the powerful work his mother Carly is doing as a result.
My work as Primary Care and Cancer spokesperson continues alongside my constituency campaigns, and the two remain closely intertwined. I will continue to fight for better healthcare across the constituency, whether that is through better access to GP appointments or timely treatment for cancer patients.
If there is a running thread through my priorities this year, it is a belief in the value of steady, practical action that is tangible for every single member of the Epsom and Ewell community. In the uncertain times ahead, the basics matter more than ever: safe streets, responsive public services, and a more affordable cost of living. I will continue to work hard delivering this for our constituency.
Epsom & Ewell MP presses government on firearm licensing safeguards
18 September 2026
Epsom & Ewell’s MP Helen Maguire led a Westminster Hall debate on 28 January calling for tighter safeguards in the firearms licensing system, with a particular focus on making medical markers on GP records mandatory for gun licence holders.
Opening the debate, Ms Maguire set out the case for reform by referencing a series of fatal incidents where legally held firearms were used, including cases with direct relevance to Epsom & Ewell. She told MPs that the issue was not about restricting lawful gun ownership, but about closing gaps in safeguarding where warning signs were missed.
“This is a missed opportunity to save lives,” she said. “A missed opportunity to safeguard vulnerable adults with access to firearms and protect public safety.”
Local tragedy cited in Parliament
In a powerful and emotional passage, Ms Maguire referred to the double murder and suicide connected to Epsom College, a case that attracted national attention in 2023. She told the House:
“Gemma and her daughter Letty Patterson, who lived in my constituency, were shot and killed by Gemma’s husband almost three years ago, before he turned the gun on himself… If they had [been able to intervene], maybe Gemma would still be working at Epsom College and Letty might have celebrated her 10th birthday this year.”
Ms Maguire argued that the perpetrator’s use of online medical services meant that neither his GP nor the police were aware of changes in his mental health when his shotgun licence was renewed.
Case for mandatory medical markers
Medical markers are digital flags on GP systems indicating that a patient holds a firearm or shotgun licence. They are intended to prompt doctors to consider whether changes in a patient’s mental or physical health should be shared with police firearms units.
Although such markers are now available, their use by GPs remains voluntary. Ms Maguire said that this undermined their effectiveness:
“There is currently no obligation on GPs to use this marker. Their use is left to best endeavours… This cannot be allowed to happen again.”
She cited support for mandatory markers from a wide range of bodies, including the British Medical Association, the Royal College of GPs, shooting organisations and police representatives. Quoting survey evidence, she added that “87% of existing certificate holders believe GPs should inform the police if they become aware of a change of health which could impact a certificate holder’s ability to safely own a gun.”
Balancing safety and rural life
Anticipating concerns from rural MPs, Ms Maguire stressed that her proposals were not an attack on shooting sports or countryside livelihoods.
“Our country is home to proud rural communities and individuals who rely on gun ownership for their work,” she said. “This debate is in no way about firearm ownership… Today’s discussion is on how we can ensure medical professionals have the information required to best support the individuals they serve.”
She pointed to other licensing regimes, such as driving licences, where medical fitness is routinely monitored in the public interest.
Government response
Responding for the government, the Minister acknowledged the tragedy at Epsom College and confirmed that thousands of digital medical markers are already being applied each year. However, he stopped short of committing to make them mandatory, arguing that existing data suggested most GPs were using the system appropriately.
Ms Maguire challenged that position directly in the debate, asking: “If we’re saying there’s no additional cost to it, then I’m struggling to understand why it’s difficult to change the position.”
In her closing remarks, she expressed disappointment at the government’s stance and warned against complacency: “I do not want to be here again talking about another incident. And I truly hope the Minister will go away and really consider this.”
The debate concluded with broad cross-party support for the principle of stronger safeguards, even as ministers resisted calls for immediate legislative change.
The Government has announced plans to give councils across England new legal powers to tackle pavement parking, following years of concern from disability groups, parents, and local campaigners about blocked pavements forcing people into the road.
In a statement issued on 8 January, the Department for Transport said the changes are intended to make it easier for local authorities to restrict pavement parking across wider areas, rather than relying on street-by-street restrictions that can be slow and complex to introduce.
The Department said blocked pavements create serious barriers for wheelchair users, parents with pushchairs, blind or partially sighted people, and older residents, limiting independence and making everyday journeys less safe. Ministers say the new approach will allow councils to act where pavement parking causes the greatest local problems, while retaining flexibility where limited pavement parking may still be considered acceptable.
Local Transport Minister Lilian Greenwood said clear pavements are essential for people to move around safely and independently, and that councils will be given the power to “crack down on problem pavement parking” while taking account of local conditions. National organisations including Guide Dogs and the RAC welcomed the announcement, calling for consistent enforcement and proportionate use of the new powers.
Surrey County Council: details awaited
Responding to questions from Epsom and Ewell Times, Surrey County Council said it welcomed the announcement but stressed that it is too early to comment on how it might operate in practice.
A Surrey County Council spokesperson said the authority is “looking forward to finding out more about new powers allowing local authorities to tackle antisocial pavement parking,” but added that further detail is needed on what exactly is proposed and what the powers will entail once introduced. The council said it would be happy to revisit the issue once more information is shared by the Department for Transport.
The Government has said that guidance on how councils should use the new powers will be published later in 2026.
Local MP claims campaign success
The announcement was welcomed by Epsom and Ewell MP Helen Maguire, who described it as a significant step forward following sustained local and parliamentary campaigning.
Ms Maguire said she had raised pavement parking repeatedly in Parliament, including through a Westminster Hall debate, an Early Day Motion, written questions to ministers, and local campaigning with residents. She said pavement parking makes streets unsafe and inaccessible, and that no one should be forced into the road when walking to school or the shops.
Following the announcement, the Minister for Local Transport wrote directly to Ms Maguire, thanking her for her advocacy and citing her work in highlighting the challenges caused by pavement parking.
What powers already exist?
At present, pavement parking outside London is not subject to a general nationwide ban. Enforcement relies on a patchwork of existing powers, which can be limited or difficult to apply.
Yellow line parking restrictions, for example, apply from the centre of the carriageway to the highway boundary, which usually includes the pavement. However, these restrictions only apply during the signed controlled hours and do not always prevent vehicles from mounting the pavement if enforcement is not prioritised.
Councils can also act where a vehicle causes an obstruction of the highway, an offence under existing road traffic legislation. In practice, enforcement is often reserved for cases where access is completely blocked, such as preventing wheelchair passage or emergency access. This can leave many partially obstructed pavements unaddressed.
Local authorities may also introduce specific Traffic Regulation Orders banning pavement parking on individual streets or sections of road, but this process can be time-consuming, requires consultation and signage, and is rarely applied borough-wide.
The Government has said the new powers are intended to move away from this piecemeal approach, allowing councils to introduce area-wide pavement parking restrictions more easily, while still permitting exemptions where pavements are wide enough and pedestrian access is not compromised.
What happens next?
The Department for Transport says further guidance will be published later this year, setting out how councils can use the new powers in a proportionate and locally appropriate way. Until then, councils such as Surrey County Council say they are unable to comment on how enforcement might change on the ground.
For residents in Epsom and Ewell, the announcement signals political momentum on an issue that has generated long-standing concern, particularly with food delivery mopeds in the Epsom High Street area, but any practical change to enforcement will depend on the detail of the legislation and how quickly local authorities choose to act once the new framework is in place.
