Layla Moran MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jun 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I do have concerns over Healthwatch; I have even more concerns over the role of the HSSIB. We cannot have it both ways: people cannot sit at desks near other people who are making decisions and at the same time be perceived as entirely independent. The perception of independence cannot be legislated for—the perception is everything, and that is my concern. Clause 15 talks about co-creation, but getting this point right is key to making the system work. There are many examples of where it has been done correctly, but all too often it is just a tick-box exercise. The third theme is financial flows and integration. Time and again, the Committee is in rooms with local authorities, social care and the voluntary sector all saying that they know how to do this for their local area and it is the system that gets in the way. Section 75 arrangements are a good start and should be strengthened, and there is a lot of promise in the neighbourhood health plans under clause 24. Our concern is over clause 21, because if local authority representation is removed from ICB boards, then social care is not present in those first conversations. That is critical and needs rethinking. The fourth theme is data. Recently in my surgery, I spoke to a woman called Freya-Rose, who described how repeatedly recounting traumatic experiences compounded her own suffering. The single patient record could be transformational for her and others who find recounting traumatic experiences difficult. We therefore welcome clause 47, but we must be careful about the risks, especially around sensitive data. On that, the Committee will be having hearings on the federated data platform and Palantir, which has already been mentioned today. The final theme that has emerged in our work is inequalities, so I am excited about the potential of clause 4. I am proud of the Liberal legacy that this NHS is built on. In his seminal report, Beveridge rightly pointed to want, disease, squalor, idleness and ignorance as the five giants that needed to be slayed on the road to recovery following world war two. Obviously, we have come a long way since then, but I would argue that it is time to define some new giants, and health inequality must be one. It is self-evidently the moral thing to do, but—here is something I think the Secretary of State will like—it is also the economically wise thing to do, because study after study shows that tackling inequalities is the key to unlocking productivity in the NHS. Simply put, helping those who need it the most helps us all. This Bill needs to do more than just “have regard” to inequality; I would urge the Government to make it its core mission. I end by simply saying what I started with: I will work constructively to help the Government make this the success that I hope they want it to be. I would urge them to think about the downsides, because there are some and they need sorting out. Above all, the Bill will be judged not by us, but by Chris and Freya-Rose, the very patients who deserve to be put at the heart of this legislation moving forward. Official Report , 8 June 2026; Vol. 787, c. 2WC. (Correction)

• 14 Apr 2026 · NHS Waiting Lists · Hansard source

  More

  Making sure that our GP surgeries are revving on all cylinders is key to ensuring that people get the access to NHS treatment that they need. The Secretary of State will know of my campaign to get a new site for Summertown health centre—in fact, we have been trying to meet to talk about it for over 14 months—but we are now at a key moment. The council and the local practices are at a point where, if we do not get a decision in the next few weeks, we risk losing the opportunity. However, there is a block, which is the district valuer. It often asks for rents far below market value, so what is the Secretary of State doing across Government to make sure that the role of district valuers in ICBs is reassessed?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Resident Doctors: Industrial Action · Hansard source

  More

  This is clearly the wrong move again. It is really stark; we keep hearing from patients across the country about how much they want the NHS to improve, but this is another blow to them, and they may even wonder if it is safe to go into their local hospital during the strike period. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for coming to the Committee and talking about corridor care. The really interesting thing about that session was that the hospitals that have turned things around did so because of leadership from the top. Their executives and board members were going into hospitals out of hours and on weekends to speak with resident doctors, nurses and patients, to see what things were like on the ground. When was the last time the Secretary of State did that? This is not a “gotcha” moment—I have not done that recently, but I want to. If we are to lead a change in culture in the NHS, we should all show how we would do it, and should urge board members and executives to do the same, in every hospital across the country.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Palliative Care · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. Gentleman reads the introduction, he will see that we put the report in the context of the discussions on the assisted dying Bill. Like this House, the Committee has a range of views on the issue—for and against, and in between—but the point we make is that we all share a desire for palliative care to improve. My own take on it is that the conversations we have been having about death—not just us as a House, but as a nation—as a result of that Bill have urged action. We have had the standards on palliative care for 20 years, and they have not been met. I think this is an opportunity. Regardless of where one stands on the matter of assisted dying, let us grasp the nettle and take the opportunity to finally get this right this time.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Palliative Care · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the right hon. Gentleman for his campaigning on this issue over many years. Together for Short Lives was indeed a contributor to the two reports. Its specific recommendation on babies, children and young people’s care was that we need better specialist pan-ICB commissioning that is modelled on other services. They are a tiny proportion of an already tiny population, and they are so often forgotten. As I mentioned in my speech, they are considered an add-on at the end of a commissioning process, but we need to start with them. They deserve so much more thought than they currently get.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Palliative Care · Hansard source

  More

  On behalf of the Health and Social Care Committee, it is a pleasure to present to the House our sixth report, which is on the subject of palliative care. This is the second report we are presenting to the House in as many weeks, because the Committee is in a hurry to play our part in fixing the NHS and social care, and especially to shine a light on those areas that feel more intractable and that historically get less attention. This is clearly true for the area of palliative and end-of-life care. We welcome the more recent renewed focus on the very sensitive issue of death—it will happen to us all, yet too often as a nation, we leave it far too late to talk about it. That is perhaps why, despite the fact that it will be a universal experience, death does not often receive the political attention it deserves. We began by asking our independent expert panel to look at the heart of this system. The panel is made up of health and care experts from a range of disciplines—clinicians, lawyers and health economists, as well as temporary members with expertise in palliative care—and is ably led by Dr Jane Dacre. I am grateful for their work. Their report drew on available evidence, the Government’s own standards and the lived experience of patients, their families and professionals. The panel found a sector in critical condition: fragmented, failing and forgotten. Our report took those findings and combined them with the session where we quizzed the Minister for Care—I thank him for being in his place today—and his officials. Our 22 conclusions and recommendations span six main areas: the modern service framework, commissioning, data, workforce, bereavement, and hospices. Nowhere is the failure of this sector more acute than in the care of babies, children and young people. The expert panel identified serious inadequacies for this vulnerable and under-served group. One clinician told us that children are “just an add on”, and another said: “There is a severe lack of 24/7 cover for community children’s nursing, and no investment into it either.” We are concerned that the Minister was unable to commit to providing clear and specific standards and guidance for babies, children and young people, and we strongly recommend that standards for that group and for the transition between child and adult services are made a priority. We also need pan-integrated care board guidance on commissioning services for babies, children and young people. There are too few of these services, so we need to pool resourcing. The expert panel’s report also revealed a distressing and deep-seated postcode lottery for all in palliative care. A lived experience witness said: “I went there, and he was screaming—clearly dying, in absolute agony and very, very distressed. And it took for me to ring so many different people to get someone to actually listen to me say, ‘I don’t care if he had pain relief two hours ago, he needs some more now and he needs something different.’ He died early the next morning. I know this would not have happened in my local area—so that made it an even more distressing experience”. That heart-wrenching story—there are many others—is so common in these reports. We found that many ICBs lack sufficient understanding of their local needs to commission effectively. Competing financial pressures mean that palliative care is so often pushed to the bottom of the pile, and the culture of understanding needs to come right from the top. Structural and geographic inequalities persist, and deprived and marginalised communities face significant unmet need. To fix that will require high standards and accountability across the country, which is why the forthcoming modern service framework is so important, and we welcome it. The Minister told the Committee that making palliative and end-of-life care one of the first five modern service frameworks was a “bat signal” to the system. We welcome that, if not the mental image of him as the caped crusader, but we approach the MSF with a healthy dose of scepticism. What is fundamentally different this time? There have been frameworks before, most notably the palliative and end-of-life ambitions framework and the NHS national standards for palliative and end-of-life care. This time, we need more than well-intentioned ambition; we need action, accountability and assurance. The Committee recommends that ICBs and the Department are held accountable, with clear consequences for failing to meet standards. We must ensure that ICBs have the support, tools and resources required to implement these high standards. We cannot allow this to be another framework that gathers dust on a shelf. The thing is, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are not meeting the guidance that already exists. Let us take 24/7 advice lines, which could offer guidance, reassurance and support for care at home, potentially reducing A&E admissions. At present, just 43% of ICBs offer them properly. That is despite the fact that 24/7 telephone advice lines have been recommended as a minimum service requirement by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the Department for more than two decades. The role of pharmacies is also critical, but they too need support to deliver. The Minister has committed to 100% coverage of telephone lines by 2027, but we push him further: the MSF must mandate ICBs to deliver not just telephone lines, but access to all services, including symptomatic medication and in-person care. Unfortunately, death does not wait until 8 am on a Monday morning. A further concern was the effects of the shift to the community. We worry that funding restraints and workforce and skill shortages will make that transition difficult. In the same breath as saying that they want this shift, the Government’s forthcoming NHS reorganisation Bill is proposing to remove local authority representation from ICBs. Local authorities are responsible for social care, and social care workers are the backbone of end-of-life care, with 22% of deaths occurring in care homes. If we want to strategically commission end-of-life and palliative care, it is nonsensical to remove local authority voices from the top table and that strategic role right from the off. We therefore urge the Government to reconsider their position. We also urge the Government to fix data sharing. One clinician told us: “If there was more willingness to link data and allow ICBs to have a better view of it and work with partners”— hospices and the third sector— “they could better understand the need and actively address health inequalities.” Of the 1% of our population who die each year, only around half end up on the palliative care register, and that is despite financial incentives for GPs to put them there. The Government have a welcome stretch target of 90%, but they have also removed the financial incentives for GPs to maintain the registers. We are concerned that that will result in a decrease, not an increase, in those who are registered. We recommend that the Department reports progress on the 90% target annually, and we welcome the single patient record to drive integration, but we want to understand better how that data will be shared not just with the NHS, but across all partners involved in end-of-life care. We cannot deliver this change without our workforce—the people. Vacant posts in this area are mounting, and only 30 to 40 new consultants qualify each year. We await the 10-year workforce plan with bated breath, but we hope that it also includes specific measures to address children’s palliative care staffing. It is not just the specialists but the generalists who should get better training in this area. At the moment, too many nurses in the community might send a patient to acute care because they cannot adequately manage risk with confidence. If they knew what to do in that moment, they may decide not to call 999 and instead have better care where the patient is. That is clearly better for everyone involved and is far less distressing. Finally, I come to hospices. So many are recipients of fundraising from marathon runs and bake sales. It strikes the Committee as nonsensical that this important part of the sector is funded primarily through charity. We welcome the multi-year settlements made more recently and the money into capital, but we make the point that if hospices are to help lead the way out of this crisis, they need much better and more long-term support. The Government’s modern service framework must be more than just a press release. It must be a pledge to every citizen that when their time comes, they will be supported, not stranded. We owe it to the thousands of people facing their final days today, and to the families who will remember their care forever, to finally get it right this time.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with the hon. Member that this is exactly the wrong moment to turn our backs on the promises that this House made to the children of this country. He may remember that it was the Fridays for Future movement that had children literally coming out on to the streets, out of school on Fridays, to make the case to their elected parliamentarians that they wanted us to commit to net zero. We would be reneging on our commitment to those children’s futures as well as affecting their presents.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Community Mental Health Services · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has been a doughty campaigner on eating disorders for many, many years. We did not look specifically at eating disorders, but I know that some of the centres have that embedded. We know very well that if we are going to take a holistic approach to someone with severe mental illness, it is not just about the physical side or the housing; many of them suffer from other disorders or substance abuse. The key thing here is actually a simple principle: if we treat someone like a person, rather than a number that needs to go through a pathway like a pinball, we get better results. It is faster and cheaper, and we would have a workforce who feel that they are doing good, rather than feeling demoralised. It is win-win-win.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Community Mental Health Services · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to the hon. Lady, my fellow Health and Social Care Committee member, for how movingly she shared her personal story. That was pivotal in the shaping of this report. She has just demonstrated to this House the power of having experts by experience lie at the heart of design and these recommendations—indeed, that was our very first recommendation in this report. I could not agree more with the hon. Member’s point about the 24/7 neighbourhood centres. I am a carer—I hate that word, by the way; I am talking about my partner—and as someone who is often picking up the pieces, I know very well how transformational the centres might be in my own area. While some funding is available to ICBs, I am concerned that without the detail behind this issue, we risk it not being transformed quickly enough. I think that double-running is important—we have already seen that from the example of Barnsley Street. The six pilots that are up and running are already looking at possibly shutting down. As I said, what a waste! I urge the Minister to do more and faster, because this could change the game.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Community Mental Health Services · Hansard source

  More

  We did a one-off report on that issue, in fact. It was not in this report, but we have looked at it. One of the key things here is good, local working with the wider community, which echoes some of what we have seen in this report. I know that many Members will have an interest in child and adolescent mental health services in this area. A forthcoming joint inquiry by the Health and Social Care Committee and the Education Committee will look at CAMHS, and no doubt some of the questions around neurodiversity will come into that as well. My hon. Friend is entirely right to point out this issue; it is a huge problem. I have one constituent who was told that they would have to wait 16 to 18 years for an assessment—I think that says it all.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Community Mental Health Services · Hansard source

  More

  On behalf of the Health and Social Care Committee, it is a pleasure to present to the House our report on the subject of community mental health services. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this statement. Mental health services are failing too many people. As MPs, we hear heartbreaking stories from our constituents every day: individuals who struggle to navigate a complex, poorly resourced system; clinicians frustrated that they cannot provide the level of care they would like to; or, worst of all, families who have tragically lost loved ones, knowing that they could have been saved if care had been more responsive. This area is also personal to me, as my partner, Rosy, lives with bipolar, and I have seen at first hand the good, the bad and the downright absent of the mental healthcare system. The inquiry looked under the bonnet of community care, especially for those with severe mental illness. We received a wealth of evidence but the most compelling came from those who we call “experts by experience”, such as Chris Frederick, who said: “Despite some of the referrals, recommendations and lots of content on social media—‘You should try these different techniques’—you really are on your own. There is nobody there to support you.” Powerful stories like this drove our 22 recommendations to improve community mental health provision, but today I only have time to highlight just a few. First, we need proper, integrated mental health care in the community. There is an NHS England pilot programme for six 24/7 neighbourhood mental health centres, and we saw at first hand in Barnsley Street how patients were able to walk in and receive the treatment and care that they needed. There were no complicated referrals and no “pathway says no”; they were able to take the brave step of asking for help and getting it. And it is not just about help with clinical needs, because in the same building there are people who help with housing, benefits and more. One staff member said, “this place helps people feel like a skilled person, not just an ill person”. That makes perfect sense, because a person is not just their diagnosis and we get better results by taking a more deliberate, holistic approach. The outcomes of the pilots are emerging, but clinicians told me that they are seeing fewer patients in the local A&E in crisis and fewer needing expensive in-patient care. The approach works for patients but also for staff and families. In an unusually bleak landscape, it felt like an oasis in the desert. The Committee is therefore disappointed that the Government rejected our recommendation to extend the pilots by another 12 months beyond April 2026. However, they do agree that the learning should be rolled out nationwide, so I welcome the £473 million of funding to be made available to integrated care boards to invest in models like the pilots. I am, however, hearing from existing centres that they are deeply concerned about the future, with funding ending and their ICBs already reprioritising. What a waste. The Committee is also clear on the link between physical and mental health. Someone living with severe mental illness is far more likely to have physical illnesses too, and there is extensive evidence of co-morbidities and preventable deaths. The NHS should reinstate the annual physical health check target for people with severe mental illness. The Government, in their response to our report, recognise the importance and positive impact of the check, but have not committed to reinstating it. They argue that it will appear in the promised modern service framework. I do not really care how they reinstate it and I reserve judgment. Indeed, much of the Government response signposts to the yet unpublished MSF, which is undoubtedly going to play a major role in bringing consistency across the country—a problem we heard about time and again. The Government want to drive “rapid and significant improvements in quality of care”, but a year on from their announcement, we have heard nothing more about it, so we recommended setting a deadline for the publication of the MSF in 2026, which the Government have accepted. The mental health sector is in crisis and it deserves these new standards urgently. To achieve the best outcomes, we must include voluntary, community, faith and social enterprise organisations, but they need certainty to plan. That is why we have recommended a move to multi-year contracts. We are glad that the Government have accepted this recommendation, but we must be clear on the details of the “practical support and accountability” they say will also be provided. The charity Turning Point says: “There is a sense of looking down on VCFSE people as the gofers who run about—‘We do all the important work, and they just look after people when we aren’t there.’” That culture needs to shift. The Committee also recommended that such organisations are embedded in the design of services from the off, and we are further concerned by the lack of data sharing and interoperability, which is stifling innovation. Far too often, these organisations have the answers we need, and we need to value them more. But with that, we also need stronger accountability. The Committee is baffled by the fact that there are no mental health waiting list standards—which, in common parlance, is a target. In plain speak, mental health patients deserve to be seen and treated in a timely manner, just as any other patient might in the NHS. For example, if someone’s doctor refers them to a consultant to treat a bunion, they know that the NHS says that they should have to wait a maximum of 18 weeks. However, if someone is referred to a consultant for bipolar, the NHS has nothing to say about how long they can expect to wait—and indeed, as a result, many people wait for years. The Committee has found that the lack of national standards is contributing to inconsistent access. This is a long-standing issue. Waiting time standards have been consulted on and we understand that they have been drafted. In fact, the Government recognise their importance in their response to the report, but they have no plan to implement them—the House can understand why we are a bit baffled. We have seen how effective a target can be in driving national change, especially in an area of crisis in the NHS. Gareth Harry of NHS England said, “in general when the mental health sector has been set a target historically, it has done very well against it.” The Committee will not rest until there is a waiting time standard for mental health, in just the same way that there is for elective procedures. On the subject of parity of esteem, let us turn to the mental health investment standard, which was championed by Liberal Democrat Minister Norman Lamb and introduced in 2016. It required the share of ICB spend on mental health to be at least as large, proportionately speaking, as overall increases in local budgets. In practice, that meant that over nine consecutive years, the proportion of the NHS budget spent on mental health increased, but this year the Government changed the planning guidance to water down the MHIS and require spending not in accordance with the overall proportion, but only in line with inflation. The Secretary of State recently admitted that instead of the overall share of the NHS spend going up, it will drop for the third year running. We believe that is wrong. The Government have underestimated how damaging a signal this deprioritisation has sent to the sector. Although we agree that there is a conversation to be had about inputs and outputs—like all parts of the NHS, this area needs to roll up its sleeves and make change—the Darzi review was clear that mental health accounts for 20% of the disease burden but only about 8% of the spend, and that disparity is getting worse, not better, under this Government. Rapid change and transformation must happen, but to do it quickly and effectively some double-running will likely be necessary. We therefore recommend writing the original mental health investment standard definition into legislation so that no Government can again change it by the back door. That, alongside implementing those long-wanted waiting time standards, would be a significant step towards making reality a stated aim of the NHS constitution itself: that there should be parity of esteem between mental and physical health. We believe that this Government have the right intentions, but we remain concerned that at the moment, they are all talk and not enough action. Much will depend on the efficacy of the modern service framework, which we look forward to seeing and scrutinising when it is finally here. We all know that delivering meaningful transformation requires a fundamental reimagining of mental healthcare as trauma-informed, person-centred and rooted in a social model. This will take bravery, leadership and unwavering political will, and we ask all Members of this House to join us in pushing for it.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Meningitis Outbreak · Hansard source

  More

  I share my condolences with those families and communities affected by this outbreak. I cannot begin, as the Secretary of State said, to imagine what they must be thinking and feeling during this time. I also thank those staff who have been involved in the response. I echo the Secretary of State’s hope that from this tragedy will come greater public awareness, but may I add that there should be an increased laser-like focus on vaccination and immunisation from the highest levels of Government? He may be aware that the Select Committee did a one-off inquiry into vaccination and immunisation. I have to be honest with him: our letter to the Department is one of the strongest we have ever sent. We have deep concerns. We use words such as “complacent”, although I do not think that applies to this specific case. I believe that UKHSA has taken this matter incredibly seriously and the mobilisation has happened, although that is despite, not because of, the level of underlying resilience in the system. Will the Secretary of State undertake to look at what we have sent him and his Department? Will he undertake to lead the response himself, not just on this incident but on all vaccination trends in this country from now on?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  In among the discussions around procedure, which are important in this place, I fear that we are missing the nub of what my hon. Friend is trying to get to, which is that this is a nuanced space. This is not a blanket “we say no to everything”. Some people are arguing that we should do nothing, and that it should just be down to parents to deal with it. Does she agree that the thoughtful way that she is putting this across, trying to get us all to come together around this issue with the public, is how we will create something that is future-proof? So much of legislation in this area involves chasing our tails, but this is an opportunity for us to get ahead of it, for once.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  May I ask for some clarification in respect of the police investigations? The Minister may have noted the intervention made by Gordon Brown on Sunday, when he asked constabularies to consider widening the probe on the basis of files that had been released as part of the data dump. I appreciate that the Minister will not be able to comment on what those police forces are planning to do or not to do, but one of the questions that have arisen is whether all Departments, including the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Transport, would co-operate fully with them in relation to anything that they might need. Can he assure me that every single Department, without fear or favour, will give them whatever they need if they wish to widen the investigation?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  I am reminded of the debate brought forward by the Conservatives on Lord Mandelson and the proverbial parliamentary knickers-twisting that had to happen to work out that the way to deal with the issue of the intelligence services was indeed to allow the Intelligence and Security Committee to look at the papers. Is it not the case that we have the mechanisms in this place to scrutinise most things, but when it comes to the royal family we do not? Even if a Select Committee wants to do something on these matters, we self-censor with our own conventions that we apply to ourselves. Only we can change that. I am curious to know what the Government are going to do and whether there is a mechanism by which we change those conventions, because they are clearly the nub of the issue when it comes to parliamentary scrutiny.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  People understand that we have a living, breathing, constitutional democracy that grows as society better understands things. If the King does not want Andrew to be a prince, it makes no sense that we still have to bring in legislation to strip him of his dukedom and his earldoms, or that he remains in the line of succession and could potentially be King. There are plenty of other things that we need to be getting on with, but there is a certain logic in this instance that just needs tidying up, if nothing else.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend share my worry that human trafficking, of which those women were victims, is not currently subject to a police inquiry? It is absolutely right that the police will make their own decisions, but does she agree that the Government must ensure that they have the necessary resourcing so that, if they want to go down that rabbit hole—I urge them to do so actively—they are not stymied by a lack of resources?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  I think the hon. Gentleman is trying to get to a point that deeply concerns me, which is that we need to understand the extent to which the then Prince Andrew was leaning on government for things he wanted. There is an example of this in the recent Epstein files, which contain an exchange between Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein about how Andrew had written to the Ministry of Defence in order to allow their plane to land at an RAF base in Norfolk on 7 December 2000. Andrew’s influence on government predated his appointment. What we want to understand is the extent to which he was already trying to influence government as a prince and what that led to in his role as trade envoy. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is incredibly important to get to the bottom of that?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  I hear the Minister’s scepticism about a public inquiry, but the more this debate has gone on, the more I have felt that this is an issue of culture. There are things material to how we have ended up where we are that will not meet an evidentiary threshold and have not contravened any laws, but that clearly do need changing, and what needs changing is the overall culture in our establishment itself. If we do not need a public inquiry to examine this in the round on the basis of everything we know—and I understand his arguments for why it should not be—then how do we do this?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  2000.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Health and Social Care: Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  On Friday, I visited Young Devon, an early support centre in the heart of rural North Devon, where I met young people who told me heartbreaking stories of how they felt left out and let down by the system. Young Devon was quite literally a lifeline for them. It has an open-door, person-centred approach. I am delighted that its funding has been continued for one more year, but it is only one year, and those who run the centre told me that this makes it incredibly difficult for them to plan. Can the Secretary of State clarify what the longer-term plan is for these early support hubs, how they sit alongside Young Futures hubs, and how he can help organisations like Young Devon thrive into the future?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is giving a powerful speech outlining how Liberal Democrat councils up and down the country are doing their best in this cost of living crisis. Oxfordshire county council finds itself in a £24 million deficit as a result of the settlement. Meanwhile, residents on the doorstep are saying to us, “What about my potholes?” He is right to point out that social care is part of that demographic deficit. [ Interruption. ] Does he agree that we need to tackle the core issues and that one of those is social care, because sorting that out helps everything to do with local government finance?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q11. My residents are sick of being let down by Thames Water. Robert and Patricia were sent a £39,000 bill that they did not actually owe; Len and Jenny were forced to use a Portaloo for months as sewage filled their home; and parents still think twice about sending their children to swim in the river. We understand that a £16 billion rescue deal is soon to cross the Prime Minister’s desk. Will he admit today what everyone already knows: that Thames Water is dead in the water; that any delay is pointless; and that it should be put out of its misery and rebuilt as a company for public benefit?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I sense that the Secretary of State is about to reach the end of his remarks. We are keen to start the debate, but it would be helpful to get clarity on one thing before we begin. When will we see the workforce plan? It has been delayed a couple of times. We wrote to the Department in November asking for an explanation as to why it has been delayed and when we can expect it. Can the Secretary of State give us some clarity, because that is the context in which the narrow technical measure that we are discussing needs to happen?