Sarah Hall MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  Thank you, Sir Jeremy; it happens. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I support public ownership of our water industry. Water is an essential public service, and it should be run in the public interest. People in my constituency cannot suddenly decide that they have had enough of United Utilities and switch to another water company. They pay their bills because they need the service, and they should be able to expect it to work for them. In reality, however, across the country, that is not what is happening. After years of neglect, failure to upgrade infrastructure, sewage dumping in our waterways and skyrocketing bills, people have frankly had enough. We have spent decades trying to regulate these monopolies, so that they behave somewhat like a public service, but it is clear that that simply has not worked. Across the wider water system, responsibility is divided between organisations, Departments, agencies and authorities, leaving people struggling to find out who will put a problem right. On new year’s day last year, families in Warrington had water coming into their homes, and when water is coming through the front door, they do not want an organisational chart; they just want to know what happened and what someone is going to do about it. The system that we have, which has been bolted together over the years, does not reflect how closely all those things connect. That is where we need to change the way we think. I want to see a publicly owned water company that works holistically across the whole system. A long-term public programme would give businesses certainty about the work coming in. A steady programme of work would give British firms the confidence to invest, take on apprentices, and develop skills and technology. We must use any change in the ownership model to change the way that the whole water system works, so that it is transparent, puts profits back into the crumbling system and ends the dumping of sewage in our waterways. The Prime Minister has spoken about stronger public control of essential services, and I welcome that, but in water, public control has to mean more than regulating private companies more closely. We have been doing that since privatisation. Regulation alone cannot decide what the company is ultimately there to do or whose interests should come first. Every one of us depends on water. I believe it should belong to the public and be run for the public good.

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

  More

  As we have already heard, today is World Suicide Prevention Day and this week Papyrus, which is based in my Warrington South constituency, went into administration after almost 30 years. Its 24/7 HopeLine allowed young people experiencing suicidal thoughts, and anyone worried about them, to speak to trained advisers, day and night. I have written to all MPs and peers, asking them to sign a cross-party letter to the Health Secretary calling for emergency funding to protect Papyrus’s services. Will the Leader of the House make time for an oral statement from a health Minister on the closure of Papyrus, and the steps the Government are taking to restore HopeLine’s 24/7 service to support the young people who relied on it?

• 10 Sept 2026 · Economic Capabilities: Cross-Government Work · Hansard source

  More

  Britain’s future growth depends on having the infrastructure, energy, skills and industrial capacity to support it, but too often, investment is held back because the problems—whether grid capacity, water, transport or skills—sit across different Departments. How will the Department make sure this Government deal with those problems together, so that we can reindustrialise Britain and bring growth to every postcode?

• 10 Sept 2026 · Economic Capabilities: Cross-Government Work · Hansard source

  More

  4. What steps her Department is taking to co-ordinate cross-Government work to strengthen the UK’s long-term economic capabilities.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q2. The Prime Minister grew up in Warrington so he will know that our town has changed enormously, but too much of the infrastructure that people depend on has not changed with it. Much of Warrington hospital was built in a different century for a much smaller population, while Broomfields leisure centre is at the end of its life and its pool is now closed on safety grounds. Will the Prime Minister come home to Warrington, meet me and set out how the Government will deliver the infrastructure that my constituents deserve?

• 16 Jul 2026 · Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment · Hansard source

  More

  I want to use my contribution today to talk about my constituent Lucy Harrison. I warn Members that what follows will be painful to hear—painful because Lucy was deeply loved, because Lucy’s life was taken in circumstances that should never have happened, and because Lucy’s family and loved ones have had to carry the truth of that day ever since. They have shown extraordinary courage in allowing her story to be told. Lucy was just 23 when she died. She was from Great Sankey in Warrington. She had her whole life ahead of her. She was not simply a name in the news. She was Jane’s daughter, and she was Sam’s partner. She was deeply loved, and she should still be here. Lucy had already achieved so much. She had earned a first-class degree in fashion buying and merchandising, and she had begun a career that she was passionate about. She was building a life with her partner Sam. Sam has described Lucy as the joy of his life. She meant everything to him. Boxing Day 2024 would be the last time that Jane saw her daughter alive. On 27 December 2024, Lucy and Sam travelled to Texas to visit Lucy’s father and his family—her father, a British citizen, now lives in Texas. They were due to return home on 10 January 2025. However, on the day that they were due to return home, just before leaving for the airport, Lucy went into a bedroom with her father. Sam waited for Lucy in the living room. A short time later, Sam heard a loud bang. Lucy had been shot by her father. She was in her father’s home—somewhere she should have been safe. It was the middle of the night when Jane, who was back home in Warrington, received the call that no parent should ever receive—that Lucy had been shot by her father and had not survived. Jane and Sam immediately found themselves trying to understand how Lucy’s death was being investigated, what evidence was being considered, and whether anyone would ever be held accountable. They were left trying to understand a legal system without adequate support from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. The Prosper police department investigated Lucy’s death as a possible criminally negligent homicide, but the case was later considered by a grand jury in Texas, and no criminal charges were brought. The gun had “simply gone off”. When the evidence was later examined at Lucy’s inquest in Cheshire, the conclusion was very different. The senior coroner found that Lucy had been unlawfully killed. The senior coroner for Cheshire told the court that Lucy’s father’s actions on the day of her death were “truly, exceptionally bad and reprehensible” so as to amount to her death. She rejected the account that the gun had simply gone off. The coroner found that for Lucy to have suffered the injury that she did, her father must have pointed the firearm in her direction, failed to check whether it was loaded, and then pulled the trigger. She described those actions as reckless and concluded that that amounted to gross negligence manslaughter. An officer detected alcohol on his breath, and he initially denied having consumed any. Despite that, no breathalyser or blood alcohol tests were ever carried out. The senior coroner’s findings directly challenge the description of Lucy’s death as a tragic accident, and they raise serious questions about whether the original investigation followed the evidence with the rigour that the case demanded. Lucy’s family recognise that the legal systems in England and Texas are different and are not asking for the Government to interfere in another country’s justice system. They are asking for the findings of a British coroner—reached after a full examination of the evidence —to be taken seriously. They are asking for Lucy’s case to be reconsidered by US authorities. I implore the Government to use every channel that they have to press the relevant authorities in Texas to reopen or formally reconsider Lucy’s case and to stand alongside a British family and ensure that the findings of a British court are properly considered. As a matter of urgency, can the Government ensure that the FCDO does more in future to support the families of constituents who have been murdered abroad? Jane has said that those who knew Lucy know what she would want them to do now: to make change, do better and be better. That is exactly what they are trying to do. They are carrying on the fight for Lucy.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Year 6 McKellen pupils at St Philip Westbrook primary school in my constituency are campaigning against hostile architecture, such as spikes and divided benches, which makes life harder for people experiencing homelessness. Will the Leader of the House join me in praising their courageous advocacy and make time for a debate on ensuring that our public spaces are designed with dignity and compassion in mind?

• 9 Jul 2026 · Lobular Breast Cancer: Moon Shot Project · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for securing this hugely important debate and for his powerful speech. Just a few weeks ago, I stood outside Downing Street alongside women living with invasive lobular breast cancer, their families and campaigners for the Lobular Moon Shot Project’s 22-minute silence. Those 22 minutes represented the 22 women who lose their lives to lobular breast cancer every day. It was a deeply moving experience. Standing in silence with women who are living with the disease alongside those who have lost loved ones brought home why today’s debate really matters. They were not asking for sympathy; they were asking to be seen. They were asking for better research, earlier diagnosis and better outcomes for women diagnosed in the future. Today, I want to share the story of my constituent, Trish. She has kindly given me permission to share her story because she hopes that by doing so, another woman may recognise the signs of lobular breast cancer sooner. Trish did everything that we ask women to do. Between 2014 and 2025, she attended six mammograms—six opportunities for cancer to be found, and six occasions when she believed that if something was wrong, it would be detected. But none of those mammograms picked up any signs. Like many women, Trish believed that cancer meant finding a lump. It was not a lump that led to her diagnosis; it was a shadow. After getting out of the shower one morning, while putting her hair up, she noticed a shadow underneath her breast. She took a photograph and could clearly see dimpling in her skin. Thankfully, her GP listened and referred her urgently under the two-week-wait pathway. I place on the record my thanks to that GP, because despite there being no obvious lump, they recognised that something was not right. At the breast clinic, Trish underwent mammograms, ultrasounds and biopsies. Initially, she was reassured that there was no lump to feel. She was then told that there was a small area of concern. The plan was for a lumpectomy and a short course of radiotherapy, and she recalls being told that she would likely be back at work in a month. She underwent an MRI, which is when everything changed. It showed that the tumour measured approximately 72 millimetres. Following surgery, it was confirmed to be 75 millimetres. Trish’s treatment changed completely: she needed a mastectomy with immediate reconstruction, followed by 15 rounds of radiotherapy. She is currently undergoing 10 years of hormone therapy. She certainly was not back at work after a month. Trish’s experience raises important questions. Lobular breast cancer is the second most common type of breast cancer, yet many women have never even heard of it. Unlike the breast cancers many of us are more familiar with, lobular breast cancer often does not form a distinct lump. Instead, it grows in strand-like tumours, making it much harder to detect on mammograms and feel during examination. That is why women with lobular breast cancer are so often diagnosed later, when tumours are much larger and treatment becomes far more extensive. For Trish, six mammograms over more than a decade failed to detect her cancer. That is why the work of the Lobular Moon Shot Project matters. Campaigners are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for research into lobular breast cancer that reflects the scale of the challenge. They are asking for earlier diagnosis, better understanding of how the disease behaves, improved imaging and more effective treatments. Above all, they are asking that women with lobular breast cancer are no longer overlooked because their cancer behaves differently. Awareness of lobular breast cancer must improve. For many years, the message has quite rightly been, “Check for lumps,” but breast cancer is not always a lump; women also need to know about dimpling, puckering, changes in breast shape, thickening of the breast tissue and changes to the skin. As Trish said to me, “You should know your breasts as well as you know your face.” I welcome the engagement that Ministers have already had with campaigners and researchers, and I hope that today’s debate marks another step forward.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Lobular Breast Cancer: Moon Shot Project · Hansard source

  More

  Trish is a phenomenal campaigner—a lot like Susan—and she wants to work together to create an awareness campaign so that women understand that there is a difference between types of breast cancer. We are looking to establish a support group for women who have lobular breast cancer; that is in the works. On training, my hon. Friend is absolutely right: recognition and training forms part of research, understanding and detection—what it is and what causes it—but also what we need to do in the training required by people in the profession. I hope that the Government will continue working with researchers, clinicians and the Lobular Moon Shot Project to improve understanding of lobular breast cancer, support further research and ensure that women receive the earliest and most accurate diagnosis possible. Behind every statistic is someone like Trish, a woman who did everything that she was supposed to and who wants her experience to help somebody else. Next week, many of the women I stood with outside Downing Street will gather once again. My hope is that one day, they will no longer need to, and that through better research, greater awareness and earlier diagnosis, fewer women will hear the words that Trish heard. I hope that colleagues from across will continue to stand with those women until that becomes a reality.

• 8 Jul 2026 · NHS Corridor Care · Hansard source

  More

  Let us be clear from the beginning: corridor care is unacceptable. No patient should be treated in a corridor. No family should watch a loved one receive care without the privacy and dignity that they deserve. No member of our brilliant NHS staff should be put in the impossible position of delivering care in an environment that they know is not right. I know how deeply my constituents feel about this, and hardly a week goes by without someone contacting me about their experience of Warrington hospital. They tell me about the kindness of the staff despite incredibly difficult circumstances; others tell me about the length of time that their loved ones have waited to be seen, and those experiences are reflected in the figures. In May this year, Warrington hospital recorded the second-worst 12-hour A&E performance in the entire country. Those figures are deeply concerning, and it would be wrong of me to pretend otherwise, but if we only talk about A&E waiting times, we miss the bigger picture. Corridor care does not begin in a corridor: it begins when patients are medically fit to leave hospital but the care or support that they need at home is not yet in place. It begins when patient flow slows down, leaving emergency departments carrying pressures that they were never designed to absorb. It begins when a town like Warrington grows significantly without its infrastructure keeping up.

• 8 Jul 2026 · NHS Corridor Care · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend and will touch on that point in a second, using Warrington as an example. I am pleased that our local trust has already taken steps and is rightly treating corridor care and waiting times as a priority, but there is more to do. That is why I have been working closely with our local NHS, Ministers, and Cheshire and Merseyside ICB to move beyond talking about the problem, and to start changing how urgent and emergency care works in Warrington. Together with our local trust, I have developed a three-part pragmatic plan to improve health services for our town. Given the pressure on A&E and waiting times, the first priority is clear: a new urgent treatment centre for Warrington. In April, I was pleased to announce that proposals had moved forwards, with architects beginning the initial design work. Since then, the proposal has moved forward again, and detailed design and site survey work is now under way. An urgent treatment centre in Warrington means that families would not have to travel out of borough for things like minor injuries, sprains, cuts, burns or infections, or for a child with a fever who needs checking over. Such conditions can still be serious, but they do not need the full resources of an emergency department set up for life-threatening situations like heart attacks, strokes and major trauma. An urgent treatment centre would help to free up space in A&E for the sickest patients and improve the experience for others by helping them to get the right care in the right place. Easing pressure in A&E is the first step, but it is not the whole answer. Part 2 of my plan is about moving routine appointments, diagnostics and planned care into the community so that people can be treated closer to home, and the hospital can focus on the patients who need the most specialist care. However, there is one issue that none of us can ignore, and that is the hospital itself. People back home know that we need a new hospital. They see it when they go to A&E and when they visit relatives in hospital, and staff feel it every day. Much of the site was built in a different century for a different population and a very different NHS. We urgently need a new hospital—there is absolutely no question about that. Much to our deep disappointment, Warrington was never included in the previous Government’s so-called new hospital programme, despite warm words hinting to the contrary. That brings me on to the third part of my plan: modernising and replacing outdated hospital facilities, built in phases while vital services continue to run. When I was elected, I said that I would be honest about the challenges before us. Yes, Warrington needs a new hospital, but it also needs a proper plan and funding behind it, not just empty promises. My approach is a pragmatic one: we must ease the immediate pressures today, build better services around the hospital tomorrow, and put Warrington in the strongest possible position for investment in the years ahead. That is what I am fighting for. I will keep challenging where challenge is needed, keep working with our local NHS where partnership is needed, and keep putting Warrington South first until we get this right, because my residents in their time of need and our excellent NHS staff deserve better.

• 8 Jul 2026 · NHS Corridor Care · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree; the NHS system as a whole is very fragmented, and the lack of connectivity is a big issue. Social care is a core component and it needs to be a priority going forward.