Tom Morrison MP: speeches

98 published records · newest first.

Speeches

2 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source
More
Yes, sorry. In the last evidence session, we discussed a very similar situation when we heard from both Pete Weatherby and Daniel De Simone, one of whom is a KC trying to get to the truth through his work in the courts, and another of whom is a journalist trying to expose the truth, particularly around the Agent X story. We are not looking for a change to the Official Secrets Act or its operation. We simply want the Bill to encompass the security services explicitly. There is a list of public authorities on the Bill. The security services are not on there, which begs the question, why? I thank the Minister for saying that further work will be done on that and that she will be engaging with all Members across the House before Report. On that basis, we are happy to withdraw the amendments.
2 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I thank the Minister for her comments. In the spirit of cross-party working, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I beg to move amendment 43, in clause 9, page 8, line 2, after “work” insert— “including the retention and disclosure of digital records including messages relevant to their public functions”. This amendment ensures that digital messages and records are added to the duty of candour in relation to inquiries and inquests.
27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q I have a follow-up to Ian’s question. The new offence of misleading of the public would not apply “for the purposes of journalism.” That is the wording in the Bill. As has been so rightly pointed out, we know there has been a history of public officials who have been using the media in lead-ups to inquiries and so on. Critics, to a point of view that I might have, would say that any kind of stamping down or work on that would be an attack on freedom of speech. What would you say to that? Nathan Sparkes: In a lot of legislation there are special exemptions for journalism, and often that is justified, but I think it is for the Government to justify that exemption when they bring forward legislation. I do not think it can be justified in this case. Looking at that offence, there is a six-part test for it to apply. The person must have departed significantly from the expectations of their role, they must have caused harm to someone, they must have been responsible for significant or reputed dishonesty, it must be about a matter of significant concern to the public, it must be seriously improper, and they ought to know that it was seriously improper. That is an incredibly high threshold, and rightly so, but it is inconceivable that there is any legitimate journalistic activity that would satisfy the remarkably high threshold of all six tests that we would want to protect. On that basis, we do not think it is appropriate. The challenge for the Government is whether they could identify a circumstance in which any journalistic activity that would be in breach of those would be legitimate. I do not think they can; I think that is inconceivable.
27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q You have already mentioned the code of ethics and code of practice, and we have had a lot of people talking about potential codes of conduct. Can you describe how your various codes filter through to the workforce, and how everyone is made aware of the codes they should be working to? As an organisation, how do you measure the success of the codes? Chief Constable Guildford: They obviously occur over a period of time. Certainly in my service—I have done over 30 years—they have come in the second half of my service, rather than the first. However, the way that we train them is very explicit: it is done on a values basis through initial training. We recruit and assess new candidates on the basis of values. We do recruit training, which in most forces happens over a period of 20 to 22 weeks, and recruits have a specific input on values-based decision making. We have something called the national decision model, which allows them to think about the consequences and the options they have in making their decisions. The code of ethics absolutely underpins what we do. It sits in the middle of our decision-making circle. It is trained, really, from day one. I am trying to bring it to life a bit: this sits in the middle of all the specialist public order training, post Hillsborough, for commanders at public events, particularly football, and their accreditation and training. For all our bronze, silver and gold commanders, the code of ethics sits inside the wheel in which we make our decisions. To reinforce the point, the other aspect is that whenever there is a misconduct meeting or hearing for police officers, there is always reference to the code of ethics—the ethical behaviours that are expected of officers and staff. The third bit of your question was about how we measure this. I would say that we measure it in three ways. The first is the training at the beginning. The second measure is around outcomes from our misconduct proceedings, as well as the proportionality of our misconduct proceedings and how they are used and referred to. The third measure —this is particularly important—is the measure of public opinion. As organisations, we respond to that, and we openly and candidly answer those questions. In the consultation, we have gone through certain elements in relation to which we have said that, operationally, we may not express candour at certain times: for example, in a live situation in which we lawfully employed the services of, say, an undercover police officer or an undercover officer online; or in a live firearms operation, a live kidnap operation or a product contamination operation. In those cases we may seek to use a little bit of subterfuge to make sure we gain the lawful aim and the right public outcome for the victim at the end of it. Does that explain it?
27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q This question is about your profession as a journalist. Obviously, you rely on sources—you have talked about that—and there is a balance to be struck between relying on your sources and the fact that throughout history, in respect of Hillsborough and other shocking scandals, journalists have probably been briefed with bad intent. How do we fix that in the Bill? Also, what holds you to account as a journalist? If you did a story about me that was dreadful, where could I go to hold you to account? Daniel De Simone: As I understand it, the Bill is aimed at public authorities—Government Departments, the police and others—so, as things stand, media organisations are not part of it. I do not know whether there is a proposal to make them part of it, but as things stand they are not. You ask what can be done if I do a story about you that is wrong and you want to hold me to account. I work for the BBC, and there is a complaints process for the BBC that can go even to Ofcom, if necessary, so there are ways of correcting a story or getting an apology if something is wrong. As a journalist, I work on difficult and challenging stories, and I obviously abhor some of the things you have spoken about today: false information being presented as fact and leading to really harmful consequences for people. I try to take personal responsibility and do the right thing, and I think that is the point—that is why it is important. The more you can foster a culture of people taking personal responsibility, the better. That is why, when there is an exemption for an organisation, and it is not about individuals in an organisation, I think that does weaken it.
27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Great—thank you.
27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q Thank you for your evidence so far, Pete. You touched just then on how this will be a deterrent, but for that to be needed, there needs to be a culture change in public services. In the Bill, there is a lot of talk about trying to create codes of conduct. How do you envisage that working? Do you think that one standard code of conduct would go across all public services, or should each organisation be responsible for building its own code of conduct and then implementing it? Pete Weatherby: I think there should be a mixture. There have to be central tenets to it; otherwise, we will fall into the problem where a local authority or police force will have its lawyers lawyering up a code that does not do what it should do. I think there should be a mixture on that front.
27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q This is for Tom Guest. The new offence of misleading the public would not apply for the purposes of journalism. How clear do you think the meaning of that exception is? I will give two examples: would it count if a Minister was writing a piece for a newspaper column or if a public servant was briefing the media after an event? Tom Guest: It is fair to say that it is quite widely drawn, and there can be good policy reasons for that. Clearly, it is important to uphold the freedom of speech and protect the interests of journalism—not having a chilling effect on journalism is important. We understand why it is drafted in that way, but it is drafted quite widely. It would appear to cover those examples. Again, I am giving that at a very broad level. In a real-life scenario, the police would have gathered much more evidence for the prosecution to consider, but it potentially would cover those situations.
20 Nov 2025 · Injury in Service Award · Hansard source
More
I thank all Members across the House for engaging with this debate. We have heard so many stories of heroism, so many stories that have been inspirational and so many stories of heartbreak. I thank the Minister for being present and for his remarks. I am obviously disappointed that we have not come to a firmer conclusion. To quote Tom Curry, “Patience is a young man’s game”, and many of the people we are talking about do not have patience. They have been waiting a long time for recognition. These people feel as though they have been discarded and forgotten. We need to do more. I say to the Minister and the Government that the gauntlet has been laid down. There is clearly cross-party support for this scheme. We have one of the most signed early-day motions and a petition has been delivered to Parliament, and we can see that public support is behind the scheme. I say to the Government that we need to act now. There are people who deserve this recognition—they deserved it yesterday. Let us not wait another day. They need it now. Question put and agreed to . Resolved , That this House acknowledges the extreme risks faced by police officers, firefighters, paramedics and other emergency service personnel in the line of duty; further acknowledges that many suffer catastrophic, career-ending injuries while protecting the public; regrets that these sacrifices are too often met with inadequate formal recognition; notes that existing honours are limited in scope and rarely conferred in such circumstances; believes this failure to properly acknowledge those who have sustained life-altering injuries in public service is a serious oversight; welcomes the growing cross-party consensus that urgent action is needed; and calls on the Cabinet Office to rectify this injustice by establishing a dedicated injury in service award to formally recognise and honour the extraordinary sacrifice of emergency service workers injured in the line of duty.
20 Nov 2025 · Injury in Service Award · Hansard source
More
I beg to move, That this House acknowledges the extreme risks faced by police officers, firefighters, paramedics and other emergency service personnel in the line of duty; further acknowledges that many suffer catastrophic, career-ending injuries while protecting the public; regrets that these sacrifices are too often met with inadequate formal recognition; notes that existing honours are limited in scope and rarely conferred in such circumstances; believes this failure to properly acknowledge those who have sustained life-altering injuries in public service is a serious oversight; welcomes the growing cross-party consensus that urgent action is needed; and calls on the Cabinet Office to rectify this injustice by establishing a dedicated injury in service award to formally recognise and honour the extraordinary sacrifice of emergency service workers injured in the line of duty. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for its support in securing the debate. In May this year, a police sergeant’s legs were crushed when a car reversed into him repeatedly in a hit-and-run incident in Rusholme, Manchester. Greater Manchester police described it as a “stark reminder” of the risks that our frontline officers face daily as they work to keep our communities safe. The officer suffered tissue and muscle damage, but thankfully he is expected to make a full recovery. However, not every brave officer, paramedic and firefighter does recover, and not everyone can continue with the job that they chose and love. When injuries are so severe that they force someone to give up their work in public service, there is no recognition, no award and no medal. I first found out about the “999 Injured and Forgotten” campaign when my constituent Jane Notley came to my surgery last year. Jane told me her story. She had always wanted to be a police officer, and when that happened and she joined the force, it was one of the proudest days of her life. Sadly, her career ended far too prematurely. While on duty in Manchester in 1989, Jane attempted to stop a criminal stealing cars in the area. During the incident, her legs were crushed between two cars by the criminal, who Jane said laughed while he did it. That horrific attack left Jane completely unable to walk, and she was medically discharged from the force. The offender was never caught. I want to make this clear: Jane Notley is one of the most inspirational and wonderful people I have ever met. After years of surgery and treatment, she can now walk, and does so with the aid of her now infamous pink walking sticks. She is now self-employed as a therapist, selflessly continuing to help others, albeit in a different position. Jane lost the job she loved but has continued to serve her community—that is the kind of person she is—but if someone met her on the street, they would have no idea of the ordeal she has been through. They would have no idea that she bravely put herself in harm’s way to protect her community and no idea of the sacrifice she made so that we could be safe. Jane is not alone; many other ex-emergency service responders are injured every year and face the same awful loss of career. It is estimated that 800 injured ex-Greater Manchester police officers are still alive today. Please, let that sink in: that is 800 people who lost a career they loved after putting themselves in harm’s way to ensure that we, and our families and friends, were protected and safe. We all owe them a debt of gratitude. I was honoured to meet many of those people in July, when they came to a cross-party roundtable in Parliament to describe their individual experiences. I put on record my thanks to the hon. Members for Blackpool South (Chris Webb), for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) and for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) who joined us on that day. I met some incredible people that day, including Robert Barlow, John O’Rourke, Gary Pearson, Andy Walker, Robert Hindley, Shahid Mahmood, Simon Bywater and Kerry Snuggs, who has now set up the intrepid games: a sports event for service workers who have been injured or disabled while on duty. I know that a number of them are in the Gallery watching the debate; I hope that we can all do them proud. They deserve their moment. They deserve recognition for all they put on the line and sacrificed. It is a national shame that no Government have acknowledged them and thanked them for their service. That has to change now. While I am talking of people who deserve their moment, I have to mention Tom Curry. May I make it clear that this is Tom’s debate? Tom started the campaign and has fought tirelessly to get support across the House. He is truly a force of nature, and I can honestly say that it has been a pleasure to work with him this year to ensure that the injury in service award becomes a reality. Tom Curry has built the campaign from the ground up. A former Sussex police officer, he was cruelly injured just weeks before reaching 22 years of service and so was denied any recognition for his work in the community. He is a former detective, which really does show as nothing gets past him—especially Governments dragging their feet. I can attest to hon. Members in the Chamber that Tom is relentless. Our phones will not stop ringing and our inboxes will never be cleared until the medal of recognition is delivered—Tom has personally promised me that. Earlier this year, with Tom and Jane’s help I tabled an early-day motion that has since gained 111 signatures, making it one of the most supported motions in this Parliament. The signatories are from every single party, right across the political divide—the Liberal Democrats, Labour, Conservatives, Reform, the Green party and independents. This issue transcends party politics. It is a cause that we can and should all rally around, and one with a simple and obvious answer. From freedom of information requests to 44 police forces across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, we know that there are over 16,000 injured police officers across the country, but we do not know the total number of injured servicemen and women across all emergency services, as that figure is not available. This is an injustice we have to put right. There are many who are injured and are then deprived of the long service and good conduct medals that are awarded after a sustained period of service. Until 2010, emergency responders had to have served for at least 22 years—later cut to 20 years—to get the long service and good conduct medals. The gallantry award is also insufficient, as the vast majority of attacked personnel are deprived of the opportunity of gallantry because they are sprung upon and ambushed. That means that through no fault of their own, there are tens of thousands of people out there without recognition simply because their cowardly attackers jumped them from behind. The “999 Injured and Forgotten” campaign believes that any new award for those injured in the line of duty should be similar to the Elizabeth Emblem, in that it should be awarded to all public servants. A constituent from Cheadle who works as a prison chaplain wrote to me this week and suggested involving prison officers, as they are essential workers who get little or no public recognition. They are another stark reminder of the way our public servants put their safety on the line for us. In 2019, a Ministry of Justice report stated that there were over 10,000 attacks on prison officers a year, with many ending in career-altering injuries and severe psychological trauma. We must make sure that all public servants are involved. The award could be offered to all living survivors, and the criteria would be threefold: a public servant, injured on duty, and medically discharged from the service due to that injury. The medal would recognise the health and career sacrifice of those who are injured on duty. The medal would mean that those who have made significant sacrifices could wear their medal proudly, and the public would be able to recognise and understand the bravery and service that they have contributed to this country. The medal would mean that brave emergency responders such as police constable Kris Aves, who is now paralysed and confined to a wheelchair, would rightly be recognised. Kris now lives a completely different life, unable to continue the job of protecting us because he was mown down in the terror attack on Westminster bridge in 2017. This impacts us all. Many colleagues will remember PC Keith Palmer, who sadly died in that attack. He was rightly awarded posthumous awards for gallantry and the Elizabeth Emblem. His bravery saved many lives that day, and we all owe him a debt of gratitude. Kris is also owed our thanks. He received no medal or recognition for his bravery. Instead, he lost his career and the job he loved. The medal would mean that emergency service responders who survive the most awful situations are met with respect, acknowledgement and honour. The medal would mean that Pam White’s bravery and injuries during the IRA attacks on Harrods in 1983 would be recognised. Despite her injuries and the terrifying uncertainty of the situation, Pam guided members of the public to safety. The injuries sustained were so bad that she was forced to leave the force. Those killed in the IRA bombings have now been awarded the Elizabeth Emblem, but the officers injured on that day, including Pam who lost her job—the job she aspired to from a young age—are overlooked. All those emergency service workers will tell us that they are lucky, as they survived while some of their colleagues lost their lives in the line of duty. That is certainly true, but we cannot allow this to become an awful game of comparison. The people I have mentioned have all suffered in the most appalling ways. They suffered gunshot wounds, paralysis and other life-changing injuries—and of course post-traumatic stress disorder, with many of these brave men and women reliving their trauma day in, day out. I say to the Government that we cannot allow these people to wait any longer. They need the recognition now. Thanks to Tom Curry’s work, the proposal for the award reached the Cabinet Office before the general election. Multiple Members have brought it to light in both ministerial correspondence and on the Floor of the House, but the same line is trotted out time and again. With Elizabeth Emblems now being awarded as of December last year, it is yet another reminder to those overlooked and injured survivors that they are forgotten and have no recognition. Many family members of the fallen who have received the Elizabeth Emblem support the introduction of this award and agree that it is wrong that the injured are forgotten. This has been delayed for too long, so I urge the Minister to do the right and honourable thing. Get this award off the ground, because those incredible people sat in the Gallery right now should not have to wait another day longer. Politically there is no resistance. This is a worthwhile investment that would increase national pride and community cohesion, and celebrate the incredible work of our emergency services. I thank the Minister for being here today and look forward to his remarks. I hope he will listen carefully to the debate, take heed and note with urgency that establishing an injury in service award is the right thing to do. I also thank all my colleagues who have joined this important discussion. It has been a long time coming. I hope it is worth the wait, and I hope it will transform the lives of many injured ex-emergency service workers. Thank you to Jane, Tom and everyone watching for driving this cause all the way to the Houses of Parliament—that is no small feat. I hope we can all do you proud. This is your moment—it is your time. I look forward to continuing this campaign with all of you, and I promise that I will not stop until injured emergency service workers get the recognition they deserve.
19 Nov 2025 · Myalgic Encephalomyelitis · Hansard source
More
One of my constituents, Nick, has ME and has described feeling as though he is stuck in a well without anyone to pull him out. Does my hon. Friend agree that there needs to be more action from Government, the NHS, businesses, schools and colleges to counter the misunderstanding and neglect that ME sufferers receive?
18 Nov 2025 · Flood Risk and Flood Defence Infrastructure: North-west England · Hansard source
More
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) for bringing this issue to the House today. “Despite three section 19 reports identifying the issue of a blockage…nothing happens despite recommendations to do so.” Those are the words of Stephen, a constituent of mine in Bramhall who has suffered bad flooding at his home for many years. Just this week, flooding on the A555 relief road under Hall Moss Lane bridge in Bramhall, just down the road from Stephen, led to accidents, a road closure and disruption to many people’s lives, yet the area is being bombarded with planning proposals, encouraged by Government policy that does not in any measure address flooding. Every year, more and more houses are at risk. That takes a serious toll on people, not just financially but emotionally. Post-traumatic stress disorder, long-term displacement and lifetime debt are only some of the consequences of flooding events in our communities. One resident contacted me to say that every time they get the Environment Agency’s emergency alert on their phone, they break out into pure panic.
18 Nov 2025 · Flood Risk and Flood Defence Infrastructure: North-west England · Hansard source
More
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s intervention, and yes, there is a question of flooding here. According to the EA’s March 2024 report, 3.2 million properties are at risk of surface water flooding. The latest surface water flooding risk assessment carried out by the EA increased the flood risk rating of many of the homes in my Cheadle constituency. Residents need to know that the Government are taking such flooding seriously. From working with residents, Stockport council and the EA after the awful floods in January, it is clear to me that serious clarification is needed. Stockport council did not receive any funding from the EA or the Government following January’s disastrous flooding, despite its serious and widespread impact and the lives it ruined. What is more, the EA’s long-term flood risk management strategy for the River Mersey has been delayed, which is arguably one of the reasons why Stockport council missed out on the funding.
18 Nov 2025 · Flood Risk and Flood Defence Infrastructure: North-west England · Hansard source
More
The hon. Member makes a fantastic point, and that is the crux of the problem: we concentrate a lot on areas such as the Mersey, but we have a load of waterways and a load of issues around sewerage and drainage that need to be encompassed by our thinking. Organisations responsible must be not only properly funded in the long term, but able to work constructively and effectively together to protect residents. As the Government force us to “build, baby, build”, new developments will only increase surface water flooding as more green belt gets built on and natural drainage is reduced. In the words of the National Infrastructure Commission itself, the Government’s response to the commission’s report on surface water flooding did “not meet the scale of the challenge.” The National Flood Forum receives more than 1,000 calls a year, often from vulnerable residents affected by recent developments causing flooding. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill does not even refer to flooding or flood risk management, and the Environment Agency’s flood risk guidance is often ignored or legally challenged within the Bill. I was proud to support the Liberal Democrat amendments to the Bill that would have properly tackled flooding in relation to planning and required the implementation of sustainable drainage systems in any new development. The EA’s own road map to 2026 suggests that, for every pound spent on protecting communities, we avoid around £5 in property damages. This is incredibly important, so now is the time to commit to long-term funding rather than shy away from it. That is essential to ensuring that my constituents in Cheadle, Bramhall, Woodford, Gatley and all the communities that have been impacted by flooding over the last 12 years can be supported in protecting their homes, their businesses and their communities, as well as reducing the impact of increasingly heavy storms, increased surface water and new developments that have not properly been considered. I will finish with a remark from Karen, who lives near the Micker brook in Cheadle. She said: “Planners and developers must take into account flooding when building. What happened at the mill in Stockport on New Year’s Day was simply appalling. The developer should be responsible for this.” The Government must take urgent action that takes flood risk seriously and provides long-term, ringfenced funding for organisations such as the EA and responsible councils, and they must legislate without delay on the close connection between flooding, development and infrastructure.
4 Nov 2025 · Official Development Assistance Reductions · Hansard source
More
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for bringing this vital debate to Westminster Hall. I want to start with the words of Jane from Cheadle, who wrote to me to ask: “How will the Government’s cuts impact the world’s most vulnerable children?” I would like to put that very question to the Minister today. The Liberal Democrats are deeply concerned by the Government’s decision to reduce the UK’s official development assistance from 0.5% of gross national income to 0.3%—the lowest UK aid contribution as a percentage of GNI since 1999—thereby diminishing the UK’s long-standing reputation as a global leader in humanitarian assistance and development. What will happen to the countless children across the world who will no longer receive healthcare, education, vaccines, social protection or climate disaster mitigation? Millions of children will grow up in a less stable world, more likely to be drawn into extremism or crime, more likely to suffer poor mental and physical health, and less likely to be educated, employed or able to participate in and contribute to democracy—the cornerstone of global security. The statistics are stark: 2024 was one of the worst years on record for children in conflict. Almost 20% were affected—double the figure just two decades ago. This year, 63 million children have gone hungry, as food insecurity due to violence has increased. The Government’s decision to cut aid is deadly, dangerous and short-sighted. Although we agree with the importance of strengthening the UK’s national security and defence commitments, particularly in the light of increasing global security challenges, we recognise that cutting ODA diminishes the UK’s soft power. There is an intimate connection between supporting international aid and preventing conflict abroad. ODA investment is an essential tool in tackling poverty, promoting stability and reducing the causes of conflict and migration, all of which serve the UK’s own security interests. It is concerning that the UK’s retreat from its status as an international aid superpower creates a vacuum into which Russia and China flow. The UK’s influence in the world comes through a combination of hard power and soft power, including our development funds. Further diminishing the UK’s soft power will only play into those states’ hands. A recent briefing from key organisations including UNICEF highlighted the dire impact that these cuts will have on ground operations. Operations across the globe will be scaled back, causing serious harm to citizens of affected countries and those putting themselves in harm’s way to help others—the humanitarian workers. I have highlighted in this Chamber the impact that reducing the aid budget will have on those selfless workers and, as a consequence, on those who need aid. I am sure that everyone in the Chamber knows that 2024 was the deadliest year on record for humanitarian workers. Violence against aid workers has reached unprecedented levels, with injuries, harassment, kidnapping —the list goes on. Slashed budgets mean that the workers have fewer protections and less security, that less aid reaches victims of conflict, natural disasters and climate change in their hour of need, and that children in Sudan, Gaza, the west bank, Yemen, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Ukraine will miss out on vital lifesaving support. According to Plan International UK, in Sudan, at least 638,000 people are already experiencing famine conditions, and children are dying of starvation; there have been reports of mothers and children eating leaves from trees just to stay alive. The people of Gaza have suffered beyond anything that we could imagine; with a very fragile ceasefire now in place, we need unprecedented amounts of aid to be pumped into the region. According to Action for Humanity, nearly half of Yemen’s people are already at crisis-level food insecurity, with another million people expected to fall to that level in the coming months. I will conclude with a quote from David, another resident of Cheadle, who said to me: “Strengthening our defence should not come at the expense of international aid. These cuts are short-sighted and they are counter-productive.” I have said before that we must not underestimate our soft power. We must invest in our future security to maintain democratic values, reduce displacement and decrease the chances of conflict. Ministers must reaffirm the UK’s commitment to global security. We can be a beacon of conscience and compassion. Helping now will help the world.
3 Nov 2025 · Care Leavers · Hansard source
More
One of my constituents came to my surgery to talk about her experience of being a care leaver. We discussed making care-experienced children a protected characteristic, and the discrimination that she felt in the education system. On local authorities, should we not do more to ensure that schools and colleges have the tools needed to educate our young people about the difficulties that people go through in the care system, so that discrimination is eradicated?
3 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source
More
That day in September 2012 remains vivid in my memory: the day the independent panel, chaired by Bishop James Jones, finally confirmed that public officials had hidden the truth about the Hillsborough disaster. It was a day the families had waited for so long for, a day they had worked tirelessly to bring about. It was the first day that their persistence prevailed, the first breakthrough in what would become a chain reaction that has led us here today. During that time, I was a councillor in Liverpool. I remember knocking on doors that evening and being met by absolute relief on people’s faces—the tide was starting to turn. The families came that day to speak to the council. The emotions in that room were among the strongest that I have ever experienced. For the first time, the families felt that power could be held to account and justice might one day be served. However, to this day, no one has been held accountable for the Hillsborough disaster. The 97 and their families are still living without the justice they deserve. Yet the families remain selfless, motivated by the greater good, working to protect others in the future—people unknown to them. Their campaign has continued for three decades, but it must have felt like a lifetime. The truth has taken so long to be uncovered that key campaigners like Anne Williams, Phil Hammond, Rose Robinson and Barry Devonside are sadly no longer here to see the legislation come before the House, but their fortitude and determination were nothing short of astounding. They have mine and the nation’s utmost respect. To be wrongly and publicly shamed, smeared and blamed for a tragedy of such scale is something that no one can imagine experiencing. Then to face the institutions of state in court, without the means to navigate the law and our complex legal system professionally, is nothing short of devastating. The fact that public bodies that can effectively silence citizens, who must find millions of pounds to stand up against them, is simply unacceptable. To not only endure but passionately oppose lying, victim-blaming, delays and denials for years takes unwavering strength. What the fans and their families endured is all too familiar to many others across this country. The Bill is not about only one place or one group of victims; it is about how we can hold power to account. Those who have suffered, both directly and indirectly, from the state-driven scandals that have been mentioned are familiar with the feelings of powerlessness, grief and justified anger. The infected blood scandal is just one example of unimaginable suffering—people endured not only physical harm but haunting social stigma and lasting damage. Children as young as seven were told that they would die. Some lost multiple members of their family, only to be left in social isolation. That is not to mention a serious lack of transparency and years of delays, and many victims dying before justice or compensation even began. Sir Brian Langstaff rightly called the delays for the blood scandal victims “an injustice all of its own.” No Government can be allowed to act on serious state failures behind closed doors, without a legal duty of candour. People who bravely seek justice must no longer be ignored and pushed aside by successive Governments. It is admirable that those affected by the multiple tragedies since Hillsborough have continually come together to fight for prevailing and lasting change. The Hillsborough Law Now group is a formidable force. Yet it should not be that way. People should not have to sacrifice their lives to see change. Successive Governments should not be pushing back and dragging their feet at every turn. This Bill should have been introduced to the House far, far earlier than the 36th anniversary of Hillsborough. If it had been in place 36 years ago, all the pain, trauma, repeated legal proceedings and investigations would never have happened. I join the Hillsborough Law Now campaign, Inquest, the Law Society and numerous other groups that have expressed their relief about this law finally being put in place. Although compensation for those scandals is crucial, victims and the British public want to see justice and change. That is why the Bill is a victory for sufferers of all the state-caused scandals in our recent history. It is owed to each and every one of them. Although we must all ensure that the Bill retains its strength during its journey through Parliament, more can be done. We can push for stronger whistleblowing protections, robust enforcement mechanisms, non-means-tested legal aid for survivors, and a Leveson 2 inquiry to hold the media to account. The Bill will ensure that silence in the face of wrongdoing no longer prevails. Public organisations will no longer be able to place reputation management above the truth. The Bill will be a legacy for the 97 who never came home, and their families, who will never walk alone.
21 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source
More
T2. Moya Cole, in Heald Green, is a shining example of a hospice that does fantastic work in a very tough economic situation, but it should not have to rely on coffee mornings and jumble sales to fund its most essential services. Liberal Democrat research findings show that almost a half of hospices in the United Kingdom are planning cuts this year. Will the Government commit themselves to funding our hospices properly in the upcoming Budget so that they do not need to cut the vital services that they provide?
21 Oct 2025 · Local Government Funding: North-west England · Hansard source
More
I beg to move, That this House has considered funding for local government in the North West. It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank the Minister for being here today. I will start by reading the words of Stuart, who lives in my Cheadle constituency, and who wrote to me just two days ago—a timely admission for this debate. He said: “I am writing as a resident of Cheadle Hulme to express my deep concern about the level of council tax and the prospect of further increases. My current council tax is £275 per month...This level is already difficult to sustain, and any further rise will make it unmanageable for many working households like mine. I understand that a large proportion of council spending now goes toward adult and children’s social care, but the current trajectory feels unsustainable without fundamental reform or additional central government support.” Stuart is right: the current situation is completely unsustainable, and I am sure Members here today will agree that it cannot go on. I am sure we all entered politics to effect change—campaigning to keep a school open, fundraising for a library or creating a community group. We know that change starts small, with one person, one area or one community. We must take to heart the saying that all politics is local. Local government is at the forefront, the most frequent point of interaction between the British public and government. As a former councillor myself, I know the amazing things that local government can achieve and the real and lasting impact it can have on a personal level. Local governments are the key to unlocking growth, improving health and poverty outcomes, and providing the best support to the most vulnerable. But our local authorities, as Stuart rightly points out, are suffering tremendously from years of cuts and a systemic failure to properly fund even the most essential services. Our local authority finances are on their knees, and this country cannot deliver growth, reform public services or improve life changes without first fixing local government finances.
21 Oct 2025 · Local Government Funding: North-west England · Hansard source
More
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention and agree completely that council tax is regressive, impacting the poorest in our communities. All parties should commit to finding a new way forward to reform it. Councillors and council staff do not want to raise council tax. The public, already squeezed by a difficult cost of living crisis, will struggle to pay more time and again. It does not have to be that way. We must have the political will to empower our local governments to deliver their full potential. I want to outline to the Minister that politics is local. Chronic national issues will turn into deeper crisis if local governments continue to be squeezed to the point of no return. The Government must understand the benefits of investing in local authorities to do their jobs right and give the people of Cheadle, the north-west and all areas the good quality of life they deserve. Giving all councils the power and resources to invest in community centres, parks, libraries, children’s centres and green spaces will restore people’s trust and respect, not just for their local authorities, but for central Government. We are now in a situation where the Government need to invest in councils just so that they can keep the lights on without fear of going bankrupt. It really is that serious. Local government is capable; given the resources, it will deliver for our communities. We need to invest now without delay. Proper support now to address challenges earlier will lead to fewer councils requiring more intensive and costly interventions later down the line. Local government is the linchpin for change. It is a pool of potential waiting to be unlocked, and I urge the Government to do just that.
21 Oct 2025 · Local Government Funding: North-west England · Hansard source
More
I completely agree. The point, when it comes to social care, is political will. All parties have talked about the importance of social care and of getting the funding right. There is no need to wait for three years; we should indeed crack on. Regional growth drives national growth. If regions are not invested in, we cannot expect the country to thrive. There are ever-expanding divides between regions, which have consequences on the quality and even length of people’s lives. According to the Institute for Public Policy Research, transport illustrates that divide exceedingly well. In London, people receive £1,183 per head for transport, but in the north-west it is less than half that figure, at just £540 per person. In total, across the north, that is an investment gap of £140 billion. Our growth is low and slow as a country because areas outside the south-east have been neglected time and again. Anne, another constituent of mine in Bramhall, wrote to me recently to explain her frustrations. She said: “Residents are being asked to pay more while receiving less and now must pay extra just to maintain a service that was previously included. Public frustration is escalating rapidly across online forums, community groups, and social media. What can be done about this?” It is no wonder the public are increasingly frustrated when core spending power for local government remains 16.4% lower in real terms this year compared with 2010. The services that local government provides are vital to people’s everyday lives: bin collections, green space maintenance, street cleaning and social care for our most vulnerable residents. If local governments can no longer sustain those services, our country will decline rapidly as people’s everyday quality of life suffers. Although the guarantee of multiyear settlements and a move away from fragmented, ringfenced grants are a step in the right direction, that is still not enough. Those changes will not be felt and frustrations will continue to grow, especially as the Government continue to work on the basis that local authorities will continuously raise council tax by the maximum 4.99% each year.
21 Oct 2025 · Local Government Funding: North-west England · Hansard source
More
I completely agree. There has to be a two-way dialogue, in which the Government talk and work with local government to work out the challenges that need to be fixed. The Local Government Association reports that 29 councils needed exceptional financial support in 2025-26 to set a balanced budget. That is 11 more than the previous year, and I am afraid that number will only continue to grow. The Government’s pride in place strategy is meaningless when local authorities are still being encouraged to sell community commodities such as libraries and leisure centres to avoid financial ruin. That is no way to set our communities up for success. It is stripping away the key things that make a community, the places where people gather and access the support and services that they need. Drawing on dwindling reserves is not a sustainable financial plan. However, there are also regional inequalities to the issue, which slice across all aspects of daily life, from transport to potholes. Last year’s fairer funding review lacked all nuance, basing criteria for recovery grants on deprivation figures from over a decade ago. Stockport council missed out on any recovery funding; it is now left to pick up the pieces, and to continue fighting tooth and nail without the £20 million it so desperately needs to sustain long-term services, despite having some of the most deprived wards in the UK in our borough. In just three years’ time, Stockport council will be underfunded by £63 million. Despite that, the council won local authority of the year in 2025—a testament to its officers and councillors. Stockport is a council that does not shy away from hard decisions. It was promised more from the Government, yet things have not changed. In opposition, the Labour party decried the underfunding of local councils across the country and said that things could only get better under its tenure. Well, councils are facing the same problems across the north-west, and we are seeing the same lack of ideas from the Government that we did under the Conservatives. Real-time cuts to local government funding in Stockport alone have reached more than £133 million in the past few years. As a result, Stockport council was forced to find £24.5 million of savings just for the 2025 budget.
20 Oct 2025 · SEND System: Cheadle · Hansard source
More
Paul and Ellie are children with special educational needs in a primary school in Bramhall. Their parents, like many across Cheadle, have reached out to me for help. Their SEND provision has been suddenly taken away. Paul and Ellie’s parents are now considering withdrawing them from mainstream schooling. Parentkind research shows that more than one in three parents of children with special educational needs say that their needs are not being sufficiently met. Paul and Ellie’s parents deserve much more certainty and clarity, so can the Minister confirm when they will bring forward the schools White Paper and, with it, the crucial information on the SEND reforms for anxious parents?
20 Oct 2025 · SEND System: Cheadle · Hansard source
More
3. What steps her Department is taking to help improve the special educational needs and disabilities system in Cheadle.

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →