Helen Morgan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 12 Feb 2026 · Pharmacy First: Withholding Payments · Hansard source

  More

  Pharmacists play a crucial role in supporting the health service by reducing the pressure on overcrowded hospitals and GP surgeries. They also play a crucial role in local communities by providing access to treatment when appointments remain hard to come by elsewhere. But pressure on pharmacists is severe and has been getting worse, as shown by closures in my constituency and across the country. Those closures hit hardest in rural and coastal areas and in the most deprived areas, where they are most needed. This vital service needs to be supported and not undermined so that our constituents can rely on being able to access the medicines and treatment they need. Has the Minister considered a new late payment mechanism to ensure that if contractors miss the deadline, they can still receive compensation for the work they have undertaken, especially in the interim as pharmacists adapt to the changes that have been introduced? What discussions has he had with NHSBSA to resolve the technical difficulties being experienced?

• 12 Feb 2026 · Rural Mobile Connectivity · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House calls on the Government and service providers to help improve mobile connectivity in rural areas. I start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for granting time to hold this vital debate and for granting us a second opportunity to do so, as the debate had to be postponed earlier this year because of overrunning Government business. I declare my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on digital communities. As MP and resident of one of the most rural constituencies in England, I know from first-hand experience how frustrating it is to try to call the office or family members from a mobile phone. Whether at home, travelling around by car, out in the countryside or—more rarely, I have to say—travelling by train or bus, there is always a significant chance that we will not be able to make a phone call or connect to the internet. This has a very real impact on my constituents’ lives. Stories of people being forced to sit in the loft or stand in the one spot in the garden with signal, regardless of the weather, would sometimes verge on comical if they were not so serious. For constituents waiting for their GP to call or for their disabled daughter to say they have made it to work okay, or for constituents in their 90s who have been left without power or heating, this situation is not funny at all. In the words of Terence, a disabled 80-year-old veteran: “What is really annoying is that I am paying the same amount for my unreliable mobile service that someone in an area with good mobile signal pays.” This week, I asked people to share their mobile signal experience with a single Facebook post. Within a day, 400 people had commented to share how awful it is in their area; whether they were in St Martins or Selattyn, in Welshampton or Woore, it was the same incredibly frustrating story. As one constituent said: “Finding 4G is like striking gold.” It is not just North Shropshire where reliable signal is such a rare commodity; it is the same in rural areas up and down the country. Elderly residents in sheltered accommodation are forced into digital isolation, out of contact with their families. Others have forked out for the privilege of playing provider bingo. As another constituent told me: “Our adult daughter has a disability and learning issues, so having a good signal is imperative to us. Because of this, all three of us are on different networks (EE, O2 and Vodafone) so that we can ‘work the system’ and find the best signal available, at additional cost to us.” That might have been acceptable 20 years ago, when mobile phones were a novel piece of technology and people could rely on letters and landlines, but in 2026, when landlines have been switched to digital and Royal Mail reaches the house once a week or even once a fortnight, it is simply not good enough. Mobile phones are an essential part of daily life, yet huge swathes of the country are being forced to cope with a substandard service. People have to put up with not just awful coverage but being gaslighted by companies telling them that their signal is just fine. One of the biggest issues that comes up time and again, in my work as both MP for North Shropshire and chair of the all-party parliamentary group on digital communities, is the mapping data provided by the industry to Ofcom, which is often false. In July, the River Severn Partnership advanced wireless innovation region, which is funded by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, conducted the UK’s largest independent survey of mobile coverage in partnership with Streetwave, supported by over 30 councils through the use of their bin lorry routes. The report confirmed a significant difference between Ofcom’s view of mobile network capability and the real-world experience endured by those of us in rural areas. Ofcom stated that 1.45% of geographical areas were considered areas without “good” voice capability from at least one of the four network operators, while the River Severn Partnership showed that it was 15.33% of postcodes. That is a huge difference.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Rural Mobile Connectivity · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I will mention Project Gigabit and its shortcomings, but we could have a three-hour debate on the subject. I wholly agree that we cannot consider mobile coverage and broadband separately. They are two parts of the same thing: the areas with the worst broadband signal tend to have the worst mobile signal. It is a very difficult problem to resolve. As I was saying, modern farming requires modern technology, but if the signal is inadequate it does not work. Being able to rely on broadband would also help those who work in an office, but just 50% of rural commercial buildings in North Shropshire have access to full fibre. The announcement of Project Gigabit gave us real hope, but after two years, the contract was handed back having connected just 3,500 of the planned 12,000 properties. The word I would use to describe Project Gigabit is “shambles”, as my adjectives of choice are unsuitable for the Chamber. We are still waiting for details of when the rest of the properties will be delivered, but meanwhile we continue to pay exorbitant prices for mediocre broadband because Openreach and other companies neglect to invest in our area. Across the House, Members are calling for a change in direction for rural digital infrastructure. I am conscious of time so I will speed up slightly. Essentially, gaps in mobile and broadband coverage threaten to undermine national ambitions. My report from the APPG on digital communities highlights how co-ordinated action to address the challenges and unlock the full potential of the UK’s digital infrastructure is crucial for rural areas and for growth in the rest of the UK as well. Successive Governments have failed to grasp that. We can just look at the emergency services network, which should have been introduced in 2017. Nearly a decade on, we are still waiting for it to be properly rolled out. The Government’s ambition is to have high-quality 5G in all populated areas by 2030, yet we rank 30th among 39 developed economies according to the Social Market Foundation. We know that we are lagging miles behind and we are still trying to make up the ground. In Shropshire, we would be grateful for consistent 4G. People who live in rural areas pay the same, or even higher, fees as people in towns in return for a second-rate service. We must be given the connections that we need to reliably access modern life. Successive Governments have treated rural areas with disdain, telling us that everything is great when we can see for ourselves that it is not. It would bring far more money into the Treasury and unlock the huge potential of the rural economy if the Government finally saw sense. I hope that the Minister will address the abject failure of the shared rural network and Gigabit projects, and outline a sensible strategy for delivering rural infrastructure in future.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Rural Mobile Connectivity · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. I am conscious that it is the final Thursday afternoon before a recess, so it shows just how important this matter is to our constituents that so many Members have come along and made good points. Bearing that in mind, I will be brief. I have done a lot of work on this issue over the last year because of the activities of the all-party group, and it is testament to the value of a Backbench Business debate that I have learned quite a lot this afternoon as well. I want to pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on deteriorating signal. In many areas, this problem is getting worse not better, and we need to focus on that. The issue is probably due to the quality and capacity of the signal, rather than the coverage. We are using coverage as a shorthand, but we need a high- quality, high-capacity signal in all those places, too. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) made some good points about spectrum and licensing. I fear that an opportunity has been missed given that 5G licences have already been issued without those quality parameters. The hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) mentioned the importance of satellite solutions in filling in some of those gaps, which might overcome some of the planning issues, so I hope the Minister will look at that too. I thank everyone once more. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House calls on the Government and service providers to help improve mobile connectivity in rural areas.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Rural Mobile Connectivity · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend makes a good point about the use of public money and how we develop infrastructure fit for the modern age as part of a public and private operation. Rural roaming measures have been opposed by the industry, but they were recommended by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in its 2019 report. I am convinced that if the Government are serious about enabling economic growth in rural areas, they should explore that option. My constituent Rob Paul, a consultant with vast experience of rural telecoms projects, suggests that robustly enforced financial penalties are the only thing that operators will respond to. After years of being let down, I cannot disagree. I turn to the digital switchover. Mobile phones have been cited as the default back-up option in a power cut once the copper landline network is switched off, as has now happened over most of the UK. That is hugely concerning for people in areas prone to extensive power cuts in winter storms. As we are rural, our power is not put back online as a priority. Back-up batteries for routers will last for a couple of hours—perhaps up to 12. People in remote parts of North Shropshire are sometimes left without power for several days. Someone who is at home on their own, in the dark and frightened, might want to call someone other than the emergency services in the event of a power cut. It is crucial that people can access their mobile phone and get a reliable signal when the power is down, whoever they are. One 90-year-old constituent told me that she purchased a phone because she was concerned about the digital switchover and wanted to ensure that she could still make calls in the event of a power cut. The mobile connection in her village of Knockin is so bad that she was never once able to use the phone. When she asked EE to end the contract, it required £293 to release her. It is not just about power cuts. Hundreds of people in Kinnerley and Ellesmere have been left without any service at all when their broadband cabinet has been taken out by other factors such as fire or car accidents. Peter, who lives near Whittington, has terminal lung disease. Last weekend, his internet went down for 12 hours, which also meant that his landline was down. There was no mobile signal at his home. If Peter had had an emergency, he would have had no one to turn to. Improving rural phone signal would not just help vulnerable individuals. It would help local businesses, grow the economy and help our health and social care system. Smartphones are an essential part of daily modern life, whether that is for a GP patient who needs to book an appointment or request a repeat prescription or for a small business owner who needs to take payment from a customer. I have spoken to countless elderly people who struggle to access key services. I have heard from farmers, landscape gardeners, taxi drivers and dog groomers whose businesses all suffer because of signal problems. One livestock and arable farmer told me: “I cannot express strongly enough how frustrating it is farming in the modern world. It is depressing the amount of time wasted walking around the yard trying to get a slight signal to answer the phone”. Someone who gets injured may have no way of contacting the emergency services or seeking other help. Vast sums have to be spent on helping tractor GPS systems to navigate the inconsistent signal.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Rural Mobile Connectivity · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, makes an extremely good point. The quality of the data is critical. One of the recommendations of the APPG is exactly that: to ensure that data is reliable and that Ofcom can challenge it where they know that it is inadequate. There is a huge difference in which areas are considered to be without “good” voice capability. Ofcom disputes Streetwave’s findings because of the methodology that it used, but the experience of those of us who live in rural areas suggests that it is Ofcom that is wrong. It is no good telling people that their service is good when their own phone is telling them that it not. Unless Ofcom establishes clear requirements to define the quality of service that networks must deliver, how can we ensure real regulatory accountability? Put simply, Ofcom and the Government must do more. I welcome the Government’s recognition of the need to improve coverage reporting in the statement of strategic priorities that it published yesterday, but at the moment we do not have the information that we need. I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I think people in rural areas are sick to death of being told to believe that they have never had it so good, discounting their own daily experience. Last year, Ofcom increased the accuracy of its mapping data by zoning in on smaller areas. However, if network operators do not have accurate data about the areas that need improvement —and we think that they do not—then investment is unlikely to be put into the areas of greatest need. The shared rural network initiative, which has delivered, I have to say, no noticeable improvement in my area, involved the then four mobile network operators spending half a billion of their money to end partial notspots, based on the Ofcom data that has now been superseded and that we all suspect is a bit on the dodgy side. EE—the same company as BT and Openreach—already had an extensive network of mobile masts, and it met its obligations in advance of the June 2024 deadline for the shared rural network, while other operators experienced delays. Some of the causes of delays are difficult to overcome. It is difficult to get planning permission for a new mast; there is a lack of planning resource in local authorities; there are logistical challenges to building masts in remote and rural areas; and there are issues over access to land. Another part of the problem was that EE did not share access to its masts, because it failed to reach agreement with the other mobile network operators. That was a commercial negotiation into which I do not have insight, but the reality is that better coverage could have been achieved simply through effective equipment sharing. My Bill, the Access to Telecommunications Networks Bill, sought to fix the problem by requiring telecommunications companies to share their equipment; penalising them if they did not; and, in areas where they did not, requiring people to be enabled to roam between networks. We are all familiar with that issue if we have travelled in Europe.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  Shropshire council is about to see a 10% cut in its core funding from central Government, having been terribly badly run by the Conservatives for the previous 16 years before the Lib Dem administration took over in May. The Government have given the council permission to put up its council tax by 9% without a referendum, but that does not even touch the sides of the cut in funding from central Government. How is Shropshire, which needs to receive exceptional financial support in this year, ever going to fill the ever-growing black hole unless the funding from Government reflects the costs of delivering services in rural areas?

• 9 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The police officers and police community support officers in North Shropshire work hard, but PCSOs’ hours have been cut because of budget constraints, and there are no front desk services at all in my constituency, despite it having five market towns. Can the Minister outline how we will ensure better and more visible community policing in North Shropshire?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Postal Services: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) on his excellent speech. He described many circumstances similar to those in my constituency, so I will try to keep my comments brief. Rural services—whether that is transport links, mobile phone coverage or access to banking—are not good enough across the piece, and postal services are now going in the same direction. Last year’s Post Office Green Paper consultation caused particular concern for rural areas. There was a suggestion that the statutory minimum network size of 11,500 branches, which protects communities, could be removed. That would compound an already acute access problem. Villagers in Trefonen in my constituency were devastated when their post office shut, while across North Shropshire outreach services have been withdrawn in Cockshutt, Clive, Weston Rhyn, Knockin, West Felton and Ruyton-XI-Towns.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Postal Services: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more. If someone living in Cockshutt takes the bus to the post office in Ellesmere, they would have to wait three hours to get the next bus home. We can imagine how difficult it is for people in nearby villages who have no bus service at all. Jean, who lives in Weston Rhyn, said: “I now live in a village where there is nowhere to buy stamps and no access to an ATM. I am 88 and can no longer drive. I am completely isolated.” These cuts have a grave impact on people’s lives and wellbeing. How can we justify leaving vulnerable people isolated in that way in 2026? Post offices and outreach services act as more than a postal service. Communities rely on them for access to cash and banking, Government services and parcel collection. That is crucial, given that 73% of North Shropshire bank branches have closed since 2015, with Oswestry the only remaining market town in the constituency with a functioning bank branch. Many constituents, particularly older people and small businesses, depend on post offices to access cash and banking. It is no good pointing to online banking as a solution for those living in Welshampton where there is no mobile signal and no full fibre. We need to save our local post offices to prevent financial exclusion and to support the small businesses that will deliver the growth our economy needs. Not only is access to the vital services provided by the Post Office limited, but the delivery of post, as we have heard, has become extremely unreliable. First and second-class post are meaningless categories in my area. My post comes in two bulk deliveries each week. Constituents have reported going three weeks with no delivery. Meanwhile, post box collection times have been changed without notice. It is very frustrating at the best of times. As we have heard, for those relying on Royal Mail for their NHS correspondence or time-sensitive post, such as legal documents or parking fines, it can be extremely costly to their health, time and finances. Several constituents have told me that they missed NHS appointments because letters took a week to reach them. Last month, a constituent who is diabetic missed correspondence about an appointment for 22 January and now needs to wait until March. I have received reports of people being charged with contempt of court for not returning papers in time, even though the papers did not arrive until after the due date. In my latest meeting with Royal Mail, representatives explained the challenges they are facing with recruitment and retention. Addressing those issues requires investment in rural services across the board. Given the reliance of so many people on the post for vital services, I am sure everyone here appreciates the need to protect and support our rural services. I would be grateful if the Minister would outline what the Government are doing to hold the Post Office to account for meeting its universal service obligation, and what steps the Government are taking to protect not only postal services but banking and public transport in rural areas, as people are desperately badly isolated.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Postal Services: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  I think we all agree that our posties work really hard, but one of the problems that has been described to me in Shropshire is recruitment and retention of posties, because their conditions are poor. Royal Mail promised me that it would put in extra rounds in North Shropshire to alleviate the problem. As far as I know, that only happened last week. Why is it acting so slowly, and what pressure can the Minister bring to bear on it to improve the conditions for our posties?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Court Backlog: Shropshire · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency of North Shropshire, residents have to travel to Shrewsbury to have their case heard. As of last September, there was a backlog of more than 730 open cases at Shrewsbury Crown court, a 7% increase on 2024. The wider West Mercia area ranks 43rd out of 44 areas for the time that it takes cases to get through the Crown court; they often take more than two years to be heard. Does the Secretary of State agree with Shrewsbury Crown court’s resident judge, Anthony Lowe, who said that this is not a “proper justice system”, and what steps will he take to improve the situation in West Mercia and Shropshire?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Court Backlog: Shropshire · Hansard source

  More

  1. What steps he is taking to reduce court delays in Shropshire.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T5. In my constituency, complaints about water supply to single living accommodation doubled from 116 in 2018 to 232 in 2024, with 16 separate losses of water for more than 24 hours last year. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can bring single living accommodation up to the standard that our servicemen and women deserve?

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

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her point, which I agree with fully. That is why we have tabled new clause 1. It will require the Government to publish a report on the Bill’s impact on the number of applicants to foundation and speciality training programmes and, crucially, to break that down by speciality. If applications fall as a result of these changes, the Government would be required to assess the impact on the total number of fully qualified doctors entering the NHS. This report would be produced annually after three years, allowing time for a full training cycle to complete. It is a sensible safeguard, one that ensures that we do not inadvertently exacerbate the very workforce shortages that we are trying to address. To return to the core principle that is at stake, we are not opposed to the Bill’s objective. We support the principle of prioritising those who have trained in the UK, but that principle must be implemented fairly, transparently and with proper oversight.

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

  More

  The amendments in my name raise concerns about the Bill’s impact on fairness, transparency and the smooth functioning of the NHS, notwithstanding the Liberal Democrats’ overall support for the Bill. Clause 7(1) would allow Ministers to change who is eligible for prioritisation through the negative procedure, meaning that such changes could be made unilaterally, without meaningful scrutiny. In practice, that hands the Secretary of State the power to redraw the boundaries of opportunity, and to decide who gets prioritised for medical training places, without Parliament ever having a say. That is unacceptable for a decision that affects people’s lives and careers, as well as the future capability of our health service. While I do not doubt the intentions of the Secretary of State and the Front Bench team, it opens the door to the risk of political whim or prejudice influencing who gets access to career-defining opportunities in the future. That is why the Liberal Democrats have tabled amendments 2 to 5 to reverse this, and to ensure that any changes must be subject to full parliamentary consent. On the timing of the Bill’s implementation, the Government intend to apply the new prioritisation rules midway through the 2026 specialty recruitment cycle. Let us reflect on what that means in practice. Doctors already working in the NHS have entered this cycle under one set of rules. They have paid for exams, secured visas, arranged travel, uprooted their families and committed themselves to the NHS. To change the rules halfway through the process would not only be potentially destabilising for services, but very unfair to those individuals, many of whom are plugging urgent staffing gaps right now. We already face real workforce pressures, so the last thing our NHS needs is a wave of dedicated doctors forced out by uncertainty, or pushed to leave the country because the Government moved the goalposts after applications had already begun. For this reason, we believe that the Bill should come into force from 2027. We must protect frontline services and protect the integrity of the applications process. To address the problem directly, we have tabled amendments 6 and 7 to safeguard those already in the 2026 application cycle, ensuring that they are not deprioritised, because that is a simple matter of fairness. We have also tabled amendments to improve the transparency and long-term impact of the Bill. Across the NHS, we face severe shortages, not just in general practice but in radiology, oncology, mental health services and many other specialities.

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

  More

  I am pleased to welcome this Bill, broadly. It seeks to prioritise graduates from UK and Irish medical schools for foundation and specialty training places. On this point, the Liberal Democrats support the Government, but we have some concerns about how that will be delivered, and about the real-world consequences for our NHS, patients and the doctors who keep our health service going. Taxpayers invest around £4 billion every year in training young doctors, yet far too many are left competing for too few posts. In 2025, around 12,000 UK-trained doctors competed with 21,000 international doctors for just 9,500 specialty training positions. Many highly skilled young doctors, who were ready to serve in the NHS, were left without a pathway into specialist practice. That is clearly unfair and unsustainable. It is hardly surprising that so many doctors decide to leave the country altogether and seek opportunities elsewhere, where their training and wellbeing are valued. This is a tragedy for them and a tragedy for patients, so prioritisation is right, fair and long overdue. However, reorganising a queue does not shorten it or make it move any faster. The reality is clear: the NHS has a deep workforce shortage, with crises in some specialties, and this Bill alone cannot solve it. A detailed long-term workforce plan, which ensures that training provides the skill mix that the NHS needs for the future, is required as soon as possible. I look forward to the Minister confirming when that will be delivered. Shortly before Christmas, the Government committed to 4,000 additional specialty training places in their negotiations with the British Medical Association, including 1,000 that were brought forward, but following the collapse of those negotiations, it remains unclear whether those places will materialise. Patients cannot wait for certainty, and neither can exhausted staff. Will the Minister confirm those places, and go further by addressing other issues that have prevented doctors from working in the NHS, such as restrictive rotas, workplace violence and inflexible working? Dealing with such issues might prevent doctors who have secured specialty training places from moving abroad once their training is completed, ensuring that taxpayers’ money is not wasted, and that doctors with local, relevant experience remain in the NHS. I turn to the details of the Bill. We have concerns about clause 7(1), which allows Ministers to change eligibility for prioritisation through the negative procedure. That will enable sweeping changes, without proper parliamentary scrutiny, to who can access training places. Given the scale and sensitivity of the NHS workforce pressures, such decisions must not be made behind closed doors, or at the whim of a future Health Secretary with less desirable motives than the current one. That is why the Liberal Democrats have tabled amendments that would require Parliament to approve any future changes through the positive procedure. We are also troubled by the Government’s decision to apply the new rules part of the way through the 2026 specialty recruitment cycle. The Bill allows for prioritisation at the offer stage for medical specialty training places in 2026. I would like the Minister to clarify in her closing remarks whether this means that international doctors already working in our NHS—who have paid for exams, secured visas and maybe uprooted their life and their family—will suddenly be pushed to the back of the queue, mid-cycle. These doctors keep our hospitals running today. They entered the system in good faith, and it seems unfair to change the rules midway through the process. I would also be grateful if, in the Minister’s closing remarks, she outlined the expected impact on NHS service provision if people who are deprioritised during the application process decide to leave en masse. Will she give my constituents in North Shropshire reassurance that patient safety and patient outcomes will not be impacted? The Liberal Democrats would prefer implementation to begin in 2027, at the interview stage; that would protect both fairness and patient safety. Would the Minister elaborate on the impact of the Bill on universities that offer medical degrees elsewhere in the world? I think we have all been contacted by Queen Mary, University of London; the implications for the university may be serious if graduates, who have always been considered UK graduates, undertaking NHS training, and a UK medical qualification registered by the General Medical Council, suddenly have their expectations changed. As I have mentioned, retention is just as critical as recruitment, but unfortunately it is outside the scope of this limited Bill. In the year to September 2023, 10.7% of NHS staff—about 154,000 people—left their role. Burnout is rife, morale is low and too many staff are working in buildings that are crumbling around them. We have been contacted by GP trainers who are worried that the doctors they are training plan to leave for Australia or Canada as soon as they qualify. The promised workforce plan must address this problem. International comparisons lay bare the scale of the problem. England has just 3.2 doctors per 1,000 people, which is well below the OECD and EU average of 3.9. We would need 40,000 more doctors to meet that benchmark. Prioritising UK graduates is sensible, but it will not on its own deliver the workforce that patients urgently need. That is why the Liberal Democrats have tabled an amendment requiring a specialty by specialty workforce assessment. Shortages are acute in general practice, radiology, cancer care, mental health and more, and transparency is essential if training places are to be directed at where the need is greatest. It is neither right nor remotely sustainable that, at a time when patients struggle to see a GP, qualified GPs are unemployed, yet that is happening now, with vacancy freezes and financial pressure creating an NHS in which shortages sit alongside unemployment. The Government’s decision to raise national insurance has only exacerbated the problem, forcing some practices into lay-offs or closure. In my North Shropshire constituency, several GP practices have told me that they cannot take on additional doctors because they are constrained by the outdated physical space in which they operate. The Liberal Democrats would fund 8,000 more GPs, ensuring that every patient could see a GP within seven days, or 24 hours if the need was urgent, because we cannot fix the NHS without fixing the front door. NHS staff are the backbone of our health service, and they deserve better working conditions and a fair career path. We will continue fighting for an independent pay review body, for safe and modern buildings, for flexible working from day one, and for practical support, such as reduced parking charges, so that staff are not penalised for simply turning up to care for us. We will always stand up for our NHS and the people who make it work. While we support this Bill, we will push to ensure that its implementation strengthens our health service as much as possible.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Business Rates · Hansard source

  More

  I declare an interest in that my husband works for an independent wine merchant. Today’s news will be very welcome for the many pubs in North Shropshire that have been pushed to the brink over recent years by national insurance contributions increases, high energy bills and now business rates. However, this will not help shops or hotels such as the lovely Pen-y-Dyffryn in my constituency, the rateable value of which has nearly quadrupled. Will the Minister outline the timeline for his review of hotels in particular, and what other help can be given to retail and hospitality businesses?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Rural Broadband: Installation · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is being so generous with his time. In North Shropshire we were really excited because we were included in Project Gigabit, which was going to roll out fibre broadband for 12,000 properties—mostly easier to reach ones, but it would have been a significant improvement none the less. Freedom Fibre, which had that contract, has handed it back, having connected only around 3,000 properties, and we now have to wait for Openreach to get around to it, despite the fact that, in the meantime, everybody has to pay BT for pretty poor broadband, come what may. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Project Gigabit roll-out has been a shambles in some areas, and that the Government need to prioritise those areas that were promised an improvement but have been let down yet again, to make sure that they get their connections sooner rather than later?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I know that Members across the House supported Liberal Democrat plans to introduce a decent homes standard for service family accommodation, and I am very grateful to the Government for bringing that in through recent legislation from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. However, single living accommodation is still really poor. Constituents in North Shropshire report rat infestations and being unable to sleep at night. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that single living accommodation also needs to be looked at as a priority?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Warm Homes Plan · Hansard source

  More

  As the Secretary of State has pointed out, in rural areas, we tend to have older housing stock and lots of people off-grid. They are very keen to see upgrades made to their home, and we welcome this announcement. In my constituency, a number of people engaged with the energy company obligation 4 scheme. Unfortunately, they have been let down badly by rogue installers, who have left their bills higher and their homes damaged, and who have taken money from the taxpayer. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that does not happen this time, and what remedy might be available for those who have been let down by rogue actors in ECO4?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Cross-border Health Services: England and Wales · Hansard source

  More

  Powys health board has been categorising the needs of its patients based on cost rather than clinical need, and that is causing a real problem for the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt orthopaedic hospital in my constituency and the associated Headley Court veterans’ centre, because they need to prioritise patients based on clinical need, not whether Powys health board will pay for them this year. What is the Secretary of State doing about Powys health board to ensure that patients are treated according to clinical need and in a way that my hospital trust can manage?

• 20 Jan 2026 · 5G Connectivity: Telford and West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I just highlight that I did not declare my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on digital communities, which I should have done?

• 20 Jan 2026 · 5G Connectivity: Telford and West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech and a really good point, which applies equally to urban and rural areas. Mobile network operators do not have minimum standards of coverage and quality of signal. At some places where there was good coverage before, that now no longer appears to be the case because the signal quality is so poor. Does he agree that we need to look at a way to ensure mobile network operators provide a good quality signal to everyone?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Arctic Security · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State has rightly outlined the importance of co-operation with our allies over this serious issue, but as we have seen, there is not a consistent approach on retaliatory tariffs. Can she describe to the House the discussions that the UK Government had with our European allies before ruling out retaliatory tariffs?