Helen Morgan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will raise some similar concerns about the abolition of integrated care partnerships and integrated care strategies, which clause 23 brings about. Before I do, I should declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The removal of integrated care partnerships, as well as the extension of ICBs to cover multiple local authorities, raises unanswered questions about the future of social care planning, which is very important to the Liberal Democrats, as the Minister knows. We feel that it removes the voice of charities and others in the voluntary sector who are crucial to meeting the range of needs in health and social care. Throughout the Bill there is a theme of separating social care and the NHS, at a time when greater integration and closer working are clearly needed. We heard Sir Andrew Dilnot say in evidence that we cannot deal with some of the challenges that arise in the NHS—particularly around flow through hospitals and long waits in corridor care in accident and emergency—without improving the discharge of patients into social care. Separating the organisations that deliver those things is clearly problematic. If we think about it, as the shadow Minister just outlined, we have lost the local authority representative on ICBs. The Bill also changes the way the better care fund is administered. With those changes, we are really concerned about the separation of these two responsibilities. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to an example in Shropshire. Shropshire council spends almost 80% of its budget on social care. It is an extremely challenged council because of those funding pressures. Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin ICB has also been one of the most financially challenged ICBs. That is partly because of its small scale and its merging with Staffordshire—which, for the record, is unlikely to be the combined mayoral authority that Shropshire ends up in, as is my current understanding, although we are a long way off resolving that problem.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Let me clarify. The new clause is about conferring a duty on the Secretary of State to provide that level of care. It would require a significant number of additional GPs, and that would cost a lot of money. The Liberal Democrats’ 2024 manifesto had a fully costed pledge to recruit and retain an additional 8,000 GPs within the course of a Parliament. I think we can all agree that the world has moved on since then, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that this week we proposed a significantly closer relationship with the European Union, which would grow our economy, increase our tax base and pay for a number of these things without having to subject people to additional, onerous tax hikes.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am happy to clarify. Clearly, the world has moved on since July 2024 when we put together our manifesto, but this was a fully costed plan with a number of different changes to tax regimes, including a tweak to capital gains tax and changes to the way that banks were taxed and digital services tax. Since then, we have proposed a number of other alternatives, but the principle of changes to capital gains tax, to the way that windfall profits of the big banks are taxed and to digital services taxes still stands. Plus, we also have a fully fleshed-out plan to actually grow our economy and deal with this problem in the long term.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Farming: Financial Sustainability · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing this debate. I am the vice-chair of the APPG on food security. Agriculture makes up 20% of businesses in North Shropshire, with well over 1,000 agricultural holdings, so it is a huge part of our local economy. In the short time I have, I will focus on two issues. For the roughly 130 dairy farmers in North Shropshire the huge pressures of climate change, increased input costs, rising energy and fertiliser prices, and hostile trade deals have come at a time when milk prices are simply not keeping up with the cost of production, as we have heard. One farmer in Market Drayton reports being down £25,000 a month on his milk price, while a family farming in Maesbrook told me that they have been selling off livestock just to keep their heads above water. On top of that, several farmers in the area have reported being unable to reach their milk buyer for information about pricing, meaning that they are unable to plan ahead. Farmers suffer time and again for their lack of power in the supply chain. Will the Government outline the action they will take to bolster the role and effectiveness of the Groceries Code Adjudicator and to enshrine its golden rules in law so that producers are properly protected, as recommended by the EFRA Committee and the Batters review? Farmers in my constituency are particularly concerned about the proposed changes to water abstraction licences due in 2028, which could have a huge impact on the viability of many farms in my area. Water security is central to food security, so I would appreciate the Department outlining what those changes will mean in real terms for our farmers.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I mentioned in Committee last Thursday that the Liberal Democrats are worried about the risk in the Bill of political capture and the Secretary of State’s ability to meddle in day-to-day operations. As I am sure the Minister is aware, speaking at the NHS ConfedExpo this month, Sir Jim Mackey, the chief executive officer of NHS England, warned that the Bill may give Ministers too much control and that there has to be operational freedom; otherwise we will grind to a halt. I want to probe the process by which we got to this point. Originally, there was discussion about whether the seven NHS regional teams should become independent arm’s length bodies to mitigate such a risk. NHS leaders argued that this would mitigate the risk of direct political control of the service and pointed out that the 10 regional strategic health authorities had played a useful role in running the service efficiently before the creation of NHSE. That proposal was rejected by Ministers, and it is not entirely clear why. I am interested to hear the Minister’s view on that. It is now being reported that a fresh attempt is being made to argue that regional teams should be hosted by an NHS organisation—probably an ICB—to protect their employment terms and, as staff would remain public rather than civil servants, provide some brake on political control. Can the Minister shed any light on all this? Does she recognise the importance of maintaining operational freedom in NHS decision making? We have discussed the reality that current Parliaments cannot bind future ones, and I take that point on board. However, current Parliaments do set precedents and establish the legal frameworks within which future Governments initially operate until they change the law. With the potential for more extreme Governments, there is a risk of discrimination and political considerations entering what should be clinical decision making—for example, decisions on whether to place a trust into special measures or what services are offered, such as sexual health, IVF, outreach to migrant communities and so on. We are concerned not about the current Secretary of State, or indeed the shadow Secretary of State, but about the risk of those sweeping powers being placed in the hands of an extreme Government. If we imagine for a moment that an incoming Government decided that they did not approve of diversity on an NHS board, for example, and replaced an executive with their own candidate, that would be a horrifying situation. I think we would all agree on that. It would be useful to include safeguards now and set a precedent that such action would not be acceptable under this Bill. Notwithstanding the fact that a future Government could come along and change that, they would have to be transparent about their reasons for doing so. The former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ilford North, claimed that he was taking powers back into DHSC in order to give them away to the system, but this Bill has a lot on taking those powers and very little on giving them to the system. How can we be sure that that will actually happen on the ground, and that ICBs, hospital trusts and other health trusts will have the opportunity to flex their local muscle and ensure that services are best shaped for the local population? The NHS Alliance has called for an operationally independent regulatory function in DHSC to oversee NHS organisations, or for an independent panel to make appointments. Will the Minister consider such practical changes to ensure that political capture is not an unintended consequence of the Bill?

• 18 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Liberal Democrats broadly support the abolition of NHS England. As constituency MPs and users of the NHS, we see a huge amount of duplication and unnecessary bureaucracy as our local health organisations try to navigate the processes of securing capital investment, for example. Reducing duplication between the Department and NHS England is clearly welcome if done well, but we have concerns about the way in which that is being undertaken. We think that this centralising process, under which the Secretary of State takes on more powers, risks political capture. That may not seem like a huge risk considering who the current Secretary of State and shadow Secretary of State are, but given the febrile political atmosphere that we are working in, it seems a poor time to give a Secretary of State sweeping operational powers over the detailed functioning of the NHS, with few checks and balances. I will speak about the most concerning elements and make the argument in greater detail when we debate cause 11. As the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ilford North, said that top-down reorganisation of the NHS was the last thing he wanted to do, and yet that is where we find ourselves today. It feels as if the plan has been pulled together very quickly, and that it has been complex to turn into a piece of workable legislation. It has taken a long time even for the Treasury to agree on the funding of the redundancy bill. We have found out that redundancy costs of £800 million will be taken out of the future operating costs of the NHS. I hope that the Minister will describe how that will be delivered to ensure that the costs do not detract from patient care on the frontline. There is still some uncertainty about the new structures within the DHSC and NHSE reorganisation. We have heard that the previously announced plan for three top-level roles—a permanent secretary, a chief medical officer and an NHS chief executive officer—might be changed, and that there is a proposal to merge the permanent secretary and NHS CEO roles. At this stage, as we start to consider the legislation, it would be helpful to have clarity on who will be in charge of the NHS and how the layers below will be organised. We have also heard that hours of staff time, leadership focus and money have been directed away from frontline services. In the oral evidence session, Sarah Woolnough of the King’s Fund and Jon Restell of the Managers in Partnership union suggested that that has been distracting and that, in any body, a significant reorganisation has an opportunity cost. In my previous life, I was an accountant at Centrica plc—one of those back-office checkers everybody wants to get rid of, but who turns out to be quite important in providing the information that enables the business to run smoothly. We found reorganisation hugely distracting; it took away from our ability to do our day jobs well. Then, within a couple of years, a lot of the equivalent roles were re-hired and we were back to square one. It is critical that the Government avoid that scenario in this big reorganisation of the NHS. I hope that the Minister can provide reassurance that it has been well thought through and that we will not find ourselves, two or three years down the line, with similar numbers of people replicating the roles that exist currently, following a huge distraction that resulted in no improvement in patient outcome or experience. My questions are fairly limited. Does the Minister know, at this point, what the impact the reorganisation has had on the system and how much it has cost in secondary impacts? We have had eight Health Secretaries in the past 10 years. After all that swapping and changing, how can the Minister ensure a degree of continuity when the new Secretary of State takes over? One benefit of quangos is continuity over a long time, divorced from the political turmoil of Westminster. We must be clear about how distractions will be avoided in the new structure. Finally, we heard in evidence on Tuesday that the new structure feels like a centralisation of power in Whitehall, when what is needed is more power devolved down to local level so that local services can be shaped to reflect the demographics that they serve and to address the important point of health inequality. Will the Minister explain why she is confident that measures to ensure local accountability and local shaping of services will be able to go ahead? Tackling health inequalities is the priority of everybody in this Room, and we need to ensure that we have an efficient structure in place to ensure that it happens.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Jacob, how prepared are ICBs and local authorities to take on the healthwatch functions? Is there a concern that splitting the local healthwatch function will lead to a lack of joined-up focus on health and on the social care element that resides with local authorities? Jacob Lant: I will pick up the second part of the question first. The majority of the worst experiences of care—the worst incidents, where people feel most lost—tend to be in the gaps between services. Hospital discharge is a really good example of where the transfer between the NHS and social care services does not always work in the best interests of patients. That sort of insight will be lost entirely under the current structure, unless we build in a requirement for ICBs and local authorities to share the intelligence that they are hearing and to work collaboratively to understand patient and care user experience. That then raises the question, “Why are we splitting them?” If they have to work closely together to comment on the worst experiences of care, I do not understand the rationale for splitting them. In terms of preparedness, I said earlier that ICBs will not have any additional resource for doing this. They have their own engagement teams at the moment, but even those that have been doing this very well have been leaning on their healthwatch for many years to help them engage with seldom-heard communities and build additional capacity. I worry about the capacity of ICBs to deliver once that is cut, particularly given the headcount and budget reductions in ICBs generally. Local authorities are probably more experienced in doing direct community engagement and more confident about their ability to pick up the responsibilities. Indeed, I suspect that many of them will continue to commission some sort of external support to help them do this, but their budgets will be restricted. They will get only half the money for healthwatch, so that will be a concern.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on patient safety and I am also a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Can I ask about Healthwatch? We heard this morning that ICBs will be taking on a chunk of the current operations of local healthwatches, but that they will not have any additional budget to enable them to do that. In fact, we know that their budgets have been significantly reduced. Could you elaborate on how you think that will work, and will it be as effective as the current system? Sir Ciarán Devane: The ICBs have a capitation fee of £19.40, which they have to do everything out of. This is an additional duty placed on them. They will have to work out how to do it if there is no extra money coming, but it will be pressured. I hear the argument that local healthwatches were variable. This function has been slightly outside and independent, playing back into decisions; we have to ensure that the level of independence remains somehow in how this is constructed, but that the variability is not just transferred from local healthwatches to how it is done within or across ICBs. Again, the implementation will need to be done well. That leads into the question about local authorities and the connection with them, making sure the democratic voice is brought in and equally the local voice. The legislation does not stop an ICB doing this well. Therefore, without the legislation, part of what we can be doing collectively is trying to make sure that what was good about healthwatches is preserved and is understood by ICBs. There are only 25 of them, so it should be a manageable task for the rest of us. The effectiveness comes back to whether you believe this is a good thing. One of the things we have to do is secure that the benefits of having the patient voice in there, along with the clinical voice and the voice of the manager, at the same time, so that it is not a case of saying, “Oh, now we’ll go and consult the patients on the font size of the report,” but is authentic. That puts a lot of work on to the ICBs and on to those of us who believe passionately in engaging with the patient voice, but there is a risk because of that pressure. Done well, it will enable strategic commissioning and ensure the quality remains, but they are starting, if maybe not from scratch, from a new place.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I will ask about the additional responsibilities that the Bill confers on ICBs. There are additional commissioning responsibilities and an additional requirement to look after what was Healthwatch—the patient voice element. As you have described, you have lost a large number of staff, you have a bigger geographic footprint and you have also lost quite a lot of budget. What do you stop doing, and what is being transferred out to other provider organisations? If the role of such organisations is changing to include some things that the ICB was doing, does that need to be clarified in the legislation? Jon Restell: It certainly needs to be clarified. Whether it needs to be clarified in legislation, I do not know. Leaving aside the fact it took a very long time to get permission to move forward with their consultations, ICBs were thinking about what they needed to do around May or June last year. They will have made a lot of decisions and a lot of staff will have gone already based on the then understanding of what an ICB was supposed to be doing, based on the ICB blueprint that was published by NHS England, so I think that resource has gone. The people who may be connected with the functions that you are talking to have also gone in many cases. The question for me is: if the ICBs are to get more things to do, what is the implication for their running costs? As you know, they are currently capped at about £19 per head. If they get more functions, will they get more resources to do that? Will there need to be other ways of delivering those functions? I do not think that a lot of them can stop doing statutory functions, but that means all the good stuff that we want to see done in health systems—the innovation and the discretionary stuff, much of which is already on hold—will probably be the stuff that goes while they deliver their statutory obligations. On the providers side, we need urgent clarity about what is going to go to the providers’ responsibility because they are taking out a lot of costs. I do not think that all, or many, providers know that these plans are afoot for them. That will create quite a shock. Again, they are choosing people to go now based on their current understanding of what is needed.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I found a really rare thing in Shopshire last week: a new entrant to the dairy sector. However, like lots of small dairy farmers, it is under immense pressure from much bigger companies, whether that is Bute Energy, which is trying to destroy a big chunk of its grassland by planting pylons and an access road though it, or the big supermarkets buying its products at a loss. Can we have a debate in Government time on support for the dairy sector in the light of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report’s recommendation that the Groceries Code Adjudicator and the supply code of practice be strengthened?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I start by declaring an interest as a member of the all-party group on patient safety and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, and also by welcoming the new Secretary of State to his place. I very much look forward to working constructively with him during the passage of the Bill. We all know that our NHS is in desperate need of transformation. Hospitals are in chaos, social care is overloaded and getting a GP appointment is a huge challenge for many. Labour has promised to put patients and communities at the heart of the NHS, but I fear that the Bill does not fulfil that promise. The Government promised to sort out social care, but two years later they are still only part-way through a three-year review. They promised to treat mental health with parity, but although mental health accounts for 20% of the disease burden, its share of NHS budgets is falling to just 8.4%. The Government promised to protect women’s health, but the women’s health strategy published this year was significantly weaker than the men’s health strategy, which received 60% more funding for new research. Healthy life expectancy in the UK is stagnating, and adult social care is under ever more pressure, putting immense stress on the budgets of councils and other local authorities. The reality in rural North Shropshire is that people struggle to get GP appointments, 12-hour waits in A&E have become normal and finding an NHS dentist is becoming impossible. The social care crisis has left Shropshire council’s finances in a dire situation. A real NHS reform Bill would have changes to social care, general practice and prevention at its heart. Instead, this Bill passes responsibilities around Whitehall, centralising more power with the Secretary of State, while chaos reigns following 50% cuts to ICB budgets. Early in his term, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) promised that another top-down reorganisation of the NHS was the last thing he wanted to do. Yet the abolition of NHS England is exactly that—focusing on reorganisation at the top, while failing to deliver real improvements for patients and staff. It is true that NHS England has allowed Ministers to shirk responsibility and accountability, but its abolition has been poorly planned, leaving both ICBs and specialised commissioning in chaos. Instead of the Government’s advertised aim of creating a more community-based NHS, the Bill centralises power in Whitehall, giving sweeping Henry VIII-style powers to the Secretary of State. Such powers carry a real risk that political considerations could influence what should be operational decisions about how the NHS provides for patients in future. That is particularly concerning in the current febrile political climate, and the Government must ensure that protections are in place for what may happen in the future. The Government have made 50% cuts to ICBs, but the Bill gives them new legal responsibilities, different structures and centrally directed spending objectives. It is indicative of a lack of planning that could plunge ICBs into chaos. Meanwhile, the removal of the integrated care partnership and the extension of ICBs to cover multiple local authorities raises unanswered questions about the future of social care planning. In Shropshire, the council already spends around 80% of its budget on social care provision. That has a monumental impact on all services, as constant savings have to be found. Removing the pooling of the better care fund among local authorities and ICBs will discourage integrated working between these bodies on social care. Given existing complications over the sharing of costs and social care provision, the chaos of that reorganisation may only exacerbate confusion. It is also astounding that the Bill plans to remove the duty of GP representation on ICBs, along with local authorities and NHS trusts. The replacement of council representation with mayors is extremely problematic for the many areas that do not have a mayor, and it removes the local accountability needed to ensure true community representation. Like so much Labour policy, such changes risk benefiting concentrated urban areas, while letting down rural communities such as those I represent.

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I wish to speak about rural regeneration and the need to back business and create economic growth in rural areas. Around a fifth of the British population live in rural areas, which have great untapped potential, but we do not see the infrastructure in those areas to allow them to reach that potential and provide the economic growth we need. To illustrate the point, I have picked five areas, the first of which is digital connectivity. The previous Government’s Project Gigabit seemed like a really good idea: to roll out fibre broadband across rural areas, in places where it would otherwise not have been commercial, and connect businesses and homes so that people could do the things that they need to online—whether that is work from home, start a new business or connect their existing business. In Shropshire, the contract was awarded to a company called Freedom Fibre, which was going to roll out fibre broadband to 12,000 properties but stalled at 3,500 after it could not get the funding it needed to connect the rest. The remaining properties will now be connected by Openreach, but not until 2030. That matters in rural places where, for instance, someone with a farm might allow other businesses to run from redundant buildings that are past their sell-by date and no good for keeping animals. However, those places do not have fibre broadband, which means they are not suitable places for start-up businesses to operate from. The absence of broadband is really beginning to hold us back. It is the same story with mobile coverage. Ofcom reports that 1.45% of postcodes do not have “good” voice capability. Everyone who lives in North Shropshire knows that is complete rubbish, because it is impossible to make a phone call from lots and lots of places, including while driving down the A5. Prees Green is a particular blackspot where I tend to get cut off when speaking to my husband on my way home on a Wednesday night. There are all sorts of places where it really is impossible to make a phone call, and that is holding businesses back. In fact, the River Severn Partnership found that 15.33% of postcodes are without good coverage, and the Rural Services Network says that 65% of rural residents across the country experience unreliable mobile signal. That really matters to people trying to run a business, particularly if they are on the road with that business or trying to work from home. It is holding us back. We need the Government to put in place a regulatory environment for the businesses that connect us digitally to ensure that rural places get the service they need. At the moment, they are being held back by the lack of availability. I will give the House an example. I spoke to a business owner last week—they were actually talking to me about cash and getting to the bank, which I will come to later—who cannot accept payment cards at their premises because they are without a decent signal and any network. They have to give their bank details to their customers, who then go home and make a bank transfer—hopefully. That business is taking on all that risk because it cannot operate a simple swipe-and-pay system. The lack of digital connectivity has that kind of impact on businesses in my area. It also really affects how farmers—there are over 1,000 farms in North Shropshire—do their business. Theirs are often the worst-connected properties, but farmers need to be online to deal with the regulatory environment within which they operate, and they might need to use GPS to work their farm machinery. All that is a problem if the digital connectivity is poor.

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I wonder whether it has occurred to the hon. Gentleman that the Liberal Democrats’ whole point is that local government should be able to decide on its own policies, because they will be appropriate in some cases and not in others.

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention; it speaks to the point that rural areas have been looked past by the current Government and the previous Government. They have been neglected for many, many years, and if we are to unleash the potential of those rural areas, we need the political will to invest in them. Shropshire has lost more bus service miles than pretty much anywhere else in the country, but in the funding round in early 2025, Shropshire had the 53rd lowest of 73 allocations, despite being one of the worst-served counties in the country. Local businesses and the local jobcentre tell me that not being able to get staff to their businesses is the biggest problem they face. They struggle to recruit skilled labour and to get people to them because there is very poor public transport. If a person in Shropshire cannot afford to run a car, they are pretty much stranded where they are. If that person is a young person looking for their first job or looking to learn the skills needed to work, they will probably struggle to get work because of the lack of public transport. Trains are a real problem too. Accessibility at Whitchurch station has been overlooked, as has the connection between Oswestry and Gobowen. Those trains could be transformational for our area. I welcome the Government’s review of in-person banking services that was announced last week. There is only one town with a bank in my constituency. We need to ensure that everybody can access the services they need. A business owner should not be required to drive many miles simply to change a signatory. I have had a lot of feedback from businesses in my constituency saying that banking services are critical. Council funding is really important, and councils are critical for economic development. Shropshire does not have Pride in Place funding. It has lost the local growth funding, and it has not been given shared prosperity funding now that it has been phased out. That really impacts our ability to attract people into tourism and to regenerate the area. I would also say that education funding is part of that picture, because skills are essential. In areas where there are low outcomes for children, having very low input into their schools is problematic. Finally, I want to talk about farming. The family farm tax has held back over 1,068 farms in Shropshire. Milk prices are a real problem. Many of our dairy farmers are producing at lower than cost, and fertiliser and diesel prices are soaring because of the war in Iran, causing a huge crisis of confidence in the farming industry. I look forward to hearing how the Government are going to generate confidence in our farming industry so that our rural economies can thrive.

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I agree entirely. I question the perception that people’s objection to masts is holding us back. In Shropshire, passive infrastructure masts have planning permission and are ready to go; what cannot be achieved is a mobile phone operator willing to put its equipment on those masts. We need to work with mobile network operators to get the connectivity we need. I will move on to public transport. Shropshire has lost 63% of its bus miles since 2015, compared with 19% on average across England. Places like Woore, a village of around 1,000 people in my constituency, have no bus service at all; others, like Trefonen, have one bus a day. Weston Rhyn residents do have a bus service, but at the moment it just does not turn up because of a road diversion. This is really holding people back.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Car Insurance Industry: Fraud · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of fraud in the car insurance industry. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. Before I start, I thank the Minister; the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier); and my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) for being here to respond to the debate. This issue cuts across several Departments, and my main ask is for a co-ordinated response to it across Government. I will touch on many types of fraud in the car insurance industry, but I want particularly to draw the Minister’s attention to paid ad spoofing, which came to my attention after a constituent fell afoul of the scam. Because their case is yet to come to court, I cannot give any specifics of it—I can reassure you, Ms Lewell, that I have checked the content of my speech with the Clerks—but it is typical of the problem. On its website, the Association of British Insurers describes paid ad spoofing as follows: “Paid Ad Spoofing involves scammers who use paid advert spoof websites to appear at the top of search engines usually to trick drivers into thinking they will be directed to the website of the genuine insurer. Scammers target motorists when they’re most vulnerable after road traffic accidents. When a driver uses their smartphone to start initiating a claim from the roadside, they may be directed to the website of an unscrupulous firm instead of their insurer. Scammers will ask for personal details to provide ‘support services’ and potentially make a claim. They use psychological tactics to befriend, reassure and pressure victims, while all the time collecting personal information for financial gain.” Let us imagine a scenario: you are driving along in a blame-free manner, and some idiot pulls out of a side road and hits you. It is unfortunate, but these things happen. Nevertheless, you are very shaken up. You both pull over and agree to swap insurance details. If your car is not moveable, you will need to arrange for it to be towed away. You do not have your insurance details on you, but you know the company you are insured with, so you google their phone number. You see your insurance company and its logo at the top of the results. You ring and you get through to someone who sounds very sympathetic, and they arrange to tow your car away. Over the next few days, you are repeatedly in touch with them. They convince you that you need to hire a car, they sort out your repairs and they send you paperwork to sign for all those things. At no point do they tell you they are not your insurance company, but the reality is that they are not, and the fees that have been racked up for the tow truck, the repairs and the car hire are potentially excessive. They may also have invited you to see a doctor, maybe in a hotel or other obscure location, and convinced you that there is a valid claim for whiplash or other injury as well. What is the problem with all this? Basically, behind the fake ad is an organisation that will claim for all these costs in a court case, based on the fact that it was not your fault. If they lose that court case, you are on the hook for the exorbitant costs. On top of that, you will have had an accident and failed to tell your insurance company, and there are potential legal ramifications of that as well. I have been shocked to find out that there are qualified solicitors working for no win, no fee firms involved in this type of scam. These firms are fully registered with the Solicitors Regulation Authority. How can that possibly be ethical? It is clearly dishonest, and for that reason I would argue it is barely legal.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Car Insurance Industry: Fraud · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this really interesting debate. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as always, gave us a perspective on Northern Ireland and the eye-watering impact that the practice has there, particularly on young people. I know Northern Ireland is very rural, so I have some experience of how that feels. People are dependent on their cars, so the problem has a disproportionate impact on his area. The hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) brought his professional insight into the issue of ghost broking and raised a number of additional issues, which really helped the debate along. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) highlighted some of the issues around subcontractors used by insurance companies. I also thank the Minister, the shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier)—and the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) for their really encouraging responses. I think everybody is on the same page in taking this issue seriously. The problem is that fraudsters are always one step ahead, but I look forward to seeing the results of the Government’s various measures. In particular, we will look at the interaction between the legal industry and the online industry—for want of a better word—and at how we can keep people safe from their instinct to trust what they can see when, all too often, that is not trustworthy and has been placed there by bad actors. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the matter of fraud in the car insurance industry.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents live along what would have been a route for construction traffic for High Speed 2, when it was proposed that it would continue up to Crewe. Because my constituents’ daughter has a life-limiting condition, the Select Committee requested that HS2 Ltd buy my constituents’ house, so that their daughter would not be adversely affected by dust and other pollution from the construction traffic. Since then, it is difficult to say that HS2 Ltd has behaved honourably in any way at all. Recently, it has reduced the amount that it is willing to pay my constituents, on the estate agent’s valuation, although that is expressly forbidden under the agreement that my constituents had with HS2 Ltd. I know that I am not the only MP whose constituents have been poorly treated by HS2 Ltd. Will the Leader of the House organise a meeting with me, the other MPs affected, and the relevant Minister, so that we can discuss how to properly hold HS2 Ltd to account on its commitments?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Rural Roads · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is making what is generally a good speech about rural funding, so it is a shame that he has made it party political. Does he not understand that the Conservative administration, under whose budget we are still operating, cut highways funding, including the proportion for preventive maintenance, for every year from 2022 to 2025? That will clearly have had a knock-on impact. If we do not maintain the roads, they will be in a much worse state at the end of that period.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Middle East: Economic Update · Hansard source

  More

  One in three households in North Shropshire are dependent on heating oil—I declare an interest, because mine is one of them. Since last week, people have been in contact with me, concerned about the rapid escalation of heating oil costs. I welcome the Chancellor’s announcement that she recognises that problem and wants to act on it, but can she outline in more detail what kind of remedy she envisages and how soon it might be put in place?

• 26 Feb 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The western side of my constituency is blighted by the dangerous A483, which runs from Welshpool in Wales through to Oswestry in my constituency. The residents of Llanymynech, Pant and Llynclys are particularly badly affected by safety issues. Everyone knows that the right solution is a bypass, but National Highways has come up with a solution to make the Llynclys crossroads much safer and to improve safety through Pant and Llanymynech, so that schoolchildren are not risking their lives every day by crossing the road to catch the bus. Can the Leader of the House tell me when we might see the road investment strategy 3 announced—when that statement might come before MPs—so that constituents in the western part of my constituency can start to feel hope that, for the first time in 40 years, somebody is doing something about the death trap that is the A483?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Post Office Green Paper · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Government’s announcement today that they are going to maintain 11,500 branches, but in my constituency, outreach services that were only available maybe for an hour or two each week anyway in Cockshutt, Clee, Weston Rhyn, Knockin, West Felton and Ruyton XI Towns have all been lost because of the retirement of a single postmistress in Trefonen. The current criteria have not protected those services, and the distance criteria are not incredibly helpful when there is no public transport that can be relied on, and for a business it is an incredible waste of time to have to get in the car and drive three or maybe six miles to another post office to post something. What can the Minister say to my constituents who are faced with long journeys to get to post offices? What likelihood is there of a post office reopening in their area, and how will that help them deal with these access problems of public transport and efficiency when they are running their businesses?

• 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.