Layla Moran MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 17 Dec 2025 · UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations · Hansard source

  More

  Hallelujah! It feels like some common sense is finally re-entering this debate, and I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement. So do my constituents in Oxford West and Abingdon who wrote to me at the time. Many were literally in tears because they were worried that they would not be able to participate—in fact, they could not do so. But I do hear what others are saying. They are trying to pooh-pooh how much this agreement is worth. It is not just about the money, but there is money to be recouped here and there will have been an impact assessment. How much is this worth to the UK economy now and going forward?

• 10 Dec 2025 · Resident Doctors: Industrial Action · Hansard source

  More

  This is just not the time for a strike. As much as we have huge sympathy with many of the grievances of resident doctors, we understand that the next few weeks will be critical for how the next few months will be for the NHS, so I echo calls for the BMA to listen to reason. However, I spare a thought, and I hope the Secretary of State does, for the overseas doctors we rely on so heavily, because there is an acute workforce shortage. How, through this plan and this legislation, will the Secretary of State avoid creating a two-tier system that risks undervaluing the critical work that overseas doctors do to prop up our NHS?

• 9 Dec 2025 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend talks about accessibility, and we cannot forget about disabled people in that. If I may, I will share a perverse peculiarity at Radley station near Oxford, which is considered a rural station. Disabled people can go northbound, but not southbound, because there is no step-free access. How ridiculous is that? Is this Bill not an opportunity to address some of those discrepancies?

• 3 Dec 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q11. Allison in Oxford is threatened with new service charges by her housing association, Green Square Accord, for shrubbery she happily cut herself for 22 years and for cleaning a communal area that simply does not exist. Meanwhile, Rebecca’s charges have more than doubled over the last four years, with no explanation. Green Square Accord is not the only provider doing this. It is a wild west out there. Will this Government consider Liberal Democrat plans for a new regulator and a cap on these outrageous rip-off service charges?

• 3 Dec 2025 · Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for securing this important debate. It is a joy to represent the city of Oxford, particularly the university bits that I have inherited from my neighbour, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds). I am glad she got to keep her own college, though; that just felt right. As such, I am able to wax lyrical about our university—a powerhouse of innovation at the centre of a hub of science and technology businesses, with the highest concentration of science research centres in western Europe. Irene Tracey, its new vice-chancellor, is a personal example of Oxfordshire’s potential. Born in Oxford and educated at a local comprehensive in Kidlington, she is herself a powerhouse in the life sciences, and she has a vision for the university as a global leader of innovation, while recognising its rootedness in our community. Oxfordshire, as a county, is one of the most productive regions in the UK. In 2025, the global innovation index ranked Oxfordshire fifth globally for the most innovation-intensive clusters relative to population density. In order to build on that, like so many others, we need the infrastructure and, in particular, connectivity. Oxfordshire county council’s OxRAIL 2040 plan sets out an ambitious but realistic programme of investment to support sustainable growth and link homes with key employment sites across the county. It started with the Cowley branch line, which was a huge achievement, and I was delighted that it was realised. However, that must be only the start, because what we need to do is connect people with jobs and with homes, and create communities as we go. It is for those reasons that I am sorry to say that I profoundly disagree with the right hon. Member for Oxford East and her assessment of what is right for local government reorganisation, because to divorce Oxford University and the city from the rest of the area fails to understand the interconnectivity of our county. I will give one example. Under the current Greater Oxford plan, it cuts off Abingdon from Culham. At one point, Abingdon had the highest number of PhDs per square kilometre in Europe because of the Culham Science centre, yet the two would be artificially cut off even though they are absolutely adjacent. It makes no sense. The better, more practical approach, with fewer barriers, is to focus on the county as a whole and make sure that, when we look at where we put jobs and drive innovation, we create communities across the whole county. Otherwise, we will find ourselves in the same position again, looking at a constrained city centre and a constrained greater Oxford, wanting to expand ever more. I hope that the Government look coolly at the numbers. I am sure they will be convinced that the “One Oxfordshire” vision for the whole county, with the city and the university at its centre, is the right way to go.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree that the Cowley branch line is amazing, but I underline the point that the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) made about the Kennington bridge problem: there is a £70 million hole there. That matters, because the Oxford flood alleviation scheme will protect the Thames valley floodplain, the largest unprotected floodplain in Europe. If the problem is not addressed, the scheme will get held up, which in turn will stifle growth across the region. It is really important—small, but important.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State was absolutely right: the NHS does need to innovate and renew—and indeed any investment in any Budget is welcome—but how this renewal happens and what is prioritised also matters. While I of course agree that the focus on hospital waiting lists is right, I can also be concerned that the focus on physical health risks deprioritising an under-loved but equally important area: mental health. Today, the Health and Social Care Committee published its report on community mental health services, with a focus on severe mental health. The report is clear: we must take a radical new approach to mental health and its funding. Although parity of esteem has been enshrined in the NHS constitution for over a decade, we have not made enough progress. As Lord Darzi outlined, although mental health accounts for over 20% of the disease burden, it receives less than 10% of NHS spend. Worryingly, the share of NHS spending on mental health has fallen again this year. For five years it went up, slowly but surely, from 8.05% in 2018 to 9% in 2023. That may not sound like much, but it represents billions in extra spending. That started to make a bit of a difference, particularly in workforce numbers, but anyone who uses the system knows that we have a long way to go. I am bitterly disappointed that the mental health investment standard, which is the principle of increasing the share of ICB spend on mental health each year, has been watered down to be based on flat, real funding growth—just keeping up with inflation. This is an unwelcome finessing of the definition, and it is a backwards step. The Committee urges the Government to change course and, further, to enshrine the original definition in law. Why spend all that money? There are so many reasons. There is a strong link between mental illness and demand for social care. People with severe mental ill health die on average 15 to 20 years earlier. A Care Quality Commission survey showed that up to 90% of people with mental health issues want to work, but only 37% are working. For people with severe mental illness, that figure falls to 8%. They are not lazy; they are sick. Investing in mental health grows the economy and boosts productivity. Of course, money is not everything. It is right that we do this for the people—something that I know only too well as the proud partner of someone who happens to have a bipolar diagnosis. They fall through the cracks, denied care for being too well, too ill or not in crisis. They wait years for services, and, unlike for physical health, there are no targets. We need national access and waiting time standards now. The consequences of the system can be tragic—just ask Dianne, one of my constituents. Her son Leon was discharged from the community and he deteriorated. Despite desperate pleas, doctors would not review his case, and he completed suicide. There is a ray of hope in the system: 24/7 neighbourhood mental health centres. Such centres are open access, with an integrated, holistic model, rooted in communities—everything that our experts asked for. One staff member said: “This place helps people feel like a skilled person, not just an ill person.” We need the funding for those centres to continue, and for them to be rolled out across the country. I urge the Government to be bold, take on the leadership and ensure that the money is there. If they do, our Committee will back them every step of the way.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  On mental ill health, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point out that it is one of the drivers of people going on universal credit and that does need to be tackled. Does he share my alarm that today in the Health Service Journal it has been reported that the Government are planning to water down the mental health investment standard, which will start to reverse the trend we saw over many years of achieving parity of esteem between physical and mental health?

• 25 Nov 2025 · Health Inequalities · Hansard source

  More

  Diethylstilbestrol, or DES, was prescribed to women until the 1980s to treat miscarriage. Those who took it were themselves at greater risk of breast cancer, and their daughters have a higher risk of rare cervical cancers. It is estimated that a whopping 300,000 women have been affected. Two weeks ago the Secretary of State made an apology to victims, but they rightly want more than “sorry”, and they have pointed out that the current screening regime is insufficient. Will the Secretary of State meet me, and campaigners and victims, in order to understand how this was allowed to happen, who will be held accountable, and how those women can go about securing compensation for this egregious scandal?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Gaza and Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  I am struck by the number of my constituents who, unprompted, will raise how weak international law seems to be at holding those accountable in Gaza, Sudan and elsewhere to account for the atrocities they commit. This is a moment where we must bolster international law, not undermine it. My question to the Foreign Secretary is this: what has happened to the UK response to the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the occupation? She herself in her statement pointed out the stranglehold on banks, that the Palestinian economy is on its knees and that the illegal settlements continue to grow. This is not new; this has been happening for decades. What are we doing about it? We must abide by that opinion.

• 29 Oct 2025 · Gaza and Hamas · Hansard source

  More

  Throughout these horrific two years, I have kept trying to make the case for the innocents—for the people who did not choose any of this and who are not responsible. It is completely unacceptable that Hamas have not released all the bodies, and it is equally unacceptable that the Israeli authorities released 100 Palestinian bodies with just numbers. What are the Government doing to help the Palestinian authorities to identify all the bodies that have been returned, in both Israel and Palestine, so that families can grieve and the dead can have the dignity that they deserve?

• 28 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Last week I met Nada, an Oxford plastic surgeon who told me horrific stories of the children she has been treating in Gaza. I believe that the Secretary of State has met her, too. The most concerning thing is that if these wounds do not have care, they will lead to life-changing disabilities. Medics are calling for a humanitarian corridor between Gaza and the west bank so that those Palestinian children can stay in Palestine. What discussions has she had on the matter?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Virtual Wards · Hansard source

  More

  16. What steps he has taken to support the virtual ward programme.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Virtual Wards · Hansard source

  More

  Earlier this year, I visited the “hospital at home” team at the John Radcliffe hospital, who run an incredible virtual ward. I saw them deliver care to Mavis, who is 91. She was so emotional and grateful for the work they did—we all ended up in tears. Imagine my disappointment that while I was off, we got an email from the team saying that the funding for that incredible service is no longer there and that they face closure. This is an example of the best of the NHS. We want it rolled out to the rest, but if the funding is not there for these nascent services to find their footing, how can we ensure that best practice can be spread across the whole of Oxfordshire and beyond?

• 20 Oct 2025 · International Baccalaureate · Hansard source

  More

  This week I have been inundated by families who send their children to Europa school just outside my constituency; they are so concerned by these changes. I taught the IB for 11 years, and I know full well the difference that its incredible curriculum can make to children’s lives. Does this policy direction not send a negative signal from the Government? I remind the Minister that it was a Labour Government who introduced the funding in the first place. Surely this is the wrong direction.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Jhoots Pharmacy · Hansard source

  More

  The case of Jhoots is clearly hugely unfortunate given the incredible work that community pharmacies do up and down the country for our constituents. I am pleased to hear the Minister say that this case will not negatively affect the funding settlement, but it is set against the backdrop of a very precarious sector where actors who want to do good by our communities and do a high-quality job often find that they simply cannot make ends meet, and bad actors find a way to move in. When the Committee looked last at this issue, the workforce was a key plank to why the sector is not sustainable. What update can the Minister give us on the inclusion of pharmacists in the workforce plan?

• 14 Oct 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I want to feel happy this week, but I find it impossible, because with so much destruction, so much devastation and so many lives lost, I look back over the last two years and ask the question, what on earth was it all for? But history teaches us that from the depths of such despair can often launch a positive future. There is only one way to achieve the everlasting peace that President Trump so rightly talks about: that is a two-state solution—Israelis and Palestinians living side by side in dignity and security. I would like to thank this Government for recognising the state of Palestine. That was a promise made to my great-grandfather finally made good, but it is an empty promise unless it is followed by statehood, so my question to the Prime Minister is simply, will he make the Palestinian state a reality, and will he give it his personal attention over the course of his premiership, so that this is the last time we see this devastation? We do not want to see a repeat of that cycle of violence that we have always seen in the past.

• 14 Oct 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  This is a long-overdue and very welcome Bill, but frankly it will not even touch the sides of what most of our constituents and communities need when it comes to the wider mental health landscape. I support many of the amendments to improve it, not least those laid by my hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I need to make a couple of quick points, because we want the Bill to succeed. The Minister will know that since December the Health and Social Care Committee has been conducting an inquiry into community mental health services, because we recognise that unless we start tackling these matters upstream, we will not achieve the Bill’s aims. For so many, it feels like they are walking through an NHS desert: they simply cannot get the appointments they need; they do not feel supported; and no one can navigate this complex system. Just a few weeks ago, while still on maternity leave, I decided to have a keeping-in-touch day and the Committee decided to visit an oasis in this desert—the incredible Barnsley Street neighbourhood mental health centre in Tower Hamlets. Unfortunately, the centre is one of only six pilots set up to this level across the country, but we heard some amazing stories of how people had been diverted away from in-patient mental health units by an approach that truly puts the patient at its centre. It was inspiring. However, we heard from the centre that its funding will not continue beyond April. It is only just starting to gather the data it needs; system change is desperately needed in this space, but the concern is that the system will change without robust data behind it. My question to the Minister is, will the centres be funded beyond April? If not, how can the Department make decisions about the system based on data that does not represent a full calendar year? I also want to speak in support of amendment 9. I pay tribute to Cyril and Dianne whose son Leon suffered from schizophrenia for many years and sadly completed suicide in January 2019. He was let down by community mental health services. Leon’s mother, Dianne, saw the illness get worse and worse, and when she tried to re-refer him into the system after he had been detained, she was told, “Computer says no.” This Bill will improve the lives of families like Dianne and Leon’s, because Dianne’s pleas would have been heard under the new nominated persons provisions. Amendment 9 would be an extra step, ensuring that the plan is shared with parents and carers—with the nominated person. I pay tribute to those who have campaigned so doggedly for the inclusion of nominated persons in the Bill.

• 14 Oct 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  It is a decrease in the proportion of the mental health investment standard for the first time in, I believe, nine years. It is incredibly concerning. It was hard-won, cross-party support that made that proportion go up over time. It was incremental, but it was starting to make a difference to the system. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful if the Government clarified whether that will continue in 2025-26? When Baroness Merron came to our Committee, she could not confirm that. If there is not going to be a continuation, the system needs to know by now, frankly, so that it can prepare adequately for it.

• 30 Apr 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  These are the words of a victim who suffered intolerable sexual misconduct in her workplace: “The non-disclosure agreement was entirely one-sided—gagging me, but not the men or the execs involved. It covered not just business matters but everything painful I endured. I ended up in hospital.” Does the Prime Minister agree with me and Members across the House that the misuse of NDAs in cases like this are totally unacceptable? If so, will he help us to amend the Employment Rights Bill, currently going through the Lords, to stop this pervasive practice once and for all?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hospitals · Hansard source

  More

  Lord Darzi’s independent investigation clearly set out the impact that “capital starvation” has had on the NHS in recent years, and the importance of capital spending to fixing the health service. The report highlighted substantial shortfalls in capital investment, combined with a tendency to raid capital budgets to cover in-year spending deficits, so I welcome today’s Liberal Democrat motion, which allows Parliament to highlight how important these issues are to the public. This is the second Liberal Democrat Opposition day, and it is the second time we have debated health and social care. It is because it is a priority for the country that it is a priority for us. The Health and Social Care Committee has taken a keen interest in the new hospital programme. We have challenged the Government to maintain their capital spending and not fall into the traps of the past, when capital spending was redirected to fund day-to-day spending, so I was pleased to receive confirmation from the Department, and now from the Dispatch Box, that the Chancellor’s changes to the fiscal rules will stop future raids on the capital budget, or CDEL, to fund the day-to-day spending budget, or RDEL. That is hugely welcome. However, although the protection of capital budgets is reassuring, I remain concerned about the lack of transparency around how the funding is allocated by the Treasury. The charge levelled at the Government is that funding is being funnelled into acute care to tackle waiting lists, at the expense of funding primary care, infrastructure and care in the community. Clearly, on current commitments, we will not see capital funding that is sufficient to meet anything close to the unfunded promises made by the Tories in 2020. Nevertheless, the principle of investing in our hospital infrastructure is good; money will be saved in the long run on maintenance and emergency repairs, as well as providing a better quality of care. In the policy paper on the plan for implementing the new hospital programme, the Government stated that funding will reach only £3 billion in the early 2030s due to “other key priorities in health spending, such as funding to enable the Secretary of State’s 3 shifts”. That is good, but we need transparency around how decisions were made and which projects were chosen. In January, the Secretary of State provided the criteria by which the schemes were scored and funding was allocated, such as site constraints and maturity of planning permission, but it is disappointing that, as I understand it—I am willing to be corrected—the review was conducted without the involvement of the trust teams responsible for delivering the rebuilding programmes. As of last month, no trust with a new hospital programme scheme has been provided with the full details of how it scored specifically against the criteria. The Health and Social Care Committee has asked how the Department is prioritising schemes and has not received a clear answer, so my question is very simple: in the interests of transparency, will the Secretary of State publish, for every single new hospital programme scheme that was subject to last year’s review, the details and findings of the Department’s assessment of them against each of the criteria that were published alongside his statement in the House of Commons on 20 January 2025? It is the very least that the schemes that felt deprioritised deserve, and we are hearing many examples of those from Members of different parties. I choose to believe that this outcome is inadvertent but, frankly, it just looks a bit shady. We have seen it happen before with the levelling-up money under the previous Government. The Public Accounts Committee, on which I know many Members have served, as have I, has a motto: sunlight is the best disinfectant. If the Government will not publish the detailed assessment, the Minister needs to explain why. My local area, like so many others, has been affected by this issue. Last year I visited the John Radcliffe hospital, which serves much of Oxfordshire, and I saw at first hand how its capacity to deliver care is being severely constrained by the size and condition of the physical estate. We went to visit the old site of the neonatal intensive care unit, which had to be moved because the staff were worried about the ceiling literally coming down on sick children and on incubators. It was atrocious. The John Radcliffe hospital wants to be world-leading. It is a specialist tertiary care hospital, which means it is able to perform very specialist surgery, and it wants a new building to do that in. When it put to the Government a bid for £28 million, it was rejected. Instead, it has gone out to seek private financing, and it will now cost the trust £46 million to deliver the exact same building. Would it not have made sense for the Government to allow the trust to borrow from the Government to build it, and then to pay the money back from its own reserves over time? Think what it could have done with that £18 million.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hospitals · Hansard source

  More

  I am so sorry to hear about the experience of my hon. Friend’s constituent. In Lord Darzi’s report, there are some stark pictures of him sitting in substandard accommodation for the very sickest in our society. The Health and Social Care Committee is currently undertaking an inquiry into severe mental ill health, because we know that mental health is so often forgotten in the NHS. It is good that the mental health investment standard has been continued, but it is sad that the overall spend as a proportion of NHS spend is going down this year for the first time in the last few years. We very much hope that this is not a trend, but a one-off, and that it will continue to rise from next year. For the Warneford, we need to understand what new innovative funding pots we can put together. We understand that the Government are working across Departments, and this project would be as much of an advantage to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology as to the Department of Health and Social Care. Where are these pots of money, because they are important? I will end simply by saying that I completely agree with the thrust of the motion—and, indeed, with what the Government have themselves said—which is that if we invest in capital expenditure, we need to take an invest to save approach. We know that this matters to our constituents, and we know that they cannot get the services they so desperately need. If we are to achieve the three shifts, we should not be pitting them against each other. Investing in capital will help the three shifts to succeed, and we do will the Government and the NHS to succeed.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hospitals · Hansard source

  More

  I have to say that that was quite a segue. We are focusing on the capital estate. We all know that there were problems with the Lansley reform. In fact, I welcome the fact that it is being unravelled, and I was pretty vocal about it at the time. The savings the John Radcliffe could have realised might have been spent on hospital at home services and other ways to divert people away from coming into A&E in the first place. Across the wider Oxford university hospitals NHS foundation trust, £100 million of backlog is deemed as high or significant risk. Pausing or delaying plans to rebuild hospitals is a false economy, and hospitals around the country, including the John Radcliffe, are overspending on maintenance as a result. That is not limited to our hospitals; we are also seeing it in GP practices, many of which date from well before 1948. I will declare an interest in that my own surgery—the Summertown health centre—is one of those practices. It is doing incredibly well, despite working out of a very old Victorian building. It is desperate for a new site, and it was deemed one of the top priorities for the ICB. I note that the Minister mentioned a figure of £102 million, but, frankly, that does not touch the sides. As in the case of the John Radcliffe, the Summertown health centre is now going out to seek private finance, which it will find a way to pay back slowly over time. The Exchequer would not even have to lay out this money in advance, and even with inflation, the amount it would get back is less than what the health centre has to pay to do this with private finance. I ask the Government to think about this innovatively. It is not the same as the PFI. It is the Government using their own borrowing rules to allow investment in vital public services, and it makes no sense that they cannot do it. When it comes to mental health services, we have the incredible Warneford hospital in Oxfordshire, and Warneford Park in Oxford will provide a new cutting-edge mental health hospital surrounded by a research and innovation hub. Groundbreaking research is planned on understanding brain health and discovering new drug therapies and new forms of treatment. This is a great vision, but it will cost £500 million. We do have private benefactors, including local businesses, willing to feed into it, but where is the funding pot for mental health trusts? They were excluded from the new hospital programme, and it is not at all clear where that kind of money may be found.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hospitals · Hansard source

  More

  We are desperate to help the Minister in this endeavour, and look forward to receiving our invitations to the cross-party talks, which have yet to be issued. However, the Health and Social Care Committee heard today from an organisation called Think Ahead, which is the only organisation in the country that trains mental health social care workers. I have just heard that the Department of Health and Social Care is not refunding that organisation. Can the Minister explain why?

• 22 Apr 2025 · Road Safety and Active Travel to School · Hansard source

  More

  I thank you for chairing the debate, Mrs Hobhouse, and congratulate my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), on securing it. I am the MP for the dreaming spires. If we think Oxford, we think Headington stone and copper roofs and bicycles everywhere; indeed, 20% of people in Oxford commute to work by bike. I am also proud to be the MP for the No. 1 school in the country for cycling to school, Cherwell school in north Oxford: 58% of the students cycle and only 11% get there by car. In part, that is facilitated by an incredibly popular segregated cycle lane that runs all along the road towards the school, but many parents will point out that the cycle lane is at the very end of the commute to school, and there are no segregated cycle lanes all the way up the Banbury Road and the Woodstock Road. There was a plan for the Woodstock Road and a plan to look at feasibility on the Banbury Road, but the Labour city council decided that it wanted instead to spend the money on what local people call the vanity bridge to nowhere, elsewhere in Oxford. That was a crying shame, because the return on investment of segregated cycle lanes is not to be underestimated. In Abingdon, we have our own problems. National cycle route 5 passes through the town centre, but cyclists need to dismount exactly halfway down the route. Councillor Neil Fawcett has been instrumental in securing funding for a redesign, as a result of which the route will be safer and faster. Oxfordshire is led by the Liberal Democrats and we are greatly ambitious for cycling in our county. We want to increase the number of cycle trips from 600,000 a year to 1 million by 2031. My question to the Minister is: what other pots of money are there that we can bid for? Each one of these schemes is incredibly good value for money. They produce safer, faster and healthier schemes, which is what we all want for our constituents.