Layla Moran MP: speeches

Speeches

• 19 Mar 2026 · Community Mental Health Services · Hansard source

  More

  On behalf of the Health and Social Care Committee, it is a pleasure to present to the House our report on the subject of community mental health services. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this statement. Mental health services are failing too many people. As MPs, we hear heartbreaking stories from our constituents every day: individuals who struggle to navigate a complex, poorly resourced system; clinicians frustrated that they cannot provide the level of care they would like to; or, worst of all, families who have tragically lost loved ones, knowing that they could have been saved if care had been more responsive. This area is also personal to me, as my partner, Rosy, lives with bipolar, and I have seen at first hand the good, the bad and the downright absent of the mental healthcare system. The inquiry looked under the bonnet of community care, especially for those with severe mental illness. We received a wealth of evidence but the most compelling came from those who we call “experts by experience”, such as Chris Frederick, who said: “Despite some of the referrals, recommendations and lots of content on social media—‘You should try these different techniques’—you really are on your own. There is nobody there to support you.” Powerful stories like this drove our 22 recommendations to improve community mental health provision, but today I only have time to highlight just a few. First, we need proper, integrated mental health care in the community. There is an NHS England pilot programme for six 24/7 neighbourhood mental health centres, and we saw at first hand in Barnsley Street how patients were able to walk in and receive the treatment and care that they needed. There were no complicated referrals and no “pathway says no”; they were able to take the brave step of asking for help and getting it. And it is not just about help with clinical needs, because in the same building there are people who help with housing, benefits and more. One staff member said, “this place helps people feel like a skilled person, not just an ill person”. That makes perfect sense, because a person is not just their diagnosis and we get better results by taking a more deliberate, holistic approach. The outcomes of the pilots are emerging, but clinicians told me that they are seeing fewer patients in the local A&E in crisis and fewer needing expensive in-patient care. The approach works for patients but also for staff and families. In an unusually bleak landscape, it felt like an oasis in the desert. The Committee is therefore disappointed that the Government rejected our recommendation to extend the pilots by another 12 months beyond April 2026. However, they do agree that the learning should be rolled out nationwide, so I welcome the £473 million of funding to be made available to integrated care boards to invest in models like the pilots. I am, however, hearing from existing centres that they are deeply concerned about the future, with funding ending and their ICBs already reprioritising. What a waste. The Committee is also clear on the link between physical and mental health. Someone living with severe mental illness is far more likely to have physical illnesses too, and there is extensive evidence of co-morbidities and preventable deaths. The NHS should reinstate the annual physical health check target for people with severe mental illness. The Government, in their response to our report, recognise the importance and positive impact of the check, but have not committed to reinstating it. They argue that it will appear in the promised modern service framework. I do not really care how they reinstate it and I reserve judgment. Indeed, much of the Government response signposts to the yet unpublished MSF, which is undoubtedly going to play a major role in bringing consistency across the country—a problem we heard about time and again. The Government want to drive “rapid and significant improvements in quality of care”, but a year on from their announcement, we have heard nothing more about it, so we recommended setting a deadline for the publication of the MSF in 2026, which the Government have accepted. The mental health sector is in crisis and it deserves these new standards urgently. To achieve the best outcomes, we must include voluntary, community, faith and social enterprise organisations, but they need certainty to plan. That is why we have recommended a move to multi-year contracts. We are glad that the Government have accepted this recommendation, but we must be clear on the details of the “practical support and accountability” they say will also be provided. The charity Turning Point says: “There is a sense of looking down on VCFSE people as the gofers who run about—‘We do all the important work, and they just look after people when we aren’t there.’” That culture needs to shift. The Committee also recommended that such organisations are embedded in the design of services from the off, and we are further concerned by the lack of data sharing and interoperability, which is stifling innovation. Far too often, these organisations have the answers we need, and we need to value them more. But with that, we also need stronger accountability. The Committee is baffled by the fact that there are no mental health waiting list standards—which, in common parlance, is a target. In plain speak, mental health patients deserve to be seen and treated in a timely manner, just as any other patient might in the NHS. For example, if someone’s doctor refers them to a consultant to treat a bunion, they know that the NHS says that they should have to wait a maximum of 18 weeks. However, if someone is referred to a consultant for bipolar, the NHS has nothing to say about how long they can expect to wait—and indeed, as a result, many people wait for years. The Committee has found that the lack of national standards is contributing to inconsistent access. This is a long-standing issue. Waiting time standards have been consulted on and we understand that they have been drafted. In fact, the Government recognise their importance in their response to the report, but they have no plan to implement them—the House can understand why we are a bit baffled. We have seen how effective a target can be in driving national change, especially in an area of crisis in the NHS. Gareth Harry of NHS England said, “in general when the mental health sector has been set a target historically, it has done very well against it.” The Committee will not rest until there is a waiting time standard for mental health, in just the same way that there is for elective procedures. On the subject of parity of esteem, let us turn to the mental health investment standard, which was championed by Liberal Democrat Minister Norman Lamb and introduced in 2016. It required the share of ICB spend on mental health to be at least as large, proportionately speaking, as overall increases in local budgets. In practice, that meant that over nine consecutive years, the proportion of the NHS budget spent on mental health increased, but this year the Government changed the planning guidance to water down the MHIS and require spending not in accordance with the overall proportion, but only in line with inflation. The Secretary of State recently admitted that instead of the overall share of the NHS spend going up, it will drop for the third year running. We believe that is wrong. The Government have underestimated how damaging a signal this deprioritisation has sent to the sector. Although we agree that there is a conversation to be had about inputs and outputs—like all parts of the NHS, this area needs to roll up its sleeves and make change—the Darzi review was clear that mental health accounts for 20% of the disease burden but only about 8% of the spend, and that disparity is getting worse, not better, under this Government. Rapid change and transformation must happen, but to do it quickly and effectively some double-running will likely be necessary. We therefore recommend writing the original mental health investment standard definition into legislation so that no Government can again change it by the back door. That, alongside implementing those long-wanted waiting time standards, would be a significant step towards making reality a stated aim of the NHS constitution itself: that there should be parity of esteem between mental and physical health. We believe that this Government have the right intentions, but we remain concerned that at the moment, they are all talk and not enough action. Much will depend on the efficacy of the modern service framework, which we look forward to seeing and scrutinising when it is finally here. We all know that delivering meaningful transformation requires a fundamental reimagining of mental healthcare as trauma-informed, person-centred and rooted in a social model. This will take bravery, leadership and unwavering political will, and we ask all Members of this House to join us in pushing for it.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Meningitis Outbreak · Hansard source

  More

  I share my condolences with those families and communities affected by this outbreak. I cannot begin, as the Secretary of State said, to imagine what they must be thinking and feeling during this time. I also thank those staff who have been involved in the response. I echo the Secretary of State’s hope that from this tragedy will come greater public awareness, but may I add that there should be an increased laser-like focus on vaccination and immunisation from the highest levels of Government? He may be aware that the Select Committee did a one-off inquiry into vaccination and immunisation. I have to be honest with him: our letter to the Department is one of the strongest we have ever sent. We have deep concerns. We use words such as “complacent”, although I do not think that applies to this specific case. I believe that UKHSA has taken this matter incredibly seriously and the mobilisation has happened, although that is despite, not because of, the level of underlying resilience in the system. Will the Secretary of State undertake to look at what we have sent him and his Department? Will he undertake to lead the response himself, not just on this incident but on all vaccination trends in this country from now on?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  In among the discussions around procedure, which are important in this place, I fear that we are missing the nub of what my hon. Friend is trying to get to, which is that this is a nuanced space. This is not a blanket “we say no to everything”. Some people are arguing that we should do nothing, and that it should just be down to parents to deal with it. Does she agree that the thoughtful way that she is putting this across, trying to get us all to come together around this issue with the public, is how we will create something that is future-proof? So much of legislation in this area involves chasing our tails, but this is an opportunity for us to get ahead of it, for once.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  May I ask for some clarification in respect of the police investigations? The Minister may have noted the intervention made by Gordon Brown on Sunday, when he asked constabularies to consider widening the probe on the basis of files that had been released as part of the data dump. I appreciate that the Minister will not be able to comment on what those police forces are planning to do or not to do, but one of the questions that have arisen is whether all Departments, including the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Transport, would co-operate fully with them in relation to anything that they might need. Can he assure me that every single Department, without fear or favour, will give them whatever they need if they wish to widen the investigation?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  I am reminded of the debate brought forward by the Conservatives on Lord Mandelson and the proverbial parliamentary knickers-twisting that had to happen to work out that the way to deal with the issue of the intelligence services was indeed to allow the Intelligence and Security Committee to look at the papers. Is it not the case that we have the mechanisms in this place to scrutinise most things, but when it comes to the royal family we do not? Even if a Select Committee wants to do something on these matters, we self-censor with our own conventions that we apply to ourselves. Only we can change that. I am curious to know what the Government are going to do and whether there is a mechanism by which we change those conventions, because they are clearly the nub of the issue when it comes to parliamentary scrutiny.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  People understand that we have a living, breathing, constitutional democracy that grows as society better understands things. If the King does not want Andrew to be a prince, it makes no sense that we still have to bring in legislation to strip him of his dukedom and his earldoms, or that he remains in the line of succession and could potentially be King. There are plenty of other things that we need to be getting on with, but there is a certain logic in this instance that just needs tidying up, if nothing else.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend share my worry that human trafficking, of which those women were victims, is not currently subject to a police inquiry? It is absolutely right that the police will make their own decisions, but does she agree that the Government must ensure that they have the necessary resourcing so that, if they want to go down that rabbit hole—I urge them to do so actively—they are not stymied by a lack of resources?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  I think the hon. Gentleman is trying to get to a point that deeply concerns me, which is that we need to understand the extent to which the then Prince Andrew was leaning on government for things he wanted. There is an example of this in the recent Epstein files, which contain an exchange between Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein about how Andrew had written to the Ministry of Defence in order to allow their plane to land at an RAF base in Norfolk on 7 December 2000. Andrew’s influence on government predated his appointment. What we want to understand is the extent to which he was already trying to influence government as a prince and what that led to in his role as trade envoy. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is incredibly important to get to the bottom of that?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  I hear the Minister’s scepticism about a public inquiry, but the more this debate has gone on, the more I have felt that this is an issue of culture. There are things material to how we have ended up where we are that will not meet an evidentiary threshold and have not contravened any laws, but that clearly do need changing, and what needs changing is the overall culture in our establishment itself. If we do not need a public inquiry to examine this in the round on the basis of everything we know—and I understand his arguments for why it should not be—then how do we do this?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  2000.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Health and Social Care: Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  On Friday, I visited Young Devon, an early support centre in the heart of rural North Devon, where I met young people who told me heartbreaking stories of how they felt left out and let down by the system. Young Devon was quite literally a lifeline for them. It has an open-door, person-centred approach. I am delighted that its funding has been continued for one more year, but it is only one year, and those who run the centre told me that this makes it incredibly difficult for them to plan. Can the Secretary of State clarify what the longer-term plan is for these early support hubs, how they sit alongside Young Futures hubs, and how he can help organisations like Young Devon thrive into the future?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is giving a powerful speech outlining how Liberal Democrat councils up and down the country are doing their best in this cost of living crisis. Oxfordshire county council finds itself in a £24 million deficit as a result of the settlement. Meanwhile, residents on the doorstep are saying to us, “What about my potholes?” He is right to point out that social care is part of that demographic deficit. [ Interruption. ] Does he agree that we need to tackle the core issues and that one of those is social care, because sorting that out helps everything to do with local government finance?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q11. My residents are sick of being let down by Thames Water. Robert and Patricia were sent a £39,000 bill that they did not actually owe; Len and Jenny were forced to use a Portaloo for months as sewage filled their home; and parents still think twice about sending their children to swim in the river. We understand that a £16 billion rescue deal is soon to cross the Prime Minister’s desk. Will he admit today what everyone already knows: that Thames Water is dead in the water; that any delay is pointless; and that it should be put out of its misery and rebuilt as a company for public benefit?

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

  More

  I sense that the Secretary of State is about to reach the end of his remarks. We are keen to start the debate, but it would be helpful to get clarity on one thing before we begin. When will we see the workforce plan? It has been delayed a couple of times. We wrote to the Department in November asking for an explanation as to why it has been delayed and when we can expect it. Can the Secretary of State give us some clarity, because that is the context in which the narrow technical measure that we are discussing needs to happen?

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

  More

  I broadly welcome this common-sense Bill. I am left rather flummoxed that we got to this point, but here we are. It is self-evident that if we pay to train doctors, they should be prioritised and encouraged in all manner of ways to stay in the UK. I understand why we must expedite the measures: talks with the BMA are ongoing and we want to avert strike action. I sincerely hope that the BMA and all resident doctors hear this debate and see that Parliament is listening to them, and that, together, we can avert industrial action, which does nothing to help the recovery of the NHS—fingers crossed that this works. I will talk about the fears that I have heard about in my postbag. We are here in part because of the lack of a big joined-up workforce plan. We have been talking about such a plan for many years, but the previous one was clearly flawed, no matter which way one looked at it. It is in that context that we are bringing forward this very specific and quite technical point. However, for resident doctors—formerly known as junior doctors—and for medical students, this is not technical at all; it affects their lives. Marco, an Oxford medical student, wrote to me last year to say that he was “particularly concerned about the prospect of unemployment from being unable to secure a training position.” He pointed out that countries such as Canada, the US and Australia already have structured approaches, while England has fallen behind. Yasmin, another constituent, said: “I studied for six years and graduated with over £70,000 of debt. I completed my foundation programme in a crumbling district general hospital, where I was routinely overworked and trying to care for patients in corridors under conditions that felt increasingly unsafe. I worked extremely hard to provide the best possible care despite these circumstances. Yet now, after two exhausting years, I find myself unemployed.” Yasmin told me that many of her colleagues had been forced to take non-medical jobs—in administration, hospitality and other sectors—simply to survive. Some will never return to medical practice at all. If our brightest and most committed young doctors are worried about unemployment, or are leaving the profession altogether, the system is clearly fundamentally broken and needs reform, so the Bill is a necessary step. Notwithstanding the good reasons to support the Bill, we must be mindful that it may well have unintended consequences if it is not implemented fairly. I am particularly concerned about the impact on overseas doctors who have already made significant life decisions based on the current rules. Lamia, one of the many medical graduates in my postbag this week, said: “Over the past two years, I have organised my professional life around the UK’s published requirements, completing examinations, securing GMC registration, and investing significant personal and family savings, even incurring debt. I also declined a stable job opportunity abroad to focus on the MSRA based on the rules at that time.” She feels that to suddenly change things retrospectively is an injustice. The Government must clarify what “significant experience” means, because this will have an effect on people’s life choices. Perhaps the Minister could indicate that today—are the Government looking at one year, two, five or 10? There is also the issue of British universities’ overseas campuses, which we have heard about from a number of Members. Graduates of institutions such as Newcastle University Medicine Malaysia, Queen Mary University of London in Malta and St George’s in Cyprus are excluded from the Bill. The vice-chancellor of Newcastle University, Professor Chris Day, wrote to me to say: “these graduates complete the same medical degree, receive the same accreditation, and the majority then go on to train and work in the UK.” As these students studied in English to UK standards, they transition into the NHS as quickly and effectively as home-based counterparts. He makes the point that they are incredibly effective very quickly within the NHS. The Secretary of State explained why these students are being excluded: the Government cannot determine how many overseas campus places these universities will provide. However, to flatter my friend on the Health and Social Care Committee, the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman)—he is not here, but I know he will appreciate the flattery—he is absolutely right that the Minister could include a tightly drafted exemption for those who have already started those courses. I heard what the Secretary of State said about the fact that the terms and conditions on the website never guarantee a post, but we all know how this works. If we buy a product, understanding that for years and years it has worked a certain way, it cannot suddenly change halfway through. It would only take a year or two for this to wash through the system, so that we do not exclude those who have made the commitment and spent huge amounts of money in good faith, thinking that it would help. There could be some movement here, for a relatively small number of people. I hope the Government are listening to those voices. I am not sure it is a necessary battle, and it could be sorted in future regulations. The other concern I have, which I have raised with the Minister and with the Secretary of State when he made a statement on the strikes before Christmas, is the signal that the Bill is sending to our overseas doctors. The more that we can all say this, the better: they are absolutely critical to our NHS. The chief executive of the GMC, Charlie Massey, gave evidence to the Health and Social Care Committee last week, and he was clear: doctors who qualified overseas make up around 42% of the medical workforce. Of course, we are not talking about that number, but if even a small proportion now might not want to work in our system, it will leave gaps that we simply cannot fill. Any conversation about prioritising UK graduates should explicitly recognise the immense contribution they make. I want some concrete answers on this issue. We can keep talking about it, but will any measures be put in place? How will we show our appreciation? We must bear it in mind that these are highly mobile individuals to have come here in the first place. I understand the mantra that this is prioritisation, not exclusion, but if they find themselves excluded from some of the more popular specialisms, they may decide that they would rather leave the country and pursue that specialism elsewhere than stay in this country. We need them. There are potential unintended consequences in the short term. Has any modelling been done of how this might feed through the system? If the impact is negligible, what does that mean in concrete terms? Our Committee’s concern is that losing even a small number could have adverse consequences down the line. My final point is on the workforce plan. I am confident that the Committee’s letter to the Minister is on her desk, and I hope it will be expedited soon. It would be better to flesh out some of the detail. The Secretary of State set out what the delay is and said the plan will be published in spring. I know that these things change, but we need to know exactly what is happening behind the scenes, so that we can get an understanding of the issues that are now being incorporated that were not there before. I agree we have to get this right. It was not right first time, and we have already had so many workforce plans that I understand why there is scepticism among the Royal Colleges and elsewhere that this one will work. Let us get it right—absolutely—but in the interim, by making such changes without the bigger picture, I fear we will end up doing more damage. England has 3.2 doctors per 1,000 people, but the OECD average is 3.9, and it is 4.5 in countries like Germany. The BMA estimates that we need another 40,000 additional doctors, so the 4,000 places announced by the Secretary of State do not even begin to get there. The other issue, of course, is the leaky bucket: retention. Every time I meet anyone in the sector they say, “How do you solve the workforce issue?” I understand why the Government focus on training—it is an issue they can dial up when they can—but the thing that really matters is retention. Having a conversation about training places and inputs is essentially turning on the drip of a tap when we have a big hole at the bottom of the bucket. For GPs, we had a session on the shift to community, and if we are going to deliver that, boy do we need home-grown doctors as part of it—I totally get that. According to a survey by the Royal College of General Practitioners, one-third of GPs might leave in the next five years, with stress being the leading factor, and with 44% citing unmanageable stress, and 73% saying that patient safety as a result of the high work load was causing them moral injury. That is mimicked across all the different specialisms, and it is something we need to address. I appreciate that it is not an issue for this Bill, but it has a material effect on whether these measures will solve the problems that the Government say they will. In conclusion, I welcome the Bill and urge the Government to think again about overseas campuses, even in a short, time-limited, tight way. Let us also say again how much we value our international doctors, and how much we want them to stay. I am looking forward to hearing more from the Minister than just the warm words that I am sure she will provide. What else could we do to ensure that doctors believe that the NHS is a place where their career can thrive, not just make it slightly more bearable than it was before? We all want the NHS to succeed; I am sure they do too and that they want to stay and be part of it.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Business Rates · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minister understand, from the point of view of a small independent retailer, that the way that this announcement has been done—with the package coming forward late in the day—has led to a perception of unfairness? I was contacted by one owner, who pointed out that her bills have gone up by over £500 a month. She compares herself with Harrods and Selfridges, whose bills have gone down. Although she is pleased that local pubs and hospitality have got some help, her business sits alongside them and is part of the same community. What does the Minister have to say to that independent retailer, who is part of the backbone of our economy? When is the help coming for her business?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Commonhold and Leasehold Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Bill, but I take this opportunity to urge the Minister to go further and faster on rip-off service charges. That is the thing that is clogging up my inbox—so much so, in fact, that I will hold a service charges forum in Oxford in a few weeks’ time. One group in particular—social housing tenants—is under-protected. The Minister will know that under the 2024 Act, there is more transparency in their service charges, but they do not have anywhere near as strong a hand as others in seeking redress. Will he meet me following the forum so that I can relay to him the issues that my constituents, particularly the social housing tenants, are having?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Maternity and Neonatal Care · Hansard source

  More

  An Oxford midwife recently told me that sewage regularly rises through the floor and drips down through the ceiling on to a hospital maternity ward. This has become so common that it is now standard procedure for midwives to move the clinic whenever it happens so that patients are none the wiser. Obviously if the hospital had the money to fix the problem it would have already done so, but equally obviously, the staff should be looking after mothers and babies, not shovelling sewage. Can the Secretary of State confirm that when the Amos review has done its work, there will be a flexible pot of money so that specific issues such as this in specific hospitals can be dealt with to improve patient safety and staff retention?

• 6 Jan 2026 · Future of Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the future of Thames Water. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mrs Harris, and I thank the Minister for attending this debate to listen to my constituents’ concerns. What better way to start the year than to debate the future of Thames Water? But—let me be frank—I do not believe this company has a future. If Thames Water had been genuinely subject to market forces over the years, it would have collapsed many, many decades ago, but instead, a broken regulatory system and chronic mismanagement have repeatedly let businesses and customers down. Consider this: last year, Robert, aged 81, from Abingdon, received a water bill for—wait for it—£39,000. Thames Water later revised it to £37,688.64. He and his partner Patricia said, quite understandably, that they had become ill from stress because of the bill. It took two months, an intervention and a BBC story to cancel the absurd charge. That case epitomises the incompetence and disregard for customers that has eroded public trust in this company. Another example is 70-year-old Morna from Botley, who suffered repeated floods in her house due to a blocked Thames Water drain. I visited and saw for myself the strain it took for her to fight for over a year with Thames Water for it finally to unblock it. The delays and inaction are just unacceptable. I have one last example: Len and Jenny are in their 80s and in frail health, and they lost basic sanitation to their home in 2023. A blocked pipe caused sewage to enter through air bricks and they were left with no toilet, no washing facilities and no power. All they had was a portaloo in their garden and a tanker to pump out sewage. Foul waste continued to bubble up through the basin in their bathroom. We are now in 2026, and Jenny and Len still do not have the recommended non-return valve, a firm date for the maintenance or compensation. If Thames Water cannot even do those basics, what can it do?

• 6 Jan 2026 · Future of Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  My scepticism about Thames Water is basically the theme of my entire speech, and I completely agree. We absolutely need more houses in and around Oxford—on that I am clear. However, if that work is one of the things stopping those homes from being built, we must of course ensure that it is done to the highest possible standard. It sounds like something has happened there, and I would love to understand better why the EA withdrew that objection with no further change. More than half of sewage treatment facilities are operating below their required capacity, while raw sewage discharge doubled between 2023-24 and 2024-25. That is a symptom of chronic underinvestment, and we need serious capital to fix the problem. Instead, Thames Water chose to funnel profits into dividends. As recently as March 2024, the company paid £158.3 million out to shareholders. This is a company that is hanging on to a lifeline of creditor goodwill, having already raced through £1.5 billion of the emergency cash that was injected 11 months ago. The scale of the mismanagement is staggering. No one doubts the need to take steps to secure our water supply for the future in the context of the climate change, but I now come to the local example that I promised my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). Thames Water presides over leaks to the tune of over 592 million litres a day, which is nearly a quarter of all the water it manages—it is unbelievable. My residents have justified questions about the validity of the arguments underpinning the south-east strategic reservoir option, also known as SESRO, which lies just outside Abingdon. It is estimated to cost £7.5 billion and counting, and we should remember that it started at £2.2 billion, and barely nothing has changed since then. If such a major project must go ahead—the Government say it should, fine—then can the Minister tell me something that I just do not get? Do they really trust Thames Water to get this done right? It is like running a bath when a hole has been punched through the plughole. I would not trust Thames Water to run a bath, let alone deliver a project of this size. Will the Government also make clear what residents can expect from this project, should it go ahead? Will there be genuine community benefit? As it stands, the company is promising lots of lovely things—sailing clubs and all sorts—but when questioned on the matter at a recent drop-in event, the promises seemed to be nothing more than an artist’s impression. Will the Minister therefore intervene to ensure that the local villages and towns that will have to suffer the disruption get something out of it, beyond higher bills? Time and again, constituents are being let down by chronic under-investment. For decades, every Government of every colour have presided over some form of this mess. But I do not want to blame; I just want solutions. As a result, I have some questions. What are the Government doing to prepare for when Thames Water exhausts the £1.5 billion of emergency funding? Have they considered the Liberal Democrats’ plans to turn it into a public benefit company? That is not public ownership, which others call for. The taxpayer would not take on the debt, but the profits would be invested back into infrastructure and fixing the problem, not used to enrich the likes of Abu Dhabi Investment Authority and the China Investment Corporation. Will the Government promise a full response to the Independent Water Commission report and the creation of the new regulator with teeth? When can we expect the White Paper? Will we all, together, make a new year’s resolution—that this is the year we sort out Thames Water’s mess, for the sake of people and our planet, once and for all?

• 6 Jan 2026 · Future of Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  I thank you, Mrs Harris, and all Members for their contributions to the debate. I am not totally sure we got all the answers we were hoping for. Soon, I hope, means soon. I look forward to seeing the detail of what is in the White Paper, where many of the answers will be. I am sure the Minister and the officials will have heard that the scepticism on both sides of the House is pretty strong. I would argue that the company is not and has not been meeting its obligations for quite some time now, either financially or to its customers. We will see what the conclusions will be. I rather suspect that, sooner rather than later, they will land on the place where we have been for quite some time. I thank all Members for participating. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the future of Thames Water.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Future of Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  Thames Water’s repeated mismanagement is why the Liberal Democrats have long called for all of the water company bosses not to receive that level of payout. We will continue to campaign in that vein. Locally, we have been campaigning on the issue for many years. Along with Safer Waters, Thames21 and local activists, we secured bathing water status for Port Meadow in Oxford, only the second inland site in the country. That has forced Thames Water to monitor and report on water quality there, but for the last three years, that rating has been “poor”. Residents in Oxford, like others across the country, continue to risk their health every time they swim. One would think that poor quality would logically lead to action, but it seems not to have done. In a debate just two years ago, I called for legally binding targets on sewage pollution, so I was pleased when the Government promised last July to halve sewage pollution by 2030. Today, I urge the Minister and the Government to move faster and to take all legal and financial steps necessary to make that change happen, because, as we have heard, Thames Water customers experience poor service, flooding, sewage in their homes and sewage in their rivers, and for this, they are being asked to pay more—indeed, 31% more in 2025-26 than the year before.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Future of Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  I do not trust Thames Water to do anything, and I will come on to an example of an even bigger and even worse project. We want investment and change, but the problem we have is that there is no longer any trust that this company can do that on time and on budget, and in a way that is actually going to deliver real change. That is why 2,507 local residents across Oxfordshire backed a Lib Dem petition calling for these price hikes to be scrapped. If this were a proper private company, it would not be asking customers to pay more for this level of service, yet that is exactly what it has done, and it has frankly given them no say in the process. While I am lambasting this company today, I am not having a go at its hard-working staff. We need to be clear that they are not to blame for the current woes and dismal performance. In July, I visited Abingdon sewage treatment works, and friendly and knowledgeable people who had worked there for decades told me how the system is supposed to work: tanks remove the sludge, microbes digest bacteria and clean water is discharged. It was so clean that I could have drunk from it there and then—in fact, a heron strutted around the wetland ponds showing exactly what would have been possible. Sadly, that summer idyll is all too frequently shattered when the rain falls, the floodgates open and raw sewage pours out. At this point, I should acknowledge the role that we and the public can play in helping to reduce pressure on the system. We have seen with our own eyes those mountains of wet wipes being removed from the pipes, and that skip full of rubbish that should never have been flushed down the toilet in the first place. Do the Government have plans for a public information campaign on this matter—paid for, of course, by water company profits? If we saw as many adverts on this issue as we do on things such as fast food, it would help everyone in protecting our rivers. However, I do not want to downplay the institutional failings that we see in the company. We need additional capital investment; in Abingdon specifically, the staff were asking for another set of tanks to filter and clean the sewage to help that problem there, but it is the same everywhere. Last year, Thames Water admitted that £19 billion of its assets were deemed “poor” or “failed”, posing a risk to thousands of homes.

• 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?