Layla Moran MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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?

• 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?