Layla Moran MP: speeches 2026

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.