Tom Morrison MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 17 Dec 2025 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  Stockport council, along with two other boroughs, missed out on the recovery grant. The grant was not mentioned in the fair funding review or consultation. Why was it not mentioned, and is the Minister concerned that that opens up the whole process to legal challenge?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Petitions · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to thank Save Hall Moss Fields Action Group for this much-needed petition. In my Cheadle constituency, we are facing unrealistic and unsustainable developments that are already impinging on residents’ quality of life. The petition states: The petition of residents of the constituency of Cheadle, Declares that the green belt is under unprecedented threat from short-sighted planning policies that prioritise profit over people and concrete over countryside; further that once the green belt is gone, its biodiversity, beauty and balance are lost forever; and further that the Government must be held accountable for the systematic erosion of these protected spaces, which were established to preserve nature, safeguard our heritage and maintain the health and wellbeing of communities across the UK. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to schedule a debate in the House on the protection of the green belt, and to resist destructive plans to sacrifice green fields, woodlands and wildlife habitats to unsustainable and unnecessary development, in favour of investing in sustainable housing solutions and protecting our natural environment for future generations. And the petitioners remain, etc. [P003149]

• 16 Dec 2025 · Planning Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Bramhall and Heald Green are facing huge numbers of development proposals in their area, and the Government are today proudly announcing their policy to presume approval of developments around rail stations to improve sustainable transport. Gatley and Heald Green stations have the highest rates of cancellations in the north-west, and there has been no Sunday service in Bramhall for over a year and a half. The Minister should know that these stations are serviced by Northern—coincidentally, it is in effect a Government-run company—so how can my constituents trust this Government when it comes to building sustainable communities?

• 2 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 35, in schedule 1, page 25, line 23, leave out from “direction” to the end of the sub-paragraph and insert “should be given to a public official working for an intelligence service or the head of such a service pursuant to section 2(4) and section 2(5) of the Public Office (Accountability) Act 2025 as applicable to any other public authority, but may not be given to any other public official if it would require the official to provide information relating to security or intelligence, within the meaning of section 1(9) of the Official Secrets Act 1989, and any such public official is not required to provide any such information in response to a direction given in breach of this sub-paragraph.” See Amendment 38.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister for the points that he made; he is spot on that the lack of clarity in the Bill, particularly surrounding what came out of the evidence sessions, raises more questions than answers. However, I am pleased that the Minister has said that the Government are happy to work with us on tightening those gaps before Report. This is not about unrestricted evidence; it is about getting to the truth, which must be our focus throughout. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Sir Roger. I am not sure whether this is the right time to ask, but on the amendment paper, amendment 34 is down as a Liberal Democrat amendment, but on the groupings that were sent across to us, it was down as an SNP amendment. I just wanted to clarify where we are with that.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. These amendments do nothing more than fix something in the current draft of the Bill, which seems inadvertently to have carved out the security services—an area that could be strengthened, as we heard during the evidence session last week. The amendments seek to extend the duty of candour and assistance to the intelligence services as organisations, ensuring that they as bodies are required to be open and co-operative with the inquiries and any investigations. The amendment balances accountability with national security, by stating that direction will not be given to public officials “if it would require the official to provide information relating to security or intelligence”. Several of our witnesses last week gave evidence that laid out various examples of how the security services had failed to be fully candid, disregarded accountability, and, at times, misled inquiries. We also know that the Government assured campaigners, Members and other interested parties that there would be no carve-out for the security services in the Bill. The security services do an incredible job in keeping us safe and ensuring that our country’s interests are protected. It is right that their work is covered by the secrecy Act; no one wishes to change that. However, because of that power they should be held to highest standards of accountability. We know that in recent history that has not been the case. Last week we heard from Pete Weatherby, who, as well as working with the Hillsborough families, supported several families impacted by the Manchester Arena bombing. He said: “There was a major failure of the intelligence services and the way they dealt with the aftermath of the bombing…MI5 then put an incorrect narrative—a false narrative—to the inquiry itself. The judge, the chair of the inquiry, found that the corporate case that it had put was incorrect.” –– [ Official Report, Public Office (Accountability) Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2025; c. 6, Q3.] The amendment would ensure, as much as any law can, that that could not happen again, by explicitly ensuring that the security services are accountable to this Bill and therefore to a public who willingly consent to how these organisations work to protect us and our country. This amendment would not endanger national security. It would not impact the way in which some evidence is required to be provided in closed sessions. It would provide the security services with the necessary safeguards to ensure that secret and classified information is protected. This is what happens now. We heard from the journalist Daniel De Simone, who worked on the agent X story, where the security services tried to mislead and were found out. His testimony stated: “I do not think it is wrong that there are special advocates in closed material procedures; it is now an established part of a court process. What it does do, though, is place a special responsibility on MI5 to be candid, because their evidence is often very important in very significant cases, where there has been significant loss of life, where people’s citizenship is being removed or where people are being deprived of their liberties.” –– [ Official Report, Public Office (Accountability) Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2025; c. 95, Q138.] Because of that, it is vital that we do not allow any carving out, intentional or otherwise, of the security services, to ensure that they, too, are held to account and must tell the truth. That will strengthen not only their work, but the trust that we place in them.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that, when someone is in that position of power over a public body, they have a huge responsibility, not just for the culture but for the training, the personnel, the HR practices and the policies? With that responsibility, someone needs to ensure that that goes throughout the whole of the organisation, and command responsibility focuses the mind to ensure that everything below them is working to clock.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We spoke this morning about the issues dealt with by amendment 43, but to clarify, WhatsApp messages formed a big part of the evidence in the recent covid inquiry—it seemed to be government by WhatsApp at the time—and yet many of them seem to have disappeared. The amendment would provide an extra way of ensuring that public authorities and those responsible are keeping proper records and preventing that from happening again. New clause 3 would prevent the deliberate concealment of evidence that could obstruct investigations, hinder fact-finding and undermine public trust. I would like the Committee to consider the element of public trust here. How people perceive what happens in this place, and in the organisations and public authorities that surround us and the power structures that are there, is vital to the legitimacy that we have and that those public authorities also have. By criminalising such conduct, the clause would reinforce the obligation on public authorities and officials to maintain and safeguard records, ensuring that inquiries and inquests can access all the information necessary to understand what happened and hold the responsible parties to account. This is a way to make sure that the truth can be found in those areas and hopefully ensure that WhatsApp messages are not deleted in future.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, sorry. In the last evidence session, we discussed a very similar situation when we heard from both Pete Weatherby and Daniel De Simone, one of whom is a KC trying to get to the truth through his work in the courts, and another of whom is a journalist trying to expose the truth, particularly around the Agent X story. We are not looking for a change to the Official Secrets Act or its operation. We simply want the Bill to encompass the security services explicitly. There is a list of public authorities on the Bill. The security services are not on there, which begs the question, why? I thank the Minister for saying that further work will be done on that and that she will be engaging with all Members across the House before Report. On that basis, we are happy to withdraw the amendments.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her comments. In the spirit of cross-party working, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 43, in clause 9, page 8, line 2, after “work” insert— “including the retention and disclosure of digital records including messages relevant to their public functions”. This amendment ensures that digital messages and records are added to the duty of candour in relation to inquiries and inquests.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I have a follow-up to Ian’s question. The new offence of misleading of the public would not apply “for the purposes of journalism.” That is the wording in the Bill. As has been so rightly pointed out, we know there has been a history of public officials who have been using the media in lead-ups to inquiries and so on. Critics, to a point of view that I might have, would say that any kind of stamping down or work on that would be an attack on freedom of speech. What would you say to that? Nathan Sparkes: In a lot of legislation there are special exemptions for journalism, and often that is justified, but I think it is for the Government to justify that exemption when they bring forward legislation. I do not think it can be justified in this case. Looking at that offence, there is a six-part test for it to apply. The person must have departed significantly from the expectations of their role, they must have caused harm to someone, they must have been responsible for significant or reputed dishonesty, it must be about a matter of significant concern to the public, it must be seriously improper, and they ought to know that it was seriously improper. That is an incredibly high threshold, and rightly so, but it is inconceivable that there is any legitimate journalistic activity that would satisfy the remarkably high threshold of all six tests that we would want to protect. On that basis, we do not think it is appropriate. The challenge for the Government is whether they could identify a circumstance in which any journalistic activity that would be in breach of those would be legitimate. I do not think they can; I think that is inconceivable.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q You have already mentioned the code of ethics and code of practice, and we have had a lot of people talking about potential codes of conduct. Can you describe how your various codes filter through to the workforce, and how everyone is made aware of the codes they should be working to? As an organisation, how do you measure the success of the codes? Chief Constable Guildford: They obviously occur over a period of time. Certainly in my service—I have done over 30 years—they have come in the second half of my service, rather than the first. However, the way that we train them is very explicit: it is done on a values basis through initial training. We recruit and assess new candidates on the basis of values. We do recruit training, which in most forces happens over a period of 20 to 22 weeks, and recruits have a specific input on values-based decision making. We have something called the national decision model, which allows them to think about the consequences and the options they have in making their decisions. The code of ethics absolutely underpins what we do. It sits in the middle of our decision-making circle. It is trained, really, from day one. I am trying to bring it to life a bit: this sits in the middle of all the specialist public order training, post Hillsborough, for commanders at public events, particularly football, and their accreditation and training. For all our bronze, silver and gold commanders, the code of ethics sits inside the wheel in which we make our decisions. To reinforce the point, the other aspect is that whenever there is a misconduct meeting or hearing for police officers, there is always reference to the code of ethics—the ethical behaviours that are expected of officers and staff. The third bit of your question was about how we measure this. I would say that we measure it in three ways. The first is the training at the beginning. The second measure is around outcomes from our misconduct proceedings, as well as the proportionality of our misconduct proceedings and how they are used and referred to. The third measure —this is particularly important—is the measure of public opinion. As organisations, we respond to that, and we openly and candidly answer those questions. In the consultation, we have gone through certain elements in relation to which we have said that, operationally, we may not express candour at certain times: for example, in a live situation in which we lawfully employed the services of, say, an undercover police officer or an undercover officer online; or in a live firearms operation, a live kidnap operation or a product contamination operation. In those cases we may seek to use a little bit of subterfuge to make sure we gain the lawful aim and the right public outcome for the victim at the end of it. Does that explain it?

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q This question is about your profession as a journalist. Obviously, you rely on sources—you have talked about that—and there is a balance to be struck between relying on your sources and the fact that throughout history, in respect of Hillsborough and other shocking scandals, journalists have probably been briefed with bad intent. How do we fix that in the Bill? Also, what holds you to account as a journalist? If you did a story about me that was dreadful, where could I go to hold you to account? Daniel De Simone: As I understand it, the Bill is aimed at public authorities—Government Departments, the police and others—so, as things stand, media organisations are not part of it. I do not know whether there is a proposal to make them part of it, but as things stand they are not. You ask what can be done if I do a story about you that is wrong and you want to hold me to account. I work for the BBC, and there is a complaints process for the BBC that can go even to Ofcom, if necessary, so there are ways of correcting a story or getting an apology if something is wrong. As a journalist, I work on difficult and challenging stories, and I obviously abhor some of the things you have spoken about today: false information being presented as fact and leading to really harmful consequences for people. I try to take personal responsibility and do the right thing, and I think that is the point—that is why it is important. The more you can foster a culture of people taking personal responsibility, the better. That is why, when there is an exemption for an organisation, and it is not about individuals in an organisation, I think that does weaken it.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Great—thank you.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thank you for your evidence so far, Pete. You touched just then on how this will be a deterrent, but for that to be needed, there needs to be a culture change in public services. In the Bill, there is a lot of talk about trying to create codes of conduct. How do you envisage that working? Do you think that one standard code of conduct would go across all public services, or should each organisation be responsible for building its own code of conduct and then implementing it? Pete Weatherby: I think there should be a mixture. There have to be central tenets to it; otherwise, we will fall into the problem where a local authority or police force will have its lawyers lawyering up a code that does not do what it should do. I think there should be a mixture on that front.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q This is for Tom Guest. The new offence of misleading the public would not apply for the purposes of journalism. How clear do you think the meaning of that exception is? I will give two examples: would it count if a Minister was writing a piece for a newspaper column or if a public servant was briefing the media after an event? Tom Guest: It is fair to say that it is quite widely drawn, and there can be good policy reasons for that. Clearly, it is important to uphold the freedom of speech and protect the interests of journalism—not having a chilling effect on journalism is important. We understand why it is drafted in that way, but it is drafted quite widely. It would appear to cover those examples. Again, I am giving that at a very broad level. In a real-life scenario, the police would have gathered much more evidence for the prosecution to consider, but it potentially would cover those situations.

• 20 Nov 2025 · Injury in Service Award · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all Members across the House for engaging with this debate. We have heard so many stories of heroism, so many stories that have been inspirational and so many stories of heartbreak. I thank the Minister for being present and for his remarks. I am obviously disappointed that we have not come to a firmer conclusion. To quote Tom Curry, “Patience is a young man’s game”, and many of the people we are talking about do not have patience. They have been waiting a long time for recognition. These people feel as though they have been discarded and forgotten. We need to do more. I say to the Minister and the Government that the gauntlet has been laid down. There is clearly cross-party support for this scheme. We have one of the most signed early-day motions and a petition has been delivered to Parliament, and we can see that public support is behind the scheme. I say to the Government that we need to act now. There are people who deserve this recognition—they deserved it yesterday. Let us not wait another day. They need it now. Question put and agreed to . Resolved , That this House acknowledges the extreme risks faced by police officers, firefighters, paramedics and other emergency service personnel in the line of duty; further acknowledges that many suffer catastrophic, career-ending injuries while protecting the public; regrets that these sacrifices are too often met with inadequate formal recognition; notes that existing honours are limited in scope and rarely conferred in such circumstances; believes this failure to properly acknowledge those who have sustained life-altering injuries in public service is a serious oversight; welcomes the growing cross-party consensus that urgent action is needed; and calls on the Cabinet Office to rectify this injustice by establishing a dedicated injury in service award to formally recognise and honour the extraordinary sacrifice of emergency service workers injured in the line of duty.

• 20 Nov 2025 · Injury in Service Award · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House acknowledges the extreme risks faced by police officers, firefighters, paramedics and other emergency service personnel in the line of duty; further acknowledges that many suffer catastrophic, career-ending injuries while protecting the public; regrets that these sacrifices are too often met with inadequate formal recognition; notes that existing honours are limited in scope and rarely conferred in such circumstances; believes this failure to properly acknowledge those who have sustained life-altering injuries in public service is a serious oversight; welcomes the growing cross-party consensus that urgent action is needed; and calls on the Cabinet Office to rectify this injustice by establishing a dedicated injury in service award to formally recognise and honour the extraordinary sacrifice of emergency service workers injured in the line of duty. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for its support in securing the debate. In May this year, a police sergeant’s legs were crushed when a car reversed into him repeatedly in a hit-and-run incident in Rusholme, Manchester. Greater Manchester police described it as a “stark reminder” of the risks that our frontline officers face daily as they work to keep our communities safe. The officer suffered tissue and muscle damage, but thankfully he is expected to make a full recovery. However, not every brave officer, paramedic and firefighter does recover, and not everyone can continue with the job that they chose and love. When injuries are so severe that they force someone to give up their work in public service, there is no recognition, no award and no medal. I first found out about the “999 Injured and Forgotten” campaign when my constituent Jane Notley came to my surgery last year. Jane told me her story. She had always wanted to be a police officer, and when that happened and she joined the force, it was one of the proudest days of her life. Sadly, her career ended far too prematurely. While on duty in Manchester in 1989, Jane attempted to stop a criminal stealing cars in the area. During the incident, her legs were crushed between two cars by the criminal, who Jane said laughed while he did it. That horrific attack left Jane completely unable to walk, and she was medically discharged from the force. The offender was never caught. I want to make this clear: Jane Notley is one of the most inspirational and wonderful people I have ever met. After years of surgery and treatment, she can now walk, and does so with the aid of her now infamous pink walking sticks. She is now self-employed as a therapist, selflessly continuing to help others, albeit in a different position. Jane lost the job she loved but has continued to serve her community—that is the kind of person she is—but if someone met her on the street, they would have no idea of the ordeal she has been through. They would have no idea that she bravely put herself in harm’s way to protect her community and no idea of the sacrifice she made so that we could be safe. Jane is not alone; many other ex-emergency service responders are injured every year and face the same awful loss of career. It is estimated that 800 injured ex-Greater Manchester police officers are still alive today. Please, let that sink in: that is 800 people who lost a career they loved after putting themselves in harm’s way to ensure that we, and our families and friends, were protected and safe. We all owe them a debt of gratitude. I was honoured to meet many of those people in July, when they came to a cross-party roundtable in Parliament to describe their individual experiences. I put on record my thanks to the hon. Members for Blackpool South (Chris Webb), for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) and for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) who joined us on that day. I met some incredible people that day, including Robert Barlow, John O’Rourke, Gary Pearson, Andy Walker, Robert Hindley, Shahid Mahmood, Simon Bywater and Kerry Snuggs, who has now set up the intrepid games: a sports event for service workers who have been injured or disabled while on duty. I know that a number of them are in the Gallery watching the debate; I hope that we can all do them proud. They deserve their moment. They deserve recognition for all they put on the line and sacrificed. It is a national shame that no Government have acknowledged them and thanked them for their service. That has to change now. While I am talking of people who deserve their moment, I have to mention Tom Curry. May I make it clear that this is Tom’s debate? Tom started the campaign and has fought tirelessly to get support across the House. He is truly a force of nature, and I can honestly say that it has been a pleasure to work with him this year to ensure that the injury in service award becomes a reality. Tom Curry has built the campaign from the ground up. A former Sussex police officer, he was cruelly injured just weeks before reaching 22 years of service and so was denied any recognition for his work in the community. He is a former detective, which really does show as nothing gets past him—especially Governments dragging their feet. I can attest to hon. Members in the Chamber that Tom is relentless. Our phones will not stop ringing and our inboxes will never be cleared until the medal of recognition is delivered—Tom has personally promised me that. Earlier this year, with Tom and Jane’s help I tabled an early-day motion that has since gained 111 signatures, making it one of the most supported motions in this Parliament. The signatories are from every single party, right across the political divide—the Liberal Democrats, Labour, Conservatives, Reform, the Green party and independents. This issue transcends party politics. It is a cause that we can and should all rally around, and one with a simple and obvious answer. From freedom of information requests to 44 police forces across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, we know that there are over 16,000 injured police officers across the country, but we do not know the total number of injured servicemen and women across all emergency services, as that figure is not available. This is an injustice we have to put right. There are many who are injured and are then deprived of the long service and good conduct medals that are awarded after a sustained period of service. Until 2010, emergency responders had to have served for at least 22 years—later cut to 20 years—to get the long service and good conduct medals. The gallantry award is also insufficient, as the vast majority of attacked personnel are deprived of the opportunity of gallantry because they are sprung upon and ambushed. That means that through no fault of their own, there are tens of thousands of people out there without recognition simply because their cowardly attackers jumped them from behind. The “999 Injured and Forgotten” campaign believes that any new award for those injured in the line of duty should be similar to the Elizabeth Emblem, in that it should be awarded to all public servants. A constituent from Cheadle who works as a prison chaplain wrote to me this week and suggested involving prison officers, as they are essential workers who get little or no public recognition. They are another stark reminder of the way our public servants put their safety on the line for us. In 2019, a Ministry of Justice report stated that there were over 10,000 attacks on prison officers a year, with many ending in career-altering injuries and severe psychological trauma. We must make sure that all public servants are involved. The award could be offered to all living survivors, and the criteria would be threefold: a public servant, injured on duty, and medically discharged from the service due to that injury. The medal would recognise the health and career sacrifice of those who are injured on duty. The medal would mean that those who have made significant sacrifices could wear their medal proudly, and the public would be able to recognise and understand the bravery and service that they have contributed to this country. The medal would mean that brave emergency responders such as police constable Kris Aves, who is now paralysed and confined to a wheelchair, would rightly be recognised. Kris now lives a completely different life, unable to continue the job of protecting us because he was mown down in the terror attack on Westminster bridge in 2017. This impacts us all. Many colleagues will remember PC Keith Palmer, who sadly died in that attack. He was rightly awarded posthumous awards for gallantry and the Elizabeth Emblem. His bravery saved many lives that day, and we all owe him a debt of gratitude. Kris is also owed our thanks. He received no medal or recognition for his bravery. Instead, he lost his career and the job he loved. The medal would mean that emergency service responders who survive the most awful situations are met with respect, acknowledgement and honour. The medal would mean that Pam White’s bravery and injuries during the IRA attacks on Harrods in 1983 would be recognised. Despite her injuries and the terrifying uncertainty of the situation, Pam guided members of the public to safety. The injuries sustained were so bad that she was forced to leave the force. Those killed in the IRA bombings have now been awarded the Elizabeth Emblem, but the officers injured on that day, including Pam who lost her job—the job she aspired to from a young age—are overlooked. All those emergency service workers will tell us that they are lucky, as they survived while some of their colleagues lost their lives in the line of duty. That is certainly true, but we cannot allow this to become an awful game of comparison. The people I have mentioned have all suffered in the most appalling ways. They suffered gunshot wounds, paralysis and other life-changing injuries—and of course post-traumatic stress disorder, with many of these brave men and women reliving their trauma day in, day out. I say to the Government that we cannot allow these people to wait any longer. They need the recognition now. Thanks to Tom Curry’s work, the proposal for the award reached the Cabinet Office before the general election. Multiple Members have brought it to light in both ministerial correspondence and on the Floor of the House, but the same line is trotted out time and again. With Elizabeth Emblems now being awarded as of December last year, it is yet another reminder to those overlooked and injured survivors that they are forgotten and have no recognition. Many family members of the fallen who have received the Elizabeth Emblem support the introduction of this award and agree that it is wrong that the injured are forgotten. This has been delayed for too long, so I urge the Minister to do the right and honourable thing. Get this award off the ground, because those incredible people sat in the Gallery right now should not have to wait another day longer. Politically there is no resistance. This is a worthwhile investment that would increase national pride and community cohesion, and celebrate the incredible work of our emergency services. I thank the Minister for being here today and look forward to his remarks. I hope he will listen carefully to the debate, take heed and note with urgency that establishing an injury in service award is the right thing to do. I also thank all my colleagues who have joined this important discussion. It has been a long time coming. I hope it is worth the wait, and I hope it will transform the lives of many injured ex-emergency service workers. Thank you to Jane, Tom and everyone watching for driving this cause all the way to the Houses of Parliament—that is no small feat. I hope we can all do you proud. This is your moment—it is your time. I look forward to continuing this campaign with all of you, and I promise that I will not stop until injured emergency service workers get the recognition they deserve.

• 19 Nov 2025 · Myalgic Encephalomyelitis · Hansard source

  More

  One of my constituents, Nick, has ME and has described feeling as though he is stuck in a well without anyone to pull him out. Does my hon. Friend agree that there needs to be more action from Government, the NHS, businesses, schools and colleges to counter the misunderstanding and neglect that ME sufferers receive?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Flood Risk and Flood Defence Infrastructure: North-west England · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) for bringing this issue to the House today. “Despite three section 19 reports identifying the issue of a blockage…nothing happens despite recommendations to do so.” Those are the words of Stephen, a constituent of mine in Bramhall who has suffered bad flooding at his home for many years. Just this week, flooding on the A555 relief road under Hall Moss Lane bridge in Bramhall, just down the road from Stephen, led to accidents, a road closure and disruption to many people’s lives, yet the area is being bombarded with planning proposals, encouraged by Government policy that does not in any measure address flooding. Every year, more and more houses are at risk. That takes a serious toll on people, not just financially but emotionally. Post-traumatic stress disorder, long-term displacement and lifetime debt are only some of the consequences of flooding events in our communities. One resident contacted me to say that every time they get the Environment Agency’s emergency alert on their phone, they break out into pure panic.

• 18 Nov 2025 · Flood Risk and Flood Defence Infrastructure: North-west England · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate my hon. Friend’s intervention, and yes, there is a question of flooding here. According to the EA’s March 2024 report, 3.2 million properties are at risk of surface water flooding. The latest surface water flooding risk assessment carried out by the EA increased the flood risk rating of many of the homes in my Cheadle constituency. Residents need to know that the Government are taking such flooding seriously. From working with residents, Stockport council and the EA after the awful floods in January, it is clear to me that serious clarification is needed. Stockport council did not receive any funding from the EA or the Government following January’s disastrous flooding, despite its serious and widespread impact and the lives it ruined. What is more, the EA’s long-term flood risk management strategy for the River Mersey has been delayed, which is arguably one of the reasons why Stockport council missed out on the funding.

• 18 Nov 2025 · Flood Risk and Flood Defence Infrastructure: North-west England · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes a fantastic point, and that is the crux of the problem: we concentrate a lot on areas such as the Mersey, but we have a load of waterways and a load of issues around sewerage and drainage that need to be encompassed by our thinking. Organisations responsible must be not only properly funded in the long term, but able to work constructively and effectively together to protect residents. As the Government force us to “build, baby, build”, new developments will only increase surface water flooding as more green belt gets built on and natural drainage is reduced. In the words of the National Infrastructure Commission itself, the Government’s response to the commission’s report on surface water flooding did “not meet the scale of the challenge.” The National Flood Forum receives more than 1,000 calls a year, often from vulnerable residents affected by recent developments causing flooding. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill does not even refer to flooding or flood risk management, and the Environment Agency’s flood risk guidance is often ignored or legally challenged within the Bill. I was proud to support the Liberal Democrat amendments to the Bill that would have properly tackled flooding in relation to planning and required the implementation of sustainable drainage systems in any new development. The EA’s own road map to 2026 suggests that, for every pound spent on protecting communities, we avoid around £5 in property damages. This is incredibly important, so now is the time to commit to long-term funding rather than shy away from it. That is essential to ensuring that my constituents in Cheadle, Bramhall, Woodford, Gatley and all the communities that have been impacted by flooding over the last 12 years can be supported in protecting their homes, their businesses and their communities, as well as reducing the impact of increasingly heavy storms, increased surface water and new developments that have not properly been considered. I will finish with a remark from Karen, who lives near the Micker brook in Cheadle. She said: “Planners and developers must take into account flooding when building. What happened at the mill in Stockport on New Year’s Day was simply appalling. The developer should be responsible for this.” The Government must take urgent action that takes flood risk seriously and provides long-term, ringfenced funding for organisations such as the EA and responsible councils, and they must legislate without delay on the close connection between flooding, development and infrastructure.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Official Development Assistance Reductions · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for bringing this vital debate to Westminster Hall. I want to start with the words of Jane from Cheadle, who wrote to me to ask: “How will the Government’s cuts impact the world’s most vulnerable children?” I would like to put that very question to the Minister today. The Liberal Democrats are deeply concerned by the Government’s decision to reduce the UK’s official development assistance from 0.5% of gross national income to 0.3%—the lowest UK aid contribution as a percentage of GNI since 1999—thereby diminishing the UK’s long-standing reputation as a global leader in humanitarian assistance and development. What will happen to the countless children across the world who will no longer receive healthcare, education, vaccines, social protection or climate disaster mitigation? Millions of children will grow up in a less stable world, more likely to be drawn into extremism or crime, more likely to suffer poor mental and physical health, and less likely to be educated, employed or able to participate in and contribute to democracy—the cornerstone of global security. The statistics are stark: 2024 was one of the worst years on record for children in conflict. Almost 20% were affected—double the figure just two decades ago. This year, 63 million children have gone hungry, as food insecurity due to violence has increased. The Government’s decision to cut aid is deadly, dangerous and short-sighted. Although we agree with the importance of strengthening the UK’s national security and defence commitments, particularly in the light of increasing global security challenges, we recognise that cutting ODA diminishes the UK’s soft power. There is an intimate connection between supporting international aid and preventing conflict abroad. ODA investment is an essential tool in tackling poverty, promoting stability and reducing the causes of conflict and migration, all of which serve the UK’s own security interests. It is concerning that the UK’s retreat from its status as an international aid superpower creates a vacuum into which Russia and China flow. The UK’s influence in the world comes through a combination of hard power and soft power, including our development funds. Further diminishing the UK’s soft power will only play into those states’ hands. A recent briefing from key organisations including UNICEF highlighted the dire impact that these cuts will have on ground operations. Operations across the globe will be scaled back, causing serious harm to citizens of affected countries and those putting themselves in harm’s way to help others—the humanitarian workers. I have highlighted in this Chamber the impact that reducing the aid budget will have on those selfless workers and, as a consequence, on those who need aid. I am sure that everyone in the Chamber knows that 2024 was the deadliest year on record for humanitarian workers. Violence against aid workers has reached unprecedented levels, with injuries, harassment, kidnapping —the list goes on. Slashed budgets mean that the workers have fewer protections and less security, that less aid reaches victims of conflict, natural disasters and climate change in their hour of need, and that children in Sudan, Gaza, the west bank, Yemen, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Ukraine will miss out on vital lifesaving support. According to Plan International UK, in Sudan, at least 638,000 people are already experiencing famine conditions, and children are dying of starvation; there have been reports of mothers and children eating leaves from trees just to stay alive. The people of Gaza have suffered beyond anything that we could imagine; with a very fragile ceasefire now in place, we need unprecedented amounts of aid to be pumped into the region. According to Action for Humanity, nearly half of Yemen’s people are already at crisis-level food insecurity, with another million people expected to fall to that level in the coming months. I will conclude with a quote from David, another resident of Cheadle, who said to me: “Strengthening our defence should not come at the expense of international aid. These cuts are short-sighted and they are counter-productive.” I have said before that we must not underestimate our soft power. We must invest in our future security to maintain democratic values, reduce displacement and decrease the chances of conflict. Ministers must reaffirm the UK’s commitment to global security. We can be a beacon of conscience and compassion. Helping now will help the world.