Wendy Morton
MP for Aldridge-Brownhills · Conservative · United Kingdom
“On the specific point of hospices, I absolutely understand what the hon. Lady is saying; I have visited our local hospices, and I have sat beside my father when he was dying, but not in a hospice. The point about palliative care absolutely matters, but the Government do not recognise the funding that the sector needs.”
“T5. One of my constituents served His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for 43 years, yet more than five months on from taking partial retirement she is still waiting for her pension and lump sum. My office has attended two casework surgeries with Capita and the Cabinet Office, neither of which has secured a resolution.”
“With an estimated 1.4 million approved homes unbuilt, brownfield capacity for 1.41 million homes and more than 750,000 empty homes in England, will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on unlocking that housing to meet the Government’s 1.5 million target before any more green belt is released?”
“Let me say at the outset that we on the Conservative Benches are clear that the Falkland Islands are British, and they will remain British for as long as the Falkland Islanders wish them to be. British soldiers fought and died to defend our sovereignty and the freedom of the Falkland Islanders.”
“Ultimately, sanctions and humanitarian assistance can address some of the consequences of the war, but they cannot substitute for the political settlement that Sudan so desperately needs. There is no military solution to the conflict. The UK has an important responsibility as the UN Security Council penholder on Sudan.”
“The number of Sudanese refugees arriving in Europe rose sharply between 2024 and 2025, and Sudanese nationals accounted for 11% of small boat arrivals to the UK last year. This is therefore not just a humanitarian crisis.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Wendy Morton, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 12.
“We are focused on what comes next: a safe and secure state of Israel and a Gaza that is rebuilt, governed responsibly, free from terror and capable of offering its people stability, dignity and hope.”
“The genocide convention was never intended to be reduced to a political slogan or applied without rigorous assessment of intent, evidence and context. To dilute that standard is not to protect international law but to undermine it. There is much more I would like to talk about today, not least the current humanitarian situation. However, being conscious of time, I will conclude by saying that the Abraham accords remain a credible pathway to regional peace and that Saudi normalisation with Israel is central to that effort. The Conservative party is clear about the future we seek. We are committed to a future in which terrorism has no place and Hamas are permanently removed from power.”
“It has long been the British position that determinations of genocide are matters for competent courts, not unilateral political declarations. That is fundamental. I ask the Minister to confirm that that remains the Government’s position and whether he accepts that genocidal intent is not abstract in this conflict. The Hamas charter and the language routinely used by Iran and its terrorist proxies call openly for the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews. Should we not be unequivocal in calling out those terrorist and genuinely genocidal ideologies, rather than misapplying that most serious of legal terms? It is precisely because genocide is the gravest of crimes that the term must be used with care, discipline and legal precision.”
“Much of today’s debate has focused on allegations of genocide, so let us be clear: we do not believe that Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute genocide. That was the position of the previous Conservative Government and, to my understanding, it remains the position of the current Government. I hope the Minister will reaffirm that clearly in his response. Every innocent life lost is a tragedy, but the Israel Defence Forces do not deliberately target civilians; Hamas, in contrast, embed themselves in civilian areas, store weapons in schools and hospitals and use civilians as human shields. Israel’s stated objective is to dismantle an Iranian-backed terrorist organisation that threatens its very existence; Hamas’s objective is the destruction of the state of Israel, the world’s only Jewish state.”
“This conflict arose from the brutal massacre of civilians on 7 October 2023—the worst terrorist attack in Israel’s history and the worst pogrom against the Jewish people since the second world war. If the current ceasefire is to lead to a long-term and sustainable peace, one principle must be non-negotiable: Hamas must no longer hold power and their terrorist infrastructure must be dismantled. Recent reports of violence between Hamas and other armed groups in Gaza underline precisely why Hamas cannot be part of Gaza’s future. Hamas govern through terror and repression and prioritise their own survival over the welfare of Palestinian civilians. The suffering in Gaza is directly linked to Hamas’s choices and their governance.”
“I thank the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) for securing this debate and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. Before turning to the legal issues, it is important to begin with the fundamental moral reality of this conflict. I want to be clear: we welcome the release of the surviving hostages, who returned home to Israel after more than 730 days in captivity. They were abducted by Hamas, a proscribed terrorist organisation, and held in utterly unimaginable conditions. We pray for the health and recovery of those who survived and for their families as they attempt to rebuild their lives after such trauma. With the return of the final hostage, our thoughts are also with the families of all those who will not be returning alive.”
“Leadership requires consistency, urgency and follow up, and I urge the Government to match their words with decisive action.”
“I ask the Minister about the Government’s overall approach to children in armed conflict: how is the UK ensuring that the protection of children is embedded in its diplomatic, development and defence policy—not siloed, not rhetorical, but operational? Finally, what assessment have the Government made of the long-term consequences of failing these children, not just for them but for global stability? Children who are denied safety, education and justice today are far more likely to inherit conflict tomorrow. The Conservative party has long been clear that protecting children in conflict is not optional; it is a moral duty and a strategic necessity. The UK has the diplomatic weight, legal expertise and moral standing to lead.”
“I now turn to Sudan and a crisis that all too often slips from the headlines but which represents one of the gravest humanitarian catastrophes in the world today, particularly for children. Children in Sudan are being killed, displaced, recruited by armed groups and denied access to basic healthcare and education. We know that girls face heightened risks of sexual violence. Entire communities have been uprooted. Humanitarian access remains dangerously constrained. The UK has spoken about leadership on Sudan, so I ask this. Where is that leadership now, and what concrete steps are the Government taking to secure humanitarian access? More broadly, across all these conflicts, children are paying the price for impunity.”
“Which organisations and mechanisms are the Government principally working through, and how are they ensuring that planning for education recovery is happening now, rather than being left to become an afterthought? Education must never be a vehicle for hatred. There have long been serious concerns about elements of the Palestinian curriculum that risk inciting violence or glorifying extremism. UK taxpayers rightly expect our aid not to entrench these problems, so I ask the Minister this directly today. What pressure is the UK applying to the Palestinian Authority to secure root-and-branch curriculum reform? What specific benchmarks are being used, and what evidence, if any, is there of meaningful progress to date? How are UK-funded education programmes monitored to ensure that they promote peace, tolerance and co-existence?”
“Israel faces a real and ongoing security threat from Hamas, a terrorist organisation that cynically embeds itself among civilians and has itself committed grave abuses against children, including hostage taking and indoctrination. At the same time, children in Gaza have suffered enormously. Many have lost family members, homes and access to education. If we are serious about breaking cycles of conflict, we must look beyond the immediate crisis to what comes next. I want to touch on reconstruction and education. Schools are not just buildings; they are foundations of stability and hope, so what is the UK doing to press for the rebuilding of schools in Gaza once conditions allow?”
“Through which international partners are the Government principally working? What progress has been made on sanctions enforcement against the individuals and entities responsible for these deportations? We know that evidence exists, so what is holding up further designations? Finally on Ukraine, will the Minister update the House on how the UK is supporting international accountability mechanisms, including the ICC, to ensure that those who have committed crimes against children are brought to justice—not in theory, but in practice? I now turn to the middle east and an issue that requires care, seriousness and balance.”
“I want to start with Ukraine, where the abuse of children has been systematic and calculated. Thousands of Ukrainian children—some estimates put the figure at more than 20,000—have been forcibly taken from their families and deported into Russia or Russian-occupied territory. Some were taken from orphanages and others removed from parents at gunpoint. Many are subjected to so-called re-education—stripped of their identity, language and nationality. Behind every statistic are a child, a family torn apart and a future placed deliberately out of reach. The UK has rightly condemned these crimes, but condemnation alone is not enough, so I ask the Minister these questions. What practical steps is the UK taking to support efforts to identify, track and return abducted Ukrainian children?”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) on securing this important debate. I also thank colleagues across the Chamber for their thoughtful contributions and interventions, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), who is not in her place now, but served as the special envoy for girls’ education during the last Government. I thank her for that. Children are not incidental victims of war. Increasingly, they are its deliberate targets. Whether through forced deportation, indoctrination, recruitment into armed groups or the destruction of schools and healthcare, children are being used as instruments of conflict. That should shame us all and it should compel action.”
“I will touch on vetting in my contribution later, but as someone who was vetted by the Foreign Office many years ago, I would like to seek clarity as to whether Peter Mandelson went through the full vetting process that a normal member of the diplomatic service would undergo ahead of taking up such a post, or did he simply undergo what is known in political terms—in Chief Whip terms—as the “pet process” undertaken by the Cabinet Office, because full vetting takes a long time?”
“Does my hon. Friend agree that this boils down to judgment, whether it is the Prime Minister’s or that of others on the Government Benches? So much was known about Peter Mandelson even before he was appointed. Surely someone should have got their head out of the sand and said, “Hang on, folks. This isn’t right.””
“I think our motion was and is very clear, and we know how evidence and information are brought forward when it comes to the ISC. My question was very clear: would the hon. Gentleman have voted with us on the motion, or against it?”
“Most scrutiny has come from Conservative Members, but I pay tribute to those on the Government Benches who have had the decency to explain to their Front-Bench team how they feel about this important matter. We heard earlier about the issue of national security. In opposition, when the Prime Minister was shadow Brexit Secretary back in 2018—I remember those days well—he proposed three separate Humble Addresses, and none of them included exemptions for national security. There was a suggestion that we got this wrong, but that is just not the case at all. I am pleased that the Government have listened, yet again, to their Back Benchers and brought forward a manuscript amendment, but were it not for Members on both the Opposition and Government Benches pushing them to do so, I do not think we would be in this position now.”
“First, let me come to the Humble Address. I have not been in this place as long as some of my vintage colleagues—I say that in a very kind way—but I have a few scars to bear from my time as Chief Whip. [Interruption.] I never lost a vote, mind. The reason that I make that point is that I, like others in this place, know the significance of a Humble Address. A Humble Address is not used on a normal Opposition day debate. It is not used regularly and it is not used lightly. It is used to indicate that this is a very serious matter that we have brought to this House today. Initially, there were to be two debates, but because of the demand from those on the Opposition Benches to have the issue debated and discussed, the usual channels agreed to allow the debate to take all afternoon.”
“At the start of this afternoon, I sat through Prime Minister’s questions and did not really have any intention of taking part in this Opposition day debate. I quite often take part in what we call Oppo day debates, but I had other commitments in the diary. [Interruption.] This is not a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was asked to speak, was I not? Officials are looking at me rather perplexed. I had no intention of speaking in this debate. I sat through Prime Minister’s questions and listened to the Leader of the Opposition asking the Prime Minister direct questions. With each question that went by, it became clear that there were many questions that were not being answered and that the Government were attempting simply to sweep this issue to the side, and to deflect to other matters around the periphery.”
“I am not an expert on this at all, but it does seem strange to me that, arguably, Peter Mandelson did not appear to have been fully vetted—instead going through some strange checking process involving one piece of paper.”
“My hon. Friend is just so right, and I will come to that point a little later. The core of this debate is the fact that we want answers. There are huge questions about the judgment of the Prime Minister and his appointment of Mandelson. Members from both sides of the House have talked a lot about the victims, and it is right that they have, but if we are to stand up for the victims and for the people who put us here—we should never forget that we were sent to this place—we need to ask the questions, and we deserve the answers. Opposition Members will continue to keep asking those questions, because that is what the public and the victims deserve. They deserve transparency and accountability. Earlier I made an intervention about the vetting process.”
“Absolutely. I will share something with the House today. I never set out to be a politician. I never in a million years expected to sit on these green Benches, but I did it to stand up for my local community, because I felt that they needed a voice. I might not get everything right—none of us do—but one thing I will do is strive to be a voice for those who put me in this place, and let us never forget that we were put here by others. Turning back to vetting, I would like the Minister to explain to us whether Peter Mandelson went through the exact same vetting process that a normal diplomat would have gone through if they were to take up the post in Washington. The role of UK ambassador to the US is one of the most important roles in our Foreign Office.”
“We Conservative Members are aware that the Prime Minister had been glowing about the talents of Peter Mandelson. Only in February, he said at the British embassy in Washington: “Peter is the right person to help us work with President Trump and to take the special relationship from strength to strength”. We are aware that Morgan McSweeney, Keir Starmer’s chief of staff, pushed for Mandelson to become ambassador, sidelining long-serving experienced diplomats. We are aware that Keir Starmer assured MPs that “full due process” was followed—”
“My right hon. Friend makes a really important. This is about probity and evidence and making sure, for the reputation of this country, that we are appointing the right people. I should declare that I once was a member of the diplomatic service, and I know that the people who serve our country as diplomats are of the highest integrity, and they have my trust. When it comes to making political appointments, as today’s debate has shown, there are still questions that need to be asked. The other thing that is rather strange is that everyone seemed to know that there were questions around Peter Mandelson. There were questions about the sort of person he was—I think he was once featured on “Spitting Image” as the Prince of Darkness—but where was the Prime Minister, and where was his judgment? Was his head stuck in the sand?”
“] No, no, I can absolutely see why they might say that. [ Interruption. ] Labour Members may mock, but the point is about integrity.”
“I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was getting a bit carried away there. The Prime Minister assured MPs that “full due process” was followed in his appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador. He appointed Peter Mandelson despite it already being in the public domain that Peter Mandelson had discussed issues relevant to his ministerial position with Jeffrey Epstein while Epstein was in jail. I could go on. Why did the Prime Minister choose to ignore all that, at a time when Members on both sides of the House know that the public are often scathing about politicians? They say that we are all the same, but I can assure them that we are not. They question our motives and our integrity. Some even refer to Members of this place as members of the establishment, which is something that I will always rail against. [ Laughter.”
“I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but you just get used to that sort of thing when you have been here for a while. We should never forget the people outside. We should never forget the Nolan principles. Conservative Members have explained the Nolan principles and their importance, which was perhaps needed by certain Labour Members. I urge the Government to do the right thing.”
“That is exactly the point. I do not think it is for me to answer those questions; it is for the Prime Minister to do so, but I will continue to question his judgment. How on earth did he come to appoint Peter Mandelson to this role? It is not just Conservative Members who are asking that; today, we have heard Labour Members asking questions. The Government Benches are quite full now, but the Conservatives led the charge on this topic. In Opposition day debates, I expect to see the Government Benches full, and I expect Labour Members to take points up, debate with us, and defend the position of their Government. How much have we seen of that today? Very little indeed.”
“It absolutely beggars belief. If we want to clean up politics, this sort of thing should not be allowed to happen. We know that politics are difficult, but this was down to the judgment of one person—or was it the judgment of others around that person? I urge Labour Members to do the right thing this evening and stand up for democracy, Parliament and decency.”
“I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have tried my best to be patient, as he indicated I should be, but surely he agrees that there is only one way for him to pay for these increases, which is taxes?”
“Q8. Six in 10 families say their pay is going backwards, with the lowest earners £73 a week worse off and middle earners worse off too. Will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that his Government have broken their promise to improve living standards?”
“My hon. Friend makes the point so well. It is deeply worrying that in the Walsall borough, in my constituency, youth unemployment is higher than the national average. The truth is that youth unemployment has skyrocketed under Labour’s watch. Does my hon. Friend agree that a big part of the problem is that we have a Labour Government who do not understand that the more they squeeze business, the more they squeeze job opportunities for young people?”
“On this Government’s watch, in the west midlands we now face a £41 million black hole, which we are told will lead to a reduction in policing numbers. Under these new reforms, how will the Home Secretary ensure we see a net increase in the west midlands, particularly in my constituency?”
“Wales has followed suit by rolling out £1 single fares for 16 to 21-year-olds across the country, and there are plans to extend the scheme further. My constituents are left asking a simple question: why not the Mayor of the West Midlands? Our Labour mayor so often talks about fairness and inclusion, yet young people in our region continue to face some of the highest bus fares in the country. While other areas are cutting fares to widen opportunity, young people in my constituency are still paying full price to get to work or education.”
“Today, I will focus on three areas where I believe ambition has been promised but delivery is falling short: buses, rail infrastructure and our roads. For many people, buses are the only form of public transport available, not least in my constituency, which still does not have a single railway station. Bus fares matter, particularly for young people. If we are serious about opportunity, we cannot price young people off the network. Other regions have recognised that and acted. In Tees Valley, the Conservative mayor, Ben Houchen, introduced a £1 bus fare for everyone aged 21 and under, and it has been a clear success. It has boosted ridership and helped young people get to work, college and their apprenticeships.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered transport connectivity in the Midlands and North Wales. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss, and to open this debate on a subject that goes to the heart of economic opportunity, social mobility and quality of life. Connectivity determines whether people can easily get to work, get to school and get out and about. For communities such as mine in Aldridge-Brownhills, the state of our transport links will decide whether young people can access opportunities and whether businesses can grow. Reliable transport and good connectivity are not nice-to-have extras; they are fundamental to how well off and connected our region is. Right now, we must do so much better.”
“In principle, greater local control can offer integrated routes, reasonable fares and improved standards, but the mayor needs to be honest with us about the timetable and the cost. Franchising will not deliver meaningful change for many years, and the funding currently allocated is a fraction of what will ultimately be required to deliver the scheme. Greater Manchester’s experience shows that franchising takes times and significant investment. In the meantime, our bus services remain unreliable and under-resourced. Once again, passengers are promised jam tomorrow. Transport users need buses that turn up and fares that they can afford, not more empty words.”
“What I would say is that, although I am not an expert on Derbyshire bus routes, I absolutely recognise the importance of good connectivity. In the west midlands, constituents regularly ask me, “Why has this bus route changed?” or, “Why has that bus route changed?” So it absolutely matters to our constituents. On connectivity, the lack of fairness for young people is not inevitable. We have seen that targeted youth fares can work, but what is sadly missing in the west midlands is not evidence but political will. If fairness and inclusion really are priorities, a west midlands youth bus fare scheme should be delivered quickly. Alongside that, our mayor has promised a transformation of the bus network through franchising.”
“The gap between promise and delivery regarding our buses must be closed as a matter of urgency. That gap is even more stark when we turn to rail. The midlands rail hub is the single most important rail project for our region—”
“I absolutely agree; there needs to be a wide approach to make this happen. I know from casework that we sometimes need to write to companies and ask them what is happening with a specific bus service. I just want a better bus service for my constituents, so that they can get to work or education. I remember growing up in a rural area—it was not in the west midlands—where we had one bus service a week. Young people in particular need access to good transport. Going back to the issue of franchising, there is a long-term ambition, but interim action is essential. That means supporting new routes and the routes that we have now. Improving reliability is so important, as is addressing fares. We cannot pin all our hopes on reforms that are a decade away while services deteriorate in the present.”
“I have focused on public transport, but roads are equally critical. In Aldridge-Brownhills, our roads remain very much the backbone of local travel. Here too, our development needs are racing ahead of infrastructure. Large-scale housing proposals—another topic I regularly raise in this House—on green-belt land around Stonnall Road and Bosty Lane would add hundreds of new homes without the road upgrades needed to support them. Those roads already feed into Chester Road, which is sadly an accident blackspot, with a tragic history of serious injuries and fatalities.”
“When pressed on rail expansion in the north and east of the west midlands, the answer is always the same—future funding, future capacity, under review. Aldridge is told to wait. Sutton Park is told to wait. But my constituents have waited for long enough. I want to highlight the importance of open-access operators. Services such as the proposed Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway could bring new connectivity and competition, with trains running along the Sutton Park line through Aldridge—but because Aldridge still has no station, those trains will pass straight through. Open access has a role to play, but only if the infrastructure is delivered. Supporting open access must go hand in hand with delivering projects such as Aldridge station. I am hugely supportive of this project, but it must stop in Aldridge.”
“Under the previous Mayor of the West Midlands, Andy Street, funding was identified, land was secured, and the project was moving towards delivery. Local people were given a timeline and told that a new station was coming. Then priorities changed. A review happened. Funding was redirected. The project was placed under review and Aldridge train station was pushed into the long grass—some might say, into the sidings. It did not fail a business case; it fell victim to political decisions, with the Government allowing the secured funding for the station to be moved to pet projects of the Labour Mayor of the West Midlands. Rest assured, I will continue to raise this issue at every opportunity, as the Leader of the House is all too aware from Thursday business questions, because it matters.”
“There is no timetable, no commitment, and sadly no plan. This is policy paralysis; infrastructure is not funded and then a lack of infrastructure is used as the reason why nothing can progress. The midlands rail hub either will or will not be built, but indefinite reviews and partial funding help no one, least of all residents in my constituency and across the west midlands, and our local businesses. That brings me to Aldridge train station. It will come as no surprise to the Minister that I am raising this. Why? Because it matters. Aldridge is a major settlement of some 25,000 people, but it has been without a passenger railway station for decades, despite clear demand and a growing population.”
“I would be happy if the Minister could provide, in his response to this debate, the clarity that this project is fully funded to delivery, because it is critical to making sure that the west midlands, and the greater part of the region, keeps on moving, and we have that much-improved connectivity that enables new routes to be opened up and greater passenger capacity. The Government now talk about Northern Powerhouse Rail, but without the midlands rail hub there will be no midlands engine to power it. We need both, and we need them to be delivered. There is the same uncertainty when Ministers are asked about passenger services on the Sutton Park line, which remains freight-only. Any future passenger use is said to depend on additional capacity, which is the very capacity that the midlands rail hub was meant to provide.”
“We agree on many things—alongside Aldridge train station, of course. The midlands rail hub would unlock capacity, allow more frequent services, and make new and reopened stations viable. However, when I ask Ministers whether the scheme is fully funded, the answer is always the same: £123 million has been allocated, not to deliver the project but merely to progress the next phase of development. The remainder, which is an estimated £1.75 billion, is still described as being “subject to future funding decisions.” We were told that the midlands rail hub would be delivered in full. The previous Conservative Government committed £1.75 billion in the 2023 Network North plan to deliver it. That funding has since been pulled by the Labour Government, leaving the full delivery of the project in limbo.”
“Our communities have waited long enough. It is time to stop reviewing and deferring, and to start delivering the transport that actually works. I genuinely look forward to hearing from the Minister about how he intends to make this happen. I will happily meet with him to discuss Aldridge station, to see what more we can do to ensure that the Mayor of the West Midlands understands why this matters, why I keep banging on about it, and why I will keep doing so until it is delivered.”
“Roads, junctions, traffic management and public transport links must come before houses are occupied, not years afterwards. The midlands and north Wales do not need more warm words or long-term plans that never quite materialise. We need transport that works at a price that people can afford. Across buses, rail and road, the pattern is the same: ambition without delivery; young people priced off the buses; rail schemes left half funded; towns told to wait; housing built without infrastructure. Things do not have to be this way. We know what works, but what is missing is action and delivery. I gently say to the Minister that if the Government want people to believe in their plans for growth, they must start matching ambition with delivery. Our region is ready to play its part, but it cannot do so with stalled projects and permanent delay.”
“For more than three decades, the charity supported bereaved families and campaigned for safer roads. Its recent closure as a charity is deeply saddening. It should remind us all of the human cost of what happens when we get road safety wrong. While I welcome some recent funding for safety measures on Chester Road near this particular blackspot, residents are rightly asking where the wider plan is. We cannot add hundreds of homes without first investing in the roads and the junctions that residents rely on every day, even before any more homes are built. This will be development without infrastructure. If housing targets are imposed, which is very much what is happening in the west midlands in my area, infrastructure funding must be part of it.”