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 7 of 12.
“The UK has a proud tradition of defending human rights, freedoms and the rule of law. From the Opposition Benches we have continued to press the Government on their commitments, whether on consular rights for citizens facing human rights violations abroad or on the need for robust action in relation to our adversaries who seek to undermine international law.”
“How are the Government ensuring that the UK upholds human rights and protects the most vulnerable abroad? In the middle east we all share the deep hope that diplomatic efforts will soon secure a full and sustained end to the conflict. But we cannot discuss the human impact of the conflict without remembering the final Israeli hostage, whose continued captivity prolongs trauma and prevents healing. To be clear, all hostages must be released and humanitarian access must be upheld. This debate falls on the final day of the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. I want to highlight the alarming rise in the online abuse of women and girls. One in three women in the UK has experienced online abuse. Technology promised empowerment, yet for too many it has become a tool of coercion, harassment and intimidation.”
“In Ukraine, the forced deportation and re-education of children by the Russian state remains one of the most shocking war crimes of our generation, with an estimated 45,000 children abducted. It is shocking. Some are placed with Russian families under coercive adoption programmes, while others undergo militarisation training. Can the Minister provide us with an update on the Government’s work to support efforts to secure the return of these abducted children to their parents? I know there is a lot of interest in this topic right across the House. It is in this wider context of global crises that we must also carefully assess the UK’s spending on development and ensure that the aid budget is spent wisely and effectively against clear priorities.”
“Tibet, too, remains one of the most heavily suppressed regions in the world. Sadly, those are not isolated cases; as we have heard in this debate, there are many other examples. They represent a challenge to the international system itself, and they demand a response that is marked in both principle and resolve. Today, though, I will speak particularly about those suffering in active conflict zones. In Sudan, the ongoing conflict has seen civilians targeted indiscriminately. Satellite evidence points to mass killings and the disposal of bodies by the Rapid Support Forces. What progress has been made since the international humanitarian conference that the Government hosted, and what further steps will the UK take to ensure that commitments translate into protection for civilians on the ground?”
“An axis of authoritarian states is working deliberately to undermine the international order and the very concept of universal rights. In Iran, the tyrannical regime continues its repression of women and minorities, censoring the media, jailing dissenters and enforcing coercive control. In Russia, President Putin has entrenched a political environment incompatible with free and fair elections: criminalising free speech, shutting down NGOs and exporting violence through his illegal invasion of Ukraine. China’s actions remain profoundly concerning, from the persecution of Uyghurs in Xinjiang to the steady erosion of freedoms in Hong Kong. The national security law is now routinely deployed to silence critics, including Jimmy Lai who, at 78 and in ill health, remains in solitary confinement for nothing more than speaking out.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) for securing this debate, and for his thoughtful and reflective introduction, marking International Human Rights Day 2025. Every year on 10 December we pause to reaffirm the universal and enduring values that underpin the universal declaration of human rights. This year’s theme is “Human rights: our everyday essentials”. At a time of turbulence and unpredictability, when many in our own country and across the world feel a growing sense of insecurity, the reminder that human rights are the foundations of dignity in our daily lives could not be more important. Fundamental rights are under immense and sustained pressure.”
“We have made our position very clear when it comes to the defence budget. Obviously, as we get nearer to another election, we will set out more detail. Today—International Human Rights Day 2025—is an important day. It is a really good opportunity for us all to come together, not just to highlight some of the many cases around the world but to show that the UK has a proud record of standing up for and defending those rights. As the Opposition, it is important that we continue to hold Ministers to their word, because the protection of human rights goes far beyond party lines; it speaks to who we are as a nation and the role that we seek to play in the world. Let us work together across this House to ensure that the rights and freedoms we cherish become a lived reality for all.”
“Is not the truth that we have a Government with no business experience who think that they can simply push the costs down to businesses, squeeze and squeeze them, and they will pass the price on to customers? They will have no customers. There will be no businesses. There will be no jobs.”
“What we have before us today, however, is something very different. This Bill offers too little detail, too little accountability, and far too many unanswered questions. It replaces a pragmatic, balanced approach with an ideological blueprint for nationalisation. Passengers across the country deserve better. The Bill promises integration, but it delivers centralisation. It speaks of clarity, yet it blurs responsibilities. Great British Railways will control timetables, fares, access decisions, infrastructure planning and data, a concentration of authority that should concern anyone who believes in genuine public accountability.”
“Well, Aldridge and the West Midlands Combined Authority did choose, and the funding was in place, but Labour removed it. Nothing in the Bill prevents such a unilateral political decision from being made again. It provides no guarantee of transparency, and no duty to consult affected communities. As a former Rail Minister, I am very aware that we on this side of the House have long recognised that the old model needed updating. That is why, in government, we began the work for Great British Railways, through the Williams-Shapps plan. [Interruption.] Labour Members may laugh, but we set out the case for bringing track and train closer together, improving accountability, and delivering a more unified, passenger-focused system. We recognised the need for renewal of our railways, grounded in practicality and not in politics.”
“Great British Railways is not an entirely new concept, but what the Government present as a “modernisation of our railways” is, when we strip away the glossy language, a centralising piece of legislation that advances Labour’s drive towards nationalisation. It risks creating a structure that is powerful, sprawling and unaccountable. In Aldridge, in my constituency, we had secured funding to deliver a railway station under the former mayor, Andy Street, and residents were told, after decades of waiting, that the project would finally go ahead. However, the new Labour mayor chose to withdraw the funding in favour of his own pet projects. When questions are put to Ministers, every answer points back to the combined authority, with the vague suggestion that there would be funding “if the region chooses”.”
“If the Government are serious about devolving power to local leaders, they must allow us, the elected Members, to hold them to account. The House should not mistake this railway reorganisation for renewal—far from it. The Bill simply rearranges structures while failing to address the issues that matter most to passengers: cancelled trains, inconsistent performance, reduced competition and decisions made far away from the communities they affect. This is a Bill that gives Labour more control, not passengers better railways. It is not a credible plan for the future of our railways and the Government should think again.”
“GBR will be required to consult, to produce strategies and to respond to ministerial direction, yet its operational independence is undefined. Will political priorities override operational judgment? Will GBR operate as an arm’s length body, or as an extension of the Department? How will we, as elected Members, hold Great British Rail, Ministers and mayors to account? Local decision making will not be stronger under the Bill. Ministers may talk the talk about devolution, but the Bill provides little evidence of it. Requiring GBR merely to “have regard to” local transport plans is a notably weak obligation. The Bill does not require GBR to follow them, and offers no protection to communities, such as Aldridge, where projects risk simply being cast aside when the political wind changes.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What is worse is that time after time I cannot get a straight answer out of Ministers as to whether they will support open access. The Bill also weakens the independence of the ORR. When a body that runs services also shapes the rules against which those services are judged, the House should be deeply concerned. The Bill puts competition and innovation at risk, alongside the future of open access, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) has highlighted, is incredibly uncertain. A railway that cannot accommodate competition is a railway that is destined to stagnate. There is also the unresolved question of how GBR will interact with the Department for Transport. The Bill creates overlapping duties that risk friction and confusion.”
“I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. On the specific point of answering our questions, can he give us clarity on accountability? Where does accountability lie? Where will we as Members of Parliament see accountability for the actions of Ministers and mayors?”
“To be clear on accountability, how and where can a Member of Parliament hold a directly elected mayor to account for his or her decisions when it comes to railways?”
“I will keep my intervention very short, Sir Edward. An unheard-of 4,400 of my constituents signed this petition. They are very clear that they do not want the imposition—which is what it will be—of digital ID. As we heard from my hon. Friend’s history lesson, time and again it has been the Conservatives who have said, “No, we do not want this. The British people do not want it.” Is it not time that this Government sat up and listened to the public for a change?”
“How do the Government intend to use the UK’s seat on IDA’s board to ensure alignment with our bilateral work, so that efforts are not duplicated? IDA remains an important development instrument, but the scrutiny of large multilateral commitments is essential. We hope the Minister can address those points and we look forward to his response.”
“Turning to oversight, what monitoring and evaluation arrangements does the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office rely on to demonstrate that UK contributions to IDA21 deliver measurable outcomes and value for money? How often will Parliament receive updates on performance and progress against UK objectives? Will the FCDO publish a report on delivery against measurable outcomes? Governance is another key area. Can the Minister confirm whether there have been any changes to IDA’s transparency, accountability or anti-corruption safeguards, which should give Parliament confidence in how this replenishment will operate? Finally, can the Minister say whether the UK sought particular conditions or expectations from other donors during the negotiations?”
“IDA covers a wide agenda, from health and climate resilience to education and digital infrastructure, so it would be helpful to know where the Government have sought to focus UK influence, not least in view of the reduction to the aid budget from 0.5% to 0.3%. Do the themes and priorities meet UK development objectives, and how have key UK interests been prioritised? On the issue of debt sustainability, can the Minister reassure the Committee that IDA’s lending will not compound existing debt vulnerabilities? Have any safeguards been strengthened since IDA20? What assurances can the Government give that UK taxpayers’ money will not be used for debt reduction where countries have been trapped into debt by China? ODA should not be paying down debts to China.”
“Therefore, Parliament deserves some clear and detailed assurances about how this money will be used, what impacts it is expected to deliver and how the Government intend to oversee it. Can the Minister explain, in broad terms, how IDA allocates where resources go under this replenishment? What balance does IDA expect between grants and concessional loans? What criteria are used to allocate funds between countries, particularly those facing acute debt pressure? As the UK shareholder, what role have the Government played in deciding where taxpayers’ money will go? Secondly, can the Minister set out the themes and priorities that the UK argued for during the IDA21 negotiations?”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I thank the Minister for his explanation of the draft order. As he will expect, I have a number of questions on which some further clarity would be helpful for the Committee. His Majesty’s Opposition recognise the long-standing role that the UK has played in supporting IDA, which is the World Bank’s concessional arm, working in some of the poorest and most fragile countries in the world. We also recognise the scale of the challenges facing those countries, from conflict and food security to the growing pressure of climate shocks and debt distress. IDA has been, and remains, an important part of the global response. However, the draft order legislates for payments of up to £1.98 billion in UK aid, which is an extremely significant commitment.”
“Finally, given the scale of organised crime linked to the regime, what additional measures are being deployed to disrupt drug flows, money laundering and criminal networks that threaten communities here in the UK? Are Interpol and our intelligence partnerships being fully leveraged? Britain cannot afford to be a bystander. The Government must demonstrate clarity, conviction and leadership at this critical moment.”
“What discussions are taking place with President Trump’s Administration about the objectives and scope of any imminent US military action? What would be the implications for the wider UK-US defence partnership, particularly our joint counter-narcotics operations? The House will also expect clarity on how the Government intend to hold the Maduro regime to account. What further diplomatic pressure, targeted sanctions and co-ordinated international action is the UK pursuing to support Venezuelans fighting for a peaceful, democratic transition? Will the Minister also update the House on the Government’s position regarding Venezuela’s provocation and aggression towards Guyana, the risks of escalation and the steps being taken with CARICOM—Caribbean Community—partners?”
“I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) for securing this urgent question. Venezuela may be thousands of miles away, but instability there has a direct impact on the safety and prosperity of the British people here. The restoration of democratic institutions is essential if Venezuela is to escape the political, economic and humanitarian crises imposed on its people by Nicolás Maduro’s authoritarian regime. The Maduro regime is propped up by the same axis of authoritarian states that undermine the rules-based international order and foster instability around the world. We know the shocking level of smuggling that comes out of Venezuela, and at a moment when our allies appear to be taking quite decisive action, the world is watching how Britain responds.”
“We all want to see Ukraine, a country that has made huge sacrifices to defend its freedom, secure a peace on its own terms, but to put pressure on Putin and weaken his ability to wage war, we must go harder after the money that is fuelling his war machine. We have seen reports that Lakshmi Mittal’s company has been buying oil from Russia. When were the Government first made aware of that, and does the Foreign Secretary believe that there may be grounds for sanctions?”
“I am sorry, but it is simply not good enough for the Foreign Secretary to dismiss questions by saying that sanctions are not discussed on the Floor of the House. This is a man who has profited, and a business that has profited, by buying Russian oil, thus fuelling Putin’s illegal war—a war that has caused death and destruction in Ukraine. He may have reportedly fled Britain, but will the Foreign Secretary ensure that all his business interests are thoroughly investigated, and that wider investigations are carried out to determine whether this practice is more widespread?”
“We have heard Ministers in this House and elsewhere make claims about Israel and aid. Does the Foreign Secretary recognise the Co-ordination of Government Activities in the Territories and the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre figures, which show that 4,200 trucks of aid are entering Gaza a week, meeting the targets agreed, as the 20-point plan is being implemented? Will she thank the COGAT team for their work in getting aid in, including those officers attacked by Hamas terrorists on 7 October who remain committed to improving the humanitarian situation in Gaza? Does she agree that the best way to ensure that more aid gets into Gaza is for the UK to work with partners to implement the international stabilisation force and to secure the elimination of Hamas?”
“A game of strategy, tactics and sometimes outright brinkmanship might sound familiar to the Cabinet at the moment, but I am actually talking about chess. Meadow View primary school in my constituency has qualified for the London chess classic, which takes place tomorrow. Will the Education Secretary join me in congratulating the pupils on getting so far and wishing them luck?”
“It is deeply damaging and, dare I say, unprecedented that we find ourselves here today, listening to this statement about OBR forecasts, midway through the debate on the Budget. It raises more questions, not least because the Chancellor chose not to be here today to answer those questions. Why?”
“If the policy is so good, how will the Secretary of State explain to working people that they will be £18,000 worse off than those on benefits? How can that be fair?”
“Is it not the truth that we have in front of us not the Budget of the Chancellor, the Prime Minister or the Cabinet, but the Budget of the Back Benchers?”
“Small businesses—the backbone of our economy—were forgotten entirely in this Budget, and the Federation of Small Businesses has said that dividend tax hikes punish people for investing in their own companies. New employer charges are a bad idea, and the business rate measures fall far short. Small Business Saturday is on this coming weekend, and I am sure that many Conservative Members will be going out and supporting small businesses in their constituencies. Why? Because we understand what business is.”
“In Aldridge-Brownhills, families who have never been higher rate taxpayers in their lives will now find themselves pushed into a higher band, with no increase in real pay. That is not fairness; it is failure. Businesses reached their verdict within hours. The Institute of Directors found that 80% of business leaders felt negative about the Budget. They know that Labour Members do not understand what business is. Labour’s job tax has hit employers hard. On Friday, businesses in my constituency told me that they have frozen recruitment and investment, that they have no choice but to pass costs on to customers, and that in some cases they are beginning to think about redundancies.”
“Labour Members can dress it up however they like, but this is the “Benefits Street” Budget—tax hikes to fund a welfare splurge, paid for by ordinary, hard-working people who get up, go to work and do the right thing. Labour promised not to raise taxes on working people. That was printed in its manifesto, but within weeks of coming to power it did exactly that. A Chancellor who breaks her word cannot expect to command the public’s trust. She must come to this House and explain herself, and I hope she does the winding-up speech tomorrow evening at the close of the debate. While this Government play politics with the public finances, it is working families in my constituency, and others up and down the country, who are paying the price.”
“The Budget is built on fantasy. The Chancellor claimed that there was a fiscal black hole so deep that she had no choice but to hammer working families with the highest tax burden since the war, but we now know the truth: the OBR told her in October that the so-called black hole did not exist. She actually had a surplus, but she deliberately told the public the opposite. This is now a political crisis of the Chancellor’s own making. Even a Cabinet Minister has said: “At no point were the Cabinet told about the reality of the OBR forecasts”, and called this Budget “a disaster from start to finish”. The Chancellor promised the country that she had “wiped the slate clean” and would not “come back for more”, but we now know how wrong she was.”
“I am sorry—I do not have time. Connectivity drives growth too, yet we see reheated announcements. The midlands rail hub is crucial for our region, but we do not know whether this is new money or recycled rhetoric. There was no reinstatement in the Budget of the £27 million for Aldridge train station—money that was siphoned away by the Labour mayor—and my constituents deserve better. Let us be clear: households are being squeezed, food price inflation is running high at nearly 5%, and our farmers are still being hit by the Government’s decisions. This Budget raises taxes, weakens growth, ignores business, hits farmers, sidelines communities and breaks promises. Above all, it is built on fantasy—a black hole that did not exist. My constituents, and this country, deserve better.”
“Another day, another leak from the Government. The Minister says that no final decision has been made—we just have speculation—and suggests that we wait, so why does she not use this time to reflect on the comments from Conservative Members and bring back the courts used during covid, to speed up the process so that people continue to have the right to a trial by jury?”
“A game of manoeuvres, tactics and at times outright brinkmanship —that might sound familiar to some members of the Cabinet, but I am of course talking about chess. Meadow View primary school in my constituency has qualified for the London chess classic on 2 December. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating them and wishing them the very best of luck?”
“What is grey belt, and can the Minister tell us what assessment he has made of the risk it poses to the integrity of the green belt in areas such as mine?”
“As a west midlands MP, I find this deeply troubling. There are clearly questions that need to be answered. Specifically, in the light of the significant inaccuracies that have now been confirmed by Dutch law enforcement, does the Minister agree that there are also questions that should be asked of the political leadership in the west midlands and, in particular, the police and crime commissioner, who—however we look at it—is supposed to be representing our communities?”
“Can the Minister assure me that the devolution of powers to our mayors—the west midlands is a really good example, because we have had a mayor for a number of years—will be accompanied by a devolution of accountability and scrutiny to local councillors and, importantly, to local communities? I fear that that is exactly what is missing and continues to be missing in this piece of legislation.”
“I am concerned that this measure will result in a railroading of planning applications, which will impact on constituencies such as mine, on the periphery of the west midlands. What specific safeguards will the Minister be putting in place to ensure that ward councillors, local planning committees and local Members of Parliament continue to have a voice? At the moment, the Mayor of the West Midlands does not even reply to my letters.”
“The Secretary of State has recognised the value of the midlands rail hub and the investment that was needed there; it will create much needed capacity through central Birmingham. Given that, does she agree that now is exactly the moment to look at options such as the Sutton Park line, to enable the maximisation of rail traffic through more passenger services?”
“This week, the Birmingham bin strike escalated further. Now, even the agency workers who have been keeping a minimal service going have voted to join the strike from 1 December. I have raised this issue with the Leader of the House before, and was promised a statement, but the situation has got worse since then. Will he assure me that we will have a statement before the new wave of action begins next month?”
“More often than not, it is snapped up by developers, meaning that previously productive farms become speculative housing sites.”
“Against that backdrop, the last thing we should be doing is making it harder for farming families to stay on their land, yet that is exactly what this Government’s changes to agricultural inheritance—now widely referred to as the family farm tax—would do. Most farms in this country are family businesses. They are part of the local economy, of the landscape and of the food supply chain. The Government’s proposals would pull most of them into new inheritance tax rules. That is not a small technical tweak; it creates a financial hit at the very moment a family is trying to pass the farm on. If a family has to sell land, or even the whole farm, simply to cover a tax bill under the new rules, there is no safeguard that the land will remain agricultural.”
“While that has been happening, we have lost hundreds of thousands of hectares of farmland to development and long-term environmental land use change. These are not temporary changes. Once productive farmland is built on or turned over to schemes that cannot be reversed, it rarely comes back; when it’s gone, it’s gone. We all accept that homes are needed, but it should worry us that so many have been placed on productive land when large brownfield areas remain underused. There is enough previously developed land in England to take well over 1 million homes, yet the easier, cheaper option of edge-of-town, green-belt development continues to be both developers’ and the Government’s preference. This is where food security starts being undermined not by global events, but by our own planning choices.”
“Global instability, import prices, exchange rates, skyrocketing input costs and continued pressure from the war in Ukraine meant that between January 2021 and April 2025, UK food prices increased by 36%, over three times more than in the previous decade. At the same time, the UK’s capacity to produce its own food has steadily declined. We now produce roughly 60% of the food we consume by calories; in the 1980s, we were close to 78%. That is a huge shift in one working lifetime, and it is a worrying downward trend. The picture by sector is even starker. We grow just over half the vegetables that we eat and only around 15% of the tomatoes that we consume, and fresh fruit production stands at just around 16%. Those numbers should start to ring alarm bells if they are not doing so already.”
“I want to look at three things: the effect on domestic food production; the environmental consequences, especially flooding; and the Government’s policy direction, which is pushing us down the wrong path, through the treatment of the green belt, the invention of so-called grey belt, and tax proposals that will make it harder for family farms to survive. In recent years, households across Britain have seen food prices spiral. We see it every time we go into the supermarket; we seem to put less in the trolley but pay more at the checkout. Of course, that is driven by global shocks, the war in Ukraine and supply chain pressures. At its peak, food inflation reached 20%, and people saw it in the basic cost of goods.”