Asked by: Helen Morgan (Liberal Democrat - North Shropshire)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what steps her department is taking to help ensure that risk in the food supply chain, for example in relation to drought and flooding, is not disproportionately shouldered by producers.
Answered by Angela Eagle - Minister of State (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
The Border Target Operating Model Impact Assessment frames economic analysis around business costs/benefits, check rates, and biosecurity risk. It does not model or quantify changes in food import volumes attributable to the post‑2020/BTOM border processes.
Defra publishes statistics on overseas trade of food, feed and drink imports (Chapter 13: Overseas trade - GOV.UK).
UK agri‑food import patterns are influenced by various factors, making it difficult to attribute changes to border processes alone. The latest official statistics show that in 2024 the value of UK food, feed and drink imports rose by 6.6% to £64.1 billion, with fresh fruit and vegetable imports increasing 12% over the same period.
Asked by: Helen Morgan (Liberal Democrat - North Shropshire)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what steps her department is taking to help increase transparency in the dairy industry's supply chain.
Answered by Angela Eagle - Minister of State (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
The Government recognises the importance of transparency and fairness in the dairy supply chain, so that farmers and other suppliers are able to make informed decisions and receive a fair return for their produce.
The Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024, which has applied to all milk contracts since July 2025, established new contractual requirements between dairy farmers and milk purchasers. The Regulations improve fairness and transparency, requiring dairy contracts to include clear terms on pricing, termination and prohibiting unilateral changes.
The Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator (ASCA) has been appointed to oversee and enforce these regulations, providing a route for complaints where parties believe the rules have not been followed.
Asked by: Helen Morgan (Liberal Democrat - North Shropshire)
Question
To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities, what recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Transport on ensuring step free access at railway stations.
Answered by Stephen Timms - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
On 15 January, the Government was pleased to announce that 8 projects to deliver step free routes at train stations are progressing directly to delivery, as part of our Access for All programme. 23 projects will undergo further design work, to inform potential future delivery. These improvements will deliver step-free access between platforms, and enhanced facilities designed to better support passengers with reduced mobility, parents with buggies, and those carrying luggage.Asked by: Helen Morgan (Liberal Democrat - North Shropshire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of the decision to allow pending cases to be tried by a judge alone on (a) the number of pre-trial hearings and (b) the number of appeals to these hearings.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice has published information about the impacts of the IRCC measures in the Courts and Tribunals Bill, in the IRCC Impact Assessment (Courts and Tribunals Bill (Structural Criminal Court) Impact Assessment). This includes the impacts of re-allocating cases in the open caseload to the Crown Court Bench Division or judge-alone for technical and lengthy cases. Re-allocation of these cases may be done on the papers, ie without a hearing.
The package of measures is estimated to reduce incoming demand on the Crown Court by the equivalent of around 27,000 sitting days in 2028/29. These changes are annual and continue into future years. In 2028/29 a further one-off gain of c. 3,500 Crown Court sitting days will accrue from changing mode of trial on cases already in the Crown Court open caseload from jury trial to trial by judge alone (either under the Crown Court Bench Division or on grounds of technicality or length). The modelling of this gain takes into account the time needed to review open cases when re-allocating cases.
There will be no right to appeal against an allocation decision or order made to hear a trial by judge alone. Parliament has long held that decisions about mode of trial (e.g., allocation decisions in the magistrates’ court) are not normally subject to appeal given the need for procedural finality and avoiding delay in cases.
Asked by: Helen Morgan (Liberal Democrat - North Shropshire)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of the closing of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund on the voluntary and community sector in (a) Shropshire, (b) England and (c) the UK.
Answered by Miatta Fahnbulleh - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government)
With the UK Shared Prosperity Fund concluding in 2026, the government is moving away from short-term, uncertain funding cycles and towards a clearer, more stable long-term funding approach through the Local Government Finance Settlement, complemented by targeted interventions to support growth and strengthen communities across the UK.
While government support for local growth is broader than any single funding stream, we recognise the challenges around local capacity and impact on organisations delivering UKSPF-funded services, including within the voluntary and community sectors. Government is continuing to work closely with local government and delivery partners to help manage this transition, including by extending the UKSPF expenditure deadline to 30 September 2026, to provide local authorities and partners with greater flexibility to maximise spend.
We understand that Shropshire is not currently a part of a devolution arrangement, but encourage expressions of interest for Foundational Strategic Authorities in line with the invitation issued on 12th February (Areas for producing spatial development strategies - GOV.UK).
Asked by: Helen Morgan (Liberal Democrat - North Shropshire)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what steps her Department is taking to help ensure transparency in the insurance industry's use of algorithmic and AI pricing models.
Answered by Lucy Rigby - Economic Secretary (HM Treasury)
The government is determined that insurers should treat customers fairly and firms are required to do so under Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) rules. The FCA requires firms to ensure their products offer fair value (i.e. if the price a consumer pays for a product or service is reasonable compared to the overall benefits they can expect to receive). The FCA has been clear that it will be monitoring firms to make sure they provide products that are fair value, and, where necessary, it has robust powers to take action.
The government believes that the safe and effective adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in financial services is a major strategic opportunity, with the potential to power growth across the UK.
As set out in the government’s Financial Services Growth and Competitiveness Strategy, it is our ambition to make the UK the world's most technologically advanced global financial sector, leveraging our dual strengths in financial services and AI.
To support the effective and safe use of AI by industry, while protecting consumers and financial stability, the government has appointed Financial Services AI champions, Harriet Rees and Rohit Dhawan. They will focus on helping firms seize the opportunities for AI in a way that supports innovation, maintains trust in UK financial services, and ensures that consumers are appropriately protected.
Asked by: Helen Morgan (Liberal Democrat - North Shropshire)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if she will make an assessment of the potential merits of introducing statutory protections that would allow surviving policyholders, where the death of a partner has led to terminations of reissuing of joint insurance policies, to continue existing insurance policies until the end of their contract.
Answered by Lucy Rigby - Economic Secretary (HM Treasury)
The government is determined that insurers should treat customers fairly, including where they have suffered a bereavement, and firms are required to do so under Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) rules. The FCA requires firms to ensure their products offer fair value (i.e. if the price a consumer pays for a product or service is reasonable compared to the overall benefits they can expect to receive). FCA rules also require insurers to ensure their communications are clear, fair and not misleading. The FCA have published guidance for firms on the fair treatment of vulnerable customers, including those who may recently have experienced bereavement.
The FCA monitors firms to make sure they comply with these rules, and, where necessary, it has robust powers to take action.
More broadly, insurers make commercial decisions about the terms of cover they offer based on their assessment of the relevant risks. The government does not generally intervene in these decisions by insurance companies.
Asked by: Helen Morgan (Liberal Democrat - North Shropshire)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what steps her Department is taking to help ensure customers purchasing joint insurance policies are made aware of changes to cover and pricing when one policyholder dies by insurance companies.
Answered by Lucy Rigby - Economic Secretary (HM Treasury)
The government is determined that insurers should treat customers fairly, including where they have suffered a bereavement, and firms are required to do so under Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) rules. The FCA requires firms to ensure their products offer fair value (i.e. if the price a consumer pays for a product or service is reasonable compared to the overall benefits they can expect to receive). FCA rules also require insurers to ensure their communications are clear, fair and not misleading. The FCA have published guidance for firms on the fair treatment of vulnerable customers, including those who may recently have experienced bereavement.
The FCA monitors firms to make sure they comply with these rules, and, where necessary, it has robust powers to take action.
More broadly, insurers make commercial decisions about the terms of cover they offer based on their assessment of the relevant risks. The government does not generally intervene in these decisions by insurance companies.
Asked by: Helen Morgan (Liberal Democrat - North Shropshire)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment her Department has made of the potential benefits of introducing a mandatory bereavement grace period for insurers.
Answered by Lucy Rigby - Economic Secretary (HM Treasury)
The government is determined that insurers should treat customers fairly, including where they have suffered a bereavement, and firms are required to do so under Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) rules. The FCA requires firms to ensure their products offer fair value (i.e. if the price a consumer pays for a product or service is reasonable compared to the overall benefits they can expect to receive). FCA rules also require insurers to ensure their communications are clear, fair and not misleading. The FCA have published guidance for firms on the fair treatment of vulnerable customers, including those who may recently have experienced bereavement.
The FCA monitors firms to make sure they comply with these rules, and, where necessary, it has robust powers to take action.
More broadly, insurers make commercial decisions about the terms of cover they offer based on their assessment of the relevant risks. The government does not generally intervene in these decisions by insurance companies.
Asked by: Helen Morgan (Liberal Democrat - North Shropshire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what modelling his department has used to establish that allowing pending cases to be tried by a judge alone will deliver swifter justice as referenced in the Minister for Courts and Legal Services’ letter to the Justice Select Committee dated 17 February 2026.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice has published information about the impacts of the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts (IRCC) measures in the Courts and Tribunals Bill, in the IRCC Impact Assessment (Courts and Tribunals Bill (Structural Criminal Court) Impact Assessment). This includes the impacts of re-allocating cases in the open caseload to the Crown Court Bench Division and judge-alone trials for technical and lengthy cases to cases.
Sir Brian’s Review gave a ‘conservative’ estimate that trials without a jury will make hearings at least 20% faster. This assumption was reached through quantitative analysis and workshops with HMCTS operational experts and engagement with judges. The Impact Assessment details the methodology used to reach this estimate. The assumption is also consistent with international evidence: data from New South Wales shows an average 16% reduction in trial length for judge-only trials, rising to around 29% for complex cases.
The package of reforms in the Courts and Tribunals Bill are designed to free up Crown Court capacity so that the most serious cases can be put before a jury more quickly, reducing delays for victims and witnesses.