Helen Morgan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I want to speak to amendment 6, which is tabled in my name, and amendment 7, which is consequential upon it. Amendment 6 would ensure that the CQC and NICE can “continue to make mandatory requests to the Secretary of State to establish an information system”, as they currently can with NHS England. At the moment, NHS England has a duty to co-operate with the CQC and NICE, and that is often enough for a collaborative approach that allows the CQC to access the data it needs. But the duty that applies to NHS England is not being passed on to the Department of Health and Social Care. The CQC raised the issue in written evidence to the Committee, saying that the duty “has been an important mechanism” that has “supported receipt of patient safety incident reports…information sharing between regional teams, and the development of central data sharing solutions.” The CQC went on: “Without an equivalent duty, we would be reliant on there being sufficient capacity and willingness within DHSC to share information, with no statutory backstop. This could inhibit our ability to receive the information” needed “to keep people who use services safe. Challenges in this area are often cultural and rely on the subjective judgment of individual data controllers as to whether particular data sets can be shared, how these should be used and what the timeliness of sharing should be, leading to protracted piecemeal conversations and delays.” As we have harrowingly heard over the past week, there is often reluctance to share data, particularly when there is a defensive culture in certain NHS institutions. Our amendment seeks to address the gap. I hope that what I have outlined is an oversight from the Government, not a deliberate attempt to reduce transparency or reduce regulator access to key data. The wider changes in schedule 11 will omit section 288 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. The Government are dropping this key wider duty in a schedule entitled “Minor and consequential amendments”. We do not think it is minor. It holds major implications for patient safety and transparency. On a wider note, it seems counterintuitive that the CQC, as regulator, does not have easy access to the data collected nationally in the health service.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  At the all-party parliamentary group on digital communities, which I chair, we often hear from mobile network operators that one reason they do not serve rural areas properly is that they cannot get planning permission. In Shropshire, the council has given planning permission to a passive infrastructure provider for three specific sites but it still cannot get the mobile network operators to put their equipment on their masts. What can the Secretary of State do to ensure mobile network operators give my constituents the coverage that they are paying for?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will raise some similar concerns about the abolition of integrated care partnerships and integrated care strategies, which clause 23 brings about. Before I do, I should declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The removal of integrated care partnerships, as well as the extension of ICBs to cover multiple local authorities, raises unanswered questions about the future of social care planning, which is very important to the Liberal Democrats, as the Minister knows. We feel that it removes the voice of charities and others in the voluntary sector who are crucial to meeting the range of needs in health and social care. Throughout the Bill there is a theme of separating social care and the NHS, at a time when greater integration and closer working are clearly needed. We heard Sir Andrew Dilnot say in evidence that we cannot deal with some of the challenges that arise in the NHS—particularly around flow through hospitals and long waits in corridor care in accident and emergency—without improving the discharge of patients into social care. Separating the organisations that deliver those things is clearly problematic. If we think about it, as the shadow Minister just outlined, we have lost the local authority representative on ICBs. The Bill also changes the way the better care fund is administered. With those changes, we are really concerned about the separation of these two responsibilities. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to an example in Shropshire. Shropshire council spends almost 80% of its budget on social care. It is an extremely challenged council because of those funding pressures. Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin ICB has also been one of the most financially challenged ICBs. That is partly because of its small scale and its merging with Staffordshire—which, for the record, is unlikely to be the combined mayoral authority that Shropshire ends up in, as is my current understanding, although we are a long way off resolving that problem.

• 30 Jun 2026 · National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation · Hansard source

  More

  May I also add my thanks to the Secretary of State, to Baroness Amos and her team, and to the families that have relived the pain of their experiences to bring about this report? But the Amos report tells us little that we did not already know—indeed, it confirms our worst fears. Maternity services in England are fundamentally broken with the cost of political neglect being paid in trauma, injury and lost lives. Figures revealed by the Liberal Democrats in the last week show that the first quarter of 2026 saw the worst rate ever recorded for maternity injuries. In fact, while the number of reviews into NHS maternity services has steadily ticked up, we have also seen rising maternal mortality rates. Four years ago, I spoke in this Chamber in response to the findings of the Shrewsbury and Telford review, which were devastating for my community. Last week, I stood here really distressed, actually, as we heard further traumatic reports from the Nottingham review. But anger is not enough. The Government must meet this moment now and implement Baroness Amos’s recommendations in full and without delay, or the families simply will not forgive them. To do this, we need genuine accountability through the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care, accompanied with the investment needed to make Britain the safest country in the world to have a baby. I welcome the Government’s commitment to a national maternity commissioner—a long-standing Liberal Democrat campaign—and the other urgent and immediate actions that the Secretary of State has outlined in the last week. They are all urgent and are signs that this is being taken seriously. But we need to recognise that a commissioner alone cannot fix the broken system. I urge the Secretary of State to work with us and look at our maternity rescue package for inspiration for his action plan—it has a great degree of overlap with Baroness Amos’s recommendations. Our package would ensure one-to-one midwifery care for every woman in labour, additional senior midwives, an obstetrician on every ward, and mandatory updated annual training. Will the Government commit here and now to implementing all those recommendations and working with us to deliver the change we need?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Asylum Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  May I raise my concerns about the site at Stoke Heath, which was mentioned by the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard)? It is a really rural location, with the nearest town being Market Drayton in my constituency, and people there are very concerned about the appropriateness of the site, with it being 30 minutes’ walk from a bus stop and there being no shop. Shropshire council has raised its concerns about the site’s remoteness. Given that we have seen increasing far-right infiltration in Shropshire, with people beyond the constituency borders spreading misinformation and hatred on Facebook, I am concerned about the security of the people in the development at Stoke Heath. What measures are being taken to keep those people safe? Will he explain what the criteria are for a suitable location for dispersal accommodation? It seems to me that somewhere without even a bus stop or a shop is a really inappropriate place.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  With permission, I will explain to the shadow Minister our votes on amendment 57, which she pressed to a vote. I was reassured by the commitment the Minister made to consult widely on those commissioning changes, so the Liberal Democrats switched our vote from support to abstain. I move on to new clause 2, our amendment in this group, which the shadow Minister was just discussing. It would require the Secretary of State to introduce a scheme to ensure patients have the right to see a GP or another appropriate clinician within their GP practice within seven days. The NHS constitution currently confers rights on patients when they are considered really important. There are, for example, rights within the NHS constitution around receiving cancer diagnoses and treatment. We felt that there was a gap on access to GPs. Given the Government’s stated aim of transferring more care into the community, which we fully support, and given the observation in the Darzi report that more and more money is being spent on secondary rather than primary care, we think it is really important to confer the right on patients to be able to access primary care when they need to. As the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham pointed out, this measure would require a large number of additional GPs and would therefore not be achievable overnight, but over the course of a Parliament. The Liberal Democrat plan includes recruiting and retaining an extra 8,000 GPs, relieving pressure on the rest of the health service and enabling that shift into the community. When patients—

• 25 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. In general, the Liberal Democrats support clauses 12 and 13. We think that local decision making and community empowerment in the NHS, including on commissioning decisions, is the right thing to be doing. However, I echo some of the concerns of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, particularly on specialist commissioning. I declare an interest as vice-chair of the spinal cord injury all-party parliamentary group. We are concerned that expertise in low-volume, very specialist concerns will be lost if the commissioning is pushed out to multiple ICBs. My understanding is that specialist commissioning sat with NHS England in the first place because of concern that multiple commissioning groups would struggle to deal with low-volume, complex issues. The president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists warned earlier this month that the new commissioning structure lacks mental health experts, with only one senior mental health lead across the seven new regional commissioning hubs taking specialised services from NHS England. Equally, the chief executive of the Derby and Derbyshire, Lincolnshire, and Nottingham and Nottinghamshire ICB cluster has said that it does not look like there will be a requirement for senior mental health expertise in reorganising ICBs. Will the Minister reassure us that when the Department designs which specialist services will be pushed back down to ICBs and which will be retained centrally, it will be minded to listen to representations from experts in the sector? There are excellent services located geographically by accident—for example, the orthopaedic hospital in my constituency and the veterans service that goes with it. Both are highly valued, but they need specialist commissioning at national level to be utilised properly and to provide the best outcomes for patients. I would be grateful for the Minister’s reassurance on those points.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I have thought about where that responsibility lies. It clearly lies with the triaging process within the GP surgery. I do not think any of us envisage somebody phoning up about a child with a cold and saying, “I consider this to be urgent,” and getting an appointment within 24 hours, but I would imagine somebody from the surgery saying, “Please describe the symptoms to me,” and then, if they detected something more serious, saying, “That is urgent and you do need to come in within 24 hours.” The point of new clause 2 is to clarify in the NHS constitution that some services require parity with others. We have already established legal rights under the NHS constitution for certain types of treatment, and this puts GP access on the same level. We think that that is important. I am conscious of time, so I will move on to new clause 52, which is about dental deserts. Everyone is horrified by dental deserts and by “DIY dentistry”, a phrase that means—let us face it—people using pliers to extract their teeth and super glue to reattach crowns, and cavities filled with household adhesives. More than 5 million children did not see a dentist at all in 2025. That is a stark failure. Dental care is as important as care for other parts of the body, in particular when most of what goes wrong in dentistry is preventable. We should absolutely focus on prevention, and that is in line with the Government’s aims to move from sickness to prevention. New clause 52 is about our £750 million dental rescue plan to guarantee access to an NHS dentist for anyone needing an urgent or emergency appointment, which I hope would end that awful DIY dentistry. The plan needs to be achieved through bringing dentists back from the private sector, fixing the contract, using flexible commissioning wherever necessary and introducing an emergency scheme. For example, the emergency dental scheme in Shropshire, operated by the community dental practice, enables people who have urgent need and cannot register with an NHS dentist to get the care that they need when they need it. I urge the Minister to take our new clauses on board and to ensure that people get the care they need when they need it.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I mentioned in Committee last Thursday that the Liberal Democrats are worried about the risk in the Bill of political capture and the Secretary of State’s ability to meddle in day-to-day operations. As I am sure the Minister is aware, speaking at the NHS ConfedExpo this month, Sir Jim Mackey, the chief executive officer of NHS England, warned that the Bill may give Ministers too much control and that there has to be operational freedom; otherwise we will grind to a halt. I want to probe the process by which we got to this point. Originally, there was discussion about whether the seven NHS regional teams should become independent arm’s length bodies to mitigate such a risk. NHS leaders argued that this would mitigate the risk of direct political control of the service and pointed out that the 10 regional strategic health authorities had played a useful role in running the service efficiently before the creation of NHSE. That proposal was rejected by Ministers, and it is not entirely clear why. I am interested to hear the Minister’s view on that. It is now being reported that a fresh attempt is being made to argue that regional teams should be hosted by an NHS organisation—probably an ICB—to protect their employment terms and, as staff would remain public rather than civil servants, provide some brake on political control. Can the Minister shed any light on all this? Does she recognise the importance of maintaining operational freedom in NHS decision making? We have discussed the reality that current Parliaments cannot bind future ones, and I take that point on board. However, current Parliaments do set precedents and establish the legal frameworks within which future Governments initially operate until they change the law. With the potential for more extreme Governments, there is a risk of discrimination and political considerations entering what should be clinical decision making—for example, decisions on whether to place a trust into special measures or what services are offered, such as sexual health, IVF, outreach to migrant communities and so on. We are concerned not about the current Secretary of State, or indeed the shadow Secretary of State, but about the risk of those sweeping powers being placed in the hands of an extreme Government. If we imagine for a moment that an incoming Government decided that they did not approve of diversity on an NHS board, for example, and replaced an executive with their own candidate, that would be a horrifying situation. I think we would all agree on that. It would be useful to include safeguards now and set a precedent that such action would not be acceptable under this Bill. Notwithstanding the fact that a future Government could come along and change that, they would have to be transparent about their reasons for doing so. The former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ilford North, claimed that he was taking powers back into DHSC in order to give them away to the system, but this Bill has a lot on taking those powers and very little on giving them to the system. How can we be sure that that will actually happen on the ground, and that ICBs, hospital trusts and other health trusts will have the opportunity to flex their local muscle and ensure that services are best shaped for the local population? The NHS Alliance has called for an operationally independent regulatory function in DHSC to oversee NHS organisations, or for an independent panel to make appointments. Will the Minister consider such practical changes to ensure that political capture is not an unintended consequence of the Bill?

• 16 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Jacob, how prepared are ICBs and local authorities to take on the healthwatch functions? Is there a concern that splitting the local healthwatch function will lead to a lack of joined-up focus on health and on the social care element that resides with local authorities? Jacob Lant: I will pick up the second part of the question first. The majority of the worst experiences of care—the worst incidents, where people feel most lost—tend to be in the gaps between services. Hospital discharge is a really good example of where the transfer between the NHS and social care services does not always work in the best interests of patients. That sort of insight will be lost entirely under the current structure, unless we build in a requirement for ICBs and local authorities to share the intelligence that they are hearing and to work collaboratively to understand patient and care user experience. That then raises the question, “Why are we splitting them?” If they have to work closely together to comment on the worst experiences of care, I do not understand the rationale for splitting them. In terms of preparedness, I said earlier that ICBs will not have any additional resource for doing this. They have their own engagement teams at the moment, but even those that have been doing this very well have been leaning on their healthwatch for many years to help them engage with seldom-heard communities and build additional capacity. I worry about the capacity of ICBs to deliver once that is cut, particularly given the headcount and budget reductions in ICBs generally. Local authorities are probably more experienced in doing direct community engagement and more confident about their ability to pick up the responsibilities. Indeed, I suspect that many of them will continue to commission some sort of external support to help them do this, but their budgets will be restricted. They will get only half the money for healthwatch, so that will be a concern.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I should have declared that I am a member of the patient safety APPG. Let me turn to similar concerns about Healthwatch and its independence. If it is absorbed within ICBs locally or within the Department of Health at a national level, do you have concerns that those organisations will essentially be marking their own homework rather than listening to impartially collected evidence about patient experience? Dr Dash : I will talk first about providers and then about the commissioners, the payers, the ICBs. We absolutely should expect all providers—GP practices, community trusts, hospital trusts—to see patient experience as a crucial part of their role and not to outsource it to someone else; it has to be a crucial part of what they do. They need to get way better at collecting patient experience, they need to understand it from different groups, wards and medical teams, and they need to be playing that back. Ideally, that should be part of everyone’s appraisals: “Here’s the sort of feedback that we’ve had. Here’s what we’ve heard. Here’s how we’re acting on that.” We need to put that in the places where healthcare is delivered, and that is in those provider organisations. The ICBs have a different role, which is to commission healthcare services in order to improve health and ensure high-quality care, and it is their responsibility to speak to communities. They all have considerable teams of people who are doing that—speaking to different members of society and conducting usually frequent events to get input and hear what people are looking for from their health and care services. When they are looking to design particular services, whether mental health services or children’s services, they go much deeper into that and speak to specific groups, often involving the providers as well. Those mechanisms are already embedded within ICBs, but we need to continue to ensure that they do those as well as they can. When I was speaking to people, I found some fantastic examples of different healthwatch organisations across the country, but that is not at all consistent and they are often too far removed from what is actually happening in terms of day-to-day services to have a significant impact on improving patient experience.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q If I may ask a related question, one element of the Bill is the reorganisation of who sits on the ICB. We have seen the removal of local authority representatives and their replacement by a mayor or his or her appointee. What concern does that cause to your members—or do they think that is the right way to go? Jon Restell: A lot of the concern is to do with the political make-up of mayoralties in the future and what that might mean; if mayors have an ever-growing responsibility and say in the who, what and where of health services, that is probably different from the more representative, advisory function that they have had. That really needs to be thrashed out: is that the new democratic accountability for health services, or does it remain, as now, with the Secretary of State, accountable to Parliament, making provision for healthcare? It feels a little unclear how much decision-making power those new local government voices will have on ICBs. Have people raised that as a concern? Of course they have; it is uncharted.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I am a vice-president of the LGA, and I am also on the all-party parliamentary patient safety group, just to declare that interest up front. I will use the example of my own local authority, Shropshire, which is a unitary authority. It is extremely financially challenged and operates with an ICB in a similar situation. The hand-off that Sally described between continuing healthcare and provision of social care is really problematic because neither organisation really wants to pay for the care for the people who need it because they do not have the funds. It is a really tense relationship between the two. I am really concerned that that will become even more problematic because they cannot work together, given that we are not a combined mayoral authority, that we will not have a mayor sitting on our ICB and that our ICB merged footprint does not fit with our local authority geography. How can the health and wellbeing boards work between the two organisations to deliver good social care?

• 16 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on patient safety and I am also a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Can I ask about Healthwatch? We heard this morning that ICBs will be taking on a chunk of the current operations of local healthwatches, but that they will not have any additional budget to enable them to do that. In fact, we know that their budgets have been significantly reduced. Could you elaborate on how you think that will work, and will it be as effective as the current system? Sir Ciarán Devane: The ICBs have a capitation fee of £19.40, which they have to do everything out of. This is an additional duty placed on them. They will have to work out how to do it if there is no extra money coming, but it will be pressured. I hear the argument that local healthwatches were variable. This function has been slightly outside and independent, playing back into decisions; we have to ensure that the level of independence remains somehow in how this is constructed, but that the variability is not just transferred from local healthwatches to how it is done within or across ICBs. Again, the implementation will need to be done well. That leads into the question about local authorities and the connection with them, making sure the democratic voice is brought in and equally the local voice. The legislation does not stop an ICB doing this well. Therefore, without the legislation, part of what we can be doing collectively is trying to make sure that what was good about healthwatches is preserved and is understood by ICBs. There are only 25 of them, so it should be a manageable task for the rest of us. The effectiveness comes back to whether you believe this is a good thing. One of the things we have to do is secure that the benefits of having the patient voice in there, along with the clinical voice and the voice of the manager, at the same time, so that it is not a case of saying, “Oh, now we’ll go and consult the patients on the font size of the report,” but is authentic. That puts a lot of work on to the ICBs and on to those of us who believe passionately in engaging with the patient voice, but there is a risk because of that pressure. Done well, it will enable strategic commissioning and ensure the quality remains, but they are starting, if maybe not from scratch, from a new place.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q My second question is similar. In reality and in practice, how do you envisage ICBs will be locally accountable once these legislative changes have taken place? Sir Ciarán Devane: According to the ICBs we are talking to, which is all of them, they are saying that they believe in local authority engagement. We will be saying, “You may not be told you have to, but we would encourage you to do it.” I am sure that should be coming from the Department as well. The witness to my right is an example of that; we know that when the NHS has really good local connections, you can get things done in the interests of your patients much more easily. The belief is there, but we need to make sure that the legislation is not seen as a signal that this is unimportant. That is a risk. As a representative organisation, we have to say to people, “We hear you saying that you really believe in this. Therefore, you need to demonstrate, not least to the Secretary of State, that you are following it through.” I have a small additional point about mayors in unitary authorities being able to appoint somebody who is both the chair of the ICB and the local health commissioner. That should help. Those individuals will have to work out how to serve two masters, but that is okay—other people learn how to do that, too. James Blythe: I would focus on a slightly different part of the Bill in terms of how this needs to work. There are 25 ICBs; that is quite a large footprint. From my experience of delivering meaningful collaboration and joint working between health and local government, I think it tends to happen at a more local level than that. The neighbourhood health plan in the Bill becomes extremely important. As a system, we should be very ambitious for those neighbourhood health plans. They should go a lot further than just describing what should happen in terms of improving health outcomes at a local level. We should set an aspiration as a system that there should be a responsibility on health bodies and local government bodies to describe how changes will be made. The role of ICBs is to enable groups of providers and other organisations in local areas—most ICBs will have several places—to come together and not just work out what a local population needs, but actually do it. That will mainly be about relationships on the ground between an acute hospital team, a community services team, a mental health team and a social work team. The role of ICBs is very much to give the contractual tools and mechanisms to local NHS organisations to work effectively with their local authorities so that there are really good neighbourhood health plans. Most importantly, they should not just write them but actually see them through.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q My other question is about digital exclusion. This is particularly for Dr Imam, because we associate older people with being digitally excluded, although I know it is not exclusively older people who are digitally excluded: how would you envisage the digital record interacting with something more analogue for people who cannot use the NHS app for whatever reason? Dr Imam: That is a really important question; it is something that needs to be thought about very carefully when it comes to the implementation. From my previous NHS England experience, where we have had digital innovations implemented in the older age group, or among those who are perhaps traditionally digitally excluded, that has included partnerships to enable people to have the option of someone coming around, and there has been a thought process regarding people who perhaps cannot engage with technology as easily. That could involve people from the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector—for example, we had Age UK in the previous panel. There are lots of good examples of that type of work to ensure that people are not disadvantaged. Dr Byrne: There is an opportunity here in the context of digital exclusion. In a digital-first NHS, it is really helpful to think continually about what the analogue version of the system is in the event of further cyber incidents and outages of the system. We need to continually build and maintain a resilient system for the times when digital-first is not available. It is an important opportunity to do so if we think about that question of exclusion.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I will put words in your mouth, and you can disagree with me. Do you think the Bill should tackle the point about having a properly funded care service so that the transition from hospital to the community can actually take place? As you have just said, if people are not cared for properly, they end up back in hospital, and everyone here agrees that is what we are trying to avoid. Sir Andrew Dilnot: Yes, it is very odd. It is worth doing the odd thought experiment: imagine that the bit of healthcare that was underfunded and available only subject to a means test, and not free, was for heart disease. We cannot imagine it. The fact that it is dementia and severe arthritis means we have drawn an arbitrary line, and while that line still exists and there is still inadequate funding, even in a means-tested system, we are hamstringing the NHS. Now, that is not the most important problem, which is that we are failing to give people flourishing lives and allow them to live to the full, but it is now so bad that it is actually making it hard for the NHS to work.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q You just used the phrase, “instrumental damage to the NHS”. Can you elaborate a bit on that, and perhaps explain how the NHS might be able to function better if there were a mechanism within the Bill to sort out social care? Sir Andrew Dilnot: I think there are two main ways. The first, and perhaps the one that has received most attention, is that there are people who have been hospitalised, perhaps following a fall or infection, who have some mobility challenges and need some care, but who cannot leave hospital because a social care package is not available for them in the community. That is extremely damaging for the NHS, because if we have somebody in a bed that they do not need to be in because they have nowhere else to go, not only are we spending money having them there but we are then not able to use the bed for other activities. If you have somebody with a delayed transfer of care that means they are stuck in hospital, when they do not need to be, for 20 days, which is not uncommon, very large numbers of elective procedures cannot take place because that bed is being used. That is a dead-weight loss from the system. There is another thing that I think is at least as important, which is that, because of the lack of good social care, we have people falling, injuring themselves and needing to be hospitalised. We have people sustaining more urinary tract infections than they perhaps would if they had good social care. That is adding an additional burden, which the NHS deals with as well as it can, but all of this just seems unnecessary. Social care appears to be so invisible to us all. It is easy to blame politicians, and of course it is politicians like you who ultimately have to vote for these things, but the electorate—the whole of our society—have to look at ourselves and ask, “Why can’t we make this challenge, which is so significant, better?” Any of you who have experienced it in your own family know how brutal and difficult it can be. If I can be allowed one more general point, we should reflect that this is the result of the great triumph of the last 150 years. At the beginning of the last century, across the world, average life expectancy at birth was 32, and now it is 73. In this country, average life expectancy at birth in 1900 was 46, and now it is 81. We have added 35 years to the expectation of life from birth, which is an astonishing transformation. Some consequences come with that, one of which is that there is much more social care to be done, but we should be celebrating this, delighting in it and doing it well, instead of hiding it away and ignoring it for so long that it is doing real damage to the NHS, let alone to the lives of people who need social care.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. With changes to the better care fund pooling and the link-up with local authorities, are there concerns at ICB level that the partnership with social care will start to become more difficult? Jon Restell: I cannot comment specifically on the BCF, but a general theme coming out of what our members are telling us in surveys, and in the regular surgeries and meetings that we have with them, is the sense that policy at the moment is trying to get you thinking in terms of your own organisation again, and thinking less about system-wide transformation, innovation or co-ordination. ICBs are getting bigger and providers are getting bigger. It is some of the system stuff, where I think a lot of our members would say the innovation will come in the way different organisations try to solve problems around patients and populations, that they feel is at risk, by the way—not just from the Bill putting things together, but from the stripping out of resource to do anything different.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Do you think that the health and wellbeing boards, as envisaged by the Bill, will be the right structure to deliver those relationships, and how do you ensure that they have the right skills? Councillor Wright: I chair a health and wellbeing board, and everyone comes to those; there are really good conversations and really good reviews of what is happening. I think they are in a really good position. What I worry about is how much influence they will have over NHS wider strategy. I was at a King’s Fund day, and someone said something that I thought was so true: the Health Bill and the NHS 10-year plan is the NHS 10-year plan. The NHS will be judged on how it achieves what it is meant to achieve. Although, as local authorities, we want to help with prevention and those wider determinants of health, ultimately the responsibility sits with the NHS. It is about trying to work out how we have better conversations with the NHS, to say, “We have done neighbourhood health for years; this is what we do as local authorities. We look at all these things and we use public health and our adult social care system to create healthy environments. We need you to be on board with us.” I therefore think there is something about the power dynamics regarding health and wellbeing boards and how we address them. But overall, I feel that they are the best way of ensuring community health. The other thing is about geographies. Health and wellbeing boards might not match neighbourhood health geographies, so there are also some challenges in working out how that will work.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I agree with his point. ICBs are already overstretched and underfunded. In North Shropshire, both Shawbury medical practice and Prescott surgery in Baschurch are in desperate need of expansion. Community infrastructure levy money is available and land is earmarked for a new site, but progress is being held up by the ICB’s inability to agree notional rent. That situation is replicated across the country, and there is no sign of such problems being solved by the Government’s changes. The plan to abolish Healthwatch will ultimately strip patients of their voice. There has been a statutory independent patient voice in the health and care system for more than 50 years. More than half of patients who experienced poor care in 2024 did not take any action, with many citing fears that giving negative feedback directly to the NHS might affect their ongoing treatment. That is why it is crucial that we have an independent patient voice, rather than leaving the Department or the ICB to mark its own homework. We need only look at the devastating consequences of the failings uncovered during the Mid Staffordshire scandal, and the long list of maternity failings since, to see how important it is to have Healthwatch exposing challenges in the health service and listening to patient feedback, and how the CQC can fail in that operation. In Shropshire more than 200 babies are thought to have died due to maternity failures; in the reviews that followed, the one thing that came up time and again was that grieving parents were not listened to. Patients and their families must have a voice. The new system will give no incentive to investigate such issues, which are invisible in the main performance metrics of the NHS. To see the value of Healthwatch, we need only look at the Cabinet Office King’s Speech briefing for the Bill, which refers to a Healthwatch report from May 2025 on missing medical records in order to make the case for the single patient record. I urge the Government to protect both national Healthwatch and local healthwatch organisations, and the independent whistleblowing routes that empower and advocate for patients. The Liberal Democrats welcome the move to create a single patient record; that part of the Bill could prove to be the most transformational for patient experience and, most importantly, for patient outcomes. People are tired of endless NHS admin and of having to reconfirm their medical histories over and over to different medical professionals. Patient harm has often occurred where clinicians have not had a patient’s full medical history, and different parts of the NHS having access to the same patient information is clearly necessary. However, that must come alongside essential new privacy protections and safeguards for patients, particularly given the understandable concerns surrounding Palantir’s involvement with the federated data platform. We would introduce a health charter to set out guiding principles for data sharing across the NHS, ensuring that patients are in charge of their own data. The Bill’s references to carers are welcome, as is the Secretary of State’s duty to promote the involvement of carers alongside patients in decision-making around care and commissioning. However, the Bill goes nowhere near tackling the social care crisis and demonstrates a pitiful lack of ambition on one of the biggest challenges we face. As I mentioned, the chaos caused by the restructuring of ICBs will only worsen the challenges that local authorities face in providing care for an increasingly ageing population. We want to transform the NHS so that patients are empowered to live more healthily, for longer and in dignity. The nation’s health is stagnating, with an ever-widening gap in healthy life expectancy between the country’s most and least deprived areas and growing pressure on adult social care. Fixing social care is fundamental to our vision for the NHS. It is the key to providing a better quality of life for the frail and vulnerable, freeing up hospitals and building independence for an ageing population. It also empowers our constituents to live as independently as possible in their homes and near to their families and communities. We cannot fix the NHS and move care to the community while ignoring social care—yet the Bill ignores it and, as I have outlined, the changes to ICB commissioning will undermine the structures that are supposed to integrate social care with the NHS. Liberal Democrat plans will give people control, rooting services in communities, listening to patients and making it much easier to see a GP. We will give patients a right to see a GP within seven days, reverse surgery closures and ensure proper personalised management of chronic conditions and frailty, with guaranteed access to a named GP for those patients. We will also protect the mental health investment standard so that we can rebuild community mental health services—something that this Government have failed to do— empowering individuals with poor mental health by intervening early and allowing them to access care in their community. Our maternity rescue plan will ensure that Britain is the safest country in the world in which to have a baby, offering one-to-one midwifery care and empowering women at this most important moment. This Health Bill could have been a moment for real change. Liberal Democrats are clear about what real modernisation of the NHS would look like. Our vision for a reformed, community-based NHS is one where proper care and restored investment in public health ultimately cut NHS waste and empower people to live healthier and more independent lives. This Bill focuses on shuffling responsibility around Whitehall and gives the Secretary of State the role of chief micromanager. The Government continue to procrastinate over bringing in real change to fix social care, empower patients and save our NHS. In Committee and on Report, Liberal Democrats will use every lever at our disposal to deliver the transformation the NHS so desperately needs.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I start by declaring an interest as a member of the all-party group on patient safety and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, and also by welcoming the new Secretary of State to his place. I very much look forward to working constructively with him during the passage of the Bill. We all know that our NHS is in desperate need of transformation. Hospitals are in chaos, social care is overloaded and getting a GP appointment is a huge challenge for many. Labour has promised to put patients and communities at the heart of the NHS, but I fear that the Bill does not fulfil that promise. The Government promised to sort out social care, but two years later they are still only part-way through a three-year review. They promised to treat mental health with parity, but although mental health accounts for 20% of the disease burden, its share of NHS budgets is falling to just 8.4%. The Government promised to protect women’s health, but the women’s health strategy published this year was significantly weaker than the men’s health strategy, which received 60% more funding for new research. Healthy life expectancy in the UK is stagnating, and adult social care is under ever more pressure, putting immense stress on the budgets of councils and other local authorities. The reality in rural North Shropshire is that people struggle to get GP appointments, 12-hour waits in A&E have become normal and finding an NHS dentist is becoming impossible. The social care crisis has left Shropshire council’s finances in a dire situation. A real NHS reform Bill would have changes to social care, general practice and prevention at its heart. Instead, this Bill passes responsibilities around Whitehall, centralising more power with the Secretary of State, while chaos reigns following 50% cuts to ICB budgets. Early in his term, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) promised that another top-down reorganisation of the NHS was the last thing he wanted to do. Yet the abolition of NHS England is exactly that—focusing on reorganisation at the top, while failing to deliver real improvements for patients and staff. It is true that NHS England has allowed Ministers to shirk responsibility and accountability, but its abolition has been poorly planned, leaving both ICBs and specialised commissioning in chaos. Instead of the Government’s advertised aim of creating a more community-based NHS, the Bill centralises power in Whitehall, giving sweeping Henry VIII-style powers to the Secretary of State. Such powers carry a real risk that political considerations could influence what should be operational decisions about how the NHS provides for patients in future. That is particularly concerning in the current febrile political climate, and the Government must ensure that protections are in place for what may happen in the future. The Government have made 50% cuts to ICBs, but the Bill gives them new legal responsibilities, different structures and centrally directed spending objectives. It is indicative of a lack of planning that could plunge ICBs into chaos. Meanwhile, the removal of the integrated care partnership and the extension of ICBs to cover multiple local authorities raises unanswered questions about the future of social care planning. In Shropshire, the council already spends around 80% of its budget on social care provision. That has a monumental impact on all services, as constant savings have to be found. Removing the pooling of the better care fund among local authorities and ICBs will discourage integrated working between these bodies on social care. Given existing complications over the sharing of costs and social care provision, the chaos of that reorganisation may only exacerbate confusion. It is also astounding that the Bill plans to remove the duty of GP representation on ICBs, along with local authorities and NHS trusts. The replacement of council representation with mayors is extremely problematic for the many areas that do not have a mayor, and it removes the local accountability needed to ensure true community representation. Like so much Labour policy, such changes risk benefiting concentrated urban areas, while letting down rural communities such as those I represent.

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I wonder whether it has occurred to the hon. Gentleman that the Liberal Democrats’ whole point is that local government should be able to decide on its own policies, because they will be appropriate in some cases and not in others.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Wherever I go in North Shropshire, constituents tell me that access to a GP only gets worse when new homes are built, and they are right. Across the country, there are billions of pounds in unspent community infrastructure levies for new surgeries, and the average number of families that a GP serves has gone up by 917 since 2015. Will the Minister support Liberal Democrat calls for CIL to be used to support the early running costs of new GP practices, or to expand existing ones, as soon as people move into new housing, so that GP access really does come first when housing developments happen?