Helen Morgan MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 70, in clause 47, page 34, line 38, at end insert— “(6A) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a risk assessment on the potential for digital exclusion under the establishment of a single patient record. (6B) In preparing a risk assessment under subsection (6A) the Secretary of State must consult all stakeholders the Secretary of State considers relevant, including patient representation groups. (6C) In preparing a risk assessment under subsection (6A) the Secretary of State must have particular regard for— (a) those without access to a suitable electronic device, (b) those without access to suitable broadband connectivity, (c) those with physical and/or mental disabilities, (d) those belonging to groups considered socially excluded, and (e) those considered lacking digital skills. (6D) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the risk assessment under subsection (6A) before both Houses of Parliament.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a risk assessment on the potential for digital exclusion under the establishment of a single patient record.

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

  More

  Amendment 70, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell, would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a risk assessment on the potential for digital exclusion under the establishment of a single patient record. I declare an interest as the current chair of the all-party parliamentary group on digital communities. I hope that we Liberal Democrats have been clear that overall, we are supportive of the single patient record; it is important that every patient can access their own health records. Under the SPR, however there is a risk that people belonging to already vulnerable groups will be digitally excluded from accessing their health information. Research commissioned by Ofcom suggests that 2.8 million people—5% of the UK population—do not have access to the internet at all. Although age is a predictor for a person not having access to the internet at home, especially if they are over 85, more than half of such people are younger than 75. Amendment 70 would ensure that the Secretary of State assesses the potential for digital exclusion with relevant stakeholders, including patient groups, and that the assessment is laid before Parliament. It would also ensure that the Secretary of State takes into consideration the risk of exclusion for those lacking access to a suitable electronic device or suitable broadband connectivity, including people who have disabilities, who belong to socially excluded groups or who lack digital skills.

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

  More

  As I mentioned in my previous remarks, one imagines that a Secretary of State would set out criteria to ensure that the best people for the job are appointed. We are in a situation where a current Parliament cannot bind a future one, but we do need to set a precedent that political capture of these important leadership roles is not an unintentional consequence of this legislation. I accept that it is unintentional; I think the Secretary of State and the Minister have drafted this legislation with the best of intentions, but this is something we should guard against.

• 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

  We do not consider the right to achieve a cancer diagnosis and treatment to be burdensome on the secondary care providers of those treatments; we consider that important enough to enshrine that right within the NHS constitution, and this would be a similar level of right. I would not imagine that a GP would be worrying about somebody taking them to court, but it would confer upon the Secretary of State the duty to ensure that primary care is adequately resourced in order to be able to meet that commitment.

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

  More

  Let me clarify. The new clause is about conferring a duty on the Secretary of State to provide that level of care. It would require a significant number of additional GPs, and that would cost a lot of money. The Liberal Democrats’ 2024 manifesto had a fully costed pledge to recruit and retain an additional 8,000 GPs within the course of a Parliament. I think we can all agree that the world has moved on since then, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that this week we proposed a significantly closer relationship with the European Union, which would grow our economy, increase our tax base and pay for a number of these things without having to subject people to additional, onerous tax hikes.

• 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.

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

  More

  Well, I will just move on a little bit. The important question is: can this be achieved this overnight? Clearly not; we need additional clinicians in the service. The Liberal Democrat view is that the extra—I think 1,000 or 1,500—GPs that the Government have recruited so far is a welcome step forward, but that does not go far enough over the course of a Parliament. As I was saying earlier, when patients cannot access their GP surgery, they end up, more often than not, in accident and emergency departments. That is no good for anybody. It overburdens the A&E department, leaves people who genuinely need urgent care getting a substandard level of care, and costs the NHS far more. We think it is really important that we put the resource in the right place.

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

  More

  Before the general election, I was the Liberal Democrat housing spokesperson, and one thing that came up regularly was how important housing is, and not just for obvious physical conditions—mouldy houses can cause breathing issues. Temporary accommodation is devastating for the long-term health outcomes of the people who are placed in it. Does the Minister agree that working with MHCLG to improve housing—particularly social housing—is critical to achieving the Government’s objective?

• 22 Jun 2026 · Pathways Study: Puberty Suppression · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. The Liberal Democrats have long highlighted the need for better access to specialist healthcare for children and young people struggling with gender identity. The closure of the Tavistock clinic and its inadequate rating by the Care Quality Commission demonstrated that urgent change was needed. Young people struggling with gender identity face serious challenges. They have been badly let down for years by low care standards and extremely long waiting lists. On top of that, they have to contend with a toxic public debate, which comes at a huge cost to their wellbeing at a particularly vulnerable stage in their life. The average three-year wait for a young person to see a specialist can be extremely harmful at such a vulnerable age. We agree that treatment should first be based on talking therapies, so that patients are given the space and support that they need, but it is crucial that young people can start those therapies as a matter of urgency, not after years of delay. Decisions about these young patients’ futures should be made in an informed way, with expert clinicians and based on the best possible evidence, which the NHS must build up safely and effectively. We support prioritising clinical evidence, so that patients’ interests are put at the heart of decision making in all areas of healthcare. Guidance and decisions around puberty blockers must be led by experts and clinical evidence, and not influenced by ideological opinion. That is why we supported the decision of the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), to pause the Pathways clinical trial while concerns raised by the MHRA were thoroughly addressed. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the MHRA has confirmed that the concerns that led to the withdrawal of the trial have been substantially addressed, and how many children are expected to take part in the trial now that its parameters have been altered?

• 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.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Maternity Commissioner · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention—he was quick off the mark. Yes, I agree that it will be useful to have a maternity commissioner to share those experiences and ensure that people learn from them. The campaigners, Theo and Louise, have shared their heartbreaking experiences. I commend their work in securing this important debate. Liberal Democrats wish to be their allies. As a previous co-chair of the APPG on baby loss, I am all too familiar with the acute need for better standards of care for mothers across the country. I was also a member of the APPG on birth trauma when it was headed so ably by Theo Clarke, when the need for a maternity commissioner was first discussed and recommended. I am delighted to see the traction that this proposal has had thanks to the campaigning of Theo, Louise and many others. Last month, the Lib Dems launched our maternity rescue package, which would guarantee high-quality care wherever people live and would make Britain the safest country in the world to have a baby.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Maternity Commissioner · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a good point. Patient voice—listening to women, understanding their wishes and understanding the risks that their wishes might represent and how to manage them best—is such a critical part of safe maternity care. In drawing up our rescue package, I have drawn from my experience on the all-party groups on birth trauma, on maternity and on baby loss. There is so much common ground with the cause of the petitioners. We hope that they are buoyed by the fact that someone in Westminster is listening. With our package, a national maternity commissioner would oversee improved standards of care nationally, while a director of midwifery would be appointed in every maternity unit, alongside an extra 300 consultant midwives, to drive clinical excellence in each unit. Our plans would invest £600 million to tackle these vital staffing requirements, but the NHS could save billions of pounds on maternal clinical negligence claims, which cost more than £1.3 billion in 2024 alone. Those huge clinical negligence costs have consistently been reflected in the findings of local and national reviews, but most importantly, the package would save babies’ lives and spare families the trauma of injury or worse happening to mum and baby at what should be the most joyous time of their life. Liberal Democrats welcome the recent interim review by Baroness Amos. The findings of the review were devastating, showing that too many mothers are not receiving the level of care that they need, with devastating consequences for women, babies and their families. But this is the latest in a string of national and local reviews and inquiries, which have produced more than 700 recommendations. Those reviews, with their myriad but similar recommendations, illustrate why we need a maternity commissioner—someone who can bring together the learnings from past failings, along with the best practice from around the country, and oversee a step change in training and culture that will enable all the health professionals in maternity to work as effective teams and give women the personalised and high-quality care that is needed. People across the country were truly shocked by the findings of Donna Ockenden’s review of the Shrewsbury and Telford hospital trust, which serves my constituents. The review found that the deaths of more than 200 babies could have been prevented. Over the years, I have heard—sometimes as a friend, sometimes as an MP—from traumatised and grieving parents, each with their own experience of birth trauma, injury to their baby or worse. They have told me how important it is to them that the reports and inquiries spark the vital change that is needed, and do not lead only to warm words from politicians followed by decades of gathering dust on the shelves of the Department of Health. Since the Ockenden review, the Shrewsbury and Telford hospital trust has accepted and taken steps to implement almost all the immediate and essential actions that Donna Ockenden recommended. While that process has not been perfect, it has clearly been conducted with appropriate focus. The latest CQC rating for maternity at SATH is good, showing that with the right recommendations and leadership, positive change can happen. The team at SATH should be commended for that achievement. They demonstrate the value of focusing on the steps needed to get care right. As we found out subsequently, however, unsafe maternity care was not unique to Shropshire, or indeed to Morecambe, East Kent or any of the other places about which we have heard such awful stories. We know that women all over the country are still not receiving the care they need. None of the services that the Care Quality Commission inspected in its national review was rated outstanding. Some 65% of maternity units were unsafe for women to give birth in. It is a scandal that mothers in this country have to settle for potentially dangerous levels of care at what should be one of the happiest moments in their life. The introduction of a maternity commissioner is not a quick fix, but a commissioner would provide the leadership required for serious change to the way women and staff on maternity wards are listened to. That commissioner could look at disparities in maternity care and the poorer outcomes that we see for black and Asian women and those in deprived communities, and drive the change needed to make having a baby safe, no matter what your background is. Other improvements are needed, too. Our proposals are to guarantee specialist doctors on every maternity unit 24/7, and one-to-one midwifery care for every woman during labour to respond to the desperate need for safe staffing highlighted in each of the reviews and in the inquiries by the all-party groups that deal with maternity care. Previous research found that 73% of maternity units in England do not have a consultant present at night, despite most births taking place outside working hours. Many negligence claims for poor maternity care are linked to failings in care outside regular working hours. The proposals come alongside a new capital investment programme to fix crumbling maternity units in need of urgent repair and to deliver new dedicated bereavement suites. We would start with the 7% of maternity units that are at risk of imminent breakdown, and would restore the 42% of units in need of major repairs. These crucial steps come alongside many other proposals to improve staff training, to invest in bereavement support, neonatal specialists and pre-conception services and to eliminate maternal health disparities. It is really, really, really important to say that the vast majority of babies are delivered safely, even when things do not go to plan. But we should not dismiss those instances where they go wrong, and we should be tireless about making the improvements required. I congratulate the campaigners on the success of the petition so far. I continue to urge the Government to demonstrate that recommendations will be turned into actions, and that the cries for help from countless mothers and families will be listened to.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Resident Doctors: Industrial Action · Hansard source

  More

  People across the country will be extremely concerned about the prospect of further strikes, having faced so much disruption already in recent years. It is important to recognise that the strike is a symptom of an NHS still coming to terms with the damage caused by the previous Conservative Government. Doctors are burnt out from working in high-pressure environments under poor conditions—often trying to save lives on corridors with no space or privacy. However, we all know how difficult public finances are, and that is now being compounded by Donald Trump’s reckless war in the middle east. Therefore, a further 26% pay rise is not affordable or realistic at the moment, and it is time the BMA recognised that. There is much more the Government could be doing to support both staff and patients. The BMA has a mandate to strike until August, yet patients struggle to get GP appointments and suffer months of pain while stuck on waiting lists. How will the Secretary of State stop the situation dragging on throughout the year and causing yet more harm to patients? We must also show staff and patients that things will get better. Lib Dem plans to recruit and retain more GPs, offer one-to-one midwife care and fix the social care crisis would offer the NHS the hope that is needed by easing pressure on staff and patients. Will the Secretary of State consider fixing crumbling hospitals as a priority, to give staff and patients the working conditions and dignity that they need and deserve? At Shropshire’s major hospitals, it is common to see ambulances queuing up outside, unable to offload their patients, while staff inside are struggling to cope with patients in corridors. Will the Secretary of State commit to ending the misery of corridor care by the end of this Parliament? I welcome his intention to build additional training places, but will he outline a timetable for publication of the workforce plan, because that is critical for the future of our NHS?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Endometriosis Services · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) for securing this debate—the opportunity to raise the importance of this debilitating condition with the Minister today is extremely welcome. I welcome her to her place; I must say that the contributions today have all been excellent, and she has been given a significant to-do list, which I am sure she is equal to. Endometriosis is estimated to affect 10% of women. It is a condition that brings chronic pain and worsening physical health and can pose a threat to fertility. It devastates lives and leaves many women excluded from education and employment. Thanks to the tireless campaigning of groups such as Endometriosis UK, and of the women in the Public Gallery today—whom I welcome—many of us are increasingly aware of the condition. Despite those efforts, however, the average diagnosis time has steadily increased since 2020. As we have heard, it now takes an astounding nine years and four months on average for women just to get a diagnosis. That is unacceptable. That shocking amount of time to get recognition of the condition is indicative of the wider issue of institutional misogyny and the dismissal of women’s pain. On average, endometriosis patients also wait three and a half years from first noticing symptoms before seeking medical help, largely due to the normalisation of severe period pain. Awareness of endometriosis among the public and healthcare professionals is still too low. Some 82% of patients have reported being told by their healthcare practitioners, prior to diagnosis, that they were making a fuss, or that their symptoms were normal. That is a recurring theme in women’s health. When I was involved in the all-party parliamentary group on birth trauma in the previous Parliament, we heard appalling testimony from women who had suffered serious injury giving birth only to be told, when they went to their GP afterwards, “What do you expect? You have just had a baby.” Many of them were in fact seriously injured. That institutionalised acceptance that women should suffer is something we need to address. I hope the Government are going to take that seriously—I am sure they are. The nationwide tales are echoed by cases that I have heard from my own constituents. Lucy first got in touch with me in 2024, having already experienced years of debilitating pain that was dismissed and left undiagnosed. It was eventually confirmed to be endometriosis, but she struggled to get appropriate support on the NHS. She has told me of the grave impact that the pain has had on her quality of life, including missing out on education. Following an exhausting journey of many healthcare appointments, she is still suffering and is instead learning to manage the pain herself—yet, inspiringly, although she still lives with debilitating problems, she has now returned to the university studies that were broken off six years ago due to the pain. I want to mention the different but related condition of polycystic ovary syndrome. Another constituent, Bethany, was left waiting months for an appointment after being diagnosed with polycystic ovary syndrome at 18. Following scores of appointment cancellations and administrative errors, Bethany decided to take action herself, setting up the Cysters Circle, a group that regularly meets around the constituency to support women and girls with conditions such as endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome. I commend the hard work and fortitude of women such as Bethany and Lucy in campaigning for awareness of these conditions and providing the space where women can support each other—but they have to do so because of the barriers and woeful lack of support they experienced from the healthcare system. We must do more to raise awareness of these conditions and transform the quality of women’s healthcare across the country. The failure of endometriosis diagnoses in primary care settings is adding even more pressure to our hospitals and forcing women to suffer for longer than necessary. Women often have to present multiple times to NHS services before getting the help they need. Prior to diagnosis, more than half of women are forced to go to A&E due to their symptoms. As well as investing in tackling NHS waiting times for gynaecological services, we urge the Government to implement public health messaging, awareness campaigns and greater training for primary healthcare professionals. They should work with regulators and professional bodies to strengthen expectations on endometriosis education and awareness. Existing NICE guidelines must be fully implemented to establish clear, standardised referral pathways when women arrive at their GP appointment. The experience of women trying to access endometriosis services reflects how our NHS suffered under the Conservatives, leading to some appalling outcomes in women’s health. Most maternity units are not deemed sufficiently safe; thousands of women have suffered a miscarriage without referral to the appropriate NHS services; waits for breast, ovarian and other genealogical cancers are unacceptably high; and, as we have seen with endometriosis, millions of women continue to suffer in appalling pain as they languish on waiting lists. It is alarming that, in the face of those issues, the Government have discarded the target of having a women’s health hub in every part of the country. That decision undermines the effectiveness of the women’s health strategy. I hope the Minister will recommit to implementing those health hubs. Women’s health services are often too fragmented and difficult to access; removing the requirement for those hubs could lead to closures that would hurt access for women in need of care, and shows the wrong priorities. The Liberal Democrats would give everyone the right to see a GP within seven days, including access to a named GP for patients with long-term conditions to ensure continuity of care. That would ensure that women suffering from long-term gynaecological conditions were listened to and got the support that they need. The normalisation of women’s pain must stop. We must ensure that our health system fully supports those suffering with long-term gynaecological conditions so that women such as Lucy and Bethany, and the women in the Public Gallery today, are not left to battle through pain alone.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for his opening speech, as well as the compassionate and balanced nature with which he introduced the debate. Liberal Democrats have been arguing for many years that improved access to better specialist healthcare services for children and young people struggling with their gender identity is extremely important. These young people have been badly let down by low care standards, extremely long waiting lists and an unacceptably toxic public debate. Up front, I want to be clear that my party’s position is that any treatment and the approval of a trial must always be led by clinical, expert evidence, and not by personal belief, however sincerely that belief is held. For these reasons, we welcomed and continue to welcome the call in the Cass review for a clinical trial. Following the closure of the GIDS clinic, which was rated inadequate by the Care Quality Commission, it is clear that change is needed. Under the previous system, more than 5,000 young people were stuck on a waiting list for a single clinic, each waiting an average of three years for just their first appointment. We have consistently campaigned for real action to tackle the shocking waiting times across the NHS, whether for cancer patients or mental health referrals, and the importance of cutting these wait times is equally pressing for gender identity services. We have been pressing for new services with more specialist clinicians who can provide children and young people with the appropriate and high-quality care that they need. Liberal Democrats welcome the NHS’s move to create new regional centres to offer this healthcare to the young people who need it. However, as far as I am aware, only two have opened so far—one in London and one in the north-west. We would like confirmation of when more centres will open. Young people who are stuck on these waiting lists will still have to wait a very long time. At such a distressing point in their lives, the three-year average wait for someone to see a specialist must feel like an eternity—for them and their family. The Government must show true urgency in opening these services to prevent more children being further denied the care that they need. It is right that treatment should first be based on talking therapies. That gives those receiving treatment and their families the time, space and clarity to make informed decisions about their future. However, young people must be able to start talking therapy when they need it as a matter of urgency, not after languishing for years on waiting lists. Following the Cass review, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announced the launch of an NHS clinical trial to investigate the impact of puberty blockers, alongside an indefinite ban on puberty blockers as treatment for gender dysphoria or gender incongruence. That trial has now been paused. It is crucial that decisions on treatment are made by expert clinicians and based on the best possible evidence, but we need the NHS to build up that evidence base effectively and safely. In that vein, we are supportive of the Secretary of State’s decision to pause the trial while the concerns raised by the MHRA are thoroughly assessed. I am calling on the Government to publish how the MHRA arrived at its decision to pause the trial, so there can be confidence that the decision was led by clinical evidence. As with any medical treatment, it is crucial that decisions are led by expert clinicians following the evidence on safety and effectiveness. Research should also take into account the personal experiences of those who have previously used these services. This debate should not be an ideological one; it is a debate about the quality of healthcare we provide to people who are in desperate need. All trans and non-binary people should be able to access the high-quality healthcare they deserve. The Liberal Democrats call on the Government to make tackling the unacceptable waiting times a priority. To take the urgent action that is needed, the Government must commit to NHS trials and adult services for trans and non-binary people that will expand the timely provision of appropriate specialist healthcare. The Government must ensure trans people can access high-quality healthcare in the manner we expect for all patients. Medical decisions should be made by patients and doctors together and informed by the best possible evidence. The Government must support research through effective and safe methods using international best practice to improve our evidence on the safety and efficacy of potential treatments. One thing is certain: in a debate where the wellbeing of many young people is at risk, decisions should not be led by ideology. We cannot let a toxic public debate threaten the wellbeing of vulnerable individuals. The Government must prioritise clinical evidence and put the interests of patients at the heart of the decision-making process, as we do in all areas of healthcare.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  The scandal surrounding Jeffrey Epstein is reminiscent of other, similar scandals—perhaps not on the same scale, but certainly of a similar magnitude in terms of their impact on the victims. The one that comes to mind is the Jimmy Savile scandal, where people who knew what was going on did not feel able to speak up and break that conspiracy of silence, so victims did not feel able to come forward either. Does my hon. Friend agree that by embracing this opportunity to change the way we do things in Parliament, we can create a culture where people do feel empowered to come forward and break that conspiracy of silence, and where people who have observed things that they knew they should have reported do not feel constrained in their ability to report them, to ensure these terrible scandals do not happen in the future?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  I am one of a handful of Liberal Democrat and Labour MPs who were elected in the wake of a political scandal. In my case, in December 2021, it was a financial scandal followed by a cover-up by the then Conservative Government, who tried to get one of their own off the hook. In the midst of my by-election, there were revelations about partygate. It emerged that the then Prime Minister had concluded that a number of the rules that people in this country were subject to did not apply to him. I can remember very clearly knocking on doors during that by-election. I felt my constituents’ anger about the fact that a small group of elite people had concluded that rules that applied to us did not apply to the people at the top of society. I think they would describe that as entitlement. This debate is important because we must restore the trust of the people who voted for me and others elected in by-elections in the wake of scandals. We need to tell the wider British public that we have learned the lessons from the political scandals, cover-ups and entitlement, and we are taking action to restore their trust in what this House is up to and what the wider establishment is allowed to get away with. It is important to hold the powerful to account. Since then, a number of other scandals have further destroyed trust in politics, including the VIP lane for covid contracts, the treachery of Nathan Gill and the appointment of Peter Mandelson. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was intimately involved with Jeffrey Epstein. We have learned in recent weeks that it is probable that their relationship was deeper and continued for much longer than we first thought. That association with one of the most despicable paedophiles in history, at the heart of the British establishment, is absolutely poisonous. The victims and survivors of Epstein’s crimes must have been retraumatised many times over the years by the complicity of those closely associated with him, who did nothing to bring his crimes to public awareness and hold him to account.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The amendments in my name raise concerns about the Bill’s impact on fairness, transparency and the smooth functioning of the NHS, notwithstanding the Liberal Democrats’ overall support for the Bill. Clause 7(1) would allow Ministers to change who is eligible for prioritisation through the negative procedure, meaning that such changes could be made unilaterally, without meaningful scrutiny. In practice, that hands the Secretary of State the power to redraw the boundaries of opportunity, and to decide who gets prioritised for medical training places, without Parliament ever having a say. That is unacceptable for a decision that affects people’s lives and careers, as well as the future capability of our health service. While I do not doubt the intentions of the Secretary of State and the Front Bench team, it opens the door to the risk of political whim or prejudice influencing who gets access to career-defining opportunities in the future. That is why the Liberal Democrats have tabled amendments 2 to 5 to reverse this, and to ensure that any changes must be subject to full parliamentary consent. On the timing of the Bill’s implementation, the Government intend to apply the new prioritisation rules midway through the 2026 specialty recruitment cycle. Let us reflect on what that means in practice. Doctors already working in the NHS have entered this cycle under one set of rules. They have paid for exams, secured visas, arranged travel, uprooted their families and committed themselves to the NHS. To change the rules halfway through the process would not only be potentially destabilising for services, but very unfair to those individuals, many of whom are plugging urgent staffing gaps right now. We already face real workforce pressures, so the last thing our NHS needs is a wave of dedicated doctors forced out by uncertainty, or pushed to leave the country because the Government moved the goalposts after applications had already begun. For this reason, we believe that the Bill should come into force from 2027. We must protect frontline services and protect the integrity of the applications process. To address the problem directly, we have tabled amendments 6 and 7 to safeguard those already in the 2026 application cycle, ensuring that they are not deprioritised, because that is a simple matter of fairness. We have also tabled amendments to improve the transparency and long-term impact of the Bill. Across the NHS, we face severe shortages, not just in general practice but in radiology, oncology, mental health services and many other specialities.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to welcome this Bill, broadly. It seeks to prioritise graduates from UK and Irish medical schools for foundation and specialty training places. On this point, the Liberal Democrats support the Government, but we have some concerns about how that will be delivered, and about the real-world consequences for our NHS, patients and the doctors who keep our health service going. Taxpayers invest around £4 billion every year in training young doctors, yet far too many are left competing for too few posts. In 2025, around 12,000 UK-trained doctors competed with 21,000 international doctors for just 9,500 specialty training positions. Many highly skilled young doctors, who were ready to serve in the NHS, were left without a pathway into specialist practice. That is clearly unfair and unsustainable. It is hardly surprising that so many doctors decide to leave the country altogether and seek opportunities elsewhere, where their training and wellbeing are valued. This is a tragedy for them and a tragedy for patients, so prioritisation is right, fair and long overdue. However, reorganising a queue does not shorten it or make it move any faster. The reality is clear: the NHS has a deep workforce shortage, with crises in some specialties, and this Bill alone cannot solve it. A detailed long-term workforce plan, which ensures that training provides the skill mix that the NHS needs for the future, is required as soon as possible. I look forward to the Minister confirming when that will be delivered. Shortly before Christmas, the Government committed to 4,000 additional specialty training places in their negotiations with the British Medical Association, including 1,000 that were brought forward, but following the collapse of those negotiations, it remains unclear whether those places will materialise. Patients cannot wait for certainty, and neither can exhausted staff. Will the Minister confirm those places, and go further by addressing other issues that have prevented doctors from working in the NHS, such as restrictive rotas, workplace violence and inflexible working? Dealing with such issues might prevent doctors who have secured specialty training places from moving abroad once their training is completed, ensuring that taxpayers’ money is not wasted, and that doctors with local, relevant experience remain in the NHS. I turn to the details of the Bill. We have concerns about clause 7(1), which allows Ministers to change eligibility for prioritisation through the negative procedure. That will enable sweeping changes, without proper parliamentary scrutiny, to who can access training places. Given the scale and sensitivity of the NHS workforce pressures, such decisions must not be made behind closed doors, or at the whim of a future Health Secretary with less desirable motives than the current one. That is why the Liberal Democrats have tabled amendments that would require Parliament to approve any future changes through the positive procedure. We are also troubled by the Government’s decision to apply the new rules part of the way through the 2026 specialty recruitment cycle. The Bill allows for prioritisation at the offer stage for medical specialty training places in 2026. I would like the Minister to clarify in her closing remarks whether this means that international doctors already working in our NHS—who have paid for exams, secured visas and maybe uprooted their life and their family—will suddenly be pushed to the back of the queue, mid-cycle. These doctors keep our hospitals running today. They entered the system in good faith, and it seems unfair to change the rules midway through the process. I would also be grateful if, in the Minister’s closing remarks, she outlined the expected impact on NHS service provision if people who are deprioritised during the application process decide to leave en masse. Will she give my constituents in North Shropshire reassurance that patient safety and patient outcomes will not be impacted? The Liberal Democrats would prefer implementation to begin in 2027, at the interview stage; that would protect both fairness and patient safety. Would the Minister elaborate on the impact of the Bill on universities that offer medical degrees elsewhere in the world? I think we have all been contacted by Queen Mary, University of London; the implications for the university may be serious if graduates, who have always been considered UK graduates, undertaking NHS training, and a UK medical qualification registered by the General Medical Council, suddenly have their expectations changed. As I have mentioned, retention is just as critical as recruitment, but unfortunately it is outside the scope of this limited Bill. In the year to September 2023, 10.7% of NHS staff—about 154,000 people—left their role. Burnout is rife, morale is low and too many staff are working in buildings that are crumbling around them. We have been contacted by GP trainers who are worried that the doctors they are training plan to leave for Australia or Canada as soon as they qualify. The promised workforce plan must address this problem. International comparisons lay bare the scale of the problem. England has just 3.2 doctors per 1,000 people, which is well below the OECD and EU average of 3.9. We would need 40,000 more doctors to meet that benchmark. Prioritising UK graduates is sensible, but it will not on its own deliver the workforce that patients urgently need. That is why the Liberal Democrats have tabled an amendment requiring a specialty by specialty workforce assessment. Shortages are acute in general practice, radiology, cancer care, mental health and more, and transparency is essential if training places are to be directed at where the need is greatest. It is neither right nor remotely sustainable that, at a time when patients struggle to see a GP, qualified GPs are unemployed, yet that is happening now, with vacancy freezes and financial pressure creating an NHS in which shortages sit alongside unemployment. The Government’s decision to raise national insurance has only exacerbated the problem, forcing some practices into lay-offs or closure. In my North Shropshire constituency, several GP practices have told me that they cannot take on additional doctors because they are constrained by the outdated physical space in which they operate. The Liberal Democrats would fund 8,000 more GPs, ensuring that every patient could see a GP within seven days, or 24 hours if the need was urgent, because we cannot fix the NHS without fixing the front door. NHS staff are the backbone of our health service, and they deserve better working conditions and a fair career path. We will continue fighting for an independent pay review body, for safe and modern buildings, for flexible working from day one, and for practical support, such as reduced parking charges, so that staff are not penalised for simply turning up to care for us. We will always stand up for our NHS and the people who make it work. While we support this Bill, we will push to ensure that its implementation strengthens our health service as much as possible.

• 20 Jan 2026 · 5G Connectivity: Telford and West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech and a really good point, which applies equally to urban and rural areas. Mobile network operators do not have minimum standards of coverage and quality of signal. At some places where there was good coverage before, that now no longer appears to be the case because the signal quality is so poor. Does he agree that we need to look at a way to ensure mobile network operators provide a good quality signal to everyone?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Transgender People: Provision of Healthcare · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) for securing this important debate on healthcare for transgender people and the excellent opening speech she made. As Liberal Democrats, we believe that everyone should have the freedom to live their lives as who they are, with their fundamental rights protected. Nobody’s health or life chances should be limited or determined because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Liberal Democrats strongly support better specialist healthcare services for people who are struggling with their gender identity. These individuals are often the most vulnerable and marginalised in our society, and it is key that they get the support they need from both the Government and healthcare services to ensure they are protected. I will start with young people. The old system—a single clinic with a shockingly long waiting list, rated “inadequate” by the Care Quality Commission—was clearly failing vulnerable people at a very difficult point in their lives. Before the gender identity development scheme closed, more than 5,000 young people were stuck on that list. They were left waiting for a first appointment for almost three years on average. For teenagers going through what are often incredibly difficult experiences, three years is an eternity. I have met parents in my constituency surgeries who are visibly distressed by the additional pressure and interminable wait for help for their children or teenagers. We must try to do better for these families. Liberal Democrats have consistently campaigned for action to tackle appallingly long wait times across the NHS, whether it is for cancer treatment or mental health, and it is right that we do so for gender identity services, too. Trans people should not face a delay in receiving healthcare just because they are trans, and the current situation of waiting years is simply unacceptable. That is why change is needed, and why Liberal Democrats have long pressed the Government to establish new specialist services and recruit and retain more specialist clinicians—so that trans people can access the appropriate, individually-focused and high-quality healthcare that they need. The NHS’s move to create multiple new regional services is therefore welcome, but only three are open now—in London, the north-west and the south-west—leaving those who have already been stuck on waiting lists for years to wait even longer. There is no indication yet of when the other centres will open. I hope the Government will show far more urgency in getting these centres up and running properly, or more people will be denied the critical care they need as they languish on long waiting lists. I urge the Minister to take this opportunity to put forward a solid timeline on delivery for the future centres. Moving on to adults, we are concerned that the current waiting list for adults trans people attempting to access gender identity clinics in the UK is on average five years, and there are some reports of much longer averages of 12 years in England or even longer, as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth highlighted. That is unacceptable for people in distress. Trans adults have significantly higher rates of mental health conditions, such as autism, dementia and learning disabilities, so timely help is really important. Furthermore, many patients report discrimination, misgendering or the refusal of standard services. Surveys reveal that 40% of trans individuals experience negative healthcare interactions and 21% say their needs were ignored. We have heard about the devastating impact that can have on these real people. I welcome the commissioning of the Levy review into healthcare for trans adults. Will the Minister clarify when we might expect it to conclude and report back? I hope it will cover both the quality of healthcare and its timeliness. We believe that trans people have the right to be seen by a specialist within 18 weeks, as set out in the NHS constitution, and that they deserve further support while on an NHS waiting list, such as mental-health support and gender-affirming care. Therefore, I welcome the fact that the NHS has doubled investment, opened new clinics and initiated wellbeing pilots offering digital mental health and community support while patients wait, but there is still much more to do. It is critical in our modern and inclusive society that no one should wait longer or suffer inappropriate care just because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. I urge the Minister to ensure that all UK citizens are provided with adequate care, support and protection by increasing the availability and quality of specialist gender services across the country.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Ministerial Code · Hansard source

  More

  One potential breach of the ministerial code is the briefing to the papers, but not to this House, that the Government will pay a major increase to pharmaceutical companies, seemingly at the behest of Donald Trump. Can the Minister confirm today that people who are worried about their local health services will not see a huge amount of money going to pharmaceutical companies at the behest of an outside player? Furthermore, will he ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to come to the House and explain that to us in full?

• 20 Nov 2025 · World COPD Day · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is a friend of all of us in this House, on securing this debate and raising awareness of World Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Day, which took place yesterday. I thank him for his tireless campaigning for this cause, and for his excellent opening speech, which outlined the issues faced by COPD sufferers. As we have heard, COPD is the name given to a group of health conditions that affect the lungs and cause breathing difficulties, such as emphysema and chronic bronchitis. Patients with COPD may face symptoms such as shortness of breath, a chesty cough, frequent chest infections and wheezing, which get progressively worse over time and may be exacerbated during the winter months. As someone who has had asthma from childhood, I know at first hand the fear, frustration and disruption to daily life that gasping for breath can cause. It is critical that there is a plan in place to manage respiratory disease, given that we may be facing a devasting winter crisis in the NHS once more. The most recent data published by the NHS shows that there were over 1.17 million patients recorded by GPs as having COPD in England in 2023-24. The National Institute for Care Excellence warns that the real number of sufferers may be much higher, noting that previous Government research put the number at around 3 million in the UK, 2 million of whom remain undiagnosed. Approximately one in 10 adults over the age of 40 has COPD in the UK, at a cost of £2 billion a year to the NHS. As the main cause of COPD is smoking, it is a highly preventable condition. I welcome the Government’s introduction of legislation to enable a smoke-free generation, but we must also consider those who have already started smoking and who are finding it hard to quit, or those who can circumvent the provisions of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. Smoking is much more common in deprived areas, as we have already heard, so COPD is also a stark indicator of social and health inequalities in this country. The Liberal Democrats want the new Government to take urgent action to support people to live healthier lives, starting by reversing in full the Conservative cuts to funding for public health, of which smoking cessation services are a critical part. I am sure all Members agree that prevention is better than cure, and helping smokers to kick the habit will not only reduce their risk of debilitating illness but will save taxpayers money in the long run. The cost of COPD is £2 billion per annum, and everyone benefits if fewer people require treatment for smoking-related illness. Along with smoking, long-term exposure to air pollution may be a cause of COPD. The Liberal Democrats have pledged to reduce air pollution; to protect people, especially children, from breathing in harmful pollutants by passing a clean air Act based on World Health Organisation guidelines and enforced by a new air quality agency; and to improve public transport and active travel to reduce the harm caused by air pollution at home, school and work. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on those proposals, which would drastically reduce avoidable respiratory diseases. The theme for World COPD Day this year is “Short of Breath, Think COPD”, and it aims to raise awareness of underdiagnosis and misdiagnosis of COPD. As I mentioned, there could be 2 million people undiagnosed in the UK who are missing out on essential treatment and advice on how best to manage their debilitating condition. NICE recommends that COPD should be suspected in anyone aged over 35 with a risk factor for COPD and symptoms of breathlessness, chronic cough, regular phlegm production, frequent chest infections in the winter, or wheezing. The Liberal Democrats have called for anyone with a long-term health condition, including COPD, to have a named GP, which would improve the continuity and therefore the quality of their care. People with COPD consistently report difficulties accessing services that are essential to managing their condition, including GP appointments, specialist care and pulmonary rehabilitation. They also experience poor communication between different healthcare providers and inadequate follow-up after hospital discharge. As we have heard, COPD patients are often left in the dark with inadequate information about their condition when they are first diagnosed. Better continuity of care in the community would surely help to overcome at least some of those issues. To achieve that, we need the Government to be much more ambitious in their plans to increase GP numbers. We need them to adopt Lib Dem plans to retain and recruit 8,000 more GPs over this Parliament to deliver that improvement in care. We are also campaigning to improve the speed of new treatments by expanding the capacity of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. We are also pressing for better social care, including for people with COPD who are struggling to manage independently. We would provide more support for family carers through initiatives such as the right to respite breaks, paid carer’s leave and an end to the cliff edge in the way that carer’s allowance is paid, so that no one is forced to pay back thousands of pounds because they worked an extra hour a week. We would also help people who struggle to get into work because of their illness, with a new right to flexible working and the right to work from home unless there is a really good business reason why that is not possible. We would make it easier for people with long-term conditions, such as COPD and those with disabilities, to access public life, including the world of work, through a range of measures that allow better physical access and proper adjustment to the workplace. Many people with COPD are at risk of a stay in hospital, and they are often unable to get home after that because of the crisis in social care, which is putting even more strain on the NHS. The Government established the Casey commission to find a cross-party solution to the social care problem, and I welcome that, but I have to report that despite a promising opening roundtable in September, there have been no further talks. Will the Minister update us on the progress of that work? The winter presents an immediate problem. There are warnings of a particularly bad flu season, which is causing concern for everyone who is more vulnerable to respiratory illness, including those with COPD. My local hospital, Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic hospital, and the Shrewsbury and Telford hospital NHS trust have already introduced some mandatory mask wearing to reduce the risk of transmission of respiratory disease in the hospital. That means that an effective vaccination programme is especially important this year. I was concerned by news that covid vaccination eligibility has been significantly reduced. This autumn and winter, vaccination is being offered only to people over 75 and those with a weakened immune system. People with chronic respiratory disease, including COPD and asthma, have been excluded despite the clear risk—I speak from too many personal 2 am nebuliser experiences—that even a mild respiratory infection poses for them. Also excluded are the main carer for an older or disabled person, those who are in receipt of carer’s allowance or who are living with someone who has a weakened immune system, and, perhaps most surprisingly, frontline health and social care workers. All those people remain eligible for a flu vaccine, and that is good. Even though covid is now considered to be a mild disease, time off for NHS and care workers when services are at their most pressured, as well as the significant risk of transmission to vulnerable patients, is concerning. Will the Government consider a review of the decision to restrict access to covid vaccines this year? Can the Minister provide statistics on the uptake so far of flu vaccines within different groups and outline what steps she is taking to ensure high levels of uptake among NHS and care workers? In conclusion, COPD is a debilitating condition and, as with many conditions in the UK, there is something of a postcode lottery in the quality of care patients receive. I welcome the Government’s roll-out of the NHS RightCare COPD pathway and the National Respiratory Audit programme, along with plans to improve access to pulmonary rehabilitation. I would be grateful if the Minister updated us in her closing remarks on progress with those programmes, as well as answering my questions about vaccine roll-out, support for carers and the Casey commission, access to a named GP, and full restoration of the public health grant, including for smoking cessation services.

• 11 Nov 2025 · Rural Railway Stations: Step Free Access · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a good point. I think there is an element of pork barrel politics and of making undeliverable promises shortly before the election. That is not forgivable, because it has created an expectation among constituents that cannot be fulfilled. As I was saying, the lack of clarity has added to the frustration of residents in places such as Whitchurch—especially in Whitchurch, because the plans for the lift are in place. It has been designed and Network Rail is keen to start work on the project, having designated it as a high priority for delivery in control period 7. All we need for step-free access at Whitchurch is a green light from the Department for Transport. I would be grateful if the Minister set out the Government’s timeline for delivering step-free access to Whitchurch station, so I may share that with my constituents.