Helen Morgan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Sept 2026 · Vascular Sector Reform · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I welcome the Minister and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), to their places. Most of all, I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this important debate. He outlined the issues comprehensively in his opening speech, as we would expect. According to the Circulation Foundation, vascular disease is as common as cancer and heart disease, accounting for 40% of deaths in the UK. That represents a huge disease burden on individuals and the NHS, yet we rarely discuss it in Parliament. It is a leading cause of preventable disability, with associated complications being worsened by the fragmented care available to patients. Living with vascular disease means living with chronic pain, reduced mobility and often an isolating loss of independence. Many patients are left with a sense of powerlessness, which has a huge impact on their mental health and wellbeing. Sadly, we are all too familiar with the issues in the vascular sector: inconsistent standards and access to care; the dreaded postcode lottery in services; pathways and referral routes that disproportionately impact deprived communities; and under-investment in prevention. It seems to be yet another area of the NHS where, as we have been arguing this week on the Health Bill, too much time and money is spent responding to failure rather than improving the quality of services for patients and preventing and delaying deterioration in the first place. We must do better for people with vascular disease and for their families. Having dealt with the harrowing case of a constituent, I know that a lack of care and the medical risks and implications of vascular disease can spiral out of control, leading, in the worst cases, to the premature death of a family member. It is incredibly upsetting when that happens. I cannot begin to imagine how devastating that experience must be. A report from the all-party parliamentary group on vascular and venous disease highlighted the avoidable harm that gaps in vascular care can cause to patients. It confirmed that gaps in vascular care are resulting in avoidable harm, highlighting: “Delayed diagnosis, inconsistent referral pathways and variable access to specialist care” for people with peripheral artery disease, venous disease and diabetes-related foot complications. It said that those problems are resulting in “thousands of avoidable lower-limb amputations each year.” Discussions with the primary care network in my North Shropshire constituency have revealed that our county has one of the highest rates of lower-limb amputations because of these gaps in care. I cannot imagine the trauma caused to those who have lost a limb, knowing that it might have been avoided. It is time we aspired to ensuring a consistent level of care across the country. I have been contacted by companies in the pharmaceutical sector that have highlighted the disconnect between acknowledgment and action. PAD is named as a “neglected” CVD risk factor, but it lacks the priority status, funding mechanisms and performance standards given to other conditions. They have also highlighted that the need for new surgical and interventional techniques is acknowledged but not operationalised with delivery timelines or resource allocation, and that there are no metrics for PAD. The absence of PAD standards or metrics in the main performance monitoring tables means that progress cannot be tracked and local ICBs cannot be held to account if they are falling behind. The modern service framework is obviously a welcome step forward, but the Government should also take a look at the all-party parliamentary group’s calls for a national foot attack pathway, a community foot protection service, national maximum waiting times for patients, the reform of commissioning to reward outcomes and the acceleration of proven innovation, which must be rolled out more widely. Beyond that, the care that the NHS provides at its front door must be strengthened so that symptoms are caught and treated early. The APPG’s report highlights how prevention-led, community-first care is needed to transform the vascular sector, diagnose conditions earlier and relieve pressure on acute services. Liberal Democrats want everyone with vascular disease to have a named GP to ensure continuity of care, which has been shown to improve outcomes and quality of life for those with long-term conditions. Fixing the back door of the NHS is just as crucial for us. We have long been pressing for better social care, including free personal care and more support for family carers. Obviously, we welcome the steps that the Prime Minister took over the summer recess to ensure movement on the social care issue. Our proposed package would make it easier for people with long-term conditions and disabilities to access flexible working. It would support those suffering from vascular disease to access the world of work wherever possible, and hopefully transform their mental health and independence, too. Given the prevalence and severity of these conditions, I urge the Government to develop a strategy to transform the vascular sector to give patients the timely support and treatment they need. I look forward to hearing what steps the Minister will be taking to address this issue.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Seventeenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  May I associate myself with the Minister’s comments and thanks to everybody who has been involved in working on the Bill? I have also enjoyed my time on the Committee, despite the heat. I hope that the Minister remains in place when we come back on Report, because she is a hard-working and thoughtful Minister and it is a pleasure to stand opposite her in the House in my place as my party’s spokesman. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 70 Extent Amendment made: 80, in clause 70, page 48, line 18, at end insert— “(2A) Section (Medical Devices Regulations 2002: mutual recognition agreements) extends to England and Wales and Scotland.”.— (Karin Smyth.) This is consequential on NC92. Clause 70, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 71 Commencement Amendments made: 81, in clause 71, page 48, line 25, leave out “Section 63” and insert “The following”. This paves the way for Amendment 82. Amendment 82, in clause 71, page 48, line 26, at end insert “— (a) section 63 (Care Quality Commission: time limit for bringing proceedings); (b) sections (Regulations: reference to agreements and standards), (Medical Devices Regulations 2002: mutual recognition agreements), (Consultation about medicines and medical devices regulations), (Medicines and medical devices regulations: parliamentary procedure), (Medical devices: parliamentary procedure for certain fees regulations).”. —(Karin Smyth.) This provides for the new clauses listed to come into force 2 months after royal assent. Amendment proposed : 37, in clause 71, page 48, line 28, at end insert— “(3A) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under subsection (3) commencing section (1) until the conditions in subsection (3B) are met. (3B) The conditions are that— (a) the Secretary of State has published a document setting out the operating model for the exercise of functions by the Department of Health and Social Care following the abolition of NHS England (the "operating model document"); and (b) the Secretary of State has published a plan for the management of personnel affected by the abolition of NHS England and the transfer of its functions to the Department of Health and Social Care (the “workforce transition plan”). (3C) The operating model document must include— (a) a description of how each of the functions exercised by NHS England is to be exercised following its abolition; (b) the governance and accountability arrangements for the exercise of those functions; (c) the organisational structure of the Department of Health and Social Care as it will operate following the abolition; and (d) the proposed timetable for the transition. (3D) The workforce transition plan must include— (a) an assessment of the number of personnel whose employment is affected by the abolition of NHS England; (b) the arrangements for the transfer, redeployment or redundancy of affected personnel; and (c) proposals for consultation with recognised trade unions and staff representative bodies in connection with the abolition. (3E) Regulations to commence section (1) are to be made by statutory instrument and may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament. (3F) Before laying a draft instrument under subsection (3E), the Secretary of State must allow a period of at least 60 days beginning with the date of publication of the operating model document and the workforce transition plan (whichever is the later) before the draft instrument is laid. (3G) A period during which Parliament is dissolved, prorogued or adjourned for more than four days are not to count towards the 60-day period in subsection (3F).”. —(Dr Caroline Johnson.) This amendment would prevent the abolition of NHS England before the production of an operating model for the merged DHSC/NHSE and associated plan to manage personnel. Question put, That the amendment be made.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Seventeenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her response. I think it is important that we keep an eye on the power of medical misinformation or disinformation, and expand that consideration to things such as therapy chatbots. It is not just an online problem, but an AI problem—it is not just malign influences that cause the problem. I beg to ask to leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 81 Minimum service levels “(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision for minimum service levels to operate in the NHS during periods of strike action. (2) Regulations under subsection (1) may repeal or otherwise amend provisions in the Employment Rights Act 2025, insofar as is necessary for the purposes of this section. (3) Regulations under subsection (1) must include provision for minimum levels of service by categories of NHS workforce staff, including all Agenda for Change staff but not doctors. (4) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. (5) When minimum service levels are in operation under this section, the NHS must set minimum standards of acceptable service to be provided by the NHS during periods of strike action, including mitigating any effect on appointments, medical procedures, acute services, midwifery, surgical procedures, and any other matters that the Secretary of State deems appropriate. (6) With one year beginning on the day on which regulations are made under subsection (1), and within each period of a year thereafter, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on compliance with minimum service levels, including reasons for any failure by operators to secure the required thresholds, and actions the NHS is taking to improve performance to meet the minimum service levels.”— (Dr Caroline Johnson.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations which create minimum service levels to operate in the NHS during periods of strike action. Brought up, and read the First time.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Seventeenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am suddenly cast back to 31 years ago, when I was choosing my subjects for the final year of my history degree. One of the early modern history papers was provocatively entitled “Women and other deviants”. It was called that to draw attention to the fact that, despite making up 50% of the population, women are often treated as a minority group. I sincerely hope that we are not still in that situation, but women’s issues clearly still need addressing. I will take the Minister at her word, but I will keep pressing her on this issue as we go through the course of this Parliament. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 66 Puberty blockers ‘(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act the Secretary of State must make regulations which ensure that puberty blockers may not be prescribed, dispensed or supplied to persons under 18 years of age for the purposes of treatment related to gender dysphoria, gender incongruence or a combination of both, in the United Kingdom. (2) These regulations must ensure that such drugs cannot be given out or used as part of clinical trials for the treatment of gender dysphoria, gender incongruence or a combination of both, unless that trial has specifically been approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. (3) For the purposes of this section, puberty blockers means— (a) a “gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (‘GnRH’) analogue” which means a medicinal product that consists of or contains buserelin, gonadorelin, goserelin, leuprorelin acetate, nafarelin or triptorelin, and (b) any other drug which has the effect of suppressing or delaying puberty that the Secretary of State may by regulation appoint.’ —(Dr Caroline Johnson.) This new clause would create a requirement for the Secretary of State to make regulations which prevent puberty blockers from being prescribed to persons under 18 years of age for the purposes of treatment related to gender incongruence, or clinical trials related to gender incongruence unless specifically approved by Parliament. Brought up, and read the First time.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The disquiet about the deal comes from the fact that the sums involved are huge—possibly £9 billion a year, or even more towards the back of the 10-year period—according to big companies in the sector. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry was not involved in the negotiation of the deal; it was negotiated with the US. We fully support of the life sciences sector in this country, and there is a complex debate to be had about access to novel medicines for people with unusual and rare diseases, and about balancing that with everybody else’s access to volume services on the frontline, but that important discussion should be had by Parliament and the British people, not between a trade negotiator and Donald Trump’s White House. That is where our disquiet comes from, and it is why we tabled these new clauses.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I think our new clause addresses that point. As I mentioned, my own hospital trust, Shrewsbury and Telford, has improved ambulance wait times simply by improving the flow through the hospital and addressing some of the issues. I recognise that our new clause does not deal with pharmacy availability at weekends and overnight, which I know is a critical issue in many hospitals; on Report, we will certainly tidy it up to ensure that it does, but I take the hon. Member’s point. My new clause would address the system-wide capacity issue that the hon. Member highlighted so carefully, both in last night’s debate and here today. We need more capacity across the whole system. Otherwise, we are just trying to push a lump in the carpet to a different place, but there will always be a lump somewhere. The new clause seeks to provide 6,000 more beds across the whole system, to allow flow through the system and to ensure that waits do not back up in the ambulance service, on corridors in A&E or outside wards, as they do currently. Critically, we should address the point about NHS pledges and rights. The constitution is broadly agnostic about the time people wait on corridors, but is not agnostic about the time it will take for them to get cancer treatment. That is an inconsistency and we should sort it out, because I think our constituents consider the two things equally important. I take the Minister’s point about new clause 12. I will not push it to a vote, but although trusts are held to account on their A&E performance, the missing piece is that the Secretary of State is not. That is what new clause 12 seeks to address, and I hope that the Minister will consider that on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 14 Healthy life expectancy target “(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must— (a) make regulations to set a statutory target for improving overall healthy life expectancy for the population of Great Britain, and (b) publish a cross-governmental strategy, renewed every 24 months, to set out how the target set by regulations under subsection (1)(a) will be achieved. (2) The strategy under subsection (1)(b) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament. (3) Upon publication of a strategy under subsection (1)(b) the Secretary of State must make a statement before the House of Commons regarding progress made towards the target set by subsection (1)(a).”— (Dr Chambers.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish a statutory target for healthy life expectancy in Great Britain and publish a strategy every two years setting out how this target will be achieved. Brought up, and read the First time.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  New clause 12 would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report about corridor care and to give evidence before a panel of affected patients and staff. In the main Chamber yesterday, we had a Backbench Business debate on corridor care, introduced by the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan). There was a great deal of consensus across the House about the harm that corridor care causes to both patients and staff, and the requirement for urgency in dealing with that issue. I am not going to remake the same speech that I made yesterday on corridor care for the Minister’s benefit, because she heard it yesterday and there is little value in repeating it. What I will say is that it is important that there is an understanding at a ministerial level of the personal impact that corridor care has on patients and their families. That is the purpose of this new clause: to ensure that the Secretary of State is taking the concerns of patients and staff very seriously, hearing them at first hand and then reporting back progress to the House on dealing with the issue. At the moment, it feels as if every year we acknowledge the problem in the House, every winter there are statements on winter crisis and corridor care, and we never really seem to take any steps forward. The new clause aims to ensure that is no longer the case. New clause 56 is intended to give patients a right to be admitted to accident and emergency “within 12 hours from decision to admit”, and would require the Secretary of State “to introduce a scheme to achieve this.” We have discussed the legal right to admit and the legal right of patients on a number of occasions. I just want to clarify our intention, because it always raises some questions. The NHS constitution enshrines legal rights for certain things: for example, the two-week wait for a cancer referral to a specialist and the right to receive elective care within, I think, 18 weeks, if so referred. The other targets in the NHS are pledges; there is an aspiration for the Secretary of State to meet them, but it is not a right of the patient that the Secretary of State meets them. We think that 12-hour waits on corridors in hospitals merit the same urgency as cancer referrals, because they lead to awful outcomes.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  New clause 1, which I tabled, would require the Secretary of State to appoint a maternity commissioner within the Department of Health and Social Care to oversee national maternity services. This person should be someone with experience and expertise in maternity services, and not a political appointment. It is important to start by saying that I tabled the new clause before we had the report from Donna Ockenden on the Nottingham review, and last week’s report from Baroness Amos on her national review, both of which recommended the appointment of a maternity commissioner. Obviously, since then, the Secretary of State has announced that he will appoint a maternity commissioner. None the less, I will state the arguments for having one, and if the Minister can give us some assurances today, I will not press the new clause to a vote. Just to set the scene, which I think we all know too well, maternity services in England have suffered a series of high-profile scandals. The cost of political neglect has been paid by families in terms of trauma, injury and lost lives. We have known for a long time that maternity services in this country have been failing. Numerous recommendations have been made over that period, but they have not been effectively acted on in a consistent way, and Baroness Amos’s inquiry finally confirms that. It is important to say that the vast majority of births take place safely, successfully and happily. However, where things go wrong, having a baby safely has become a postcode lottery. Women are being routinely silenced, and staff who raise the alarm on unsafe care or systemic discrimination have been put off or crushed by a culture of fear. We therefore need to make England the safest country in the world to have a baby. The Liberal Democrats have been campaigning on that for a long time, and following the Ockenden and Amos reviews it genuinely feels that there is now the will and focus to deal with the problem once and for all. This issue has been going on for far too long. We thank the Secretary of State for hearing our campaign and Baroness Amos’s calls for a national maternity commissioner to oversee national standards and drive change. We also pay tribute to campaigners such as Louise Thompson and the former MP for Stafford, Theo Clarke; without their advocacy, and without so many women sharing their stories, we would not be moving forward. It is important to say that one individual—one maternity commissioner—will not solve all the issues in maternity by themselves, but they can help drive change and address recurrent issues, whether those are cultural or about safe staffing. They can hold Ministers to account, help restore public confidence in NHS maternity service and ensure that accountability exists. But I want to be clear that the buck should always stop with the Secretary of State; they hold the power and the purse strings, and this role cannot be used by Ministers as a way to shirk that responsibility. I hope the Minister will clarify a few key points. First, can she reassure us that the commissioner will be independent and not a political appointee? It is essential that this individual feels confident to hold the Government to account and have those difficult conversations. That is far less likely if they are a political appointee. Secondly, women have made it clear that for them to be reassured that this change will happen and happen meaningfully, they need a clear timetable for when the maternity commissioner will be in place and operating. Understandably, the Secretary of State has not been able to provide that yet, given the need for this Bill to pass through Parliament and for the statutory role to be on the books, and given the time it will take his maternity taskforce to define what it wants the role to look like and for the appropriate legislation to be written and put in place. However, we hope we can get a firm commitment to a timetable from the Minister today or, if not today, then on Report. We think the commissioner should be involved in the establishment of the taskforce, because it is important that it does not develop a plan that they are required to implement, despite it being something they personally would not have approved. I therefore hope the commissioner will be in place very quickly, even if only on a temporary basis, so that they are working to get the taskforce plan into place. We heard from the Secretary of State that the commissioner will co-chair the taskforce alongside him. That seems to be the right move, and I welcome it, but, as I said, it is important that they have some role in shaping its action plan, so that they can feel responsibility for it and be fully behind its implementation. Will the Minister commit to introducing a temporary maternity commissioner so that that can happen? Finally, we have heard reports that the taskforce is not meeting very regularly. I hope the Minister can reassure me that it is now meeting much more regularly and getting that plan into place as quickly as possible, and that the Secretary of State is fully on board in driving forward the commissioner’s role as soon as possible. New clause 13, which is also in my name, is about putting a duty on the Secretary of State to create a scheme to ensure that every maternity unit in the country achieves a good or outstanding rating from the CQC. I will not repeat some of the points I have just outlined about failing maternity services, but the first quarter of 2026 saw the worst ever recorded rate for maternity injuries. Four years ago, the Ockenden review into the Shrewsbury and Telford hospital NHS trust, which is in my area, found that over 200 babies had died unnecessarily in Shropshire. Yet, despite several immediate and essential actions being put in place, a subsequent CQC review found that the majority of maternity units in this country did not achieve a good rating for safety—they were inadequate in some way. That is just not acceptable. Our package of measures includes the maternity commissioner, which the Government are obviously progressing with, and we are very pleased about that. However, we also need investment in the service to ensure that that maternity commissioner has the resources they need to make the changes required. We therefore call for one-to-one midwifery care for every woman in labour; a consultant on every labour ward 24 hours a day, seven days a week; a director of midwifery—a senior, experienced midwife—in every maternity service to ensure that more junior midwives on that ward are suitably supervised; the restoration of ringfenced service development funding; and a dedicated neonatal workforce plan. New clause 13 also requires an annual report to be laid before the House on the “effectiveness of the scheme”. That would allow Parliament to track progress and hold the Government’s feet to the fire on it. Baroness Amos has also called for regular reporting to Parliament to maintain accountability, albeit through the maternity commissioner. There seems to be consensus, here and across the NHS, on the need for meaningful and decisive action on maternity. There is a great deal of overlap between our plan and the recommendations Baroness Amos has made, and I hope the Minister will be able to take some of these points on board and incorporate them into the Bill.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her response. Given the commitments that she has made, I do not intend to press the new clauses, but I hope she will be able to come back to us on Report with some more concrete progress. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 3 Assessment of risks posed by contracts with non-UK based suppliers “(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct and lay before Parliament a risk assessment of all contracts between NHS organisations and suppliers based outside of the UK. (2) In conducting an assessment under this section the Secretary of State must— (a) pay particular regard to contracts which provide technology companies with access to confidential patient data; (b) consult national security experts on the risks posed to UK sovereignty by such contracts; (c) consider risks associated with the sharing of confidential patient data with organisations based outside of the UK; (d) assess public and NHS staff attitudes to relevant suppliers and any implications such attitudes may have on the use and effectiveness of products or services provided under the contract; and (e) consider the background of relevant suppliers, known contracts with other states and organisations, and any relevant ethical considerations. (3) Where any significant risk is identified, the Secretary of State must set out the Government’s intentions to manage and mitigate such risks, including its intention to use or develop domestic technologies, systems or products in place of those provided under the relevant contract.”— (Dr Chambers.) This new clause would require the Government to publish a risk assessment of contracts between NHS organisations and suppliers based outside of the UK. Brought up, and read the First time.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Payment Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  The cultural point is really important because all the NHS scandals have this point of cultural failure, with cover-ups and defensiveness and people being badly let down. The Health Bill is going through Parliament at the moment, and one of our concerns is that the abolition of Healthwatch and the Health Services Safety Investigations Body will not help to progress that cultural change. Will the Minister urge his counterparts in the Department of Health and Social Care to reconsider those abolitions?