Helen Morgan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Sept 2026 · Speciality Steel UK · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State mentioned the wider steel sector in his statement. I raise the issues experienced by Fowler and Gilbert and EverEdge in my constituency, both of which manufacture steel products and have been impacted by quotas and tariffs on steel imports. That is particularly the case with materials not produced in the UK, because it essentially adds a manufacturing tax to the work that they do. While their raw material costs are rising, there are no equivalent restrictions on imported finished products, particularly low-quality and low-cost imports from China. Those businesses face a situation where it is cheaper to import from overseas than to manufacture in the UK. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the concerns of those businesses, which are significant local employers in my constituency, and to find a solution that works for the whole steel sector?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have tabled several amendments to the Bill, but I will hopefully keep my remarks focused so there is a good opportunity for other Members to make their speeches. The Bill should be about fixing the front and back doors of the NHS. It offers the opportunity to bring in tangible changes for patients to address pressing problems and introduce desperately needed improvements to patient safety and experience. The primary care and social care crisis, in particular, are millstones around the neck of the NHS. But instead of addressing them, the Bill has focused on a top-down reorganisation, which risks diverting time and money away from those pressing issues, and it gives sweeping powers to the Secretary of State, which is not in itself without risk. The Liberal Democrats would instead have put social care and general practice at the heart of the Bill—a move that would represent real reform of the health service. In particular, new clauses 54 and 56 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) would together transform the rights of family carers through guaranteed respite care and reform of the carer’s allowance. They would put free personal care, and an end to catastrophic care costs, at the heart of social care reform. New clause 53, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), would ensure that everyone can see a GP within seven days, or 24 hours if urgent, and amendment 17 would introduce a primary care investment standard. Although general practice is the core of a patient’s relationship with the NHS, it has seen its funding decline as a share of NHS spending. Less than 10% of the NHS budget is spent on primary care, although that is estimated to constitute 90% of a patient’s direct experience with the NHS. A primary care investment standard would help to reverse that trend. Dentistry is another area of primary care that has been neglected, leading to dental deserts and dangerous DIY dentistry. New clause 18 would introduce a scheme to end dental deserts, and guarantee appointments for children and those most in need.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I would need to see the detail of that proposal and what it would mean. Shropshire is already a unitary authority and is essentially at the bottom of the list for a devolution plan, so that seems too far off. There seems to be no prospect of stabilising the financial situation until there is a firm plan to ensure that the powers needed to turn the area around, and the resources to go with them, are firmly in place. We urgently need clarity on that. The hardship and austerity in rural areas has come about largely as a result of the removal of remoteness as a factor when calculating what it costs for a rural authority to deliver services across a vast area. The County Councils Network estimates that that has removed £300 million from its members’ budgets—an amount that the Government expect to be made up by increased council tax. Shropshire council has been squeezed at both ends—first by years of Conservative maladministration, and then by Labour cutting its funding, despite the obvious need —and it is far from alone. Rather than tackling the problem head on, the Government have underfunded rural councils, which has perpetuated rural deprivation. That is particularly acute where people lack access to services, and it is hidden, unlike urban deprivation. While door-knocking in my constituency, I met a delightful elderly gentleman living in a small cottage, and I was astonished to also meet his grandson, who was apparently living in his shed in the garden because he was unable to find anywhere else to live. Such cases go unnoticed in homelessness statistics, because families and communities find their own solutions to wrap around those individuals, but no one thinks a shed is appropriate accommodation for that young man. He should not have been allowed to fall through the net. A lack of funds for local transport perpetuates isolation and leads to a vicious cycle, stunting economic growth and creating further challenges for the council’s provision of services such as social care. When members of the Casey commission came to Shropshire to talk about the challenges of delivering social care in a rural area, they were astonished by the notion that carers must have a car because there is no transport in the evening or on a Sunday. Yesterday, the Prime Minister spoke of the importance of local transport and publicly provided services. We all agree with him, but Shropshire’s bus allocation has been cut despite the fact that it has lost more bus miles than anywhere else. Revenue funding is due to drop £175,000 in 2027-28. The Secretary of State for Transport, in an answer to me about step-free access at Whitchurch station, implied that the funds will be spent where the people are, not where the need is. She said: “When we are investing in the accessibility of stations in the future, we need to get maximum benefit for the travelling public.” —[ Official Report , 16 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 1059.] Previously, that has meant that the funds go to the most densely populated areas, not to those where there are no real alternative forms of transport. The patchy public transport network across North Shropshire means that it is almost impossible for most residents to manage without a car, and that brings further associated costs. Those who cannot access a car, whether they are young or old, become isolated and unable to access opportunities, education and services. Similar patterns of deprivation are reinforced through Government funding for education in rural areas, even though they often already struggle with teacher recruitment and retention. Schools in North Shropshire received an average of £6,460 a head last year, compared with a national average of about £7,910, but outcomes at GCSE and key stage 4 are consistently lower than the national average, and indeed the west midlands average. How can the Government justify lower funding when the outcomes are already lower? Surely every child deserves the opportunities provided by a properly funded education. That applies to capital spending in education too. One shocking example in my constituency is a primary school in one of the most rural parishes that still has outside toilets, in their original Victorian red-brick building. A lady told me during my summer tour this year that her granddaughter was too afraid to use the toilets because they are full of spiders and had an accident at school as a result. That is unacceptable. That is the kind of thing that people remember when they are 50 if it happened to them when they were seven at school. Young people in rural areas are having their horizons limited as a direct result of Government policy. That needs to change, urgently. In what way are the Government tackling inequality if rural and coastal areas are persistently underfunded, despite their worse outcomes? My constituents rightly perceive an entirely broken system in which every year they pay more and receive less. That is obviously unfair and is opening the door wide to populists and extremists who exploit the situation with divisive messages to divide our community and simple but unworkable solutions. The new Prime Minister has given us all hope by promising growth in every postcode. He will fail in rural areas if he does not address the obvious unfairness that Government policy combined with the pressures of ever-increasing demand for social care are delivering. Proper devolution will help rural councils tailor public services to the areas that they serve, but there must be acknowledgement of the need for a fair allocation of resources to go with those theoretical powers. I hope the Minister can provide details in his response.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all hon. Members who have come along and made excellent speeches—particularly team south-west, who have turned out in force. They all highlighted the difficulties in delivering services in sparsely populated areas with vast distances to travel. They spoke about the impact on highways funding, the importance of generating economic growth, the cost of delivering SEND, and the proxy creation of district councils through the re-empowering of town and parish councils to deliver things that the unitary council can no longer afford to deliver because they are not a statutory requirement. They were really good speeches. I am very disappointed that the Minister wound up with a speech that kind of told us that everything is actually fine. On the day that the local government finance settlement was announced, I sat on the Opposition Benches, along with all my colleagues, without a clue about what my local authority had been awarded because it was not findable, we had not been told and it could not be googled, yet everyone on the Labour Benches appeared to know what their settlement was and congratulated the Minister on its delivery. That is symptomatic of a pattern of this Government. They tell rural areas, “Everything is fine. It looks pretty. Go away and stop worrying, and actually, we are going to focus on urban areas.” We all recognise that urban areas need investment and are not thriving as they should be—this is not about pitting one area against another—but rural areas need fair funding and devolution. In a council that has stripped back every single employee that it can, there is no capacity to generate economic growth or transform the underlying financial structure of the council, because nobody has the time in the day to do it. They need that devolution funding to rethink how they deliver services in a sustainable way for the future. I hope the Minister will take those points on board. Question put and agreed to . Resolved, That this House has considered Government support for rural upper tier local authorities.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for rural upper tier local authorities. I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association, and I am extremely worried about the widening gap in opportunity, social mobility and economic growth between rural and urban areas. Rural areas are being held back and the futures of rural children are being limited by public services that are underfunded and overstretched, lamentably slow digital connectivity, the lack of public transport, and urban-centric perceptions based on misunderstandings about the nature of rural life. The last local government finance settlement laid bare that neglect in financial terms. It was a stark admission from this Government that their plan is to strip funding from rural areas to improve services in urban ones. The Rural Services Network has calculated that urban councils will receive 32% more funding per head than rural councils next year. Meanwhile, rural residents pay on average 17% more council tax per head than urban residents, out of lower than average wages, to plug the gap, yet the cost of delivery means that they receive a poorer public service. For Shropshire council, the funding situation is particularly grave, following 16 years of catastrophic management by Shropshire’s Conservatives. When the Lib Dem administration took over in May 2025, Shropshire was in the most difficult financial position of any council in England. The recent Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy report on the huge challenge in Shropshire reveals the details of the Conservatives’ poor management: unrealistic budgets and constant overspends that burned through all the remaining reserves; an obsession with unaffordable vanity projects, such as the purchase of Shrewsbury’s shopping centres and millions spent on an unaffordable road; a sloppy workforce restructure in 2024-25, which drove out the talented managers needed to transform the financial situation; and the “legacy impact” of five years of consecutive council tax freezes. All that was left as a parting gift for the new administration to pick up. The report describes the direction of the council under its recently appointed new chief executive and four-to-five-year improvement plan as a “positive step”, and a peer review by the LGA praised the “significant strides” made so far, but the financial position remains perilous and the challenge to restructure the council is huge. Eighty per cent of Shropshire council’s budget is spent on social care, an issue on which the Liberal Democrats have long called for urgent action. The cost of delivering social care in a rural area with the demographics of North Shropshire, where 25% of the population is aged over 65, means that the pressure is only set to rise. Adult social care spending has already been rising by about 5.8% a year, more than could have been generated by council tax increases, because people are living longer, needs are becoming more complex, and workforce costs are rising, with care providers consequently charging more. Demand for education, health and care plans has risen even faster. Shropshire now has 3,016 active EHCPs, a 21% increase in one year compared with national growth of 11%. The number of school-aged children with EHCPs has increased by 78% since before the pandemic. That puts more pressure on specialist education, school transport and family support. Last year, the council put up council tax by 8.99%. Although that brought in a massive £21 million a year, it covered only about a third of the extra cost from demand and inflation alone. Amid that financial turmoil, the Government have cut funding per head in Shropshire. It is projected to fall well below 90% of 2024 funding by 2028, while the national average is set to rise to around 118%. The exceptional financial support provided to balance the books bears interest and must be paid back; it worsens prospects for the future, and for a considerable time. Under the Government’s new devolution plans, there is a risk that the gap between mayoral and non-mayoral authorities could increase further. During the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday, I asked him about the importance of power and resourcing being made available to all authorities, not just those that have formed a combined authority or have a mayor. His answer was in some ways encouraging, but in other ways it bothered me. He said that when Shropshire council could “stand on its own two feet” —[ Official Report , 1 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 49.] it would be able to access devolution, but the Government’s own three-year financial settlement is forcing austerity on rural areas, making the achievement of self-sufficiency far less likely.

• 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.

• 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 (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 (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The amendment was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) on behalf of the approximately 1.2 million people in England who live with myalgic encephalomyelitis, because five years after the introduction of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline NG206, little has changed. Service provision according to NG206 remains patchy and poor, with many patients having traumatic experiences. The amendment would require a period to be set in which integrated care boards and other health bodies must comply with the guideline, and the Secretary of State must publish an annual statement on compliance with NG206 across the NHS in England. The introduction of the guideline after sustained campaigning represented a major reform after years in which ME was treated as a psychiatric condition and patients were pushed to follow graduated exercise therapy. Often, GET had disastrous consequences, precipitating serious deteriorations that patients never recovered from. Credit is due to the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), the current Minister for Public Health and Prevention, for her determination when in opposition to bring about the change. In a written answer published last week, the Minister for Public Health and Prevention confirmed that all ICBs have a statutory obligation to ensure sufficient care provision for their population, but the experience of those with ME is that that obligation is far from being fulfilled. In some ICBs, no services for ME are commissioned; in others, the provider has a history of providing services that reflect not NG206, but the old and condemned approach of GET. Some services are provided out of psychiatry departments, which is a huge red flag for those with ME, and information on the quality of services is patchy. Results from a big survey of more than 5,000 people with ME or long covid in late 2025 painted a bleak picture: more than half said that they had been disbelieved by an NHS healthcare official, one in three had been made to feel that their ME was their own fault, and almost two in five had had an encounter with a clinician that was traumatic or traumatising. Five years after its introduction, NG206 is far from being complied with, and so members of the ME community—approximately 1.2 million people, as I said—are desperately asking that something be done to address the situation. The amendment represents a route that offers hope for many long-neglected and mistreated people. I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote, but I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us about improving the consistency of provision for people with ME. Moving to the clause generally, we broadly support the intention, but think that more safeguards need to be built into the principle, given the powers that are being handed to the Secretary of State. The clause makes provision for the period for compliance with a NICE recommendation, but gives no detail of how that will work in practice or how often the Secretary of State will change the standard three-month rule that NICE requires. No ceiling is put on the compliance period, no criteria govern when the period may be extended, and there is no duty to consult or set out reasoning. What will the process be when the Secretary of State intervenes in the period of time for compliance with a NICE recommendation? We thought that there would be some mix of evidence requirements, consultation, statement of reasons, impact assessment and some kind of parliamentary scrutiny. The Secretary of State should at least have to set out their reasoning why the new power has been used. The value of the current requirement is almost entirely due to the compliance period being short and fixed. The three-month rule gives a positive NICE recommendation practical force. A power to lengthen or vary that period without constraint weakens the requirement in substance while leaving it formally intact. The right is not removed but its timing is made discretionary. For a patient awaiting treatment, that does not amount to the same thing. A variation power is not new. Since the introduction of the budget impact test in 2017, NHS England has been able to apply to NICE to extend the funding period for medicines with a budget impact above a defined threshold, but, importantly, that period is criteria-based, triggered by a defined financial threshold, subject to a defined process and time-limited in effect. We are not overtly opposed to the power in principle, but more safeguards should be built into the criteria for its application. I would be grateful for some guidance from the Minister on that.