Helen Morgan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 18 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Liberal Democrats broadly support the abolition of NHS England. As constituency MPs and users of the NHS, we see a huge amount of duplication and unnecessary bureaucracy as our local health organisations try to navigate the processes of securing capital investment, for example. Reducing duplication between the Department and NHS England is clearly welcome if done well, but we have concerns about the way in which that is being undertaken. We think that this centralising process, under which the Secretary of State takes on more powers, risks political capture. That may not seem like a huge risk considering who the current Secretary of State and shadow Secretary of State are, but given the febrile political atmosphere that we are working in, it seems a poor time to give a Secretary of State sweeping operational powers over the detailed functioning of the NHS, with few checks and balances. I will speak about the most concerning elements and make the argument in greater detail when we debate cause 11. As the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ilford North, said that top-down reorganisation of the NHS was the last thing he wanted to do, and yet that is where we find ourselves today. It feels as if the plan has been pulled together very quickly, and that it has been complex to turn into a piece of workable legislation. It has taken a long time even for the Treasury to agree on the funding of the redundancy bill. We have found out that redundancy costs of £800 million will be taken out of the future operating costs of the NHS. I hope that the Minister will describe how that will be delivered to ensure that the costs do not detract from patient care on the frontline. There is still some uncertainty about the new structures within the DHSC and NHSE reorganisation. We have heard that the previously announced plan for three top-level roles—a permanent secretary, a chief medical officer and an NHS chief executive officer—might be changed, and that there is a proposal to merge the permanent secretary and NHS CEO roles. At this stage, as we start to consider the legislation, it would be helpful to have clarity on who will be in charge of the NHS and how the layers below will be organised. We have also heard that hours of staff time, leadership focus and money have been directed away from frontline services. In the oral evidence session, Sarah Woolnough of the King’s Fund and Jon Restell of the Managers in Partnership union suggested that that has been distracting and that, in any body, a significant reorganisation has an opportunity cost. In my previous life, I was an accountant at Centrica plc—one of those back-office checkers everybody wants to get rid of, but who turns out to be quite important in providing the information that enables the business to run smoothly. We found reorganisation hugely distracting; it took away from our ability to do our day jobs well. Then, within a couple of years, a lot of the equivalent roles were re-hired and we were back to square one. It is critical that the Government avoid that scenario in this big reorganisation of the NHS. I hope that the Minister can provide reassurance that it has been well thought through and that we will not find ourselves, two or three years down the line, with similar numbers of people replicating the roles that exist currently, following a huge distraction that resulted in no improvement in patient outcome or experience. My questions are fairly limited. Does the Minister know, at this point, what the impact the reorganisation has had on the system and how much it has cost in secondary impacts? We have had eight Health Secretaries in the past 10 years. After all that swapping and changing, how can the Minister ensure a degree of continuity when the new Secretary of State takes over? One benefit of quangos is continuity over a long time, divorced from the political turmoil of Westminster. We must be clear about how distractions will be avoided in the new structure. Finally, we heard in evidence on Tuesday that the new structure feels like a centralisation of power in Whitehall, when what is needed is more power devolved down to local level so that local services can be shaped to reflect the demographics that they serve and to address the important point of health inequality. Will the Minister explain why she is confident that measures to ensure local accountability and local shaping of services will be able to go ahead? Tackling health inequalities is the priority of everybody in this Room, and we need to ensure that we have an efficient structure in place to ensure that it happens.

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

  More

  Q Can I also ask about the single patient record? We have heard concern from GPs about their role in being the data controller and what that might mean when data is shared beyond their initial remit. What do you think is most desirable: for the GP to remain the data controller, or for that role to sit elsewhere? Dr Dickson: I am not a general practitioner. The key thing for data control and data sharing is the trust that patients have in us to share and to hold their data in a way that is beneficial for them as individuals, and potentially sometimes beneficial for the population, but not to share it for what you might call retail use. One issue with data control is that most general practices are small businesses with a small number of staff working flat out. That legal obligation of a data controller looms large for them, whereas it does not loom as large for large NHS organisations—although, technically, the impact is as hard. I do not mind who controls the data; what we need to do is to find a way to enable that data to be shared safely and with a belief that it is done for patient benefit. I do not think it matters whether GPs maintain data control, with something else happening to support them, or whether it is taken away from them; it is about how we enable that to happen. But I do think that general practice struggles more with resilience. Kay Keane: I think that is true, in that we are generalists, not experts in a lot of areas. Certainly, we can be very good data controllers of our own data—the stuff that we produce, and that we write and code about our patients. We have to code things to be able to respond to our contract, so we have to be good at that. Things fall down when information comes from other providers, which we have no control of. That would be an area of real concern—that such information would be part of our property and our jurisdiction. I guess it is about the detail of how that record will be structured. If it is a brand-new thing and we all feed into it, that is very different from all the data coming to the current healthcare record that we hold. I think the detail is not there yet to enable us to describe who should be the data controller, but certainly I do not think that any practice manager would want to control data generated by someone other than themselves.

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

  More

  Q We have talked a lot about the single patient record, but I want to touch on whether the Bill does enough for people who have historically not been listened to, as we have heard has been the case for carers and women who have suffered in the maternity system. Does the Bill deal with the problem of people not being listened to? What opportunities are there to improve the Bill in a way that improves the situation? Paul Farmer: Listening to patients is an incredibly important part of any health system. It is necessary to make sure that the right mechanisms are in place at both the individual and the systems level. The aspects of the Bill that cover patient experience need careful consideration. Many people were fans of what Healthwatch delivered, and others were not, but it had a clearly established system and mechanism in place to ensure that patient voices were heard. It is important that clear systems are established to ensure that that patient experience is heard. I have operated around the health system for a number of years, seeing a number of incarnations of patient voice organisations and representation; you really have to think about it from the individual and the whole-system level—from top to bottom. It is important that the Committee looks at the provisions in the Bill in that context to make sure that where there are good supports, they not only are preserved but can be built on. For example, how do you make sure that patient voice is heard at ICB level, in providers and, in particular, in the new world of neighbourhood health? Kath Abrahams: Helen, it is a great question. Clearly, the Bill itself, and certainly the single patient record, are never going to replace wonderful, kind and compassionate care where people feel they are listened to. As I have already said, but I will say again, a combination of people not being listened to at all, despite knowing their own health better than anyone else, or having to retell their stories has very challenging consequences. Both leave somebody feeling that nobody really cares or understands them. I spoke to a supporter of Tommy’s this morning who has had five miscarriages. She was saying it appears to be quite a small thing, but every time she went to see a clinician, they said, “Oh, you’ve had four losses” or “You’ve had three losses.” It was about them not understanding, and her having to correct her records and getting letters through. It is about that sense of not being listened to. As we develop the Bill, women and birthing people, from a maternity perspective, should have the opportunity to contribute to the way something like the single patient record is shaped. You could have a digitally accurate system that did nothing to reassure women or help them feel looked after or listened to, or you could have a beautiful system where the information was recorded in such a way that it really helped. Alongside that, clinicians need to continue to receive the right sort of training. They need to have enough time. As Paul said, you need those patient voices involved in overseeing how things are going, and able to contribute and help. The Bill itself, as a mechanism, will not do enough. This is about designing it carefully with patients in mind and, in the case of maternity services, involving women right from the start. Emily Holzhausen: There are provisions in the Bill that transfer responsibilities from NHS England to the Secretary of State in relation to involving patients, and it is very explicit that this also involves carers. It is very important that explicit Healthwatch duties to involve carers have been transferred into the Bill in relation to integrated care boards. That matters because their portfolio of commissioning different services is increasing, as is that of local authorities. Those are strategic duties. The reason why that is important, to be very specific about carers, is that they provide £152 billion-worth of care. They outnumber staff three to one. They are experts in care over time and they want to be involved. Of course, what colleagues have said about good practice is critical to look at. The changes to Healthwatch—others have raised this—do not consider the person’s journey across different services, health and care. There is an independent voice that we do not have, and will not have, in quite the same way. A very small proportion of carers felt that, if they raised a complaint, it would be acted on. That kind of independent voice is actually very important. As Kath said, those duties are really important, but we need top-to-toe listening to patients. We also need to be explicit about listening to carers, not just on behalf of the patient, but by asking, “What is your experience as a carer of managing this care?” because that is very different. To be honest, I do not think we have the right data flows behind that to collect and understand people’s journeys and improve things. I hope that that is also something that will be looked at.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Rail Connections to London: Rural Towns · Hansard source

  More

  One reason people use their cars instead of the railway is that they cannot access the platform because there are steps and no lift. Does the hon. Member agree that restoring step-free access to stations such Whitchurch in my constituency is critical to making sure that people can benefit from using the railway and do not get in their cars?

• 23 Mar 2026 · Rail Connections to London: Rural Towns · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is my constituency neighbour, and she is making an excellent speech about how wonderful Shropshire is. Also lovely is Oswestry in my constituency, another medieval town with a great history. I support the call that I think she will make for a direct service to London that runs through the whole of Shropshire, but in my constituency the rail line goes to Gobowen, not Oswestry, and that is really important. I support the call for the service, but does she agree that it is really important that Oswestry is linked to Gobowen, so that people in all our medieval towns can benefit from the railway?

• 12 Feb 2026 · Rural Mobile Connectivity · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House calls on the Government and service providers to help improve mobile connectivity in rural areas. I start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for granting time to hold this vital debate and for granting us a second opportunity to do so, as the debate had to be postponed earlier this year because of overrunning Government business. I declare my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on digital communities. As MP and resident of one of the most rural constituencies in England, I know from first-hand experience how frustrating it is to try to call the office or family members from a mobile phone. Whether at home, travelling around by car, out in the countryside or—more rarely, I have to say—travelling by train or bus, there is always a significant chance that we will not be able to make a phone call or connect to the internet. This has a very real impact on my constituents’ lives. Stories of people being forced to sit in the loft or stand in the one spot in the garden with signal, regardless of the weather, would sometimes verge on comical if they were not so serious. For constituents waiting for their GP to call or for their disabled daughter to say they have made it to work okay, or for constituents in their 90s who have been left without power or heating, this situation is not funny at all. In the words of Terence, a disabled 80-year-old veteran: “What is really annoying is that I am paying the same amount for my unreliable mobile service that someone in an area with good mobile signal pays.” This week, I asked people to share their mobile signal experience with a single Facebook post. Within a day, 400 people had commented to share how awful it is in their area; whether they were in St Martins or Selattyn, in Welshampton or Woore, it was the same incredibly frustrating story. As one constituent said: “Finding 4G is like striking gold.” It is not just North Shropshire where reliable signal is such a rare commodity; it is the same in rural areas up and down the country. Elderly residents in sheltered accommodation are forced into digital isolation, out of contact with their families. Others have forked out for the privilege of playing provider bingo. As another constituent told me: “Our adult daughter has a disability and learning issues, so having a good signal is imperative to us. Because of this, all three of us are on different networks (EE, O2 and Vodafone) so that we can ‘work the system’ and find the best signal available, at additional cost to us.” That might have been acceptable 20 years ago, when mobile phones were a novel piece of technology and people could rely on letters and landlines, but in 2026, when landlines have been switched to digital and Royal Mail reaches the house once a week or even once a fortnight, it is simply not good enough. Mobile phones are an essential part of daily life, yet huge swathes of the country are being forced to cope with a substandard service. People have to put up with not just awful coverage but being gaslighted by companies telling them that their signal is just fine. One of the biggest issues that comes up time and again, in my work as both MP for North Shropshire and chair of the all-party parliamentary group on digital communities, is the mapping data provided by the industry to Ofcom, which is often false. In July, the River Severn Partnership advanced wireless innovation region, which is funded by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, conducted the UK’s largest independent survey of mobile coverage in partnership with Streetwave, supported by over 30 councils through the use of their bin lorry routes. The report confirmed a significant difference between Ofcom’s view of mobile network capability and the real-world experience endured by those of us in rural areas. Ofcom stated that 1.45% of geographical areas were considered areas without “good” voice capability from at least one of the four network operators, while the River Severn Partnership showed that it was 15.33% of postcodes. That is a huge difference.

• 27 Oct 2025 · Indexation of Pension Rights · Hansard source

  More

  16. What steps he is taking to help tackle the potential impact of the lack of indexation on pre-1997 pensionable service in defined benefit pension schemes on people affected.

• 27 Oct 2025 · Indexation of Pension Rights · Hansard source

  More

  I have been contacted by a constituent who, along with her husband, worked for Hewlett Packard. They accrued their pensions before 1997, and now, along with about 50,000 members of the Pre-97 Alliance, they are facing real financial hardship. In 10 years’ time, their pensions will be pretty much worthless. Will the Minister not consider legislating to ensure that these people are not left in poverty, having been promised proper pensions when they started work for the companies concerned?

• 2 Sept 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is unclear for some areas, including Shropshire, where they will end up being made to form a combined authority. Shropshire shares borders with Wales and Cheshire, which is in a different region, so there is no clear partner for it. I am concerned that Shropshire will end up being forced into a combined authority with an area that does not look like Shropshire or give any benefit to its residents. Does my hon. Friend agree that this needs to be better thought through?