Mental Health Bill [Lords]

Helen Morgan Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I welcome this piece of legislation, which I think is generally in a very good place. I have had a tragic situation in my constituency, where somebody who had been admitted to hospital in a suicidal state discharged themselves, after which, unfortunately, no follow-up care was provided, and they took their own life. It has been devastating for their family. Would the Secretary of State consider looking at how the community supports people experiencing a mental health crisis who might have discharged themselves, and how we can keep them safe in future?

[Wes Streeting]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. The Bill deals to an extent with cases that would fall under the category she describes, in particular through reforms to community treatment orders. However, it would not necessarily cover the full extent of the sorts of people who might find themselves in that position, which is where I think we can use technology—which is not the answer to every problem in the health service, by the way. However, through better use of data, patient records and analytics, we will be better able in the future to predict risk and prevent tragedies as in the case the hon. Lady describes, which are a tragedy not just for those whose lives are cut needlessly short, but for those who live their lives with that intolerable grief and loss for the many years that follow.

It is a shameful truth about our society that people with a learning disability or autism are detained, sometimes for years, with little or no therapeutic benefit. The Bill will put an end to that injustice, limiting detentions so that people with a learning disability and autistic people are no longer detained beyond 28 days unless they have a co-occurring mental health condition that would benefit from treatment in hospital. This will require the necessary community provision in place to support people with a learning disability or autism, and we are working to set out what strong community services look like and on the resources required to implement them, so that there are robust alternatives to hospital care.

To help to plug the flow of inappropriate admissions to hospital, the Bill places a duty on integrated care boards to improve monitoring and support for people with a learning disability or autism who may be at risk of future detention. The Bill will introduce statutory care, education and treatment reviews to ensure that patients are safe and receiving the right care and treatment when detained, and that a plan to discharge them to the community is being worked up. We will also remove prison and police cells from the definition of “places of safety”. Police cells are for criminals, not patients in desperate need of medical help.

Throughout the development of these reforms, we have maintained the central purpose of the Mental Health Act—to keep individuals and the wider public safe. The vast majority of people with mental illness, including severe mental illness, present no risk to themselves or others, and, for the majority of people, treatment can be provided without compulsion. However, there are some people whose illness, when acute, can make them a risk to themselves, and sometimes to others.

No one knows this better than the families of Ian Coates, Barnaby Webber and Grace O’Malley-Kumar, the victims of Valdo Calocane’s violent rampage in Nottingham, whose campaign for justice and accountability has been truly awe-inspiring, or indeed the family of Valdo Calocane, with whom I have also spent time, listening to their experience of feeling badly let down by health services. As the independent investigation into the murders found, both he and his victims were failed by the health service, and their families have been left to live with the consequences with a level of pain the rest of us can scarcely imagine. I would like to place on the record my thanks to all four families for meeting me as my team and I worked on the Bill.

Thanks to the amendments that we are making to the Mental Health Act, decision makers will have to consider the risk of serious harm when making decisions to detain. That will ensure that any risks to the public and patients are considered as part of the assessment process. We will also introduce a new requirement for the responsible clinician to consult another person when deciding whether to discharge a patient, putting in place robust safeguards against the release of potentially dangerous people.

Finally, as I have said, legislation alone will not fix the wider issues of increasing mental health needs and long waiting times. To do that, the Government are investing in earlier intervention to meet patients’ needs and prevent them from reaching crisis point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I wish to draw the House’s attention to the appalling case of a young man who was very badly failed by mental health services and, indeed, tragically lost his life as a result. Today I am representing his family, my constituents Graeme, Sam and Kaitlyn, who have been campaigning to ensure that no other family has to go through the distress that they have endured and continue to endure.

Declan Morrison was 26 years old when he died. He had complex needs, and required some of the most specialist care and support throughout his life. He had autism, associated severe learning disabilities, bipolar disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. He was non-verbal and required 24-hour residential care, which he had needed and received since he was 11 years old. Declan’s behaviour could be challenging, and at times he would injure himself—and sometimes, latterly, staff members caring for him. That is why it is so important that he was supported by those who knew him well, and who were able to understand his behaviour and therefore provide, as best they could, for his needs. His family were unable to provide him with the care he needed in their home, and had to put their trust in the system and specialist carers to make sure that he was looked after. Sadly, their trust was broken, with the most devastating consequences.

Declan was moved into his final residential home in May 2021 after the previous placement had become unable to meet his needs, although in a subsequent independent safeguarding adult review following his death, that decision was called into question. For a brief period, Declan seemed to settle into his new placement, but quite quickly staff at the care home raised concerns that they could not safely care for him owing to his behaviour, which had become particularly challenging. However, attempts to find an alternative single-space home for him, which he needed, failed. There was nothing available, not a single appropriate placement, so he remained in that placement for a further 10 months, with his mental and physical health worsening. I will not describe here what life was like for Declan and his family at this time, because it is too distressing.

[Helen Morgan]

My hon. Friend is making an important point about lack of provision. Does he agree that the 10-year timescale for ensuring that that provision is available is critical? If the Government could speed that up, it would be extremely helpful in instances such as this.

[Ian Sollom]

I entirely agree, and I will come on to make that very point.

Needless to say, events took a very dark and ultimately heartbreaking turn. In March 2022, a serious incident occurred: Declan became very distressed, and assaulted some staff members. Police were called, and a number of officers assisted staff to restrain Declan. As a last resort, he was detained under section 136 of the Mental Health Act and taken to the section 136 suite at Fulbourn hospital. Some may not be aware that under the law, patients who are placed in a section 136 suite should be there for no more than 24 hours, or 36 hours in extreme circumstances. Declan was there for 10 days—10 days in an emergency suite that was entirely unsuitable for a person with his severe needs; 10 days while more than 100 places were contacted; 10 days during which not one bed in suitable accommodation could be found locally, regionally or nationally for him. Finally, he simply could not cope, and he banged his head repeatedly against a wall, inflicting a catastrophic head injury on himself. He was taken to hospital and operated on, but he died some days later in April 2022, when his family made the heart-wrenching decision to turn off his life support.

It is painfully relevant that we are debating the Mental Health Bill today, because clauses 3 and 4 specifically address the detention of people with autism and learning disabilities, like Declan. The Bill would limit detention for treatment under section 3 of the Act, but I must ask the Minister: would these provisions have been enough to prevent Declan’s tragedy? His case highlights the critical importance of having appropriate crisis provisions and suitable community placements available, not just in theory but in reality. The coroner’s report on Declan’s death and the independent care review found major failings in the system that was supposed to protect and care for him. He was acknowledged to have been in crisis for months. Ultimately there was, and there remains, an enormous shortage of available placements for someone with Declan’s complex needs, both in the community and within the NHS. As Declan’s father told me, in words that I hope will be heeded, the reliance on the section 136 suite to contain autistic individuals while they are in crisis is abhorrent, and must be seen as a breach of the Human Rights Act.

Declan’s sister, Kaitlyn, has called for specific crisis provisions to be funded and created for individuals with autism who need a designated place of safety when experiencing a severe mental health crisis. Such provisions would need appropriately trained and experienced staff. In fact, one was created in Cambridgeshire following Declan’s death. Sadly, the funding was pulled and it closed, but it operated at 90% capacity when it was open, showing the very real and immediate need for this kind of provision to exist permanently and across the country.

The Bill places new duties on integrated care boards and local authorities to provide community support for people with autism and learning disabilities, but how will the Government ensure that the duties it outlines translate into sustainable services that prevent cases like Declan’s from ever happening again? Duties without resources are merely words on paper. Although it is welcome that clause 49 removes police stations and prisons as places of safety, Declan’s case shows that even designated section 136 suites can be wholly inappropriate for individuals with complex needs. How will the Government ensure that appropriate alternatives are in place before the provisions commence?

I note with deep concern that the Government anticipate that full implementation of the Bill could take up to 10 years, which is too long for vulnerable people to continue to be at risk. In the light of the coroner’s findings in Declan’s case, will the Government commit to prioritising the provisions relating to autistic people and those with learning disabilities, particularly the development of appropriate crisis services, as outlined in the Bill?

On behalf of Graeme, Sam, Kaitlyn and all those people like Declan, I ask the Government whether they are satisfied that the provisions set out in the Bill will prevent tragedies like this one from ever happening again. If not, I urge them to make changes to ensure that it will. For Declan and all those with autism and learning disabilities, who deserve better from our mental health system, we must make sure that the Bill delivers the change they need—not in 10 years, but now. Their lives depend on it.

NHS and Care Volunteer Responders Service

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I was a volunteer vaccination steward during the pandemic, and the Liberal Democrats are hugely grateful to the thousands of volunteers who have made a difference to the lives of patients and vulnerable people in their communities since the pandemic ended. Their compassion and commitment have been inspiring.

We are concerned that the end of the programme has been announced at extremely short notice; there will be no further shifts in just 12 days’ time. Will the Minister reassure the House that those currently receiving help from the volunteer scheme, such as collecting prescriptions or fetching shopping, will not be left high and dry after next Saturday? Has the Department conducted an impact assessment? If so, will it publish it? As with so many major decisions, such as dropping cross-party talks on social care or cutting funding for integrated care boards by 50%, it is concerning that the Government did not come to the House first to answer questions from hon. Members. Will the Minister reassure the House that these decisions will improve patient care and that they are not just a cost-cutting exercise dictated by the Treasury?

[Karin Smyth]

I thank the hon. Lady for her work volunteering and supporting the scheme during covid. The announcement is about NHS England. The organisation will continue to work with the NHS and voluntary organisations to ensure that where people are volunteering, that will continue, and that volunteers continue to be recruited, ahead of a fuller launch of the recruitment portal later this year. On her wider point, this Government are not dropping talks with other parties about social care, which is being taken forward by the independent commission under Louise Casey.

Brain Tumours: Research and Treatment

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for bringing forward this debate. It has been a privilege to sit through such excellent speeches on this very important topic. I am sure that the hon. Lady’s sister Margaret would be very proud of her, and I am sure that my hon. Friend’s sister is proud of him too.

As the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend have outlined, a brain tumour diagnosis can be utterly devastating and life-changing. Some 12,000 people a year are diagnosed with a primary tumour, while many others are diagnosed with a secondary tumour that has spread from elsewhere in their body. Primary tumours are largely unpreventable, and cause the death of more adults and children under 40 than any other type of cancer. As primary brain tumours do not spread around the body like other cancer types, they do not receive the same staging categorisation.

Current NHS programmes for diagnosing cancers earlier do not include brain tumours, as they focus on targets and improvements for catching more cancers in stages 1 and 2. Nearly half of people diagnosed—49%—are found to have a so-called benign tumour, a grade 1 or 2 tumour that grows more slowly. Those tumours are not technically cancerous, so they are not covered by previous cancer plans or initiatives for improving cancer care. However, the treatment and care for patients with a low-grade tumour has long-lasting impacts and can be life-altering.

I would like to mention the experience of my constituent Madi Ruby, who has tirelessly campaigned and fundraised on this issue. She has experienced both a grade 1 and a grade 2 tumour. She first experienced symptoms of a brain tumour in 1995 with numbness in her right arm, and went on to write backwards and develop headaches. She went for a CT scan when that numbness spread to her foot and she was involved in a minor car accident. Only then was she diagnosed with a grade 1 meningioma measuring 6 cm, which was removed—she was only 23 at the time.

Although that surgery was successful, Madi developed partial epilepsy. She was eventually discharged after five years of clear scans, but as we have heard, tumours still impact lives. She has had poor mental health and become depressed, and in 2013, her brain tumour returned. That tumour has also been removed, but she still deals with partial epilepsy, constant headaches and migraines, and suffers daily. She is also an inspirational person; she has bravely spoken out about her depression, trained to be a counsellor, and is now an associate dean responsible for nursing and allied health professionals at Wrexham Glyndŵr University.

I also want to mention my constituent Shaun Burgess, who raised more than £11,000 for the Brain Tumour Charity and the Meningioma Support Group by running 3,000 miles across Shropshire last year. He was raising money after his wife Mo was treated for a non-cancerous tumour, but not everyone diagnosed with a brain tumour gets that second chance; Shaun has lost a friend to a more aggressive brain tumour.

We must end the tragedy of people losing their lives because treatment for brain cancer took too long to start. As my hon. Friend the Member for Witney has outlined, progress on the treatment of brain tumours has not been good enough. The diagnosis and treatment of cancer should be a top priority for any Government, and the UK should be a global leader in cancer research and outcomes. I urge the Minister to listen to the pleas of Members from across the House on that point today.

For so many people, diagnosis and treatment are too difficult to access. My constituency is a typical example. The major hospitals in Shrewsbury and Telford face a number of challenges and regularly have some of the longest waiting times in the NHS for cancer screening and treatment. In December 2024, just 64% of patients were treated within the 62-day period, despite the target being 85%. The average across England was much better, but still poor at 71%.

Not only do too many people live in treatment deserts, but when they are finally offered the treatment they need, it is hard to access. Anyone living in rural North Shropshire would say that. Having waited anxiously for weeks or months for a scan and the result, they then, if the news is bad, have to travel extremely long distances for the treatment they need. Most of North Shropshire is an hour and a quarter away from a radiotherapy centre on public transport. For patients with brain tumours, public transport is fundamental if they can no longer drive. One of my constituents has faced exactly that problem, having had their driving licence suspended by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency after being diagnosed with a tumour. Apparently that could be remedied if his consultant provided a BT1 form, but he has not been able to get through to the doctor. In the meantime, he is trapped without freedom in a constituency with some of the worst public transport in the country.

Ongoing funding issues, which we know are a huge challenge for the Government, continue to afflict brain tumour patients in a number of ways. Another constituent of mine told me their experience after being referred to a care navigator following their diagnosis. The care navigator’s job is to contact patients on a monthly basis, seeing whether they have any problems and concerns and guiding them through an experience that is extremely traumatic. However, the care navigator position has now been cut, and my constituent has been left in the dark, with growing anxiety and no one to speak to. No one should be going without treatment because there is not enough equipment, and no one should suffer because there are not enough staff to support them.

What would Liberal Democrats do? We would recruit more cancer nurses, so that every patient has a dedicated specialist supporting them throughout their treatment. For brain tumours, we would like to see an improvement in diagnosis, the care people receive and the range of treatment options available. Diagnosis targets need to reflect the fact that brain cancer does not occur in stages in the way that other cancers do—otherwise, we risk brain tumours falling through the cracks of NHS targets and objectives. Low-grade brain tumours, such as that suffered by Madi, need renewed attention, including in the upcoming cancer plan, which we look forward to seeing.

The Liberal Democrats have committed to boosting cancer survival rates more generally by passing a cancer survival research Act, which would require the Government to co-ordinate and ensure funding for research into the cancers with the lowest survival rates, such as brain tumours. We would halve the time for new treatments to reach patients by expanding the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency’s capacity and ensuring that every patient starts their treatment for cancer within that 62-day urgent referral target. We would replace ageing radiotherapy machines and increase their number so that no one has to travel too far for treatment. Measures such as Margaret’s law, which the hon. Members who secured this debate have pressed for, would be an important step in the right direction to improve research in glioblastoma in particular, and I urge the Minister to consider that too.

Do the Government have any future plans for allocating support to research into vaccine treatment for brain tumours, which has reportedly shown remarkable progress against glioblastoma in recent studies? Too many patients with brain tumours have been let down by previous Governments over many years, and I hope that this Government will step up and make brain tumours, cancer and NHS care their No. 1 priority.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) and the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for securing this vitally important debate. They have both been powerful voices in this place for more research, greater care and better treatments for patients with brain tumours. My hon. Friend spoke so powerfully, as always, and in the name of her sister Margaret. I thank the hon. Member for Witney for sharing his sister’s story. I commend her for her fundraising activity and wish her the very best. The hon. Member asked three very clear questions, which I hope my response will cover.

I also thank other Members who made powerful contributions in what has been a very constructive debate. I hope my responses will answer their queries, but if not, I will endeavour to write to all Members following this debate about any gaps that are left. The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) spoke about disparity of drug access. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) asked for zest, and spoke about the requirement for it. He expressed the frustrations of the APPG and others at the speed at which we are able to make progress. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about the importance of research, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) spoke about clinical trials. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) brought his expertise on optometry to bear, and spoke about how useful an eye test can be. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, talked about low-grade tumours. I commend her constituents, whom she spoke about, for their work.

I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), for sharing the story of Isla’s stones. What a powerful metaphor and a powerful remembrance. He also spoke about the acquired brain injury strategy. My remarks will focus on brain tumours, but I can confirm that the ABI strategy remains in play and in development. I will update the House on that as soon as possible. First, I pay tribute to some fantastic charities for their advocacy—the Brain Tumour Charity, Brain Tumour Research, Cancer Research UK and Tom’s Trust, to name just a few.

Innovative research is vital in our fight against this devastating disease if we are to offer people the most cutting-edge treatments and the highest-quality care. The Department of Health and Social Care, through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, invests over £1.6 billion per year in research. In the past financial year alone, it invested over £130 million specifically in cancer research. That has enabled 261 brain tumour studies to happen in the NHS, involving 11,400 people in potentially life-changing research over the past six years. Since 2018, the NIHR has directly invested almost £12 million in brain tumour research projects; it has also spent around £37.5 million on wider infrastructure investments in facilities, services and the research workforce, making research possible. In addition, over five years, between 2020 and 2024, the Medical Research Council committed more than £18.5 million to brain tumour research.

Our investments are having an impact. NIHR-funded research has shown that a new targeted drug combination treatment can give better outcomes for one of the most common types of paediatric brain cancer, but of course there is still so much more to do. Too little is known about how to prevent, diagnose and manage brain tumours, and they remain one of the hardest cancers to treat and a challenging area for research. That is why we are committed to furthering our investment in brain cancer research and have already taken some steps to stimulate scientific progress. I would like to offer the House just three examples from the past year.

First, in September, the NIHR announced a new package of funding opportunities for brain cancer research for both adults and children. Secondly, in December, the NIHR established a new national brain tumour research consortium. The consortium brings together research from a range of disciplines and institutions to drive faster scientific advancements in how we prevent, detect, manage and treat brain cancer. This complements the NIHR’s dedicated funding call on research into wraparound care, rehabilitation and quality of life for patients with brain tumours. It has received a high volume of applications, and those applications are under consideration by an independent expert peer review panel.

Thirdly, the Department is working actively as a member of the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission to fully support the vision of bringing the best care to all brain tumour patients in the UK. Together, we will work with the brain tumour community to accelerate research and bring new insights to the field. This summer, the mission will launch the Tessa Jowell allied health professional research fellowship to train early-career health professionals in conducting vital research on how we improve patients’ quality of life.

The commitment to spend at least £40 million on brain cancer remains in place. The limiting factor has not been restrictions on funding, or funds being spent elsewhere, and every research proposal assessed as being fundable has been funded. My Department is now focusing on how we grow the scientific community working on brain cancer to get more research funded. We are committed to increasing spending on brain cancer research, and the £40 million target is not a funding ceiling—it will not end there. However, it is important that only high-quality applications be funded, so that public funds are invested well and produce impactful and usable research evidence. We will continue to work hand in glove with partners who fund research on new scientific discoveries, such as Cancer Research UK, the Medical Research Council and brain tumour charities. We stand ready to translate these much-needed discoveries as quickly as possible into new treatments for patients via the NIHR.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden raised the issue of partnerships with industry to develop treatments, and I can confirm that we are committed to working with the pharmaceutical industry and others with the common aim of creating a faster, more efficient, more accessible and innovative clinical treatment delivery system. We expect these efforts to attract more commercial investment in clinical research, and to yield a broad and diverse portfolio of clinical trials in the UK, so that we can provide innovative treatment options for patients, including those with glioblastoma. The new brain tumour research consortium, to which I have referred, will bring together people to work on that, and will work to detect, manage and treat rarer and less survivable cancers in children and adults.

Clinical trials are a crucial part of cancer research. They are the key to advanced medical progress, improved patient outcomes and more hope for the future. Britain is already one of the best destinations in the world for clinical trials, but we want to go further. On 7 April, the Prime Minister announced action to accelerate the set-up and delivery of clinical trials; the time taken to set up studies will be cut to 150 days by March next year, down from 250 days, according to the latest data, which was collected in 2022.

The Department of Health and Social Care is committed to being a world-leading destination for clinical trials. Work is ongoing to streamline and reform the set-up and delivery of clinical trials through digitalisation, and by reducing unnecessary bureaucracy. That is driving a “right research, right setting” initiative, and we are moving from reactive to proactive portfolio management, including by supporting the workforce and continuing to embed a research and innovation culture across the health and social care system.

The Government also support the private Member’s Bill on rare cancers, brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur). The Bill will make it easier for clinical trials on rare cancers to take place in England by ensuring that the patient population can be easily contacted.

This Government are committed to backing innovative clinical research ecosystems in the UK, so that British patients can be among the first to benefit. We will bust bureaucracy, fast-track clinical trials and give patients improved access to cutting-edge treatments and technologies, including for brain tumours. “Be Part of Research” is our landmark service, allowing people from all walks of life across the UK to find and participate in research relevant to them, which could transform lives. I urge everybody watching at home to sign up to “Be Part of Research” and to get involved.

We have spoken about medicines repurposing, whereby medicines approved for a particular condition are used in new ways to treat different conditions. Repurposing drugs may have particular value for rare cancers, such as brain cancers, for which drug development has been limited. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden noted, NHS England has suspended its medicines repurposing programme, but not because it is unimportant; it has shown that opportunities to use existing medicines in new ways can be delivered without the support of a formal repurposing programme, including, for example, through local off-label prescribing. This creates opportunities for NIHR and other funders to support proposals for clinical trials that use repurposed drugs for rare cancers. We will help researchers work with industry and clinicians to strengthen the evidence base for new drugs, and for new uses of drugs, so that we can find out how patients can best be helped.

[Helen Morgan]

How well will that work be co-ordinated if it is done on a local, sporadic basis, and how will the repurposing of drugs be co-ordinated centrally if NHS England is no longer undertaking that work?

[Ashley Dalton]

NHS England has found that creating that environment does not necessarily provide new and better ways of repurposing drugs, and that can be done far more efficiently and far less bureaucratically by using local off-label prescribing. We are looking at how we can incentivise researchers and clinical trials to explore repurposing drugs.

We are determined to make the NIHR and other funders grasp opportunities to support those proposals. We will help researchers work with industry and clinicians to strengthen the evidence base for new drugs.

The NHS is working hard to diagnose and treat cancers on time. There is more to do on early diagnosis and faster treatment, in order to improve patient experience and survival. The NHS is focused on improving diagnostic waiting times, and on providing MRI, CT and other tests to reduce cancer waits, because, as Lord Darzi’s investigation has shown, we face significant challenges if we are to bring this country’s cancer survival rates back up to the standard of the best in the world. We know that the best way to improve survival for those with brain tumours, and with all cancers, is to diagnose patients early and treat them quickly.

In our first six months, 80,000 more patients received a diagnosis or an all-clear within 28 days than did in the previous year, thanks to investment in cutting NHS waiting lists. In March, more than 80% of patients in England referred for cancer had it ruled out or diagnosed within 28 days—it is the first time that target has been met in years—but we must go further, and we will. Our reforms to cancer care will see more than 100,000 people diagnosed faster, and thousands more starting treatment within two months across the NHS.

There is no single solution to this complex challenge. That is why my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, has been clear that there will be a national cancer plan published later this year. This plan will ensure that rarer cancers, including brain cancers, will not be left behind. It is my absolute privilege, as a person with cancer, to be driving that cancer plan. I am delighted that we have so far received more than 11,000 representations as part of the call for evidence. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden that her contributions and all others will be taken seriously.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson also talked about low-grade cancers. There is a difference between staging and grading, and it is important that we are clear about that. Low-grade brain tumours are considered non-cancerous, and they grow more slowly and are less likely to spread, but although low-grade brain tumours are generally non-cancerous, they can have similar serious symptoms, and require surgery or radiotherapy to treat them. The Government are investing in new life-saving and life-improving research to support people diagnosed with those cancers.

In closing, for those affected by this devastating disease, every discovery, every treatment and every moment matters. We recognise that more needs to be done to stimulate high-quality, high-impact research into brain tumours. Through our targeted package of support, that is what we will do. We completely understand the strength of feeling on this issue, not least because three Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care are cancer survivors. We know how terrifying it is to receive a diagnosis. We have sat in waiting rooms, hoping for good news and fearing the worst—and we have heard the worst. We have had those difficult conversations with our loved ones and seen the devastating impact on their lives. That is why we are committed to making a real difference for patients with brain cancer. We will leave no stone unturned until they get the first-class care that they deserve. I look forward to further discussing how we can achieve this when I meet members of the all-party parliamentary group on brain tumours next week.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

Too many families in Shropshire have suffered the agonising loss of a baby following the scandal at Shrewsbury and Telford hospital NHS trust. The Care Quality Commission rates 65% of trusts as inadequate or requiring improvement for maternity safety, and the taxpayer forked out a staggering £1.15 billion in compensation for maternity failings last year. With the £100 million put aside to deal with unsafe staffing no longer ringfenced, can the Minister reassure us that those safe staffing levels will remain on our maternity wards?

[Karin Smyth]

I know the Liberal Democrat spokesperson follows this issue very closely in her own local community. As she knows, we are committed to ensuring that the recommendations of the reviews are fully implemented as part of that three-year plan, but I gently say to her that the Liberal Democrat party has consistently opposed the extra £26 billion that this Government raised to support the wider health service. Without that extra funding and the decisions that the Chancellor has made, we would not be able to make the progress that we are now starting to see.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

In his statement to the House just after Christmas, the Secretary of State acknowledged that cross-party consensus is essential to delivering meaningful social care reform. The Liberal Democrats support him in that endeavour, but we still do not have a date for those cross-party meetings, so will he give us one now?

[Wes Streeting]

Dates for meetings with the commission are now a matter for the independent commission.

Gender Incongruence: Puberty Suppressing Hormones

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. For too long, children and young people who are struggling with their gender identity have been badly let down by low standards of care, exceptionally long waiting lists and an unacceptably toxic public debate. That is why Liberal Democrats have been arguing for much better specialist healthcare services for children and young people who find themselves in this distressing situation. The old system, a single clinic, with a shockingly long waiting list and rated “inadequate” by the Care Quality Commission, was clearly failing vulnerable young people at the most difficult time in their lives. Before GIDS closed, more than 5,000 young people were stuck on the list and left waiting for an average of almost three years for a first appointment. For vulnerable teenagers and pre-teens, going through what are often incredibly difficult experiences, those three years must have felt like an eternity.

Liberal Democrats have consistently campaigned for action to tackle appallingly long wait times across the NHS, whether for cancer treatment or mental health, and it is right that we do so for gender identity services as well. It is clear that change is needed. That is why we have long been pressing the Government to establish new specialist services and recruit and train more specialist clinicians, so that children and young people can access the appropriate, high-quality healthcare that they need. The move to create multiple new regional centres is, therefore, a very welcome one, but only two are open now—in London and the North West—leaving those who have already been stuck on waiting lists for years to wait even longer. There is no sign yet of when the other centres will open. Would the Minister be able to give us an indication of when they might?

Unless the Government show far more urgency in getting these centres up and running properly, more and more children will be denied the care they need as they languish on those long waiting lists. While it is right that treatment is largely based on talking therapies for both the child and their parents to give all gender-questioning young people the time and space to make clear and informed decisions about their future, that has got to mean that people starting their talking therapy when they need it, not after years of delay.

Following the Cass review, the Secretary of State announced that the NHS would be conducting clinical trials on the impact of puberty blockers. That is due to begin very soon. I would appreciate clarification from the Minister about the current status of the trials and the terms of reference under which they will be conducted. The announcement of the trial came alongside an indefinite ban on the prescription of puberty blockers as a treatment for young people with gender incongruence or dysphoria, unless they are part of that trial. Numerous organisations, including the Council of Europe, have raised concerns about the potential ethical implications of only offering a treatment to a small group of patients taking part in a clinical trial. I believe that the Secretary of State confirmed at the Dispatch Box that the trial would be uncapped when he gave a statement on puberty blockers to the House in December 2024. Would the Minister confirm whether that is the case?

The ban has caused fear and anxiety for some young trans people and their families, who have been so badly let down for so many years. I have met with families in my own constituency who have highlighted the severe mental health impacts that uncertainty over treatment can have. It is crucial that any clinical decisions are made by expert clinicians based on the best possible evidence, not politicians with a point to make.

[Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)]

Are the Liberal Democrats supportive of the views in the Cass review? I do not think that that has been stated on the public record as yet.

[Helen Morgan]

I have met with Dr Cass. We have considered the Cass review, and we are in support of the clinical trial that she has recommended. That is why I am asking the Minister to clarify some of the points that have been made as that trial progresses.

When that decision was made to indefinitely ban puberty blockers, it obviously caused some concern and uncertainty for the families that are affected. Would the Minister commit to publishing the supporting evidence, including the results of the consultation, to give those families confidence in the decision to ban their prescription?

With any medical treatment, especially for children and young people, it is most important that the clinical professionals follow the evidence on safety and effectiveness. I welcome the Government’s support for the research to improve evidence on the safety and efficacy of potential treatments; that research must take into account the direct personal experiences of those who have used those services in the past. More broadly, Liberal Democrats believe that all trans and non-binary people should have access to the high-quality healthcare that they deserve, and that Government should prioritise tackling unacceptable waiting times by expanding the provision of appropriate and timely specialist healthcare through NHS child and adult services for trans and non-binary people, ensuring that trans people have access to high-quality healthcare on the same basis as we would expect for all patients, with medical decisions made by patients and doctors together, informed by the best possible evidence, and supporting research using international best practice to improve evidence on the safety and efficacy of potential treatments.

For puberty blockers specifically, it is for expert clinicians to build the evidence base and determine whether they are safe and effective. I do not think any politician, such as me, who does not have that clinical experience or evidence to hand should be making pronouncements on whether or not they are. We need the NHS to act on building up that evidence base, and for the Government to provide certainty that they will follow the evidence and expert advice when that is available.

Children and young people with gender incongruence are uniquely vulnerable, potentially facing an identity crisis, difficult relationships at home and social isolation at a very young age. It is extremely important that they are treated respectfully, safely, quickly and in the way that is best for their long-term health and personal development. It is unlikely that the same treatment will be appropriate for every individual in that situation, but when it comes to any individual medical interventions, Liberal Democrats believe it is right that those decisions are made by clinicians and patients together, informed by the best possible evidence, as is the case in all areas of healthcare.

Hospitals

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House regrets the appalling state of repair of NHS hospitals across the country; notes that the NHS maintenance backlog rose to £13.8 billion in 2023-24; further notes the sustained pattern of cannibalising NHS capital budgets to keep day-to-day services running; condemns the previous Government’s record of starved repair budgets and exploding maintenance backlogs, which made sewage leaks, cracked walls, crumbling ceilings and sinking floors commonplace; further condemns the previous Government for launching the New Hospital Programme with no realistic plan to fund or deliver it; further regrets that almost half of the selected hospitals are now not set to begin construction until after 2030; calls on the Government to reverse the delay to the New Hospital Programme and create a crumbling hospitals taskforce to bring construction dates forward; and further calls on the Government to end the vicious cycle of false economies and rising repair backlogs by putting hospitals across the country on a path towards sustainable funding.

The appalling state of our hospital buildings is a national scandal. Everybody in this country should be in control of their own lives and health, which means everybody getting the care they need when and where they need it, but that can never be realised while so many patients are treating in grossly inadequate settings. From Shropshire to Cornwall, Cambridgeshire, Watford and Devon, patients are losing their dignity because of decisions taken by the Conservatives, and the Labour Government’s failure to rectify them.

The Conservatives’ record is one of starved repair budgets, serious leaks, crumbling ceilings and bucket-strewn wards. It is an outrage that millions of people are waiting for treatment, yet overcrowded hospitals have had to close operating theatres because they are no longer fit for use. Patients and hospital staff deserve the dignity of safe, modern and clean environments, but instead the previous Government shamefully chose to raid the repair budget to plug the gap in day-to-day costs, as our hospitals fell apart, and the new Government, who were elected on what increasingly looks like false hope, are pursuing a false economy in delaying the desperately needed new hospital programme.

As with so much of their agenda, the Government promised so much but are delivering so little and betraying those who put their faith in the Labour party. Farmers who were fed up with the Tories taking them for granted have been hit with a tax grab on their families’ futures. Employers, who were promised growth and no new taxes, have been whacked with a national insurance increase. Patients, who were promised new hospitals, have had them taken away.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

I was with the hon. Lady almost up until that point. I congratulate her on opening the debate. It is absolutely true that the new hospital programme did not deliver new hospitals and was unfunded under the Tories. However, it is being funded now under Labour. Money is being invested in my local hospitals, in the Imperial College Healthcare NHS trust, and it is preparing for major rebuilds. Will she perhaps give the new Government a little credit for what they have done, and correctly identify the shambles that we were left with?

[Helen Morgan]

The hon. Member will be aware that there were not 40 new hospitals—they were not all hospitals and there were not 40 of them. The issue here is that the start dates for work on many hospitals that need urgent rebuilding have been pushed back into the 2030s, long beyond the life of this Parliament. The people who are served by those hospitals were promised new facilities and have not had them. That is devastating for those communities.

If the Conservative approach was contemptible, Labour’s approach has been to procrastinate. The cost to the NHS of papering over the cracks and keeping hospitals running past their natural lifespan is enormous. That is why the Government must reverse the delay to the new hospital programme at once and urgently deliver the new hospitals that patients have long been promised.

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

I wonder if the hon. Member can explain to me how spending £22 billion extra on the national health service this year can in any way be described as procrastination.

[Helen Morgan]

It is important to recognise that the additional investment in the NHS amounts to about £10 billion a year—according to Office for Budget Responsibility numbers, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman has looked at—because of the cost of national insurance hikes and of compensating other public sector employers for those hikes. The £22 billion figure is somewhat misleading. The point that we are making is that it is a false economy to keep those buildings going, to keep repairing a crumbling estate, to keep patching up and putting a sticking plaster on those problems. Those buildings need to be demolished and rebuilt, so that approach is a false economy. It would be much better to build new buildings up front and save on future repair costs. We need to ensure that no one is treated in broken, uncomfortable and unsafe facilities. Repairing and replacing crumbling, substandard hospitals is not only vital for delivering better care and treating-more patients, but crucial for rebuilding the economy after years of Conservative economic vandalism.

How much would all this cost? In my county of Shropshire, the cost of the maintenance backlog across all sites has reached about £75 million. I am sure that everyone here would agree that £75 million is a lot of money—indeed, it is so much that it is the total amount of Government capital investment for hospices this year—but in terms of hospital maintenance it is a drop in the ocean. Torbay hospital needs more than £50 million to clear the backlog, Watford hospital has a backlog of £63 million, and Hull royal infirmary requires an eye-watering £70 million. Across England, the figure is a colossal £13.8 billion—and that is just to bring our existing hospital estate to the minimum standard.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is right that a huge amount of money needs to be spent. A lot of that goes back to the fact that, as Lord Darzi tells us, £37 billion less was spent on hospital buildings in the 2010s than was necessary. Will she remind me who was in government for the for half of the 2010s?

[Helen Morgan]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, when one comes into government and has to clean up the mess left behind by the previous Government, one has to make difficult choices. It is the job of the Opposition to point out where they would make those choices or take different options. We would invest to save money in the long run, rather than fritter money away on a repair bill for buildings that need to be demolished. It is not sensible to pour good money after bad when the right thing to do is invest in a new fit-for-purpose and modern estate that does not have endless and extortionate maintenance requirements.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Helen Morgan]

I will make some progress.

At North Devon district hospital, the ducting of the ventilation system that serves the operating theatres has not been changed since it was installed in 1979, and cannot be replaced because of ceiling height and asbestos. As a result, all operating theatres have been non-compliant with NHS England buildings guidance since 2007. The good people of Devon clearly need a new hospital, and they were promised that they would have one by 2030, only for the Labour Government to take it away and decide that the change those people need will not be delivered for another decade.

Even hospitals with comparatively few maintenance problems, such as the Royal Shrewsbury hospital, which serves my constituents and has a £35 million backlog, are clearly a long way short of being up to standard. I will not go into detail again about the catalogue of issues in Shropshire—the ambulance delays and station closures, the waiting times for check-ups, scans and surgeries, or the substandard state of cancer care—but they all combine to put huge pressure on hospitals, where staff and buildings are straining under the load.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady and the Liberal Democrats for securing this debate. One issue that they have not mentioned in their motion is car parking at hospitals, which is an ongoing problem for disabled people and patients who miss or delay their appointments as a result of a lack of spaces. Does she agree that car parking is central to addressing the issues that she is setting out?

[Helen Morgan]

Car parking is a real problem, particularly where public transport is poor—it plagues my constituents—and when it is unrealistically expensive for people who need to use hospital facilities. I thank the hon. Member for that point.

The NHS crisis impacts on patient outcomes. My constituent Emma was left in the “fit to sit” area for 48 hours despite having been diagnosed with suspected sepsis, 96-year-old Mary waited outside in an ambulance for 11 hours, and 82-year-old Paula spent 24 hours on a trolley in a corridor. That is the reality in hospitals up and down the country. I think we all agree that that is a disgrace and it must be rectified.

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Helen Morgan]

I will make some progress.

One of the main reasons those problems have not been rectified is successive delays from successive Governments. Shropshire is, again, a prime example. This is not related to the new hospital programme, but none the less, £312 million was granted for the hospital transformation programme in Shropshire back in 2018. Seven years later, while the country has been through five Prime Ministers and eight different Health Secretaries, Shropshire is still waiting for that transformation to take place. Opposition from both the Labour and Conservative councils that serve the area, along with the ridiculously lengthy process that capital expenditure has to go through to be signed off, means that desperately needed improvements have been horribly delayed as construction costs rise. As a result, the original plans have been scaled back and their value diminished.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

My hon. Friend mentions the inordinate delays that occur with regard to applications for capital funds. I have watched with horror as my local hospital trust in West Hertfordshire has had to submit business case after business case while watching the costs rack up. Does she agree that one way to spend the allocated money more efficiently would be by devolving those budgets to local hospital trusts, rather than having a centralised programme that drives up the costs?

[Helen Morgan]

I could not agree more. That is exactly the situation we saw in Shropshire. Once again, the people who will suffer are the patients.

Last year, less than £900 million of the £13.8 billion required to eradicate the repair backlog for hospitals was invested—just 6.5%. It does not take an accountant to work out that at that rate, it will take 15 years to clear the current backlog, let alone the further deterioration of the crumbling buildings. Investment in eradicating the repair backlog fell sharply from £1.4 billion in 2021 to £895 million in 2023-24—a fall of 37%. I am afraid that, just like their approach to fixing social care, the Government’s continued lack of imagination and ambition is leaving our NHS less productive and less stable, which risks leaving millions languishing on NHS waiting lists.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Helen Morgan]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) because he has tried to intervene before.

[Ben Coleman]

I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for her delayed response. I am struck by her lack of response to two of my colleagues. She did not acknowledge to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) that in my constituency of Chelsea and Fulham, the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust is getting money from the Government as a precursor to rebuilding the hospitals promised to it. More importantly, she did not address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) that we are all reaping the whirlwind of the decisions taken by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition Government. The Liberal Democrats made a choice to go into that Government, to take on roles including as Chief Secretary to the Treasury and as Health Ministers, and to make those cuts and destroy the NHS. We are now reaping the whirlwind of the decisions that she and her colleagues made. Is it not a little bit cheeky of her to make some of the points and claims she is making today?

[Helen Morgan]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman’s hospital is being dealt with, but I am sure that the residents of Torbay will not feel the benefit of that. I am slightly surprised that he thinks that the decade since the Liberal Democrats were in power has had no impact whatsoever. I did address the point that when a party comes into government and has to clear up the appalling mess left by the previous Government, there are difficult choices to be made. His party knows that. Labour Members, for example, have voted to retain the two-child benefit cap and keep a quarter of a million children in poverty—something that no one in my party has ever voted for.

The last time I opened a Liberal Democrat Opposition day debate was in October, and the topic was primary care. I explained how the Government’s failure to invest in primary care was a false economy that increased pressures and costs in the critical parts of the system. The management of our hospital buildings displays that same false economy. Just as spending money on critical care instead of prevention and public health is a poor approach to managing a health service, waiting for the roof to collapse is an irresponsible way to manage NHS buildings. As problems are ignored and investment is poorly targeted, it is the patients and the hard-working staff striving to help them who are forced to suffer.

This is not just about the new hospital programme. Across the country, there are thousands of GP surgeries that need urgent improvement if they are to provide the care that patients deserve. More than 2,000 hospital buildings across England were built before the foundation of the NHS in 1948, while the state of GP surgeries varies wildly. Many surgeries are simply no longer fit for purpose, having been built in the 1950s. Prescott surgery in my constituency, for example, has long been recognised as somewhere that needs to drastically increase in size because the population of the village has increased drastically itself. Despite the land and the community infrastructure levy funding being available, there is no sign of a new surgery being built. As the delay continues, the costs are rising and the challenge grows for both the council and the integrated care board, which are already under immense pressure to cut their costs.

Instead of pursuing fantasies like the Conservatives or false economies like the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats would invest to save by starting construction now, and ending the epidemic of cancelled operations, closed-off wards and huge sums wasted on emergency repairs. That would save the taxpayer money in the long run and benefit patients much sooner.

[Andy Slaughter]

The hon. Lady is being a little bit unrealistic. I have three world-class hospitals in my constituency: Charing Cross, Hammersmith and St Mary’s Paddington. The repair bill is £874 million, but the rebuild or new build cost would be £4 billion. Yes, we are refurbishing parts of Charing Cross and putting a lot of investment into preparing for that work, but the idea that suddenly the hon. Lady is going to come up with tens, if not hundreds, of billions of pounds is unrealistic, is it not?

[Helen Morgan]

The plan that we have put forward involves £10 billion over 10 years, and I will come to that in a moment. The real issue is that we cannot pick one hospital and say that it is indicative of an NHS that is being dealt with appropriately. Hospitals across the country are falling apart. For example, Stepping Hill, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison), is not in the new hospital programme, yet it is falling apart at the seams. We need to address the whole estate fairly urgently.

Our 10-year guaranteed capital investment programme would provide long-term security and fix our crumbling hospitals and creaking GP surgeries. It would provide an extra £10 billion for our crumbling buildings over the next decade, improving outcomes for patients, boosting productivity and cutting day-to-day costs for the NHS. Providing certainty is crucial. As it stands, managers have to raid precious budgets not just to plug leaking pipes, but to plug staffing gaps when winter pressure arrives. That is why we would also end the reactive approach to the annual winter crisis through our winter taskforce. Instead of the average £376 million of emergency funding announced late into the winter each year for the last seven years, our winter taskforce would manage a ringfenced fund of £1.5 billion over the next four years. That would help hospitals to plan their budgets and build resilience in wards, A&E departments, ambulance services and patient discharging.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is talking about the day-to-day budgets of the NHS, in particular the costs of paying off previous debts. She talked about the work that needed to be done during the coalition years and in the decade and a half since then, in response to interventions from Labour Members. Does she agree that one of the biggest messes that needed to be cleared up then, which is still being felt in NHS budgets, is the disastrous private finance initiatives of the Blair and Brown years?

[Helen Morgan]

There have been successive failures in NHS management that all parties need to hold their hands up for—that is a fair point. We should, though, focus on the task in hand rather than continually going back decades, either to the coalition Government or to the Blair Government before that. That is not helpful to our constituents, who want a solution now.

[Ben Coleman]

On that point, will the hon. Lady give way?

[Helen Morgan]

No. I have been very generous with my time and I am going to make some progress.

We are also campaigning for a review of outdated Government finance rules that prevent NHS trusts from investing the funds that they have raised into their own buildings. Even NHS managers struggle to access common-sense investment in their facilities due to overly complex rules and glacial processes. Trusts are prevented from using unspent funds on improving their buildings. We need root-and-branch reform, combined with our 10-year programme of investment, to bring our local health facilities up to scratch.

In conclusion, the recent history of the NHS is one of short-term decision making and of the failure of successive Governments to grasp the nettle of long-term sustained investment in the things that matter: hospital buildings, GP services, dentistry, pharmacy and, crucially, the unspoken crisis of social care. The outcome is an organisation that is spending millions of pounds to go backwards. It truly is a false economy.

This Government have spoken warmly of the need to reform the NHS and improve productivity, and we support them in that, but we cannot expect to retain staff and provide high-quality care when so many doctors and nurses are negotiating leaking roofs and sewage backing up on the wards. Dealing with the new hospital programme is a matter of urgency, and I urge the Secretary of State to, at long last, grasp the nettle.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Stephen Kinnock—is it?—to move the amendment; I have a different name in front of me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Ferguson]

If we want the tone to be constructive, we should be constructive about the fact that Labour is going to be building hospitals, when no hospitals were constructed over the last five years. The reality is very clear: hospitals do not simply appear; we cannot wish a hospital into existence. They require two things: money and time. If we wish that there were more new hospitals in this country, we should go back in time to 10 to 15 years ago. That would have been a fantastic time, when borrowing was much cheaper than it is today, to have invested in hospitals in all our communities. Unfortunately, the cancellation of the building schools for the future project was basically the first act of the coalition Government, and there was a lack of investment in schools and hospitals. As the shadow spokesperson the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) has said today, we are cleaning up the mess that has been left. That was the characterisation of the early 2010s, but it is very much more realistic today. The shadow spokesperson accused the Government of a lack of imagination. Well, there has been no lack of imagination here; there has been magical thinking from the Liberal Democrats, who apparently believe that a taskforce will generate the billions of pounds necessary to build hospitals immediately.

[Helen Morgan]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mark Ferguson]

I am keen to make progress.

I have repeatedly made this point to Conservative Members, who I do not feel are taking the advice, but I will repeat it to the Liberal Democrats, who I equally do not think will do so. I have a huge amount of experience in opposition—a lot of us on the Government Benches have a lot more experience of it than we ever wanted. If we are really serious about what this country needs, we cannot just say that we want to have hospitals now and expect them to be delivered if we simultaneously oppose revenue-generating measures in the Budget. I am afraid that what this motion is about, which has been revealed by many of the speeches, is opportunism.

We all want more investment in the NHS and that is what this Government are delivering. A great point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) when he said that it is not simply a matter of buildings, but a matter of people too. The best maternity facility in the country is in my constituency at the Queen Elizabeth maternity hospital, yet it is in a very old building. I want a new building for that maternity hospital. I want far better resources for the staff. I hope that it will come in time, but they are doing a fantastic job with what we have got. We need to support those in the NHS rather than knocking them down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

For years, my constituents in Banbury have lived with the consequences of a health system that has been allowed to fall apart bit by bit, service by service. Our mental health services, especially for children and adolescents, are severely under-resourced. Families are waiting far too long for help, even in the most serious cases. Our maternity unit in Banbury was downgraded under the Conservatives, so those having complex or emergency births have to travel to Oxford or Warwick, with all the risk that that brings, especially when delays are caused by our inadequate transport infrastructure. There is no overnight surgery or day-care surgery available locally, and patients fall through the cracks because of poorly co-ordinated services between Oxfordshire, Warwickshire and Northamptonshire.

Under the Conservatives, and with the support of the Liberal Democrats in coalition, money was diverted away from vital health services into a disastrous and unnecessary reorganisation of our national health service. The result is what we are seeing now: fragmented care, overstretched services and communities like Banbury being left behind. My constituents are not going to be pleased by Governments making promises that they cannot keep and when they have no realistic plan or funds to deliver them.

[Helen Morgan]

Multiple Government Members have made that point, but surely they can see that promising to build a hospital in a decade’s time when they may not be in power is a meaningless promise.

[Sean Woodcock]

I suggest that our decade of national renewal will ensure that the hospitals that we have promised will be delivered. I am confident about that because things are changing. The new hospital programme has been put back on a firm footing, with every project backed by real funding and a realistic plan, which is equally important.

Crucially, this Government are not stopping there. Labour’s 10-year health plan is about improving how the whole system works with patients. That means better co-ordination between GPs, hospitals, mental health services and social care, and ensuring that wherever people live, even if that is on the border between counties, which is an issue close to the hearts of people in my constituents, they are not passed from one part of the system to another without support. It also means doing more locally, with more care available close to home, so fewer people have to travel longer distances to get basic treatment, and earlier invention, so that problems are picked up before they become emergencies.

We have already seen progress. We have cut waiting lists by over 200,000, delivered over 3 million extra appointments, recruited more GPs and invested £26 million in mental health crisis centres to alleviate the pressures on A&E services. Some £2 billion will be spent on technology and digital improvements to increase productivity and ensure patients are seen faster. We are starting to turn things around and doing so in a way that puts patients first, without making undeliverable, unrealistic promises that damage trust in politics and the power of politics under our democratic system. For too long, people in Banbury have been left wondering if their NHS would be there when they needed it. After 14 years, they can see that help is finally on the way. With this Labour Government, things are changing practically and with purpose.

Access to Dentistry: Somerset

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Anna Sabine]

Yes. That is one of the things I have talked about extensively—or rather I have been talked at extensively by my dentist friend about the way in which we manage staff and who does which bits of work in dentistry. It is really important that the Government engage with the British Dental Association about that to understand some of the complexity of how the contracts are working at the moment and what could be improved.

If we do not deal with people’s dental pain, we get more pressure on the NHS in the long term: cancers go undiagnosed, and people are forced to use 111 or A&E. It cannot make sense that people have to use 111 to organise their dentistry if they do not have an NHS dentist. People are simply being pushed around the system instead of being treated and instead of illness being prevented. I absolutely understand and appreciate the financial situation the Government inherited from the Conservative Administration, but I am concerned that not enough is happening fast enough on dentistry.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

The previous Government tried to tackle this problem by offering golden hellos to dentists in rural areas to encourage the uptake of NHS dentistry, but in reality that did not work. What we really need the new Government to do is to advance at pace with renegotiating the dental contract. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the new Government can get on with that rapidly, we might see an improvement in rural areas and, indeed, the whole UK?

[Anna Sabine]

I do agree. Golden hellos are all very well, but the challenge—as I hear from dentists in my constituency—is that once dentists leave NHS dentistry and go into the private sector, which more and more are doing, nothing will ever get them back again. That is a loss that we do not recover from.

NHS Pensions

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

The delays will be deeply worrying and will make financial planning very difficult for those affected, all of whom are people who have dedicated their working lives to supporting the NHS and tirelessly saving lives. NHS workers and their families are being left in the dark by Government delays and may as a result miss out on using their full allowances, which is unacceptable—they deserve better.

The revised delivery plan prioritises members based on their likelihood of facing financial detriment, so clearly some financial detriment is expected for those who are impacted. Can the Minister estimate what the likely financial detriment is of missing the statutory deadline, or how much compensation, as she just mentioned, is likely to be paid? Can she tell us why the NHS Business Services Authority has failed to meet the deadlines? In response to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), the Minister said that there are 112 people working on it. Will she confirm whether that is likely to be sufficient to ensure that future deadlines are met?

[Karin Smyth]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I do not have to hand the exact number of people working on this, but I will make sure that I respond to her on that point in writing. We are ensuring that individuals do not face detriment as a result of these delays. The NHS cost claim back compensation scheme provides resources for direct financial losses incurred by the NHS pension scheme members impacted by the McCloud remedy, including professional service fees and certain HMRC interest charges that may arise, as I outlined in my statement. HMRC has also confirmed that self-assessment late filing penalties will be waived on appeal in certain circumstances where a member receives a delayed pension savings statement as a consequence of the implementation of the McCloud remedy.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her opening remarks and add my broad support for the improvements that the Government have made to the Bill. I will restrict my comments mainly to amendments 1 and 2, which have been tabled in my name and the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Winchester (Dr Chambers), for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis), for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) and for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett). I will also comment on new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), to which I have added my name.

Amendments 1 and 2 would direct the moneys raised from fixed penalty notices to public health initiatives chosen by the relevant local authority. The Liberal Democrats agree with the Secretary of State and the Government that prevention is better than sickness and cure, and that public health initiatives are crucial in making those key shifts in healthcare that we all hope to achieve. The Secretary of State hopes to create a smokefree generation for those born after 1 January 2009, but there will be existing smokers who may well wish to stop, and who may need help from a public health initiative or a smoking cessation programme to do so. The Conservatives cut public health budgets by a quarter since 2015, meaning that fewer people have had help to quit. That is not what anybody hopes to achieve through this legislation or, more broadly, the reforms to the NHS.

Research by University College London showed that in parts of England, smoking rates have begun to rise again, and they have been flatlining as a whole since 2020. Between 2020 and 2024, the rates rose by 10% in southern England and fell by 9.7% in the north. Overall, an estimated 7.5 million adults in England are smokers. UCL concluded that the disparity between north and south reflected the concentration of dedicated tobacco control programmes in northern regions and their positive impact, and their relative absence in the south. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), mentioned, there is also evidence of significant black market activity in the United Kingdom. Cessation activities have therefore become even more important to deprive the criminal gangs involved of funds, and to ensure that people are free of their grip. Given the impact of public health initiatives, I sincerely urge the Government to accept Liberal Democrat amendment 1, and consequential amendment 2, which are in line with the Government’s objectives, and would improve health and save taxpayers money in the long run.

Amendment 84, which is also in my name, is very similar to the Opposition’s amendment 85. It would restrict the ability of the Secretary of State to unreasonably designate a place as a smokefree area. If they do not mind me saying so, the Conservatives have been a bit sloppy in drafting their amendment, because they have managed to remove protections in existing law for areas where there is a significant risk of second-hand smoke in smokefree areas. The Liberal Democrats’ amendment 84 has an added safeguard: if the chief scientific officer—that is not easy for me to say—advises that there is a significant risk of second-hand smoke, an area can be designated as smokefree. The amendment also retains mention of the areas that the Secretary of State has indicated that he will designate as smokefree, including NHS premises, schools, educational establishments and children’s playgrounds.

The Secretary of State has indicated that he will not designate other areas as smokefree, particularly if it would have a detrimental impact on our already struggling hospitality industry and much-loved village pubs. We take him at his word on that commitment, but I hope that the Minister can imagine a future in which a different Secretary of State is less inclined to honour a promise made by someone else at the Dispatch Box. It is right and in good order that in that scenario, Parliament should get a vote on the change of heart. I urge the Government to consider this amendment carefully and ensure that the legislation matches the promises made at the Dispatch Box.

New clause 1, which I have also added my name to, would require the Secretary of State to review and report back on the presence of contaminated vapes, and to find ways to reduce their prevalence. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath has campaigned on this issue following findings by the University of Bath that one in six vapes in English schools contained the drug Spice, which can have serious side effects in children, including cardiac arrest. It seems reasonable that the Department of Health and Social Care and the Secretary of State should try to find a way of addressing that issue.

I intend to push amendments 1 and 2 to a vote to ensure that there is additional funding for public health measures. I very much hope that hon. and right hon. Members will support me in this common-sense move to improve public health.

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I begin by declaring an interest as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health. I will speak to my amendments and one or two others.

The Tobacco and Vapes Bill is world-leading health legislation that will create the first smokefree generation, protecting children and young people from the harms of smoking. In the City of Durham alone, some 5,500 children start smoking each year. Most of them will go on to wish that they had never started. This Bill will end that. It will stop the start and ensure that every child has a smokefree future. Recent data from UCL has shown that the rates of smoking are falling fastest in the north-east. This can at least partly be attributed to hard work and amazing regional programmes such as Fresh, which works so hard to tackle inequalities in our region. The same data also shows that progress is not guaranteed; in some areas, smoking rates appear to be increasing. The case for action is clear.

New clause 13, in my name, would put a duty on the Secretary of State to publish a road map to a smokefree country every five years. It was a Labour Government who introduced the first-ever smoking strategy in 1998, “Smoking Kills”. It is 2025, and smoking still kills. This world-leading Bill is to be celebrated for many reasons, but the rising age of sale will not impact the 6 million people who are currently smoking in the UK. Smoking is not spread equally across our society; the most affluent 10% are set to become smokefree this year. However, at the current rate, the most deprived will not achieve that until 2050. It is vital that the Government ensure that no one is left behind as we create a smokefree future. Having a clear plan for achieving that, and targets for reducing smoking not only for the whole population, but for pregnant women, those struggling with their mental health and those in occupations with high rates of smoking, will save lives. Will the Minister meet the all-party parliamentary group following the publication of our report to discuss how we can turbocharge reductions in smoking and create the smokefree generation?

New clause 19, tabled by the Conservatives, would require the Secretary of State to publish reports on the illicit market. Let us be clear that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs already publishes annual data with a detailed analysis of the illicit market, so it is difficult to see what the Department of Health and Social Care could do in addition. There are no additional data sources available that would yield any different results.

Finally, amendments 82 and 83 would remove the exemption for performers. Since 2007, it has been against the law to smoke inside. However, that does not apply to actors smoking in performances for artistic reasons. There is a play on in London’s west end that tells the story of the American oil lobbyist and master strategist Don Pearlman. Don Pearlman was a heavy smoker who died from complications arising from lung cancer. The actor playing the lead role smokes on stage. The exemption should be removed, because actors deserve to have their health protected at work as much as everyone else. Audiences and other actors also deserve to be protected from second-hand smoke. Performances at the National Theatre already require that smoking in performances be substituted for vaping or other alternatives. There is no reason why all performances should not follow suit.

Amendments 85 and 86 deal with smokefree extensions. I know that there will be further consultation and debate on the regulations creating extensions to smokefree places and vape-free areas, but can the Minister confirm that there will be exemptions if it is shown that the use of vapes in certain settings aids smoking cessation efforts? I am thinking of, for example, mental health settings. The Mental Health and Smoking Partnership has pointed out that vapes are a valuable tool in such settings to help patients quit. Will the Minister undertake to visit a mental health trust to hear directly about people’s experiences? It is vital that we all work with trusts to provide clear guidance on how to navigate these changes. Particular attention must be paid to how the policies in the Bill, and those that will come into effect after it, such as the disposable vapes ban in June, will interact with each other.

Today’s funding announcement is welcome, but we have gone down to the wire, given that the funding was due to end at the end of this month. Can we be reassured that, following the spending review, services can expect consistent, long-term funding that will allow them to plan their activities and hire staff on longer contracts?

The Bill presents us with a historic opportunity to transform public health in this country, and, after working tirelessly on it for more than a decade, I am proud to support it. However, we must remain vigilant to ensure that no one is left behind. All aspects of the Bill, from the smoking cessation measures to protections for workers in the arts, must be fully realised if we are to create a truly smokefree generation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

Shrewsbury and Telford hospital trust has some of the longest waiting lists in the country for cancer and A&E, among other areas. It has been receiving national mandated support from NHS England’s recovery support programme. NHS England also provides support to hospital trusts that are struggling with excessive waiting lists through its Getting It Right First Time programme. Given the announcement to abolish NHS England, will the Secretary of State reassure my constituents that there will be continued support for hospital trusts such as Shrewsbury and Telford with unacceptable waiting times, and a clear pathway to improvements for patients who deserve better?

[Wes Streeting]

Yes is the short answer. Removing the duplication, waste and efficiency that came with having two head offices for the NHS will lead to better, more effective and streamlined decision making, but that will not in any way detract from the support that the hon. Member describes. In fact, we should see more support and, crucially, more investment going to the frontline as a result of the savings, efficiencies and improvements that we are making.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

We are not going to get everyone in unless we pick up the pace. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson will set a good example.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

In last night’s “Panorama” programme, the Secretary of State was reported to have said that he did not need to wait for a review to put more money into social care, which we agree with. If that is the case, will he explain why the Casey commission will take three years, and will he instead commit to getting it done this year in order to fix the social care crisis straightaway?

[Wes Streeting]

Phase 1 of the Casey commission reports next year and the final Casey report is due by 2028, but the Chancellor has already announced an increase in funding for social care in the Budget, through means that the hon. Lady’s party regrettably seems to oppose.