Thirlwall Inquiry: Final Report and Recommendations

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I send my heartfelt sympathies and those of my party to all the families who have been so cruelly harmed. I thank Lady Justice Thirlwall for her inquiry and the Secretary of State for early sight of the report.

Lady Justice Thirlwall’s final report is a dispiriting and, at times, shocking account of repeated mistakes and failures by organisations and individuals. The conviction of Lucy Letby for these murders and attempted murders sets this investigation apart from others, but while the situation is incredibly distressing, it is also distressingly familiar—a failure to investigate abnormal levels of death or harm; a failure to act on concerns raised and whistleblowing; a failure to follow established protocols for investigating deaths; and a management instinct to cover up failure, and to put the reputation of the hospital above the safety of the babies in it.

The importance of stronger whistleblowing mechanisms could not be clearer. There should be a duty of candour for management, as well as medical staff. Will the Government accept my amendments to the Health Bill, requiring boards to call in investigators when they receive reports of malpractice, and giving coroners and medical examiners stronger powers to whistleblow? The review makes it explicit that there must be an external body, such as HSSIB, to investigate trusts. Will the Government now drop the measures in the Health Bill that risk patient safety? Surely the Secretary of State will accept the amendments that we and others have put forward to prevent the abolition of HSSIB, protect Healthwatch and put patient safety first, including through the restoration of the National Guardian’s Office.

I am beyond angry that once again we are discussing the recommendations for action following an NHS scandal. It is like groundhog day—we are stuck in an endless cycle of expressing horror and doing nothing, with the reports and recommendations from multiple scandals gathering dust on a shelf in the Department of Health and Social Care. The Thirlwall inquiry cites a “lack of political will” as one of the causes of this cycle. We have a new Secretary of State. Will she promise us that she will be the one to find the will to end this? The families who have suffered such unimaginable loss deserve nothing less.

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the hon. Member for her comments, her tribute to the families and her recognition of how much they have endured. She is right to highlight the importance of the duty of candour. One of the most shocking findings of the inquiry was that an “exercise in spin” was put above patient safety, including the safety of some of the most vulnerable patients of all, newborn babies, which is truly shocking. Boards are already responsible for ensuring that they follow the duty of candour. The inquiry found crucial breaches of the board’s duty of candour and responsibilities in a series of areas, including the responsibility to provide information to the reviews done, and safeguarding responsibilities that should have been clear. We will look further at the responsibility framework, the regulation of managers and clinicians, and the leadership’s responsibilities to ensure that what should happen takes place.

The hon. Lady will know that the local guardians remain; that is extremely important. On HSSIB, I agree with her that that role needs to continue. It is the intention for that role to continue as part of the CQC, but I have undertaken to look again at those arrangements to ensure that they meet the expectations of the inquiry’s report.

Fundamentally, the point that the hon. Lady makes is about the anger and sense of deep frustration and injustice about the fact that we are here again, discussing some of the same issues. For me, that is about two things. The first is patient safety, which has been discussed time and again when we have these kinds of recommendations. The second is the sense of the sidelining of maternity and neonatal care, which have been seen as a side issue in too many places, rather than being central. We have to put the cradle back at the heart of the NHS. We have always talked about the NHS being there from cradle to grave. The very start of a child’s life, and the very start of a family’s life, is one of the most important moments, and we have to make sure that our NHS keeps that at the centre of what it does.

Vascular Sector Reform

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I welcome the Minister and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), to their places. Most of all, I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this important debate. He outlined the issues comprehensively in his opening speech, as we would expect.

According to the Circulation Foundation, vascular disease is as common as cancer and heart disease, accounting for 40% of deaths in the UK. That represents a huge disease burden on individuals and the NHS, yet we rarely discuss it in Parliament. It is a leading cause of preventable disability, with associated complications being worsened by the fragmented care available to patients.

Living with vascular disease means living with chronic pain, reduced mobility and often an isolating loss of independence. Many patients are left with a sense of powerlessness, which has a huge impact on their mental health and wellbeing. Sadly, we are all too familiar with the issues in the vascular sector: inconsistent standards and access to care; the dreaded postcode lottery in services; pathways and referral routes that disproportionately impact deprived communities; and under-investment in prevention. It seems to be yet another area of the NHS where, as we have been arguing this week on the Health Bill, too much time and money is spent responding to failure rather than improving the quality of services for patients and preventing and delaying deterioration in the first place. We must do better for people with vascular disease and for their families.

Having dealt with the harrowing case of a constituent, I know that a lack of care and the medical risks and implications of vascular disease can spiral out of control, leading, in the worst cases, to the premature death of a family member. It is incredibly upsetting when that happens. I cannot begin to imagine how devastating that experience must be.

A report from the all-party parliamentary group on vascular and venous disease highlighted the avoidable harm that gaps in vascular care can cause to patients. It confirmed that gaps in vascular care are resulting in avoidable harm, highlighting:

“Delayed diagnosis, inconsistent referral pathways and variable access to specialist care”

for people with peripheral artery disease, venous disease and diabetes-related foot complications. It said that those problems are resulting in

“thousands of avoidable lower-limb amputations each year.”

Discussions with the primary care network in my North Shropshire constituency have revealed that our county has one of the highest rates of lower-limb amputations because of these gaps in care. I cannot imagine the trauma caused to those who have lost a limb, knowing that it might have been avoided. It is time we aspired to ensuring a consistent level of care across the country.

I have been contacted by companies in the pharmaceutical sector that have highlighted the disconnect between acknowledgment and action. PAD is named as a “neglected” CVD risk factor, but it lacks the priority status, funding mechanisms and performance standards given to other conditions. They have also highlighted that the need for new surgical and interventional techniques is acknowledged but not operationalised with delivery timelines or resource allocation, and that there are no metrics for PAD. The absence of PAD standards or metrics in the main performance monitoring tables means that progress cannot be tracked and local ICBs cannot be held to account if they are falling behind.

The modern service framework is obviously a welcome step forward, but the Government should also take a look at the all-party parliamentary group’s calls for a national foot attack pathway, a community foot protection service, national maximum waiting times for patients, the reform of commissioning to reward outcomes and the acceleration of proven innovation, which must be rolled out more widely.

Beyond that, the care that the NHS provides at its front door must be strengthened so that symptoms are caught and treated early. The APPG’s report highlights how prevention-led, community-first care is needed to transform the vascular sector, diagnose conditions earlier and relieve pressure on acute services. Liberal Democrats want everyone with vascular disease to have a named GP to ensure continuity of care, which has been shown to improve outcomes and quality of life for those with long-term conditions.

Fixing the back door of the NHS is just as crucial for us. We have long been pressing for better social care, including free personal care and more support for family carers. Obviously, we welcome the steps that the Prime Minister took over the summer recess to ensure movement on the social care issue.

Our proposed package would make it easier for people with long-term conditions and disabilities to access flexible working. It would support those suffering from vascular disease to access the world of work wherever possible, and hopefully transform their mental health and independence, too.

Given the prevalence and severity of these conditions, I urge the Government to develop a strategy to transform the vascular sector to give patients the timely support and treatment they need. I look forward to hearing what steps the Minister will be taking to address this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Frith]

That is a very fair and right challenge. This is not about endorsing patchwork provision; it is about understanding that, whether because of the physiological, social, environmental or behavioural differences that exist, care is not evenly distributed. We should have standards that we expect nationally, but we should also commission and empower local ICBs to commission, and we should hold them accountable through the frameworks and the work that we do in the Department.

[Helen Morgan]

I agree with the Minister that services should be locally commissioned, particularly where there is a high prevalence of a certain type of disease or condition, because it allows for the shaping of those services to local circumstances. There is evidence, is there not, that local commissioning has not given us a consistent level of service across the country. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that that does not become more entrenched as we empower ICBs even more through the Health Bill?

[Mr Frith]

I hope that my further remarks will address that very point; I am happy to pick it up with the hon. Member in due course if they do not satisfy.

ICBs will use national modern service frameworks set by the Government and guidance to create the right services for their areas. That means local systems coming together to create neighbourhood services that reform the health and care system and are rooted in the needs of people and communities.

On the issue of maximum waiting times for vascular disease, this Government recognise that it is imperative that any patient requiring a vascular assessment receives that in a timeframe that reflects their condition and enables the best possible health outcome. The Government are committed to making progress on NHS waiting times, including returning by March ’29 to the NHS constitutional standard of 92% of elective care patients’ waiting times from referral to treatment being within 18 weeks. Of course, that includes those patients waiting for vascular services.

The NHS met the first interim target of 65% in March ’26, and we are now focused on driving improvements to achieve our second interim target of 70% by 2027. To help support the commitment to reduce waiting times, the podiatry workforce pipeline is currently being strengthened through NHS England’s focus programme for small and vulnerable professions, with the NHS workforce plan to be published shortly.

The health service also has clear guidance on what is required in delivering services for people with vascular disease or at risk of developing it. In March ’26, NHS England published guidance on standardising community health services. That guidance identifies podiatry, diabetes and tissue viability, and wound care as core components of ICB-funded community provision. People who need urgent wound assessment—for example, those with suspected infection, rapid deterioration, or diabetic foot ulcer—should be seen within 24 hours. The guidance also makes it clear that routine assessments should occur within five to seven working days, with data collected on healing and complications. The purpose and goal of community health services must be to support people as well as to avoid their needing to be admitted to hospital and, critically, the need for amputations.

Summer Health and Resilience

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I welcome the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), to their places—I have to say that I was not expecting to be the continuity figure in the health portfolio.

We need to be honest: the NHS is now in permacrisis, as outlined by the National Audit Office report. The hallmarks of peak winter pressure in the past—overcrowded A&Es, queuing ambulances and soaring 999 calls—are now a feature year round. This summer was particularly difficult due to record temperatures across the UK, with over 33 NHS trusts reporting temperatures well above the 28° limit set by NHS England, and we can all agree that is not acceptable. It is inhumane not just for patients but for staff—42° is unbearable. A constituent of mine suffered in his final days in a desperately hot setting in Royal Shrewsbury hospital until managers worked with my team to ensure that he was made more comfortable. We do not want to be dealing with cases like that every year. We need hospitals that can withstand the heat, and the Lib Dems have been calling for a new NHS rapid adaptation unit to urgently heatproof the most heat-affected hospitals and care homes.

Turning to corridor care, the percentage of people waiting 12 hours or more in A&E has tripled since before the covid-19 pandemic. Analysis suggests that people waiting this long are twice as likely to die within 30 days of leaving A&E, compared with those who wait just two hours. It is abundantly clear that policies to deal with A&E are not working. Spend is increasing, as outlined in the report, while outcomes are decreasing. We are pumping money into emergency departments with no proportionate improvement.

The Lib Dems have outlined our plan to end 12-hour waits in a year by investing more in step-down care and support for people to leave hospital and go into social care. The Health Bill will reduce co-operation between local authorities and integrated care boards, risking those improvements in social care. Although we welcome the cross-party talks on social care, I hope that the Secretary of State will look at this issue as the Health Bill makes its way through the Lords. Will she listen to our plans, change her approach and commit to ending the ongoing A&E scandal?

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the hon. Member for her questions, and for drawing on her expertise and interest in this area. On capital funding, that is exactly why we are allocating £32 million as part of the capital fund that we have set out specifically to deal with repairs and safety issues that have become acute across the NHS estate as a result of more than a decade of capital underfunding of the NHS. Ara Darzi made it clear in his report that this has had a huge impact on patients and staff, but also on the NHS’s productivity, because we have facilities that cannot be used because of that capital underfunding.

That £32 million will be targeted at measures to improve cooling systems, but I have asked the NHS to look further, as part of the second wave of funding, at other areas across the country where there will be particular needs as a result of buildings needing to deal with extreme heat, which they were never designed for. As a result of the announcements I have made today, £1.5 billion is now going into improvements to existing facilities, to upgrade them and ensure that they reach the right quality and standards.

On the hon. Member’s point about corridor care, nobody should have to be seen or treated in a corridor, or have to wait for a long time at one of the most distressing times of all, when they need emergency care and support. I have seen some phenomenal examples and have discussed the work that hospitals such as Watford have done to eliminate their corridor care challenges. We have introduced reporting and publication of those statistics for the first time, exactly to ensure that we have that priority. But I pay tribute to the work done by A&E teams to improve performance, despite the huge increase in demand that they saw in July—they are doing a really important job.

Health Bill

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 8th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

Yesterday, I highlighted our concerns about the implications of quick-fix, top-down reorganisation for the sovereignty of the NHS and the interests of patients. In a system that already spends too much time and money reacting to failure, rather than planning for success, patient safety is already under threat. Rather than addressing those failings, this Bill is at risk of making a bonfire of patient safety. Our amendments would reverse the gutting of safety mechanisms from the NHS, all of which have been painstakingly introduced after far too many scandals.

Amendments 8 and 9 would restore Healthwatch England and local Healthwatch organisations, while new clause 14 would restore Healthwatch funding after 10 years of cuts to its service. Given that Healthwatch was originally established as a response to the devastating Mid Staffordshire scandal, its abolition would be a step backwards, showing that lessons have not been learned. An independent patient voice is essential to shape local services and highlight where they are not working well, and folding it into existing NHS structures risks destroying the trust that exists precisely because of its independence.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Helen Morgan]

I am not going to give way, because there are many colleagues who wish to speak and there is very limited time. I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me.

Another vital body for safeguarding and investigating patient safety is the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, which again functions well because of the trust NHS professionals have in its independence and objectivity. Both would be lost under the proposal to roll it into the CQC. Our amendment 12 would ensure that HSSIB’s functions remain operationally independent of the CQC, so that the NHS is not left to mark its own homework. Together, these amendments are designed so that patients are protected from another Mid Staffordshire, another Shrewsbury and Telford, another Nottingham, another East Kent or another Morecambe Bay. Rash decision making must not be allowed to put patients at risk.

Health Bill

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I have tabled several amendments to the Bill, but I will hopefully keep my remarks focused so there is a good opportunity for other Members to make their speeches.

The Bill should be about fixing the front and back doors of the NHS. It offers the opportunity to bring in tangible changes for patients to address pressing problems and introduce desperately needed improvements to patient safety and experience. The primary care and social care crisis, in particular, are millstones around the neck of the NHS. But instead of addressing them, the Bill has focused on a top-down reorganisation, which risks diverting time and money away from those pressing issues, and it gives sweeping powers to the Secretary of State, which is not in itself without risk.

The Liberal Democrats would instead have put social care and general practice at the heart of the Bill—a move that would represent real reform of the health service. In particular, new clauses 54 and 56 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) would together transform the rights of family carers through guaranteed respite care and reform of the carer’s allowance. They would put free personal care, and an end to catastrophic care costs, at the heart of social care reform.

New clause 53, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), would ensure that everyone can see a GP within seven days, or 24 hours if urgent, and amendment 17 would introduce a primary care investment standard. Although general practice is the core of a patient’s relationship with the NHS, it has seen its funding decline as a share of NHS spending. Less than 10% of the NHS budget is spent on primary care, although that is estimated to constitute 90% of a patient’s direct experience with the NHS. A primary care investment standard would help to reverse that trend. Dentistry is another area of primary care that has been neglected, leading to dental deserts and dangerous DIY dentistry. New clause 18 would introduce a scheme to end dental deserts, and guarantee appointments for children and those most in need.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

New clause 82 refers to the family mental health pathway, but from diagnosis right through to treatment and, tragically for some, bereavement, mental health support for families cannot be an afterthought and must be a statutory proactive duty. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government and the Minister should take that on board?

[Helen Morgan]

I broadly agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am about to come to mental health. It is right to modernise the NHS and end some of the duplication that we see between NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care, but the way it has been handled has been chaotic. It has been combined with 50% cuts to ICB budgets, unfunded redundancy payments, and chaos through the system. I was alarmed to read the report in The Times at the weekend about advice to the Secretary of State that the changes envisaged under the Bill are impossible to implement, given that the staff of NHS England are on different pay scales to those in the Department. Given those significant hurdles, I hope that in her closing remarks the Minister can provide some reassurance that abolishing NHS England in the way the Bill envisages is achievable.

We are particularly concerned that the functions of the Secretary of State under these reforms open the door to political capture, which is a huge risk given the unstable political climate we live in. Amendment 16 would create a firewall between the Secretary of State and operational decisions. These new powers are particularly worrying in the context of patient safety issues created by the Bill, which we will discuss in more detail tomorrow.

Beyond the Department, the Bill is complacent on taking seriously the vulnerability of our NHS to foreign interference and its implications for national security. That is why we tabled new clauses 2 to 5, which recognise and address the role of the NHS as part of our sovereignty, and the sensitivity of patient data. New clause 17 would require scrutiny in the House of the arrangement between the United States of America and the United Kingdom on pharmaceutical pricing. That deal, forced on us by Donald Trump with no say from the British people, will hike medicine prices in the coming years by billions of pounds, and deserves parliamentary scrutiny. All those shortcomings of the Bill attest to the fact that the NHS already spends far too much time and money responding to failure, rather than improving the safety and quality of services in the first place.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

On safety, does my hon. Friend agree about the gravity of the national maternity review, which found that Musgrove Park hospital was the “most challenging” estate in the country? If it is the most challenging estate in the country, does my hon. Friend agree that that needs to be addressed sooner than 2033, so that mums get better treatment sooner than the 2040s? That is unacceptable if it is the most challenging estate in the country.

[Helen Morgan]

Crumbling estates are a big part of the problem across the whole NHS and in maternity, and my hon. Friend is right to highlight the state of his own local hospital and advocate for its quick remediation. Amendment 10, which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) will outline in more detail, would reintroduce the mental health investment standard. That is a crucial investment to avoid failures further down the line if interventions are not made for patients early on.

Nowhere is the cost of failure more obvious than in maternity—a devastating scandal which, despite many recent reviews, still deserves far more attention. Our amendments to make our maternity services finally safe for mothers and babies will therefore be the main focus of my remarks today. I thank the Minister for her constructive engagement with me on new clause 1, and the commitment that she made at the Dispatch Box today to table relevant amendments when the Bill reaches the other place, and to put that maternity commissioner in place. I am grateful to her for the discussions we have had, and the constructive approach she has taken both with me and with the many campaigners on the issue beyond this place. In the light of that, I will not be pushing new clause 1 to a vote.

I have seen up close the human costs of failures in our maternity system. Four years ago the Ockenden review found that over 200 babies and nine mothers in my community had died needlessly in Shrewsbury and Telford due to failures in maternity care. That has been devastating for my community, and we have heard since then that the situation was not isolated. There have been terrible stories from families around the country, most recently following the review into services in Nottingham. New clause 6 would introduce a scheme to ensure that every maternity unit in the country is rated “good” or “outstanding” by the Care Quality Commission. That new clause is essential if we are to meaningfully address the crisis in our maternity services and show families that lessons have been learned not just locally but nationally.

The Liberal Democrat maternity rescue package would require an estimated £600 million a year to bring safety in maternity units up to standard, investing in safe staffing and listening to mothers. The Government already spend £1.3 billion a year—more than double the cost of the package—on maternity negligence payments, so introducing that reset is a no-brainer. Rather than spending a fortune compensating for failure and heartbreak, the NHS should be getting it right in the first place. Recently we have seen the consequences of safety failures, with lack of staffing causing North Devon’s maternity unit to close, forcing women to take a 50 mile trip if they go into labour. My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Ian Roome), whose constituency has been hit hard by that news, has tabled new clause 66 to guarantee safe staffing levels and access to a maternity unit within 45 minutes.

While on women’s health, I also want to highlight new clauses 11 and 12. Earlier this year I wrote to the Equality and Human Rights Commission to highlight the stark inequality in research and investment in women’s health, with a huge gap in investment, governance and reporting mechanisms between women’s and men’s health strategies. The new clauses would set up an inquiry into women’s health outcomes, and ensure that average waiting times for women’s health conditions do not exceed the average waiting times for wider elective treatments.

The crisis in our maternity care is a national shame and reveals a systemic neglect of the safety of women and their babies over many years. However, that is indicative of even wider concerns for patient safety, which I urge the Secretary of State to address in the Bill, and which we will discuss in more detail tomorrow. If the Government are serious about using the Bill to improve our NHS, they must invest time and money in the front and back doors of the NHS rather than structural reorganisations. The safety of staff and patients must be at the centre of those changes, and I urge the Minister to consider the amendments tabled by me and my Liberal Democrat colleagues, which would improve the Bill to achieve just that.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to amendment 32 and new clause 39 tabled in my name, which seek to address the problems facing community equipment and wheelchair services across the country. I declare my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary groups for wheelchair users and for access to disability equipment. As the parent of a wheelchair user, I know just how important getting such services right is for disabled people and their families, and the consequences and long-term impacts when it goes wrong.

Evidence gathered for an inquiry by the APPG for access to disability equipment last year found that one in three equipment users who responded to our inquiry are waiting a significant time for equipment, with one in five waiting over two months, and 55% stating that they do not have the equipment they need for their long-term needs. At a time when we are rightly focused on reducing waiting lists and improving patient flow, it makes little sense for somebody to remain in a hospital bed simply because the equipment they need to return home has not arrived. Some 74% of professionals and equipment providers report that patients experienced delayed hospital discharge because essential equipment was not available at home, increasing pressure on hospital beds and placing further strain on services. The current system is fragmented, inconsistent and lacks sufficient accountability and national oversight.

My amendments would introduce two things that the system lacks: a clear expectation of how long people would wait, with clear, set timelines and accountability when things go wrong, and they would ensure that patients have a clear pathway for hospital discharge. Amendment 32 would require ICBs to provide community equipment and wheelchair services within 18 weeks of the date that a person is assessed. I know from experience of my daughter’s case when she was eight that the 18-week deadline was missed on two occasions, and she was without an adequate wheelchair for 21 months. These issues simply shunt costs to elsewhere in the NHS. The APPG for wheelchair users heard evidence from consultants within the NHS about the quality of assessment, interventions and aftercare. We heard that delays led to children receiving a wheelchair that was no longer fit for purpose by the time they received it. The following are quotes that we heard:

“There is the additional care to consider as well. Poor equipment provision leads to pressure sores, increasing scoliosis, all of which have a wider impact on the sector.”

“In terms of inequity of care, when asked for information it is always the same eight or 10 ICBs who respond. The ones who don’t, are probably the ones we should worry about.”

“There is a level of bureaucracy in the NHS that stops things happening. Disability is not considered as important as other things in health parameters.”

The data available shows that the wheelchair deadline is being missed by many ICBs, and 29% of ICBs are not meeting the target of providing over 25% of wheelchairs in 18 weeks.

Health Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th July 2026 Public Bill Committees

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 37—Powers for coroners and medical examiners to report suspected health system failings—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, establish a standard mechanism for coroners and medical examiners to refer cases where they suspect failings in the provision of health care.

(2) A coroner or a medical examiner has a duty to report (a ‘duty to whistleblow’) using the mechanism established under subsection (1) if, in the course of their duties, they have reasonable grounds to suspect that a death or incident involved systemic failings in a health care setting.

(3) A referral under this section must be directed to any or all of the following bodies, as the coroner or medical examiner considers appropriate, based on the nature of the suspected failing—

(a) the chief officer of police for the relevant police area,

(b) the Care Quality Commission,

(c) the Department of Health and Social Care, and

(d) the Health Services Safety Investigations Body.

(4) Regulations under subsection (1) must specify—

(a) the information to be included in a referral,

(b) the timeframe within which a referral must be made following the formation of a suspicion, and

(c) guidance on the criteria for determining to which of the bodies listed in subsection (3) the referral must be directed.

(5) A disclosure made in fulfilment of the duty under subsection (2) is a protected disclosure for the purposes of Part 4A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (protection for whistleblowing).

(6) The duties imposed by this section are in addition to, and do not affect, a senior coroner’s duty to make a report under paragraph 7 of Schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (reports on action to prevent other deaths).”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to create a standardised framework for them to formally refer suspected health system failings (including systemic issues) directly to the police, the CQC, the Department of Health and Social Care, and the HSSIB, with a duty on coroners to participate. It provides legal protection for those making such referrals.

[Helen Morgan]

New clause 36 would introduce a mandatory individual duty for members of NHS trust and NHS foundation trust boards to escalate evidence of systemic medical malpractice to the Care Quality Commission, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Health Services Safety Investigations Body. It would also impose a collective duty on the board to formally refer the trust to regulators if staff raise concerns about malpractice.

New clause 37 would require the Secretary of State to create a standardised framework for coroners and medical examiners to formally refer suspected health system failings, including systemic issues, directly to the police, the CQC, the Department of Health and Social Care and HSSIB, with a duty on coroners to participate. It would provide legal protection for those making such referrals.

The new clauses were tabled in the light of the Ockenden review into failings at Nottingham university hospitals NHS trust, which came out a couple of weeks ago, and other reviews, including the review of Mid Staffordshire some time ago, which showed that hospital management failed to spot, and more importantly deal with, systemic issues. Staff were dismissed, failures were hidden from regulators, and patients and their families were not listened to. In the case of Nottingham, the board commissioned a number of independent reports into maternity services, and when it did not see an answer it liked, it just commissioned another one. We feel strongly that those issues should have been referred onwards as soon as they were known about. The new clauses would introduce a mandatory duty and create a standardised framework within which such concerns could be raised.

Coroners and medical examiners often spot trends or worrying failures in care that they think might hint at something systemic, but their main power is a regulation 28 order. When an order goes back to the hospital board, it investigates and reports back: “Everything is fine. We’ve dealt with the problem. There’s nothing to see here.” Coroners are often overworked and trying to get through huge court backlogs, so they do not have sufficient capacity to push back, even when they question the diligence of the internal review. We want to give them more powers and standardised routes to escalate concerns to the police, the CHC, the DHSC or the HSSIB , where they see fit. We need as many eyes on this as possible, because we have seen a defensive cover-up culture too many times.

We tabled similar amendments to the Hillsborough Bill to achieve the same outcome. We all know that the NHS is under strain and overworked, but trust management need to be more transparent, open and receptive to staff concerns. Although I do not intend to push the new clause to a vote, I am interested to hear from the Minister what the Government plan to do to ensure that concerns are acted on more quickly.

[Karin Smyth]

I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire, who raises issues of patient safety diligently on behalf of her constituents and the wider system. I will take the time to answer some of the points about where the Government are. Obviously, we support prioritising patient safety, which along with service quality and experience is of the utmost importance.

On new clause 36, trusts are already subject to regulatory and contractual requirements to report medical malpractice, which is why we do not think the new clause is necessary. For example, CQC regulations on safe care and treatment and on good governance are central to trust accountability for systemic malpractice. They require trusts to have effective systems to identify patterns of harm, manage risks and deliver system-wide improvements.

Trusts are required to identify and report incidents leading to significant harm through the Learn from Patient Safety Events service, ensuring that the CQC is informed and enabling NHS England to identify trends and support learning and improvement. This information can be shared with and accessed by HSSIB and could in the future be shared with and accessed by the investigations arm of the CQC.

The CQC regulation on duty of candour reinforces transparency through truthful accounts of what has happened when something goes wrong, including where harm reflects systemic issues. Under the patient safety incident response framework, trusts must undertake patient safety learning investigations into certain incidents to support learning and improvement.

In parallel, the NHS provider licence requires NHS trust boards to maintain clear accountability for quality of care and reporting of safety information through effective governance systems. Where failures of governance occur, NHS England has the powers to intervene. Those powers will transfer to the Secretary of State as part of the Bill.

The new clause would clearly duplicate current processes. Together, the existing mechanisms already help trusts to identify and address systemic issues locally, while enabling national aggregation to support system-wide learning.

New clause 37 seeks to require the creation of a standardised framework for coroners and medical examiners to report health system failings. I take the opportunity to reassure the hon. Member for North Shropshire that regulations already require medical examiners to report serious concerns identified in respect of clinical governance, patient safety or public health surveillance, in accordance with local reporting arrangements. Existing regulations also require coroners, in the context of an investigation, to issue a report to a person, organisation, local authority, or Government Department or agency where the coroner believes they may have power to take relevant action to prevent future deaths.

In September 2024, the Department of Health and Social Care introduced death certification reforms, putting in place regulations to provide greater safeguards for the public by ensuring independent scrutiny by medical examiners of all deaths not investigated by a coroner. These reforms, as set out in the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death Regulations 2024, which require an independent review to be carried out for all deaths in England, introduce a system whereby all deaths are subject to either a medical examiner’s independent scrutiny or a coroner’s investigation.

Should the medical examiner detect concerns about care, they will refer such cases to established clinical governance review processes and bodies and notify the coroner or, if necessary, the police. The Notification of Deaths Regulations 2019 require all doctors, including medical examiners, to refer a death to a coroner if they believe that deficiency of care while undergoing treatment contributed to the death, making the death unnatural. Under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, a coroner has a statutory duty to report issues to the appropriate bodies where they believe that action can be taken to mitigate or prevent the risk of future deaths, and both the report and responses to it are published by the chief coroner.

When incidents and errors occur resulting in death or serious injury, it is important that we learn any lessons. The Government are committed to ensuring that the prevention of future deaths reports are taken seriously and lead to meaningful action. The Department is working across Government and with the chief coroner to identify ways to strengthen oversight and ensure that the right organisations are consistently notified of concerns, respond to them in a timely manner and drive appropriate action.

Under the Medical Act 1983, the General Medical Council ensures that all doctors, including medical examiners, report suspected health system failings by speaking up. That is a mandatory professional obligation linked to a doctor’s licence to practise, embedding this whistleblowing requirement into the GMC’s core regulatory and fitness to practise frameworks. The GMC also enforces a professional duty of candour requiring all doctors to be open and honest with patients and official bodies when things go wrong and actively report adverse incidents so that systematic lessons can be learned.

In summary, both new clauses duplicate requirements that already exist. Regulations, systems and processes are already in place to report suspected health system failings to the appropriate bodies. For that reason, I ask the hon. Member for North Shropshire to withdraw the new clause.

[Helen Morgan]

I thank the Minister for outlining the existing statutory framework. I agree that it ought to be sufficient, but there are high-profile instances where it has not been, so I look forward to hearing more from her on Report about how the cultural change will be implemented so that further legislation is not necessary. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 38

Single sex facilities

“The Secretary of State is required to ensure that there are single sex—

(a) changing rooms for NHS staff

(b) toilets and washing facilities for NHS staff

(c) wards for NHS patients

(d) toilets and washing facilities for NHS patients.”—(Dr Caroline Johnson.)

This new clause creates a requirement for the Secretary of State to ensure certain single sex facilities are made available for NHS staff and patients.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This is a very straightforward new clause. The Secretary of State would be required to ensure that there are single-sex changing rooms, toilets and washing facilities for NHS staff and single-sex wards, toilets and washing facilities for NHS patients.

The UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a woman is defined by biological sex in 2025, and the Minister herself said:

“We are completely committed to single-sex spaces.”

However, it appears that the Minister for Women and Equalities did not get that memo. Despite having apparently been sat on her desk since September, the new draft code from the Equality and Human Rights Commission was not laid before Parliament until 21 May. One week before that guidance was published, a female NHS England employee in Leeds won her claims of indirect sex discrimination and harassment over a policy allowing transgender colleagues to use toilets and changing rooms that correspond to their gender identity rather than their biological sex. On 28 June, after the draft code was laid, it was reported that West London NHS trust had told patients that they could use single-sex facilities based on gender identity.

It has taken the current Health Secretary some time, but I understand that he has changed his mind on the issue and come to the same conclusion as others: that a woman is, in fact, a woman and that toilets and changing facilities must be protected. Will the Minister follow his lead and protect single-sex spaces in NHS trusts? The Supreme Court has ruled that a woman is defined by her biological sex. My party knows that. The Minister claims her party knows that too. It is time for her to show it by pulling the levers that only she can to ensure that patients and staff are protected right across our health service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

New clause 48 would require the Secretary of State to

“publish and maintain a national framework for improving access to radiotherapy services in England.”

One in four people can expect to need radiotherapy in their lives. That is a lot of people who will need consultation, assessment, pre-treatment planning and treatment delivery. Data published a few years ago showed that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have more linear accelerator machines per million people than in England. Can the Minister confirm whether that is still the case? Last year, Radiotherapy UK had research indicating that more than 60,000 cancer patients are not getting the radiotherapy they need and I know particular areas of the country are struggling. Can the Minister provide an update on the roll-out of the new LINAC machines at 28 hospitals, which she spoke about in May 2025?

We were also told that by March 2027, up to 27,500 additional treatments will be delivered. Can the Minister share some information on how that will be achieved? The Labour Government have now been in power for two years. They have raised taxes by more than £60 billion and they do not have much to show for it. They have not produced a workforce plan. They have said that one will be imminent; can the Minister confirm whether it will be published today before we break for the recess? Is the intention to publish it during the recess or will we have to wait until the autumn?

There is a 31% shortfall in clinical radiologists. New clause 48 essentially requires the publication and maintenance of

“a national framework for improving access to radiotherapy services”.

This Government have essentially shown that if a requirement is not in legislation, plans just get delayed, diminished and disowned, but patients cannot afford to wait any longer.

[Helen Morgan]

I rise to speak to new clauses 53 and 54, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), and new clause 65, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron).

New clause 53 would give patients a right to start cancer treatment within 62 days of referral and require the Secretary of State to establish a scheme to deliver that. It would also require the Secretary of State to update the House on progress against the target on or around the time of World Cancer Day. New clause 54 would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations requiring the Government to co-ordinate research into cancers with the lowest survival rate.

Health Bill (Seventeenth sitting)

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th July 2026 Public Bill Committees

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 58—Inquiry into women’s health outcomes—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, commission an independent inquiry into women’s health provision and outcomes in England.

(2) Any inquiry established under subsection (1) must consider—

(a) the causes of—

(i) poorer health outcomes, and

(ii) disparities in patient safety

for women,

(b) the effectiveness of existing commissioning arrangements in meeting the needs of women, and

(c) recommendations to assist the Secretary of State in discharging the duty to reduce inequalities in health outcomes under section 1C of the National Health Service Act 2006.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of the inquiry before Parliament within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”

This new clause would establish an inquiry into the poorer health outcomes faced by women.

New clause 104—Implementation of the Women’s Health Strategy—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 90 days of the date on which this Act receives Royal Assent, publish a women's health implementation plan (the ‘implementation plan’) setting out how the commitments in the document entitled ‘The Renewed Women's Health Strategy for England’ published on 15 April 2026 (or any successor document) will be delivered.

(2) The implementation plan must include, in particular—

(a) a timetable for delivering simpler access to long-acting reversible contraception (LARC);

(b) a trajectory for reducing the gynaecology waiting list and for reducing average diagnosis times for endometriosis;

(c) a plan for establishing the regional specialist centres for group-based women's health pathways, including contraception, heavy periods, uro-gynaecology and menopause; and

(d) measurable targets and milestones for each commitment in the strategy, including a baseline and timetable for delivery.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay the implementation plan before Parliament on the day it is published.

(4) In preparing the implementation plan, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists,

(b) the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare, and

(c) patient organisations representing women affected by the conditions addressed by the strategy.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a women's health implementation plan setting out how the commitments in the document entitled “The Renewed Women’s Health Strategy for England” will be delivered.

[Helen Morgan]

New clause 57 would ensure that the average waiting time for diagnosis and treatment for elective conditions for women’s health issues does not exceed the average waiting time for wider NHS elective treatment. New clause 58 would establish an inquiry into the poorer health outcomes that women face.

In communities up and down the country, we have seen the devastating toll taken by the various and sustained failures to invest in and deliver better women’s health. Vital services remain understaffed and underfunded, while women and girls are going without the care they need. In 2022, we welcomed the first women’s health strategy, which promised to

“listen more carefully to women, close gaps in care, improve research and tackle inequalities.”

Those were all vital goals, but three years on, the problems remain stubbornly in place: long waits for gynaecology treatment, patchy access to services, women reporting that they are not listened to, pain not taken seriously and conditions diagnosed too late.

Medical misogyny is a perverse and unacceptable norm in the health sector. Women are not offered pain relief when they need it. The side effects of treatment and drugs on women in particular are far too often overlooked and under-researched. More research is needed to improve medical and reproductive products for women. In addition, about half a million women are waiting for gynaecology treatment across the country.

We just cannot keep failing women in this way. The current average wait for a diagnosis of endometriosis is nine years and four months. Tackling NHS waiting times, including for gynaecological services, must be a top priority for the Government. More needs to be done to tackle the backlogs. Waits for health conditions specific to women should not be so much longer than those for general health conditions.

The former Secretary of State recognised that the NHS

“has a problem with basic, everyday sexism and an appalling culture of medical misogyny.”

We welcome that acknowledgment, but we believe that the Department of Health and Social Care should ask the same questions of itself.

As I say, new clause 57 would ensure that the average waiting time for diagnosis and treatment for elective conditions for women’s health issues does not exceed the average waiting time for wider NHS elective treatment. It would be a meaningful step towards parity and equality. As we know, in the NHS what gets measured gets done.

The Government’s new women’s health strategy is welcome—it has more urgency and has the laudable goals of tackling medical misogyny, of faster diagnosis of conditions such as endometriosis, and of better pain management—but in comparison with the men’s health strategy that was released last year, it lacks teeth. Its goals are laudable, but it lacks a named academic network, a formal National Institute for Health and Care Research-aligned research mandate, a committed stakeholder governance group, a named condition-specific research investment at a comparable scale to that in the men’s health strategy and a formal accountability architecture with named organisations, governance structures and public reporting obligations.

This time, we need to back the strategy with real investment in the services that impact women, which have been stretched to breaking point. New clause 58 would introduce an inquiry into the poor health outcomes faced by women. We hope that such an inquiry would achieve the same goal and shed a light on women’s health issues, which seem to get so little focus at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Morgan]

I am suddenly cast back to 31 years ago, when I was choosing my subjects for the final year of my history degree. One of the early modern history papers was provocatively entitled “Women and other deviants”. It was called that to draw attention to the fact that, despite making up 50% of the population, women are often treated as a minority group. I sincerely hope that we are not still in that situation, but women’s issues clearly still need addressing. I will take the Minister at her word, but I will keep pressing her on this issue as we go through the course of this Parliament. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 66

Puberty blockers

‘(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act the Secretary of State must make regulations which ensure that puberty blockers may not be prescribed, dispensed or supplied to persons under 18 years of age for the purposes of treatment related to gender dysphoria, gender incongruence or a combination of both, in the United Kingdom.

(2) These regulations must ensure that such drugs cannot be given out or used as part of clinical trials for the treatment of gender dysphoria, gender incongruence or a combination of both, unless that trial has specifically been approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

(3) For the purposes of this section, puberty blockers means—

(a) a “gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (‘GnRH’) analogue” which means a medicinal product that consists of or contains buserelin, gonadorelin, goserelin, leuprorelin acetate, nafarelin or triptorelin, and

(b) any other drug which has the effect of suppressing or delaying puberty that the Secretary of State may by regulation appoint.’—(Dr Caroline Johnson.)

This new clause would create a requirement for the Secretary of State to make regulations which prevent puberty blockers from being prescribed to persons under 18 years of age for the purposes of treatment related to gender incongruence, or clinical trials related to gender incongruence unless specifically approved by Parliament.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 66 relates to the prescription of puberty blocker drugs, also known as GnRH agonists. A first rule of medicine is “Primum non nocere”—first do no harm. That is what this clause seeks: to make sure that harm does not come unnecessarily to children. It is required because the Government are sponsoring a £10.6 million trial to put 226 physically healthy children on puberty-blocking drugs. That is being done despite the fact that the Health Secretary claims he feels “uncomfortable and uneasy” at the prospect.

There are lots of questions that need to be answered. The minimum age for this trial is 11 years old for girls and 12 years old for boys, despite the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency having recommended a much older group. When my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) asked why in a written question, the Minister gave a holding answer. Is that because the Government do not know or because they do not want to say?

I am not convinced that the trial will produce the answers the Government want. Apparently, they are asking the question of whether puberty blockers benefit children who have questions over their gender and who will later go on to have a trans identity in adulthood. The challenge is that we do not know which of the children who have challenges with their gender during puberty will go on to have such an identity in adulthood, so we are essentially doing a trial on a large number of children to see whether puberty blockers are beneficial for a small group, or, as it was described by the Secretary of State,

“a very small subset of a very small group”.—[Official Report, 22 June 2026; Vol. 788, c. 56.]

The Government have data that they could use in a data linkage study to try to narrow that field down, but for some reason they are choosing to do this trial before that. I do not understand why; perhaps the Minister can explain.

I do not want to detain the Committee too long on this issue—I could talk for some time—because we have had Opposition day debates in the House on it, but we have seen unease from both sides of the House. The Minister will be aware that there was a vote on the trial at the end of the recent Opposition day debate, and there were a large number of abstentions, as well as three votes against, from her party, as well as many votes against from ours. Puberty blockers carry risks that may or may not be reversible: there are concerns about bone density, cognitive damage and fertility loss, all for children who should be enjoying their childhood.

The new clause would prevent a trial from taking place without votes in the Houses of Parliament. I appreciate that we would not normally seek to have votes in the Houses of Parliament on a clinical trial, because it would slow clinical trials down, but I think this topic in particular has unfortunately become so polarised that it is very difficult to see how it can be processed properly.

Ultimately, the Government have responsibility for what goes on in this country. If the Government want to pay for the trial, then it is the Government’s trial, and the Government should bring it before the House for us to decide as parliamentarians whether it is the right thing to do. I think it is absolutely not. I think we are putting children at risk of permanent harm. We do not know that these children are going to benefit. We do not even know if they are in the pool of children who would, in the long term, have a trans identity, and the Government are not even waiting to see whether they can find out using the data linkage study. It is wrong, and we need to do what we can to try to prevent it.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Helen Morgan]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) for tabling the new clause. She has asked me to speak about dental deserts in Surrey and East Hampshire, the area that she lives in and represents. The new clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that there is adequate provision of NHS dental appointments in Surrey and East Hampshire, and allows us to raise once again the shocking state of dentistry in this country.

As we have discussed on many occasions, more than 5 million children did not see a dentist at all in 2025—that is a stark reminder of what we mean when we talk about dental deserts. We have heard that DIY dentistry has become normalised, which is pretty horrifying. People are using pliers to extract teeth and superglue to reattach crowns, or attempting to fill cavities with household adhesives. Beyond those obviously shocking Victorian scenes, DIY dentistry is very risky and has, tragically, led to deaths from sepsis. That is all because people cannot get an NHS dental appointment and cannot afford a private one.

The last Conservative Government pushed dentistry to the brink, and children and parents in particular are paying the price of that neglect. That is a national shame—one that we must fix. As I mentioned, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford tabled the new clause to highlight the issues in her part of the country. Surrey and East Hampshire is not the worst place in the country for access to NHS dentistry, but it does face serious issues. Some pockets of the population have been left unable to get an NHS dental appointment.

The action taken so far by the Labour Government has not been good enough, but the fault for this dire situation lies solely at the door of the Conservatives. Their years of neglect have left our dentistry in a shocking condition. Healthwatch—once again showing why it is so important—has classified large parts of Hampshire as dental deserts. Equally, a Healthwatch report into dentistry in Surrey told us of ever-so-familiar themes: people cannot find a dentist accepting NHS patients, information about dentists accepting NHS patients is not up to date, and there are financial barriers to receiving dental care. Clearly, much more needs to be done for the people of Surrey and East Hampshire. I commend the new clause to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

Welcome to another rerun of the 2010s —happier times for the Opposition. Sometimes they do not remember what happened, and I have to remind them—and every now and then, they remind us. This is a really important issue, not only for the hon. Member for Guildford, who tabled new clause 72, and the hon. Member for North Shropshire, who moved it, but for all our constituencies. It has been a huge priority for this Government.

The Secretary of State will continue to have a duty to promote a comprehensive health service in England. In addition, clause 4 provides for an amended duty for the Secretary of State to reduce inequalities in access to services across England. However, we also recognise that practical action is needed to secure access to urgent and routine NHS dentistry care. As the Committee has discussed, that is why the Government have prioritised a number of improvements over the past two years.

Last year, ICBs commissioned additional urgent dental care appointments, and there is now an urgent care safety net across the country. In April 2026, we introduced a requirement for NHS dental practices across England to deliver a set proportion of their contract as urgent care. Supported by increased payments for dentists delivering that care, that made it easier for patients to get prompt support through the NHS. We are committed to reforming the NHS dental contract by the end of this Parliament—something that could have been done at any point in the past 14 years. As a first step, the package of reforms we introduced earlier this year will address some of the pressing issues that dentists and dental teams have been experiencing. Those reforms will help to prioritise those with the greatest need, supporting a shift away from clinically unnecessary check-ups.

The Government are already making progress on improving access to NHS dentistry across England, including in Surrey and East Hampshire. I hope that hon. Members can see how legislating for one area in particular conflicts with the Secretary of State’s duties to promote a comprehensive health service for England as a whole, and risks creating health inequalities in other regions. For that reason, I ask that the hon. Member for North Shropshire withdraw the new clause.

[Helen Morgan]

My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford has specifically requested that I press the new clause to a vote because she feels so strongly about the issues in her area.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Helen Morgan]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State

“to publish a strategy to combat anti-vaccine and medical disinformation”.

We increasingly see the impact of anti-vax and medical disinformation. Lower vaccination rates have been recognised as a growing threat to public health this year, and in February the NHS launched a new vaccination campaign following concerns about the declining uptake of measles, mumps and rubella vaccinations.

Disinformation, including anti-vax conspiracy theories, is dangerous and leads to increased levels of preventable illness. The leader of Reform UK has platformed prominent anti-vaccine conspiracy theories at his conferences, and Reform UK needs to be held accountable for its role in this. It is amplifying and importing the conspiracy theories and outright dangerous views of the US President and Robert F. Kennedy. The leader of Reform UK has refused to condemn Donald Trump’s medical conspiracy theories, including unfounded claims about autism and paracetamol. Those views have had a very real effect in the US, undermining and hollowing out important scientific and medical institutions to the detriment of the nation’s health.

[Dr Prinsley]

Does the hon. Member agree that the invention of vaccination by Jenner centuries ago is the single most important medical invention we have had in this country?

[Helen Morgan]

I absolutely agree. My mother and grandmother both had polio, which nobody would expect to experience in this day and age. That same grandmother’s sister died of diphtheria, and her father had smallpox. That was all just over 100 years ago, so it was not too long ago that people were experiencing what we now consider to be antiquated and unthinkable diseases.

The vaccination programmes that have been brought in over the past century have undoubtedly been game-changing for public health, not least for people growing up with working-class backgrounds, as my family would have been. That is why it is so important to deal with the disinformation that allows unscientific and dangerous anti-vax views to be communicated convincingly to the wider community.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

I agree with the hon. Member that people with power, especially those with political platforms, have used it to spread misinformation about vaccination. Some medical professionals working in our hospitals and the NHS—doctors and nurses—are also against vaccines. Can the hon. Member explain how we can tackle that issue?

[Helen Morgan]

It is really important not to blame people who have seen convincing information online or have been given convincing information by people who ought to know better—including at political party conferences. We need to battle the source of that information and ensure that accurate, factual information is available and communicated to everyone in an accessible way by people they trust. That is key to all this. As I have said before, ostracising or ridiculing people who have been given information in a very convincing way is not the way to resolve this problem. We need to tackle it in an understanding way by communicating the facts sympathetically and accessibly.

It is important to note that concerns about vaccinations are not exclusive to a single group of voters. There is significant vaccine hesitancy across some ethnic minority communities and in hard-to-reach places across the country. We must do more to support doctors, nurses and the NHS to fight fiction with facts, or the long-term health of the country will suffer. That is what new clause 77 seeks to do. There is some great local work being done, but there needs to be a joined-up strategy to combat all aspects of disinformation, because a nice social media video telling people to get their jab will not beat it.

Now that Reform UK has a greater presence in our local government, NHS leaders will have to handle more and more difficult conversations with anti-vax and conspiracy theorist councillors, and they deserve support to engage with those people effectively and constructively. The proposed strategy would provide just that. It would have to consider

“support for medical professionals to build trust and engage with persons who are anti-vaccine…investment in public messaging to combat medical disinformation, including engagement with trusted online influencers…outreach campaigns focused on communities that are sceptical about vaccinations…introducing criminal liability for those, including online influencers and politicians, who profit from medical disinformation, and…a new verification requirement for any social media account claiming to be a medical professional.”

We must do more systematically to protect the NHS and our nation’s health from the growing threats of medical misinformation. We urge the Government to give this issue the focus it needs, and we hope that they consider this new clause one way to do that.

[Karin Smyth]

The hon. Member has brought up an important topic. The Government absolutely recognise that inaccurate information can undermine confidence in vaccines, which are so important. We are already taking a multi-pronged approach to addressing that through national communications, support for healthcare professionals and the ongoing monitoring of emerging narratives.

The evidence is clear that, although it is a risk, misinformation is not a primary cause for people not to take up the offer of vaccinations. Rather, practical barriers such as access to services, socioeconomic factors and levels of awareness play a more significant role. We are already acting to reduce those barriers, with targeted action to improve access, strengthen communications and support frontline staff. A new statutory strategy focused solely on disinformation would risk narrowing our approach when a broader, evidence-led response is required.

For those reasons, we do not consider the new clause to be the right approach. I recognise much of what the hon. Member says about access to information, but we want to maintain a wider approach. On that basis, I respectfully ask her to withdraw the new clause.

[Helen Morgan]

I thank the Minister for her response. I think it is important that we keep an eye on the power of medical misinformation or disinformation, and expand that consideration to things such as therapy chatbots. It is not just an online problem, but an AI problem—it is not just malign influences that cause the problem. I beg to ask to leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 81

Minimum service levels

“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision for minimum service levels to operate in the NHS during periods of strike action.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may repeal or otherwise amend provisions in the Employment Rights Act 2025, insofar as is necessary for the purposes of this section.

(3) Regulations under subsection (1) must include provision for minimum levels of service by categories of NHS workforce staff, including all Agenda for Change staff but not doctors.

(4) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(5) When minimum service levels are in operation under this section, the NHS must set minimum standards of acceptable service to be provided by the NHS during periods of strike action, including mitigating any effect on appointments, medical procedures, acute services, midwifery, surgical procedures, and any other matters that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.

(6) With one year beginning on the day on which regulations are made under subsection (1), and within each period of a year thereafter, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on compliance with minimum service levels, including reasons for any failure by operators to secure the required thresholds, and actions the NHS is taking to improve performance to meet the minimum service levels.”—(Dr Caroline Johnson.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations which create minimum service levels to operate in the NHS during periods of strike action.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Helen Morgan]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 109—Hospices revenue funding—

“The Secretary of State must ensure that any funding for hospices is allocated for three-year periods.”

This new clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that funding allocations for hospices is made on a three year basis.

[Helen Morgan]

New clause 108, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), will place a duty on ICBs to collect and publish data on the number of patients who died while waiting for end-of-life care. This is a fairly self-explanatory new clause, so I will keep my remarks brief.

We know anecdotally that palliative care provision is very patchy across the country and can be something of a postcode lottery, and that many people who die in hospital would have preferred to die at home with the support of hospice outreach services or in a hospice itself. The new clause would ensure that we understand how many of those people there are and where they are located, so that we can consider whether hospice provision is appropriately provided in the right places.

I hope the Minister will consider the importance of the new clause, which would allow us to have a much more comprehensive palliative care service across the country.

[Dr Johnson]

New clause 109, tabled in my name, is very simple, requiring hospice funding to be provided in three-year blocks. Hospices are struggling under the weight of the national insurance rise in the Government’s first Budget, so they would benefit greatly from having a bit more certainty over how much their funding will be from year to year. I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to the new clause.

[Karin Smyth]

This is a really important subject, as everyone approaching the end of their life deserves dignified, compassionate and high-quality palliative and end-of-life care. Hospices provide extraordinary care, and hon. Members are right to highlight the issues the sector faces. That is why the Government are committed to developing a modern service framework for palliative care and end-of-life care. The final framework will be published in the autumn.

New clause 108 would require integrated care boards to collect and report data on people who died while waiting for end-of-life care. It would also require the Department of Health and Social Care to publish that information nationally. New clause 109 would impose a single statutory three-year funding period on hospice funding. Both new clauses are likely to be answered by work already under way or included in the modern service framework.

On funding, we recognise that the sector faces a serious challenge, and the Public Accounts Committee found in March that integrated care board funding ranges from 0% to 80% of an individual hospice’s income, and that commissioning relies on grants and block contracts. There are also wider funding issues, such as the reliance on historic grants.

The Government are acting on those issues, and we have provided around £80 million over three years for children and young people’s hospices, or at least £26 million a year to 2028-29, adjusted for inflation. We have also provided a separate £125 million capital boost for both adult and children and young people’s hospices. That is the largest investment in hospices for a generation.

The MSF will support commissioning away from grants and block contracts to sustainable contracts based on integrated assessment of population need. It will consider contracting arrangements more widely, including a move away from short-term grant funding as part of the more comprehensive reform that the sector agrees it needs.

We are also strengthening data and evidence. We commissioned the National Institute for Health and Care Research’s policy research unit to build the evidence base on palliative and end-of-life care, including on inequalities in access and the identification of need.

We also expect the MSF to give us better insight into the performance of the system. Its metrics and accountability framework are being co-developed with people with lived experience and partner organisations from across the sector. It will measure identification, access, quality, outcomes and inequalities.

In the context of that ongoing work, the new clauses are not necessary. The MSF will give the House and the public a far more comprehensive picture of access to care than a single count could. It will also do so as part of improving the entire patient journey for people who need palliative and end-of-life care. Because this is a non-statutory approach, there will be more flexibility to adapt and change over time, rather than the system being required to follow requirements set out in primary legislation. I hope that that gives hon. Members the reassurance they need not to press their new clauses to a vote.

[Helen Morgan]

I thank the Minister for her response, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

[The Chair]

We now come to new clause 109 tabled in the name of Dr Caroline Johnson. I call Dr Johnson to move the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

On new clause 110, the Government are proud of the courage and dedication of our armed forces. We must all play our part in upholding the armed forces covenant, including for our armed forces veterans. The original covenant was under a Labour Government; I was proud, as part of my commissioning duties in Bristol, to work with the Royal British Legion to implement that more than a decade ago, and the work continues. I am therefore sympathetic to the intention to promote the health and wellbeing of our armed forces veterans, but I can assure hon. Members that the new clause is not necessary.

The Government’s vision for veterans is clearly set out in the veterans strategy, which recognises veterans as one of the UK’s greatest strategic assets. Furthermore, the existing armed forces covenant duty already places a legal obligation on integrated care boards to give due regard to the unique obligations and sacrifices of the armed forces when carrying out their statutory duties.

[Helen Morgan]

In terms of ICBs and their responsibilities to veterans, there are specialist veterans’ services around the country. One exists in my constituency, at the orthopaedic hospital in Gobowen, which has an excellent veterans’ centre. Yet the commissioning and payment for those services between ICBs is complex, messy and unnecessarily difficult. Would the Minister consider using the measures at her disposal to ensure that those things can happen more smoothly in the future?

[Karin Smyth]

I thank the hon. Lady for referencing that service in her constituency. I am not aware of the complications in the funding, but I will commit to getting back to her to understand that better, and I will see what the responses are from the commissioning function—I suspect it is a specialised one that falls between many different people. I am sure it has a long history, but I am afraid I am not directly aware of it, but I commit to getting a satisfactory response to her.

The covenant duty is underpinned by two core principles: first, that disadvantages arising from membership of the armed forces community should, where possible, be removed; and secondly, that special provision may be appropriate for those who have given the most, such as the injured and bereaved. Beyond that, ICBs have a range of inequalities-related duties relevant to the circumstances of veterans. They include a duty to have regard to the need to reduce inequalities between persons in accessing health services and in outcomes achieved from those services; a duty to have regard to the wider effect of decisions, including inequalities relating to health and wellbeing and to the benefits obtained from the provision of health services; and the public sector equality duty, with which all public sector bodies must comply.

Therefore, there is already a range of legal duties on integrated care boards to promote the health and wellbeing of veterans as part of the community the ICB serves. It is precisely because those duties already apply that we do not consider it necessary to replicate them in relation to neighbourhood health plans.

On new clause 112, a requirement on the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on compliance with the armed forces covenant duty would be wholly unnecessary. Legislation already requires the Secretary of State to lay a covenant annual report before Parliament each year covering the effects of membership, or former membership, of the armed forces on service people in the fields of healthcare, education, housing and the operation of inquests. Under that legislation, the Ministry of Defence must obtain the views of relevant Government Departments, including the Department of Health and Social Care, when preparing the report. Any annual report on compliance with the armed forces covenant duty produced by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care would cover precisely the same subject matter and would be a duplication of information already publicly available.

New clause 111 relates to providing service personnel with their medical records within one month of discharge. The Government agree entirely that it is important that a patient and their care providers have access to their medical records. Primary healthcare for serving members of the armed forces is the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence and is provided by the Defence Medical Command. As a result, such care would be outside the scope of the amendment. There are established processes to allow for the safe transfer of relevant medical information to the service leaver and their new GP when that person leaves the armed forces. Service personnel receive a medical care summary, and are advised to register with an NHS GP and share the summary with their new GP.

Existing data protection legislation also allows an individual to request their full record on discharge. We recognise that, in some instances, the process does not work as well as we would like, which is why the Defence Medical Command is already working towards greater interoperability with NHS systems and the electronic transfer of medical records from Defence Medical Command to NHS GPs.

As hon. Members know, the single patient record will, wherever possible, draw on and connect relevant information in source records, such as GP IT systems and hospital electronic patient records, and allow the patient to see their record in the NHS app. That innovation further renders the measure unnecessary. For those reasons, and because the objectives are already being delivered through existing duties and ongoing reforms, I ask that the new clause is not pressed to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Power to make consequential provision

[Helen Morgan]

I beg to move amendment 77, in clause 68, page 47, line 27, leave out from “to” to the end of line 28 and insert “the affirmative procedure”.

This amendment ensures that all secondary legislation as a result of this bill is subject to the affirmative procedure.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 68 to 72 stand part.

[Helen Morgan]

Amendment 77 is a probing amendment in the light of our previous discussions in Committee about the extensive powers that the Bill transfers to the Secretary of State. It would make all secondary legislation under the Bill subject to the affirmative procedure. I do not intend to press it to a vote, but I hope that the Minister will take into account the concerns that we have raised during these proceedings about the sweeping powers that the Secretary of State is taking on board.

[Gregory Stafford]

I heard the Liberal Democrat spokesperson say that she will not press the amendment, but I would be sorely tempted to vote for it if she did so. This important amendment sums up a number of our concerns about the Bill, and the commencement amendments to follow are also appropriate.

As the hon. Member will not press her amendment, however, I will not speak for long, save to say that I have enjoyed the past few weeks on this Committee. I hope that the Minister is still in place when we return in September. If she is not, I wish her very well and thank her for all her hard work, not just in this Committee, but in her role over the past two years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

I thank the hon. Member for her kind comments. As the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston, recognised, I have been on the other side when considering a previous Bill. Opposition is hard work—the process is quite hard work on this side—and I commend Opposition Members for conducting that important scrutiny. I thank Members for their contributions and I think the Bill is stronger for those efforts.

[Helen Morgan]

May I associate myself with the Minister’s comments and thanks to everybody who has been involved in working on the Bill? I have also enjoyed my time on the Committee, despite the heat. I hope that the Minister remains in place when we come back on Report, because she is a hard-working and thoughtful Minister and it is a pleasure to stand opposite her in the House in my place as my party’s spokesman.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 70

Extent

Amendment made: 80, in clause 70, page 48, line 18, at end insert—

“(2A) Section (Medical Devices Regulations 2002: mutual recognition agreements) extends to England and Wales and Scotland.”.—(Karin Smyth.)

This is consequential on NC92.

Clause 70, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 71

Commencement

Amendments made: 81, in clause 71, page 48, line 25, leave out “Section 63” and insert “The following”.

This paves the way for Amendment 82.

Amendment 82, in clause 71, page 48, line 26, at end insert “—

(a) section 63 (Care Quality Commission: time limit for bringing proceedings);

(b) sections (Regulations: reference to agreements and standards), (Medical Devices Regulations 2002: mutual recognition agreements), (Consultation about medicines and medical devices regulations), (Medicines and medical devices regulations: parliamentary procedure), (Medical devices: parliamentary procedure for certain fees regulations).”.—(Karin Smyth.)

This provides for the new clauses listed to come into force 2 months after royal assent.

Amendment proposed: 37, in clause 71, page 48, line 28, at end insert—

“(3A) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under subsection (3) commencing section (1) until the conditions in subsection (3B) are met.

(3B) The conditions are that—

(a) the Secretary of State has published a document setting out the operating model for the exercise of functions by the Department of Health and Social Care following the abolition of NHS England (the "operating model document"); and

(b) the Secretary of State has published a plan for the management of personnel affected by the abolition of NHS England and the transfer of its functions to the Department of Health and Social Care (the “workforce transition plan”).

(3C) The operating model document must include—

(a) a description of how each of the functions exercised by NHS England is to be exercised following its abolition;

(b) the governance and accountability arrangements for the exercise of those functions;

(c) the organisational structure of the Department of Health and Social Care as it will operate following the abolition; and

(d) the proposed timetable for the transition.

(3D) The workforce transition plan must include—

(a) an assessment of the number of personnel whose employment is affected by the abolition of NHS England;

(b) the arrangements for the transfer, redeployment or redundancy of affected personnel; and

(c) proposals for consultation with recognised trade unions and staff representative bodies in connection with the abolition.

(3E) Regulations to commence section (1) are to be made by statutory instrument and may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(3F) Before laying a draft instrument under subsection (3E), the Secretary of State must allow a period of at least 60 days beginning with the date of publication of the operating model document and the workforce transition plan (whichever is the later) before the draft instrument is laid.

(3G) A period during which Parliament is dissolved, prorogued or adjourned for more than four days are not to count towards the 60-day period in subsection (3F).”.—(Dr Caroline Johnson.)

This amendment would prevent the abolition of NHS England before the production of an operating model for the merged DHSC/NHSE and associated plan to manage personnel.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Health Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I remind hon. Members to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during the sitting, but there is loads of water—silver is fizzy, blue is flat. I am happy to give a blanket permission for people to take off their jackets. Officially, you are meant to ask me individually, but given the heatwave, take them off if you like.

New Clause 6

Health Data Charter

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, establish an independent body (to be known as the "Sovereign Health Data Trust”) for the purpose of creating a Health Data Charter.

(2) The membership of the Trust should include—

(a) people with a diverse range of backgrounds; and

(b) health data experts, clinicians and patient representatives.

(3) The Charter must—

(a) set out the fundamental principles and responsibilities for assessing whether a data sharing partnership is in the interest of the public and the NHS;

(b) include the primary goal of protecting people’s privacy and their data from exploitation, while promoting trust in data systems and the handling of health data;

(c) ensure patients have control of their data, including providing relevant opt-outs;

(d) provide that all health data is held anonymously and accessed through a trusted research environment;

(e) set out ways to retain and protect the value of health data in England, including providing measures to invest a share of the income generated from new medicines or treatments developed with that health data to be invested back into the NHS;

(f) be designed in such a way as to render it interoperable with the European Health Data Space in technical terms, including through the promotion of Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR) data principles within the NHS.

(4) The Sovereign Health Data Trust will—

(a) hold continuous oversight of all health data and oversee the trusted research environment;

(b) have power to recall or restrict an organisation’s access to data if it has reason to believe that the data is not being used for public or patient benefit;

(c) ensure that all data sharing arrangements with a non-NHS organisation are transparent, with all health data contracts entered into by a public body made publicly available;

(d) publish detailed minutes of all meetings discussing potential uses of health data; and

(e) ensure all health data collection and sharing initiatives are preceded by public consultation, involvement and awareness.”—(Helen Morgan.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. The new clause would require the creation of a health data charter, and includes measures to protect data so as to ensure privacy and reasonable usage.

Patients should be in control of their data. As we have discussed in previous sittings, we do not think that the Bill goes far enough to provide reassurances in that regard. Everyone agrees with the need for the single patient record, but there is genuine risk—one that I do not think anyone in this room wants—that it could be derailed over very understandable and reasonable data privacy concerns. Sufficient guardrails and transparency are key, especially for secondary uses of health data. As we have discussed on many occasions, trust is essential for the system to succeed.

That is why we have tabled this new clause on a health data charter that would set out guiding principles for data sharing across the national health service, including for the single patient record. It would be led by data experts, as well as, importantly, clinicians and patient representatives. Ensuring that the voices of doctors and patients are heard is central to building trust and the widespread use of any data-sharing systems or technologies.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Dr Huq.

New clause 6 raises an important question on how we govern health data, which one of the greatest assets of the NHS. The development of the single patient record platform and database, and the wider use of the linked NHS data, present enormous opportunities.

When used responsibly, healthcare data can support much more personalised care, improve NHS planning, accelerate medical research, enable earlier diagnoses and help develop new medicines and treatments. It can also improve efficiency and strengthen the evidence base for healthcare decisions. However, those benefits can be realised only if the public have the confidence that their data will be used safely, ethically and transparently. Public trust must be the foundation of any successful health data policy.

NHS health data is currently overseen by NHS England, following the merger of NHS Digital into that organisation. With the Government proceeding with the abolition of NHS England and the transfer of its functions elsewhere, it is right that we consider future governance arrangements. In principle, I agree that an independent body may be needed to ensure and maintain the security, integrity and responsible stewardship of NHS data. There is definitely scope for an independent body to oversee the management and regulation of the public’s health data. That proposal places patient privacy at its heart, and would strengthen safeguards against misuse, give patients greater control over how their information is used, and provide meaningful mechanisms to opt out of certain forms of data sharing. It also promotes the use of anonymisation and trusted research environments, allowing valuable research to take place while reducing the risk of inappropriate disclosure. We have discussed inappropriate disclosure by a malign actor, or even inadvertent disclosure, during debate on other clauses.

The Liberal Democrat new clause also seeks to address a concern that has attracted significant public attention: where commercial organisations derive substantial value from NHS data, the NHS itself should share in that benefit. Although we did not support a number of Liberal Democrat proposals because of the inadvertent implications of their drafting, I still have sympathy with the overall thrust of what they were trying to achieve. There is a strong argument that the value generated from the data contributed by NHS patients should help to support future patient care and research.

Transparency is another important feature. Publishing data-sharing agreements, increasing openness around decision making and consulting the public on significant new data initiatives would help to strengthen public confidence. The proposed trust would bring those principles together by overseeing data use, monitoring compliance with governance standards, ensuring transparency and, where necessary, suspending access for organisations that misuse their data.

Of course, any new governance framework must avoid creating unnecessary bureaucracy or delaying important research. To reassure the Committee that the framework would not create a block or dampener, or insert inertia into the system, will the hon. Member for North Shropshire tell us what evidence she found when drafting the new clause? If we are going to do something like this, the oversight should be proportionate, and it should complement, rather than duplicate or frustrate, any existing regulatory responsibilities.

Ultimately, the new clause has potential benefits. It would establish a clear social contract for NHS health data, which would hopefully protect privacy, support research and innovation, maintain public trust and ensure that patients and the NHS share in the benefits arising from the responsible use of a very valuable national asset. In terms of what it could be used for, that data is probably second to none in the world, but I am concerned about adding extra bureaucracy and inertia to the system, when we want a vibrant life-sciences industry that is able to use the data for the benefit of British citizens and patients. What does the hon. Member for North Shropshire think would happen in that case?

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Morgan]

Hon. and right hon. Members on the Committee will understand that we are talking about a single patient record that we do not understand much about yet, because most of the detail will come later. This new clause is attempting to establish what guardrails we would like to see for the protection of patient data when the single patient record is brought into existence

There are very genuine concerns about people’s health conditions becoming individually identifiable. If there is an individual in a single postcode with a rare condition, anonymising the data can essentially never happen. That is a genuine concern that people have. I hope that, when we get to Report stage, the Government will be able to give us a little more detail on what safeguards they intend to put in place over the use of that data. To that end, I do not intend to press this new clause to a vote, but I hope that the Government will take into account the concerns we have expressed about building trust and protecting data privacy, and will give us further reassurance at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 11

Directors of public health

“After section 7B of the National Health Service Act 2006 insert—

‘7BA Directors of public health

Each integrated care board must, for the purposes of exercising any public health functions directed by the Secretary of State, appoint a lead director of public health.’”—(Dr Caroline Johnson.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 12

Corridor Care Accountability

“(1) Six months after the passage of this Act, and every 12 months thereafter, the Secretary of State must produce and lay before Parliament a report on the prevalence of corridor care in NHS hospitals.

(2) A report under subsection (1) must include—

(a) an analysis of data on the number of corridor incidents at the national, integrated care board, trust, and hospital level,

(b) the steps the Secretary of State has taken that year to reduce the number of corridor care incidents,

(c) the Secretary of State’s plans to reduce the number of corridor care incidents in the coming year, and

(d) information regarding the amount of funding directed toward reducing the number of corridor care incidents that year and funding allocated for such efforts in the future.

(3) Following the publication of a report under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must give evidence in front of a panel (to be called the “Corridor Care Tribunal”) including—

(a) patients,

(b) bereaved or affected families, and

(c) frontline NHS staff who have been impacted by corridor care.

(4) Panel members for a Corridor Care Tribunal under subsection (3) shall be identified by local Healthwatch organisations and NHS Royal Colleges.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report about corridor care and give evidence before a panel of affected patients and staff.—(Helen Morgan.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Helen Morgan]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 56—Accident and Emergency: waiting times—

“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must make provision relating to Accident and Emergency Department admission.

(2) Provision under subsection (1) must include the requirement for every patient to be admitted into an Accident and Emergency Department within 12 hours of approval of their admission being made.

(3) The Secretary of State must establish and implement an Accident and Emergency Scheme (“the Scheme”) to support NHS hospital trusts to achieve the requirement set out in subsection (2).

(4) The Scheme must consider—

(a) creating safety-net social care beds,

(b) increasing step-down care,

(c) publishing a dedicated accident and emergency care workforce plan, and

(d) mandating a qualified clinician is present in every Accident and Emergency waiting room.

(5) The Secretary of State must have due regard to the final report of the Independent Commission on Adult Social Care in establishing the scheme.”

This new clause gives patients a legal right to be admitted into A&E within 12 hours from decision to admit and requires the Secretary of State to introduce a scheme to achieve this.

New clause 84—Publication of data on avoidable deaths—

“(1) The Secretary of State must publish every quarter the number of avoidable deaths where waits of more than 12 hours in accident and emergency departments was a contributory factor.

(2) The Secretary of State must make the data under subsection (1) available by integrated care board area.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish data on avoidable deaths caused by waits over 12 hours in A&E departments.

[Helen Morgan]

New clause 12 would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report about corridor care and to give evidence before a panel of affected patients and staff.

In the main Chamber yesterday, we had a Backbench Business debate on corridor care, introduced by the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan). There was a great deal of consensus across the House about the harm that corridor care causes to both patients and staff, and the requirement for urgency in dealing with that issue.

I am not going to remake the same speech that I made yesterday on corridor care for the Minister’s benefit, because she heard it yesterday and there is little value in repeating it. What I will say is that it is important that there is an understanding at a ministerial level of the personal impact that corridor care has on patients and their families.

That is the purpose of this new clause: to ensure that the Secretary of State is taking the concerns of patients and staff very seriously, hearing them at first hand and then reporting back progress to the House on dealing with the issue. At the moment, it feels as if every year we acknowledge the problem in the House, every winter there are statements on winter crisis and corridor care, and we never really seem to take any steps forward. The new clause aims to ensure that is no longer the case.

New clause 56 is intended to give patients a right to be admitted to accident and emergency

“within 12 hours from decision to admit”,

and would require the Secretary of State

“to introduce a scheme to achieve this.”

We have discussed the legal right to admit and the legal right of patients on a number of occasions. I just want to clarify our intention, because it always raises some questions. The NHS constitution enshrines legal rights for certain things: for example, the two-week wait for a cancer referral to a specialist and the right to receive elective care within, I think, 18 weeks, if so referred. The other targets in the NHS are pledges; there is an aspiration for the Secretary of State to meet them, but it is not a right of the patient that the Secretary of State meets them. We think that 12-hour waits on corridors in hospitals merit the same urgency as cancer referrals, because they lead to awful outcomes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, and I suspect that he has seen this issue in his professional career. Often, when a death occurs in a clinical setting, multiple factors are contributory. I think that that is why my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham framed this as she has, as “a contributory factor”—not the sole factor or the individual most significant factor, but that it could reasonably be deemed by a clinician or by those collecting the data that the long wait contributed to the death, because had that patient been seen, for example, in two hours rather than 12 hours, better clinical outcomes might have been achievable.

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, however, that with many of these things—both clinicians and coroners grapple with this—it is often complex to determine the actual most significant contributory factor. My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham may correct me, but I think that is why she framed new clause 84 as she did, to allow for that degree of a lack of total certainty in such contexts. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point.

I can see what the hon. Member for North Shropshire is seeking to do in new clauses 12 and 56: not unreasonably, she seeks to cast light on the impact of corridor care on patients, families and those caring for people. My only challenge would be—I will enlarge on this in a little more detail—that a narrow focus on corridor care, while understandable, slightly loses the bigger picture. Corridor care is, for want of a better way of putting it, a subset, a consequence, of a much broader systemic challenge.

The Minister will probably know this as well; when I was first appointed to her job, one of the first conversations I had in the context of secondary care was about the importance of flow through our acute hospital systems, from a patient either presenting at A&E or arriving by blue light at A&E, to being treated, and the ability of A&E to function through those patients being seen, treated, and discharged or put into a hospital bed to become an in-patient. The ability to achieve the latter is dependent on the ability to discharge.

[Helen Morgan]

New clause 56 speaks about the importance of creating capacity across the system, including social care, and about having regard to the outcome of Baroness Casey’s commission on social care to deal with the issue of capacity and flow through the hospital. We have discussed at length in Committee other amendments that would deal with the front door, in terms of GP access and trying to ensure that people are treated at first in the community, rather than ending up in A&E as a last resort. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman would just acknowledge those points.

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Lady pre-empts me— I am afraid I have rather a few more remarks to come to. I planned to through the subsections and paragraphs of her new clauses to acknowledge exactly that. For example, in proposed new clause 56(4), she highlights capacity, and in proposed new subsection (5) she mentions Baroness Casey’s independent commission and the need to pay heed to it. All that is important, but my slight fear relates to the drafting. While the new clauses note such factors, they do not necessarily reflect the overall interdependency of all parts of the system. I believe that what the hon. Lady seeks to achieve is perfectly reasonable, but I am not convinced by how the new clauses are drafted.

The hon. Lady was right to highlight in her remarks the importance of timely discharge from hospital as a key element of whether we can achieve that flow into hospital beds and have hospital bed capacity to allow an A&E department or emergency department to function. I looked at this issue four years ago, so the situation may well be very different today, but post the pandemic I inherited about 13,000 acute beds across the system occupied by patients who were medically fit for discharge, but whose discharge had been delayed due to a variety of factors. Some were because hospital pharmacies were not open through the night to provide the drugs when patients were signed off to go home; some were because of the unavailability of patient transport; some were because all the necessary clinicians were not present to sign in the appropriate order.

The single biggest factor, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire has alluded to, was the availability of step-down or social care provision, so that patients could safely go home or to another NHS or care facility and be looked after. We managed to get the delayed discharge total down from 13,000 at a given time to about 10,000—possibly just a bit under. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what the current total is for beds occupied by those medically fit for discharge at a given time.

I see where the hon. Member for North Shropshire is coming from with her suggestion of a tribunal comprised of a mixture of people to interrogate the figures and interrogate the Secretary of State. I can see that she is seeking to make the experiences of those undergoing corridor care and their families real to Ministers, who will be accountable. I gently say that I suspect that the Minister and her boss, the Secretary of State, are only too aware of the consequences of corridor care. Such patient experiences very much weigh on them as Ministers, as they did on me and others, day in, day out. We were always very cognisant of them.

I can see the hon. Member for North Shropshire’s intention with new clause 12(4), where she suggests that Healthwatch should be involved in helping put such a tribunal together. I fear that the Government’s direction of travel may have rendered subsection (4) redundant, but I do not disagree with the intention, because I think she and I both share a view on the importance of healthwatch groups and the value that they bring locally to our healthcare system.

While I can see the point about waiting 12 hours from arriving at the hospital to being taken into A&E, but the new clause does not reflect how the system might seek to manage that. It does not explicitly reference ambulance handover times and waiting times. A challenge we have seen in the past is that, in a desire to avoid hospital corridor care, some trusts have not admitted patients from ambulances until they feel that they could manage them in the hospital.

Arguably, that is less safe than corridor care, for two reasons: first, because the ambulance is not able to offload and be available in the community again and, secondly, because although corridor care has negative consequences, none the less in a hospital corridor there is a consultant or clinician very nearby, should a medical crisis occur. That is better than someone being in an ambulance in the car park—or waiting at home, having called an ambulance that is not coming, and not having their condition assessed because the ambulance is still holding a patient that a trust does not want to admit, in order to avoid congestion and corridor care.

I worry that, although the new clause has the best of intentions, the way the system might react and the impact on ambulance handovers and the ability of ambulances to pick up patients might have been overlooked. That is not a reason not to try to solve the problem of corridor care, but we must acknowledge the ambulance part of the challenge in A&E and emergency care, and encourage and incentivise the system to work as a whole to solve the problem, rather than focusing purely on the ED. In saying that, I acknowledge that the hon. Lady has referenced social care, step-down beds and community care, which are all hugely important, and I listened to her speech with interest, as I always do her contributions.

I would be grateful if the Minister could update the Committee on the latest daily figure for how many patients who are medically fit for discharge are still in an acute hospital bed. Perhaps, when the hon. Member for North Shropshire winds up on this group, she might be able to address the ambulance point—she addressed the social care point, but I would be grateful for her thoughts on ambulances.

Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Karin Smyth]

My hon. Friend has been a strong campaigner. His health community has a lot of problems, as he well knows, but he is always there first, challenging me about the challenges in his healthcare system. He ensures that the people of Ashford are duly represented. He is absolutely right that what will make a difference to patients is improvement on the ground. I do not minimise how far there is to go, but I think patients are already starting to feel that improvement.

In the debate last night, we heard about some great work that is happening. We heard from, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford; from my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae), who talked about the challenged system and the challenged hospital in Blackburn, and the real improvements there; from my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine); and from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, who talked about progress in West Suffolk. That is really encouraging to see.

Earlier in the debate, statistics in the public domain were raised by, I think, the hon. Member for North Shropshire and others on deaths due to long waits and so on. That is a completely unacceptable situation, but I want to put it on the record that those statistics are not Government statistics. We had a bit of a debate about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket highlighted how one can attribute cause of death to certain provisions. It is a really important measure. We do not want anyone waiting, full stop, but the statistics are not verified as Government statistics. I want to be clear about that.

On new clause 84, I assure the Committee that trusts are already held to account on the number of patients waiting 12 hours from arrival in A&E to admission, discharge or transfer. The medium-term planning framework published in October 2025 sets out the expectation that trusts will reduce the percentage of patients waiting 12 hours or more, year on year until 2028-29, as part of our overall ambitions to return to meeting the NHS constitutional standards.

The Government already produce comprehensive data on urgent emergency care performance, including on waiting times and on 12-hour waits. Those data provide transparency, support the oversight of the NHS’s performance and enable independent analysis of patient outcomes. We have been very keen to ensure that those statistics are published.

Another issue raised this morning was bed numbers. We had a bit of a historical throwback to the 1990s; I will not detain the Committee further by doing that again. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket talked about changes in clinical practice, mental health beds and so on. I could talk for many hours about that. As a junior manager coming into the health services, one of my first tasks was to define what a bed is. That is not an easy thing to do. Most people think they know what a bed is but, as we discussed earlier, a trolley without wheels could be a bed. Counting beds and defining what they are and what they are used for is a complicated business in the health service. I know you will tell me not to deviate from the new clause, Ms Lewell, but this is important. Practice changes, and it is important that we make the most effective and efficient use of NHS resources. That means making changes to bed numbers, where they are and how we count them.

In June 2026, an average of 13,618 adult patients in acute hospitals per day were waiting for delayed discharge. We have improved data collection, so we have a better sense of the scale of the problem and, crucially, where it is; it is different in different places. We are seeking to improve that data. I gently remind the Committee that the NHS England website produces an awful lot of really good data so that Members of Parliament and our constituents are able to keep track. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket made clear, we need to keep up with best clinical practice, as well as the best use of resources. We are very happy to share that information and keep it transparent.

New clauses 12 and 56 were tabled by the hon. Member for North Shropshire, who is right to raise the unacceptable waits for care that some patients experience in A&E after the decision has been made to admit them. That includes patients being treated and cared for in corridors at times because of hospitals’ lack of capacity to admit them. As we discussed last night, the Government are clear that corridor care is not an acceptable standard of care and must not be normalised. We inherited an NHS under severe pressure with long waits and increasing numbers of patients receiving care in non-designated clinical areas. It is unacceptable, but I am afraid it was allowed to happen under the Conservatives. We are committed to eradicating corridor care, and we have a plan to do so.

To improve transparency, we have already established a clear national definition of corridor care. Again, the Conservatives could have done so in the past 14 years but chose not to. We have introduced daily reporting arrangements and strengthened the data quality processes. We are working hand in hand with stakeholders, including the royal college. In addition, we have published national guidance to support safe care where such situations cannot be avoided.

We are working hard to tackle the causes of corridor care; we are not just reporting on the consequences. That is why we want to improve patient flow. We have had good discussions about patient flow, both pre-admission and post-discharge, involving social care and primary and community care to support people who need care homes. We do not want people—particularly frail, elderly people—turning up at hospitals if it is better for them clinically to be treated where they are. We are improving patient flow, strengthening the discharge arrangement and investing £215.5 million in new and expanded urgent care services across England. We are also providing targeted support to the trusts facing the greatest challenges in relation to corridor care so that improvements can be delivered where they are needed most.

I gently remind the hon. Member for North Shropshire—and the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, as a clinician, will be clear on this information about admissions—that when a patient presents at A&E, a clinician decides whether to admit them to the hospital, provide treatment, transfer their care to another location or discharge them. Under the current reporting rules, the clock starts running on a patient’s arrival in A&E and stops when one of those actions is taken. As a result, no decision is made to admit to A&E itself. Instead, if someone requires admission, it should be to somewhere elsewhere in the hospital.

Although I fully recognise the concerns that underpin these new clauses, I do not believe that further statutory requirements are the right approach. In the debate last night, we outlined in full the Government’s absolute commitment to addressing the issues and improving the situation for all our constituents. I hope that I have suitably reassured hon. Members that these new clauses are not required, and that they will not press them.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I will speak briefly to new clauses 12 and 56, about which we had quite a long debate this morning. Let me respond to a couple of questions. The shadow Minister asked about the role of Healthwatch in selecting the panel that would interrogate the Secretary of State, as we envisage in new clause 12, given that Healthwatch will be abolished by the Bill. She also asked about new clause 56, which would require the Secretary of State to have due regard to Baroness Casey’s final report. The shadow Minister said that those things are essentially inconsistent, but, considered as a suite of amendments, the provisions we have tabled are consistent. We oppose the abolition of Healthwatch; had that been successful, Healthwatch would still be there. We have also tabled new clause 60, which we will get to later and which would require Baroness Casey’s commission to report much more quickly. That is why that apparent inconsistency exists; I hope I have sorted that out for the shadow Minister.

The right hon. Member for Melton and Syston, a former Minister, talked about capacity in the system as a whole and its impact on corridor care. His concern was that if we focus on corridor care, we will end up with more people being treated in ambulances, have longer ambulance handover times and very long ambulance wait times. He will know, having been the responding Minister to my first Adjournment debate, that ambulance wait times have been a significant problem where I live. I am pleased to say that they are becoming less of a problem, because the new management of the hospital have focused relentlessly on the A&E department and on ensuring that ambulance patients can be taken into it very quickly, or certainly much more quickly than they used to be. I recognise his concern, but I think it is a manageable one.

[Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

Although it is true that hospital management could concentrate on dealing with the waits in A&E, surely it needs to concentrate on the flow through the entire hospital. Every department and everybody involved in the hospital has to be thinking all the time about the flow through the entire hospital. That involves having a pharmacy that is open at night and ensuring that social workers are there when they need to be—it involves all manner of things. Simply concentrating on a particular statistic in an A&E department will not actually deal with the problem.

[Helen Morgan]

I think our new clause addresses that point. As I mentioned, my own hospital trust, Shrewsbury and Telford, has improved ambulance wait times simply by improving the flow through the hospital and addressing some of the issues. I recognise that our new clause does not deal with pharmacy availability at weekends and overnight, which I know is a critical issue in many hospitals; on Report, we will certainly tidy it up to ensure that it does, but I take the hon. Member’s point.

My new clause would address the system-wide capacity issue that the hon. Member highlighted so carefully, both in last night’s debate and here today. We need more capacity across the whole system. Otherwise, we are just trying to push a lump in the carpet to a different place, but there will always be a lump somewhere. The new clause seeks to provide 6,000 more beds across the whole system, to allow flow through the system and to ensure that waits do not back up in the ambulance service, on corridors in A&E or outside wards, as they do currently.

Critically, we should address the point about NHS pledges and rights. The constitution is broadly agnostic about the time people wait on corridors, but is not agnostic about the time it will take for them to get cancer treatment. That is an inconsistency and we should sort it out, because I think our constituents consider the two things equally important.

I take the Minister’s point about new clause 12. I will not push it to a vote, but although trusts are held to account on their A&E performance, the missing piece is that the Secretary of State is not. That is what new clause 12 seeks to address, and I hope that the Minister will consider that on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 14

Healthy life expectancy target

“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must—

(a) make regulations to set a statutory target for improving overall healthy life expectancy for the population of Great Britain, and

(b) publish a cross-governmental strategy, renewed every 24 months, to set out how the target set by regulations under subsection (1)(a) will be achieved.

(2) The strategy under subsection (1)(b) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

(3) Upon publication of a strategy under subsection (1)(b) the Secretary of State must make a statement before the House of Commons regarding progress made towards the target set by subsection (1)(a).”—(Dr Chambers.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish a statutory target for healthy life expectancy in Great Britain and publish a strategy every two years setting out how this target will be achieved.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

I am happy to talk about the impact of trade arrangements on NHS spending and how arrangements are scrutinised by Parliament. I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats for the new clauses.

Our relationship with industry, life sciences and the pharmaceutical sector, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket said, is crucial not only to our patients and constituents, but to growth in our country. Many hon. Members will have companies large and small in their constituencies—my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury has Lynam Pharma in hers. Important local companies are doing great work, innovating and bringing great people together to work on behalf of the life sciences sector and our country. They make us proud to be a leading country in this area, and I give credit to the Prime Minister for his leadership to put this country back in its rightful place on the international stage, addressing yet another part of our international reputation that was trashed by the Conservative party. [Interruption.] You started it.

On new clause 15, parliamentary scrutiny is crucial to ensure that trade deals negotiated by this Government are in the best interests of the UK. That is why the Government are committed to transparency and to enabling effective scrutiny of our trade agenda. Nowhere is scrutiny more important than in considering the potential impact of trade agreements on public services such as the NHS. The Government have a clear framework in place for scrutiny of the trade agreements that we have negotiated. This process strikes the right balance between ensuring that appropriate parliamentary accountability can take place and preserving our ability to negotiate agreements effectively. That is important to ensure that the UK can negotiate credibly with its partners and secure in trade deals positive outcomes for the public and British businesses, while upholding and protecting the role of Parliament.

[Helen Morgan]

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

NHS Corridor Care

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) for her excellent opening speech—it was what we expected, given her unparalleled experience and knowledge in this area. As we have heard over and over again, our A&E departments are at breaking point and ambulance services have been overwhelmed. The corridor care data, which was finally released last month, confirmed the extent of this crisis, well after the end of what we would consider to be the winter peak. Corridor care is no longer a phenomenon confined to the winter months; it is a year-round crisis. I have no doubt that the recent heatwaves will have put unbearable pressure on services yet again.

The scale of corridor care has a huge impact on patients. Some 36% of visitors to hospitals have seen care delivered in a corridor. A freedom of information request by the Liberal Democrats revealed that the average hospital trust now sees nearly 3,000 patients wait more than 24 hours in A&E each year. Corridor care is also extremely detrimental to staff. A 2025 Royal College of Physicians survey found that 78% of doctors had provided care in a temporary space. In testimonies collected by the Royal College of Nursing, nursing staff described patients deteriorating unnoticed and suffering avoidable harm. They expressed their anxiety and demoralisation at the level of care they were able to give and being unable to guarantee patient safety, because corridors are unsafe for patients and unsafe for staff, too.

Staff are losing hope, and corridor care has become so normalised that one hospital advertised for a dedicated corridor care nurse. Another, as we have heard, even created a makeshift ward in an on-site Costa Coffee. The Government owe it to patients and staff to make fixing this crisis an urgent priority. Even the release of corridor care data was a shambles, arriving late after months of the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), paying lip service to transparency and delaying its publication.

Concerns have already been raised over loopholes in the Government’s definition of corridor care, which anecdotal evidence suggests has encouraged trusts to hide the true extent of the crisis, with treatment being pushed back into ambulances to avoid incidents being labelled as corridor care. University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS trust had no patients being treated in corridors, while ambulance crews were providing care in its car parks, according to a recent West Midlands ambulance service board paper. Increasing ambulance handover times will not tackle the indignity of corridor care, but will only compound it and prevent the release of those ambulances to people with potentially life-threatening conditions.

The corridor care data, which is the best we have got, revealed that May alone saw a shocking 90,000 incidents of corridor care. The Royal College of Emergency Medicine’s recent report estimated that long waits caused at least 15,860 excess deaths in England in 2025. All of the evidence is there. The royal colleges have been sounding the alarm for years. Data and reports demonstrate the huge scale of this scandal. Countless individual stories remind us of the personal tragedies behind the numbers.

One of my constituents, a carer for three adult sons, called after a truly awful experience last year. His eldest son had collapsed on the stairs in the middle of the night. After calling 999 and being told no ambulance was available for some time, my constituent drove his son to A&E himself with some difficulty, and only once his son had regained consciousness. They waited in A&E for 28 hours to then be put in a holding area for one and a half days before being transferred to a ward. Each of these numbers and cases involves a person. Madam Deputy Speaker, it could be your child, an elderly relative or a vulnerable friend—each experiencing no privacy, no dignity and suffering poor outcomes.

I look forward to hearing the Government’s plan to resolve this crisis. The Liberal Democrats have an action plan to fix corridor care. We believe that hospital capacity is a key issue, and that cannot be fixed without fixing social care. One of the biggest factors behind lack of capacity is the lack of social care. Baroness Casey’s final report is not due until 2028, and I hope that the Minister will be able to announce that the Secretary of State will bring that forward, so that we can solve the social care crisis. Without those beds, people are either held outside in ambulances or on corridors outside wards.

We would invest £1.5 billion to provide 6,000 more beds across the system. Those would be provided through new staffed hospital beds and investment in safety-net social care beds, proper step-down care packages and more support for carers and hospices, so that thousands more patients can leave hospital. To solve corridor care, we have to fix the front door and the back door, and invest in primary care as well as social care. That would include boosting recruitment and retention to provide 8,000 more GPs to reduce pressure on hospitals and save the NHS time and money in the first place. We would also place a duty on the Secretary of State to prevent 12-hour waits in A&E and ensure that they do not continue to happen year in, year out.

The Liberal Democrats have a plan to bring back the dignity and safety that patients deserve, and the working conditions that NHS staff deserve too. I hope that the Government will listen to our plan, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister.