NHS 10-Year Plan

Debate between Helen Morgan and Roger Gale

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of the plan this morning. After years of Conservative failure, a plan for the future of the NHS is welcome and Liberal Democrats support the Secretary of State in his vision to shift the NHS to a community-focused, preventive service. However, I seek his reassurance on some questions.

In the 143 pages of the 10-year plan, there is only a passing reference to social care. Everyone knows that we cannot fix the NHS without fixing social care. With so many people unable to return home from hospital to get the care they need, solving the crisis in social care is a huge part of moving care out of hospital and into the community. Will the Secretary of State bring forward the Casey review, so that it reports in full this year, and reinstate the cross-party talks, so that consensus can be reached on the future of care?

I welcome the idea of a neighbourhood health centre, but how does that interact with the plan for GPs? The 10-year plan implies that GP contracts will encourage them to cover a huge geographic area of 50,000 people. In North Shropshire, that would be two or three market towns combined and would span dozens of miles. Can the Secretary of State reassure me that there will still be a physical health centre, accessible to all, and that in areas with little public transport in particular, people will be able to access care when they need it?

Finally, the plan hinges on the shift to digital solutions, and that is not without risk. The use of the NHS app is critical to what happens. How will the Secretary of State ensure that those without a smartphone—because they cannot afford one, do not feel confident using one or simply do not have adequate broadband or internet—can access the NHS? Many elderly and disabled people in particular who are digitally excluded will feel worried by today’s announcement.

Incontinence

Debate between Helen Morgan and Roger Gale

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for securing this important debate and for outlining the issues so well in her opening speech, particularly the importance of breaking down the taboos surrounding incontinence and the social isolation that can result from it. I have carefully scribbled out the term “incontinence” all the way through my speech and hopefully replaced it with “bladder and bowel control issues”—forgive me if I have missed one.

I recognise the importance of prevention and specialist treatment. The hon. Member for Dudley highlighted the benefit to both individuals and taxpayers from investing in women’s health up front, and I echo that call. There have been lots of excellent contributions, but I thank the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) for raising the scandal of pelvic mesh implants. I thank him for highlighting that issue and the need for redress there.

Incontinence, or bladder and bowel control issues, can have a hugely detrimental impact on a person’s wellbeing and sense of dignity, as we have heard. Despite affecting millions of people across the UK, it is the subject of stigma, and the needs of those with bladder and bowel control issues are not properly considered in many aspects of life. All too often, people suffering from these issues are left without the right support, whether that is the uncomfortable bladder pressure tests that the hon. Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) referred to, or the lack of access to sanitary bins in public and workplace toilets.

It has been widely assumed for many years that sanitary bins for men are not required in public toilet facilities. As we have heard, many millions of men are affected by bladder and bowel control issues. The absence of sanitary bins has a wholly unnecessary and damaging impact on their self-esteem, causing embarrassment and stress and, as we have heard, withdrawal from public places and the workplace. The cost is tiny but the benefits for those affected can be significant.

There has been progress in this area, thanks to the work of campaigns such as Boys Need Bins by Prostate Cancer UK, but there is much further to go. That is why it is crucial that we support all individuals with the condition by ensuring access to services such as public toilets and sanitary bins, as unfortunately that is not the case. Under the last Government, 19% of public toilet facilities—nearly 600—lost their local authority maintenance and funding between 2015 and 2021 alone. Liberal Democrat research from 45 councils found that the number of public toilets had fallen by 14% from 2018-19 to 2023.

Many local authorities are on the verge of bankruptcy and do not have the spare capacity for these vital services. Proper funding of local authorities to provide services such as public toilets and sanitary bins could make a truly meaningful difference for people with bladder and bowel control issues, and I hope the whole House will agree that these individuals deserve access to basic facilities.

There is also a clear need for more research into developing better treatments and mitigations for people suffering from bladder and bowel control issues. Crucially, these should avoid unnecessary discomfort or invasive procedures. As such, I support what the hon. Member for Gravesham has said. The University of Aberdeen has found that women with ongoing urinary incontinence can avoid invasive bladder pressure tests, and that non-invasive assessments work just as well in guiding treatment. An emphasis on respecting people’s dignity and reducing discomfort should be at the heart of how we approach the testing, treatment and mitigation of these issues.

We also know that these issues—particularly bowel incontinence—can place a significant strain on family carers carrying out personal care, who are often under-supported and suffer from ill health themselves. Many care requests go unmet; last year, the King’s Fund estimated that nearly a third of requests for local government funding result in no support for care at home. This means that there are many thousands of families struggling with the realities of caring for a loved one with bladder and bowel control issues, which can include not only feelings of shame and embarrassment —both for them and for their loved one—but difficulty with lifting and moving a family member to clean them, and in accessing the equipment necessary to cope. That is why dealing with the crisis in social care should be a top priority for the Government.

When the Secretary of State phoned me—and, presumably, the other national party health spokespeople —over the Christmas break to let me know that he was instigating the Casey review and cross-party talks to find a long-term solution to that crisis, I was hugely encouraged. Since then, the Casey review has been delayed, and the cross-party talks have apparently been cancelled. I must stress that each party giving its view to Baroness Casey is not the same as sitting in the same room and agreeing a long-term funding plan. The review’s terms of reference will not deliver meaningful reform until the next Parliament, and there is a huge risk that, again, nothing will be done by the Government of the day—in this case, despite them having a huge majority to achieve whatever they want. Meanwhile, the number of people needing care increases every year, and the step change required to transform the sector becomes larger and less politically palatable. As such, I urge the Minister to speak to the Secretary of State and help him to recover the enthusiasm for change that he showed over Christmas, because he will have my full support.

However, there are simple steps that can make a difference now, such as hospitals working with family carers ahead of discharge to ensure that they are equipped to carry out heightened personal care needs. In many places, that support is not delivered, let alone ongoing support and meaningful respite care. Wait times for a continence assessment vary across the country—it can take weeks and weeks. Improving those wait times would ensure that the right care and equipment is available much sooner. There is also a chronic shortage of speech and language therapists, who can make a real difference in helping people with limited or no speech to more easily communicate when they need the toilet or want to be changed or washed. That is particularly essential in cases in which those people suffer from bladder and bowel control issues.

Incontinence is not properly reflected in how we organise paid social care. For instance, too often the pay for domiciliary carers and the time they are expected to care for any one person do not reflect the fact that someone’s need for care might vary hugely from day to day. Any embarrassment, frustration and discomfort for the person being cared for will only be made worse if their carers are rushed, stressed and overworked, and if spending longer at one house could mean that those carers are effectively having to work for free.

I also want to highlight the importance of good care in hospital settings. NHS England’s 2018 “Excellence in Continence Care” guidance states that

“pathways of care should be commissioned that ensure early assessment, effective management of incontinence, along with other bladder and bowel problems such as constipation and urinary tract infections and their impact on social, physical and mental well-being”.

I highlight this because my constituent Trevor Collins died on 21 May 2022 as a result of aspiration pneumonia and small bowel ileus, due to a small bowel obstruction caused by constipation. The coroner concluded that neglect at Royal Shrewsbury hospital and a failure to manage Mr Collins’ constipation contributed to his avoidable death. It is essential that healthcare settings follow the NICE guidelines that are in place, not only to preserve dignity but to prevent serious harm and—in the worst cases—even death.

Liberal Democrats recognise the seriousness of the issues surrounding all types of incontinence and bladder and bowel control issues, and the critical importance of ensuring that people with those conditions can live in dignity. The Minister will have heard the calls in my speech. I hope she will commit to repairing our broken social care system, reinstating cross-party talks and wrapping up the Casey review this year, so that we can make the reforms that are necessary for long-term stability in the sector and the dignity of all those receiving and providing care.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Opposition Front Bencher.

Local Government Finance

Debate between Helen Morgan and Roger Gale

Wednesday 7th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Helen Morgan]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe my hon. Friend had finished her speech. She was not accepting an intervention.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Are we saying that the hon. Lady had sat down?

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Helen Morgan and Roger Gale

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 24th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am going to make some brief comments because I spoke in the debate last week. I reiterate the concerns about this legislation, which has been poorly drafted. Lords amendment 22B would allow councillors to attend meetings virtually or hybrid-style meetings. The amendment is a good opportunity to increase participation in local politics and I think that we should be encouraging it.

For many councillors, the reality of fulfilling their role means working around another full-time job, working late into the evening as well as at weekends, or balancing their parenting commitments, so councillors’ time is under great pressure. Most councillors are in their post purely because of their commitment to their local community, and we should be helping them out by allowing the occasional virtual attendance at a meeting if that reduces the time burden on them. I have heard the argument that our constituents rightly expect us to attend Parliament in person and that elected members of the local council should therefore be expected to do the same, but that argument misses the incredibly important point that, for most people, being a councillor is not a full-time salaried job. To expect them to sacrifice yet more of their time to travel to meetings to offer contributions that could otherwise be made online is simply unfair.

Travel brings me to a particularly pertinent point at the moment. In my constituency and other rural parts of Britain, it is not uncommon for council meetings to be held many miles away from the ward or division that a councillor represents or from where they live. In some cases, that will mean travelling 20 to 50 miles one way to attend a council meeting. Clearly this is a problem in poor weather, as we only have to look at the damage and chaos of the last week to see. It also means that councillors usually have to have their own car, not least because an evening meeting will be held when most bus services have stopped running for the day. That means that people are being excluded from becoming involved in local democracy simply because they do not have access to a car. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill was supposed to put greater devolution at its heart and encourage more people into the democratic process. If we really want to engage people in politics and widen representation and access, we should be making it easier for people to represent their communities, not more difficult.

I move briefly on to Lords amendment 45. It is the Liberal Democrats’ view that the original amendment is superior to the Government’s amendment in lieu. It would place duties on the Secretary of State to mitigate and adapt planning policy to reflect climate change. Planning is an integral part of achieving net zero, and as such it is only right that it puts climate considerations at its heart. At the moment, net zero goals are inconsistently applied to planning applications. Local development plans consider climate complications, whereas individual planning applications do not and, without the Government’s amendment in lieu, national development management policies—NDMPs—will not either.

The Lords amendment would extend environmental duties to all aspects of the planning system with a sharpened focus, ensuring that new plans would contribute to specific climate and nature targets. A dual approach is particularly important because climate and ecological decline are closely intertwined, and unfortunately both are accelerating. I do not think that this amendment should be controversial. It is publicly backed by environment businesses, local government and environmental NGOs. The time has run out for looking at climate change simply as an add-on or an afterthought, and given the Government’s recent back-pedalling on their net zero commitments, this should be an easy opportunity to put climate change at the core of the planning process.

Without these Lords amendments, the Bill will miss two key opportunities to encourage local democratic participation and consider climate complications to planning applications. Both these factors are surely at the core of what levelling up should be about.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

With the leave of the House, I call the Minister.