Asked by: Helen Morgan (Liberal Democrat - North Shropshire)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what discussions his Department has had with the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, Care Quality Commission, Healthwatch and Royal College of GPs on changes to the GP contract regarding Advice and Guidance.
Answered by Stephen Kinnock - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
In early 2026, we concluded the 2026/27 GP Contract consultation. This year, we expanded the consultation to engage with wider stakeholders, which were the General Practitioners Committee England, the Royal College of General Practitioners, National Voices, the Institute of General Practice Management, Healthwatch England, the NHS Confederation, and the National Association of Primary Care. The feedback we received from stakeholders across the system has been constructive and comprehensive, enabling us to refine proposals and address concerns while developing the final contract package.
Embedding Advice and Guidance in the contract is about ensuring general practitioners and specialists can work together earlier and more consistently, so patients are directed to the most appropriate next step without unnecessary delay, whether that is a referral, diagnostics, or supported care in the community.
Last year, we invested £80 million in Advice and Guidance. We are now embedding this money in core contract funding. As a result, since April 2025, we have avoided 1.3 million patients ending up on a waiting list.
The Department has not discussed the changes to the GP Contract regarding Advice and Guidance with the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, and the Care Quality Commission.
Asked by: Helen Morgan (Liberal Democrat - North Shropshire)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether his Department has undertaken a risk assessment for changes to the GP contract regarding Advice and Guidance due to be implemented from 1 April 2026.
Answered by Stephen Kinnock - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Department has not undertaken a formal risk assessment for the changes made to the GP Contract regarding Advice and Guidance (A&G) due to be implemented from 1 April 2026. However, in developing this policy, the Department and NHS England have carefully considered the potential risks, benefits, and wider impact as part of the standard policy-development process.
As part of the 2026/27 GP Contract, we are embedding the current A&G enhanced service funding within core practice funding. Practices will be required to use A&G prior to or in place of a planned care referral where clinically appropriate and to follow locally agreed referral pathways.
Between April 2025 and December 2025, A&G has avoided 1.3 million patients being unnecessarily added to hospital waiting lists by providing them with expert advice in their community.
Asked by: Helen Morgan (Liberal Democrat - North Shropshire)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether NHS England has engaged formally with the General Medical Council about the interaction between mandatory pre-referral Advice and Guidance requirements and the professional duty of GPs under General Medical Council guidance to refer patients to specialist care when it is in their best interests to do so; and whether a joint risk assessment or patient safety review has been carried out to ensure GPs are not placed in conflict between their contractual and professional obligations.
Answered by Stephen Kinnock - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
In early 2026, we concluded the consultation on the changes to the GP Contract for 2026/27. As part of this process, we expanded the consultation to engage with a wider set of primary care stakeholders, these were the British Medical Association’s General Practitioner’s Committee England, the Royal College of General Practitioners, National Voices, the Institute of General Practice Management, Healthwatch England, the NHS Confederation, and the National Association of Primary Care.
The Department has not engaged formally with the General Medical Council (GMC) regarding the interaction between the 2026/27 contractual changes and the professional duties set out in GMC guidance. No formal joint risk assessment or joint patient safety review has been undertaken. However, the Department and NHS England considered the potential risks, benefits, and wider impact of the policy changes as part of standard policy-development processes.
The 2026/27 GP Contract embeds the current Advice and Guidance (A&G) enhanced service funding into core practice funding. The contract does not mandate the use of A&G in all circumstances. Instead, practices are expected to use A&G prior to or in place of a planned care referral, where clinically appropriate, and to follow locally agreed referral pathways. This reflects longstanding planned‑care referral practice and does not alter existing legal or professional accountability frameworks for general practitioners (GPs).
GPs, and other primary care referrers, remain professionally accountable for making appropriate clinical decisions, including referring patients to specialist care when it is in the patient’s best interests. The use of A&G does not override those responsibilities or place GPs in conflict between contractual and professional obligations. NHS England continues to support clinicians through guidance, pathway design, and local governance arrangements to ensure A&G is used safely, proportionately, and in a way that preserves clear clinical accountability.
Asked by: Helen Morgan (Liberal Democrat - North Shropshire)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what arrangements NHS England has made to ensure that patients retain the statutory right to choose a provider where a mandatory Single Point of Access triage process operates; and what guidance has been issued to Integrated Care Boards on preserving patient choice rights within mandatory Single Point of Access pathways from 1 April 2026.
Answered by Karin Smyth - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
The policy intention for Advice and Guidance (A&G) and the Elective Single Point of Access (SPoA) model is fully compatible with NHS England’s Patient Choice Guidance, published December 2023. Patients must continue to be offered a choice of provider at the appropriate point in the pathway, and local pathways should be designed to ensure that choice rights operate in practice.
The purpose of A&G is to support decision‑making, reduce unnecessary referrals, and deliver more care closer to home. SPoA acts as a single ‘front door’ to support clinical triage to the most appropriate service or outcome, meaning timelier, more joined-up care for patients, without altering patients’ statutory right to choice.
NHS England has published system guidance The Elective Single Point of Access: Technical Guidance for 2026/27, which specifies that patients must continue to be offered choice of provider and team at the appropriate point in the pathway when they can make an informed choice. An elective SPoA diagram showing touchpoints of choice is included in the technical guidance annex.
Asked by: Helen Morgan (Liberal Democrat - North Shropshire)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of satellite navigation systems used in ambulances in England.
Answered by Karin Smyth - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
Ambulance vehicles have satellite navigation systems that assist crews to identify the location of the emergency. These are updated regularly to ensure the information within them remains current, and in response to feedback from operational crews and managers who are trained on these systems and have excellent understanding of the areas they serve.
Asked by: Helen Morgan (Liberal Democrat - North Shropshire)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, how his Department will ensure that low-volume, high-cost services such as spinal cord injury are not deprioritised by individual ICBs facing competing local financial pressures.
Answered by Karin Smyth - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
Plans to delegate suitable specialised services were first set out in the Roadmap for Integrating Specialised Services within Integrated Care Systems and have been developed in close collaboration with NHS England’s regional teams, integrated care boards (ICBs), specialised services provider clinicians, and patient groups. The Roadmap for Integrating Specialised Services within Integrated Care Systems is available at the following link:
They represent the outcome of a thorough assessment of ICB readiness, and a comprehensive analysis of services to determine their suitability and readiness for more integrated commissioning.
The latest NHS England commissioning update, published on 2 March 2026, sets out the role that seven offices for pan-ICB commissioning (OPICs) will play in supporting ICBs across each National Health Service region to efficiently and effectively commission these services, including commissioning at scale, where appropriate, to improve patient outcomes. The NHS England commissioning update is available at the following link:
https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/direct-commissioning-update/
OPICs will ensure that all ICBs across a region have equal access to the critical mass of expert commissioning knowledge and the capability necessary for the effective and efficient commissioning of these important and complex areas of service provision like spinal cord injury. They will become centres of commissioning excellence, playing a vital role in facilitating multi-ICB collaboration and decision making, ensuring strong patient and public involvement in the design and delivery of services, and building strong relationships with wider health and care system partners.
Asked by: Helen Morgan (Liberal Democrat - North Shropshire)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what steps her Department is taking to ensure that SMEs not party to (a) NFU Mutual and (b) Bath Racecourse litigation are not permanently deprived of the right to an indemnity due to the expiration of limitation periods.
Answered by Lucy Rigby - Economic Secretary (HM Treasury)
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), as the independent regulator for financial services, sets the conduct standards required of insurance firms. This includes rules requiring insurers to handle claims fairly and promptly.
The Supreme Court published its final judgment in the FCA’s Business Interruption Insurance test case in 2021. At the time of the judgment, the FCA set out its expectation that insurers should communicate to all impacted policyholders what the judgment meant for their claim and should move quickly to resolve claims as determined by the judgment.
The FCA court case did not cover all potential issues with business interruption policies. The FCA has been clear that, in the event of further court rulings, insurers will need to consider carefully how the rulings impact claims they have already decided.
The FCA considered the issue of new ‘stop the clock’ guidance as part of its response to Stewarts LLP on 23 January. The FCA was clear that insurers must look at claims that have already been made in light of any new legal rulings to see if any action must be taken. Where no claim has been submitted, it is not clear why an insurer would not be able to rely on relevant time limits set out in the insurance policy, subject to the particular circumstances of each claim and compliance with the FCA’s broader rules.
The FCA is continuing to supervise firms to ensure they are meeting their expectations and has robust powers to take action where necessary.
Asked by: Helen Morgan (Liberal Democrat - North Shropshire)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment her Department has made of the potential impact of valid Covid-19 business interruption claims becoming time-barred in March 2026 on the insurance sector.
Answered by Lucy Rigby - Economic Secretary (HM Treasury)
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), as the independent regulator for financial services, sets the conduct standards required of insurance firms. This includes rules requiring insurers to handle claims fairly and promptly.
The Supreme Court published its final judgment in the FCA’s Business Interruption Insurance test case in 2021. At the time of the judgment, the FCA set out its expectation that insurers should communicate to all impacted policyholders what the judgment meant for their claim and should move quickly to resolve claims as determined by the judgment.
The FCA court case did not cover all potential issues with business interruption policies. The FCA has been clear that, in the event of further court rulings, insurers will need to consider carefully how the rulings impact claims they have already decided.
The FCA considered the issue of new ‘stop the clock’ guidance as part of its response to Stewarts LLP on 23 January. The FCA was clear that insurers must look at claims that have already been made in light of any new legal rulings to see if any action must be taken. Where no claim has been submitted, it is not clear why an insurer would not be able to rely on relevant time limits set out in the insurance policy, subject to the particular circumstances of each claim and compliance with the FCA’s broader rules.
The FCA is continuing to supervise firms to ensure they are meeting their expectations and has robust powers to take action where necessary.
Asked by: Helen Morgan (Liberal Democrat - North Shropshire)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what discussions she has had with the FCA on stop the clock guidance and related litigation.
Answered by Lucy Rigby - Economic Secretary (HM Treasury)
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), as the independent regulator for financial services, sets the conduct standards required of insurance firms. This includes rules requiring insurers to handle claims fairly and promptly.
The Supreme Court published its final judgment in the FCA’s Business Interruption Insurance test case in 2021. At the time of the judgment, the FCA set out its expectation that insurers should communicate to all impacted policyholders what the judgment meant for their claim and should move quickly to resolve claims as determined by the judgment.
The FCA court case did not cover all potential issues with business interruption policies. The FCA has been clear that, in the event of further court rulings, insurers will need to consider carefully how the rulings impact claims they have already decided.
The FCA considered the issue of new ‘stop the clock’ guidance as part of its response to Stewarts LLP on 23 January. The FCA was clear that insurers must look at claims that have already been made in light of any new legal rulings to see if any action must be taken. Where no claim has been submitted, it is not clear why an insurer would not be able to rely on relevant time limits set out in the insurance policy, subject to the particular circumstances of each claim and compliance with the FCA’s broader rules.
The FCA is continuing to supervise firms to ensure they are meeting their expectations and has robust powers to take action where necessary.
Asked by: Helen Morgan (Liberal Democrat - North Shropshire)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether his Department has previously undertaken emergency exercises for an outbreak of a meningococcal-type disease.
Answered by Sharon Hodgson - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Department undertakes a range of emergency preparedness and response exercises that test our capability to manage high‑consequence infectious disease outbreaks. These exercises routinely assess incident response structures, case management, contact tracing, vaccination strategies, and multi‑agency coordination. While exercises are not always designed around a specific pathogen, they ensure that systems and capabilities are in place to respond effectively to any severe infectious disease outbreak, including meningococcal‑type conditions.