Summer Health and Resilience

Layla Moran Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

May I welcome the Secretary of State to her place? I look forward to working with her as I have done with her predecessors. May I draw her attention to our Committee’s work on corridor care, and the correspondence between the Committee and the Minister for Secondary Care, who is in her place? I thought it was a constructive session. In our correspondence with the Department, we raised the issue of staff fatigue. Staff will understandably have questions, such as whether summer is the new winter, what now happens to the leave they were planning to take and the training they must attend, which they often cannot attend during the winter, so can she be clear with staff about that? In the letter responding to the Committee, the Department said that there are new NHS staff standards and new occupational health and wellbeing support, which is all fine, but it then says that there will be

“a continued focus on workforce sustainability through the upcoming NHS Workforce Plan.”

Where is that workforce plan?

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the hon. Lady for her work and that of her Committee. The Committee, as a result of its extensive work, has highlighted many of the issues that the Government have needed to look at and have then responded to, so I welcome its work. I look forward to giving evidence to the Committee and responding to the inquiries it has under way. One of the issues that I have asked the taskforce looking at summer pressures to consider is staffing resilience. While there were all sorts of extremely good preparations in place for summer, meaning that many areas responded well, including in July, she is right to raise the issue of staff resilience and the impact of the pattern of staff holidays—all our holidays—on planning. I take that immensely seriously.

The hon. Lady is right to raise the workforce plan. We are continuing to work to complete the workforce plan, because it is needed. We are looking at how we ensure that we have a proper workforce plan around social care and what the links should be. One key area that we want to prioritise in response to Baroness Casey’s work is to develop a proper workforce strategy for social care, alongside the work being done for the NHS.

Health Bill

Layla Moran Excerpts

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

[Dr Johnson]

As always, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right.

HSSIB has recently produced a report, which it would benefit the Government to listen to. The House will be aware that the advice and guidance service provides GPs with specialist advice, which sometimes avoids referrals. However, Ministers have made it mandatory to ask for advice before certain types of referrals, and set an aim for one in four referrals to be diverted back. The Government said that they were not rationing care or meddling with waiting lists—that there was nothing to see here, and that the Opposition were spreading misinformation—but HSSIB has published an interim report linking this process to delays in patient care, including cancer diagnoses. New clause 141 asks the Government to suspend the new process until they have properly considered it.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

The hon. Lady may be aware that the Health and Social Care Committee has a pre-appointment hearing with the incoming chair of the CQC tomorrow morning. One question I would like to ask them hinges on the answer to another question, on which I would have loved an update from the Minister. The previous Secretary of State said that HSSIB will not be merged with the CQC until the CQC is ready, but we have never had a list from the Government as to exactly what metrics they will use to decide when that happens. That will have a bearing on what kinds of questions we ask the chair and CEO. What specifically do the Government mean by “ready”? Does the hon. Lady not see that as a problem?

[Dr Johnson]

I absolutely do. The Government have said that the CQC is not fit for purpose, yet they are now asking it to do things it did not do before, including not only HSSIB but event healthcare management, as the hon. Lady will be aware. It is absolutely right that the Government pause and think this one through again.

One of our other amendments concerns puberty blockers. One of the first rules of medicine is primum non nocere—first, do no harm—and yet here we have a Labour Government sponsoring a £10.6 million trial to put 226 physically healthy children as young as 11 on puberty-blocking drugs. That was said to make the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), “uneasy”. Why was he uneasy? Perhaps because these are powerful drugs that could cause serious long-term harm, because most children get better by themselves, because we cannot reliably identify which children will persist with a trans identity and which will not, because the huge increase in girls experiencing gender dysphoria has not been adequately explained or because the Tavistock data has not yet been reviewed in the data linkage study. There are many reasons for concern, but I am aware that we are short of time.

It is difficult for a clinician to tell which children’s symptoms will self-resolve and which will not. As a result, we risk putting a large number of children on puberty blockers to assess the effects on, as the former Health Secretary put it, a

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

That means the results of the investigation may be unreliable, and it could cause unnecessary harm to children, so why are the Government not ensuring that the data linkage study is, at the very least, done first?

Health Bill

Layla Moran Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for accepting our amendment on this issue. We pressed her and her colleagues over and over again—to the extent that we got a letter back that we honestly thought had been generated by AI, because the logic in it had no follow-through at all. I am delighted that she has listened. On what else does she intend to listen to us? In particular, there are amendments on the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, Healthwatch and health inequalities, which we will consider tomorrow, and, most importantly, the special needs amendment, which we are considering today. What else will she listen to us on?

[Karin Smyth]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee —I can assure her that I am Karin, not Claude. She tempts me to go further on the rest of the Bill, but I genuinely thank her and the Committee; I hope she would agree that I spent a lot of time over the past months, before Report stage and Committee stage, meeting her, members of the Committee and many hon. Members from across the House. We have some provisions—we might call them simple provisions—in the Bill to democratise the NHS’s accountability, to reinforce the single patient record, and to improve the patient experience and patient safety landscape. We recognise that there is a lot of complexity within those simple propositions, and we will continue to listen to hon. Members. We want to ensure that the NHS is strengthened.

In relation to the ICBs and local authority voice, it was particularly significant over the summer to have heard from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about his commitment to rewiring the state and our ongoing reform to social care. With that in mind, I am pleased that amendments 60 to 62 will re-establish a requirement for ICBs to have at least one board member jointly nominated by local authorities in their area. That will sit alongside the existing duty to have a member nominated by the mayor of each mayoral strategic authority, as well as duties on ICBs and local government to work together, including on health and wellbeing boards. In Committee, we had a useful discussion about health and wellbeing boards, neighbourhoods and local accountability. I should also note that ICBs can appoint other people to their boards if they would benefit from their expertise. That is a decision to be taken locally.

Finally, let me briefly pre-empt the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) by making a few comments about new clause 1. I thank her for the way she worked with me in Committee on the issue of a maternity commissioner—an issue that I think unites the House. As the hon. Member knows, we have accepted the recommendation from Baroness Amos’s national investigation into maternity and neonatal care. I can announce that, to deliver on this commitment, we will table an amendment to the Bill in the other place to establish a statutory maternity and neonatal commissioner. We are determined to get this right. For too long, too many women, babies and families have not received the care and support they deserve. The establishment of a commissioner represents a significant opportunity to strengthen accountability and champion their interests across the system. I hope that will give the hon. Member the reassurance she needs not to press her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Layla Moran]

Let me start by taking up the theme of maternity, which has already been mentioned by a number of Members. I welcome the Government’s commitment to instating a maternity commissioner. I sit on the expert reference group—that is what we are called—that feeds into the maternity and neonatal taskforce, so I see how the Government are trying to pull all these different issues together. The Health and Social Care Committee has heard repeatedly, and across a number of inquiries, how important this issue is, and we need someone who is independent of Government and able to knit it all together.

Our Committee’s “Black Maternal Health” report heard how workforce shortages are undermining efforts to improve maternity care, data is lacking, and there is a culture in which women, particularly black women, are not listened to. Investment and training are needed to tackle that.

The “First 1000 Days” report found that the UK has some of the worst early years health outcomes in Europe, including in infant mortality, and we have called for proper targets for early years professionals in the long-lost workforce plan. As an aside, where is the workforce plan? I would love to see it. Locally, Oxford University hospitals provide maternity care for my residents, and indeed for my own family—baby took their first steps this weekend, finally! It was a momentous occasion.

I also reflect genuinely that there are people in my National Childbirth Trust class who did not have as good an experience as we did. They have been proactively contacted by the hospital to have an apology and an explanation given for their awful, traumatic birth, and they did not even complain. In part, that is a result of the CQC inspections and, more importantly, the inclusion by Baroness Amos of OUH and John Radcliffe hospital in her report.

I toured the hospital again this summer and heard specifically from trust leaders and midwives. They are doing everything they can to respond to all the criticisms being levelled at them by families, but they told me that there is only so much that they can do without a new building. Baroness Amos’s report said:

“The maternity and neonatal units sit across multiple floors… We saw delivery suites that didn’t have windows, that were cold, small and cramped and had pillars in the middle of them affecting where equipment could be placed”.

A large number of the suites did not have en suites. Can you imagine what it must be like to give birth in those rooms? As the Government knit together their action plan, I beg them not to forget investment, particularly capital investment, when they empower the commissioner to do their good work.

Let me move on to a few other amendments. I support the work to tackle health inequalities in new clauses 90 and 91. Our Committee hears over and over again that if we want to unlock productivity in the NHS, that is where we need to focus. I also support the campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) and his cross-party new clause 34, which echoes the findings of my Committee. The Government really need to think again when it comes to Palantir and instead supercharge the capability of UK-based companies.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

On that very point, does my hon. Friend agree that the recent NHS cost-benefit analysis showing that the Palantir project will cost £1.1 billion and deliver benefits of £800 million—a net loss of £300 million for the NHS—underlines the fact that we need to get rid of it now?

[Layla Moran]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; he has been a doughty campaigner on this issue, as have other members of the Committee, including the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman). We also know that much of the data is based on the data being taken from Chelsea and Westminster hospital, and not much else across the country. We have a lot of questions about that contract, hence why we came to the same conclusion.

However, I primarily urge the Government please to consider new clause 85, in the name of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft), which would impose duties on ICBs for delivering education, health and care plans. In my constituency we held a roundtable to provide evidence for our own hearing on this issue—by the way, this was based on a recommendation that came out of the Education Select Committee’s work on EHCPs, so we decided to take up the “H” bit. In that roundtable, I heard movingly from families who kept saying things like, “Everything is a battle.” One child, Stefan, suffers from multiple epiphyseal dysplasia, which affects his hips, and needs support to get around. He is very bright and desperately wants to learn. His mother was at that roundtable, and told me that, exceptionally and against school policy, he is allowed to keep a phone on him. There is no one whom the school can employ to make sure he can be wheeled from class to class, so instead what happens—and mother and school have done everything they possibly can—is that Stefan rings his mum so that she can come from home and deliver him to his next class. Ridiculously, this is the kind of thing that goes to tribunal, and then those tribunals cannot hold the ICBs to the same level of accountability as local authorities. The whole thing is nonsensical.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I agree with the point that the hon. Member is making. To add the voice of a member of the Education Select Committee, the Committee’s report equally found that we have to have a system where ICBs can be held to account for delivering on EHCPs.

[Layla Moran]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention, and for the work of that Committee. We are doing work together right now on children’s mental health, so I am sure we will continue to pursue this theme.

The point is that the impact was not just on that child; it was also on the mother, who could not work, and there was also the distress of having to battle the system. The mental health of both parents was affected. It does not need to be this way, and I genuinely believe that accountability is part of the answer. As such, my plea to the Government is simply to say that it is past time that the “H” part of EHCPs is put on a statutory footing, and I urge the House to support new clause 85.

[Danny Beales]

There is much to support in the Bill, and I support its ambition to enable many of the provisions of the welcome 10-year plan for the NHS. The plan is the right one; the three shifts are correct, and we have to fundamentally reform the health system if we are to meet the modern health and care challenges that we all see in our constituencies. To some extent those challenges are not new, and neither are these ambitions—we have seen similar initiatives before—but the systems, the structures, the bureaucracy and the siloed budgets push against change in the health sector. They have been a hinderance, reinforcing silos and making the same investment choices. They have prevented digitalisation, kept care in acute settings and stopped joined-up working. This Bill could and should be a key lever in overcoming those challenges, which we need to do if we are to achieve those ambitions.

I very much support the digital single patient record, which is a key ambition in the shift from analogue to digital health. We have all heard from patients who have to tell their story over and over again at every single health appointment—between care and health, between community and secondary care—so a genuine single patient record has the potential to be transformational. We have, however, heard from pharmacies and community mental health services that if this is to work, they have to have a seat at the table. While this Bill enables the architecture, I hope that the delivery will ensure that the whole of the health and care system is part of the decision-making process when the single patient record is designed. That is crucial.

Turning to the abolition of NHS England, the idea of streamlining bureaucracy at the centre is a good one, and delivering power—including decision-making power—budgets and resources locally is also admirable. Success, however, will mean the right decisions being taken at the right scale.

Department of Health and Social Care

Layla Moran Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate on the NHS estimates and, in particular, the impact of the UK-US pharmaceutical deal.

Let me start by briefly talking about the estimates themselves. I am sure that every Member has a copy of them; I have one every year. Given that we spend £211 billion on the NHS, it is rather extraordinary that £201 billion of that is simply two lines in this document. Last year, I made a request of the Department of Health and Social Care, in the light of the deal, that we get not just a better breakdown of the costs of the deal, but, more importantly, the ability to scrutinise the estimates.

The Treasury’s own guidance says that the information in the estimates should be “informative” to readers. We can all read it, but—goodness me!—it tells us absolutely nothing. My request of the Department again, and much more publicly, is to sort this issue out. Other Departments do this much better, so there is no reason why we cannot. The information exists; it is a question of putting it correctly in a spreadsheet.

Today, I hope that we will discuss the pharmaceutical deal. I have to admit that I had seen stuff about the deal, but it was not until a whistleblower came to my surgery that I really began to understand the implications of it. They said:

“I am a doctor, a public health specialist, and a NICE employee. I am deeply concerned by the plan to change the NICE cost-effectiveness threshold. I continue to believe that the NHS would be better off if ministers decide to scrap their original plan to spend more on new, less good value medicines, and used the money instead to provide basic things that we already know are good value, but don’t manage to provide adequately.”

Let us start by explaining what this deal does. It is worth mentioning that it is not a free trade agreement. That is quite important, because we will not get the normal mechanisms of scrutiny. This is one of the only ways that we can scrutinise it. We certainly do not get a proper vote on it. Different Committees of this House have raised that as a key point, so I am delighted that we are able to discuss it.

The deal agrees with the USA that there will be no tariffs on UK pharma exports until January 2029, and we have agreed a series of measures in return. The most important of those, which was raised by my whistleblower, is the changes to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence thresholds. We must remember that NICE was set up as an independent body of Government to make health economics assessments for treatment and medicines, to maximise value for money. I do not need to remind the Minister that providing value for money for the taxpayer is in the NHS constitution.

The Government gave themselves powers to direct NICE on cost-effectiveness thresholds, raising them from £20,000 to £30,000 up to £25,000 to £35,000 for each quality-adjusted life year. In plain speech, that is basically the amount of money that we would spend on a medicine to increase people’s good life expectancy by one year.

Historically, the NHS has had a very good deal on medicines. That is in part because of where the QALY is set; in fact, research has been done that suggests that we could have put the figure even lower. It is not a budget, and does not have to increase with inflation. Some have made that case, and I will come back to that point in a moment.

The second part of my speech relates to changes to the rebate mechanism. There is a voluntary agreement between the British pharmaceutical industry companies, and the NHS caps the amount that it spends on branded medicines. If the NHS spends more, it claws back some of the money from those companies. Under the deal, the UK Government are limiting that to 15%, which is down from 22.9%. Let us put those two things together: we have the NHS paying more for medicines, and receiving less back through rebates.

There is an agreement in the deal that the UK will increase support for life sciences and spending on new medicines from 0.3% of GDP to 0.6% of GDP by 2036. That is an increase of spending on medicines, particularly, from 10% to 12% of the NHS budget.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

The hon. Member is making an excellent speech, and is trying to draw out the details of this deal; I am glad that one of her constituents drew her attention to it. I was lobbied by Karl Claxton at the University of York, who described this deal as an existential threat to the NHS because of the potential costs. Interestingly, the Department has not yet published its impact assessment on the deal. Does she agree that it is high time that the Department published the impact assessment and let us know the true cost of the deal?

[Layla Moran]

I believe that by the end of my speech, the hon. Gentleman and I will be in violent agreement, if we are not already. There is one more aspect of this, incidentally: the supply chains deal, which I understand is being crafted. We do not have time to go into that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady on the speech she is making. It is really important that we talk about the disadvantages of this deal, and there is a clear disadvantage to Northern Ireland. Access to everyday medicines in rural communities in Strangford and across Northern Ireland will be inhibited, so does the hon. Lady agree that the Northern Ireland Assembly in particular should receive the resources necessary to deliver vital frontline service improvements? At this moment, it is not receiving those resources.

[Layla Moran]

That is a really good point. I will come back to generics, which make up nine in 10 of the medicines that the NHS uses. There is also an issue of devolution here, which I am sure other Members will cover. At the moment it is very complex, and it is not at all clear how the deal will apply in Scotland and Northern Ireland in particular.

We cannot divorce this deal from the geopolitics. It is only happening because Trump decided that he wanted to slap tariffs on every country in the world and on a number of different sectors. The reason why the US came after the NHS is that historically, we get an incredibly good deal, but we have to admit—this is why this debate is so important—that we are using the NHS and NICE in geopolitical negotiations to appease the current President of the United States. Although Trump probably wants to be President for much longer than he will be, his term will come to an end, but the effects of this deal will last much longer than the period of time he might be in office, and the amounts of money involved are eye-watering. I wish we had more information in the estimates, but everyone knows the pressure the NHS is under.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government’s failure to publish the impact assessment means that NHS authorities across the country do not know how much this deal will cost them? My constituents in Somerset cannot get a GP appointment or see an NHS dentist. That is far more important to them than this obscure deal.

[Layla Moran]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that lack of transparency is the nub of my speech today.

There are some potential positives in the deal. At the 10 February sitting of the Business and Trade Committee, a representative of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry said that zero tariffs and commitments to the pharmaceutical market in the UK were “welcome” and had been “sought for some time”. The Government’s press release points out that patients will get access to innovative new medicines—who does not want that? Of course we all want that, especially those who have incurable cancers and so on, but there is a trade-off. We all want to bolster innovation in the UK. I have an interest—I am the MP for Oxford West and Abingdon. We are the other side of the Oxford-Cambridge growth arc. Biomedical sciences are going to drive my local economy, so I absolutely want that to happen, but there are also some important criticisms of this deal.

First, Medicines UK, which represents a large number of pharmaceutical companies based here in the UK, has real concerns. The life sciences sector plan has stalled, and Medicines UK points out that even though the companies it represents supply nine out of 10 medicines to the NHS, those companies are basically not recipients of what is good in this deal. Mark Samuels, its chief executive officer, has also pointed out that while there may be new investment in this country, particularly in R&D, if we want to create jobs and strengthen the economy, we must also address the inadequate support for the production of goods in the UK. That is where long-term value is created, and it is where the UK misses out compared with other countries. I point colleagues to Denmark, for example, which has had extraordinary success in its economy because it not only invests in R&D, but ensures that a proportion of the manufacturing happens in Denmark. That is what drives economic growth.

I now turn to the key point, which is the money. We do not know how much this deal is going to cost. There are two suggested amounts: the Institute for Fiscal Studies puts the cost at £9 billion, but the House of Commons Library briefing points out that the 0.6% of GDP in the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast actually amounts to £14 billion. As has been mentioned, that is an eye-watering amount of money, in the same period that we need to be spending money on dentists, GPs, capital investment, attendance at A&E, prevention, the shift to community and the 10-year plan.

When we should be seeing money delivered to the frontline, instead we are seeing money diverted to a small number of very large American-based pharmaceutical companies with no transparency, little debate and absolutely no vote in this House. It is the lack of scrutiny that I take issue with, and there are economists who point out that we could have an extra 330,000 excess deaths by 2036. The Minister is looking quizzically at me, but she has information that I do not. It could be that those economists are being alarmist, but maybe they are not. We simply do not know, because the Government refuse to publish the impact assessment owing to commercial sensitivities. Normally at this stage, I have a series of questions, but today—and this not just in the interests of time—I have only one: where is the impact assessment, and if the Government will not release it, what are they hiding?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadik Al-Hassan]

I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman’s figures come from. When we look at the drug tariff reimbursement, which is the system that we use to pay, and compare it with the arrangements in other countries, it is clear that we underpay significantly. Perhaps he is referring to something of which I am unaware; I should be happy to chat to him outside.

We in this country are addicted to low-cost drugs for our health service, and what does that addiction mean? It means that we have the lowest costs and we always go for the cheapest drugs, and that favours foreign manufacturers. It destroys UK supply chains, as we have seen over the last 25 years, and it endangers our resilience as a country. We are already seeing the side effects of that, with drugs being out of stock. We have a system for payment called the drug tariff, which establishes how much pharmacies will buy drugs for and how much they will be reimbursed for. There are currently 254 price concessions. Price concessions happen when a drug is out of stock, and we must make an emergency increase to the price in the drug tariff to try to bring it back into the country. Given that there are 3,500 drugs in that section of the drug tariff, 254 does not sound a lot, but it is the highest level that I remember seeing in my entire professional career. Last month’s highest level of 230 has just been exceeded.

Cheap drugs often mean that we overvalue the benefit of medicines in our system and use a “drug first” approach in the NHS, and that has continued for decades. When we increase the price that we pay for drugs, it allows us to start considering the benefits of other types of treatment, such as social prescribing. Social prescribing becomes a great deal cheaper by comparison in a system in which drugs are valued at the correct level. The all-party parliamentary group on pharmacy, which I chair, published a report in June 2025 that laid out some of the problems with drug pricing and availability. I absolutely support the idea of paying more for drugs, because at the moment we are building a system that is creaking and breaking. By trying to pursue every penny of savings, we have destroyed UK manufacturing and offshored our problems. The only way to bring that back is to rebuild the drug tariff, with the idea of paying to procure more in the UK.

[Layla Moran]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his speech, because he is showing how important this debate is. A lot of this has not been flushed out. Medicines UK, which is responsible for a lot of the generics that he talks about, disagrees with him, but that is a conversation for another time. My question is specific: does he agree that the lack of transparency behind this deal, and the lack of an impact assessment, is a material issue and that we should ask the Government to release such information?

[Sadik Al-Hassan]

First of all, Medicines UK does not disagree with me; its members disagree that the value from the UK-US trade deal will go to people other than them. Medicines UK actually thinks that companies are not paid enough for drugs in this country. Unfortunately, you might need to go and have a chat with the association about that, because you might have misunderstood.

--- Later in debate ---

[Preet Kaur Gill]

With respect, I am going to answer the questions that have been put to me by many hon. Members, and I am coming to the impact assessment.

We have been clear that the estimated short-term impact is around £1 billion in England over the spending review period. Costs will increase over time as NICE approves more medicines, but precise long-term costs cannot be modelled as a single figure; they depend on future medicines, NICE approvals, uptake and wider commercial developments.

Members mentioned a number of figures. I do not recognise the £9 billion and £14 billion figures for costs. Spending on innovative medicines increases year on year as new treatments become available, so underlining growth would be expected to continue regardless of this arrangement, and often the figures cited publicly do not take that into account. We are committed to increasing spending on medicines as a proportion of NHS spend, ending the recent decline in the proportion of health spend dedicated to medicines and increasing spending on innovative medicines to 0.6% of GDP.

The Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), and my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) raised a really important point. Life sciences is one of our most productive sectors. It underpins research and development, clinical trials and high-value manufacturing, and it supports jobs across the country. Over £1 billion in industry investment has already been secured since the announcement of this arrangement in December last year. That includes AstraZeneca’s recent announcement of a £300 million investment into R&D sites at Cambridge and Macclesfield. That demonstrates the confidence that this key sector has in the UK. Maintaining a strong commercial environment helps ensure continued investment and the development of new treatments. This is not separate from patient benefit. It enables the pipeline of the new medicines that NHS patients ultimately rely on.

[Layla Moran]

I am frustrated, because everything the Minister is saying is in the press release. Can she please answer the question? Will the Government release the impact assessment? If they will not, will they at least allow a Select Committee to see it confidentially?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. We are running out of time. Minister, please respond as briefly as you can.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Layla Moran to wind up the debate briefly, in under a minute.

[Layla Moran]

I am happy not to.

Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).

National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation

Layla Moran Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I, too, thank Baroness Amos, her team and, most especially, the families who so bravely gave the evidence that has formed this report. Further to the conversation about accountability, the Secretary of State will have noticed that some families are concerned that the commissioner is just one person, and that there is too much for them to do. Can he make clear that the buck stops with him and, indeed, the PM, and that he will not let go of this? The commissioner will report every six months to the Health and Social Care Committee—we welcome that—and once a year to Parliament. Further to that, will he personally commit that the Secretary of State will seek permission from Mr Speaker to make a statement to the House once a year, so that they can be held personally accountable for the progress made too?

[James Murray]

In describing the role of the commissioner, the hon. Lady is right to emphasise that it cannot all be on one person. The commissioner is a vital role, and it being on a statutory basis will give the position real weight within the system to hold the system to account and help the Government to ensure the implementation of the comprehensive national action plan. But she is right to say that accountability has to include the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, because it is a duty that we all hold as MPs, that the Government hold and that I hold as Secretary of State, and the Prime Minister ultimately holds that responsibility too.

It is not in any sense intended to be a passing of responsibility to a commissioner. The commissioner role is being established to support the effectiveness of the work we are seeking to do as a Government to implement the national action plan, but crucially, when accountable politicians are taking decisions, the commissioner will be a voice for women in the system. I have heard so many times that women’s voices are not being heard in the healthcare system, particularly when things go wrong and women have concerns in maternity services. This commissioner will be a way of making sure those voices are right at the heart of decision making.

Nottingham Maternity and Neonatal Services

Layla Moran Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I, too, pay tribute to those families who came forward with their stories, but also to the thousands, if not tens of thousands, of families across the country who are hearing these stories today and are triggered because it reminds them of their own, including in my area in Oxfordshire.

What struck me most about the report was the section on leadership and culture, and how when midwives and members of staff raised the alarm, they did not have access to the board, and board members were not curious enough to ask the right questions. I am also struck that in the Secretary of State’s answers—he is right to point to the national recommendations that are yet to come; our understanding is they are coming next week—he failed to mention whether there will be any pot of money to ensure that any recommendations that need double-running in order to happen quickly will have the necessary resources. Can he assure the House not only that will his taskforce seek to implement these recommendations, but that he will ensure that the money exists for staffing, training and buildings so that they are implemented as quickly as possible, so that we do not have to sit here crying on these Benches on behalf of our constituents any more?

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. She speaks about funding, which is of course a very important part of the response that we need to have to the failings in maternity care. We are investing £25 million, as I am sure she is aware, in tackling the causes of maternal death, to enhance bereavement facilities and to improve triage facilities, as well as £145 million through the estates safety fund to address safety risks in the maternity and neonatal estate. For me, this is not just about funding; this is also about culture, exactly as she says. When there is a culture of mothers and midwives not being listened to, and of the board, in this case, commissioning reviews and then ignoring them, that is where the problem lies. That is what we need to change. There is no single lever we can pull, no single change we need to make; we need to ensure that, from top to bottom, maternity services are overhauled in order to be fit for the future.

Pathways Study: Puberty Suppression

Layla Moran Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I welcome the statement and this approach. I thank the MHRA for engaging with the Committee when we asked it specific questions about this. It told us that the role of the regulator is to ensure that participants in any clinical trial are kept safe and are exposed to medicine only if there is a reasonable expectation of a positive effect, and that is what was foremost in its mind. It also reassured us that if it had not felt 100% assured, it would have not allowed the trial to go forward.

There was a lot of disquiet about the iterative process that the trial has gone through—that it was stopped, paused and then started again. Could the Secretary of State outline for the House how usual or unusual that is? What support can the NHS offer those families who might have hoped to be part of the trail but now find themselves excluded from it?

[James Murray]

I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that this is now one of the most heavily scrutinised clinical trials in this country in recent history, and rightly so—it is right that it is so heavily scrutinised and that we all seek assurances about the safeguards in place. It is right that, as Health Secretary, I made sure that I got those detailed safeguards before coming to the House to set out the Government’s position today.

The hon. Lady asked how usual it is for the MHRA to work with the sponsors of trials. My understanding is that the MHRA routinely works with trial sponsors to iterate the protocols in relation to those trials. Because this trial involves children and young people, for me, the bar should be exceptionally high, to ensure that those safeguards are in place. That is why, although my starting principle is that clinical evidence is the right way to approach such a matter, I wanted that extra reassurance. That is why I asked for the most detailed possible assurances from my clinical advisers, to ensure that those robust safeguards are in place in the way the trial is now designed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Layla Moran Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

The Health and Social Care Committee’s most recent report into healthy ageing highlights the unacceptable 20-year gap in healthy life expectancy between the most and least deprived areas of the country. It also points out that physical activity can be as effective, if not more effective, in treating the ailments of older life than pharmaceutical intervention. That is why we recommend that the Government target the least active groups to narrow that gap and embed activity into clinical practice.

I welcome the Secretary of State to his place. We are yet to have our first conversation, so let us have our first meeting, in which we might discuss this issue and more, as well as how to embed tackling inequalities into the whole of the national health service.

[James Murray]

I look forward to working constructively with the hon. Lady in her role as the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee. She is absolutely right to point to the importance of embedding prevention and healthier lifestyles in the way that we approach healthcare in this country. Although we talk a lot and passionately about the NHS, health is not just about the NHS; so many determinants of health start long before people access the NHS. In our 10-year health plan, there is a huge focus on tackling obesity, smoking and ensuring that people have more active and healthier lifestyles, because that is the way to reduce pressure on the NHS and ensure that people across the country live healthier lives.

Health Bill

Layla Moran Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 1st June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure—and slightly surreal—to follow the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), because he is very much an architect of the Bill, and I am sure that we would have had many questions for him about what he meant by parts of it. It was a pleasure to work with him when he was in the role, and I look forward to working with the new Secretary of State too.

We all understand what is at stake here: far too many feel that the system is not working for them. The latest British attitudes survey showed that more than half of people in this country are dissatisfied with the NHS. That should give us all pause. When the abolition of NHS England was first announced, I welcomed its boldness because our population faces enormous challenges. Healthy life expectancy has not just stalled; it has gone backwards. We are getting older and we are getting sicker—so, yes, we need to be bold. There is widespread recognition that the three shifts in the 10-year plan, to community, to prevention and to digital, are the right ones, and if achieved—and that is an “if”—they will be transformative, but along with the enthusiasm, which I share, there is a big dollop of scepticism. Twenty-five per cent of the public do not believe this plan will make any difference to them, and we must prove them wrong.

My message to this Government is this: “Focus on the plan. It is the right plan, and achieving it will be an enormous challenge. Also, please do not forget social care.” We must remember that this merger, which could risk becoming a distraction from the plan, did not start with the Bill; it started with the announcement in March 2025, and the effects are already being felt in the NHS. This was not in the manifesto, so it came completely out of the blue, with many people waking up and discovering that their jobs were at risk only from reading the news. It has been brutal. As a result, the Institute for Government told the Health Committee in our hearing just before the recess that there has been a “large drop in morale”, which is unsurprising. There has been uncertainty, poor communication and disruption. I have heard at first hand how decisions have been snarled up as key people have left, and we must learn from previous reforms that the savings often do not materialise because many of the same people who leave first end up being rehired—a point made in the Committee hearing a couple of weeks ago by the chair of NHS England, Penny Dash. So, despite my initial enthusiasm, there is much that we need to chew over.

In the six inquiries and 13 one-off sessions that our Committee has done so far, there are clear themes for change, and it is on those that I will judge the Bill. The first theme is innovation. Pilots and moonshots are good, but they should not replace evidence-based prevention and joined-up thinking. For example, the Government’s obesity moonshot focuses on weight-loss drugs, but ignores the obesogenic environment of advertising, ultra-processed foods and lifestyle pressures. It tackles the symptoms and not the cause. And too often, these pilots show promise but are then never scaled up. What a waste! Innovation should be a mindset, not a buzzword, and we should strengthen clause 6 of the Bill to ensure that the long term is embedded from the outset.

The second theme, which has come up already, is patient voice. Our inquiry into severe mental illness laid bare a system where vulnerable people feel like pinballs in a machine.

[Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)]

In my area, children waiting for ADHD assessments—many already on the standard pathway for years—have been told that they will have to wait until 2027 at the earliest. We know this is happening nationally, because Healthwatch told us in its 2024 report. Does my hon. Friend agree that abolishing Healthwatch—the only statutory independent body holding our NHS to account—will leave the most vulnerable patients without a voice and the NHS marking its own homework?

[Layla Moran]

I do have concerns over Healthwatch; I have even more concerns over the role of the HSSIB. We cannot have it both ways: people cannot sit at desks near other people who are making decisions and at the same time be perceived as entirely independent. The perception of independence cannot be legislated for—the perception is everything, and that is my concern. Clause 15 talks about co-creation, but getting this point right is key to making the system work. There are many examples of where it has been done correctly, but all too often it is just a tick-box exercise.

The third theme is financial flows and integration. Time and again, the Committee is in rooms with local authorities, social care and the voluntary sector all saying that they know how to do this for their local area and it is the system that gets in the way. Section 75 arrangements are a good start and should be strengthened, and there is a lot of promise in the neighbourhood health plans under clause 24. Our concern is over clause 21, because if local authority representation is removed from ICB boards, then social care is not present in those first conversations. That is critical and needs rethinking.

The fourth theme is data. Recently in my surgery, I spoke to a woman called Freya-Rose, who described how repeatedly recounting traumatic experiences compounded her own suffering. The single patient record could be transformational for her and others who find recounting traumatic experiences difficult. We therefore welcome clause 47, but we must be careful about the risks, especially around sensitive data. On that, the Committee will be having hearings on the federated data platform and Palantir, which has already been mentioned today.

The final theme that has emerged in our work is inequalities, so I am excited about the potential of clause 4. I am proud of the Liberal legacy that this NHS is built on. In his seminal report, Beveridge rightly pointed to want, disease, squalor, idleness and ignorance as the five giants that needed to be slayed on the road to recovery following world war two. Obviously, we have come a long way since then, but I would argue that it is time to define some new giants, and health inequality must be one. It is self-evidently the moral thing to do, but—here is something I think the Secretary of State will like—it is also the economically wise thing to do, because study after study shows that tackling inequalities is the key to unlocking productivity in the NHS. Simply put, helping those who need it the most helps us all. This Bill needs to do more than just “have regard” to inequality; I would urge the Government to make it its core mission.

I end by simply saying what I started with: I will work constructively to help the Government make this the success that I hope they want it to be. I would urge them to think about the downsides, because there are some and they need sorting out. Above all, the Bill will be judged not by us, but by Chris and Freya-Rose, the very patients who deserve to be put at the heart of this legislation moving forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Layla Moran Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

Making sure that our GP surgeries are revving on all cylinders is key to ensuring that people get the access to NHS treatment that they need. The Secretary of State will know of my campaign to get a new site for Summertown health centre—in fact, we have been trying to meet to talk about it for over 14 months—but we are now at a key moment. The council and the local practices are at a point where, if we do not get a decision in the next few weeks, we risk losing the opportunity. However, there is a block, which is the district valuer. It often asks for rents far below market value, so what is the Secretary of State doing across Government to make sure that the role of district valuers in ICBs is reassessed?

[Wes Streeting]

The Chair of the Health Committee raises a very important point, and—not least given the timeliness of the issue—I would be very happy to meet her very soon.