Health Bill

Debate between Steff Aquarone and Sarah Dyke

Report stage
Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

Amendment 19 closes a dangerous gap in the Bill and commands the support of Members from across the House. It is right that clause 4 calls for the Health Secretary to reduce inequality of access to health services, but the Bill must explicitly cover rural and coastal health inequalities, or else less densely populated communities will always lose.

At face value, it makes sense to measure success by the greatest number helped; however, in the long run, that is a false economy, as delayed diagnosis and treatment ultimately cost the NHS more. It is a little bit like access to high-speed broadband—we rolled out the first phase to the places where the most people could be connected, which rewarded the Government and providers with some impressive-sounding numbers while disguising failure in the margins. Rural and coastal communities are literally and politically at the end of the line, and are therefore reached last.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

As my hon. Friend will know, the chief medical officer’s rural health report is due later this year. Rural health cannot be seen as an afterthought. That is why I tabled new clause 120, which would create a farmer-friendly general practice scheme, similar to the veteran-friendly accreditation scheme; it would recognise GPs who proactively reach out to isolated farming communities. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must treat the rural health report’s recommendations as a genuine test of action, and not just warm words?

[Steff Aquarone]

I absolutely agree. In order to achieve genuine equality of access, the Government must go outside-in; in other words, they must design provision around the hardest places to serve—my hon. Friend gives a great example—and then work inwards from there.

“If Australia can effectively serve communities living in the remote outback, we can meet the needs of people living in rural and coastal England.”

Those are the words of the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) when he was Health Secretary. Not only do I agree with him, but I challenge the current Health Secretary to turn her Government’s own words into law. We got it wrong with broadband; we cannot afford to get it wrong with people’s health.

In North Norfolk, I see the struggle for health access and outcomes at first hand. People living on the coast start with half the access that those in inland areas have. Conventional service models assume that people can access healthcare from any direction, but for our coastal communities, half of the area is the sea. The sea may be beautiful, but it does not run a bus service, staff a clinic, or provide a patient catchment. Coastal communities, which may have sparse populations and poor transport, need more local points of care, not fewer. On top of that, the services we do have are burdened by exceptionally long waits. We are not unique in this; some of the poorest healthcare access and outcomes can be found in communities like mine.

We know the challenges for health and wellbeing in these areas from the excellent work of Professor Sir Chris Whitty. He spelled out that we suffer from shorter life expectancy and higher rates of major chronic illness, higher rates of alcohol and drug-related harm, and more cardiovascular and chronic lung conditions. These are very serious problems, and they cannot remain an afterthought in national health policy. National systems must not mistake population density for severity of need.

Besides, when problems are caught earlier and treated faster, it leads to better outcomes. That is one of the reasons why I was so frustrated to be told by the Government before recess that they have “no plans” to provide an urgent treatment centre at Cromer hospital in my constituency, although it would transform access to urgent care across North Norfolk. I am putting the Department on notice today: my constituents and I will continue pressing the case until Ministers reconsider.

Let me tell the House what these inequalities mean in human terms. They mean that constituents like Kelly, who has been waiting more than 70 weeks for a hip replacement, are living every day in pain. Another constituent, Samantha, told me that she waited 30 weeks to see a gynaecologist. The NHS standard is 18 weeks. Appallingly, our wait times made a young woman so unwell that she was forced to sacrifice her education; during the wait, her symptoms worsened to the point that she had to step back from the degree that she was studying for.

I heard from Ian, who has metastatic prostate cancer and requires treatment at the Norfolk and Norwich hospital. It is a half-day trip for him by car to get the essential treatment that he needs. He told me that he considered using a local bus service, but that it would be an hour just to get there. He lives with a damaged bladder, due to his condition, and he told me that it makes life “very unpleasant”. I would go further and say that it is undignified and dehumanising.

Flood Preparedness: Norfolk

Debate between Steff Aquarone and Sarah Dyke

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Steff Aquarone]

I thank the hon. Member for his work on flood prevention, and I absolutely echo his sentiments. I will be quoting Henry Cator in just a moment. He was on the panel I mentioned, and I pledged to him and others that I would support them in tackling all of this. That meeting allowed the agencies to hear directly from local residents about their experience and knowledge of the area, developed over decades, and to factor it into their plans and ensure that the community and relevant agencies work in lockstep as they bring forward a more flood-resilient future for the affected broads villages.

Residents of North Norfolk have endless stories of how flooding has impacted them and their community. I heard from a business owner in the boating industry who has spent £40,000 fixing the impact of flooding on the marina that she manages. Another local business estimates that it lost out on £140,000 of revenue during a period when it could not operate because of flood damage. Even the most basic things are made harder: one resident apologised to me that their response to my invitation to the meeting I mentioned was delayed because their driveway was flooded and impassable for the postman.

In the short term, we must look at the fundamental issues across all levels of government that have allowed the situation to get as bad as it has. The agencies I met with are working incredibly hard, but they can only work with what they have. A major issue that many of them face is that their funding settlements are rarely delivered more than one year ahead.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I also live far away from Norfolk, but Somerset obviously has a record of flooding—in fact, it is named Somerset because it was the county where people lived in summer. Environment Agency data shows that 2,692 properties in my constituency are at risk of flooding, and unless basic maintenance is conducted on drainage and flood-defence systems, the figure will continue to rise. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is wrong for the Environment Agency to have a £34 million deficit in its maintenance budget?

[Steff Aquarone]

I totally agree. Lots of money is already there, not to mention the stuff that is missing, but we have to use it in a more joined-up and strategic way. I could go on, but I will return to my speech.

The projects that need to be undertaken to make a real difference will take time, but they will have a huge payoff. Being forced into short-term thinking means that the responsible agencies cannot make secure plans to take the strategic actions they need to. I hope that the Minister will consider changing the arrangement to give the responsible agencies the ability to set longer-term budgets. That would be a huge boost to their medium and long-term planning, and could get off the ground so many vital flood-alleviation projects that are being stalled by the current funding set-up. As the chair of the Norfolk Strategic Flooding Alliance succinctly put it to me:

“Prevention is a lot less expensive than flooding.”

In fact, every pound spent on prevention prevents a further £14 of damage. I hope that the Minister will seriously reflect on that, particularly in the light of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke).

Frustratingly, in many cases, it is not just the money that is lacking, but the necessary power to make change. The responsibilities and powers are broken up and siloed across councils, agencies and statutory bodies; all of them have expertise and experience, but it cannot be easily shared between them. I ask simply but kindly: why does it take nine months and two public meetings to decide what to do and how to spend the money we already have? I would love to tour my constituency bringing the kind of meeting I mentioned to every community, but that is simply not the most effective way of delivering the action that residents are crying out for.

The Netherlands has a Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management: a clearly responsible Department with the power to tackle an issue that is fundamental to that nation. We must accept that Britain floods—it always has done. A joined-up approach, with a clearly responsible body, is the only way we can ensure that powers are collected sensibly to allow for funding and direction decisions to be made in the best interests of communities.

Let us take a look at how flood prevention actually functions in the area that I and my Norfolk colleagues represent—I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a Norfolk county councillor. Norfolk county council is the lead flood authority, but it does not have the money to tackle the issues that it reports on. The council’s scrutiny committee considered that just yesterday, and concluded that there needs to be a focus on legislation to make it fit for purpose. After every serious event, it writes useful, sensible and impactful flood prevention reports, which outline how to prevent flooding from happening again, but once it finishes its reports, it has nowhere near the necessary money to implement any of its own recommendations.

That set-up would be utterly farcical if it were not so serious. It seems that my residents need all the stars to align to make anything happen, and that will not cut the mustard as water pours into their front rooms and destroys their belongings.