Sewage
Debate between Tim Farron and Helen Morgan(3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tim Farron
I completely agree—and the feeling is mutual. I appreciate that I am going on a bit and that a few Members wish to intervene. We will have to go by hands up. [Interruption.]
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making a typically good speech. Does he agree that water from areas where one cannot swim still ends up in areas where one can? The Roden and Perry rivers in my constituency suffered over 2,000 hours of sewage spills in the past year—the Perry is affected by a spill into the Common brook near Oswestry. Not only does that water go past farmers’ fields, but it ends up in Shrewsbury, where there is a designated swimming area. I want to swim in it. Does he agree that the blue flag status would clear up the whole catchment, not just the places where people go swimming?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before you get back to your feet, Mr Farron, I remind you that you can speak as long as you want, but the longer you speak, the less likely it is that colleagues will be able to contribute.
Housing Development Planning: Water Companies
Debate between Tim Farron and Helen Morgan(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Helen Morgan
My hon. Friend is exactly right. Water companies have certain powers to object to developments that exacerbate existing capacity problems, but they are very much constrained by duties under the Water Industry Act 1991, which obliges them to accept domestic flows from new developments. Moreover, developers have an automatic right to connect to the existing network for domestic flows, which limits the ability of the water companies to object solely on the basis of network capacity. They can apply for Grampian conditions—planning conditions attached to a decision notice that prevent the start of the development until off-site works have been completed on land not controlled by the applicant. Developers can do that through the planning authority, but only if there is already a scheme promoted and a date for the improvements to be delivered has been set, so Grampian conditions are rarely used.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) tabled an amendment in Committee to the Water (Special Measures) Bill, which would have provided some of those safeguards by making water companies statutory consultees and ensuring that water infrastructure requirements were considered.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. She mentions the amendment we pushed in the Bill Committee, which was not accepted by the Government. It is indeed vital that water companies are statutory consultees throughout the process, but we should bear in mind that there is an incentive for water companies to say that there is no problem: the additional buildings mean more water bills and more income for the water company. If the company concedes that there is a problem, it may have to respond by making improvements to the infrastructure, costing it money. Do we not need better regulation? Ofwat and the Environment Agency need to be put together into a single, new clean water authority, so that we enforce clean water standards on the water companies that are currently running rings around our regulators.
Helen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He has campaigned endlessly and consistently on that point and I entirely agree with him. I was concerned when both the Government and the Conservatives voted against his amendment in Committee. Perhaps in their winding-up speeches, they will explain the rationale to my constituents, who are faced with the reality of putting cling film over their toilet every time there is a big storm.
The current requirements, all of which allow consultation, have been inadequate in the example I have given, and indeed in many others. The local plan process requires local authorities to consult the water companies on infrastructure requirements. That should be a positive step; it is how future infrastructure should be determined, with plans made by both the local authority and the water company. However, many councils fail to develop local plans. Shropshire’s Conservative council has just had to withdraw an inadequate plan, having failed to satisfy the requirements of the planning inspectors, leaving the county open to a planning free-for-all in which it is unnecessary to consult water companies. I therefore urge the Minister to ensure that in the review announced at the beginning of this week, water companies are added to the list of statutory consultees. I urge him also to tighten up the rules to prevent such a fiasco from emerging again, when after years of work and of taxpayers’ money being spent on a local plan, it is not fit for purpose and the whole process has to be started again. That is unacceptable for my residents, who are paying their council tax.
Another development 10 miles to the north has had similar issues, but in that case, in addition to concerns about the capacity of the pumping station and existing surface water flooding problems, Severn Trent has refused to adopt the drainage network, citing as its reason that the sewers were not built to the standard agreed under the section 104 arrangement in place. The developer, which I should say disputed that there were defects in the system, requested that Severn Trent return its section 104 bond, and it did. All of that was done without the residents’ knowledge. They only found out nearly three years later, following repeated complaints to the water company, which is tanking sewage away from the village on a weekly basis.
Accessibility of Radiotherapy
Debate between Tim Farron and Helen Morgan(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Thank you very much, Sir John. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. I promise that I will not go on at great length, partly because—
Helen Morgan
Well, my hon. Friend did go on at great length. He has secured a really important debate for World Cancer Day; it is an honour to speak in it for the Liberal Democrats. He outlined the issues comprehensively; I am not sure that I could improve on what he said. I welcome the Government’s announcement earlier today on the national cancer strategy and I highlight the excellent work of my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), who campaigned for it.
Cancer services in general have declined to an unacceptable level, as I think everyone would agree. I hope that the Government stick to their word on addressing that issue and ensuring that everybody can access the care they need, when they need it and—as my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) pointed out so eloquently—where they need it.
In the UK, over 100,000 cancer patients receive radiotherapy treatment each year from a specialist workforce of 6,400 professionals. Cancer is one of the most difficult diseases—it is difficult for individuals and it is difficult for their families—and yet the number of patients who have waited over four months to receive cancer treatment has more than doubled since 2020.
Like so many areas of NHS care, the time people have to wait and the quality of care that they receive depends hugely on where they happen to live. That has to change; I hope that the Government will make that one of their urgent missions. People’s chances of surviving should not depend on their postcode.
NHS data shows that the west midlands had over 150,000 radiotherapy attendances in 2022, which is the most recent available data. That is the highest of all regions, yet hospitals such as Shrewsbury and Telford hospital in my constituency have had some of the worst waiting times. In September 2024, at the Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin trust, only just over half of patients requiring radiotherapy met the 62-day treatment standard. The target for treatment is 85%.
It is important to acknowledge that the situation at Shrewsbury and Telford hospital trust is improving—I welcome that—and that it was impacted by the staff shortages that many hon. Members have outlined today. But it is not just about numbers and statistics; it is about the impact on people’s lives. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham has pointed out the importance of scans, and some of my constituents who are undergoing cancer treatment have waited a long time for scans and say that sometimes they have not had the result of a scan until their next treatment was due. That is due to staffing shortages.
Waiting times are important, but so too are distances, particularly when somebody is poorly and finding it difficult to travel a long way. People in Shropshire are served in Shrewsbury, so I am glad to say that the distance issue is perhaps not as acute as it might be in other rural areas in the country, but the public transport issue remains so. Many people rely on friends and family to drive them to appointments, as there is no other reliable way of getting there and a taxi is simply too expensive for them to consider. For that reason, some will not be accessing the care that they need. Across the country, 3.4 million people live further away than the target of 45 minutes from a radiotherapy centre, so it is important that we address those radiotherapy deserts and ensure that people can access the care that they need.
In addition to the outdated, sparse machines and low morale, we found that 65% of staff felt that they did not have enough machine capacity and 93% felt that workforce numbers were too low. Therefore, in addition to the long distances involved, we must put an end to the problem of people being unable to be treated not just because they live a long way from the equipment, but because the equipment, when it is available, is outdated or because there is nobody to staff it properly and interpret what needs to be done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale has said all this before, so I will draw my remarks to a conclusion. The Liberal Democrats would boost cancer survival rates by introducing a guarantee that 100% of patients would start treatment within 62 days of their urgent referral. We need to replace the ageing radiotherapy machines and increase the number of machines, so that no one has to travel too far for treatment. We need to recruit nurses, cancer nurses and the specialist staff required to staff the radiotherapy machines. We would also like to see a cancer survival Bill, requiring the Government to co-ordinate and ensure funding for research into those cancers with the lowest survival rates. I hope the Minister will be making cancer a top priority for the new Government and push to reinstate the UK as a global leader in cancer research and, most importantly, in cancer outcomes.
I welcome the commitment already made to invest £70 million in replacing ancient machines and delivering new ones, but I hope the Minister will consider where that investment is distributed so that we can address the urgent problem of treatment deserts. I hope that he will also consider that this is a spend-to-save issue—radiotherapy treatment is both effective and cost-effective, and a worthwhile investment for the NHS to consider from a financial perspective.
I also want the Minister to commit to introducing a 10-year workforce plan for radiotherapy as part of the national cancer strategy to which the Government are already committed, to ensure that people get the care they need, when they need it, with the appropriately qualified professionals necessary to deliver it.
Finally, we must address the problem of building space. Many of our hospitals, as we all know, are crumbling. Care must be delivered in an appropriate setting, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham has outlined on a number of occasions. In conclusion, we welcome the Government’s steps so far, but I would like to push them to go further.
Access to Primary Healthcare
Debate between Tim Farron and Helen Morgan(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Morgan
That is an important point. In my constituency, carers who go to pick up prescription medicines are finding that the pharmacists are not there because they are relying on locums. The pharmacy funding problem needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency, and I will say more about that later.
Growing the economy is so important that we need to get people off the waiting and referral lists and back into work. Liberal Democrats believe that people should be in control of their own lives, not “chained up” at home, unable to get out of bed, because they have no access to healthcare. They should be able to get the help that they need, when they need it, in their own homes and communities.
Let us start with GPs. The Liberal Democrat manifesto—it was well received, which is why there are so many Members sitting behind me on these Benches—called for the right to see a GP within seven days or 24 hours if the situation is urgent, and for those aged over 70 or with a chronic health condition to have access to a named GP. Those rights are extremely important. People who go to the same GP for more than 15 years have a 25% lower chance of dying than those who have seen a new GP in the last year. Primary care networks tell me that their inability to deliver continuity of care because of the shortage of GPs is one of the problems that worry them most.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making a brilliant introductory speech. Is she aware that perhaps only a third of those leaving medical school and seeking to go into general practice are able to find jobs, partly because the additional roles reimbursement scheme—which does exist—cannot be extended to enable some of those would-be GPs to be recruited? Is it not mad that although we are creating enough potential GPs through medical school, we cannot give them jobs because of the funding mechanisms that this Government inherited from the last one? We are losing them from general practice, and, in some instances, losing them from the country altogether.
Helen Morgan
My hon. Friend is entirely right. I believe that the Government are taking steps to address that, but he has made an important point about the need for flexible GP funding. A general practice may have money to spend on professionals and need more fully qualified doctors to deal with its patient list, but can only spend that money on another pharmacist or another nurse. That is a ridiculous situation, and I am pleased that the Government are dealing with it.