Health Bill (First sitting)
Helen Morgan Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
I used to work in a mental health trust for many years, and I am still its employee—I am on an extended career break from the trust.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I am a member of the Managers in Partnership trade union, which is giving evidence this afternoon.
Karin Smyth
Q
Dr Dash: One of the things that I observed when I was doing the review, and that I have observed even more so now that I am in post, is that we do not have effective mechanisms of really learning from patients and patient experience. If I compare how the NHS works with how other large organisations in our country work, we are not systematically collecting patient information, we are not looking at that in detail, we are not segmenting it into different groups of people, and we are not systematically bringing it into board meetings, which is where it should be in order to drive improvement. We are hoping, or expecting, that the new director of patient experience will take a real leadership role in this and will improve the way in which the centre works but, more importantly, will be working with organisations right across the NHS to build those skills and capabilities, and to put patient experience feedback and improvement in patient experience right at the centre of every discussion on improvement.
Helen Morgan
Q
Dr Dash: The CQC is an independent regulatory body as well. The hope and expectation is that we have a high-calibre, independent regulatory body that is the prime regulatory body for looking at how well health and care services are delivered and, as well as observing how well they are currently performing, is able to carry out specific, focused investigations when it spots systematic problems across the healthcare system, or indeed when particular problems are identified.
In terms of safe space, clearly, confidentiality is important. Confidentiality is important right across the board; staff need to feel able to report within NHS organisations and to the CQC where they have concerns. I have to say that I was concerned in that Health Committee session to hear an example given by Jeremy Hunt, who said that if a midwife is concerned about quality of care in their maternity unit, they need to be able to go somewhere and report that, and to know that HSSIB would not tell anyone else about it. I looked at Duncan, our chief nursing officer, who was there with me, and we were shocked to hear that. How can that possibly be right? We need to have a mechanism whereby if there are concerns about quality of care, they are properly investigated, and mechanisms to deal with those problems and improve services. Yes, we need confidentiality, but I was not convinced by what I heard then—that we needed a completely separate organisation that was duplicating the work of others.
Helen Morgan
Q
Dr Dash: I will talk first about providers and then about the commissioners, the payers, the ICBs. We absolutely should expect all providers—GP practices, community trusts, hospital trusts—to see patient experience as a crucial part of their role and not to outsource it to someone else; it has to be a crucial part of what they do. They need to get way better at collecting patient experience, they need to understand it from different groups, wards and medical teams, and they need to be playing that back. Ideally, that should be part of everyone’s appraisals: “Here’s the sort of feedback that we’ve had. Here’s what we’ve heard. Here’s how we’re acting on that.” We need to put that in the places where healthcare is delivered, and that is in those provider organisations.
The ICBs have a different role, which is to commission healthcare services in order to improve health and ensure high-quality care, and it is their responsibility to speak to communities. They all have considerable teams of people who are doing that—speaking to different members of society and conducting usually frequent events to get input and hear what people are looking for from their health and care services. When they are looking to design particular services, whether mental health services or children’s services, they go much deeper into that and speak to specific groups, often involving the providers as well.
Those mechanisms are already embedded within ICBs, but we need to continue to ensure that they do those as well as they can. When I was speaking to people, I found some fantastic examples of different healthwatch organisations across the country, but that is not at all consistent and they are often too far removed from what is actually happening in terms of day-to-day services to have a significant impact on improving patient experience.
Karin Smyth
Q
Jacob Lant: There are three things there. First, we need transparency about what is being heard by the system. Wherever we put patient voice functions, it is really important that what they hear from communities is clear and made available publicly, in terms of themes and demographics, so that we understand who is being heard and who is not. That is really important for the transparency of what is being heard and how it is being interpreted by the system. What has it understood from the feedback it has received, and does that resonate with what people are actually trying to say?
The second thing is accountability. Can people see those voices leading to change—not just commitments to change, but following through? It is about evaluating where policy changes implemented as a result of patient feedback have improved patient experience, and drawing that golden thread through for people so they can understand how their feedback is making a difference. That is missing from the system at the moment.
The last point is around equity. My big concern is that we might design a system that hears from more people, but whether it hears from the right people and there is equity of voice is a real concern. The resourcing and support need to be put in, particularly at a local level, so that they can engage communities who are marginalised and make sure we are hearing from the people who are basically getting the worst experiences and outcomes at the moment.
If we can deliver on those three things—transparency, accountability and equity—we can build a system that is more effective than what we have at the moment. Personally, I think Healthwatch has done a fantastic job with the resources it has had available. It works out that less than 0.01% of the health and care spend is on Healthwatch, and that generates about 1.4 million interactions every year, either by gathering people’s experiences or by supporting them to navigate the health and care system. That is a really good return on investment, and it will be hard to find something more efficient. The challenge is in the system being more culturally open to listening and changing as a result of what people say, regardless of the way the evidence comes through.
Helen Morgan
Q
Sarah Woolnough: There are probably two concerns in a couple of different areas: appointments and the power of direction, which is very broad. We think it would be helpful to probe the detail and understand the intention a little more to see whether the legislation could do with amendment.
There is more general point. If the narrative is that this is a straight transfer, of course, you cannot legislate for culture and how those powers will be used. Our concern is that, while the narrative is about a straight transfer, empowering local systems and earned autonomy, the legislation pulls a lot of power back to the Secretary of State, and you cannot legislate for how a future Secretary of State may enact those powers.
Helen Morgan
Q
Jacob Lant: I will pick up the second part of the question first. The majority of the worst experiences of care—the worst incidents, where people feel most lost—tend to be in the gaps between services. Hospital discharge is a really good example of where the transfer between the NHS and social care services does not always work in the best interests of patients. That sort of insight will be lost entirely under the current structure, unless we build in a requirement for ICBs and local authorities to share the intelligence that they are hearing and to work collaboratively to understand patient and care user experience. That then raises the question, “Why are we splitting them?” If they have to work closely together to comment on the worst experiences of care, I do not understand the rationale for splitting them.
In terms of preparedness, I said earlier that ICBs will not have any additional resource for doing this. They have their own engagement teams at the moment, but even those that have been doing this very well have been leaning on their healthwatch for many years to help them engage with seldom-heard communities and build additional capacity. I worry about the capacity of ICBs to deliver once that is cut, particularly given the headcount and budget reductions in ICBs generally.
Local authorities are probably more experienced in doing direct community engagement and more confident about their ability to pick up the responsibilities. Indeed, I suspect that many of them will continue to commission some sort of external support to help them do this, but their budgets will be restricted. They will get only half the money for healthwatch, so that will be a concern.
Peter Prinsley
Q
Sarah Woolnough: We have had developments over many years in the direction of a single patient record. We have shared care records; we have attempts in different parts of the country to move in that direction. On the one hand, we have been held back by legitimate concerns about trust, privacy and the right safeguards, but some practical barriers have also held us back. For example—and this is really important to make the single patient record a success—what does it take to ensure that we achieve interoperability, that the data is cleansed and that penalties are followed through if providers are not sharing data? We need to back up any legislative and policy intent with the resource and measures needed to make it happen. That is perhaps a bit of the history of why it has not happened. Sorry, what was the second part of your question?
Karin Smyth
Q
Dr Dickson: Part of it has been touched on by the previous panel, regarding patient experience. Patients come in, they give the same story again and again to different healthcare professionals in different settings, and that frustrates them. Patients are human. I forget what I did last week; patients forget what they did last week, let alone what they did 10 or 20 years ago, although that is still relevant, increasingly. If you go on holiday to Whitby, fall over and break something, have tests done and come back to your house in central London, you cannot see information about that; you cannot share that information.
The opportunity to see everything on a patient across primary care, secondary care and social care is a huge benefit to them in terms of their view of seamless care, but also in terms of safety. I have a chronic health condition; part of my care is delivered by general practice and part by a hospital. At the start of the pandemic I was exceptionally clinically vulnerable; it took the NHS six weeks to tell me that. That is not safe.
Helen Morgan
Q
Dr Dickson: I am not a general practitioner. The key thing for data control and data sharing is the trust that patients have in us to share and to hold their data in a way that is beneficial for them as individuals, and potentially sometimes beneficial for the population, but not to share it for what you might call retail use.
One issue with data control is that most general practices are small businesses with a small number of staff working flat out. That legal obligation of a data controller looms large for them, whereas it does not loom as large for large NHS organisations—although, technically, the impact is as hard. I do not mind who controls the data; what we need to do is to find a way to enable that data to be shared safely and with a belief that it is done for patient benefit. I do not think it matters whether GPs maintain data control, with something else happening to support them, or whether it is taken away from them; it is about how we enable that to happen. But I do think that general practice struggles more with resilience.
Kay Keane: I think that is true, in that we are generalists, not experts in a lot of areas. Certainly, we can be very good data controllers of our own data—the stuff that we produce, and that we write and code about our patients. We have to code things to be able to respond to our contract, so we have to be good at that. Things fall down when information comes from other providers, which we have no control of. That would be an area of real concern—that such information would be part of our property and our jurisdiction.
I guess it is about the detail of how that record will be structured. If it is a brand-new thing and we all feed into it, that is very different from all the data coming to the current healthcare record that we hold. I think the detail is not there yet to enable us to describe who should be the data controller, but certainly I do not think that any practice manager would want to control data generated by someone other than themselves.
Helen Morgan
Q
Kay Keane: The patients need to understand exactly who has access to that record and exactly who is feeding into it. There is a huge amount of trust between a patient and a GP, and a patient and a healthcare professional in a general practice, and we do not want that trust to be diminished so that the patient stops telling us the things that are worrying them—the whole story. We want them to continue their trust, but if they think that information is spreading further and further across the system, we might lose some of it.
Sojan Joseph
Q
Kay Keane: In the example you gave, the hospital should be giving seven days-worth of medication to the patient. That is clearly its responsibility. Within those seven days, the GP practice should get a discharge letter that says what has happened; if appropriate, we then take over the prescribing.
If the information comes and is good quality—if the data is good and timely—the things you mentioned do not happen; they happen when neither of those things are the case. In my experience, information that comes out of A&E is often difficult to understand. A&E might make a diagnosis that it works with, but by the time that gets to the ward it can be different, so the A&E information we act on could be very different from what the patient is discharged with. Timely and good-quality information is therefore really important, and that GP record then becomes the centre of the patient’s care.
Dr Dickson: You are talking about transfer of care between services and about a weekend being an important flashpoint, but I think that that transfer of care does not happen appropriately even during the week. It is getting better, with electronic systems, but it is still not necessarily working for the full benefit of patients, especially if they access multiple services. The value of the single patient record is to make that safe, but the question is, will it do that? Can it do that? Is it safe to do that? Will the patient’s data be protected? That is what we are we are worried about. I think that is what patients worry about. They perceive that we do that already, and when they come up against the healthcare service, they realise that it does not happen; they do not realise that it is not a personal thing to them, but a systemic problem. It is about getting patients to understand the systemic nature of the lack of data sharing at the moment.
Karin Smyth
Q
You talked about the culture of fear, which I think we have recognised over time. We are all constituency MPs, so we recognise that. Can you say something about the opportunities for learning that could arise from working with the CQC, which is in that regulatory space?
Dr Benneyworth: We already work very closely with the CQC. In fact, we meet with them on a very regular basis. They share their learning and concerns with us already. Some of our investigations have come from the learning that they have seen on inspection, so we have a very good relationship with the CQC.
There are significant opportunities for the whole patient safety landscape. We are a tiny part of the patient safety landscape. We need to all work much more collaboratively right across the regulatory space—ourselves, the investigatory bodies and the wider system. The National Quality Board will have a significant role to play in that to share learning and identify key patient safety risks. That is already happening in our work with the CQC. This legislation will not significantly change that.
Helen Morgan
Q
Dr Benneyworth: First, we do not replace local investigations. If something goes wrong, the local teams are very much responsible for investigating their work. Dr Dash talked about the new processes around PSIRF and the new investigation processes, which we fully support. In fact, our education team have had 40,000 people enrolled over the last three years, free of charge in the NHS, to support them in developing those investigation skills, really supporting that excellence in local investigation. We have a long way to go there, because they are variable in quality.
We do not replace that immediate, “There has been an incident and it needs investigation.” We know that, quite often, the things that need to change are not sitting within one provider. We know that the same things are happening in Cornwall and Cumbria and everywhere in between, and that they often need national solutions to change.
As a recent example, we published a report a few weeks ago looking at the care of people in mental health crisis in emergency departments. That showed that the legislation around the care of mental health patients is not supporting people in emergency departments to look after these people properly. That is not something that can be changed by a regulator. The CQC going to look at that emergency department will not impact that. It is not something that the individual provider can change, but we can make national recommendations about it to change the national system to enable people on the ground working in health and care to do their job properly. We can make sure that the systems and processes really consider how things work, and really change them so that providers and systems locally can do their job.
Helen Morgan
Q
Dr Benneyworth: There needs to be much more clarity about governance and how that will work in the legislation to protect independence. There are potential compromises that could happen, such as a Healthwatch-style model that has its own independent leadership within the CQC, its own governance arrangements and, importantly, its own identity. That would enable it to keep its independence, while being part of a larger organisation. In the legislation, it is vital that there is a legal duty for the CQC to protect safe space.
Sureena Brackenridge
Q
Dr Benneyworth: One of the things that we see regularly in our investigations is that people fall down the gaps between organisations. We have the ability to look right across the system and understand a person’s journey. As a recent example, we looked at medication errors on discharge from hospital. There are a lot of medication errors, and we looked at the process of how information was being shared and what was happening. Those are the type of things where we see a lot of concerns about patient safety. There needs to be much more clarity about accountability for patient safety.
No one is accountable for the discharge of a patient. There is not one person—no single individual—who is accountable when someone is discharged from hospital to social care. You go through multiple layers of accountability. We are keen to learn from other industries that have effective safety management systems. Part of those safety management systems is having much more clarity about accountability, which is lacking across the NHS. I very much hope that, with the changes to ICBs, they really do think about accountability for patient safety.
Karin Smyth
Q
Sir Jeremy Hunt: I set up NHS England, following the Lansley reforms, and it may surprise you that I have not opposed the Government’s decision to abolish it, for this reason. When it was set up, it did have a very valuable function, which is that it depoliticised a lot of very contentious issues. Typically, those were things such as the closure or downgrading of an A&E that was clinically advised as important, but very difficult politically, or, for example, which drugs are made available through the NHS and which are not. I felt that putting those decisions at arm’s length from Ministers was helpful. However, I think it became too big.
My real problem is that I think the NHS has become the world’s largest health bureaucracy, in which it is very hard to get anything done because 1.5 million people are accountable to one person. The way the DHSC does this, as you know just as well as me, is through the ruthless imposition of targets, so every hospital has 18 monthly operational targets. That makes it very difficult to have any kind of local innovation or local autonomy, because everyone is performance-managed with incredible strictness—their whole career depends on it—by these targets. I felt NHS England was beginning to embody that targets system, so when the former Heath Secretary said he was planning to scrap it, I said, “That’s absolutely fine, as long as this is a decentralising move, and you don’t simply transfer that ruthless central control from NHS England to DHSC.” I have to say I am concerned that that is, in fact, happening—or that we are just getting all those targets recreated by DHSC, rather than NHS England, as I think former Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt has also gone on record as saying.
Helen Morgan
Q
Sir Jeremy Hunt: Ideally, when something goes wrong, what you want is for there to be an investigation and for lessons to be learned, so that grieving families can say, “Well, at least we are confident that this wouldn’t happen again.” What happens in the health world is that families still think the only way they can get real change is through a public inquiry, so there is endless demand for more inquiries, rather than for things to actually change. If HSSIB was allowed to flourish, and there was confidence that its recommendations really would be acted on quickly, I think that would reduce the demand for public inquiries. They are very expensive, and the fact that they often take five, six or even seven years also means that there is enormous delay before anything changes.
Helen Morgan
Q
Sir Jeremy Hunt: It is not dissimilar to my earlier reflections. It is really important that patients have a voice, but it is even more important that their voice is heard not just through a bureaucratic process that listens to them, and gives them a sense of being listened to, but then nothing happens. The problem with the Healthwatch structure we have is that it is very good at the listening bit, but I do not think people have confidence that things actually change.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Q
If you are concerned that accountability ends up too close to the Department, where else should it land? I am quite comfortable with a Minister being accountable for that decision, because they are accountable to MPs, who are ultimately accountable to the people that it affects. Can you pare back your answer a little bit and talk about where that accountability should lie, and how we can ensure that it works?
Sir Jeremy Hunt: That is a story I think every single Member of Parliament could repeat, and it is a fundamental flaw in the system. Do you not think it is completely ridiculous that you have to go to the Health Secretary, who is responsible for a budget of £160 billion—the largest healthcare system in the world—to sort out something like a GP surgery lease in your constituency? That is a perfect example of a problem that we should be able to sort out locally, and that is why I think the bureaucracy has got completely out of hand.
Health Bill (Second sitting)
Helen Morgan ExcerptsTuesday 16th June 2026
(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health Bill 2026-27 View all Health Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 June 2026 - (16 Jun 2026)
Karin Smyth
Q
James Blythe: I think the single patient record offers enormous opportunities to improve patient care. We know that we see patients every day whose quality of care and patient experience would be improved through having access to a continuous record that ran through primary and secondary care, mental health care and other services. To my mind, having had experience of working with systems that have introduced to some degree the single record or a single care plan, it will be extremely important that we take the time to train our clinical staff and adapt our operational systems so they use a patient record productively and consistently in the interests of better patient care. If we just put a single patient record into clinical settings without doing anything with the staff or services to make it useful, at best it will be inconsistently used and sometimes it will just be missed altogether. If we are going to invest, which I think is right, in a single patient record, we also have to invest in those systems and human factors around it, and make sure that we train people to use it well.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Q
Can I ask about Healthwatch? We heard this morning that ICBs will be taking on a chunk of the current operations of local healthwatches, but that they will not have any additional budget to enable them to do that. In fact, we know that their budgets have been significantly reduced. Could you elaborate on how you think that will work, and will it be as effective as the current system?
Sir Ciarán Devane: The ICBs have a capitation fee of £19.40, which they have to do everything out of. This is an additional duty placed on them. They will have to work out how to do it if there is no extra money coming, but it will be pressured.
I hear the argument that local healthwatches were variable. This function has been slightly outside and independent, playing back into decisions; we have to ensure that the level of independence remains somehow in how this is constructed, but that the variability is not just transferred from local healthwatches to how it is done within or across ICBs. Again, the implementation will need to be done well. That leads into the question about local authorities and the connection with them, making sure the democratic voice is brought in and equally the local voice. The legislation does not stop an ICB doing this well. Therefore, without the legislation, part of what we can be doing collectively is trying to make sure that what was good about healthwatches is preserved and is understood by ICBs. There are only 25 of them, so it should be a manageable task for the rest of us.
The effectiveness comes back to whether you believe this is a good thing. One of the things we have to do is secure that the benefits of having the patient voice in there, along with the clinical voice and the voice of the manager, at the same time, so that it is not a case of saying, “Oh, now we’ll go and consult the patients on the font size of the report,” but is authentic. That puts a lot of work on to the ICBs and on to those of us who believe passionately in engaging with the patient voice, but there is a risk because of that pressure. Done well, it will enable strategic commissioning and ensure the quality remains, but they are starting, if maybe not from scratch, from a new place.
Helen Morgan
Q
Sir Ciarán Devane: According to the ICBs we are talking to, which is all of them, they are saying that they believe in local authority engagement. We will be saying, “You may not be told you have to, but we would encourage you to do it.” I am sure that should be coming from the Department as well.
The witness to my right is an example of that; we know that when the NHS has really good local connections, you can get things done in the interests of your patients much more easily. The belief is there, but we need to make sure that the legislation is not seen as a signal that this is unimportant. That is a risk. As a representative organisation, we have to say to people, “We hear you saying that you really believe in this. Therefore, you need to demonstrate, not least to the Secretary of State, that you are following it through.”
I have a small additional point about mayors in unitary authorities being able to appoint somebody who is both the chair of the ICB and the local health commissioner. That should help. Those individuals will have to work out how to serve two masters, but that is okay—other people learn how to do that, too.
James Blythe: I would focus on a slightly different part of the Bill in terms of how this needs to work. There are 25 ICBs; that is quite a large footprint. From my experience of delivering meaningful collaboration and joint working between health and local government, I think it tends to happen at a more local level than that. The neighbourhood health plan in the Bill becomes extremely important. As a system, we should be very ambitious for those neighbourhood health plans. They should go a lot further than just describing what should happen in terms of improving health outcomes at a local level.
We should set an aspiration as a system that there should be a responsibility on health bodies and local government bodies to describe how changes will be made. The role of ICBs is to enable groups of providers and other organisations in local areas—most ICBs will have several places—to come together and not just work out what a local population needs, but actually do it. That will mainly be about relationships on the ground between an acute hospital team, a community services team, a mental health team and a social work team.
The role of ICBs is very much to give the contractual tools and mechanisms to local NHS organisations to work effectively with their local authorities so that there are really good neighbourhood health plans. Most importantly, they should not just write them but actually see them through.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
Q
Sir Ciarán Devane: I go back to our having to convince people. Many people are convinced—that is probably the first thing to say. But we have to convince people of the benefit of doing this. Delivering the ambitious neighbourhood health plans that James describes will happen only if everybody is in the room and doing it.
I do not necessarily think that the legislation can mandate that belief or the way to do that. However, it can set an expectation for the ICB that, in developing its plans, it should be able to demonstrate that it has engaged with the local authorities, patient organisations and the public local to it. The legislation can set an expectation that the ICB is using population evidence to make the right commissioning choices and that, if reconfigurations, which may well be locally contentious, are to happen, engagement happens beforehand. As elected Members, the Committee will know that those conversations should start early and that local populations should not just be bounced into something.
It will be incumbent on the new department to set those expectations with the ICBs about the new way of working. That is the only way we are going to create an NHS that will be able to cope with the number of frail, elderly people with multiple morbidities. Those people are a consequence of the success of the NHS over decades. People are living longer with cancer; the prevalence of cancer—the number of people alive with cancer—has doubled in 20 years. But that means that there are four million people who are not necessarily well. The only way to cope with that is to make a significant and radical change to the neighbourhood health plans and bring the public with us. That will happen only with proper patient and public engagement.
Karin Smyth
Yes.
Professor Croisdale-Appleby: Fine. The Government’s move to the integrated patient record is absolutely excellent. Most of us have wanted that for a very long time, but we also recognised the IT difficulties in doing it, as well as the question of security. However, as digital has advanced, we have nutcrackers that we did not have before to crack that particular nut. I can but support that move.
From the point of view of the things that really matter, the ability of a person to feel that they can tell their story once—not time and again—comes up all the time in our research. With great respect to everyone here, we are very capable of standing up for ourselves and insisting that we get answers, but the people I deal with and have the privilege of representing are often not in that position at all. They are overwhelmed when they are repeatedly asked the same question, often in a language—medicalese, if you like—that they do not really understand and feel threatened by. The single patient record is going to go a long way towards helping with that situation. It is not the complete answer but at least it does the hygiene part, as opposed to the motivator part, very well.
Sarah Tilsed: It is an excellent initiative—1as the professor said, we have been calling for it for such a long time—but we really need to consider the consent and data elements. A lot of pieces of work that we have done with patients shows that people are happy with their data being shared for these electronic records, as long as they are transparent and patients know what is being done with their data—that is a really important point.
The care.data initiative and general practice data for planning and research—GPDPR—were great, but unfortunately, because they did not have genuine patient involvement right from the beginning, they failed. We need to ensure that the SPR does not fail. In terms of reaching underrepresented or less-heard communities, we need to ensure that we hear from those people straightaway. How do they want this to work? Do they want to know how their data is being used? How can we ensure that people who do not use the NHS app are involved and that their data is being shared? How do we approach people who are understandably very hesitant about digital technology and electronic records?
Helen Morgan
Q
Sarah Tilsed: I said a lot about that earlier, in response to a previous question, so I am not sure how much more I have to add. I think my main point is that we must not divert attention away from the urgent priorities that patients are facing at the moment, ensuring there is a truly independent patient voice and trust—there is a lack of trust among patients, as I keep saying. How are we going to ensure that the reporting system is there for this?
Ultimately, patients need reform to lead to better care, not simply to different structures, which I fear is what often happens. Sir Robert Francis said, following the Mid Staffs situation, that patients must come first. Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Patients Association question will remain simple, and we will ask it time and again: will these changes actually help patients to receive better care, and how will we know if they do? That is the first principle to come back to. When everything is happening—all this restructure—how are patients going to be affected and involved in it?
Helen Morgan
Q
Professor Croisdale-Appleby: Thank you for that question. One of the reasons there is a difference or variation among the 153 is that the amount of funding is very different. Some of them get 10 times the funding of others, which makes a difference to the scope of what they can do. What it does not allow—and I think Healthwatch England has an important contributory role in this—is a change in the quality of the way in which the research is done.
One of the things that I have encouraged very strongly—although it happened before I joined Healthwatch—is the use of qualitative as well as quantitative data. The system is awash with quantitative data, but that does not necessarily cut through to the way that people are, the way they think, the lexicon they use, the concepts they use in communication etc. One of the great strides that Healthwatch England and our 153-member network have made is the intelligent use of qualitative data. That is an art in itself—I would like to think that is a science, but it is certainly an art.
It would be easy to remedy that, in the sense that if the funding were more equitable, some of that variation would disappear, but the variation is not in the quality, the effectiveness of the listening or the ability to look thoroughly at the impact, and it does not affect the fact that the organisations concerned are held responsible for what happens to the recommendations in terms of implementation. That is uniform across the system—it is just the amount of it that will vary naturally, because of the differential funding.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Q
James Cooper: There are some big opportunities in the single patient record, with the caveats that Sarah mentioned on data governance and consent. For families of children who are seriously ill, it presents huge opportunities, as I said earlier, because of the complexity of their needs. Often, huge amounts of information need to be conveyed to any professional who the children come into contact with, wherever that is across health, education or social care.
Many professionals have a long-standing relationship with such families, whether they are NHS community children’s nurses, consultants with a speciality in the child’s condition or children’s hospice teams, but families often need to access emergency unplanned care, perhaps in the middle of the night or at weekends. In those instances, when they speak to paramedics and emergency doctors, it is imperative that they can convey the information as quickly as possible. In those instances, I can see huge benefits.
With issues such as advanced care planning, to reflect the needs and wishes of those families, in particular as the child is coming towards the end of their life, I think it is critical that the whole range of professionals involved in the care of children has access to that information. I will welcome much more clarity from the Government about when the families will benefit from that particular initiative.
Professor Croisdale-Appleby: May I add a short comment?
The Chair
Q
Maria Higson: A couple of things. One is that it is not possible to overstate the importance of the partnership working between the NHS and local authorities. If we want neighbourhood health and the shift to prevention more broadly to be successful, working closely with local authorities, including the public health teams—which were not in the question but deserve a mention—is imperative. I am sure we will come to the question about the relationship with the mayoralties. There is something about that geography question. The insight and experience that local authorities bring is really important. That is the one thing that I think ought to be mentioned.
Helen Morgan
Q
I am really concerned that that will become even more problematic because they cannot work together, given that we are not a combined mayoral authority, that we will not have a mayor sitting on our ICB and that our ICB merged footprint does not fit with our local authority geography. How can the health and wellbeing boards work between the two organisations to deliver good social care?
The Chair
Let us start with our councillor in the middle.
Councillor Wright: It is a challenge. I completely hear that; continuing healthcare is a really difficult one. It is right to say that residents are seen as a financial burden, which should not happen. That is why we need strong health and wellbeing boards. We need strong, honest conversations between local authorities and the NHS for ensuring that good continuity of care.
Obviously, I think the overall aim of the 10-year health plan is to move much more to a model of prevention and treatment in the community, where we hope that we could intervene earlier and set up good standards of care before it gets to a stage where it becomes so adversarial. That is what we are aiming for. We have challenges in our local authority and have had to push back on a few cases where we felt the NHS should be helping those people.
Sally Burlington: The problem is getting bigger over time. We did some joint work last year with the NHS Confederation to look at those difficult issues on the boundaries between health and social care, including continuing healthcare and mental health aftercare. That identified some good models. We see arrangements for joint commissioning of continuing health care, which can work well. We have seen a little bit of withdrawal from that by some ICBs.
Part of the issue has to be that we are seeing a real intention to cut costs, and that leads to lots of reviews taking place that do withdraw continuing healthcare. We have seen that trend while the demographics are pointing to potentially more demand, not less. I do not think there is a substitute for better relationships. The legal framework is pretty clear. A helpful way into the problem would be to find a way to have a set of conversations at a national level about what the right solution for people is—start there and then think about whether the reviews are right in the ways that they are taking place.
Maria Higson: The only thing I would add is that it is tricky when we apply a broadbrush approach of, “Well, it’s going to be about the mayoralty and so on.” In reality, certainly within London, we can describe ourselves as a system of systems. We work with six local authorities across one ICB, now partnering with south-west London as well. It is not as easy as “one approach fits all”. As this Bill goes through implementation, it will be important to be conscious of that to get the best out of those relationships.
Helen Morgan
Q
Councillor Wright: I chair a health and wellbeing board, and everyone comes to those; there are really good conversations and really good reviews of what is happening. I think they are in a really good position. What I worry about is how much influence they will have over NHS wider strategy.
I was at a King’s Fund day, and someone said something that I thought was so true: the Health Bill and the NHS 10-year plan is the NHS 10-year plan. The NHS will be judged on how it achieves what it is meant to achieve. Although, as local authorities, we want to help with prevention and those wider determinants of health, ultimately the responsibility sits with the NHS.
It is about trying to work out how we have better conversations with the NHS, to say, “We have done neighbourhood health for years; this is what we do as local authorities. We look at all these things and we use public health and our adult social care system to create healthy environments. We need you to be on board with us.” I therefore think there is something about the power dynamics regarding health and wellbeing boards and how we address them. But overall, I feel that they are the best way of ensuring community health.
The other thing is about geographies. Health and wellbeing boards might not match neighbourhood health geographies, so there are also some challenges in working out how that will work.
Edward Argar
Q
I was the Minister who created ICBs, and I sat on that Bill Committee with the current Minister for Secondary Care. I am getting a sense of déjà vu—we are on different sides of the Chamber now, but we sat through the Committee stage of the Health and Care Act 2022 together. I deliberately created ICBs to match the geography of upper-tier authorities because health and social care is essentially one system. If one bit does not work, the other bit does not work.
Since then, we have seen significant mergers and larger areas, further removing them from that direct relationship and read-across. Although the good ones do, I fear that a lot of NHS ICBs do not fully reflect the intention behind their creation, which was to see them as a genuinely collaborative exercise with equal voices in the room.
My question is: if we see ever-larger areas or fragmented areas, whether through neighbourhood health plans or mergers and acquisitions among ICBs, how do we maintain genuine local accountability and the relationships that underpin any structure written in law, on a piece of paper or in guidelines?
Notwithstanding what is being done about the health and wellbeing boards’ increasing involvement, do they actually have the teeth they need? In my experience, however good the collaboration, it is within the ICB boardroom that the decisions are actually made. However well things have been discussed beforehand, the ICBs will make their own decisions based on their own priorities. Does the removal of that voice from the ICB strengthen or weaken the ability to see this as one local system and to deliver a genuinely holistic local solution?
Councillor Wright: It will probably weaken it, unless we are given more say in our local health and wellbeing board. Our Thames Valley ICB has one director of public health. Thames Valley ICB I think has nine local authorities, and one chief executive and one director of public health sit on the board, so already the voice on it is quite small. If we lose that voice, where would we have those conversations? That brings me back to the whole thing about health and wellbeing boards needing to be stronger, definitely.
Sally Burlington: We would agree with that. If you take away the voice that is able to speak on behalf of social care, public health and wider public services, it will be harder and an additional job to bring in that consideration. It will be even harder to expect there to be notional teeth in that relationship, so we have concerns about that.
Maria Higson: It is also worth recognising that the delivery of any strategy or plan will require partnership working with local authorities, so whether or not they are in the room, they will be needed for delivery, and the proof is always in the pudding. For me, the partnership is somewhat non-negotiable in order to achieve delivery.
Helen Morgan
Q
Paul Farmer: Listening to patients is an incredibly important part of any health system. It is necessary to make sure that the right mechanisms are in place at both the individual and the systems level. The aspects of the Bill that cover patient experience need careful consideration.
Many people were fans of what Healthwatch delivered, and others were not, but it had a clearly established system and mechanism in place to ensure that patient voices were heard. It is important that clear systems are established to ensure that that patient experience is heard. I have operated around the health system for a number of years, seeing a number of incarnations of patient voice organisations and representation; you really have to think about it from the individual and the whole-system level—from top to bottom.
It is important that the Committee looks at the provisions in the Bill in that context to make sure that where there are good supports, they not only are preserved but can be built on. For example, how do you make sure that patient voice is heard at ICB level, in providers and, in particular, in the new world of neighbourhood health?
Kath Abrahams: Helen, it is a great question. Clearly, the Bill itself, and certainly the single patient record, are never going to replace wonderful, kind and compassionate care where people feel they are listened to. As I have already said, but I will say again, a combination of people not being listened to at all, despite knowing their own health better than anyone else, or having to retell their stories has very challenging consequences. Both leave somebody feeling that nobody really cares or understands them.
I spoke to a supporter of Tommy’s this morning who has had five miscarriages. She was saying it appears to be quite a small thing, but every time she went to see a clinician, they said, “Oh, you’ve had four losses” or “You’ve had three losses.” It was about them not understanding, and her having to correct her records and getting letters through. It is about that sense of not being listened to.
As we develop the Bill, women and birthing people, from a maternity perspective, should have the opportunity to contribute to the way something like the single patient record is shaped. You could have a digitally accurate system that did nothing to reassure women or help them feel looked after or listened to, or you could have a beautiful system where the information was recorded in such a way that it really helped.
Alongside that, clinicians need to continue to receive the right sort of training. They need to have enough time. As Paul said, you need those patient voices involved in overseeing how things are going, and able to contribute and help. The Bill itself, as a mechanism, will not do enough. This is about designing it carefully with patients in mind and, in the case of maternity services, involving women right from the start.
Emily Holzhausen: There are provisions in the Bill that transfer responsibilities from NHS England to the Secretary of State in relation to involving patients, and it is very explicit that this also involves carers. It is very important that explicit Healthwatch duties to involve carers have been transferred into the Bill in relation to integrated care boards. That matters because their portfolio of commissioning different services is increasing, as is that of local authorities.
Those are strategic duties. The reason why that is important, to be very specific about carers, is that they provide £152 billion-worth of care. They outnumber staff three to one. They are experts in care over time and they want to be involved. Of course, what colleagues have said about good practice is critical to look at.
The changes to Healthwatch—others have raised this—do not consider the person’s journey across different services, health and care. There is an independent voice that we do not have, and will not have, in quite the same way. A very small proportion of carers felt that, if they raised a complaint, it would be acted on. That kind of independent voice is actually very important.
As Kath said, those duties are really important, but we need top-to-toe listening to patients. We also need to be explicit about listening to carers, not just on behalf of the patient, but by asking, “What is your experience as a carer of managing this care?” because that is very different. To be honest, I do not think we have the right data flows behind that to collect and understand people’s journeys and improve things. I hope that that is also something that will be looked at.
The Chair
I do not think there are any further questions. I am sorry to have kept you waiting so long for what has been a relatively short period of time, but it was important that all Front Benchers, and any other Members who wished to do so, had the opportunity to question you. Thank you all very much for being so patient and for giving us the benefit of your thoughts and wisdom.
Examination of Witnesses
Dr Michael Cocker, Dr Towhid Imam and Dr Nicola Byrne gave evidence.
Karin Smyth
Q
Dr Byrne: You have to show that you take the risks and people’s concerns seriously, and give a credible analysis of the risks. The key thing is to engage with the risks meaningfully. You should then think about what safeguards you could put into the Bill and future regulations that would actually be effective and be seen as credible, depending on what risks you are trying to address.
I know it is difficult to get into the detail on the primary legislation at this stage, not least because you are trying to sequence things when we do not yet know what the SPR will be, which I appreciate is a further constraint. I would suggest that you consider putting in the Bill one particular safeguard relating to secondary purposes. People have concerns around two main things: confidentiality and their privacy, and secondary uses—who might access their data in future, and why and for what purpose, other than for their direct care. Focusing on that second factor, there are lots of things that might come up that you could do in regulations, but right now, I would suggest that you could build in the safeguard of an independent oversight mechanism for how decisions are made on who gets to access the data and why. In that, you can involve public and layperson representation to bring in that consideration of the risks that matter to the public, alongside the potential benefits.
That could be helpful for two reasons. First, it would be a safeguard against having any unchecked decision-making power on access, whether now or in future. Secondly, it recognises the reality of human systems and organisations. No one expert or small group of experts, however wise or whatever their integrity, can see the whole picture and have a 360° view of what matters to the public. It would be a meaningful way to give the public agency and representation in that decision making—a meaningful exercise of citizen control, if you like. As humans, we are at our best and our decision making is at its safest and strongest when we get a diversity of perspectives involved—as, indeed, the Committee is doing right now. In this context, that should involve patients and the public.
My second point, which is perhaps germane to your wider discussions around the Bill, is that no one organisation can effectively and consistently scrutinise and challenge itself. That goes for questions around data use and access—and wider, as well—in your considerations.
Helen Morgan
Q
Do you have any advice for us on the development of that single patient record and how we make sure that the data is clean and consistent between trusts and different systems, so that the single patient record is actually meaningful? I will ask Dr Cocker first, if he is the technical expert.
Dr Cocker: I would not go that far—my involvement in this whole project is clinical, rather than having any sort of particular technical expertise. I think that is a pertinent issue, however, because, as has been discussed previously, if an error enters the SPR—say, a code is incorrectly followed through into the system—that error can then perpetuate. That is the risk of a single record: a documentation error can ripple out, rather than being contained within the system it originated in.
Does safeguarding that involve putting requirements on the providers of systems to mean that data can be exported in, maybe not a standardised format, but a set of formats that the SPR recognises? It is a technical question that I do not know the answer to, or the possible solutions to, but that would be one of my suggestions. Rather than having hundreds of different systems that all require slightly different solutions in order to be fed into the SPR accurately, there could be some sort of framework setting out requirements on the providers of the software products used by all the different organisations that will feed into the SPR.
Dr Imam: Like Dr Cocker, I am not technical but, from previous pieces of work that I have been involved with, some of it is to do with the data architecture and making sure that you can agree on the fields being used across the various systems. On frailty specifically, we have had the question of, “If we have multiple source systems that have the same field, which one should we be showing within the single patient record?” Our thinking at the moment is that we would show various entries, with who they have been done by and at what time, so that the clinician could decide how to interpret that data.
Helen Morgan
Q
Dr Imam: That is a really important question; it is something that needs to be thought about very carefully when it comes to the implementation. From my previous NHS England experience, where we have had digital innovations implemented in the older age group, or among those who are perhaps traditionally digitally excluded, that has included partnerships to enable people to have the option of someone coming around, and there has been a thought process regarding people who perhaps cannot engage with technology as easily. That could involve people from the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector—for example, we had Age UK in the previous panel. There are lots of good examples of that type of work to ensure that people are not disadvantaged.
Dr Byrne: There is an opportunity here in the context of digital exclusion. In a digital-first NHS, it is really helpful to think continually about what the analogue version of the system is in the event of further cyber incidents and outages of the system. We need to continually build and maintain a resilient system for the times when digital-first is not available. It is an important opportunity to do so if we think about that question of exclusion.
Sojan Joseph
Q
Dr Byrne: Those things are very important, yes. There are some technical solutions. Again, the SPR is an opportunity to look at that across the system, because systems vary greatly in the sophistication of their audit function, for example. Even when there is an audit function, if someone has legitimate access through their role as a doctor or a nurse, it can be difficult to know whether their access in any particular case is legitimate. These are not common occurrences, but it is extremely distressing for patients if their confidentiality is breached for any reason.
It is not simply a matter of technical controls. We need to look at how we build stronger, more effective deterrents across the system by having effective sanctions when incidents do occur. I am keen to look at that and delighted that the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England are, I think, very interested in having that conversation with me. At the moment, it certainly seems that there is a variable response across the system to inappropriate access.
Looking ahead to the SPR, we need to look at that make improvements, so that the public can have faith that, given the harm that it can cause them, it will be taken very seriously if anyone does access their records inappropriately. There are technical, cultural and system aspects to think about here. The SPR is definitely an opportunity to do that, and I am very keen to work with other stakeholders on that.
Karin Smyth
Q
We had a lot of change with the Health and Social Care Act 2012, and the Bill seeks to reverse that in terms of the architecture of the NHS. We absolutely appreciate as a Government that that is very difficult for staff working in it. I appreciate that the operating model and so on is coming forward, but could you say a bit about people’s feelings about the Bill? There will be more clarity to the centre and the role of providers is not changing, while the real change is around commissioning functions and, as you said, commissioning support organisations. We heard earlier that everything is being reorganised. That is not true, but there is a big change in the geography and the functions of ICBs and commissioners, and the Secretary of State’s role will clearly be different. What might people’s approach to that be?
Jon Restell: Clarity, definitely. No one wants to start with the system that came in in 2011 and 2012. Successive Governments started to correct it almost as soon as it was put in place. I think most people would welcome sorting out the clarity around commissioning there, but I do not think that is the same thing as cutting 50% of those organisations’ staff and running costs. You are clarifying the relationship between the centre and ICBs, commissioning and providers. You still need enough managers with enough skills working in the right system to deliver. That is the nub of what we are doing.
For us it is not really about how the Bill will eventually pan out; it is about the cut and how that is being administered by NHS England, the Department and ICBs. The whole system of management is under strain across the health service. You say that providers are not changing but they are also being asked to take out quite significant amounts of management resource. They are merging to form bigger, potentially more centralised units that may be less responsive and less innovative. I think that organisational form is really important, even if the headline of the Bill might tidy up and clarify those relationships, which would be welcome.
A point made by a lot of members, particularly those in ICBs, is that they do not think that the model design—where we started with ICBs, then went to regions and we are eventually going to get to the target operating model for the Department—is being done at a time where you can see the proper connections that need to be made between those organisations. When the system is up and running, how well will it work together to share information, share risk and so on? It feels like the Bill is very high level and the detailed design of the organisations is being undertaken in a completely fragmented way. People see that as potentially requiring the next round of reorganisation. You are a former NHS manager, Minister; you know how often reorganisation is reached for as the solution. I genuinely feel that people have got to the point where enough is enough. That kind of continual change will create more and more problems for doing the things that the public actually want to see: innovation, improvement in the quality of service and happier staff—all the things that managers should be focused on, not the merry-go-round of organisational change.
Helen Morgan
Q
Jon Restell: It certainly needs to be clarified. Whether it needs to be clarified in legislation, I do not know. Leaving aside the fact it took a very long time to get permission to move forward with their consultations, ICBs were thinking about what they needed to do around May or June last year. They will have made a lot of decisions and a lot of staff will have gone already based on the then understanding of what an ICB was supposed to be doing, based on the ICB blueprint that was published by NHS England, so I think that resource has gone. The people who may be connected with the functions that you are talking to have also gone in many cases. The question for me is: if the ICBs are to get more things to do, what is the implication for their running costs? As you know, they are currently capped at about £19 per head. If they get more functions, will they get more resources to do that? Will there need to be other ways of delivering those functions? I do not think that a lot of them can stop doing statutory functions, but that means all the good stuff that we want to see done in health systems—the innovation and the discretionary stuff, much of which is already on hold—will probably be the stuff that goes while they deliver their statutory obligations.
On the providers side, we need urgent clarity about what is going to go to the providers’ responsibility because they are taking out a lot of costs. I do not think that all, or many, providers know that these plans are afoot for them. That will create quite a shock. Again, they are choosing people to go now based on their current understanding of what is needed.
Helen Morgan
Q
Jon Restell: A lot of the concern is to do with the political make-up of mayoralties in the future and what that might mean; if mayors have an ever-growing responsibility and say in the who, what and where of health services, that is probably different from the more representative, advisory function that they have had. That really needs to be thrashed out: is that the new democratic accountability for health services, or does it remain, as now, with the Secretary of State, accountable to Parliament, making provision for healthcare? It feels a little unclear how much decision-making power those new local government voices will have on ICBs. Have people raised that as a concern? Of course they have; it is uncharted.
Helen Morgan
Q
Jon Restell: I cannot comment specifically on the BCF, but a general theme coming out of what our members are telling us in surveys, and in the regular surgeries and meetings that we have with them, is the sense that policy at the moment is trying to get you thinking in terms of your own organisation again, and thinking less about system-wide transformation, innovation or co-ordination. ICBs are getting bigger and providers are getting bigger. It is some of the system stuff, where I think a lot of our members would say the innovation will come in the way different organisations try to solve problems around patients and populations, that they feel is at risk, by the way—not just from the Bill putting things together, but from the stripping out of resource to do anything different.
The Chair
Thank you very much indeed, Mr Restell. Thank you for your patience, thank you for coming and thank you for the evidence you have given. It is greatly appreciated.
Examination of Witness
Sir Andrew Dilnot gave evidence.
Karin Smyth
Q
Sir Andrew Dilnot: The question of the fine details of how legislation should be passed is certainly outside my skillset, so I have to be agnostic about whether the Bill should have addressed the wider questions of social care. On the question of whether we could address social care or not, the answer is definitely yes. After all, several Governments over the last few years have promised to do so. The former Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, when he was the shadow Secretary of State during the election two years ago, promised that he would do it. Such measures have received Royal Assent twice, but they have still not taken place, even though they were promised by the then shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, before he became the Secretary of State.
Yes, we definitely could do it. The amounts of money involved, while of course significant, are small relative to the aggregate costs of the NHS or the uplift in spending on the NHS that, with my full support, we have seen in the last couple of years. I think it is a genuine puzzle and a black mark for all of us, including me, that all these years have gone by and we have done nothing. We have a social care system that is supported by millions of wonderful informal carers and about 1.5 million formal carers, benefiting hundreds of thousands of people, but it is creaking under intolerable strain. It really makes no sense to me, and I really do not know why or how we have managed to go for so long without addressing it. We should do so, not only because it is the right thing to do, but because it is now so bad that it is doing direct, instrumental damage to the NHS.
Helen Morgan
Q
Sir Andrew Dilnot: I think there are two main ways. The first, and perhaps the one that has received most attention, is that there are people who have been hospitalised, perhaps following a fall or infection, who have some mobility challenges and need some care, but who cannot leave hospital because a social care package is not available for them in the community. That is extremely damaging for the NHS, because if we have somebody in a bed that they do not need to be in because they have nowhere else to go, not only are we spending money having them there but we are then not able to use the bed for other activities.
If you have somebody with a delayed transfer of care that means they are stuck in hospital, when they do not need to be, for 20 days, which is not uncommon, very large numbers of elective procedures cannot take place because that bed is being used. That is a dead-weight loss from the system.
There is another thing that I think is at least as important, which is that, because of the lack of good social care, we have people falling, injuring themselves and needing to be hospitalised. We have people sustaining more urinary tract infections than they perhaps would if they had good social care. That is adding an additional burden, which the NHS deals with as well as it can, but all of this just seems unnecessary.
Social care appears to be so invisible to us all. It is easy to blame politicians, and of course it is politicians like you who ultimately have to vote for these things, but the electorate—the whole of our society—have to look at ourselves and ask, “Why can’t we make this challenge, which is so significant, better?” Any of you who have experienced it in your own family know how brutal and difficult it can be.
If I can be allowed one more general point, we should reflect that this is the result of the great triumph of the last 150 years. At the beginning of the last century, across the world, average life expectancy at birth was 32, and now it is 73. In this country, average life expectancy at birth in 1900 was 46, and now it is 81. We have added 35 years to the expectation of life from birth, which is an astonishing transformation. Some consequences come with that, one of which is that there is much more social care to be done, but we should be celebrating this, delighting in it and doing it well, instead of hiding it away and ignoring it for so long that it is doing real damage to the NHS, let alone to the lives of people who need social care.
Helen Morgan
Q
Sir Andrew Dilnot: Yes, it is very odd. It is worth doing the odd thought experiment: imagine that the bit of healthcare that was underfunded and available only subject to a means test, and not free, was for heart disease. We cannot imagine it. The fact that it is dementia and severe arthritis means we have drawn an arbitrary line, and while that line still exists and there is still inadequate funding, even in a means-tested system, we are hamstringing the NHS. Now, that is not the most important problem, which is that we are failing to give people flourishing lives and allow them to live to the full, but it is now so bad that it is actually making it hard for the NHS to work.
Joe Robertson
Q
Sir Andrew Dilnot: That is a very good question, to which I do not have a very immediate answer. Well, I do have an immediate answer, which is that, as far as I can see, it is nothing very substantial.
The single patient record offers some prospects here, and it is terribly important for people receiving social care, which again reflects how much longer we are living. There is much more multiple morbidity now. Many of the people who can and are benefiting from social care will have quite complicated medical experiences and histories. That is the kind of group that could particularly benefit from a single patient record, so that we are not having inappropriate prescription and so on. That is going to help, but it will be a second-order issue.
Let me be very blunt. There are two fundamental challenges facing the social care system. The first is that the means-tested bit of it, where we say, “If you don’t have any resources of your own, the state will look after you,” must be a minimum for any humane society. Essentially every year for at least the last decade, the Treasury has announced emergency funding for that in year. That money then does not get spent well. Honestly, if you are announcing an emergency package every year for 10 years, it is not an emergency package. You should wake up, pay attention, have a mature response and fund that system properly. That is the minimum.
The second is that the only big risk we all face that is not pooled is social care. Our risk of healthcare is pooled by the state, our risk of having a car accident or our house burning down is pooled by private insurance. This is the one risk that is not pooled, and the reason is that the state does not, and the private sector cannot. The reason the private sector cannot is that it is too far ahead for a private insurance market to deal with it, so only the state can pool the risk. If there is any area where the case for social insurance is absolutely clear, it is social care; the case is even more powerful in social care than it is in health.
At the moment we have a situation where often people will feel that the best thing that can happen to them, if they think they might have a social care need, is that they die before too long. It is a bit like standing in the middle of the road with a lorry driving towards you and hoping that the best thing that might happen is that you die before it hits you. That is not a good way to be running any kind of society or country. Those challenges—the lack of adequate funding of the means-tested system and the lack of any risk pooling for the population as a whole—lead directly to the kind of experience that you are describing in the Isle of Wight, where there is simply excess demand and so we are trying to ship people across to the mainland. It is a reflection of the fundamental challenges that we have ignored for 35 years.
Liz Twist
Q
Karin Smyth: I will come to the single patient record because I think it is a gamechanger. We have heard today from some fantastic experts about the work they are doing to identify how it might work and how we might bring patients and the public with us. Again— I do not think we should just bank this—we have not heard anybody object to it.
We did have some evidence highlighting how things have gone wrong in the past. I worked at a primary care trust and clinical commissioning group at the time when care.data was brought forward. We can all point to where it has gone wrong, but nobody has said that this is not the right thing to do. That is good, but there is still a lot of detail to go through.
We need to keep highlighting the benefits. We heard from Peter Prinsley about whether patients have more control—we do think this is about empowering patients. That was what we said in the 10-year plan. The 10-year plan is about empowering patients in this very large system, for which they are now paying £200 billion of their taxes.
We heard from the excellent clinical panel. I defer to clinicians about what they need, both if they are dealing with chronic long-term conditions—we heard that it can sometimes take two and a half hours for an assessment—or if they are working in a busy emergency department. The fact that this is needed will be controversial. There will be a lot of questions about it and a lot of concern about privacy, data, cyber and so on. We need to hold on to those benefits, which are huge in clinical terms and for patients.
Another point we heard, which is also true, is that people think this already happens. People do not understand why, when they turn up at an A&E in Whitby, as we heard, or somewhere else, and then go back to central London, the systems cannot talk to each other. For me, that is about people’s trust and belief in what is a public service. It is a really important part of that.
On abolishing NHS England, I do not think anyone has come to one of my constituency surgeries and said, “Please do this,” or talked about it in great detail, but people do understand. My experience in opposition and so far in government is that MPs are perplexed when they try to intervene on behalf of patients, or to get an answer locally as to why on earth chief executives of ICBs or trusts sometimes do not respond even to a Member of Parliament’s requests for meetings. I find that shocking, but it does happen. How on earth is a patient or somebody struggling through the system expected to get a response? Getting it right is not black and white, and it is not easy to get the balance right between the Secretary of State’s democratic oversight and autonomy at a local level, but the Bill starts the process of doing that, and it is fundamentally important.
Regarding the other provisions, I accept that great work has been done by many people in Healthwatch and its predecessor organisations, and by people working in the patient safety landscape, but again it is not working. I think that those bodies have been allowed to abdicate responsibility for the core role of patient experience and patient voice. That is not their homework; it is their actual job. It is not something that should be outside, and that is why I think this Bill is really important.
Helen Morgan
Q
It would, however, be helpful to reflect on where there is not agreement: on abolishing Healthwatch and HSSIB. You make the very good point that they have not been successful in their current incarnation, but it is important to consider whether that is because they do not have teeth, or because the organisations that they are trying to change are defensive.
We heard earlier about the culture of fear, and I think that we have probably all had people in our surgeries who can describe being frightened to speak up about their own personal care because they feel that they might be victimised for it. I know of clinicians who are frightened to speak up about their own experience in the organisation in which they work, because they feel that they will be punished for it.
In the light of that defensive culture that we know exists in the NHS, and has been highlighted time and again—Mid Staffs; the Shrewsbury and Telford maternity scandal—is the answer not to put the patient voice in the organisations that have a culture problem, but to give those other organisations the teeth they need, or confer a duty on the ICBs or providers to act on recommendations that are given to them, because I think that might be a more helpful way of dealing with this problem?
Karin Smyth: I think that gets to the crux of some of this. We will discuss it a lot in Committee, and I am obviously very open to keep discussing it.
Thank you for your support on the main provisions. I do not take that for granted because, again, they are still controversial. However, as I think I said earlier, you are right, although it is not true everywhere. I am not blaming individuals, because I think that people have been trying to do a difficult job, particularly in getting us through the pandemic and beyond. But they are defensive. That is why Members of Parliament and others do not get responses to their phone calls or their emails. That is a culture that we have to change, and we need to support people to change.
One of the things that we will do is to bring in regulations—that is a manifesto commitment from the Government—but another commitment that we have made outwith the Bill is to develop a leadership college to support in particular clinical and non-clinical managers, who have a very difficult job, in having the right skills for the new world, which patients and the public rightly expect to be more open and more transparent. We have to change this defensive culture.
However, even since Francis, the adding of bodies and the adding of recommendations, and with the bad experience that you have done so much around, something different has to happen. Again, what we heard from Jeremy Hunt was that we needed to put more prescription into the system and yet more requirements to do something without actually making that someone’s central function and job.
Now, it is a source of disagreement. As I have said, I think that there is a philosophical disagreement about the best way forward. It is not an antagonistic disagreement; there are fundamentally different views about what to do. We will continue to have discussions, because I think that ultimately we all want the same thing: a more open, transparent and supportive culture. By the way, nobody wants to work in a defensive culture, so I think people want that outcome.
It is up to us as politicians to support difficult conversations and trade-offs that happen locally. My view has always been that politicians will support difficult conversations and trade-offs—we heard a little bit about reconfigurations earlier—if the system provides good clinical rationale, good data and good evidence, but those bits of it do not always line up.
That is what I would like to get to. I absolutely understand and hear what you say—we will hear more about it and discuss it more, and I have read all the amendments about the best way forward. I think that we all want to get to the same place, but what is the best way to do that, given that we all know that this is really not working and cannot continue?
Helen Morgan
Q
Karin Smyth: I will need to come back to you on the detail of that. In much of the Bill, we are trying not to over-prescribe. However, we need to get foundation trust licensing right. There are some things that are needed in the Bill, which is what we have put in as far possible, and some things that are not. Can I come back to you on that specific point if that does not answer your question?
Jo White
Q
Karin Smyth: That is a good question. When I was in opposition, I spoke frequently about accountability and democracy, as the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham was trying to highlight—I am sure that we will hear some more quotes. I cannot speak for the former Secretary of State, as he is not here, but it did surprise us going into the financial year when, despite very clear direction and expectation about the financial situation that the Government inherited and what needed to happen, we were still faced with a very large projected deficit. The duplication meant that there were a lot of people in the room and clearly things were being handed off and that was not working. Ultimately, this is a question that always lurked. I know that the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston is here, and during the passage of the Bill that became the Health and Care Act 2022, we said to the Department that that might have been the opportunity to act. I think that previous Secretaries of State, as was alluded to earlier, thought that they might do that. Ultimately, the benefits of doing it now outweigh the risks and that is the only way to make the system change. We heard from the King’s Fund about opportunity costs and that the benefits do not outweigh the risks—we do not think that is true.
Oral Answers to Questions
Helen Morgan Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), recognised an appalling culture of medical misogyny and basic, everyday sexism within the NHS. As such, it was extremely disappointing to see that the new women’s health strategy was inferior to the men’s health strategy. The men’s health strategy received 60% more funding for new initiatives and has a named academic network, a formal research mandate aligned with the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and a commitment to publish a one-year accountability report with named, responsible organisations and formal timeframes for every action. It also commits specific funding to trials and pathfinders. As it stands, the women’s health strategy has none of those things. It contains no specific, measurable, time-bound target to reduce the backlogs in endometriosis care, nor does the NHS 10-year plan include endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome or fibroids in its prevention agenda. Can the Secretary of State explain why?
James Murray
The renewed women’s health strategy was a really important achievement under the previous Secretary of State, which updated the approach of this Government and reflected the differences in healthcare that women too often receive. If I might offer a personal reflection, since I have become Secretary of State, one issue that many women have raised with me is that they do not feel the health service adequately listens to them, takes their pain seriously, or gives them the right pathways to get the treatment they need. That must change, and this Government will change it.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
A damning report by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine has estimated that more than 15,800 deaths were associated with long waits in emergency departments in 2025—I think we all agree that figure is an outrage—but the Government still have not published reliable data on long waits and corridor care despite promising to do so by the end of May. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what the Government are trying to hide? Will they adopt Liberal Democrat calls to end corridor care within a year by freeing up beds throughout hospitals and in social care to end the blight of excess deaths in overcrowded accident and emergency departments?
James Murray
Let me be clear that corridor care is unacceptable and undignified and we are committed to eradicating it. We have begun by getting specialist teams to go into the worst offending trusts to ensure that we are getting rid of corridor care in those places. The NHS now has a national definition of corridor care for the first time ever. We will publish data on that shortly, because the first step in getting a grip of the problem is to be open and transparent about its scale.
Health Bill
Helen Morgan ExcerptsMonday 1st June 2026
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Health Bill 2026-27 View all Health Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I start by declaring an interest as a member of the all-party group on patient safety and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, and also by welcoming the new Secretary of State to his place. I very much look forward to working constructively with him during the passage of the Bill.
We all know that our NHS is in desperate need of transformation. Hospitals are in chaos, social care is overloaded and getting a GP appointment is a huge challenge for many. Labour has promised to put patients and communities at the heart of the NHS, but I fear that the Bill does not fulfil that promise. The Government promised to sort out social care, but two years later they are still only part-way through a three-year review. They promised to treat mental health with parity, but although mental health accounts for 20% of the disease burden, its share of NHS budgets is falling to just 8.4%. The Government promised to protect women’s health, but the women’s health strategy published this year was significantly weaker than the men’s health strategy, which received 60% more funding for new research. Healthy life expectancy in the UK is stagnating, and adult social care is under ever more pressure, putting immense stress on the budgets of councils and other local authorities.
The reality in rural North Shropshire is that people struggle to get GP appointments, 12-hour waits in A&E have become normal and finding an NHS dentist is becoming impossible. The social care crisis has left Shropshire council’s finances in a dire situation. A real NHS reform Bill would have changes to social care, general practice and prevention at its heart. Instead, this Bill passes responsibilities around Whitehall, centralising more power with the Secretary of State, while chaos reigns following 50% cuts to ICB budgets.
Early in his term, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) promised that another top-down reorganisation of the NHS was the last thing he wanted to do. Yet the abolition of NHS England is exactly that—focusing on reorganisation at the top, while failing to deliver real improvements for patients and staff. It is true that NHS England has allowed Ministers to shirk responsibility and accountability, but its abolition has been poorly planned, leaving both ICBs and specialised commissioning in chaos. Instead of the Government’s advertised aim of creating a more community-based NHS, the Bill centralises power in Whitehall, giving sweeping Henry VIII-style powers to the Secretary of State. Such powers carry a real risk that political considerations could influence what should be operational decisions about how the NHS provides for patients in future. That is particularly concerning in the current febrile political climate, and the Government must ensure that protections are in place for what may happen in the future.
The Government have made 50% cuts to ICBs, but the Bill gives them new legal responsibilities, different structures and centrally directed spending objectives. It is indicative of a lack of planning that could plunge ICBs into chaos. Meanwhile, the removal of the integrated care partnership and the extension of ICBs to cover multiple local authorities raises unanswered questions about the future of social care planning. In Shropshire, the council already spends around 80% of its budget on social care provision. That has a monumental impact on all services, as constant savings have to be found. Removing the pooling of the better care fund among local authorities and ICBs will discourage integrated working between these bodies on social care. Given existing complications over the sharing of costs and social care provision, the chaos of that reorganisation may only exacerbate confusion.
It is also astounding that the Bill plans to remove the duty of GP representation on ICBs, along with local authorities and NHS trusts. The replacement of council representation with mayors is extremely problematic for the many areas that do not have a mayor, and it removes the local accountability needed to ensure true community representation. Like so much Labour policy, such changes risk benefiting concentrated urban areas, while letting down rural communities such as those I represent.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
My hon. Friend will be aware of clause 4 on reducing health inequalities, which I welcome. As a rural MP, like me, she will also know that access and outcomes are poorer in our communities. Does she agree that the Government should go further and ensure that the Bill explicitly refers to equality of access and outcomes for rural and coastal communities such as North Norfolk?
Helen Morgan
My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I agree with his point.
ICBs are already overstretched and underfunded. In North Shropshire, both Shawbury medical practice and Prescott surgery in Baschurch are in desperate need of expansion. Community infrastructure levy money is available and land is earmarked for a new site, but progress is being held up by the ICB’s inability to agree notional rent. That situation is replicated across the country, and there is no sign of such problems being solved by the Government’s changes.
The plan to abolish Healthwatch will ultimately strip patients of their voice. There has been a statutory independent patient voice in the health and care system for more than 50 years. More than half of patients who experienced poor care in 2024 did not take any action, with many citing fears that giving negative feedback directly to the NHS might affect their ongoing treatment. That is why it is crucial that we have an independent patient voice, rather than leaving the Department or the ICB to mark its own homework.
We need only look at the devastating consequences of the failings uncovered during the Mid Staffordshire scandal, and the long list of maternity failings since, to see how important it is to have Healthwatch exposing challenges in the health service and listening to patient feedback, and how the CQC can fail in that operation. In Shropshire more than 200 babies are thought to have died due to maternity failures; in the reviews that followed, the one thing that came up time and again was that grieving parents were not listened to.
Patients and their families must have a voice. The new system will give no incentive to investigate such issues, which are invisible in the main performance metrics of the NHS. To see the value of Healthwatch, we need only look at the Cabinet Office King’s Speech briefing for the Bill, which refers to a Healthwatch report from May 2025 on missing medical records in order to make the case for the single patient record. I urge the Government to protect both national Healthwatch and local healthwatch organisations, and the independent whistleblowing routes that empower and advocate for patients.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the move to create a single patient record; that part of the Bill could prove to be the most transformational for patient experience and, most importantly, for patient outcomes. People are tired of endless NHS admin and of having to reconfirm their medical histories over and over to different medical professionals. Patient harm has often occurred where clinicians have not had a patient’s full medical history, and different parts of the NHS having access to the same patient information is clearly necessary. However, that must come alongside essential new privacy protections and safeguards for patients, particularly given the understandable concerns surrounding Palantir’s involvement with the federated data platform. We would introduce a health charter to set out guiding principles for data sharing across the NHS, ensuring that patients are in charge of their own data.
The Bill’s references to carers are welcome, as is the Secretary of State’s duty to promote the involvement of carers alongside patients in decision-making around care and commissioning. However, the Bill goes nowhere near tackling the social care crisis and demonstrates a pitiful lack of ambition on one of the biggest challenges we face. As I mentioned, the chaos caused by the restructuring of ICBs will only worsen the challenges that local authorities face in providing care for an increasingly ageing population. We want to transform the NHS so that patients are empowered to live more healthily, for longer and in dignity. The nation’s health is stagnating, with an ever-widening gap in healthy life expectancy between the country’s most and least deprived areas and growing pressure on adult social care.
Fixing social care is fundamental to our vision for the NHS. It is the key to providing a better quality of life for the frail and vulnerable, freeing up hospitals and building independence for an ageing population. It also empowers our constituents to live as independently as possible in their homes and near to their families and communities. We cannot fix the NHS and move care to the community while ignoring social care—yet the Bill ignores it and, as I have outlined, the changes to ICB commissioning will undermine the structures that are supposed to integrate social care with the NHS.
Liberal Democrat plans will give people control, rooting services in communities, listening to patients and making it much easier to see a GP. We will give patients a right to see a GP within seven days, reverse surgery closures and ensure proper personalised management of chronic conditions and frailty, with guaranteed access to a named GP for those patients. We will also protect the mental health investment standard so that we can rebuild community mental health services—something that this Government have failed to do— empowering individuals with poor mental health by intervening early and allowing them to access care in their community. Our maternity rescue plan will ensure that Britain is the safest country in the world in which to have a baby, offering one-to-one midwifery care and empowering women at this most important moment.
This Health Bill could have been a moment for real change. Liberal Democrats are clear about what real modernisation of the NHS would look like. Our vision for a reformed, community-based NHS is one where proper care and restored investment in public health ultimately cut NHS waste and empower people to live healthier and more independent lives. This Bill focuses on shuffling responsibility around Whitehall and gives the Secretary of State the role of chief micromanager. The Government continue to procrastinate over bringing in real change to fix social care, empower patients and save our NHS. In Committee and on Report, Liberal Democrats will use every lever at our disposal to deliver the transformation the NHS so desperately needs.
Maternity Commissioner
Helen Morgan Excerpts(4 months, 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 (North Shropshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for his excellent opening speech. I declare an interest as a member of the all-party groups on patient safety, on baby loss, on maternity and on birth trauma. Campaigners such as Theo Clarke, Louise Thompson and many more mothers and families over the years have been fighting tirelessly for the improvements that we desperately need in our NHS maternity services.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
After lots of campaigning and hard work by NHS staff, Yeovil maternity unit will reopen tomorrow. The lessons learned from the closure of our unit will be included in the current national review into maternity services, but does my hon. Friend agree that the only way recommendations from the review will be properly implemented is with a national maternity commissioner and more consultant midwives?
Helen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention—he was quick off the mark. Yes, I agree that it will be useful to have a maternity commissioner to share those experiences and ensure that people learn from them.
The campaigners, Theo and Louise, have shared their heartbreaking experiences. I commend their work in securing this important debate. Liberal Democrats wish to be their allies. As a previous co-chair of the APPG on baby loss, I am all too familiar with the acute need for better standards of care for mothers across the country. I was also a member of the APPG on birth trauma when it was headed so ably by Theo Clarke, when the need for a maternity commissioner was first discussed and recommended. I am delighted to see the traction that this proposal has had thanks to the campaigning of Theo, Louise and many others.
Last month, the Lib Dems launched our maternity rescue package, which would guarantee high-quality care wherever people live and would make Britain the safest country in the world to have a baby.
Helen Maguire
I have a constituent who had a history of rapid births. She wanted the safety net and support of a home birth team alongside the community team, as recommended, but she was unable to have both teams involved. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is difficult to have confidence in a safe birth if the right medical support simply is not there?
Helen Morgan
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Patient voice—listening to women, understanding their wishes and understanding the risks that their wishes might represent and how to manage them best—is such a critical part of safe maternity care.
In drawing up our rescue package, I have drawn from my experience on the all-party groups on birth trauma, on maternity and on baby loss. There is so much common ground with the cause of the petitioners. We hope that they are buoyed by the fact that someone in Westminster is listening. With our package, a national maternity commissioner would oversee improved standards of care nationally, while a director of midwifery would be appointed in every maternity unit, alongside an extra 300 consultant midwives, to drive clinical excellence in each unit.
Our plans would invest £600 million to tackle these vital staffing requirements, but the NHS could save billions of pounds on maternal clinical negligence claims, which cost more than £1.3 billion in 2024 alone. Those huge clinical negligence costs have consistently been reflected in the findings of local and national reviews, but most importantly, the package would save babies’ lives and spare families the trauma of injury or worse happening to mum and baby at what should be the most joyous time of their life.
Liberal Democrats welcome the recent interim review by Baroness Amos. The findings of the review were devastating, showing that too many mothers are not receiving the level of care that they need, with devastating consequences for women, babies and their families. But this is the latest in a string of national and local reviews and inquiries, which have produced more than 700 recommendations. Those reviews, with their myriad but similar recommendations, illustrate why we need a maternity commissioner—someone who can bring together the learnings from past failings, along with the best practice from around the country, and oversee a step change in training and culture that will enable all the health professionals in maternity to work as effective teams and give women the personalised and high-quality care that is needed.
People across the country were truly shocked by the findings of Donna Ockenden’s review of the Shrewsbury and Telford hospital trust, which serves my constituents. The review found that the deaths of more than 200 babies could have been prevented. Over the years, I have heard—sometimes as a friend, sometimes as an MP—from traumatised and grieving parents, each with their own experience of birth trauma, injury to their baby or worse. They have told me how important it is to them that the reports and inquiries spark the vital change that is needed, and do not lead only to warm words from politicians followed by decades of gathering dust on the shelves of the Department of Health.
Since the Ockenden review, the Shrewsbury and Telford hospital trust has accepted and taken steps to implement almost all the immediate and essential actions that Donna Ockenden recommended. While that process has not been perfect, it has clearly been conducted with appropriate focus. The latest CQC rating for maternity at SATH is good, showing that with the right recommendations and leadership, positive change can happen. The team at SATH should be commended for that achievement. They demonstrate the value of focusing on the steps needed to get care right.
As we found out subsequently, however, unsafe maternity care was not unique to Shropshire, or indeed to Morecambe, East Kent or any of the other places about which we have heard such awful stories. We know that women all over the country are still not receiving the care they need. None of the services that the Care Quality Commission inspected in its national review was rated outstanding. Some 65% of maternity units were unsafe for women to give birth in. It is a scandal that mothers in this country have to settle for potentially dangerous levels of care at what should be one of the happiest moments in their life.
The introduction of a maternity commissioner is not a quick fix, but a commissioner would provide the leadership required for serious change to the way women and staff on maternity wards are listened to. That commissioner could look at disparities in maternity care and the poorer outcomes that we see for black and Asian women and those in deprived communities, and drive the change needed to make having a baby safe, no matter what your background is. Other improvements are needed, too.
Our proposals are to guarantee specialist doctors on every maternity unit 24/7, and one-to-one midwifery care for every woman during labour to respond to the desperate need for safe staffing highlighted in each of the reviews and in the inquiries by the all-party groups that deal with maternity care. Previous research found that 73% of maternity units in England do not have a consultant present at night, despite most births taking place outside working hours. Many negligence claims for poor maternity care are linked to failings in care outside regular working hours.
The proposals come alongside a new capital investment programme to fix crumbling maternity units in need of urgent repair and to deliver new dedicated bereavement suites. We would start with the 7% of maternity units that are at risk of imminent breakdown, and would restore the 42% of units in need of major repairs. These crucial steps come alongside many other proposals to improve staff training, to invest in bereavement support, neonatal specialists and pre-conception services and to eliminate maternal health disparities.
It is really, really, really important to say that the vast majority of babies are delivered safely, even when things do not go to plan. But we should not dismiss those instances where they go wrong, and we should be tireless about making the improvements required. I congratulate the campaigners on the success of the petition so far. I continue to urge the Government to demonstrate that recommendations will be turned into actions, and that the cries for help from countless mothers and families will be listened to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Helen Morgan Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Baroness Amos’s recent review found that England’s maternity system was not working: poor quality care covered up, systemic issues around racism and even collapsing ceilings in maternity units. Poor maternity care has not only left many families devastated at a time that should have been joyful for them, as too many of my constituents know; it also costs the NHS £1.3 billion every year in medical negligence payments. Liberal Democrats are calling for a consultant to be present on every maternity unit 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and for guaranteed one-to-one midwifery care for every woman who is in labour as part of a £600 million-a-year maternity rescue package. Does the Secretary of State agree that that would be money very well spent, preventing families from experiencing the heartbreak of an injury or even worse to their new baby or mum, and saving the taxpayer billions every year?
Wes Streeting
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for raising this issue. I do not want to pre-empt the Amos investigation. I think there is an issue with the presence of consultants and other staff who are meant to be on-call and available, and we need to address that. The purpose of the investigation is to produce a strong evidence base and then a clear set of actions to provide much-needed clarity in an area that has been drowning in recommendations and needs clear direction. I would be surprised if the issue of appropriate staffing were not mentioned by Baroness Amos.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Wherever I go in North Shropshire, constituents tell me that access to a GP only gets worse when new homes are built, and they are right. Across the country, there are billions of pounds in unspent community infrastructure levies for new surgeries, and the average number of families that a GP serves has gone up by 917 since 2015. Will the Minister support Liberal Democrat calls for CIL to be used to support the early running costs of new GP practices, or to expand existing ones, as soon as people move into new housing, so that GP access really does come first when housing developments happen?
Stephen Kinnock
There is absolutely an issue with developers not delivering what they say they are going to deliver either through section 106 or through CIL. We are working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to address this issue. I would be more than happy to hear more about the hon. Lady’s specific proposal. We want to work pragmatically and constructively to resolve this issue.
Resident Doctors: Industrial Action
Helen Morgan Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
People across the country will be extremely concerned about the prospect of further strikes, having faced so much disruption already in recent years. It is important to recognise that the strike is a symptom of an NHS still coming to terms with the damage caused by the previous Conservative Government. Doctors are burnt out from working in high-pressure environments under poor conditions—often trying to save lives on corridors with no space or privacy. However, we all know how difficult public finances are, and that is now being compounded by Donald Trump’s reckless war in the middle east. Therefore, a further 26% pay rise is not affordable or realistic at the moment, and it is time the BMA recognised that.
There is much more the Government could be doing to support both staff and patients. The BMA has a mandate to strike until August, yet patients struggle to get GP appointments and suffer months of pain while stuck on waiting lists. How will the Secretary of State stop the situation dragging on throughout the year and causing yet more harm to patients?
We must also show staff and patients that things will get better. Lib Dem plans to recruit and retain more GPs, offer one-to-one midwife care and fix the social care crisis would offer the NHS the hope that is needed by easing pressure on staff and patients. Will the Secretary of State consider fixing crumbling hospitals as a priority, to give staff and patients the working conditions and dignity that they need and deserve?
At Shropshire’s major hospitals, it is common to see ambulances queuing up outside, unable to offload their patients, while staff inside are struggling to cope with patients in corridors. Will the Secretary of State commit to ending the misery of corridor care by the end of this Parliament? I welcome his intention to build additional training places, but will he outline a timetable for publication of the workforce plan, because that is critical for the future of our NHS?
Wes Streeting
I thank the Liberal Democrats for their support. I really hope that resident doctors appreciate that this is a party with a spokesperson who supports the NHS and wants to see it improving, but, even from the vantage point of opposition, is clear that what the BMA is demanding is unaffordable. We know from experience that it is easier to make promises in opposition than to have to deliver them in government, so when an Opposition party is also saying that the demands are unaffordable, resident doctors should accept that. [Interruption.] Thank you for the noises off from the Conservative Front Bench.
I reassure the Liberal Democrats that we are committed to ending corridor care by the end of the Parliament. I am really impressed by some of the progress that we have seen recently in some hospitals: Queen’s hospital in Romford has shown it can be done and other hospitals are showing real progress. We are determined to put the foot down on the accelerator. We will absolutely see capital investment to improve the NHS estate. We have 2,000 more GPs now than when we came into office—the highest number of GPs on record, in fact—although there is more to do.
Let me give this commitment to the “Agenda for Change” workforce. So much of the oxygen and airtime has been consumed by doctors, but 1.5 million people work in the NHS, many of whom will never be paid as much as the lowest paid doctor. They have been overlooked for too long, and we are determined, through the negotiations and discussions that we are having with “Agenda for Change” unions, to put that right. That will be my focus for the future of the workforce.
Endometriosis Services
Helen Morgan Excerpts(5 months, 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 (North Shropshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) for securing this debate—the opportunity to raise the importance of this debilitating condition with the Minister today is extremely welcome. I welcome her to her place; I must say that the contributions today have all been excellent, and she has been given a significant to-do list, which I am sure she is equal to.
Endometriosis is estimated to affect 10% of women. It is a condition that brings chronic pain and worsening physical health and can pose a threat to fertility. It devastates lives and leaves many women excluded from education and employment.
Thanks to the tireless campaigning of groups such as Endometriosis UK, and of the women in the Public Gallery today—whom I welcome—many of us are increasingly aware of the condition. Despite those efforts, however, the average diagnosis time has steadily increased since 2020. As we have heard, it now takes an astounding nine years and four months on average for women just to get a diagnosis. That is unacceptable.
That shocking amount of time to get recognition of the condition is indicative of the wider issue of institutional misogyny and the dismissal of women’s pain. On average, endometriosis patients also wait three and a half years from first noticing symptoms before seeking medical help, largely due to the normalisation of severe period pain.
Awareness of endometriosis among the public and healthcare professionals is still too low. Some 82% of patients have reported being told by their healthcare practitioners, prior to diagnosis, that they were making a fuss, or that their symptoms were normal. That is a recurring theme in women’s health. When I was involved in the all-party parliamentary group on birth trauma in the previous Parliament, we heard appalling testimony from women who had suffered serious injury giving birth only to be told, when they went to their GP afterwards, “What do you expect? You have just had a baby.” Many of them were in fact seriously injured. That institutionalised acceptance that women should suffer is something we need to address. I hope the Government are going to take that seriously—I am sure they are.
The nationwide tales are echoed by cases that I have heard from my own constituents. Lucy first got in touch with me in 2024, having already experienced years of debilitating pain that was dismissed and left undiagnosed. It was eventually confirmed to be endometriosis, but she struggled to get appropriate support on the NHS. She has told me of the grave impact that the pain has had on her quality of life, including missing out on education. Following an exhausting journey of many healthcare appointments, she is still suffering and is instead learning to manage the pain herself—yet, inspiringly, although she still lives with debilitating problems, she has now returned to the university studies that were broken off six years ago due to the pain.
I want to mention the different but related condition of polycystic ovary syndrome. Another constituent, Bethany, was left waiting months for an appointment after being diagnosed with polycystic ovary syndrome at 18. Following scores of appointment cancellations and administrative errors, Bethany decided to take action herself, setting up the Cysters Circle, a group that regularly meets around the constituency to support women and girls with conditions such as endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome.
I commend the hard work and fortitude of women such as Bethany and Lucy in campaigning for awareness of these conditions and providing the space where women can support each other—but they have to do so because of the barriers and woeful lack of support they experienced from the healthcare system. We must do more to raise awareness of these conditions and transform the quality of women’s healthcare across the country.
The failure of endometriosis diagnoses in primary care settings is adding even more pressure to our hospitals and forcing women to suffer for longer than necessary. Women often have to present multiple times to NHS services before getting the help they need. Prior to diagnosis, more than half of women are forced to go to A&E due to their symptoms.
As well as investing in tackling NHS waiting times for gynaecological services, we urge the Government to implement public health messaging, awareness campaigns and greater training for primary healthcare professionals. They should work with regulators and professional bodies to strengthen expectations on endometriosis education and awareness. Existing NICE guidelines must be fully implemented to establish clear, standardised referral pathways when women arrive at their GP appointment.
The experience of women trying to access endometriosis services reflects how our NHS suffered under the Conservatives, leading to some appalling outcomes in women’s health. Most maternity units are not deemed sufficiently safe; thousands of women have suffered a miscarriage without referral to the appropriate NHS services; waits for breast, ovarian and other genealogical cancers are unacceptably high; and, as we have seen with endometriosis, millions of women continue to suffer in appalling pain as they languish on waiting lists.
It is alarming that, in the face of those issues, the Government have discarded the target of having a women’s health hub in every part of the country. That decision undermines the effectiveness of the women’s health strategy. I hope the Minister will recommit to implementing those health hubs. Women’s health services are often too fragmented and difficult to access; removing the requirement for those hubs could lead to closures that would hurt access for women in need of care, and shows the wrong priorities.
The Liberal Democrats would give everyone the right to see a GP within seven days, including access to a named GP for patients with long-term conditions to ensure continuity of care. That would ensure that women suffering from long-term gynaecological conditions were listened to and got the support that they need.
The normalisation of women’s pain must stop. We must ensure that our health system fully supports those suffering with long-term gynaecological conditions so that women such as Lucy and Bethany, and the women in the Public Gallery today, are not left to battle through pain alone.
Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial
Helen Morgan Excerpts(5 months, 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 (North Shropshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for his opening speech, as well as the compassionate and balanced nature with which he introduced the debate.
Liberal Democrats have been arguing for many years that improved access to better specialist healthcare services for children and young people struggling with their gender identity is extremely important. These young people have been badly let down by low care standards, extremely long waiting lists and an unacceptably toxic public debate.
Up front, I want to be clear that my party’s position is that any treatment and the approval of a trial must always be led by clinical, expert evidence, and not by personal belief, however sincerely that belief is held. For these reasons, we welcomed and continue to welcome the call in the Cass review for a clinical trial.
Following the closure of the GIDS clinic, which was rated inadequate by the Care Quality Commission, it is clear that change is needed. Under the previous system, more than 5,000 young people were stuck on a waiting list for a single clinic, each waiting an average of three years for just their first appointment.
We have consistently campaigned for real action to tackle the shocking waiting times across the NHS, whether for cancer patients or mental health referrals, and the importance of cutting these wait times is equally pressing for gender identity services. We have been pressing for new services with more specialist clinicians who can provide children and young people with the appropriate and high-quality care that they need. Liberal Democrats welcome the NHS’s move to create new regional centres to offer this healthcare to the young people who need it. However, as far as I am aware, only two have opened so far—one in London and one in the north-west. We would like confirmation of when more centres will open.
Young people who are stuck on these waiting lists will still have to wait a very long time. At such a distressing point in their lives, the three-year average wait for someone to see a specialist must feel like an eternity—for them and their family. The Government must show true urgency in opening these services to prevent more children being further denied the care that they need.
It is right that treatment should first be based on talking therapies. That gives those receiving treatment and their families the time, space and clarity to make informed decisions about their future. However, young people must be able to start talking therapy when they need it as a matter of urgency, not after languishing for years on waiting lists.
Following the Cass review, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announced the launch of an NHS clinical trial to investigate the impact of puberty blockers, alongside an indefinite ban on puberty blockers as treatment for gender dysphoria or gender incongruence. That trial has now been paused. It is crucial that decisions on treatment are made by expert clinicians and based on the best possible evidence, but we need the NHS to build up that evidence base effectively and safely.
In that vein, we are supportive of the Secretary of State’s decision to pause the trial while the concerns raised by the MHRA are thoroughly assessed. I am calling on the Government to publish how the MHRA arrived at its decision to pause the trial, so there can be confidence that the decision was led by clinical evidence. As with any medical treatment, it is crucial that decisions are led by expert clinicians following the evidence on safety and effectiveness. Research should also take into account the personal experiences of those who have previously used these services.
This debate should not be an ideological one; it is a debate about the quality of healthcare we provide to people who are in desperate need. All trans and non-binary people should be able to access the high-quality healthcare they deserve. The Liberal Democrats call on the Government to make tackling the unacceptable waiting times a priority. To take the urgent action that is needed, the Government must commit to NHS trials and adult services for trans and non-binary people that will expand the timely provision of appropriate specialist healthcare.
The Government must ensure trans people can access high-quality healthcare in the manner we expect for all patients. Medical decisions should be made by patients and doctors together and informed by the best possible evidence. The Government must support research through effective and safe methods using international best practice to improve our evidence on the safety and efficacy of potential treatments.
One thing is certain: in a debate where the wellbeing of many young people is at risk, decisions should not be led by ideology. We cannot let a toxic public debate threaten the wellbeing of vulnerable individuals. The Government must prioritise clinical evidence and put the interests of patients at the heart of the decision-making process, as we do in all areas of healthcare.
Health and Social Care
Helen Morgan Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Morgan
The Minister is probably about to draw his remarks to a close, but can I press him again on the mental health investment standard, which should ensure that the proportion of NHS spending on mental health goes up every year? In the last year for which we have numbers, it had gone up as a proportion of ICB spend, but had fallen as a proportion of overall NHS spend. Can the Minister commit that the Department will not be abandoning that standard, and that we will see mental health spending go up each year?
Dr Ahmed
I can certainly commit to the hon. Lady that mental health spending in real terms will go up every single year. It went up by £688 million in real terms this year.
[Official Report, 26 February 2026; Vol. 781, c. 239WH.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed):