partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,868 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Pippa Heylings

   Climate Change: Weather Events

   We are in the third heat wave this year and, as we have heard, we are in the climate emergency now. The Climate Change Committee’s report, “A Well-Adapted UK”, has said that we are woefully unprepared across all sectors to face 2°C of warming, let alone more. Communities like mine in South Cambridgeshire deserve to hear to the facts and the evidence, and they are holding people’s emergency briefings. I have written a joint letter with the leader of the Liberal Democrats to ask: does the Secretary of State support the televising of a national emergency briefing, so that all households know what we need to do to strengthen our food security, nature, health, energy and national security?

   Hansard source
2. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Pippa Heylings

   Topical Questions

   When it comes to local and community energy, we welcome the investment by Great British Energy, and the local power plan. However, the Liberal Democrats pushed to get community energy in the Great British Energy Act 2025, because we knew that there were hurdles beyond investment, as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), who is on the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee. We have been waiting for over a year to hear about this. The Minister has said that the Government are creating the much-awaited energy independence Bill, which will include changes to local energy trading, so that there is a right to sell supply locally. However, I would like to know about the community energy export guarantee, power purchase agreements for local authorities—

   Hansard source
3. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Will Forster

   Human Rights in Kashmir

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) for securing the debate. It is clear where I stand on this issue, because I co-signed his letter late last month. Human rights abuses in Kashmir matter deeply to my constituents in Woking. More than half of my local Asian population have ancestry from and links with Kashmir. It is a fundamental issue that is raised with me regularly, and particularly over the last month. I am here to represent them, and to ensure that the British Government show some leadership and ensure that civil liberties are returned to normal in Kashmir. The Liberal Democrats and I condemn the reports of the excessive and unlawful use of force against the people in Kashmir. For the last two years, the Government there have arrested, banned and clashed with people protesting over flour and electricity costs. In the last month, things have got worse still. These actions have been condemned by human rights groups such as Amnesty International, which has argued that the state has been weaponising anti-terror laws as a legal excuse to crush peaceful protest. Peaceful protesters aspiring for equal rights should never be criminalised.

   Hansard source
4. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Will Forster

   Human Rights in Kashmir

   I completely agree. Britain has a long history in the region. I believe we can be a force for good—for a change—in that region, to bring about peace. I will talk about that later. Dictatorships, not democracies, trigger communications blackouts when they want to hide what is happening. I am afraid that is what is currently happening in Kashmir. The removal of access to the internet and phone networks is a tool of oppression. We have seen that in Iran; we do not want to see it in Kashmir. The communications blackout demonstrates just how dire the situation has become. I believe, given the reports, that 200 people have been killed in the last month but, because of the communications blackout, we just do not know. British Kashmiris, and UK residents with connections there, have been cut off from contacting their loved ones, including British citizens currently in the region. Although I want to focus on the immediate issues in Kashmir, it is fair to say that a long-term and stable resolution in Kashmir can be achieved only by putting human rights, democratic aspirations and the self-determination of the Kashmiri people at the centre of our foreign policy. We need a lasting peace, and we can achieve that only with the explicit consent of the Kashmiri people. For decades, British Governments have hidden behind the convenient diplomatic fiction that Kashmir is strictly a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan. The Liberal Democrats and I urge the Government to remember their historic and moral responsibilities as the co-author of United Nations Security Council resolution 47. The UK must champion the democratic mechanism of a free, fair and impartial referendum, as originally mandated under international law. The Liberal Democrats call on the Government to reject the unilateral changes to Kashmir’s status. We believe that any constitutional reform or future governance structure must be led by the democratic aspirations of Kashmiri people, and agreed by them, and that their human rights need to be front and centre. Let me come back to the matter at hand and the concerns about Kashmir right now. I have some questions for the Minister. How often have the British Government raised issues in Kashmir with the Pakistan Government and the high commission? When was the last time, and when are they going to do so again? When was the last time our Prime Minister spoke to the Government in Pakistan? Finally, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that British nationals in the region, and British citizens with families there, are able to access support and maintain contact with loved ones?

   Hansard source
5. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Will Forster

   Human Rights in Kashmir

   The Government have had the policy for 50 years, as the Minister has outlined, but it has not worked. Does she think it is time to change course?

   Hansard source
6. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Joshua Reynolds

   Topical Questions

   Business energy costs are a significant barrier, holding British business back from being competitive on the world stage. Has the Secretary of State done any analysis of the potential GDP growth from reducing business energy costs and getting British businesses moving?

   Hansard source
7. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Angus MacDonald

   Topical Questions

   Will the Minister acknowledge that the highlands and islands produce a disproportionately large amount of our renewable energy? Will he also acknowledge that last week’s Ofgem go-ahead for three pumped storage schemes will produce almost no jobs, no legacy housing and no community benefits, along with minimal, if any, advantage to the highlands of Scotland?

   Hansard source
8. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Monica Harding

   UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing this debate, because we rarely talk about this subject in the Chamber. The Government do not seem to want to talk about aid and development very much, but they must and they should, because our world is on fire, because cuts to development make it worse and because it is within the British national interest to support it. I am sure that, if my party had cut the aid budget that far, I would not want to talk about it either. The deplorable aid cuts, from a proud 0.7% to 0.3% —the biggest cuts to aid this century, amounting to a 50% cut in bilateral aid to Africa alone—are in danger of stripping the UK of much of its proud reputation on the global stage. I must note at this point that, despite continual prompting from members of the International Development Committee, of which I am one, the Government are still yet to publish their country allocations of aid, which makes it very difficult to scrutinise the damage. However, we do know, and the Government know, that these cuts will cost lives. Combined with those caused by the collapse of USAID—the United States Agency for International Development—the lives lost will likely be in their millions. That includes in countries where we have a legacy, such as Afghanistan, where 45% of the population needs humanitarian assistance and which is no longer prioritised within the UK’s aid budget. In 2022, we contributed $488 million; today, it is $32 million. We have also heard how global aid cuts have caused such damage to health systems in the DRC that the response to tackling the Ebola crisis has been made significantly harder. I know the personal commitment of many Members in this room, and of the Minister, but this is where we are: the party of DFID and Make Poverty History has become a Government of aid cuts so extreme that they outstrip the Trump Administration in their brutality. A Labour Government who followed Donald Trump in cutting aid have outdone him—a Labour Government whose legacy in development, just two years into their Administration, is already far worse than the Conservatives’. Yet once there was consensus. I agree with the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) on almost everything he said but particularly on leadership. It comes to a pretty pass when a Conservative Member urges Labour Members to rise up and be radical. He said that he had the best job in the world as Development Minister. The British did the best job in the world in development. There was consensus. Building on the work of the previous Labour Government, the coalition Government delivered the commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on development, which had been a Liberal Democrat manifesto promise since the 1970s. In coalition, we reached the UN aid target and NATO’s defence spending target at the same time, proving that investment in development and defence are not mutually exclusive; in fact, as we have heard, they are complementary. As I and others have said, defence, diplomacy and development support each other and strengthen any coherent foreign policy. We have heard from some of the UK’s most senior former military chiefs that reducing development capacity today stores up greater instability, greater cost and greater risk for tomorrow. That means more defence spend down the line, and look how we are scrabbling about for it now. Development brings benefits to Britain. It is strategic, and mutually beneficial because investing in peacebuilding, prosperity and stability keeps us safe here too. Take guarding against another pandemic. Covid was not so long ago, and we are told with certainty that there will be another one. Given all the pandemic’s death, its destruction of economies and its long tail of social and mental health challenges, I am sure that many hon. Friends will share my dismay at the decision by the Government to discontinue funding the Pandemic Fund. What about climate change? When harvests fail through drought or flooding, malnutrition sets in, communities fight for pasture and people migrate. In May, the Government broke their pledge on the Green Climate Fund by announcing a cut of 50%, while their new international climate finance target of over £6 billion of public money, which I note is committed over three rather than five years, also seems to be a reduction.

   Hansard source
9. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Monica Harding

   UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends

   The hon. Member is 100% right, and I will come to that slightly later in my speech. We hear a lot from the Government about migration. Each 1% increase in food insecurity in a population compels 1.9% more people to migrate. They are escaping war, too. The largest single group of unaccompanied minors in small boats has been from Sudan, the world’s greatest humanitarian disaster, in the midst of a brutal civil war. But this is just the tip. The wider Sahel is a tinderbox. Millions are expected to fall into crisis or, worse, into hunger in this lean season, as armed violence escalates across the region. Thousands of schools are closed due to insecurity, health systems are buckling under the weight of need, and still we cut. Do the Government understand the reality of these cuts at this inflection point, when the world is on fire? Do we not need some honesty with the public on where ODA is actually spent? In 2025, £2.4 billion was spent on in-donor refugee costs, in comparison with £1.3 billion spent on humanitarian assistance. Lifesaving ODA is being spent on propping up a broken asylum system, with less and less spent on the causes that brought those people here in the first place. We can assume that the cuts came first and the strategy second, given that the cuts announced in February 2025 seemed to take everyone, including the then Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), by surprise. Since then, the approach has often seemed confused and incoherent. The IDC has asked for clarity on the Government’s theory of change to reach their shared objective of poverty alleviation. Of course, upheaval like this can create opportunity and wake us up from our stupor to make the case for aid outside of our own echo chamber, and to re-imagine our aid and development spend. But tearing down the system before the plan is in place is never a good idea. The answer for many things that have failed to be funded is that they will be “mainstreamed”, which is a euphemism for “disappeared”. British aid and development worked. Millions of children vaccinated and educated; safe births; clean water and sanitation; lives saved—all achieved by well under 1% of this country’s GNI, and it gave the UK influence and leverage on the world stage, a seat at the table in global fora and friends in trade and diplomacy. Why not celebrate that? Instead, the Minister for Development suggested: “The days of viewing the UK Government as a global charity are over”. Does the Minister before us today really believe that, or does he hope, like us, that with a change in leadership and a new Prime Minister, a focus on the long term will come back, with a realisation that doing the work now will make Britain safer and more powerful down the line? Does he not agree that framing the debate to pitch defence against development is wrong, and that, as the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) said when she resigned as Development Minister, “it will be impossible to raise the substantial resources needed” to fully fund our defence capability “just through tactical cuts to public spending”? And so it is: there is another hole—a £4.7 billion hole—in the defence budget, despite the aid cuts that were supposedly meant to fill it. Is it not right that the new Prime Minister must lay out the urgency of the debate on funding our defence and our development spend, and the benefits that it can bring to Britain? Great damage has been done by our retreat from aid to the reputation of our country and our shrinking influence. While we retreat, others whose values may not match ours are making a play for Africa. With rapid population growth and an emerging labour force, Africa will become one of the world’s biggest markets, and the Government should place themselves in the best position to take advantage of that. The Government have a chance now, with a new leader in place, to take the long-term strategic view, repair the damage, return to the world stage and remember their moral responsibility and the strategic benefit to Britain. It is not too late, but it is nearly.

   Hansard source
10. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mike Martin

    Water Supply Resilience in Tunbridge Wells

    I rise to present this petition regarding water supply resilience in Tunbridge Wells. This is further to a local petition on the same matter started by the fantastic students at St John’s primary school, which has gathered 610 signatures—children’s signatures—and has since been shared with 15 other local primary schools. Tunbridge Wells recently experienced two severe water outages due to failures in South East Water’s network. The outages caused significant hardship and forced 23 schools to close over many days, which deprived children of valuable learning time. The petitioners request “that the House of Commons urges the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to require South East Water to improve the resilience of its network in Tunbridge Wells, so that families and pupils do not again face a prolonged period without access to clean running water.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of Tunbridge Wells in Kent, Declares that a local petition by pupils of sixteen primary schools calling on the Government to require South East Water to improve their water network in Tunbridge Wells has generated a lot of interest; notes that Tunbridge Wells recently experienced two severe water outages as a result of failures in South East Water’s network; further declares that these outages caused significant hardship and that 23 schools were forced to close, depriving children of valuable learning time; and further declares that access to clean running water is a basic necessity, and that South East Water must take urgent action to improve the resilience of its network to prevent such failures from recurring. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to require South East Water to improve the resilience of its network in Tunbridge Wells, so that families and pupils do not again face prolonged periods without access to clean running water. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003216]

    Hansard source
11. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·John Milne

    Essential Energy Guarantee

    10. Whether he has made an assessment of the potential merits of introducing an essential energy guarantee.

    Hansard source
12. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·John Milne

    Essential Energy Guarantee

    The Liberal Democrat essential energy plan is an immediate way to address electricity affordability, but in the long term the solution must lie in more renewables, as I think the Secretary of State agrees. However, the Government’s failure to make the case effectively is now becoming a serious problem in itself. Does the Minister accept that promising to cut energy bills by £300 was a mistake, when the price was bound to be affected by many other factors, and does he also accept that another manifesto pledge, Great British Energy, is currently just a logo in search of a purpose?

    Hansard source
13. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Jess Brown-Fuller

    Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) Order 2026

    To follow on from the point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, the ACMD recommends that orphines should be classed as class A, whereas under a temporary class drug order, they can be placed only within class B boundaries. My understanding is that the Minister has accepted the recommendation to bring them into line with class A. Does she recognise that it is important to introduce the permanent controls as quickly as possible?

    Hansard source
14. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Jess Brown-Fuller

    Early Release of Prisoners

    Everybody would appreciate some clarity that when we are talking about the letters, those are specifically the letters informing victims that the Sentencing Act 2026 will affect when their perpetrators will be released. The issue that has been raised by many victims is that these are blanket letters; they are not personalised. They do not say which perpetrator. In the letter, it says that “some” will be managed in the community. These victims have been so failed by our justice system at every step that when they receive such a letter, they assume that it means their perpetrator will not be managed in the community. Can the Minister please reflect on the impersonal letter that is sent, sometimes by email, to inform victims that what they thought was true is no longer true, and that their perpetrator may be out sooner than they had expected?

    Hansard source
15. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Jess Brown-Fuller

    Early Release of Prisoners

    May I first pay tribute to every victim and survivor of some of the most horrific and vile crimes imaginable, including those who join us in the Gallery today? They have waived their right to anonymity and raised their voices so that others do not have to. They are calling for greater protections for victims, who feel consistently failed by the justice system as it stands, and they represent a much larger and often voiceless part of our society, including those who never came forward, and those who did come forward but did not receive justice at the end of it. These are the people who spend their lives scanning crowds and looking around street corners, fearful that they will bump into their perpetrator, or perpetrators, again, and I commend them for their bravery and determination to ensure that nobody else suffers in the way that they have done. The abuse that they have experienced at the hands of cruel, calculating monsters never leaves them, and I share their anger and frustration that after countless reviews, reports and inquiries, spanning many years and many Governments, the system continues to fail them and recommendations remain unimplemented. I think we all agree that, in a properly functioning justice system, as a matter of principle, no victim should have to endure being told that their perpetrator is being released earlier than expected for any offence. When a sentence is handed down, victims deserve the certainty of knowing where they stand and how long their perpetrator will remain behind bars. We have heard just today from victims who were reassured by the judges in their cases that their perpetrators would serve a certain length of time—only to then receive this vague letter, which we have been talking about, telling them that that may no longer be the case. That does not happen in any other element of our justice system. When a Government introduce a new sentence—a new crime—it is not retrospective. The Government have come forward with a positive change by upping the sentence in relation to women who are killed in the home, which currently carries a lower sentence than offences relating to those who are killed outside of the home. That is not retrospective, but the campaigners for the change said that they understand that the justice system is not retrospective. The same should apply to sentencing after the fact. Victims are understandably angry about the format of the letters they received, which were not personalised and provided no specific information about their cases. The letters did not provide information about when their perpetrators would be released, and also said, as I mentioned to the Minister, that some of those released would be managed in the community. That will naturally lead many to fear the worst—that their perpetrators will be free to roam without restriction. Why would they not think that, when they have been failed so many times by the system? The vagueness and ambiguity need looking at. I hope that the Minister will take that away, so that the MOJ’s mass communications are worded in a way that does not feel so impersonal. It is worth saying, and has been said many times before, that the justice system inherited by this Government left victims and society more broadly in grave peril. It risked the state convicting criminals of serious offences but having no space in which to imprison them. A capacity crisis in our prisons would also have left victims and survivors fearful, and it clearly needed to be addressed. Throughout the passage of the Sentencing Act, we were concerned about the implications for other parts of the justice system, which were already at breaking point, and their ability to absorb the additional strain. The probation system, where staff are already facing ever-increasing caseloads without being appropriately resourced, has now been tasked with managing those released earlier than before, as well as those serving community sentences. Meanwhile, the prison system itself was failing to keep hold of dangerous offenders—in some cases accidentally releasing them and losing track of them altogether. We were also concerned about the implications of the Government’s proposals for the early release of offenders convicted of extremely serious crimes, including those discussed today. Ministers in both Houses reassured us that the most serious offenders would be exempt from these measures, which is clearly not the case. That is why the Liberal Democrats have written to the Justice Secretary calling for child sexual offenders, including those convicted of offences connected to grooming gangs, to be exempt from the new early release provisions in the Sentencing Act. The Government have promised the biggest expansion in prison places since the Victorian era, and have delivered on part of that promise by increasing capacity. That new provision should now be used to ensure that child sex offenders serve the same proportion of their sentence as they did previously, giving victims the reassurance that their perpetrators will remain in prison for the period that they were led to expect at sentencing. We spend the equivalent of just two weeks’ welfare spending on the entire justice budget. That covers our courts, our prisons and the Probation Service. That lack of seriousness is why the justice system often lurches from crisis to crisis—that is a plague on all our houses—but for the victims and those in the Gallery today, a functioning justice system is everything. It is the difference between being able to move on with their lives and being forever traumatised by a system that fails them. Will the Minister therefore set out how many prisoners currently in the prison estate have been convicted of child sexual offences, including offences connected to child sexual exploitation and grooming gangs? If there is sufficient capacity in the prison estate to exempt those offenders from the early release scheme, will he do so? Finally, what measures will this Government bring forward to restore confidence among all victims, including those who never came forward to report abuse or who were afraid to do so because they feared that they would not be believed? As a whole House, we have to do better.

    Hansard source
16. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Jess Brown-Fuller

    Early Release of Prisoners

    I seek clarification. The Minister said that the Government have added grooming as an aggravating factor. Will every person sentenced to an offence related to grooming gang scandals now get an extended determinate sentence because the aggravating factor will be added, or will they still be eligible for standard determinate sentences?

    Hansard source
17. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Jess Brown-Fuller

    Early Release of Prisoners

    I do not expect the Minister to know the answer to this question, but I would appreciate it if after the debate she could update the House on what progress has been made on HMP Dartmoor. It was closed in 2024, and it has been suggested that it will be closed for three years. That could open up capacity of an additional 400 spaces without needing to build a new prison.

    Hansard source
18. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Jamie Stone

    Small Modular Reactors: Jobs

    While I am very fond of the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter), the House will not be surprised to hear that I do not hang on his every word. My constituents are cock-a-hoop and absolutely delighted that Dounreay, in my constituency, has been identified as suitable for a new nuclear power station development, possibly an SMR. What can I do to help the Government make that become a reality?

    Hansard source
19. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 78, in clause 58, page 43, line 40, at end insert— “1. (8B) Regulations under subsection (8A) must include provision about the period within which NICE guideline NG206 on myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) must be complied with. 2. (8D) The Secretary of State must publish an annual statement on compliance with NICE guideline NG206, including the extent to which integrated care boards and relevant NHS bodies have implemented recommendations relating to ME specialist services and severe or very severe ME.” The amendment would require that a period must be set within which the NICE guideline NG206 on ME must be complied with by ICBs and other health bodies. Furthermore, the Secretary of State must publish an annual statement on compliance with NICE guideline NG206 across the NHS in England.

    Hansard source
20. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    The amendment was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) on behalf of the approximately 1.2 million people in England who live with myalgic encephalomyelitis, because five years after the introduction of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline NG206, little has changed. Service provision according to NG206 remains patchy and poor, with many patients having traumatic experiences. The amendment would require a period to be set in which integrated care boards and other health bodies must comply with the guideline, and the Secretary of State must publish an annual statement on compliance with NG206 across the NHS in England. The introduction of the guideline after sustained campaigning represented a major reform after years in which ME was treated as a psychiatric condition and patients were pushed to follow graduated exercise therapy. Often, GET had disastrous consequences, precipitating serious deteriorations that patients never recovered from. Credit is due to the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), the current Minister for Public Health and Prevention, for her determination when in opposition to bring about the change. In a written answer published last week, the Minister for Public Health and Prevention confirmed that all ICBs have a statutory obligation to ensure sufficient care provision for their population, but the experience of those with ME is that that obligation is far from being fulfilled. In some ICBs, no services for ME are commissioned; in others, the provider has a history of providing services that reflect not NG206, but the old and condemned approach of GET. Some services are provided out of psychiatry departments, which is a huge red flag for those with ME, and information on the quality of services is patchy. Results from a big survey of more than 5,000 people with ME or long covid in late 2025 painted a bleak picture: more than half said that they had been disbelieved by an NHS healthcare official, one in three had been made to feel that their ME was their own fault, and almost two in five had had an encounter with a clinician that was traumatic or traumatising. Five years after its introduction, NG206 is far from being complied with, and so members of the ME community—approximately 1.2 million people, as I said—are desperately asking that something be done to address the situation. The amendment represents a route that offers hope for many long-neglected and mistreated people. I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote, but I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us about improving the consistency of provision for people with ME. Moving to the clause generally, we broadly support the intention, but think that more safeguards need to be built into the principle, given the powers that are being handed to the Secretary of State. The clause makes provision for the period for compliance with a NICE recommendation, but gives no detail of how that will work in practice or how often the Secretary of State will change the standard three-month rule that NICE requires. No ceiling is put on the compliance period, no criteria govern when the period may be extended, and there is no duty to consult or set out reasoning. What will the process be when the Secretary of State intervenes in the period of time for compliance with a NICE recommendation? We thought that there would be some mix of evidence requirements, consultation, statement of reasons, impact assessment and some kind of parliamentary scrutiny. The Secretary of State should at least have to set out their reasoning why the new power has been used. The value of the current requirement is almost entirely due to the compliance period being short and fixed. The three-month rule gives a positive NICE recommendation practical force. A power to lengthen or vary that period without constraint weakens the requirement in substance while leaving it formally intact. The right is not removed but its timing is made discretionary. For a patient awaiting treatment, that does not amount to the same thing. A variation power is not new. Since the introduction of the budget impact test in 2017, NHS England has been able to apply to NICE to extend the funding period for medicines with a budget impact above a defined threshold, but, importantly, that period is criteria-based, triggered by a defined financial threshold, subject to a defined process and time-limited in effect. We are not overtly opposed to the power in principle, but more safeguards should be built into the criteria for its application. I would be grateful for some guidance from the Minister on that.

    Hansard source
21. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    I thank the Minister for her words, particularly on amendment 78. As I said, I will not press the amendment to a vote, but I hope that the Minister will continue to bear in mind that provision for people with ME is extremely patchy and that a number of our constituents are suffering in the long term. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 59 Transfer of HSSIB’s functions to CQC Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

    Hansard source
22. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    I declare an interest as a member of the all-party parliamentary group on patient safety, which is opposed to the changes to HSSIB proposed in the Bill. Over the last couple of weeks, we have been reminded why we need an appropriate safety landscape when things go wrong. We have had the Donna Ockenden review into Nottingham maternity services. We have had Baroness Amos’s national review into the picture following a range of maternity scandals across the country. Yesterday evening, I attended the debate on the regulations to compensate victims of the infected blood scandal. Safety is at the top of all our minds at the moment, as it should always be. Something that has come across very strongly from Members of all parties, on both sides of the House, is that culture is critical to ensuring that those types of issues—the huge scandals—never happen again. Indeed, smaller scandals must never happen again, because people need to be free. Staff in particular need to have the confidence that, if they report concerns about the way they operate, they will be safe to do so without jeopardising the rest of their career, and that those concerns will be acted on and the lessons learned. Everybody here wants to achieve that. I do not think anybody is arguing about the fundamental principle that, when there are concerns, they need to be raised in a safe place and that the lessons from those concerns need to be learned. That is why I share the lack of understanding of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, about why rolling HSSIB into the CQC will change that culture, because the CQC is a regulatory body and HSSIB is an investigatory one. Their missions are fundamentally different. Putting them together compromises the independent investigation element in a way that is very difficult to overcome. We were told in the evidence to the Bill Committee by HSSIB’s chief executive that it is often told, “We tell you this; we wouldn’t tell a regulatory body.” It is clear that this perception of safety is critical to the way in which people interact with HSSIB. We also heard in evidence to the Committee that the CQC warned that, as it stands, the Bill could leave it fighting against itself in the High Court. We could get a scenario where the regulatory arm of the CQC sought access to HSSIB’s confidential investigation reports, while HSSIB, the investigative branch, tried to keep them secret to protect its independence. That is not a situation anyone wants to end up in, and I am sure that is not the intention of this clause. I think the shadow Minister has already made this point, so I will not labour it, but it is also important that the investigatory body must be able to examine the regulatory frameworks, commissioning decisions and oversight arrangements without institutional conflict. When I look back, for example, at the scandal that unfolded at Shrewsbury and Telford hospital NHS Trust over the maternity failings, I see that the CQC had given that trust a good rating during the course of all those terrible things going wrong. The CQC’s process clearly failed in that situation. It is difficult to imagine an arm of the CQC turning around in that scenario and saying that the CQC got its own assessment wrong. If it had tried to do that, it is difficult to imagine how that might have played out and that people might have had confidence in raising that problem. I am also concerned about this because, as the Minister has alluded to, the CQC has faced significant criticism and publicly admitted that it has failed to carry out its functions to the best of its abilities over recent years. Although I welcome the Minister’s assurance that the transfer would happen only once the CQC was in a better place, the CQC might—again—be part of the problem in some instances, and HSSIB must be able to point to that where appropriate. Lib Dem amendment 5 attempts to introduce the principle that, if this must happen, there needs to be a firewall in the CQC to keep HSSIB operationally independent. To achieve that, the amendment proposes to insert into the process a committee that is operationally independent of—with a majority of people who are not on—the CQC. Opposition new clause 42 seeks to do the same thing. I would be open to any suggestions that the Minister might make to reassure us that HSSIB will continue to be operationally independent, for all the good reasons that hon. Members have outlined.

    Hansard source
23. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has had the experience that I have had as a constituency MP of very senior clinicians who work in the NHS attending my surgery and explaining that if they have raised concerns within their organisation, they have been encouraged either to leave or to retire. They feel frightened to raise concerns about safety that they have experienced in carrying out their duties, so it is really important that this safe space exists. Does he agree with that?

    Hansard source
24. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    We heard in evidence that the reason for that variability was a lack of funding. Would the hon. Gentleman support our new clause 78, which tries to deal with the lack of funding and ensure a consistent service from Healthwatch across the country?

    Hansard source
25. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Hansard source
26. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    For the record, I tabled amendments to delete those clauses, so there was consistency of intention.

    Hansard source
27. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    I tabled amendments to delete the clauses that will remove Healthwatch, but they have not been chosen for debate, because we can just vote against those clauses standing part. New clause 78, which would ensure that Healthwatch is funded properly, was tabled alongside amendments to ensure that Healthwatch is retained.

    Hansard source
28. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    I am very grateful to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester has made some general points about Healthwatch and the importance of an independent patient voice; I will not reiterate them, because he made them very well, but I want to speak specifically about local healthwatches and the benefits that they bring. I find it quite difficult to hear in this room, so I hope the hon. Member for Lichfield will correct me if I have misunderstood the gist of his speech, but I was frankly astonished by the suggestion that if local managers had heard about the problems at Mid Staffs or at Shrewsbury and Telford hospital NHS trust, the concerns raised in those extremely serious scandals would have been addressed. The reality is that the management of both providers knew exactly about the concerns in those trusts, and they did not address them. That is why we have Healthwatch. The hon. Member for Lichfield may be aware that my parents live in Stone, which was in the Mid Staffordshire constituency at the time. My mum was a clerk to Staffordshire county council, and I recollect very strongly that the health scrutiny committee at that council questioned the trust about its appalling mortality rate and was constantly reassured that there was nothing to see here. It absolutely failed to mark its own homework. The suggestion that my constituents Kayleigh and Colin Griffiths, who fought for the Ockenden report on Shrewsbury and Telford, did not first try the local services is, I think, missing the point. With the Ockenden report on Nottinghamshire a couple of weeks ago, we also saw that the hospital trust commissioned several reports into its own maternity services, which found that it was failing. Instead of acting on them, it brushed them under the carpet and commissioned another. The suggestion that providers are capable in the current culture of dealing with those issues does not, I am afraid, hold true in the way it should across every trust.

    Hansard source
29. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    The hon. Member will know that Healthwatch was introduced almost as a direct consequence of the Francis review of Mid Staffordshire, so that was certainly the intention. I have discussed the variability of healthwatch organisations across the country and the fact that they are not as well funded as was originally intended. Although I take the point that they have not effectively delivered that alarm-raising service in every case, if they were properly funded and used in the way that they were envisaged to operate, they would be able to spot such issues.

    Hansard source
30. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    I am going to go on and give some examples. Central to the value and success of the Healthwatch network is its local focus and the fact it is centred in communities. Where it has worked well, that has allowed Healthwatch to earn trust and build relationships, especially with harder-to-reach communities, as we have discussed. I take the Minister’s point that we know about those harder-to-reach communities, but the reality is that we are not engaging with them, and that is important.

    Hansard source
31. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    The hon. Lady raises a good point. I do not want to revisit an earlier part of the debate, but it is certainly relevant that where there is not a local authority representative on the ICB and there is not a mayor in place, and the ICB’s area is not coterminous with the local authority boundary, that adds another element to the issue of the separation out of Healthwatch. Does the Minister agree that the independent and locally rooted Healthwatch cannot be replaced by processes that sit within the NHS system? Will she please reconsider the change? There is concern on all sides of the House, given the value that Healthwatch brings to the service.

    Hansard source
32. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

    Hansard source
33. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    New clause 1, which I tabled, would require the Secretary of State to appoint a maternity commissioner within the Department of Health and Social Care to oversee national maternity services. This person should be someone with experience and expertise in maternity services, and not a political appointment. It is important to start by saying that I tabled the new clause before we had the report from Donna Ockenden on the Nottingham review, and last week’s report from Baroness Amos on her national review, both of which recommended the appointment of a maternity commissioner. Obviously, since then, the Secretary of State has announced that he will appoint a maternity commissioner. None the less, I will state the arguments for having one, and if the Minister can give us some assurances today, I will not press the new clause to a vote. Just to set the scene, which I think we all know too well, maternity services in England have suffered a series of high-profile scandals. The cost of political neglect has been paid by families in terms of trauma, injury and lost lives. We have known for a long time that maternity services in this country have been failing. Numerous recommendations have been made over that period, but they have not been effectively acted on in a consistent way, and Baroness Amos’s inquiry finally confirms that. It is important to say that the vast majority of births take place safely, successfully and happily. However, where things go wrong, having a baby safely has become a postcode lottery. Women are being routinely silenced, and staff who raise the alarm on unsafe care or systemic discrimination have been put off or crushed by a culture of fear. We therefore need to make England the safest country in the world to have a baby. The Liberal Democrats have been campaigning on that for a long time, and following the Ockenden and Amos reviews it genuinely feels that there is now the will and focus to deal with the problem once and for all. This issue has been going on for far too long. We thank the Secretary of State for hearing our campaign and Baroness Amos’s calls for a national maternity commissioner to oversee national standards and drive change. We also pay tribute to campaigners such as Louise Thompson and the former MP for Stafford, Theo Clarke; without their advocacy, and without so many women sharing their stories, we would not be moving forward. It is important to say that one individual—one maternity commissioner—will not solve all the issues in maternity by themselves, but they can help drive change and address recurrent issues, whether those are cultural or about safe staffing. They can hold Ministers to account, help restore public confidence in NHS maternity service and ensure that accountability exists. But I want to be clear that the buck should always stop with the Secretary of State; they hold the power and the purse strings, and this role cannot be used by Ministers as a way to shirk that responsibility. I hope the Minister will clarify a few key points. First, can she reassure us that the commissioner will be independent and not a political appointee? It is essential that this individual feels confident to hold the Government to account and have those difficult conversations. That is far less likely if they are a political appointee. Secondly, women have made it clear that for them to be reassured that this change will happen and happen meaningfully, they need a clear timetable for when the maternity commissioner will be in place and operating. Understandably, the Secretary of State has not been able to provide that yet, given the need for this Bill to pass through Parliament and for the statutory role to be on the books, and given the time it will take his maternity taskforce to define what it wants the role to look like and for the appropriate legislation to be written and put in place. However, we hope we can get a firm commitment to a timetable from the Minister today or, if not today, then on Report. We think the commissioner should be involved in the establishment of the taskforce, because it is important that it does not develop a plan that they are required to implement, despite it being something they personally would not have approved. I therefore hope the commissioner will be in place very quickly, even if only on a temporary basis, so that they are working to get the taskforce plan into place. We heard from the Secretary of State that the commissioner will co-chair the taskforce alongside him. That seems to be the right move, and I welcome it, but, as I said, it is important that they have some role in shaping its action plan, so that they can feel responsibility for it and be fully behind its implementation. Will the Minister commit to introducing a temporary maternity commissioner so that that can happen? Finally, we have heard reports that the taskforce is not meeting very regularly. I hope the Minister can reassure me that it is now meeting much more regularly and getting that plan into place as quickly as possible, and that the Secretary of State is fully on board in driving forward the commissioner’s role as soon as possible. New clause 13, which is also in my name, is about putting a duty on the Secretary of State to create a scheme to ensure that every maternity unit in the country achieves a good or outstanding rating from the CQC. I will not repeat some of the points I have just outlined about failing maternity services, but the first quarter of 2026 saw the worst ever recorded rate for maternity injuries. Four years ago, the Ockenden review into the Shrewsbury and Telford hospital NHS trust, which is in my area, found that over 200 babies had died unnecessarily in Shropshire. Yet, despite several immediate and essential actions being put in place, a subsequent CQC review found that the majority of maternity units in this country did not achieve a good rating for safety—they were inadequate in some way. That is just not acceptable. Our package of measures includes the maternity commissioner, which the Government are obviously progressing with, and we are very pleased about that. However, we also need investment in the service to ensure that that maternity commissioner has the resources they need to make the changes required. We therefore call for one-to-one midwifery care for every woman in labour; a consultant on every labour ward 24 hours a day, seven days a week; a director of midwifery—a senior, experienced midwife—in every maternity service to ensure that more junior midwives on that ward are suitably supervised; the restoration of ringfenced service development funding; and a dedicated neonatal workforce plan. New clause 13 also requires an annual report to be laid before the House on the “effectiveness of the scheme”. That would allow Parliament to track progress and hold the Government’s feet to the fire on it. Baroness Amos has also called for regular reporting to Parliament to maintain accountability, albeit through the maternity commissioner. There seems to be consensus, here and across the NHS, on the need for meaningful and decisive action on maternity. There is a great deal of overlap between our plan and the recommendations Baroness Amos has made, and I hope the Minister will be able to take some of these points on board and incorporate them into the Bill.

    Hansard source
34. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    I thank the Minister for her response. Given the commitments that she has made, I do not intend to press the new clauses, but I hope she will be able to come back to us on Report with some more concrete progress. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 3 Assessment of risks posed by contracts with non-UK based suppliers “(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct and lay before Parliament a risk assessment of all contracts between NHS organisations and suppliers based outside of the UK. (2) In conducting an assessment under this section the Secretary of State must— (a) pay particular regard to contracts which provide technology companies with access to confidential patient data; (b) consult national security experts on the risks posed to UK sovereignty by such contracts; (c) consider risks associated with the sharing of confidential patient data with organisations based outside of the UK; (d) assess public and NHS staff attitudes to relevant suppliers and any implications such attitudes may have on the use and effectiveness of products or services provided under the contract; and (e) consider the background of relevant suppliers, known contracts with other states and organisations, and any relevant ethical considerations. (3) Where any significant risk is identified, the Secretary of State must set out the Government’s intentions to manage and mitigate such risks, including its intention to use or develop domestic technologies, systems or products in place of those provided under the relevant contract.”—(Dr Chambers.) This new clause would require the Government to publish a risk assessment of contracts between NHS organisations and suppliers based outside of the UK. Brought up, and read the First time.

    Hansard source
35. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Maguire

    Future of British Horseracing

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) for securing this important and timely debate. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, where I detail hospitality received from the Jockey Club. I am also a member of the all-party parliamentary group on racing and bloodstock. Horseracing is the UK’s second-most attended spectator sport, after men’s football, with over 5 million people visiting British racecourses every year. Horseracing attendees, contrary to popular belief, come from a diverse range of socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds, with 39% of horseracing tickets purchased by women. British horseracing is undeniably a huge success story. Across all metrics, British horseracing remains a force to be reckoned with, particularly in terms of its economic and cultural impacts. Our races attract the best horses, and we have the best bloodstock and some of the best trainers. Racing is a British cultural institution.

    Hansard source
36. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Maguire

    Future of British Horseracing

    I thank the hon. Member for his excellent contribution. Racing is a British cultural institution that sets the gold standard for quality and is steeped in a rich history and prestige. Horseracing dates back more than three centuries, with thoroughbred horseracing first created here in the UK. It remains closely connected with royalty, a tradition that has continued with His Majesty the King. I was delighted that he came to the Epsom Derby this year, because this connection only further boosts its global reach. Horseracing is a soft power asset in the British arsenal that is already working hard for the UK on the international stage. Four of the top 10 races in the world are held in the UK—more than any other country. Royal Ascot alone is broadcast to over 300 million households across 180 different countries. In 2023, the British Horseracing Authority reported that the racing industry had direct revenues in excess of £1.47 billion. Its annual contribution to the British economy was a staggering £4.1 billion, and the industry supports over 85,000 people, employing them in racecourses, training yards, stables and breeding organisations, as well as in the betting industry. In Epsom, I have been absolutely delighted to go and see the training yards and meet the really hard-working individuals there. British horseracing simply would not be what it is today without those people working behind the scenes. It is vital and it underpins many local communities, particularly rural ones. I have seen the positive impact of British racing in my constituency, which is home to the Epsom Downs racecourse and hosts the famous Epsom Derby. I was fortunate to be able to attend the Derby in June, which was an incredible, exciting and fantastic event—anyone who has not attended it before should do so. A report commissioned on behalf of the Jockey Club highlights how economically significant the Epsom Derby is on a national scale, and how it is just as important on a local scale for the constituency and the county that it calls home. The report found that its economic impact in 2024 alone was over £63 million, and the races’ events, hospitality and visitor spending accounted for over £56 million of the total. The Epsom Downs training facilities and employment opportunities came in a close second and third, each bringing in an estimated figure of between £2.5 and £3 million. The revenue brought in by the event highlights that horseracing is an anchor institution in the local economy, contributing nearly £1 billion of capital through supporting regional hospitality and cultural industries in east Surrey. Given the importance of the horseracing industry, it is disappointing that the reform of the horserace betting levy did not better deliver support for it. The levy yield for the 12 months to 31 March 2025 reached almost £109 million. That is the fourth successive year of increase, and the highest yield since the levy collection reforms of 2017, but it is still short of the 2007-08 record of £116.5 million. I urge the Labour Government to reconsider their decision not to support extending the levy to overseas racing, because the income of the industry continues to fall. In the past two years, the levy board estimates that betting turnover on British racing has fallen from £11 billion to £8.5 billion. The board says, “falling turnover is unlikely to prove a positive for the sport’s long-term health.” Does the Minister agree that British horseracing is an international success story, a source of global soft power and a vital community asset in many towns across the UK?

    Hansard source
37. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Maguire

    Future of British Horseracing

    I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I was recently at a Gamblers Anonymous meeting so that I could understand the real-world consequences of gambling at first hand. What actions are the Labour Government taking to ensure that British horseracing continues to thrive and prosper? Support is more important than ever and has public backing. The 2025 report of the APPG on racing and bloodstock found that 53% of Britons say that horseracing is an important part of their culture; 66% say that they view racing as an important part of the identity of towns such as Newmarket, Doncaster and Cheltenham, as we have heard from Members representing such constituencies today; and a further 56% state that they support a law requiring greater reinvestment into British horseracing. I would also like to highlight serious concerns about the future of Kempton Park racecourse—as the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne spelled out today with his racing commentary—which is currently under threat from housing development on the entire site. If that goes ahead, it will have a devastating impact on the Epsom horseracing community, due to its close proximity to Epsom Downs. Kempton Park is a major source of various racing opportunities throughout the year, offering a safe, all-weather race surface. If lost, it would require Epsom horses and their trainers to travel much further distances to find suitable races. That is simply unacceptable, so I urge the Minister to consider the consequences of that closure and redevelopment on the Epsom horseracing community if they go ahead. If such an application is submitted, is it possible to find a compromise that would keep all parties happy—for example, with a development going ahead only on the back lands of the Kempton Park site while the racecourse is maintained in its current form? As well as supporting the industry and our racecourses, we need to ensure we protect the horses, which are the backbone of the sport. Animal Aid reported that in 2025, 254 horses were killed due to racing, while 641 total whip abuses were recorded across 515 incidents. That is absolutely tragic, and we must do more to protect our racehorses. The Liberal Democrats are clear that animal welfare must always be upheld and that human entertainment will never be an acceptable justification for poor animal welfare. We are calling on the Government to prevent the abuse of racehorses and to reduce avoidable deaths by creating an independent regulatory body for horse welfare. That body would be separate from the British Horseracing Authority. I would like to highlight the tireless campaigning by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), a fellow supporter of British horseracing. For over a year, he has repeatedly championed greater equestrian safety, particularly for horses and their riders when on our roads. I urge the Minister and all those here today to listen to his campaign and support his private Member’s Bill on horse and rider safety. We cannot talk about horseracing without talking about betting and gambling, which many view as synonymous with the sport. The Liberal Democrats have been calling for reforms to protect people from gambling harms. We recognise the dangers of gambling, such as psychological distress and financial and social difficulties. We also recognise that there is a distinction between the harms posed by betting on horseracing and those posed by online gaming slots, which is why we proposed doubling the rate of remote gaming duty and did not support the Government’s proposals to harmonise gambling tax rates. We are thankful that the Government listened to the Liberal Democrats and adopted our proposal, but we continue to believe that more decisive action is needed to combat the harms caused by gambling, and especially gambling advertising. I reaffirm my support for British horseracing, which is an undeniable success story. I urge the Minister to reflect on the contributions made here today and to listen to my calls to guarantee that we continue to do all we can to support this important industry.

    Hansard source
38. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Roz Savage

    Topical Questions

    T7. The Government recently shelved plans to require solar panels on new car parks, despite the significant potential to generate clean electricity, support electric vehicle charging and provide greater shade cover. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of abandoning those proposals on the Government’s clean power and net zero ambitions?

    Hansard source
39. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

    Health Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    This subject is of particular interest to me. For quite a few years I was a trustee of a charity that supported evidence-based medicine and quality improvement. The hon. Lady talked about a no-blame culture. We now tend to use the term “just culture” but it is the same kind of thing: we must have a safe space for people to come forward, like in the airline industry. We want to encourage reporting not only of mistakes but of near misses so that improvements can be delivered without tragic incidents having to take place. If we are to create a culture in which people will come forward to admit even potential mistakes and near misses, they cannot in any way fear punitive punishment under regulations. Does the hon. Lady agree that folding HSSIB into the CQC will make it difficult to create a culture in which people feel confident enough to want to come forward with and overtly discuss mistakes and errors?

    Hansard source
40. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

    Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    For over 50 years, there has been a statutory independent patient voice in the health and care system. The creation of Healthwatch was, in part, a direct response to the issues raised by the Francis inquiry into Mid Staffs. In a 2024 Healthwatch poll, almost a quarter of NHS patients said that they had experienced poor care in the past year, but 56% of them—more than half—took no action. Of that 56%, 20% said that that was because they were scared that giving negative feedback directly to NHS services would affect their ongoing treatment. Women, people living in areas of greater deprivation, disabled people and unpaid carers were significantly more likely to give the fear of retribution as a reason for not speaking up. The Government are stripping patients of their voice in our NHS. Rather than being able to go to an independent body and express how the NHS can work better for them, patients will now be able only to give feedback to the same organisation that might have failed them. I have had experience of that in the past few weeks. My partner Emma has endometriosis, which has been an ongoing condition. She was worried that speaking to the local hospital trust specifically about the treatment she received might affect her treatment going forward. The Government have argued that the changes will bring patient insight closer to decision making, making it much more effective at securing change. The former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), stated that patients do not need “ventriloquists”. That blatantly disregards the vital role played by Healthwatch in advocating not only for vulnerable patients who, understandably, do not feel confident navigating health services with often complex or combative systems, but for whole communities with a pre-existing distrust of the system. We believe that removing Healthwatch leaves the health service to mark its own homework, which creates a conflict of interest. It will significantly undermine public trust, as independence is removed. Will vulnerable people who have suffered harm or poor experiences in the health and care system really have faith in a system headed by a director in the Department of Health and Social Care, which is the very organisation running the system that caused them harm in the first place? On a local level, will they have faith going to the same ICB that oversees the providers that have failed them? One need only look at the long list of maternity failings in Mid Staffs to see that internal functions can fail catastrophically. We know all too well that the NHS default is sometimes to cover up. The public knows that, too, so independence is everything. Healthwatch has been keen in spotting and exposing challenges in the health service, such as widespread failures in the NHS referral process, yet there will be no incentive for the new system to investigate such issues, which are invisible in the main NHS performance metrics. The system does not always know what questions it needs to ask, so an independent route for unsolicited feedback is important. We also think that the provisions disadvantage hard-to-reach communities and those who may have a distrust towards the NHS and public authorities, making it harder to gain the feedback and concerns of those communities. That risks inadvertently further baking in inequalities. More widely, clarity has not yet been provided on how those functions will be funded. The reform is coming alongside major reductions in ICB running costs. Healthwatch currently receives almost £26 million a year; that is already 60% less in real terms than the original DHSC estimate to fund the network. There is a risk that the money will be absorbed into wider budgets and never spent on the patient experience infrastructure. If people want to see the value of Healthwatch, they need look no further than the Cabinet Office briefing notes on the King’s Speech, which reference a May 2025 Healthwatch report on missing medical records to make the case for the single patient record. Fundamentally, the Government are conflating patient voice with patient involvement in decision making. While greater patient voice in commissioning and decision making is needed, it is not a replacement for the advocacy and other functions of Healthwatch, which helps vulnerable people to navigate a complex health and care system and performs signposting functions. Splitting local healthwatch functions across ICBs and local authorities once again separates health and care and reinforces existing gaps between them. As we know, many issues span both areas and need a joined-up investigative approach. How will the new model ensure a joined-up view of people’s experiences across the NHS and social care? We urge the Minister to reconsider this decision. We have seen overwhelming support for Healthwatch across the sector, and it is becoming increasingly clear that many people in the NHS and the medical profession think that this is a huge mistake. Healthwatch England has played a central role in escalating the findings of local healthwatch organisations and in advocating nationally. We have three examples. The first is the call to publish research highlighting inequalities in waiting times for disadvantaged groups, and for a demographic breakdown of waiting lists, which the NHS obliged with last summer. The second example arose after Healthwatch Sunderland supported a patient with a learning disability who had received accessible screening information but risked missing care because of inaccessible follow-up letters. Healthwatch England raised that gap with national bodies and highlighted inconsistencies in communication, and, as a result, the national easy-read templates were introduced across the cancer pathway, which improved accessibility and reduced risk. The third example is that Healthwatch feeds back patients’ horrific stories of corridor care—including that of a pensioner who was left in a corridor—to NHS leaders, and lobbies for increased transparency and oversight when it comes to corridor care. I have several questions in three forms. Is the Minister genuinely sure that a director of patient experience in DHSC will be eager to advocate for patients and flag issues at a national level given that they will essentially be flagging to their bosses where work is not up to scratch? Is she sure that the level of persistence that has so often been needed to advocate for change at a national level would be forthcoming from a director employed by DHSC? What will be the mechanism for escalating local concerns that indicate national or systemic issues? Will the Minister explain where the Government envision the new director sitting in the DHSC structure, and what the reporting lines will be? How will the Government ensure that they have the resources and sense of operational independence to investigate and raise concerns nationally? Healthwatch England has often flagged issues to MPs and to the Health and Social Care Committee as a way of applying pressure on NHS leaders and Ministers to enact change.

    Hansard source