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. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Jess Brown-Fuller

   Steel Trade Measure

   I am going to change my question on the hoof based on what the Minister just said. Does he share my concern for the smaller steel fabricators that cannot buy large bulk orders of steel? They are reliant on being able to order when an order comes in for them. I have a steel fabricator in my constituency called S-FABS. It is a fifth generation business, and it is telling me that this is the hardest it has ever had it—it is worse than covid. It is not sure that it will be able to survive because overseas manufacturers will just start fabricating steel to avoid the tariffs. Can he please reflect on the effect on the small and medium-sized fabricators that currently feel like the strategy is all to protect British Steel, and they are behind that, but to the detriment of those downstream providers?

   Hansard source
2. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Jess Brown-Fuller

   Draft Conversion Practices Bill

   The Liberal Democrats welcome the draft Bill, because conversion therapy is not a thing of the past. One in six LGBTQ+ young people today have been offered it in an attempt to cure them. The Minister referred to the Galop report. That is an important piece of reading, and I recommend that all Members take time to look at those harrowing testimonies. It has always been a form of abuse, far too often carried out by those in positions of trust, whether family members, religious leaders or medical professionals who have been conducting this archaic practice. It is offensive and dangerous to suggest that sexual orientation or gender identity is a problem to be treated or cured. As far back as 2018, Baroness May, the former Prime Minister, promised to end these abhorrent practices, which can cause mental and physical harm. That position was adopted by the Labour Government, who promised legislation to address it in their first King’s Speech. Since those initial promises were made, individuals from LGBTQ+ communities have continued to face abuse and discrimination for years under the guise that they can be cured. We should all celebrate finally seeing the legislation that will end that horrendous practice, protecting vulnerable individuals and allowing people to live freely as themselves. The Liberal Democrats are ready to scrutinise the draft Bill to ensure that it is comprehensive and inclusive, and to work cross-party to ensure that legislation can be put into law as soon as possible. Will the Minister lay out a timeline for the legislation, especially given current uncertainty around the Administration? What engagement is the Minister having with representatives of the LGBTQ+ community, so that they can ensure the legislation is shaped with them, not for them? Does she agree with me that while France, Canada, New Zealand, Norway and many other countries have already passed legislation to ban the practice, the UK has significantly fallen down the inclusivity league tables, and that today marks an important step in reversing that decline and establishing the UK as a world leader in being a safe society for all to live in?

   Hansard source
3. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Jess Brown-Fuller

   Windrush Day

   I thank the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for bringing forward this important debate, as I know she does every year on behalf of her constituents. I also thank her for setting the scene so beautifully as we celebrate Windrush Day. It is a pleasure to speak today to celebrate the incredible contribution of the Windrush generation to our society, while also recognising the immense failings of the state in its treatment of them. The Caribbean and broader black communities have enriched the social fabric of the United Kingdom, adding vitality to our streets, shops and culture throughout the country. That generation and their children and grandchildren have inspired us, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) has said, and served our national interest through their contributions to our public institutions. We would be a poorer, less exciting, less dynamic and less colourful country had individuals not boarded ships such as the HMT Empire Windrush destined for the United Kingdom to help us rebuild after the second world war. The hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) spoke about Winston being embarrassed or ashamed by being a victim of what was a scandal, when he should just have felt pride in his contribution to our society after serving the council for decades. The hon. Member also asked some really important questions about the efficacy of the compensation scheme. We often hear similar issues raised, when we are talking about the infected blood compensation scheme or the LGBT veterans who were kicked out of the armed forces, about how these schemes run and the case workers on them. It is so important that we get this right, so that people are not retraumatised or expected to provide information that they quite often do not have and cannot provide. In my constituency of Chichester there were four passengers on the Empire Windrush—that we know of—Roger, who was a student; Violet, a domestic worker; Samuel, a member of the Royal Navy; and we, too, had a Winston, an accountant. Their stories and experiences will no doubt have varied, but Chichester was undoubtedly enriched by their presence, no matter how long they stayed with us. Winston’s daughter was the late Andrea Levy, who represented so many of that generation in her writing about the lived experiences of Jamaicans who moved to the UK. In my constituency we have seen extraordinary performances at Chichester festival theatre, often featuring and written by black actors. I refer members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a trustee of Chichester festival theatre. Our city is not very multicultural—I think we are 96.8% white—so we have been on a real journey, as a theatre, to make sure that when people come to provide incredible shows, they feel welcome while staying in our city. I know that the theatre has done a lot of work to make sure that those experiences are the best they can be. Our local students in Chichester have benefited from the work of Hakim Adi, the first African-British historian to become a professor of history in the UK, who taught at the University of Chichester. Meanwhile, locals and tourists can learn much about the involvement in Britain of those who came here during the Roman empire when they visit our remarkable Fishbourne Roman palace. In Chichester, and throughout the country, we owe our black communities so much, yet at times we have let them down badly. The scandal that led to people being wrongly detained and deported due to a lack of documentation was a shameful chapter in our history. They were invited here as British citizens, yet their dignity and rights were disregarded because of failings in the state apparatus. The previous Conservative Government failed to deliver the justice that those Windrush victims deeply deserve. There was dither and delay in the implementation of the recommendations of the Windrush lessons learned review, and the independent Windrush commissioner has recently emphasised that the Windrush compensation scheme is not fit for purpose, as the hon. Member for Brent East mentioned. Claimants often find the process of applying for compensation exhausting and painful. Many receive no payment at the end of a lengthy and difficult process. Currently, six in 10 applications result in no compensation being awarded. The Liberal Democrats would urgently implement all the recommendations of the lessons learned review in full and make the compensation scheme independent of the Home Office. Beyond the scandal, far too many people’s lives are still blighted by prejudice, discrimination and inequality. We all have a responsibility to recognise that reality, and the role that we can play in challenging those injustices. That is even more important in this Chamber because of the unequal experiences of people from ethnic minority backgrounds across our public services. Whether it is in the criminal justice system, the NHS or education, outcomes and opportunities are not equal, and it should be the ambition of us all to change that. It is particularly important in parts of the country that are not as diverse as others. As I said, my constituency of Chichester is proportionately less diverse than others. Having said that, growing numbers of individuals from different ethnicities are moving into my city. It is important that we commit to ensuring that this is not used as a political football to stoke division or hate. I am proud that the Liberal Democrats are committed to fighting for racial equality, which means unequivocally condemning racism in all its forms and tackling injustice wherever we see it. In our election manifesto, we committed to implementing a comprehensive race equality strategy aimed at reducing the disproportionately high maternal mortality rates experienced by black women and eliminating racial disparities in maternal health through a cross-departmental target and strategy. We also want to end the disproportionate use of stop and search and require all police forces to adopt ambitious targets for improving the diversity of their workforce throughout the country. We have also called for the reversal of the Conservatives’ voter ID scheme, which disproportionately excludes minorities from democracy, and for all parties to publish candidate diversity data. As has been outlined today in the outstanding contributions, the Windrush generation, and our Caribbean and black communities more broadly, have given so much to this country. I would particularly like to put on record a tribute to my noble Friend Baroness Floella Benjamin. Her story, her upbringing, her work and her continued advocacy on behalf of the Windrush generation—those invited here to help rebuild Britain—are truly inspiring. She continues to hold the Government to account in the other place to ensure that people just like her, who came here from the Caribbean in the 20th century, receive the justice they deserve. I believe that she first proposed the idea of a national Windrush Day, so I pay tribute to her. I put on record our thanks to the Windrush generation for their incredible contribution to our society over the past 80 years.

   Hansard source
4. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

   Health Bill (Sixth sitting)

   It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. In general, the Liberal Democrats support clauses 12 and 13. We think that local decision making and community empowerment in the NHS, including on commissioning decisions, is the right thing to be doing. However, I echo some of the concerns of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, particularly on specialist commissioning. I declare an interest as vice-chair of the spinal cord injury all-party parliamentary group. We are concerned that expertise in low-volume, very specialist concerns will be lost if the commissioning is pushed out to multiple ICBs. My understanding is that specialist commissioning sat with NHS England in the first place because of concern that multiple commissioning groups would struggle to deal with low-volume, complex issues. The president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists warned earlier this month that the new commissioning structure lacks mental health experts, with only one senior mental health lead across the seven new regional commissioning hubs taking specialised services from NHS England. Equally, the chief executive of the Derby and Derbyshire, Lincolnshire, and Nottingham and Nottinghamshire ICB cluster has said that it does not look like there will be a requirement for senior mental health expertise in reorganising ICBs. Will the Minister reassure us that when the Department designs which specialist services will be pushed back down to ICBs and which will be retained centrally, it will be minded to listen to representations from experts in the sector? There are excellent services located geographically by accident—for example, the orthopaedic hospital in my constituency and the veterans service that goes with it. Both are highly valued, but they need specialist commissioning at national level to be utilised properly and to provide the best outcomes for patients. I would be grateful for the Minister’s reassurance on those points.

   Hansard source
5. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

   Health Bill (Sixth sitting)

   Yes, we would support the amendment, which is a reasonable way to get there, but an assurance from the Minister that the Department will consider specialist commissioning and really think that through properly before the powers are delegated to ICBs would be sufficient.

   Hansard source
6. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

   Health Bill (Sixth sitting)

   With permission, I will explain to the shadow Minister our votes on amendment 57, which she pressed to a vote. I was reassured by the commitment the Minister made to consult widely on those commissioning changes, so the Liberal Democrats switched our vote from support to abstain. I move on to new clause 2, our amendment in this group, which the shadow Minister was just discussing. It would require the Secretary of State to introduce a scheme to ensure patients have the right to see a GP or another appropriate clinician within their GP practice within seven days. The NHS constitution currently confers rights on patients when they are considered really important. There are, for example, rights within the NHS constitution around receiving cancer diagnoses and treatment. We felt that there was a gap on access to GPs. Given the Government’s stated aim of transferring more care into the community, which we fully support, and given the observation in the Darzi report that more and more money is being spent on secondary rather than primary care, we think it is really important to confer the right on patients to be able to access primary care when they need to. As the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham pointed out, this measure would require a large number of additional GPs and would therefore not be achievable overnight, but over the course of a Parliament. The Liberal Democrat plan includes recruiting and retaining an extra 8,000 GPs, relieving pressure on the rest of the health service and enabling that shift into the community. When patients—

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

   Health Bill (Sixth sitting)

   We do not consider the right to achieve a cancer diagnosis and treatment to be burdensome on the secondary care providers of those treatments; we consider that important enough to enshrine that right within the NHS constitution, and this would be a similar level of right. I would not imagine that a GP would be worrying about somebody taking them to court, but it would confer upon the Secretary of State the duty to ensure that primary care is adequately resourced in order to be able to meet that commitment.

   Hansard source
8. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

   Health Bill (Sixth sitting)

   The right hon. Gentleman asks an extremely important question, and I am happy to clarify. It would be an appropriate clinician within the GP practice, and it could obviously be a telephone appointment, because that might be more convenient for the patient. Lots of patients are really happy with telephone appointments and we should be using them wherever that is the patient’s choice, because we want—I think we all do—to see an NHS that is patient-led and not politician-led.

   Hansard source
9. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

   Health Bill (Sixth sitting)

   I am going to make some progress, actually, because I think I am going to be asked the same questions.

   Hansard source
10. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Sixth sitting)

    Well, I will just move on a little bit. The important question is: can this be achieved this overnight? Clearly not; we need additional clinicians in the service. The Liberal Democrat view is that the extra—I think 1,000 or 1,500—GPs that the Government have recruited so far is a welcome step forward, but that does not go far enough over the course of a Parliament. As I was saying earlier, when patients cannot access their GP surgery, they end up, more often than not, in accident and emergency departments. That is no good for anybody. It overburdens the A&E department, leaves people who genuinely need urgent care getting a substandard level of care, and costs the NHS far more. We think it is really important that we put the resource in the right place.

    Hansard source
11. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Sixth sitting)

    That is exactly what new clause 2 seeks to drive at.

    Hansard source
12. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Sixth sitting)

    Yes, I have thought about where that responsibility lies. It clearly lies with the triaging process within the GP surgery. I do not think any of us envisage somebody phoning up about a child with a cold and saying, “I consider this to be urgent,” and getting an appointment within 24 hours, but I would imagine somebody from the surgery saying, “Please describe the symptoms to me,” and then, if they detected something more serious, saying, “That is urgent and you do need to come in within 24 hours.” The point of new clause 2 is to clarify in the NHS constitution that some services require parity with others. We have already established legal rights under the NHS constitution for certain types of treatment, and this puts GP access on the same level. We think that that is important. I am conscious of time, so I will move on to new clause 52, which is about dental deserts. Everyone is horrified by dental deserts and by “DIY dentistry”, a phrase that means—let us face it—people using pliers to extract their teeth and super glue to reattach crowns, and cavities filled with household adhesives. More than 5 million children did not see a dentist at all in 2025. That is a stark failure. Dental care is as important as care for other parts of the body, in particular when most of what goes wrong in dentistry is preventable. We should absolutely focus on prevention, and that is in line with the Government’s aims to move from sickness to prevention. New clause 52 is about our £750 million dental rescue plan to guarantee access to an NHS dentist for anyone needing an urgent or emergency appointment, which I hope would end that awful DIY dentistry. The plan needs to be achieved through bringing dentists back from the private sector, fixing the contract, using flexible commissioning wherever necessary and introducing an emergency scheme. For example, the emergency dental scheme in Shropshire, operated by the community dental practice, enables people who have urgent need and cannot register with an NHS dentist to get the care that they need when they need it. I urge the Minister to take our new clauses on board and to ensure that people get the care they need when they need it.

    Hansard source
13. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Sixth sitting)

    I would like to clarify that point. We envisage that being at the GP with whom the patient is registered. Our broader policy, which is not included in new clause 2, is to have named GPs for people with complex conditions and complex comorbidities. Absolutely, we would envisage that as being a part of the continuity of care, which is so crucial.

    Hansard source
14. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Sixth sitting)

    Let me clarify. The new clause is about conferring a duty on the Secretary of State to provide that level of care. It would require a significant number of additional GPs, and that would cost a lot of money. The Liberal Democrats’ 2024 manifesto had a fully costed pledge to recruit and retain an additional 8,000 GPs within the course of a Parliament. I think we can all agree that the world has moved on since then, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that this week we proposed a significantly closer relationship with the European Union, which would grow our economy, increase our tax base and pay for a number of these things without having to subject people to additional, onerous tax hikes.

    Hansard source
15. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Sixth sitting)

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

    Hansard source
16. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Sixth sitting)

    I am sure the right hon. Member has enjoyed reading the Liberal Democrat website. If he had delved a little further into the policy paper that sits behind that manifesto commitment, he would see that that is with an appropriate clinician and not with a GP. I appreciate that the wording of the new clause says a GP, but it does indicate a GP practice, and would require the Secretary of State to establish a scheme that would achieve that. I expect that clarification could be made at that point.

    Hansard source
17. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Sixth sitting)

    I am happy to clarify. Clearly, the world has moved on since July 2024 when we put together our manifesto, but this was a fully costed plan with a number of different changes to tax regimes, including a tweak to capital gains tax and changes to the way that banks were taxed and digital services tax. Since then, we have proposed a number of other alternatives, but the principle of changes to capital gains tax, to the way that windfall profits of the big banks are taxed and to digital services taxes still stands. Plus, we also have a fully fleshed-out plan to actually grow our economy and deal with this problem in the long term.

    Hansard source
18. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Seventh sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 28, in clause 15, page 11, line 26, at end insert— “(d) in the design of service and arrangement for service delivery (co-production).” The amendment would explicitly require the Secretary of State to make arrangements for the co-production of any health service commissioned by the Secretary of State.

    Hansard source
19. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Seventh sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I am moving this amendment on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), who is the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee. She designed the amendment to explicitly require the Secretary of State to make arrangements for the co-production of any health service commissioned by the Secretary of State. The Liberal Democrats support clause 15 more broadly, and particularly the plans to involve affected patients, carers and representatives in planning and commissioning arrangements. Carers are a priority for our party, so it is really important to us that they have a meaningful say in the design and delivery of their care. I would be grateful if the Minister could elaborate on what that might look like in practice. The amendment would tighten up the clause to make some of its provisions more explicit, so that we can be confident that anyone involved in an individual’s care has the ability to influence it in an appropriate way.

    Hansard source
20. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Seventh sitting)

    I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 16 Regulations about commissioning by integrated care boards

    Hansard source
21. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Seventh sitting)

    I want to speak to amendment 63, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). As hon. Members know, he has campaigned passionately and for a long time on the provision of radiotherapy. His amendment seeks to ensure that there is sufficient and equitable access to radiotherapy. Radiotherapy is required by half of all cancer patients, and it is incredibly cost-effective, but England has fewer radiotherapy machines than comparable European countries, and thousands of people have to travel long distances and over 45 minutes for their treatment, particularly in my hon. Friend’s Cumbria constituency, as he has noted on many occasions. The Darzi review noted that radiotherapy services are on their knees. They have some of the longest waiting times for treatment and vast parts of the country are classed as radiotherapy deserts, because of lack of accessibility. Radiotherapy currently has the worst 62-day performance of all main cancer treatments, and if we are serious about ensuring that all cancer targets are met by 2029, then we need the infrastructure, people and equipment to deliver them. Cancer cases are expected to rise 30% by 2040, meaning that radiotherapy centres must be able to keep pace. Importantly, radiotherapy can also be used at an earlier stage in treatment, potentially saving lives, saving money and meeting important waiting time targets. We really ought to be leading the way on this and keeping pace with our European counterparts so that no one is left without the treatment they so desperately need. I add my support to amendment 52, because we do need to build confidence in the reduction of waiting lists, and more transparency around reductions would be helpful.

    Hansard source
22. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Seventh sitting)

    I want to draw the Minister’s attention to some of the difficulties relating to cross-border healthcare in a border area. I represent an area on a border. North Shropshire has a very wiggly, for want of a better word, border with Wales, which means that some English constituents are registered with a GP surgery in Wales but receive their secondary care in England. That causes significant difficulties for them because of the lack of joined-up communication between the two Administrations. I seek assurance from the Minister that as ICBs in England will have to pay regard to people who live near the border in Wales, conversations are going on with the commissioners in Wales to ensure that that process is as smooth as possible.

    Hansard source
23. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    National Resilience

    Water resilience is very much on people’s minds this week. When a canal embankment collapsed in Whitchurch in my constituency just before Christmas, I found out that the canal network is used for drinking water, and that millions of gallons of drinking water will be being pumped over the breach every single day until it is repaired. Canal embankments are often 200 years old and largely made of sand, yet they are critical national infrastructure. Is the Minister satisfied that the Government are doing enough to retain the canal network in a safe state, not only to keep people safe but to protect our water resilience?

    Hansard source
24. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Freddie van Mierlo

    Business of the House

    Protected land and villages, such as Stoke Row and Park Corner in my constituency, are being sold off in small lots. Auctioneers subtly encourage buyers into paying over the odds for land that has no prospect of planning consent. The result is disappointed and ripped-off buyers. Plot holders, left with failed investments, try to monetise them in ways that go against planning rules. We have also seen some members of the Gypsy and Traveller community move ahead with unauthorised development, using their ownership of the land to their advantage in the planning system. My residents are sick and tired of that, and expect the Government to act through the national planning policy framework and planning rules. Will the Leader of the House support my efforts to secure a Westminster Hall debate on the topic so we can discuss it further?

    Hansard source
25. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Freddie van Mierlo

    Neuropsychiatric Conditions: PANS and PANDAS

    I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for securing the debate and for her advocacy in raising the profile of PANS/PANDAS. I also thank the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) for the comments she made. I hope that she gets a response from her ICB very soon—I am waiting for one from mine. Last month, I attended a meeting organised by the all-party parliamentary group on PANS PANDAS, which my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife leads, to hear from young people directly on their experiences of the condition and the impact on their lives. What stuck with me from that meeting was a powerful comment by one of the young people there, who said, “We don’t want your sympathy. We want your action.” Let that comment last with the Minister, too—action, not sympathy. One young advocate at the meeting was my constituent, 10-year-old Albie and his mother, who are watching the debate today from the Gallery and braved the heat to come here from Oxfordshire. Albie’s brother is diagnosed with PANS/PANDAS, and Albie has become a tireless and devoted campaigner on his brother’s behalf. Albie has launched a letter-writing campaign. He is already 19 months deep into his campaign and has become pen pals with the most powerful and influential people in the country, including His Majesty the King, the high sheriff of Oxfordshire, the Prime Minister, various Ministers, NHS leaders and leading clinicians and, of course, the Speaker’s Office. Albie proudly showed me in a constituency surgery and again this afternoon his beautiful handwritten letters and the responses, all stored safely in a binder. I am proud to have on my wall in my office here in Westminster a thank you card from Albie, with his trademark drawing of a panda. His next campaign is to write to all 26 main children’s hospitals, asking them to send a doctor or member of staff to the PANS PANDAS UK clinical professionals conference in October in Royal Leamington Spa. His hope is that if more clinicians learn about recognising and treating PANS/PANDAS, children like his brother will receive help more quickly. Albie is an inspiration to all of us and is driven by love for his brother. I wish him continued success, and he has assured me today that he is already dusting off his pencils to write to the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham). However, at just 10 years old, Albie should not be having to do this. He feels compelled to do it because the NHS and successive Governments have failed families like his. His family have had a difficult time getting the diagnosis and treatment needed, and that is not unusual. When surveyed, only 2% of patients and families said that GPs recognised that their child could have PANS/PANDAS. The path to diagnosis can take months or years, with persistence from parents required to advocate for children. Many are forced to spend thousands of pounds on private assessments and treatment because NHS support is inadequate. When asked by a show of hands at the all-party group meeting, every single young person said their family had paid for private treatment. It is unacceptable that an entire condition requires, by default, private care. It bakes in inequality and places extreme stress and strain on parents. I know as a parent that I would do anything for my child, and Albie’s mum is no different, but the financial pressure placed on ordinary, hard-working families like hers is devastating. The lack of specialist clinicians and knowledge within the NHS appears to be a major cause of this, with too many clinicians misidentifying the condition and refusing treatments being deployed in the private sector. We urgently need better guidance for the NHS to close this gap. Families are fighting to be heard by professionals who all too often dismiss or do not recognise PANS and PANDAS. I therefore welcome the announcement that NICE will review independently produced guidelines from the PANS clinical guideline development group and PANS PANDAS UK through the guideline collaboration programme. However, I am concerned by my most recent correspondence on this topic with the Minister for Women’s Health and Mental Health, who sits in the other place, in which she said: “Should the evidence continue to increase, organisations such as the NICE will consider updating clinical policy”. My reading of this is that there is no clear commitment that clinical guidance will be adopted by NICE, and I would be grateful if the Minister here today could comment specifically on that point.

    Hansard source
26. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Freddie van Mierlo

    Neuropsychiatric Conditions: PANS and PANDAS

    I wholeheartedly agree with the right hon. Gentleman. There are very few downsides of prescribing an antibiotic, especially in this instance, given the seriousness of the condition. As he says, there is really no good reason to withhold this medication. A second challenge facing families is the impact on a child’s ability to participate in education, as they miss months of school because they are too unwell to attend. That not only affects their learning but limits opportunities to socialise, make friends and have a community beyond home. Every child has a right to an education. PANS/PANDAS does not limit ambition or ability, but our education system is placing limits on children with the condition. Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 is in place to stop that happening, and it requires local authorities to arrange suitable education for children who cannot attend school due to illness. However, the provision is not always effective for children living with PANS/PANDAS, and parents still need to be advocates for their own rights, rather than being proactively told them and guided through the process. There is a wider point. Families are often left fighting for support from multiple systems at the same time, including healthcare, education and local authorities, while trying to take care of a very unwell child. It is the last thing they need. There are steps that the Government can take to limit the challenges. First, PANS/PANDAS must be researched in greater depth. It is currently unknown how many people are affected by PANS/PANDAS in the UK, and there is no official guidance on the diagnosis and treatment of those conditions in the NHS. Secondly, we need training of health professionals to recognise and treat the condition. PANS and PANDAS are conditions with a high risk of long-term disability, exclusion from society and failed education. Families express that if only their children’s condition had been recognised sooner by health professionals, it could have had a significant impact on their child’s wellbeing and outcomes. Thirdly, we must improve the support offered to children in education. The publication of local authority guidance is anticipated this summer, and it is important that it ensures that schools and services meet their statutory duties for children with PANS/ PANDAS. Thousands of families are fighting for support from multiple systems while taking care of unwell children. It is time for the Government to do their part, and eliminate the barriers to diagnosis and treatment for those living with PANS/PANDAS.

    Hansard source
27. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

    Health Bill (Sixth sitting)

    Just to reiterate what my hon. Friend is saying, in Winchester we are now putting an urgent treatment centre in front of the A&E, staffed by GPs to do the triage, because so many people who turn up are only there because they cannot get a GP appointment. So we now have hospital trusts paying for GPs to provide same-day GP appointments, and that is coming out of the secondary care budget instead of the primary care budget. That is obviously the most expensive place to treat patients for routine things.

    Hansard source
28. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

    Health Bill (Sixth sitting)

    Even when the right hon. Gentleman criticises, he does so in a charming way. None of this is moving the discussion to how we keep people healthy and treat them early. He may criticise our funding models and challenge the detail for achieving this measure, but if we flip that round, the previous Government promised 40 new hospitals, which were not hospitals and did not materialise. The entire focus of healthcare has been on treating people once they are sick, while people cannot get GP appointments. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that the thrust of the argument is to try to keep people healthy and treat them early, before they end up needing hospital treatment, and that that is what we should all be focusing on. If he wants to help with the details in order to get 8,000 GPs by the end of this Parliament, he can submit his suggestions to the Liberal Democrat website.

    Hansard source
29. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

    Health Bill (Seventh sitting)

    We have a few concerns about the clause in general, especially about the removal of local authority and primary care representation on the ICB. Some ICBs are already stepping back from joint commissioning arrangements with social care and the health and wellbeing boards, and it is vital that social care has a seat at the table. We have talked about this extensively in many Committees and in the Chamber, but the Liberal Democrats have been emphatic that we cannot solve any of the problems in the NHS without solving social care. At any given point, our hospital in Winchester certainly has 160 people in it who are well enough or would be better cared for in the community with a social care package; instead, they are stuck in a hospital, obviously affecting flow through the whole hospital and even affecting A&E waiting times. Combined with the changes to the pooled budgets that will affect the better care fund, we are seriously concerned that the Bill is increasingly separating the NHS and social care just at a time when the service and experts are screaming out for greater integration and collaborative working. We discussed GPs this morning. They have long-standing concerns about getting their voice heard, given their unique place in the health system. They are the front gate to the NHS and they have the most patient contact of any NHS service. Removing the duty seems to be a step in the wrong direction in that regard. Finally, the change will leave in limbo areas such as Hampshire that do not yet have a fully functional mayoral authority—our elections will be in the next couple of years. There has not yet been sufficient clarity about what the interim arrangements will be.

    Hansard source
30. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

    Health Bill (Seventh sitting)

    On the economics, it costs around £850 a night to keep someone in a hospital bed and a fraction of that for a social care package. This is an absolute false economy, even if we ignore patient experience and patient recovery.

    Hansard source
31. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·David Chadwick

    Ports and Port Connectivity

    I am intervening because the hon. Lady mentioned Port Talbot. Last year, I met the Associated British Ports in Port Talbot. It raised concerns that the current rail link into the docks may not have the gauge needed for the large structures that will be brought in for assembly or to get freight out from the new freeport that will be created. Does she agree that the Minister should assess whether upgrades, or even a new rail link into the docks, will be needed so that rail infrastructure—or the lack of it—does not hold back this major opportunity for south Wales?

    Hansard source
32. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·David Chadwick

    Steel Trade Measure

    The imposition of tariff barriers alone is not sufficient to address the shortcomings in our steel industry. The Minister said that it is important to provide more opportunities to help people buy British steel, but there is a difference between saying that and making it happen. He will be aware that we lack the heavy plate steel and plate rolling capability needed for building offshore wind turbines, which could be made in Port Talbot rather than having to be imported from abroad, and that specialist plate for defence applications is also limited. What are the Government doing to close those strategic capability gaps? Have they assessed whether developing a heavy plate mill at Port Talbot could help to underpin the offshore wind industry that we could build in the Celtic sea?

    Hansard source
33. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Clive Jones

    National Lung Cancer Screening Programme

    I beg to move, That this House has considered the national lung cancer screening programme. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I declare an interest as a governor of the Royal Berkshire hospital. A family member also holds shares in a medical company. Lung cancer is a rapidly fatal disease that kills nearly 33,000 people in the UK every year. Fortunately, targeted lung cancer screening has become one of the NHS’s real success stories, with Lord Darzi highlighting it as the only initiative across all cancers that has improved rates of early-stage diagnosis in recent years. Screening is without doubt the single biggest intervention in improving lung cancer survival. When the UK Lung Cancer Coalition was launched in 2005, five-year survival stood at around 8% which was among the lowest rates in Europe. The UKLCC has now set an ambition of 35% of patients surviving five years after diagnosis by 2035—a target once thought to be impossible, but now within reach thanks to screening. The Government’s decision to roll out fully the targeted national lung cancer screening programme in England for people aged 55 to 74 with a smoking history was a major milestone. To date, that programme has identified more than 10,600 lung cancers, with over 75% diagnosed at an early, treatable stage, compared with just 28% before screening was introduced. Without doubt, lung cancer screening is saving lives. It is cancer prevention in action and exemplifies the shift toward earlier diagnosis set out in the NHS 10-year plan. I place on record my thanks to the NHS cancer programme team, lung cancer advisers and the lung cancer screening clinical expert group for delivering the fastest roll-out of lung cancer screening anywhere in the world. The benefits of screening extend beyond lung cancer. Screening is also identifying conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiovascular disease, potentially saving even more lives. Since I applied for this debate, the Department has committed in the national cancer plan to a timetable for the full roll-out of the programme. That is a significant achievement. The inclusion of screening in the NHS app is another welcome step, but we cannot be complacent simply because a roll-out is promised in a plan. Will the Government reaffirm their commitment to a national roll-out timetable and ensure that the programme continues at pace? The national cancer plan commits to reaching 100% of the eligible population by 2030. That timetable matters because any slowdown risks reversing progress on early diagnosis. Unlike other national screening programmes, lung cancer screening does not yet have guaranteed funding beyond 2030. If this programme is to remain stable and effective, it needs protected long-term funding. We must also continue to evaluate reporting systems, national databases, turnaround times, workforce capacity and how screening is tailored to local populations. Importantly, screening is helping to reduce health inequalities by focusing on areas of deprivation. That progress should continue, supported by investment in community engagement and communications to ensure that hard-to-reach populations are not left behind. Given the importance of reducing inequalities, will the Minister confirm whether lung cancer screening will move to section 7A arrangements with ringfenced funding beyond 2030? There is also concern about maintaining political momentum. With both drivers behind the national cancer plan no longer in post and Cabinet changes expected in the next few weeks, many in the cancer community are understandably concerned about whether the commitment will continue. I am sure the Minister will reaffirm his commitment. England is leading the way, but early detection must not become a postcode lottery across the UK. Wales is preparing to launch a programme in 2027, but Scotland and Northern Ireland remain significantly behind. The UK Lung Cancer Coalition is supporting discussions in both nations later this year to understand the barriers and encourage implementation. Lung cancer is the UK’s biggest cancer killer. Every eligible person, regardless of where they live, should have access to the same opportunities for early diagnosis. I urge the devolved Governments to learn from England’s experiences and introduce screening as quickly as possible. Will the Minister engage with counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland to encourage progress towards UK-wide implementation? There are several threats to the programme’s success. First, there are growing concerns about integrated care board interference and the lack of ringfenced funding. Cost-cutting pressures on ICBs threaten to undermine progress. There are reports that high-performing screening teams—some seeing 55 patients a day—are being disrupted, and that screening resources are being diverted elsewhere. The variation in delivery across the country is striking. Lung cancer screening funding should be used for lung cancer screening, and local structures should not be allowed to dilute a programme that is demonstrably working well. Will Ministers issue clear guidance to ICBs to prevent interference in delivery? Will they guarantee that screening funding is to be ringfenced and used solely for its intended purposes? Will they ensure that ongoing ICB restructuring does not weaken accountability or performance? Secondly, the abolition of NHS England raises legitimate concerns. The programme’s roll-out, data systems and clinical governance arrangements require continuity, and many charities and organisations across the cancer sector are concerned about potential loss of expertise during organisational change. What safeguards are in place to ensure continuity of leadership, data management and programme oversight throughout the transition? Thirdly, workforce pressures remain one of the greatest threats to the programme being sustained. Screening increases demand across radiology, pathology, thoracic surgery and genomics, yet workforce planning has not kept pace. The Royal College of Radiologists has warned that there will not be enough radiologists to support the programme by 2030. Timely diagnostic and treatment services must be available so that patients diagnosed with early-stage disease can access potentially curative treatment. Demand for thoracic surgery is also rising, as early-stage lung cancers are often best treated surgically. Without sufficient capacity, opportunities to cure may be lost. Greater awareness among GPs remains important too. Around one in five lung cancers occur in people who have never smoked—indeed never-smoked lung cancer is now the eighth most common cancer in the UK and the seventh most common worldwide—but smoking cessation remains a vital part of the screening programme. Smoking causes around 72% of lung cancer cases in the UK, making cessation support one of the most cost-effective interventions available. The British Thoracic Society has called for at least one specialist tobacco adviser in every hospital. As the Government pursues its smoke-free 2030 ambitions, the NHS has a critical role to play in helping people to quit smoking. The Institute of Clinical Research has highlighted workforce challenges in biomarker testing and molecular diagnostics, both of which are increasingly important for personalised cancer treatment. As I have repeatedly argued in this House, the national cancer plan can succeed only if its ambitions are matched by investment in the workforce needed to deliver them. When will the Government publish their delayed workforce plan and how will they support the continued expansion of lung cancer screening? Will Ministers commit to increase training places in radiology, pathology and thoracic surgery? Lung cancer screening is one of the most effective public health interventions introduced in recent years. It is saving lives, reducing inequalities and shifting diagnosis toward earlier, more treatable stages of the disease, but its future success depends on stability, protecting funds, a sustainable workforce, robust Government and UK-wide implementation. The Government have an opportunity to secure the future of a programme that is already transforming outcomes for thousands of people. The UK Lung Cancer Coalition believes that doing so is essential if we are to achieve the ambition of a 35% five-year survival rate by 2035.

    Hansard source
34. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Clive Jones

    National Lung Cancer Screening Programme

    I would just like to mention a few of the things that hon. Members have spoken about. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was absolutely right to pay tribute to the Government for their work on lung cancer screening. That is an outstanding success, but screening still needs more support from the Government because, as he says, screening saves lives. My hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) talked about lung cancer being horrific and deadly, and he spoke about his constituent John, who probably thought, when he got his diagnosis, “This is going to be horrific and deadly for me.” Because of the lung cancer screening programme, it looks like he might have a few good years ahead of him, so that is really good. My hon. Friend also talked about the speed and quality of treatment, and how important it is that we are quick with our diagnoses, that we are quick with our treatment and that our cancer patients have the support of specialist nurses. The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) is absolutely right that early detection is crucial in lung cancer treatment, as he knows from being a junior doctor once upon a time. He is also right to say that the origin of the screening programme was under the Conservatives in 2023, and he is right to join other Members in asking for lung screening to be spread out to all parts of the United Kingdom. I thank the Minister for coming to the debate today and for answering an awful lot of the questions that we asked him. I know that he is here on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), who is, I know, a real champion for improving cancer care in this country. I think it is great that the Government are committing £650 million for lung cancer screening in England to be spent by 2030, but what about Scotland and Northern Ireland? Is the Minister able to make a commitment that the Department will speak to the devolved Governments of Scotland and Northern Ireland to try to get them to implement what has been done so well in England, or does he need to speak to the Under-Secretary of State? We did not get a guarantee that lung cancer—

    Hansard source
35. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Clive Jones

    National Lung Cancer Screening Programme

    Thank you for your intervention, Minister, and your clarification. But you did not need to intervene because I am sure—

    Hansard source
36. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Clive Jones

    National Lung Cancer Screening Programme

    I apologise, Sir Alec. The Minister did not need to intervene. I am sure he will take that message back to his colleague. What we would like to see, which was not mentioned in the Minister’s speech, is a guarantee that lung cancer screening funding will be ringfenced and used only for lung cancer screening. There was no comment on the changes in the integrated care boards and NHS England or on what safeguards are in place to ensure continuity of leadership, data management and programme oversight during the organisational changes. I am sure the Minister and other Ministers know that is a big concern for a lot of charities. There was no mention of expanding radiology. A lot of people who talk about cancer, including Members of Parliament and cancer charities, know that there has to be a big expansion of radiography sooner rather than later. Finally, I would like to thank you for chairing the meeting, Sir Alec, and for pulling me up on my mistake. I shall endeavour to do better next time. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the national lung cancer screening programme.

    Hansard source
37. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Clive Jones

    Public Procurement: SMEs

    Public procurement must do more to support SMEs in Wokingham and across the UK who are doing their best to grow, despite what many see as a lack of help from the Government. In defence, only 5% of the procurement budget is allocated to SMEs. How will the Government change public procurement to benefit SMEs and the economy?

    Hansard source
38. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Clive Jones

    Business of the House

    Pubs are the lifeblood of our local communities. In Wokingham, we are very lucky to have so many great pubs. To try to help them, I ran my “Wokingham’s Best Pub” competition, recognising the value of pubs and their staff. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating The Two Poplars, which won the best pub competition last Friday, and, as I know he likes to support local pubs, will he consider joining me for a pint in The Two Poplars, where he will find good beer and good food?

    Hansard source
39. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Claire Young

    Business of the House

    Freeholders on private estates currently face unregulated service charges and have no meaningful recourse if managing agents are incompetent. In January, the Minister of State for Housing committed to tackling these so-called fleecehold schemes by the end of this Parliament. However, with a new Prime Minister likely to reset the legislative agenda, affected constituents will be worried that that promise will be quietly dropped. Will the Leader of the House request a written statement on delivery from the Minister?

    Hansard source
40. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Christine Jardine

    Ports and Port Connectivity

    I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to speak, even in this heat, although jackets can be removed.

    Hansard source