Alison Bennett MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Jun 2026 · Puberty Blockers · Hansard source

  More

  I will not. We must never lose sight of the fact that at the core of the debate is young people’s wellbeing and health. It is not about ideology; it is about what is best for young people. The Government must always prioritise clinical evidence and put the interests of patients at the heart of care.

• 22 Jun 2026 · Spinal Muscular Atrophy: Newborn Screening Test · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for opening this debate so well. I am grateful to the petitioners for securing this debate, including the 287 constituents in my own patch, and to the many families, clinicians, charities and campaigners who have worked so hard to raise awareness of spinal muscular atrophy and the importance of newborn screening. I would like to say a big thank you to them, and I truly mean that. This issue goes to the heart of what our health service should be about: identifying serious conditions as early as possible, ensuring equal access to life-changing treatment and giving every child the best possible start in life. Spinal muscular atrophy, or SMA, is a devastating genetic condition, as the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar) so eloquently set out when he shared that letter. It causes progressive muscular weakness and can have a profound impact on almost every aspect of a person’s life. Many people with SMA face significant mobility challenges, difficulties with breathing, and bone and joint complications such as scoliosis. An SMA diagnosis can be life changing for whole families. It brings uncertainty, anxiety, and in many cases, the prospect of intensive and lifelong care needs. Historically, SMA was one of the leading genetic causes of infant mortality. Before effective treatments became available, up to 90% of babies with the most severe forms of the condition would die or require permanent ventilation before the age of two. That stark statistic reminds us just how serious this condition can be. Thankfully, the picture today is different. Thanks to years of scientific research, medical innovation, and the determination of patients, families and campaigners, we now have treatments that can dramatically alter outcomes for children diagnosed with SMA. These advances represent one of the great success stories of modern medicine, but there is one crucial factor that determines how successful those treatments can be: timing. The earlier SMA is diagnosed, the better the outcomes. In many cases, treatment before symptoms develop can prevent irreversible damage to motor neurones and dramatically improve children’s future quality of life. Earlier diagnosis can mean the difference between a child learning to walk independently or their never achieving that milestone. That is why newborn screening matters, as all hon. Members who have taken part in today’s debate have made so clear. The debate is about ensuring that children can benefit from treatments at the point when those treatments are most effective; it is about giving families the opportunity that comes with early intervention; and it is about ensuring that where a child is born does not determine whether they have access to life-changing care. That is why there is understandable concern about the current rollout of the in-service evaluation for SMA screening. The principle behind the evaluation is sensible, and gathering evidence and ensuring that the NHS is prepared for wider implementation are important objectives. However, the rollout to date has been inconsistent and incomplete. Some parts of the country have been included, while others, as we have heard, have not. Families living in areas such as Oxfordshire currently have no access at all to the programme. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) has campaigned tirelessly on behalf of his constituents affected by this issue. In response to a parliamentary question that he submitted, it was confirmed that the current in-service evaluation will offer screening to about 400,000 babies. By comparison, a national screening programme would cover approximately 650,000 babies every year. In other words, under the current arrangements about one third of babies born each year will not be covered by the evaluation. That inevitably brings up questions, and not just those asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who rightly said that services for rare conditions should cast the widest net possible. Why should access screening depend on geography? Why should one family benefit from early detection, while another family living elsewhere does not? If the evidence increasingly points to the importance of early diagnosis, how can we possibly justify such uneven access? Too often in our NHS, patients and families face postcode lotteries. Whether it is on access to dentists, GPs, mental health services or specialist treatment, geography can end up determining outcomes. The Government and NHS England have acknowledged concerns about the rollout. We welcome indications that NHS England is considering whether implementation can move faster, and whether the evaluation could potentially be extended more widely. That is encouraging, but families and clinicians need greater certainty. At present, there is a lack of clarity about how long the evaluation will run, when additional sites may be added, and when a final decision on a national screening programme can be expected. Those are issues that it is reasonable to ask questions about, and people deserve answers to such questions. The Minister might point to the need for robust evidence before national implementation. Of course evidence matters and of course changes to screening programmes must be safe, effective and carefully planned, but if the stated purpose of the in-service evaluation is to gather evidence, surely there is a strong case for gathering that evidence from as broad and representative a population as possible. A wider rollout would not only improve equity of access; it would also strengthen the evidence base on which future decisions will be made.

• 22 Jun 2026 · Spinal Muscular Atrophy: Newborn Screening Test · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes the good point that often the uncertainty and the unknown length of time for which people are in limbo matter, and I hope that the Minister can address his question when she responds to the debate. In conclusion, the story of SMA over recent years is ultimately one of hope. Medical science has transformed what was once considered an overwhelmingly bleak diagnosis. Children who previously would have had very limited prospects now have opportunities that simply did not exist a generation ago, but those opportunities depend on timely diagnosis. The treatments exist, the evidence is growing and the need is clear. The challenge now is to ensure that every child has the same chance to benefit from those advances, regardless of where they happen to be born. Families affected by SMA deserve urgency, clarity and, above all, a system that acts as quickly as science now allows. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Access to Dental Services: West Sussex · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady makes a really good point. We know that cancer treatment is a real priority for this Government and it certainly makes sense that her suggestion is considered. I hear from parents who are worried about finding appointments for their children; I hear from pensioners who are living with pain while waiting for treatment; and I hear from families who are forced to choose between paying for private dental care and paying for other essentials. There is currently only one dental practice in Burgess Hill accepting under-17s and the same is true in Haywards Heath; they are the two main towns in my constituency. For too many people in Mid Sussex, access to an NHS dentist feels less like a right and more like a lottery. When discussing this crisis, we often hear the phrase “DIY dentistry”. Its use has become so commonplace that we risk forgetting what it actually means. It means people pulling out their own teeth with pliers, or gluing crowns back into place. It means people attempting to treat serious dental problems themselves, because they cannot access professional care. A recent survey found that around 7% of UK adults had attempted some form of DIY dentistry. Over a third of those had tried to extract a painful tooth themselves; others had attempted to drain abscesses or repair fillings at home. People are doing these things because they are in pain and because they feel that they simply have no alternative. The scale of the challenge to turn that situation around is enormous. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester noted, recent NHS figures show that around 60% of adults have not seen a dentist in the last two years, and over 5 million children did not see a dentist at all in the year to June 2025. Tooth decay remains the most common reason for hospital admission among children aged six to 10. That is truly shameful. The previous Conservative Government left NHS dentistry in a deeply fragile state. Years of neglect and a fundamentally flawed dental contract drove dentists away from NHS provision, leaving patients to pay the price. Although the current Government inherited this crisis, they simply cannot inherit the excuses. The public were promised 700,000 additional urgent dental appointments, yet only around 100,000 have been delivered so far. Ministers might point to commissioning figures, but patients judge success by whether they can get an appointment when they need one. Far too many people across West Sussex still cannot do so. I welcome any increase in dental places, and the Government have made moves in that respect. However, I am sure that we all accept that there will be a long pipeline before the trainees of today become the fully fledged dentists who are able to carry out work doing NHS contracts. More importantly, training more dentists alone will not solve the problem. The dental contract remains broken, as we have already heard today. Dentists continue to tell us that the current system discourages them from doing NHS work and fails to reflect the complexity of the treatment that they provide. Unless the Government are prepared to commission and fund more NHS dentistry, increasing the number of dentists will not automatically increase access for patients. That is why contract change is so important. In April, Ministers announced a consultation on changing the contract, with proposals expected before the summer. Midsummer’s day is next week. Patients waiting in pain cannot afford further delays, and dentists who are considering their future in the NHS cannot afford further uncertainty. The Government must set out a clear timetable for reform and ensure that implementation is not kicked into the long grass. The Liberal Democrats believe that there is a better way forward. We have proposed a £750 million dental rescue package to end dental deserts and restore access to NHS dentistry. We would guarantee access to an NHS dentist for everyone requiring urgent or emergency care. We would fix the broken dental contract, expand training places, continue recognition of EU-qualified dentists and put proper workforce planning into law. We would also guarantee free dental check-ups for children, pregnant women, new mothers and those on low incomes while investing in prevention and oral public health, because if we are serious about solving this crisis, we must stop treating dentistry as an afterthought. This debate is about real people in Mid Sussex and across West Sussex and the country. It is about the parent in Haywards Heath who cannot find an NHS dentist for their child, and the older resident in Burgess Hill who is living with pain while waiting for treatment. It is about families who are doing everything right, but finding that accessing basic NHS dental care is increasingly impossible. No one in Mid Sussex should ever be forced into DIY dentistry, and no child should end up in hospital because routine dental care was unavailable. I would be grateful if the Minister could address three points. First, when will the Government publish and implement proposals for dental contract changes? Secondly, how will Ministers ensure that additional training places result in greater NHS capacity, rather than simply increasing the number of dentists working outside the NHS? Thirdly, what specific action is being taken to tackle unmet dental need and dental deserts in areas such as West Sussex? People in Mid Sussex and across our region deserve access to timely, affordable NHS dental care. I hope the Government will respond to this crisis with the urgency it demands.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Access to Dental Services: West Sussex · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship on Sussex Day, Sir Desmond. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on securing this important debate on access to dentistry services in West Sussex. I also thank my fellow West Sussex MPs, my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) and the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), for taking part in the debate. Of course, I particularly thank the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), and my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire), for their interest in the debate and for making links between our experience in West Sussex and their experiences in their constituencies. My constituents in Mid Sussex know all too well about the challenge of accessing dental services both for them and their children. An incredible 133,560 children covered by the NHS Sussex integrated care board did not see a dentist last year. That is 41% of them. The figure was even worse in 2024, with more than 140,000 children not seeing a dentist. Dozens of my constituents have contacted me to say that their local dentists are no longer taking NHS patients, leaving them and their children without the vital preventive dental care that they need and that we know saves the NHS a fortune down the line. Recently, a constituent contacted me after spending months trying to find an NHS dentist. Practice after practice told her the same thing—that no NHS places were available. Faced with either a long wait or private fees she simply could not afford, she was left with nowhere to turn. Sadly, as we have heard during the debate, that story is anything but unique.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Social Media Ban for Under-16s · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Secretary of State’s realism in accepting that the bans announced today will not be 100% perfect. Can she tell me what proportion of under-16s the Government expect will be prevented from accessing social media?

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I really just want to make a single observation. I supported the assisted dying Bill. In looking at the motion for the e-petition today, I tried to imagine what would happen if the boot was on the other foot or if a future Parliament had a Government who were, as the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) said, “mad, bad or dangerous”. To be frank, that reality may not be many years ahead of us and that Parliament might have a very different outlook on conscience issues from that of the current House of Commons. There might be a private Member’s Bill on a conscience issue that I profoundly opposed, but would I want the Lords to filibuster that Bill as they did just before Prorogation? If I am perfectly honest with myself, I suspect that I might if it were a conscience issue that I felt deeply opposed to. However, Members should consider what the reaction would be to the filibustering of a conscience Bill that somebody like me might oppose. Remember that the Lords did not get to pass judgment on the assisted dying Bill. Imagine what would happen if such a future conscience Bill were filibustered and talked out, so that there was no vote on it in the House of Lords. Imagine the public reaction to that. Imagine what some political actors who are currently doing quite well in the national polls would do if that was what the House of Lords did. Public trust in this place is already low, and public trust in politicians is through the floor. If we believe in democracy and in the primacy of the Commons, we cannot accept this situation for a Bill that I might support in the future, or one that I might profoundly oppose.

• 3 Jun 2026 · South East Water: Disruption of Supply · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely despair of South East Water. As we have heard from Members who represent Kent constituencies, South East Water cannot cope with large water outages; but nor can it cope with small water outages. In my constituency, the village of Staplefield has just gone through 30 hours without water, without bottled water being supplied and without good information—indeed, there was even some misinformation. I understand that trying to fix decades of neglect of water infrastructure will take a long time, but in the Minister’s next meetings with executives at South East Water, will she ask to look at their communication plans so that people can know what is happening, get timely information and get the bottled water they need, since outages seem to be par for the course these days?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Milburn Review: Interim Report · Hansard source

  More

  I declare an interest as the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for young carers and young adult carers. The APPG published an inquiry earlier this year which found that 40,000 young adult carers are providing more than 50 hours of caring a week. They face significant financial and systemic barriers to going into higher education, training and employment, and almost half have turned down education or training opportunities. They are the best of people; they are balancing education, work and caring. I offer the Minister one suggestion that would help. Will the Government look at changing the eligibility rules for carer’s allowance, so that students studying for more than 21 hours a week are eligible?

• 21 May 2026 · Women’s Health and Wellbeing: Online Censorship · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) on securing this timely and important debate, and I thank the hon. Members for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee), for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), for Colne Valley (Paul Davies), for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) for their contributions. Women’s health has been under-represented, under- discussed and under-researched throughout human history. As a result, women in my constituency, across the country and around the world are suffering needlessly. We are here today to discuss and highlight the fact that the online world has not changed that for the better, and that there is evidence that social media and tech giants are censoring women’s health issues, while men’s issues seem to be posted, shared and discussed with relative ease. That doubles down on centuries of health inequality, and it needs to stop. There is, of course, a balance to be struck in identifying what is and is not appropriate to be shared with an increasingly wide audience online and on social media platforms—indeed, there is an active and growing discussion of that issue—but the censoring of accurate and lifesaving health information or of the promotion of effective products cannot be allowed. Social media companies are systematically censoring content relating to menstruation, fertility, menopause and postpartum recovery by classifying it as adult content. At the same time, algorithms continue to push extreme material every single day. Violence, misogyny and racism proliferate online with alarming ease, yet educational and medical content about women’s bodies is apparently where tech companies choose to draw the line. Meta introduced new health advertising categories earlier this year and rolled out additional restrictions designed to prevent advertisers from sharing what it classifies as sensitive health data. In practice, that has led many femtech and women’s health companies to claim that they are being disproportionately censored. We have seen reports of adverts for egg testing being removed, while sperm testing adverts remain. Educational posts are taken down for using medically accurate language. Charities such as Tommy’s have reportedly had research content flagged as inappropriate simply for containing the word “vagina”. A 2023 campaign by Bodyform highlighted more than 40 banned or restricted words, including “cervix”, “PCOS”, “infertility” and “menopause”. That is shocking and idiotic. Words associated with normal biological functions and serious medical conditions are being treated as taboo. The campaign group CensHERship found that 95% of women’s health creators experienced censorship in the past year, and more than half said that they now self-censor their own language to avoid having content removed. That should concern us all. The Removing or restricting medical and educational information does not protect people from dangerous content; it limits discussion and learning on subjects that are already not talked about enough, and the consequences are serious. Medical misogyny, systematic under-research and poor education around women’s health are already deeply embedded in society. Only about 2% of UK public research funding is spent on female reproductive health. Against that backdrop, unnecessary restrictions risk further exacerbating inequalities and leaving women and girls without access to information that could genuinely improve and, in some cases, save their lives. It is frankly ridiculous that women are increasingly forced to use euphemisms online to discuss medically accurate terms such as “vagina”, to avoid censorship. What message does that send to young women and girls? What message does that send to our children? I grew up in the ’90s—in an age when talking about women’s heath was too often shameful and euphemisms were normal. I remember TV adverts extoling the possibilities of rollerblading along a California beach in hot pants, and mystery blue liquids were used to demonstrate the absorbent qualities of the latest sanitary towel. Things have changed. I have noticed that my local supermarket no longer has the obscurely named “feminine hygiene” aisle, and that the blue liquid on TV adverts is now red. Things have got better in the last 30 years, but the internet is the not-so-new frontier where we must continue to make the case that these subjects are not shameful and that women should not feel embarrassed about their own bodies and health. Shame and stigma stop women from coming forward with their problems, which delays diagnoses and worsens outcomes, as when patients present later the consequences can be devastating. Of course, there are legitimate concerns about medical misinformation online, and the Government must absolutely continue to tackle harmful information, but the systematic restriction of women’s health content is not the answer. Social media and the internet are now central conduits of knowledge and learning, particularly for younger generations. They have enormous untapped potential as tools for public health education and awareness. I am afraid the Government’s recent women’s health strategy was a missed opportunity to begin to address the issue, but at the very least the Government should bring tech companies, campaigners, clinicians and women’s health organisations around the table to establish a workable and transparent solution. Women should not have to fight algorithms simply to access accurate health information, and in 2026 medically accurate discussions about women’s bodies should not be treated as inappropriate, shameful or obscene. It is time for us to stop allowing technology to reinforce existing inequality, and instead use it as a force for good.

• 21 May 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Yesterday, the Climate Change Committee laid out in stark terms the risks that we face as a country if we do not tackle the impact of climate change; one of those was drought. That is especially pertinent in Mid Sussex and across the south-east, which is extremely water scarce. South East Water is already warning about its ability to meet the demands of a growing population. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on how the Government intend to reconcile their housing targets with the region’s finite water resources?

• 19 May 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent Tam is a mental health legal aid lawyer who has seen demand in the sector rise while fees fail to keep up. As a result, many have left that line of work, despite the Government’s Mental Health Act 2025 increasing the workload. This is unacceptable when people’s liberty is at stake, so what specific assessments has the Department made of the current sustainability of the mental health legal aid sector, and what concrete steps is it taking to ensure the financial viability of that sector?

• 27 Apr 2026 · Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update · Hansard source

  More

  What is the Department’s internal deadline for concluding the release of the Mandelson files? If there is an internal deadline, who will be held accountable if the Department fails to meet it?

• 23 Apr 2026 · Allied Health Professionals · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for opening the debate, and to the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for her work on the APPG and as a physiotherapist. Medical staff in my constituency and across the country are the backbone of our national health service. While doctors and nurses are often front of mind when the public think about the NHS workforce, as we have heard this afternoon an army of highly skilled professionals keep our health services running every single day. They save lives, provide comfort in moments of fear and, as set out so brilliantly by the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), aid rehabilitation, enabling people to get back to their normal lives.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Allied Health Professionals · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right. We know that with the right support, often from allied health professionals, people do not need to present at A&E and they can get out of hospital and into suitable accommodation with the right level of support much more quickly, which is better for them as individuals and also supports the NHS in carrying out its functions more efficiently. Many of our allied health professionals—the third largest professional group in the NHS—do amazing work, as we have heard. They are central to prevention, diagnosis, treatment and public health. As pressures on our health and care services have grown, their role has become indispensable. From the paramedic first on the scene in an emergency, to the radiographer enabling rapid diagnosis and the physiotherapist helping someone regain their independence, those professionals are there at every stage of the patient journey. They are often the difference between life and death, between recovery and long-term disability, between dependence and independence, yet their contribution is overlooked. After years of mismanagement, our NHS has been left on its knees. Nowhere is that more visible than in our emergency departments. We have seen avoidable deaths in A&E waiting rooms, we have seen patients waiting hours for ambulances, and we have seen the shocking normalisation of corridor care—patients left on trolleys without privacy, dignity or proper attention. There are now even reports of people receiving end-of-life care in hospital corridors. This is a health system under intolerable strain. Public confidence is being shaken. It is no surprise that two thirds of people are worried about long A&E waits. The data is stark. Last year saw the worst level of 12-hour trolley waits ever recorded. On average, hospital trusts are now seeing thousands of patients waiting more than 24 hours in A&E every year. That is unacceptable. The Liberal Democrats have been leading the call to end corridor care within a year. We believe the crisis can be tackled, but only with serious, practical action. That includes creating a bank of safety net social care places and expanding step-down care for patients who are medically fit to leave hospital but still need support. At the heart of the solution are allied health professionals. By delivering rehabilitation packages through physio- therapists, occupational therapists and others, we can help people leave hospital sooner, recover more quickly, and regain their independence at home. That is better for patients and it is essential for freeing up hospital capacity and ending the gridlock in A&E. Will the Government commit to ending corridor care and 12-hour waits this year, and will they back that commitment with real investment in community care, social care and the allied health workforce? If we are to rely on those professionals—as we must, and as we already do—we need to support them properly. Right now, working conditions across the NHS are driving morale into the ground. Staff face inflexible rotas, burnout and, shockingly, workplace violence. That is not sustainable for them or for the patients they serve. The Liberal Democrats have a number of proposals that we would be grateful if the Minister considered. We would establish a truly independent pay review body. We would expand access to affordable childcare so NHS staff can balance their family with their careers. We are also calling for action on everyday costs such as reducing car parking charges at hospitals. Those are practical steps that would make a real difference. There are also growing staffing pressures among the allied health professionals. The Library reports that there has been a 57% increase in allied health professional full-time equivalents over the last decade, with the number of employees rising from 75,000 to 118,000. However, in conversations with the Royal College of Podiatry, it described high vacancy levels for NHS podiatry positions, a declining pipeline of applications to study podiatry programmes in England and rising demand for podiatrists’ services, all the while with the draw of working in the private sector. In physiotherapy, eight in 10 physiotherapists report that they do not have enough staff to meet demand, yet many services are facing recruitment freezes. Those contradictions speak volumes. The long-delayed national workforce plan must finally deliver for allied health professionals. It must address regional shortages and embed these roles fully into workforce planning from the outset, not as an afterthought. If the Government are serious about shifting care into the community and focusing on prevention, investment in AHPs is essential. Too often, we see a gap between rhetoric and reality. While Ministers talk about prevention, funding decisions continue to prioritise short-term fixes elsewhere. Our NHS is one of this country’s greatest achievements, but it cannot function without the people who sustain it. Allied health professionals are highly trained, autonomous practitioners. There are nearly 118,000 of them working across the NHS in England. They are central to modern, multidisciplinary care and to the future of a sustainable NHS. If we want a health service that prevents illness, reduces inequalities, and supports people to live healthier, longer lives, we must recognise and invest in their contribution. We must continue to fight for an NHS that works for patients, and we will continue to stand up for the staff, especially those too often overlooked, who are doing everything they can to get our NHS back on its feet, because they deserve nothing less.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Government Procurement Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  PVL is a SME in Burgess Hill that fabricates high-visibility livery, supplying 80% of police vehicles and 40% of ambulances. It is being hammered by the rules enacted in the Procurement Act 2023. Converters are the middlemen who take a regular vehicle and turn it into an emergency appliance. The 30-day payment terms set out in the Act are not enforceable. New tendering requirements cost time and money, but converters are under no obligation to use approved suppliers, and converters often go out of business owing money to the rest of the supply chain. That is a colossal waste of public sector money. Will the Minister agree to visit PVL, which is just over the border from his constituency, so that we can discuss these challenges?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Wheelchair Provision: Independent Review Body · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) for securing this important debate and setting out so clearly and in such detail why this matters. Access to a wheelchair is essential for many disabled people’s quality of life. It enables independence, supports physical health and allows people to participate in daily activities, work and their community. This debate is about whether the current system is capable of delivering that access consistently, fairly and effectively, or whether there is merit in establishing an independent national review body to help achieve that goal. As we have heard this morning, when access to a wheelchair is delayed or when equipment is unsuitable the consequences are serious. People can become housebound or bedbound and their health can deteriorate, leading to preventable complications, and in some cases avoidable hospital admissions. Across England, wheelchair services remain inconsistent. Too often, access depends on where someone lives. Long waiting times are widely reported, with some individuals waiting months and, as we have heard, in some cases over a year for appropriate equipment. For something so fundamental to mobility and dignity, that level of delay is unjustifiable. The impact extends beyond the individual who needs the wheelchair. Family carers provide vital support to their loved ones. Without a suitable wheelchair, carers may need to help with lifting and movement, increasing the risk of physical injury to themselves. There are also clear effects on mental health and wellbeing, both for carers and for the user of the wheelchair, and those are linked to the loss of independence and reduced privacy resulting from unsuitable equipment. These issues point to broader structural challenges. The Liberal Democrats believe that everyone should be able to live independently and with dignity; yet the current state of wheelchair provision reflects wider pressures within the health and social care system—pressures that contribute to inconsistency, delays and gaps in accountability. There have been efforts to improve services, including the NHS’s wheelchair quality framework, which sets out important principles and standards. However, it is reasonable to question whether guidance alone is enough to drive meaningful change, particularly in a system facing financial strain and ongoing reorganisation. Frameworks can outline expectations, but they do not ensure delivery. Wheelchair services are frequently delivered by private contractors on behalf of the NHS. In some cases performance has fallen short, as we have heard this morning, with long waiting times, poor communication and limited flexibility for patients. Where oversight is weak or fragmented it becomes harder to ensure the consistent high-quality provision that people deserve. This is where the question at the heart of today’s debate becomes especially relevant. There is a strong case for a more co-ordinated national approach that ensures clear accountability, consistent standards and better use of data to monitor performance and outcomes. An independent national review body overseeing wheelchair provision could offer solutions. It could provide clear accountability at a national level, helping to ensure that responsibility for performance does not become diffused across multiple organisations. It could support more consistent data collection, addressing current gaps in understanding around demand, waiting times and user experience. It could also strengthen the oversight of providers, including private contractors, ensuring that poor performance is identified and addressed more effectively. Importantly, it could help to ensure that best practice is shared and implemented more uniformly across the country, reducing the postcode lottery that currently affects so many people. Establishing a new body is not a solution in itself. The body’s effectiveness would depend on its powers, its independence and how it integrates with existing structures. However, given the persistent challenges in wheelchair provision, it is entirely reasonable to assess whether such an approach could deliver improvements that existing mechanisms have struggled to achieve. The issue is closely connected to wider policy challenges affecting disabled people, which extend beyond the responsibilities of the Department of Health and Social Care. For example, the Access for All scheme of the Department for Transport will make railway stations more accessible but I know from my Mid Sussex constituency that the promise of step-free access at Wivelsfield station, made under the last Conservative Government, was not funded and the upgrade has been cut by this Labour Government. The Access to Work scheme of the Department for Work and Pensions can help people with physical and mental disabilities get or stay in work but, as I previously set out to the Minister in this Chamber back in March, the wheelchair that one of my constituents needs has been delayed by years due to the DWP’s bureaucracy and “computer says no” attitude. All such schemes should work together to enable disabled people to live fulfilling lives. By extension, where the schemes are working properly, timely access to support would reduce pressure on other parts of the NHS, as we know is desperately needed. At present, provision is too variable and too slow. In considering the potential merits of establishing an independent national review body, the key question is not whether change is needed, because it clearly is, but how best to deliver it. A national body could provide the focus, oversight and accountability that are currently lacking. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I urge the Government to look into the arguments voiced in this debate and assess whether an independent national review body overseeing wheelchair provision is the best way to achieve the improvements that are so clearly needed. Those improvements are achievable but require sustained attention at a national level. For the many people whose independence depends on something as fundamental as a wheelchair, that change cannot come soon enough.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Multi-academy Trusts · Hansard source

  More

  15. What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the governance of multi-academy trusts.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Multi-academy Trusts · Hansard source

  More

  There are three schools in my Mid Sussex constituency that were part of the University of Brighton academy trust. Given that serious concerns about financial management at UBAT persisted for years before re-brokerage was triggered, will reforms to the multi-academy trust governance system include early warning systems, so that failing trusts are identified and intervention takes place before reaching the point of failure?

• 14 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Cerys was just 22 when she took her life while an in-patient at Park House in Greater Manchester. The coroner described the unit as “a shambles”. Cerys’s was just one of a number of deaths at the unit. There is a national pattern of mental health trusts failing to learn and act when tragedy occurs. Although reports on preventing future deaths are issued, there is no mechanism to ensure that their recommendations are acted on. How can accountability be strengthened?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Sudden Unexplained Death in Childhood · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for his brilliant opening speech setting out the frame of our conversation. I am mindful of the families in the Public Gallery, who have had unimaginable loss and who represent just a fraction of the families across the United Kingdom who have gone through this tragedy. I also know that some hon. Members who have met families who have lost a child through sudden unexplained death in childhood could not be here today, and they have asked me to extend their thanks to SUDC UK for the advocacy and support it has provided for those families. As hon. Members have said, losing a child is one of the most devastating experiences a parent can face. For parents to lose a child suddenly and to not know why is even harder to comprehend, leaving them without answers and wondering endlessly whether anything could have been done. That is a burden no parent should have to carry alone, yet that is the reality for families affected by sudden unexplained death in childhood. As we have heard this morning, the experience for families is far from what we would hope. According to research by SUDC UK, only about half of families who experienced an unexplained child death were assigned a bereavement key worker. Many parents reported distressing and at times traumatic experiences when dealing with authorities in the aftermath of their child’s death. At the very moment families need compassion, clarity and support, too many are instead met with confusion, delays and even suspicion. We must do better than that. Of course, that is a reflection not of the incredible staff across the NHS and other services but of a wider system that is failing. When a child dies unexpectedly, there is meant to be a structured review process. Families should be guided, supported and treated with care and dignity. Not only do more than half of NHS areas in England not have a specialist bereavement nurse available to visit parents after such a death, but as the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen set out, there is a shocking shortage of paediatric and perinatal pathologists across the United Kingdom. I am going to spend the next few minutes focusing on that often overlooked profession. I recently met the president of the Royal College of Pathologists, Dr Bernie Croal. He explained that with vacancies for this specialism running at 37%, bereaved families are suffering. Let me set out the scale and consequences of the situation. In December last year, there were only 52 paediatric and perinatal pathologists, or PPP consultants, working in the United Kingdom. There were no PPP consultants working in Northern Ireland, none in the south-west and none in the midlands. The royal college says that that has led to “total service collapse in these areas.” In Northern Ireland, there has not been a paediatric and perinatal consultant in post since 2019. For children from Northern Ireland, post-mortem examinations are being carried out on an interim basis at Alder Hey children’s NHS foundation trust in Liverpool. Bluntly, if a baby or child needs a post-mortem, their body must be transported from Northern Ireland by ferry or plane to England. Right across the UK, the lack of PPP consultants is having a harrowing effect on bereaved families, with one in five families having to wait six months or more, and some waiting more than 12 months. This matters because the support and expertise of paediatric and perinatal pathologists can give families answers where they exist, and in many cases, a diagnosis can help to screen other family members who might be affected by a certain condition. They can also potentially give information that aids treatment should a family decide to try for another baby. I have three questions for the Minister. The first is on the root causes; namely, the shortage in the paediatric and perinatal pathology workforce. Given that the royal college recommends that training posts should be expanded to 37 places by 2030, what concrete, funded plans do the Government have to deliver those to ensure a sustainable pipeline of paediatric and perinatal pathologists? Secondly, on the delays affecting families, will the Minister commit today to bringing forward a plan to improve the resilience of paediatric pathology services so that bereaved families receive timely answers when they are trying to understand the shocking and unexpected loss of their child? Thirdly, on investment in the wider pathology workforce, what investment will be made in the multidisciplinary workforce, such as biomedical scientists and pathology technicians, to ensure that paediatric pathology services can function effectively? Even with more doctors, services fail without the supporting team. A sudden unexplained death in childhood is truly shocking; it happens to around 40 children each year. Those deaths will never be explained, as things stand, and could not have been anticipated, but we have a moral obligation to make sure that what we can control—the right people with the right training in the right places—is there for families. Paediatric and perinatal pathology services is just one specialism where there are gaps in provision, and as we have heard from other hon. Members, there are other specialisms, too. More can be done, and so more must be done.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Water Supply and Housing Targets: West Kent · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister refers to the changes made in Sussex; I assume she means the changes made around Horsham, which relate to Southern Water, rather than South East Water. Nothing that has changed there has increased water supply; it has merely unlocked the restrictions on house building. My concern is that the timescales for the water delivery workforce are very long, but those for delivering district plans and the Government’s housing targets are very short. Surely the challenge is that they are totally at odds with each other.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Draft Sussex and Brighton Combined County Authority Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. Before I begin, I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Liberal Democrats want to see devolution to local people, and we believe that every area in England should be able to secure a devolution deal that works for it, for its local economy and for its residents. We believe that local government reorganisation should be a matter for councils and local people to decide. However, I am mindful that the regulations are being debated before the Government’s decision on the new unitary authorities that will replace the three councils—Brighton and Hove city council, West Sussex county council and East Sussex county council— so is the Minister able to tell the Committee when the announcement will be made on those new unitary structures? Folk in Sussex were working on the understanding that it would be made in March, so, given that the House will rise for the Easter recess on Thursday, can she give any clarity on when that decision will be announced? Let me also make some points about fair representation. There is concern from the county areas that Brighton and Hove may be over-represented and West Sussex and East Sussex under-represented. If that is not to be the case, how will it be safeguarded against? In addition, in the interim, transitional period before the new unitary councils come into place, what will be the roles of the district and borough councils in the combined authority? How will their voices be heard? They are the most local level of government, and they understand the community they are so closely attached to. Finally, how will fair representation be ensured when authorities are in a state of no overall control?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Meningitis Outbreak · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement. Like other hon. Members who have spoken, first and foremost my thoughts are with the family and friends of the two young people who have lost their lives, and everyone who has been touched by this devastating outbreak. It is understandable that many young people and their families will be feeling anxious. With that in mind, is the Secretary of State confident that this outbreak is contained and has not yet spread beyond those present at the initial event? It is not unreasonable for young people and their families elsewhere in the country to be wondering whether they should be seeking catch-up vaccines. Young people will not have been protected by the menB vaccine that is available to those born after 2015. Is the Secretary of State confident that there is sufficient stock to deliver protection to all those who need it? As well as talking to the JCVI, will he involve Meningitis Now, which has called for teenagers and young people born prior to 2015 to be vaccinated against meningitis B on the NHS? Vaccination rates are falling in the UK, including for meningitis. For that reason, all politicians and political parties have a moral duty to support science over conspiracy theories. It is deeply regrettable that certain parties have not been responsible in this respect in recent months, and I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues are worried that these avoidable deaths will become more common should a conspiracy theory narrative persist. We must encourage those communities and healthcare workers who are not currently taking up vaccines to do so. We must build trust, tackle disinformation and encourage people—regardless of where they live—to take up lifesaving vaccines.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T4. My Mid Sussex constituent has waited four months for a transcript that will prove the financial terms agreed with her ex-husband in family court, which he now disputes. Without it, she faces the expense of hiring a barrister to go back to court in April. She is facing financial hardship as a result of this. What steps is the Minister taking to address severe delays in accessing family court transcripts?