Ashley Dalton MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The last time this House considered this Bill on Second Reading, I was keeping a secret. While hon. and right hon. Members were debating the issue, I was grappling with my own terminal diagnosis. I was told that I have stage 4 incurable metastatic breast cancer. I was overwhelmed with grief, fear and anxiety; I was scared of what was to come, and fearful of how it would impact my family and my loved ones. I was scared that I was going to get really poorly and thinking, “How will I cope? How will my family cope? How will I be cared for? How will I afford it? How badly will it hurt? How long will it last?” When you hear those words, depression, anxiety, grief, fear, shame and guilt come in bounds. Suicide risk is highest immediately after diagnosis, and it usually falls quickly, within three to six months. I would be lying if I said that when thinking about all that was to come, I did not consider that it might be fairer and easier on everyone if I just got the dying over with as soon as possible. Having treatable depression, however, will not exclude anyone from an assisted death under this Bill, and depression is common among people with terminal illness, but it is often treatable. Clinicians are trained to prevent suicide in people suffering from depression, but where would the line be drawn? This Bill makes no provision to support this difficult transition, or to create safeguards around it. A person can also be suicidal and have unmet mental health needs prior to developing a terminal illness, and then ask the state to kill them without any assessment of their psychological health, just an assessment of their mental capacity—because mental capacity and mental health are not the same thing. The Royal College of Psychiatrists recommends a holistic, multidisciplinary assessment of every applicant. The three-person panel at the end of the assessment process provided for by this Bill is not what most NHS clinicians recognise as a multidisciplinary team; it certainly does not allow for meaningful multidisciplinary decision making. The assessment needs to happen at the beginning of the process, not the end, and each team member should be independently assessing the patient in person. That is not what is included in this Bill. I do not know how long I will live. I will be on treatment for life, however long or short that may be. At the moment, I live between scans, in nine to 12-week blocks of time. The last scan might have shown that the disease is stable, but the next scan might show that it is growing again. If the disease is stable, the drug is working and we can carry on. Eventually, the drug will stop working, the cancer will grow, and we will have to try another drug and see if that works. At some point, we will either run out of drugs to try, or I will be too poorly to tolerate them—then I die. It could be months. It could be years. No one really knows. Prognosis is notoriously difficult to predict. Palliative care professionals and oncologists tell me that while they can more or less give me an indication of when I will die when I am a few days or weeks off, anything beyond that is the flip of a coin. The six-month prognosis in this Bill is something no one can ever be really sure of. What the palliative care professionals have told me is that palliative care can help me when I die. In the campaign around this Bill, though, it seems to me that it is being implied that a person with a terminal illness will have a dreadful, painful death unless they have access to assisted dying. That is simply not true; palliative care in the UK is excellent. Far too many people do not have access to the palliative care they need, but the idea that it is not possible to alleviate pain and discomfort is false. People have been terrorised—I have been terrorised—with tales of people vomiting up their own faeces, as though this is commonplace during death. It is vanishingly rare. Bowel obstructions are more common, but they are treatable. I know—I have had one. It is nothing short of irresponsible to scaremonger people like me into believing our deaths will be horrific when all the evidence suggests that, with access to good palliative care, deaths are, on the whole, gentle. The answer is not to terrify people and their families. It is to sort out palliative care and social care first, because none of this takes place in a vacuum. Until we can say that everyone who needs it has access to high-quality palliative care, we are offering nobody a choice. A terrible death or an assisted death is not a choice; it is a threat. While I speak today from the position of someone with a terminal illness, I am acutely aware that this is not about me. This debate is also not about an abstract concept or a position of principle. The question that will be put at the end of this debate will not be, “That this House has considered the question of assisted dying.” It will not even be, “That this House agrees with the principle of assisted dying.” The question will be, “That the Bill be now read a Second time”—this Bill, not the Bill it might have been, not the Bill that Members might have hoped it would be, and not the Bill it could be. This Bill is the only thing before us today. Incidentally, there is absolutely nothing before us about the House of Lords. That is not the question we are being asked. Whatever hon. or right hon. Members think about the principle of assisted dying, surely our first and foremost responsibility is to write law that is safe and workable. Not one of the professional bodies that would be tasked with delivering the Bill is willing to attest that it is, as it stands, safe or workable. The Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Association for Palliative Medicine and the Royal College of Physicians all say that the Bill is seriously inadequate. They are not opposed to assisted dying in principle, but they cannot support this Bill. Instead of bringing a Bill identical to the last, so that the Parliament Acts can be used and the Bill can be forced unamended on to the statute book, why did the proposers not spend the summer working with the royal medical colleges, the professional bodies and organisations to build a Bill that they could support? If they had done that, it would have been difficult for anyone opposed to the principle to argue against the Bill. But they did not do that. This is not about sides. This House is not a debating society; it is about making the law. While we may be campaigners out there, in here we are all legislators. It is our responsibility not to pick a side and dig in, but to work together to build the best laws that we can, and that is never truer than with a private Member’s Bill on a matter of conscience.

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No, I will not. This Bill does not protect the most vulnerable. It does not mitigate against the poor, the old, people with disabilities, or black and minority ethnic people being disproportionately affected. It does not protect people who are mentally ill. It does not recognise that not everyone has the same level of agency, control or influence over their decision making. The clinicians we would ask to deliver this Bill are saying that it is not even workable—that there is every expectation that it would not even work for the terminally ill people who want an assisted death either. And there would be no stopping it. Auto-commencement means that if the Bill is passed by the Commons and pushed through via the Parliament Acts, it has to happen on the stroke of four years after being passed. Even if the Government or the NHS are not ready, even if there is no funding, even if palliative care is still broken, and even if it is known to be dangerous, flawed or unworkable, then it is still happening, ready or not. This is not a last-chance saloon. This debate has been going on for years. It is not a once-in-a-generation opportunity; it could come back again in the next Parliament. My days may be numbered, but that does not mean that I want this Chamber to rush through bad law, just so I might have a chance to see it or use it. This matter is of huge importance. If hon. and right hon. Members have any doubt that the exact Bill before us today is not the best it could be—if it is anything less than excellent, well thought-out and robustly drafted legislation that protects the vulnerable and recognises the expertise of our world-class clinicians—and that it is not the Bill that I and other terminally ill people deserve, then I urge them to vote no or to abstain.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Social Cohesion · Hansard source

  More

  2. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to improve social cohesion.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Social Cohesion · Hansard source

  More

  Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming Lancashire county councillor Nigel Swales from my constituency to the Labour party? Councillor Swales has defected to Labour from Reform because he knows Reform will not deliver, and we saw at its party conference last week men literally beating young women on the conference floor and spokespeople stirring up hatred. Does the Minister agree that Reform cannot be trusted to protect social cohesion?

• 9 Sept 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. People from ethnic minority backgrounds, disabled people and old people are more at risk of being coerced into an assisted death, feeling a burden, or feeling pressured to end their life. These are the findings of the Government’s own equality impact assessment on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which comes to this House on Friday. In the event that the Bill is passed, what steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that those risks to people with protected characteristics will be mitigated?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  There is a real appetite for change in my constituency. We are not scared of it; we are eager for it. Only today, we have seen the former Reform Lancashire county councillor for Skelmersdale East defecting to the Labour party because he knows that Labour will deliver for Skem. Can the Secretary of State assure me that the Government will meet the ambition of my constituents, and keep pushing for change and a better system for Lancashire?

• 6 Jul 2026 · Payment Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is being very generous; I thank him for giving way. It was my sombre privilege to work with him on this matter when I was a Minister in the Department of Health. He is talking about driving forward the scheme; can he outline what work he has done with our devolved Governments in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales to drive forward the final compensation scheme?

• 6 Jul 2026 · Payment Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  Will my right hon. Friend give way?

• 6 Jul 2026 · Payment Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his kind words earlier. Could he clarify whether co-infected people will be able to make a compensation claim for each round of interferon that they had, or whether those are being lumped together?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Support for Victims of Abuse · Hansard source

  More

  6. What steps his Department is taking to support women and children who have experienced abuse to access support services.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Support for Victims of Abuse · Hansard source

  More

  I recently visited the Liberty Centre in my constituency, a fantastic charitable organisation that supports individuals and families who have been affected by domestic abuse and violence. It told me that it could fill its refuge places three times over, but it does not have the resources. Will the Minister say what the Government are doing to ensure that voluntary and charitable organisations that do such excellent work in this space continue to be supported and sustained?

• 11 Jun 2026 · Secondary Breast Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  As ever, it is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I first acknowledge the campaigners from Make 2nds Count, METUP UK and Breast Cancer Now and the fellow MBC patients who are joining us in the Public Gallery. If you will indulge me, Mr Betts, I would like to take this opportunity to say a special thank you to my team at the Clatterbridge in Liverpool for the support they have given me through my treatment and diagnosis. I am delighted to be able to speak in this debate on secondary breast cancer. Secondary, metastatic, advanced, stage 4, disseminated, which a new one for me, distant metastatic spread—lots of words that all mean the same thing: incurable breast cancer. For completeness, there is a relatively new term: oligometastatic, which means very small or very few metastases. There is a school of thought that suggests that that may be curable, but the jury is still out on that, so we will stick with the terms that we have. But there are some other words that describe secondary breast cancer: devastating, terrifying, overwhelming, horrifying, desperate, anger, resentment and fear—all of which I have certainly felt. This debate calls it secondary breast cancer. It is really important that we get it right, because I have met many people who think that secondary breast cancer means having breast cancer for the second time. It does not. Let me be really clear about that. As we have heard, secondary breast cancer is breast cancer that has spread outside the breast tissue and is now incurable. It can be diagnosed after a primary diagnosis—primary breast cancer is potentially curable—or the first time that a person is diagnosed with breast cancer. That is called a de novo diagnosis. That is what secondary breast cancer is and, as we have heard, I have it, along with many, many other people. I want to take the opportunity to talk about some of the myths around breast cancer. Colleagues have spoken really well about some of the issues and concerns, and the politics and policies involved, but I want to talk about the reality and some of the myths about secondary breast cancer. The big myth for many people is that it is curable. A number of people have, very well-meaningly, said to me, “How long will you be on treatment?” I will be on treatment until I die. “I hope you make a full recovery.” I am not going to be making a recovery. My favourite—I know people mean well—is: “If anyone can beat this, you can.” I know people mean well when they say that, but the truth is that I cannot beat it. I will always be in treatment, and I will not recover. It is absolutely terrifying, but we have to be honest about this. If we are not honest and do not grasp the nettle about this disease, we cannot truly tackle it. There are some other myths about breast cancer. One is that when it spreads, it is a new cancer. If you have breast cancer and then you have cancer in your bones, that is not bone cancer; it is breast cancer in your bones. It looks like breast cancer and the cells are breast cancer; they behave like breast cancer and they will need to be treated like breast cancer. There is also a myth that the treatment for your primary cancer was somehow wrong or had failed if you get metastatic breast cancer. Again, that is absolute nonsense. Breast cancer can still spread, even after successful treatment for a primary cancer, and even with the best treatments in the world. Breast cancer in particular can lie dormant for years and years. That leads me to the five-year myth. We often count survival after primary diagnosis and treatment at the five-year point. Sometimes, that creates the idea that if you get to five years and it has not come back, you are okay. Sadly, that is not true; it does not mean that it will never come back. Breast cancer in particular can come back up to 20 years, if not longer, after primary diagnosis. My breast cancer came back 10 years after my primary diagnosis. I do not say that to terrify people, but to say that it is absolutely imperative that they are aware of the signs and symptoms of secondary breast cancer in case they ever have them, no matter how long it has been since their primary diagnosis—or indeed, if they have ever had one. I put on record my commendation and thanks to Jo from METUPUK, who developed the infographic on secondary breast cancer symptoms, which has been extremely useful. We have heard about lobular breast cancer, and there is an idea that secondary breast cancer is one disease. Obviously, it is not: there is ductal, lobular, metaplastic, inflammatory and other sub-groups such as hormone receptive, HER2-positive, HER2-negative and triple negative. The weird thing about cancer is that it is not a disease that infects us. It is not something from outside that we pick up, or that we get. It is us—it is our own cells that change and do this to us, so our cancer, invariably, is as unique as we are. There is also a myth that all treatments will work for everybody, and that if you have one kind of cancer, a certain treatment will work. Unfortunately—sadly—that is not the case, because we are all unique. A treatment that can be extremely effective for one person can have absolutely no impact on somebody else. There is also the idea that the treatment for metastatic breast cancer is more aggressive than that for primary cancer; actually, it is often the opposite. I cannot be cured, so what is the point of making me so sick that I cannot get out of bed for six months? The point of treatment is to keep the cancer at bay—to hold it back to allow me to continue to do this work and live my life—not necessarily to cure me. Then there is the myth that metastatic breast cancer means that you are going to die soon. I received some absolutely terrible comments when I went public with my disease. One particularly lovely person on Facebook said, “Oh, there’ll be a by-election soon then,” assuming that I was going to be dead—that was two years ago. It is not necessarily true. Metastatic breast cancer is treatable, but it is not curable. Our treatments are there to hold it at bay and treat pain and other side effects. Sometimes we might even get the holy grail of “no evidence of disease”, which is what everybody hopes for. That does not mean that you are necessarily cancer free, because we know that it lies dormant and we cannot necessarily see it. We know what secondary breast cancer is, so what are we going to do about it? Some of these points have been raised already, but the national cancer plan, which I, as the Minister at the time, was delighted to lead on and launch earlier this year, is perhaps the first national cancer plan that does not have metastatic disease as a brief mention but has it at its heart. I am really pleased about that, because it has not been forgotten about—it is in the plan. The No. 1 thing that I wanted to make sure was in the plan was that we count; this has already been touched on. We estimate that 61,000 people have metastatic breast cancer, but really we have not got a clue. We have some good data for de novo—where it is diagnosed initially—but for people like me who are diagnosed 10, 12 or 20 years later, we do not really know. Without that data, we cannot build the services or estimate demand. The fundamental truth is, if I am not counted, I do not count. We must start this. The cancer plan commits to counting metastatic disease properly, starting with breast cancer, so I ask the Minister what progress has been made, and will she set a deadline for trusts to report? It is literally just counting. On research and lines of treatment, some treatments work and some of them do not. Basically, you try them, and if they work, you stay on them until they stop working or they make you so ill that you cannot carry on, and then you try another one. It is literally a process of trial and error, and you keep going until you run out of options, which means that without access to new drugs and without trials, we will run out of options sooner rather than later, and when we run out of options, we die. The cancer plan committed to develop world-class cancer care through world-class research, so I ask the Minister what progress has been made, particularly to establish the cancer trials accelerator by 2027. When we do develop those drugs, we need to know that we are getting them. Changes to NICE criteria, namely the severity modifier, have been touched on, so I ask the Minister what developments have been made on them. Will she explore those? Access to drugs and research makes it possible for me and others like me to see our children grow, to meet our grandchildren and to bury our parents, not the other way round. Lives with metastatic breast cancer matter too.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I thank the petitioners for giving us the opportunity to have this debate. I know that we are all mindful of the sincere and strongly held views that led to the submission of the petition. The previous Session’s debates on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill were, in both Houses, consistently heartfelt and moving, with people on both sides of the argument often speaking from real, difficult experience. The debates also provided many people outside Parliament with a chance to talk—in many cases, for the first time—about the reality of death and dying, and what compassionate and respectful care should look like as people move towards the end of their lives. As some hon. Members will know, I have actual, first-hand experience of being given a terminal diagnosis. I have stage 4, incurable breast cancer myself, so this is not an abstract debate for me either. Like all of us, I am going to die. However, my diagnosis means that I know what is most likely to kill me, and without the intervention of medical science, it would be killing me a damn sight sooner than it currently is. That does not necessarily give me any more wisdom, but it perhaps gives me a certain clarity on the issue of end-of-life care. One thing that I am very pleased has emerged from the debate is that the state of palliative care is now firmly at the heart of the political agenda. Whatever our different views on the Bill, I hope that the passion of both sides will serve as a clear, united call for better, more accessible care for everyone. I do not think there is similar consensus on the proposal we are debating today. Proper parliamentary scrutiny of the laws before us is one of the most important safeguards—perhaps the most important safeguard—in our constitution. Our democracy is not a matter of ensuring that legislation reaches the statute book as quickly as possible. That was not why we or our colleagues in the other place were given the privilege of serving in Parliament. It is not why every single one of us takes so much care over our decisions, speeches and the causes we champion, or why we sit late into the night to ensure that every voice is heard. As time-consuming and as uncomfortable as it can sometimes be, our legislative process was deliberately designed to allow opportunities for challenge, scrutiny and improvement. They are a feature, not a bug. The petition argues that if MPs vote for a Bill and opinion polls suggest public support for its principle, the Government should use their powers to ensure that the Bill progresses. I disagree. Parliament’s role is to pass the best possible legislation, not to vote on a principle and let the detail work itself out later. Sometimes our work begins with campaigning but, ultimately, we are legislators dealing with detail and specifics. MPs, peers and Ministers share a responsibility to uphold the integrity of Parliament not as a matter of dry academic principle, but because bad legislation has truly terrible consequences.

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

  More

  I wonder whether the hon. Member might clarify something. He stated that the Bill could have come back to be debated in the Commons. A Bill does not come back to the Commons to be debated after it has been to the House of Lords. All the Commons can do is consider Lords amendments. It cannot debate the Bill again. Would he like to correct that?

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

  More

  I will not; there is not enough time. Once we begin asking Governments to override democratic protocols or decide that the revising Chamber’s scrutiny should be optional, we create a precedent. Constitutional principles must apply consistently. We have our constitutional arrangements because it is our responsibility to consider not only the outcomes we want today, but the outcomes we might not want tomorrow. The petition is specifically about the role of the House of Lords. In my time as a Minister, it was a great honour to work alongside Members from the red Benches as well as the green. Peers are our colleagues, not our enemies or rivals. The Lords, as an institution, has made a vast contribution to the work and reputation of our Parliament. There is no doubt whatsoever about the primacy of the elected House, which is why peers do not vote against legislation that secured a mandate from the public because it was in a Government’s manifesto. In fact, they rarely vote against legislation at all—as we have heard, they did not vote against the Bill. Still, however, the House of Commons is not sovereign—our Parliament is. Our Parliament is a trinity of the Commons, the Lords and the Crown, and each has a distinct and critical role to play. We cannot believe that a piece of legislation is serious and important, but also demand a weaker and worse process for passing it. I am also cautious about relying too heavily on opinion polls as a justification for altering parliamentary processes. Public opinion matters enormously, of course, but polls can be crude instruments. Governing involves more than simply measuring public sentiment at a particular moment in time. If supporters of a Bill are confident in its merits, they should welcome scrutiny. Good legislation survives challenge. Strong arguments withstand examination. Many laws emerge better because difficult questions were asked during their passage through Parliament, including by the experts in the revising Chamber. Ultimately, this debate is not about whether one supports or opposes a particular Bill; it is about what kind of parliamentary system we want. Do we want a Parliament that carefully examines legislation, especially that dealing with matters of profound social change, or do we want one in which surface popularity becomes a reason to accelerate the legislative process and reduce opportunities for scrutiny? I believe that we do not.

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I will briefly.

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on securing this really important debate. Children in West Lancashire have previously felt let down by the SEND system. People lost faith in the very system that is meant to support the children in our communities who need it the most. That is the inheritance that this Government took from the last Government. I know how important getting this right is to the Secretary of State, and the work that this Government have done in the past few years has not gone unnoticed by my constituents, but it is so important that we get these changes right. The people who write to my inbox or visit my surgeries are simply desperate for a system that treats SEND pupils with dignity and truly recognises them as individuals filled with all sorts of potential. There is much good in the Government’s plans. The vast increase in specialist places and the training and upskilling that will give our teachers more tools to help SEND students will make a real difference to the lives of children and their families. SEND parents are no different from any other parents. Every day, they fight to give their children the best possible start in life, and it is so important that this Government support them to do so, without them having to fight endless layers of bureaucracy and constantly push back against a “computer says no” culture that requires individuals to fit cookie-cutter templates to get bespoke assistance. We must ensure that, through these changes, we are giving parents respite, not just inadvertently moving the fight from one place to another.

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and his kind words, and I agree that we cannot simply say that there is overdiagnosis. It has been said previously that there were not as many people with SEND before; the reality is that we do not know that, because for many years, SEND simply went unnoticed. People were not diagnosed, and were simply written off as naughty or backward. We must recognise how important these children are and how much support they need. Dozens of parents in West Lancashire have contacted me to request that I come to the Chamber today to protect the rights they have under current legislation to enforceable provision based on a child’s particular needs. We all know the deficiencies that exist in the current EHCP system, but we must make sure that we listen to SEND parents. I know that this Government are committed to ensuring that these changes make life easier for SEND children and their families, not harder. Twice, I have met a constituent who has a son with severe and complex special needs—he is nonverbal and has sensory challenges. Even when her son was offered a place at a special school, the local authority did not accept that place, despite it being cheaper than the local authority provision. It ignored recommendations and assessments, and my constituent’s son was out of education for seven months. My constituent had to use the rights that exist in current legislation to fight for the most basic right—for her son to have an education—and the issue was only resolved because of his legal right to legal enforceability and the tribunal power to name a school. Had that not been the case, her son might still not be in education. My constituent agrees with the Government that the system we inherited is not working, and she is not asking us to scrap these reforms, but we must ensure that the changes we are making to an unfair system support SEND children and their families as much as we possibly can. Last year, Reform took control of Lancashire county council, the authority that makes decisions about SEND provision for my constituency. It is obvious that, despite claiming that it would tackle the issue, Reform has demonstrated no interest in it. Its national party does not care—as has already been pointed out, not a single one of its Members is present for this evening’s debate. Reform-led Lancashire county council has failed to provide tailored support for children in my constituency, and has failed to support families in my constituency who are fighting tooth and nail for their children to have the same opportunities that the rest of us rightly expect as standard. It would be an abdication of my duty to represent my constituents if I did not seek to give parents every tool in the box to defend the right of their children to a decent education, in the face of a local authority whose leadership turns its gaze away and plugs its ears. I am proud that this Government are tackling this issue in a constructive way—parents have waited for these changes for far too long. As part of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s commitment to give every child the best possible start in life, I would be grateful if the Minister gave a clear reassurance today that the legal right to an EHCP or similar for those who need it will remain, and that the ability of families to enforce provision will not be weakened by reforms.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Waste Crime: Knowsley · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has outlined clearly the issues caused at Simonswood in my constituency, which my constituents are also really concerned about. Constituents on the other side of my constituency are also dealing with a very similar problem at the St Joseph’s college site. Would my hon. Friend agree that, if the Environment Agency cannot or does not act promptly and robustly when we have these problems, it leads to a significant erosion of trust in the Environment Agency—and, actually, in Government agencies as a whole?

• 5 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am delighted to take up this place. People in West Lancashire are concerned about the potential relocation of the children’s accident and emergency department at Ormskirk following the joint integrated care board committee’s “Shaping Care Together” consultation. Folk, and I, want a co-located children and adult’s A&E in Ormskirk. What can my constituents do to ensure that their voice is listened to in the process?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Preventing Ill Health · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister responsible runs a regular ministerial surgery and would be more than happy to meet the hon. Member.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Preventing Ill Health · Hansard source

  More

  The 10-year health plan announced ambitious measures to make the healthy choice the easy choice. They include tackling the obesity epidemic through mandatory healthy food sales reporting, business targets to increase the healthiness of products sold and restrictions on junk food advertising.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Preventing Ill Health · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for outlining the very real crisis of childhood obesity. It is a problem that robs children of the best possible start in life and sets them up for a whole lifetime of health problems. It is why this Government have come down hard and delivered our commitment to restrict advertisements for junk food on TV and online. That action will remove around 7.2 billion calories from children’s diets every single year.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Preventing Ill Health · Hansard source

  More

  The regulators are doing their job. This is a perfectly ordinary occurrence in certain research trials. As the hon. Member has made the House aware—I am sure it was already aware—the trial has been paused. We will leave the regulators and the clinicians to do their jobs to ensure that all the trials, including this one, are done in an appropriate fashion.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Preventing Ill Health · Hansard source

  More

  What the hon. Member highlights is part of this rigorous process. That is what happens. Why the MHRA has changed its view is a question for the MHRA, but it is up to the MHRA to raise these issues through the process. That is why we run such trials. [ Interruption. ] It is an independent regulator.