Caroline Dinenage MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 Apr 2026 · Glasgow 2026 Commonwealth Games · Hansard source

  More

  Many of our Commonwealth hopefuls started their careers in community events like parkruns and local sports clubs, and yet the sport and recreation sector is in a state of utter confusion because of the Government’s chaotic roll-out of the new rules on medical provision. The Government have said that they do not want small events to be “overregulated”. What does that even mean? There is a wholesale lack of information from the Department of Health and Social Care and the Care Quality Commission about who will be impacted and what it will cost, and there has been no meaningful impact assessment. The Government have warm words about local sport provision, but their actions never stand up to the test. Can this Minister please give us a definitive answer?

• 16 Mar 2026 · GP Contract · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents will welcome some of these headlines, such as clinically urgent cases being seen on the same day and more GPs, but what is being done to help accommodate them? Stubbington surgery in my constituency has excellent staff, delivering really great patient satisfaction, but they are hampered by really suboptimal buildings. They have expanded to fill every inch of available space, and the former cupboard under the stairs is now the phlebotomy room. They need a new site, but that is proving very difficult to find—not only the place, but the capital funding to deliver it. Can the Minister give them any hope from this announcement?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I was fascinated by the Minister’s earlier answer about the closure of pharmacies, because there has been fantastic news in Lee-on-the-Solent in my constituency: a new pharmacy wants to open there. Local people are desperate for a second pharmacy in Lee-on-the-Solent and the local GP practice supports it. The problem is that the Hampshire ICB has rejected it. Does the Minister share my disappointment that local people are not going to be served in the correct way by pharmacy provision, and will he meet me to discuss this?

• 10 Dec 2025 · Seasonal Work · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is being incredibly generous in giving way. Given the focus on cutting waiting lists and tackling NHS challenges, how does the hon. Lady feel about the employer national insurance contribution changes, which also fell on GP surgeries, care homes and children’s hospices? Those changes are proving to be an enormous burden on the NHS and are sucking up a lot of the extra money that the Government purport to be putting into it.

• 25 Nov 2025 · Cancer Care · Hansard source

  More

  A constituent of mine recently had successful high-intensity focused ultrasound treatment for prostate cancer, which was at Charing Cross hospital because it is not even offered to men at Portsmouth hospitals, despite being a less invasive treatment with fewer long-term health implications. As if to underline that inequality, imagine his surprise when he turned up at the hospital and found that the same doctor who had diagnosed him in Portsmouth was actually carrying out the procedure in London. What more are the Government doing to ensure that there is no postcode lottery when it comes to HIFU, and what will the Minister do to ensure that more men can access it?

• 15 Jul 2025 · Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Regulation) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the regulation of online providers of fertility and certain ancillary services by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority; and for connected purposes. Having a child is variously viewed as one of the most life-changing, exhausting, expensive, thankless, frustrating and ultimately magical and rewarding things we ever do in our lives. My two sons sometimes drive me round the bend, but I quite literally love them more than anything in the world. For many people, having a child requires a form of fertility treatment; in fact, one in six couples in Britain is affected by infertility problems. More than 52,000 people accessed fertility treatment in 2023—the most recent year for which statistics are available. For perspective, that is up from 6,000 in 1991. In the past 25 years, the proportion of children being born by in vitro fertilisation has doubled. The regulator for the fertility industry, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, reports that there are now enough children born by IVF for there to be one in every classroom around the UK. That is for a number of reasons. It is worth celebrating that since 1991 social attitudes towards women getting into and staying in work have progressed even further; there are now 10% more women in employment. Sometimes, however, building a successful career can make it harder to build a family. One in 10 fertility treatments are undertaken by single women, and the average age of those women is slightly older, at 36. Although the proportion of young adults in the UK who identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual has doubled in the last five years, the Government amended the law that regulated fertility access to remove the barriers for female same-sex couples for the first and only time in 2008, and that is what we are here today to discuss: apart from that one change, regulation has remained static while industry, attitudes and lifestyles have raced ahead. The Human Fertility and Embryology Act 1990 regulates fertility clinics, and despite the fertility landscape constantly modernising and moving with the times, that piece of legislation has remained largely unchanged since it was passed 35 years ago. The failure of the regulatory regime to oversee adequately the uniquely high-stakes world of modern fertility treatment was thrown into sharp relief recently with the unexpected closure of Apricity Fertility. Acting as a hub that connected parents to the very complex web of fertility services, it was effectively a digital concierge service, linking women with partner clinics and offering advice and support, yet not providing any of the medical services itself. Just days before Christmas, on 20 December, Apricity Fertility notified customers that it would cease all operations from 1 January. While families across the country were opening their Christmas presents, hundreds of Apricity customers, including women who were just about to start their IVF injections, were opening emails that would ruin their Christmas and leave them in limbo at a very crucial point in their fertility treatment. Patients scrambled to seek confirmation from clinics that they could continue with their treatment, because as we know, even a month’s delay can massively affect the chance of a successful cycle. In many cases, having already spent every single penny that they had in the world in the pursuit of having a baby, some were told by their insurers that they would have to pay thousands more up front to continue their treatment. We know that IVF is a physically demanding and incredibly emotionally fraught process. IVF cycles are more likely to be unsuccessful than successful, but Apricity boasted an above-average success rate of 46%. As IVF.net stated, therefore, for hundreds of couples, Apricity’s closure was “more than a logistical hurdle—it is a devastating emotional blow.” Even worse, families who had signed up Apricity were not offered the peace of mind that a regulator provides, because it was not regulated; it was an unlicensed online clinic. That means that the health and advice on offer could have been complete rubbish and could have been backed by no expert knowledge at all—and such online services are expanding in scope and number. The HFEA has warned: “For some time a range of activities marketed as fertility treatments have taken place outside of HFEA licensed clinics in a variety of settings, including ‘wellness’ clinics. More recently, the fertility market has started to move online, in settings which are outside of the regulated scheme”. More people are accessing the fertility market and treatments than ever before, and particularly in that way. Though the HFEA cannot put an exact number on that, precisely because such services fall outside its regulatory scope, given that 73% of IVF cycles are funded privately, it is likely to be a very large proportion. In recognition of the changing landscape, and with patient trust and safety in mind, the HFEA recommended in 2023 that the 1990 HFE Act “should be revised to accommodate developments in the way fertility services are provided.” I know that Health Ministers have met the chair of the HFEA to discuss updating the regulatory regime around fertility treatment, but such change will require primary legislation. I have had no firm commitment that the Government are seeking a change in the law, but the case of Apricity has underscored the urgent need to safeguard patients’ rights to their data, their eggs and their sperm. This is a classic case of regulation just not keeping pace with modern life. It is criminal that organisations that are in the business of making dreams come true can just disappear, along with people’s money and their hopes of starting a family. The Chancellor has made it clear that she is no fan of regulators, but in the field of medical treatment and specifically the process of IVF, a strong regulatory regime is absolutely vital to ensuring confidence and security, so I urge Ministers and Members across the House to support my Bill, to bring in the recommendations of the HFEA and to support women and families at one of the most important stages of their lives. Question put and agreed to. Ordered , That Dame Caroline Dinenage, Katie Lam, Liz Jarvis, Aphra Brandreth, Sir Ashley Fox, Joe Robertson, Christine Jardine, Jim Shannon, Sarah Champion, Florence Eshalomi, Samantha Niblett and Wendy Morton present the Bill. Dame Caroline Dinenage accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the first time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 September, and to be printed (Bill 284 ). Business of the House (Today) Ordered, That, at today’s sitting, business in the name of the Leader of the Opposition shall be treated as being taken on an allotted day provided under paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business); such business may be entered upon at any hour and may be proceeded with, though opposed, for up to six hours after the start of proceedings on the Motion for this Order; proceedings shall then lapse if not previously disposed of; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply. —( Lucy Powell .)