Caroline Johnson MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 8 Sept 2025 · Defence Industrial Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  In his opening remarks, the Minister mentioned the importance of the strategic defence review to the industrial strategy. When that strategy was announced, some unions, organisations and businesses were given preferential access to it, but the Minister has consistently refused to say who and when. Written questions have received flannel as answers, and freedom of information requests are now almost a month out of date. What is the Minister trying to hide, and when will he answer the question?

• 2 Sept 2025 · Defibrillators · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for securing this very important debate. I declare an interest: as an NHS consultant, I have used defibrillators on patients from elderly adults to very young babies—although, thankfully, their use on children is relatively uncommon. Modern defibrillators are clever devices—they are capable of delivering varying joules of energy and of delivering synchronised shock, in line with the heartbeat, for cardioversion—but in their simplest, most common use, they deliver an electrical shock to the heart, essentially depolarising all the myocardial cells at the same time, allowing a reset moment, which hopefully allows the natural pacemaker to take over with a normal rhythm. As we have heard this morning, that can be lifesaving. The survival rate for cardiac arrest is poor, and it is lower still for the 30,000 that happen outside hospital settings every year. According to Resuscitation Council UK, 9% of people who have an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest will survive to discharge from hospital, but research suggests that defibrillation within three to five minutes for those patients who need it can increase that figure to 50%. If we want to save lives, improving access to defibrillators is really important. I pay tribute to the community groups supporting and fundraising for their communities—both those mentioned today by various hon. Members, and the very many across my constituency and the wider UK that have not been mentioned. I want to talk about the last Government’s work in this area. They instituted the community automated external defibrillators fund to allow town halls, parks and post offices to install defibs, and they matched it, based on an application form, to areas of rurality and increased need where there were less likely to be defibrillators. In 2023 the Conservative Government also supplied external defibrillator devices—more than 20,000 of them—to every state school across our country, making them much more available. Many people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), have talked today about the importance of education and making sure that people know how to do CPR. Others have talked about the success of CPR in individual cases. The previous Government added first aid and CPR to the national curriculum in 2020. Has the Minister been advocating for it to remain there, in the light of the current Government’s review of the national curriculum? The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) talked about the catastrophe that can occur when a defibrillator that is supposed to work does not. The 999 call handlers will direct people to the nearest defibrillator that they are aware of, but there is no national Government register of defibrillators. The British Heart Foundation’s The Circuit network collects data, which is provided voluntarily, that it can then provide to 999 call handlers and others. As part of that, it issues reminders to ensure that maintenance is done and that people are checking that the equipment is still in good order. Is the Minister happy with the current processes? Is she aware how many times a year somebody goes to a defibrillator that is not working, and what is she doing to minimise that? Maintenance requires battery and pad changes because of expiry dates, and machines need to be kept clean and checked after use. Is the Minister satisfied with the feedback loop for that? What is she doing to improve it? Medical devices regulations ensure that adverse events are reported. Can she tell the House how many people experience such events and what she is doing to minimise those? I also want to talk about managed obsolescence. I was talking recently to a resus officer for an NHS hospital in England, who told me that every single defibrillator in the trust, which covers several hospitals, is being replaced because the company that makes the defibrillators that are currently used has stopped making spare parts for them. That has required the trust to buy a raft of very expensive new equipment. What is the Minister doing to ensure that spare parts have to be kept available, and for what period will they have to be available? I want to talk about the safety of women. We have talked about health inequalities in this debate, but women are 28% less likely to receive CPR in a public venue—a shocking statistic. Why is it the case? Partly it is because when someone is doing CPR and wants to move on to defibrillate, the defibrillator pads have to be put on to bare skin. That means removing the clothing from the patient. It means exposing the chest. It may mean touching the breasts, to move them slightly out of the way to place the pads. People are uncomfortable and concerned about that, in some cases. In fact, in some cases they are concerned about the legal issues they may face if they do it but perhaps get something medically wrong. We need to ensure that that is not the case, and that people are aware. The mannequins that we use do not have breasts; they are essentially male mannequins. We have child and baby mannequins, but female mannequins are not in widespread use. What is the Minister doing to ensure that the 51% of the population who are female have the same access to defibrillation, and to reassure the public so that they are well educated in how to provide defibrillation to female patients and know that they can do so without fear of litigation? My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) talked about Justin’s Hearts for Herts campaign. One change during my medical career was from ABC—airway, breathing and circulation—to catastrophic haemorrhage ABC in trauma cases. I am pleased to hear that, across my hon. Friend’s constituency, bleed packs are being made available. I want to thank the people from SHOCK Sleaford, North Kesteven district council and the Safer Lincolnshire Partnership, who have just completed fundraising and co-located four bleed packs across my local area. That means that people experiencing catastrophic haemorrhage, perhaps from a farming or vehicular accident, will be able to have their lives saved. Does the Minister have any plans to ensure that such bleed packs are located across the country, to improve the safety of people everywhere? I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) said about inhalers. There are arguments for provision of all sorts of things: inhalers and EpiPens come immediately to mind when thinking about how we can improve the safety of people across the country with access to things that can immediately save lives. Finally, as many hon. Members have mentioned in this debate, it is important to ensure that such devices are available without being taxed. Although I know that the Government like to tax, it seems counterproductive and counterintuitive to tax something that is potentially lifesaving, and that could even save the NHS money.

• 22 Jul 2025 · 10-Year Health Plan: Prevention of Ill Health · Hansard source

  More

  Last month, the Government published their 10-year plan. It took a year to write, and it contains promises to make even more plans—a cancer plan, a maternity and neonatal plan, a workforce plan and an HIV plan—which we are still waiting for. Careful planning is important, but taking too long will delay improvements in care, so when do the Government expect to publish those plans and to start delivering?

• 22 Jul 2025 · Accident and Emergency Waiting Times · Hansard source

  More

  Respiratory syncytial virus—RSV—is a common reason for attendance at A&E and admission to hospital among older people, and I have raised this repeatedly. Last week, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation recommended that the RSV vaccine programme should be extended to the over-80s and those living in adult residential care homes. Can the Minister confirm that these vaccines will be available in time for this winter season?

• 22 Jul 2025 · Health Inequalities · Hansard source

  More

  Tackling health inequalities requires a strong workforce. I recently met a constituent who is about to qualify as a nurse, but she has been unable to find work. She is not alone; this is a widespread problem. The reasons she has been given include recruitment freezes to save money and nurses brought in from overseas instead. We need more nurses to tackle health inequalities, so will the Secretary of State ensure that trusts are funded to support and employ new nurses, and to prioritise British nurses for British jobs?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Asylum Hotels: Migrant Criminal Activity · Hansard source

  More

  Violent disorder is always wrong, but we need to recognise that it is a symptom of people’s outrage at the current situation, and of their fear of crime—particularly sexual crime—in their community. The Minister should focus not on the tone of questions in the House and what has happened in the past, but on what she will do to solve the problem. In that respect, I agree with what the Father of the House said about requiring a credible deterrent, so does the Minister regret cancelling the Rwanda scheme?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Apprenticeships · Hansard source

  More

  Degree apprenticeships are great for social mobility and for matching skills to the economy, and I am such a fan of them that I created one in my parliamentary office. Would the Secretary of State like to take the time for congratulate Jack Kellas, who has achieved not just a distinction in his apprenticeship but a first-class honours degree from the University of Lincoln, and will she do all that she can to ensure that more people have opportunities to take part in degree apprenticeships and achieve the same success as Jack?

• 10 Jul 2025 · Children’s Health · Hansard source

  More

  Before I start, I should declare my interest as a consultant paediatrician and a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) mentioned earlier. I congratulate him on securing this important debate. Getting the right start in life is one of the most important factors in adult health and wellbeing. We must ensure that the NHS is providing the best treatments and preventive care available for children, while prioritising safety and convenience for patients and cost-effectiveness for taxpayers. I have seen significant improvements in paediatric care in my career. We must look broadly at the social and environmental factors that affect children’s health and ask what more we can do to help protect and prevent illness in children. Prevention is better than cure, which is one of the Government’s three shifts, with which I agree and on which I wish to focus today. Often children brought to hospital to see consultant paediatricians have conditions that have been caused, or further complicated, by social and environmental factors. These are things that medics cannot treat on their own, and, as every professional knows, we must work with parents, families and children to achieve the very best outcomes. One very clear example is the childhood obesity crisis, which many right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned already this afternoon. Research shows that 36% of children in year 6—these are 10 and 11-year-olds—are now overweight or obese. I have seen some extreme cases in my practice—for example, a nine-year-old who weighed over 80 kg—of young patients who have suffered serious illness because of their weight. These are the tip of the iceberg, but they are undoubtedly part of a much broader shift. We know what causes obesity: lack of exercise and a diet too high in calories. But this is more complicated than that. There are complex problems with roots in broader issues such as poverty and family work patterns. The Government cannot determine what each child eats, but there are things that they can and should do to help support parents and their children. What is the Minister doing to encourage exercise, participation in sport and active travel to school? What is she doing to improve the quality and availability of food for parents and families? What is she doing to improve the quality of school food, to build nutrition education into the curriculum and to help children learn about managing their own health and how to cook healthy food? I know the 10-year plan includes reference to the reformulation of some products, but there is a risk that manufacturers encouraged to remove sugar from products will simply replace it with sweeteners and other chemicals. What is the Minister doing to ensure that they do not solve one problem and then walk unwittingly into another? The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) mentioned tooth brushing. We often hear that tooth extractions are the leading cause of hospital admissions among young children. Can the Minister provide details on the steps that she is taking to improve youth dental outcomes, such as broadening access to NHS dentists, pursuing fluoridisation schemes and encouraging the use of fluoride varnish? Parents have a responsibility here too. According to the chief dental officer, who I spoke to the other day, children who brush their teeth twice a day with a fluoride toothpaste, reduce the amount of high-sugar drinks they consume and reduce the sugar in their diet can significantly reduce the risk of needing fillings and having dental decay. Another area raised today is mental health. Young people face mental health pressures from home and school worries, friendship concerns and many other factors. In particular, we know that the covid lockdown had a serious impact on children’s development and socialisation. We also know that social media is causing increasing harm to children—whether by contributing to anxiety about body image or personal achievements, or by exposing children to harmful material and ideas. The previous Government’s Online Safety Act 2023 was a welcome step in addressing some of these issues, but the Government rejected a Conservative amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to help reduce the use of phones in schools. What more does the Minister plan to do to encourage children away from their screens and back towards a healthier existence with their friends and families? I also want to discuss neglect. A total of 25,350 children are currently on a child protection plan for reasons of neglect—a marked increase from 20,970 in 2014. Organisations such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children have highlighted the fact that numbers are typically underestimated in neglect cases, but we should not underestimate the harm caused to health and development by neglect. What steps are the Department and the Government in general taking to get a more accurate picture of neglect and to intervene on behalf of the children who are suffering? One area of improvement is the balance of acute and community care, and, again, the Government have talked about this in their three shifts. We know the Government are keen to move acute care into the community, but does the Minister agree that we should ensure that core community care is available more widely and more quickly in the community first before giving them extra work to do? Too often in my practice I see children with paediatric problems who have been referred to hospitals because of long waits and capacity problems in the community. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that there is enough supply in the community sector to deal with the problems that children face? In summary, children’s health is a large and complex policy area. We know that we can make good progress when we treat these complex conditions with new research and novel treatments. We know that most children will get better—in fact, one reason that I enjoy paediatrics is that almost all the patients get better, because they are robust, resilient and great fun. We must help parents do things that help protect children’s health today and prepare those children to manage their own health tomorrow.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I read a recent BBC article about an asylum seeker who had violently raped a teenage girl. He has been convicted and given a sentence of nine years in prison, followed by three years on licence, after which he will need to be deported. I am concerned that such individuals, during their period on licence, pose a risk to British women and girls. Does the Lord Chancellor agree, and will she ensure that people go straight from prison to deportation where appropriate?

• 8 Jul 2025 · Alcohol and Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) on securing the debate, and declare an interest as an NHS consultant paediatrician. We have a complex relationship with alcohol. On the one hand, it is a very social drug that is associated with celebration, religious observance in some cases, and small amounts of alcohol with meals. In other respects, it is an antisocial drug that is associated with violent crime, domestic abuse—particularly in cases of binge drinking—and, in some cases, addiction and dependency. Does alcohol cause or increase the risk of cancer? Yes. We know it is metabolised into acetaldehyde, which can damage our DNA and reduce our cells’ ability to repair themselves. Alcohol changes chemical signals, particularly of oestrogen and insulin, causing increased cell division, and it increases the ability of the mouth to absorb harmful chemicals. It is therefore associated with seven types of cancer: breast, bowel, mouth, larynx, pharynx, oesophagus and liver. Risk also increases with consumption: small amounts of alcohol are not as risk-provoking as very large amounts. The medical officers recommend a limit of 14 units of alcohol per week, shared over three-plus days a week, with some drink-free days. One in five people in the UK drink more than that. Risk is dose responsive. Education is important; we heard earlier that only 7% of people know that alcohol is a risk factor for cancer. I was on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill Committee with the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers). I personally promoted the Bill very strongly, but smoking is different. It is exceptionally addictive and kills two thirds of users if used correctly, whereas alcohol does not have that level of risk for people who use small volumes of alcohol infrequently, and in most cases does not provide the level of addiction that nicotine does. Life is full of risk. Obesity, processed food, ultraviolet light and infections all cause forms of cancer. Exercise is good for us, but again, it is not without risks to our health. I am not saying that we should not reduce the use of alcohol, but we must understand the risk in relative terms, and ensure that the population are educated about it and can make informed decisions about their lives. In understanding that risk, evidence is important, so I have some questions for the Minister. What is she doing to improve the evidence that we have on the risks of drinking and the risks related to different levels of consumption? How does she intend to ensure that the public are able to make educated and informed decisions? The “Fit for the future” document published last week talks of labelling coming in on nutrition and calory content. When does she expect that labelling to appear on packets? Hon. Members have talked about the number of units of alcohol that people drink. Many people do not understand what comprises a unit of alcohol and how to measure it relative to the different types of alcoholic drink. How does the Minister intend to improve understanding of units of alcohol? I was shocked by the statistic in the “Fit for the future” document that 4% of people drink 30% of alcohol. That is a really shocking statistic, and it is worth repeating: 4% of people drink 30% of the alcohol in this country. There are, to my mind, two issues for the Minister to consider: how the Government can reduce the consumption of alcohol across the board and how they should treat heavy drinkers and dependent alcoholics. Turning to the latter first, 4% of people drink 30% of alcohol and one in five drinkers drink more than 14 units per week. The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) talked about an alcohol strategy; I would like to know whether the Minister plans to develop one. One of the disappointing things about last week’s long awaited “Fit for the future: 10 Year Health Plan for England” document was that it did not contain the cancer plan, the workforce plan, the dental contract information or the HIV plan, which are all set to be published in due course. Perhaps an alcohol strategy could join them. The previous Government rolled out alcohol care teams, which were designed to provide the patient and their family with hospital-based community support, as well as data collection and research. It was found that, for every £1 spent on alcohol care teams, £5 was saved. Those teams supported excessive drinkers and focused on those with the greatest need. Can the Minister talk about how she intends to support those with alcohol dependency and high levels of drinking? Advertising is an interesting one. The newspapers trailed a suggestion that the Government would ban alcohol advertising. That was, perhaps, an informal U-turn, as it was trailed in the papers rather than announced to the House. We know from the evidence that alcohol advertising can influence brand choice, but it does not appear to affect overall alcohol consumption. Could the Minister enlighten the House as to whether that is why she dropped that measure? We need to be careful with the hospitality sector, which we know is reeling from the changes to the minimum wage and taxes such as national insurance contributions. We do not want people to be put out of business at the scale at which that is currently happening. It is important to note that general alcohol consumption in the UK is steadily declining. Between 2019 and 2023, the alcohol sales volume in the UK declined by nearly 10%. Revenue from alcohol duty is also projected to fall by 5% this year, according to data from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. That shift is particularly observable among younger adults. Since the mid-2000s, there has been a cultural shift. Gen Z, as it is known, is the most teetotal generation in recent memory, and a quarter of 16 to 24-year-olds do not drink at all. A study produced by KAM and Lucky Saint found that moderation of alcohol has also become a habit for UK adults, with three out of four adults who drink alcohol stating that they have been actively moderating their consumption across 2024. Although raising awareness of the health risks associated with heavy drinking is an important part of the strategy, we must avoid punishing responsible drinkers and damaging the hospitality industry, which is already under significant pressure. NoLos, no and low-alcohol products, can currently be sold to under-18s. The Government have talked about banning that, which seems sensible to me when it comes to low-alcohol products, but how will the Government define a no-alcohol drink and when do they intend to introduce a ban? There is some evidence that no and low-alcohol beverages displace higher-percentage alcohol drinks, and therefore reduce alcohol consumption. What are the Government planning to do to increase sales of those products? The previous Government were planning to change an EU directive preventing wine from being described as wine if it did not contain more than a certain percentage of alcohol. I believe that fell due to the general election. Do the Government intend to bring that proposal back? Personally, I also welcome policies under which the Government plan to define no and low-alcohol products clearly, so that the public can be well informed on what constitutes “low” and “no” alcohol. I had presumed, before reading this, that no alcohol meant no alcohol, but it does not; it means a very low percentage of alcohol. It is important that people are aware of that. The Government have rightly emphasised the importance of parity between mental and physical health, and socialising and being part of a community are vital components of positive mental wellbeing. Pubs and social venues play a central role in our communities. In a recent survey, 73% of respondents agreed that pubs in the area have helped to combat isolation; 72% that they have a positive impact in the communities; and 81% that they are important in bringing people together. Ultimately, with more than 80% of the population consuming alcohol within Government guidelines, our focus should be on helping the minority who drink at harmful levels, and on improving decision making and education for those who drink at lower levels. We must work with industry to avoid policies that jeopardise the survival of community spaces, or lead to higher taxes for the majority of people who drink low levels of alcohol responsibly.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Government Performance against Fiscal Rules · Hansard source

  More

  We all know that taxes are coming; we just do not know on whom they are going to fall hardest. The country is nervous, with every family and every business wondering how much those taxes are going to cost them. Does the Chief Secretary regret the fact that that is leading to reduced domestic spending and reduced business investment, and is dragging the economy down overall?

• 3 Jul 2025 · British Film and High-end Television · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on her statement and on the report she has produced. To succeed, great British films also need a good audience. Will my hon. Friend tell us what she thinks of the Government’s support for local and regional cinemas?

• 2 Jul 2025 · Rare Cancers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West on bringing forward this very important piece of legislation. I declare an interest as a consultant paediatrician who has looked after a number of children with rare conditions such as teratoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, Wilms’ tumour and retinoblastoma, to name but a few. One of the issues with rare cancers, which transposes to rare diseases in general, is that they are often diagnosed late, because people do not recognise that they have symptoms of a rare disease and their health professionals are not as familiar with them because they are rare. The presentation and diagnosis are then late and, as such, the treatment is more difficult. That is compounded further because there has been less research on those topics, so it is not clear what the best treatment for those conditions is. On top of that, the patient may have to travel very long distances to see a specialist who is familiar with the condition, adding both logistical difficulty and cost to that patient’s care. Some steps are in place to try to improve the situation. The orphan drug regime gives market exclusivity for 10 years, and it provides for lower and refunded fees from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for the services it provides. Nevertheless, it can still be non-commercially advantageous to put money into developing a drug that is going to be used on no more than a handful of people, however beneficial it is for the individuals concerned. I welcome the Bill, but wish to make a couple of points. First, in principle it is best that trials are first broached with the patient by a member of their healthcare team. Of course, a member of any given healthcare team—I speak as one myself—will never be aware of all the trials available to all patients at any one time. I welcome the Lord O’Shaughnessy review—commissioned by the last Government and accepted by the current one—which talks about getting a consensus on how best patients can be informed of trials. I wonder whether we should have a system in which patients opt out of not the trial itself but being asked about trials. At the outset, they could be asked, “Would you like to receive information on trials—yes or no?”, so that more people can be aware of how they can contribute. When people are diagnosed with something rare, they often want to contribute to helping others who will come after them. Will the Minister tell us more about the national cancer plan, which was consulted on earlier this year? I welcome the fact that the children and young people cancer taskforce, which was paused, is being reinstituted. Also, how will the Bill apply to repurposed drugs? Sometimes new medicines are developed for a particular condition, but we often find that medicines can be reformulated and used in a different way to provide a different form of treatment to help individuals with a different condition. How will that apply in respect of both the measures in the Bill and the O’Shaughnessy review? As a paediatrician, I am very pleased that the Bill applies to children. Overall, I think the Bill is great. It offers hope for many in the future. Will the Minister say something about other rare conditions? As well as rare cancers, people get other rare conditions, and they are affected by the same challenges with research and treatment, and by delays in diagnosis and travel. Overall, doctors are able to save people’s lives, and improve people’s lives, one at a time, but Parliament and research offer the opportunity to do that on a much bigger scale. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West for what he is doing today.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Welfare Reform · Hansard source

  More

  It seems entirely reasonable that a Government should want to control the amount that they spend on welfare, and entirely reasonable to want to focus that on the most in need. However, I do not understand why they brought out such rushed changes, which have done nothing but cause anxiety and distress, and left them in a worst position in which they have now U-turned and are neither making savings nor reforming welfare. Will the Secretary of State please explain the rationale for the four-point limit that she brought in?

• 30 Jun 2025 · Glastonbury Festival: BBC Coverage · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State has spoken about responsibility at the BBC, and of those who said those dreadful words. What responsibility do those who were organising the festival have both legally and morally to be held responsible and accountable, and to ensure that this does not happen again?

• 26 Jun 2025 · Passenger Rail Performance: Cumbria · Hansard source

  More

  Rail services are important in Cumbria, but they are also important in Sleaford. For some time, I have been campaigning for lifts at Sleaford railway station for those who have difficulty with stairs. I was pleased when the previous Government included Sleaford in the Access for All scheme, and having raised it at previous Transport questions, I was delighted when the Rail Minister wrote to me to confirm that the feasibility studies will go ahead. When I met Network Rail yesterday, I found that it is stuck. Network Rail has done as much as it can, but the money ready for it has not been officially unlocked. Could the Secretary of State look into that and ensure that the work goes ahead as soon as possible so that people can access the second platform even if they have trouble with stairs?

• 26 Jun 2025 · IVF Egg Donation: Young Women · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing an important debate at such short notice. IVF counts as a medical miracle, in many respects. Since the technique was pioneered in the 1970s, some 12 million babies have been born by IVF or associated procedures. In the UK, there have been more than 70,000 donor births since 1991, when we started counting egg, sperm and embryo donations. Such births now account for one in 170 live UK births. For many families and individuals, those treatments have given hope where they otherwise would have none. Those suffering from fertility problems have been able to pursue their dreams of having a family with the help of IVF, and success rates have increased over recent decades. The children born as a result of these treatments have given great joy, love and happiness to their families. With that in mind, the previous Government committed to broadening access to these services. As the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) said, the women’s health strategy for England, published in 2022, included removing barriers to access for same-sex couples. The previous Government also changed the law so that same-sex couples would not have to go through specific infectious diseases screening before pursuing reciprocal IVF. Those measures were designed to ensure that as many as possible could enjoy safe and equal access to treatment. In my constituency, I was approached by a lady who has medical reasons for her infertility, and is married to a gentleman who had a child many years ago in a previous relationship. She found that she was not eligible for access to IVF. If she said she had no partner, she would be eligible for a sperm donor. If she said she had a female partner, she would be eligible for a sperm donor. Since her partner, however, had a child from a previous relationship, she was not able to have treatment for her medical condition. Personally, I did not think she should be denied access to that, so I have been campaigning with the local ICB, which is currently doing a review. I hope that review is not disrupted by the changes the Government have made to ICB funding. IVF is a highly complex procedure, with several different approaches now available to doctors and patients. One of those approaches involves an intending parent receiving donor eggs from another woman. That can be a lifeline for those who cannot use their own eggs, whether due to age, quality or other physiological factors. It relies on the generosity and selflessness of the donor women who contribute their own eggs so that others may have a chance of raising children. That process contains risk, and although we recognise the huge opportunities that IVF offers and the generosity of the donor women, we must make sure that the procedural risks, advertising and regulation are properly managed. Typically, egg donors must be between 18 and 35, be in good health, have no inheritable conditions, and pass a variety of screening and suitability tests. Those requirements are designed to provide reassurance for intending parents, but in order to find as many potential donors as possible, many companies pursue aggressive advertising strategies to attract eligible donor women. When I first thought about this, I thought, “I haven’t seen any adverts for such a process.” Then I recognised that, of course, I am not in the target audience, because I am too old. With social media, when we think about something, before we know it, it has appeared on our phone or another device, in the corner of the screen as an advert. I am advised by women who are of the right age that they feel they get a lot of adverts to encourage them to be egg donors—more than they would like to see. Does the Minister agree that the guidance on internet advertising in particular needs to be updated, especially in the light of the targeting of adverts at particular demographic groups? Will she commit to investigating how many women are targeted by adverts for a service that they would not consider engaging with, and ways of being able to avoid those? There are also risks to the process. It is especially important that women know the full extent of the risks before they agree to a medical elective procedure, in particular one that is not for their own benefit. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome is one of the main risks for egg donors and causes symptoms rising from mild discomfort and bloating to serious respiratory problems, renal failure and, in extreme cases, death. A 2023 review study in the Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics found that severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome occurs in 1% to 10% of stimulation cycles. That is quite a wide range of uncertainty, and it is partly why many donors have argued for more research to be done to support informed consent and proper regulation on how the risks are communicated to donors. We have already heard in this debate about the long-term risks. Given that the HFEA will know who all the ladies who have generously given of their eggs are, does the Minister have any plans to look back at that data in an anonymized fashion to see whether any long-term health risks can be identified? Will she also talk about the steps that the Department is taking to ensure that high-quality research is accessible for those considering egg donation, and about whether companies are mandated to conduct and provide it as part of their advertising? We have talked about compensation during the debate. Fertility companies make much of the altruism motivating donors to give their eggs, and that no doubt forms part of the reasoning of donors who admirably wish to help others less fortunate than themselves by contributing their eggs. It is also true, however, that fertility companies provide compensation payments. Those are capped at £986, a limit intended to ensure that women are not enticed to donate eggs due to financial need, but a risk remains that women more in need of financial assistance may be attracted by the payments. Recent coverage has highlighted that some services present donation as a second income stream. Clearly, however, women who put themselves through a lengthy, often uncomfortable and potentially dangerous process in the name of helping others should not be out of pocket as a result. Getting that balance right requires careful attention. The Government must ensure that they review the compensation rates and how it is provided —as a flat sum or on receipt—to ensure that we get this right. Beyond the financial cap, companies are also allowed to advertise benefits in kind, such as discounted egg freezing for women who donate some of their eggs to others. In essence, therefore, they are saying to ladies, “If you come to donate some of your eggs, we’ll allow you to store your own eggs for a much reduced price, in case you need them later.” Some women might see that as a reason to donate eggs—that they cannot afford to freeze their own otherwise. What are the Government doing to manage the kind of additional incentives that might encourage women to donate eggs when otherwise they would not? Does the Minister plan to regulate non-monetary incentives in the future?

• 26 Jun 2025 · IVF Egg Donation: Young Women · Hansard source

  More

  I think it is reasonable for companies to provide IVF as a service in the private sector, but making profit out of the specific egg donation itself is a separate issue. I agree with him on that. Regarding other ethical issues, we must think about the longer-term impacts of egg donation and ensure that women are properly equipped to deal with them. Children born from egg donation have a legal right in the UK to contact the woman who donated the egg from which they were born, and to obtain their name, age and last known address from the HFEA. The first cohort of children with that right were able to use it only relatively recently, in 2023, so it may be too soon to know what the long-term impacts might be for the children or donors concerned, or to what extent it may affect their family relationships or emotional wellbeing. Will the Minister tell us how many children are known to have exercised that right since 2023? What is the Department’s assessment of the likely long-term impacts on those children, their families and the donors? IVF offers a lifeline that can transform people’s lives for the better, but where women are donating eggs to others, we must make sure that they are aware of the risks, and that they are doing it for the right reasons, not because they are being enticed financially. The Government must ensure that compensation does not become financial incentivisation, that advertising is accurate and unbiased, that women’s wellbeing is put first, and that the public have the information they need to make informed choices about their bodies and their healthcare.

• 26 Jun 2025 · IVF Egg Donation: Young Women · Hansard source

  More

  I am not clear whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to companies making profit out of providing IVF services, or whether he is talking about those who profit from egg donation itself.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Department of Health and Social Care · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the acting chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), on securing this important debate. It is almost one year since the Labour Government took office. They came to power promising that they had a plan to improve our NHS. However, what they actually had was a plan to get a plan by launching a consultation asking professionals and the public for ideas. The consultation was launched in October last year, and I understand that more than 220,000 people have contributed, but despite it being promised for spring, there is still no sign of it. Will the Minister commit to publishing a plan before the summer recess? While the Secretary of State considers what the plan should say, over in No. 11 we have seen the Chancellor follow the usual Labour playbook: higher spending, higher borrowing and higher taxes. There will be more funding for the NHS, yet as the chief executive of NHS England noted, the NHS budget is now equivalent to the entire GDP of Portugal, reaching £226 billion in 2028-29. That is around 50% of public spending. It is said that 18th-century Prussia was an army with a state attached to it; 21st-century Britain is at risk of becoming a health service with a country attached to it. This is not the Government’s money; it is taxpayers’ hard-earned cash, yet the Government have provided no clarity—no meaningful detail and no credible plan—on how such vast sums will be used. In the autumn Budget, an additional £10.6 billion in extra funding was promised for 2025-26. However, Julian Kelly, NHS England’s former chief financial officer, told the Health and Social Care Committee that most of it will be consumed by pay settlements, the national insurance hikes and non-pay inflation. Today, 64% of NHS spending goes towards personnel wages and pensions, which is a far higher proportion than in other comparable systems, but the NHS still faces staff shortages and expensive agency costs. Will the Minister confirm how much of the overall funding will go to salary increases? How much will be diverted into covering the national insurance increases for hospitals, social care, pharmacies, GPS, NHS contractors and social care providers? As we speak in this Chamber, resident doctors and nurses are balloting for industrial action. Strikes would only add to the disruption and delay in care for sick and vulnerable people. Do the Government have a plan to minimise the impact of strikes, should they occur? Let us look at one proposal that the Government have announced: the scrapping of NHS England. This Government by press release announced NHSE abolition without adequate planning. Ministers have dodged basic questions about costs, staffing changes and structural reform. There is, once again, no plan. The details that we know about do not inspire confidence. NHS England has asked the ICBs to reduce their costs by up to 50% by October 2025. ICBs will have to cluster, with the number expected to fall from 42 to 27 in two years. Many have warned that services will be cut, and redundancy payments linked to those restructurings could reach £1 billion in 2025-26. Has the Minister costed that in the Department of Health and Social Care revenue settlement? The Government promised to restore the 18-week hospital waiting time within this Parliament. However, their departmental modelling shows that only 80% of patients may meet that standard for routine operations. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will deliver that promise? Moving on to capital spending, the Minister says that she wants to continue the new hospitals programme, albeit more slowly than we would have done, and invest in technology, but capital budgets remain flat in real terms. The chief executive of the NHS Confederation says that this leaves “a major shortfall in capital funding”. The Nuffield Trust said that “it will be difficult for the NHS to invest in the technology and facility upgrades it needs to meet the government’s…targets.” Will the Minister explain how they will prioritise, and what will be delivered? The Government have said that they want to shift funding from hospitals to primary and community care. Will the Minister confirm or deny reports that the NHS 10-year plan will delay the planned increase in spending on primary community care until 2035, instead of 2029, as was originally promised? A key part of community care is social care, but as Daniel Elkeles, the chief executive of NHS Providers, noted, “social care…hasn’t been given the focus it needs”, and that is “a significant blocker on progress for the NHS.” Cross-party talks on reform have quietly been abandoned in favour of an independent commission led by Baroness Casey, but that process is not due to complete until 2028. Yet again, we see headline-grabbing announcements from the Government, with no delivery plan and no real reform, leaving patients, staff and families waiting for the care they desperately need. The Government aim to deliver £13.8 billion in efficiency savings by ’28-29, with more than £9 billion of that total expected to come from DHSC alone. Will the Minister clarify where, within the Department, those savings will be found, and what impact assessments have supported those decisions? The Government say that prevention is better than cure, and I agree. A good example is the “Act FAST: face, arms, speech, time” campaign, which we will all be familiar with, but just last week, in an answer to a written parliamentary question, the Minister admitted that “the Government have made reductions in the Department and NHS England’s communications and campaigns.” Can the Minister tell us which public health campaigns are to be affected? Finally, the dental contract requires reform. The Government started negotiations a year ago, yet the Public Accounts Committee has noted: “NHSE and DHSC do not yet know what reform might look like or to what timescales it can be delivered”. Will the Minister tell us when the Government expect to conclude negotiations and get on with dental reform? In summary, the Government need to stop governing by headline. They need to publish a robust evidence-based plan, and start delivering.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Care Settings: Right to Maintain Contact · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I declare my interest, as an NHS consultant. I know from my own professional experience that hospitals and other care settings can be distressing places for patients and their relatives. Even with our excellent NHS staff on hand, patients want more assurance and familiarity while they undergo care and treatment. For many, that support comes from the family and friends who visit them during their hospital stay, or while they are in a hospice or receiving care in a care home. I pay tribute to the very many excellent staff who work in those settings and provide care around the clock and during public holidays, and put themselves out to care for others. For residents, care homes are just that: their home. They should be entitled to have relatives and friends visit them as they would in any other home. Visitors also improve care. An inability to visit one’s relative in hospital leads to an increased feeling of not knowing how they are this morning—whether they are getting worse or better, whether they are in pain or are comfortable, or whether they can reach what they need to get. Relatives fear not being able to help the resident, and worry about whether they are lonely or stressed because they are not there to support them. That adds to the relatives’ stress. The patient or the person in the care home knows that staff are busy and may not want to bother them for small things, such as reaching a book or their glasses, passing them a drink—which is so important for hydration—helping them eat a meal, moving the curtains so the sun is not in their eyes or providing an extra blanket. Instead, many wait hours for their relative to come. Sometimes, they just want a cuddle and to hold hands with the person they love. Clearly, that is in the best interests of their health and wellbeing. Relatives know the person they are seeing the best, and are able to identify changes in condition that may go unnoticed by staff. I remember visiting a relative of mine who was getting better following surgery and was stepped down from the high-dependency unit to the ward. When I arrived, I realised that he looked grey, pale and unwell. He was indeed in shock and required urgent fluid resuscitation. I shudder to think what would have happened had that not occurred at the beginning of visiting time. It was with those things in mind that the previous Government introduced the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 and, in particular, regulation 9A. Like others, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) for doing so. The regulations were designed to ensure that patients staying in hospital or residential care settings could receive visitors in a fair and consistent way. They also aimed to ensure that care home residents would not face barriers or discouragement if they wanted to take their visitors outside, and they made provisions for those attending non-residential hospital or hospice appointments to have guaranteed rights for friends or family members to accompany them. However, now that these regulations are in place, we need to ensure that they are working effectively and that systems are in place to detect any attempts to water down or remove the rights that they provide. I want to raise the exceptional circumstances limitation with the Minister. Members will know that the regulations grant visiting rights unless there are exceptional circumstances. The CQC guidance states that providers should base this assessment “on the health, safety and welfare of people using the service or other people involved. This should include giving consideration to the appropriate balance of a person’s rights, the needs of people using their service and any identified risks”. If concerns have been raised about current levels of compliance with visiting regulations, we must begin by identifying how and why this caveat in the rules is being used. Can the Minister tell us what kinds of circumstances private providers deem to be exceptional? Who is making these decisions and who is overseeing that process? The CQC guidance also states that where additional precautions or restrictions are needed, they should represent “the most proportionate and least restrictive option” that is available. Is the Minister confident that this principle is being followed, and what is she doing to provide transparency for patients and their carers about decision making? In summary, can the Minister tell us how many times the exceptional circumstances provision has been used in the last year by each institution and how many visits or accompanying visits have been blocked as a result? Is she monitoring such blocking? What steps is she taking to ensure that those with reduced mental capacity have their rights to visits upheld? It is important that these rules are followed. The vast majority of care settings provide excellent care, but the concern is that the better care settings are more open than others, and as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) said, sometimes, visiting times may be restricted to cover up poor care, adding to the stress of the patient or resident and their carers. It is important that the Minister does what she can to improve the education and training of staff, and change the culture of settings so that everyone is able to receive the visits they need. Some providers are even using the realms of infection control measures to exclude visitors. Surely, if infection control measures are frequently being used to restrict visiting, that is a red flag that the infection control measures in that institution are not providing adequate safety for residents. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that staff follow the requirements placed on them and to make sure that individual providers are not being selective in their adherence to the rules? It is clear from what we have heard today that more needs to be done to ensure that patients receive the visits and accompaniments that they are entitled to. If we are serious about putting patients and residents first, more needs to be done to guarantee them the social and emotional support that they need to be comfortable, as well as the best treatment or palliative medical care available. As others have already said, the CQC is not able to prosecute for breaches of regulation 9A, although it can take action such as civil enforcement measures. Does the Minister believe that is a strong enough incentive for providers to meet their obligations, or does she recognise that increased enforcement powers might be needed to ensure that the rights of patients are protected? What other schemes has the Department considered to help providers to better facilitate contact and visiting arrangements? I will finish by saying that I work as an NHS consultant paediatrician, and in paediatrics we always have open visiting for parents. Parents are really helpful in providing the care and looking after the children as part of a teamwork approach between parents and staff. Can the Minister say why such visiting arrangements are not available for people of all ages when they are at their most vulnerable, because I cannot see why they should not be? Indeed, I think that it would help quite dramatically.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Care Settings: Right to Maintain Contact · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minister clarify what constitutes a visit in those circumstances? Would an hour’s visit once a week count, or is there a specific timeframe that qualifies?

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my right hon. Friend, and I shall come to coercion a little later. First, let me go back to new clause 1, which decriminalises the woman having an abortion in relation to her own pregnancy. It seems to me that what many wish to do is decriminalise abortion up until term. That is a legitimate position that some people take.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Currently, it is illegal for a woman to procure her own abortion between 24 weeks and term if the baby is healthy. If there is a problem, she has to have it done by doctors in hospital. Under the proposed new rules, we will have is a situation where a woman can legally have an abortion up until term if she wants to do so— [Interruption.] Yes, at any gestation. That is a completely legitimate argument. It is not one that I support or agree with, but it is a legitimate argument that people can make. If that is the case, they should have the courage of their convictions and make it.