Caroline Johnson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 May 2025 · Solar Farms · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I wonder if the average jumbo jet flying into Heathrow does a loop-the-loop on its way in. RAF Digby is the headquarters of the joint cyber and electromagnetic activities group. Any interference with that part of the defence estate could cause significant harm. My constituency of Sleaford and North Hykeham faces an acute burden from the most high-impact solar schemes. Colleagues will know that projects with a capacity of more than 50 MW are classed as nationally significant infrastructure projects. Four of these large-scale schemes are proposed for my constituency, at Springwell, Fosse Green, Leoda and Beacon Fen. Their combined size is 9,340 acres. For context, that land could support grazing for more than 74,000 sheep, produce 23.5 million loaves of bread and more than 700 million Weetabix. A fifth project, just outside my constituency—proposed by a Labour donor—was recently approved by the Secretary of State. What assurance can Ministers give my constituents that the Department is assessing cumulative impacts appropriately? We often hear that no more than 1% of land will be used for solar panels. However, as we have seen in my constituency, the application for one giant solar farm leads to a proposal for a new substation to accommodate it, which in turn leads to a deluge of further giant solar project and battery storage applications. The cumulative effect will be to destroy the area. With nearly 7% of land in my constituency proposed to be turned over to solar farms, 9% of the land in the neighbouring constituency, represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), and 5% of the land in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), we can clearly see the clustering of applications on our best farmland. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) has the Mallard Pass solar farm in her constituency. I congratulate her on the birth of her child recently, which prevented her from being here; I know that this subject is a big concern for her. Indeed, it is a concern for many of us, including my right hon. Friends the Members for Newark, for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), and for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins). As members of the shadow Cabinet, protocol prevents them from speaking in the debate, but I know that they would have wished to, and will keep campaigning. The national policy statement says that installations should, where possible, use “suitable previously developed land, brownfield land, contaminated land and industrial land.” Where farmland must be used, it notes that “poorer quality land should be preferred to higher quality land avoiding the use of ‘Best and Most Versatile’ agricultural land where possible.” Sadly, the evidence so far suggests that the Energy Secretary is so ideologically wedded to solar projects that he has not appreciated the damage that giant solar projects are causing to agricultural land. This debate will hopefully demonstrate that covering our best farmland with massive solar projects would be irreversibly damaging to the nation. I urge the Minister to listen to me, my fellow MPs and fellow citizens before it is too late.

• 15 May 2025 · Solar Farms · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right, but I do not believe that the land will ever be returned to farmland, and many of my constituents feel the same. It is worth noting that 99.1% of solar installations cover the best and most versatile land, but tests procured by the developers appear to suggest that soil is of poorer quality than maps from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and local knowledge would have predicted. Will the Minister ensure that where soil testing is done, the results are independently verified? As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) said, Lincolnshire is the nation’s breadbasket, and produces 30% of the UK’s vegetables. The land in the county is also more productive than the UK average; the wheat harvest there, over the difficult past five years, was 25% above the UK average, and it is much more productive than global averages. This is the land that we can least afford to lose.

• 15 May 2025 · Solar Farms · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is right. I will come on to the cumulative effect later in my speech. He will recall that the previous Government brought in measures to ensure that happened, but it does not seem to be happening. In my survey, 91% of respondents were concerned about the enormous scale of proposals, and 73% were concerned about the use of productive farmland. The scale of the proposed developments is really difficult to describe. I brought to the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), maps, with overlays, of areas with which he was familiar. He saw the problem, and to his credit, he took the action that I have described. If the Minister is prepared to meet me, I would like to provide him with similar maps, so that he can see for himself the scale of these potential developments. The developments go on for miles. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) said, they encircle villages, preventing natural growth and home-building over time. They even encircle individual homes. One isolated rural home in my constituency may soon find itself surrounded by solar panels on all sides, like the hole in the centre of a miserable glass doughnut. Such is the wonderful nature of my constituents that the prime concern that they have expressed to me was not for themselves, their views or their wellbeing, but for the security of the country—specifically, food security. Let us be very clear that using our best farmland for solar puts us at risk, in a volatile world, of being unable to feed our citizens. The best and most versatile land is defined as land in bands 1, 2, and 3a, although land in 3b is a valuable and entirely useable resource for farmers. In Lincolnshire, 99.1% of solar installation area covers land in the best and most versatile land category.

• 15 May 2025 · Solar Farms · Hansard source

  More

  I agree wholeheartedly that we should not use our best agricultural farmland for solar panels. The previous Government took steps to establish a £50 million fund to incentivise rooftop installations on farm buildings. That is the right measure to maximise the efficient use of land. This Government’s approach, by contrast, is to concentrate ground-mounted solar on prime agricultural land. That is folly in the highest degree. There are 600,000 acres of unused south-facing industrial rooftops across this country. We should use those before we even consider industrialising our countryside; industrialising it comes with consequences. I will come back to farming in a moment, but first we should consider the impact on the wider community. Access to green space and exercise are good for wellbeing. Imagine for a moment walking your dog not alongside a hedgerow, but between two 3.5 metre-high metal fences with CCTV cameras on them. How many of us would prefer to run past miles of 4 metre-high solar panels than rolling British countryside? I listen carefully to my constituents and have conducted surveys in the affected areas. I have received over 2,000 handwritten responses to my solar farm survey, many of which contain pages of heartfelt comments from people who are deeply worried about the disproportionate number of applications for massive solar projects in our area.

• 15 May 2025 · Solar Farms · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is of course right, as usual, and I will address that point in more detail later in my speech. Even if we could resolve all those production, recycling and transportation issues, and so accept that solar is viable for the UK, ground-mounted solar projects are not the right approach. Panels installed so far are relatively inefficient. Despite a currently installed capacity of 17.8 GW, the total output last year was less than 10% of that. Our current approach is also centred around technology that is outdated. If Members can cast their minds back to 1984, when the first Apple Mac computers were put on the market, and then look today at the present advances in technology, they will see that technology has evolved at a rapid pace. Solar panels planned for fields today are already being superseded by cleaner, more efficient technology that does not need farmland. Researchers in Japan are developing next-generation panels made from iodine. They are flexible and 20 times thinner than existing panels. They would make it realistic to build solar installations on urban infrastructure such as stadiums, airports and office buildings.

• 15 May 2025 · Solar Farms · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope the Minister has listened carefully to what has been said, and has understood that this is not about nimbys—it is not about “not in my back yard” and it is not even about the aesthetics of solar farms. It is about the overwhelming scale of the proposals and the fact that solar farms will take up a huge amount of good-quality farmland. If one had a sensible strategy and wanted to use ground-mounted solar, one would put it in places where there is not good food-producing land; one would not put it on the best food-producing land, but that is what this Government are seeking to do. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered solar farms.

• 15 May 2025 · Solar Farms · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right. As a farmer’s wife, I understand that farmers are being put under a lot of pressure by the various changes that this Government have made to taxation on cab pick-ups, inheritance tax, national insurance and much more. Displacing our farmland leaves us reliant on imports, which use more land, may have been produced to poorer standards, and require us to factor in transport emissions. The previous Government took action by publishing planning guidance that made it clear that the best and most versatile land should not be developed where alternatives are available—and those alternatives are available. I am pleased to have signed my name to new clause 47 to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which seeks to prohibit solar development on higher-quality land, and I urge the Government to support it. Let us not forget the tenant farmers, who are often on multi-generational tenancies. They suddenly find their whole family without home or livelihood. A 2023 report for the Welsh Government on the impact of solar panels on agricultural land found that solar sites risk causing soil compaction and structural damage, which in some cases may be permanent. This means that agriculture will suffer, even after the somewhat hypothetical end of these solar schemes. I also ask the Government to give due consideration to the three RAF bases local to my constituency: RAF Waddington, RAF Cranwell and RAF Digby. Glint and glare from reflective panels will cause problems for pilots flying over these areas. Our newest pilots undergo basic training at Cranwell, and RAF Waddington is home to the Red Arrows. It is a huge joy for me and many of my constituents to watch our nation’s iconic display team practise the loop-the-loop and roll into turns at high speeds, but the miles and miles of aligned panels creating glint and glare could lead to disaster.

• 15 May 2025 · Solar Farms · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 15 May 2025 · Solar Farms · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 15 May 2025 · Solar Farms · Hansard source

  More

  I think the hon. Member is making part of the point that I was trying to make in my speech. Some 7% of my constituency is the subject of solar panel applications. Does he agree that that is an obscene amount of solar panels to put on our best quality farmland?

• 12 May 2025 · Draft Medical Devices and Blood Safety and Quality (Fees Amendment) Regulations · Hansard source

  More

  Before the Minister concludes, could she answer my questions on national insurance and on below-inflation pay rises? If not, will she commit to answering my remaining questions by letter?

• 12 May 2025 · Draft Medical Devices and Blood Safety and Quality (Fees Amendment) Regulations · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. The draft regulations will make amendments to the Medical Device Regulations 2002, the Blood Safety and Quality Regulations 2005 and the Medical Devices (Northern Ireland Protocol) Regulations 2021. The core changes made by the draft regulations will include modifying the fees charged to manufacturers, suppliers and relevant stakeholders involved in medical device approval and blood safety monitoring. These amendments will align with updated economic assessments on the operational needs of regulatory bodies. They follow an impact assessment evaluating both the financial implications and the potential benefits for healthcare providers and patients. The fee amounts set out in the draft regulations represent increases of between 9% and 16% in the majority of fees, but some fees, primarily those relating to clinical investigations, will rise more. The fees are being set in line with the consultation document issued by the MHRA on 29 August 2024. I have a few questions for the Minister. First, the impact assessment states that the main benefit of the regulations will be the additional income gained by the MHRA, but can she elaborate further on the benefits for patients and innovators? The impact assessment also states that staff costs are the major cost for the MHRA. Will the MHRA pay the rise in national insurance contributions announced at the Budget, or will it be exempt? If it is exempt, will that mean that it does not pay the extra fees, or will it be recompensed after the fact? If it is to be recompensed after the fact, will that be based on exact figures or on an estimate? Where recompense has been based on an estimate, as has happened in schools, it has fallen very far short of what is necessary. It is critical to ensure that fees do not deter innovation, particularly among smaller medical device manufacturers, which rely on sustainable costs to continue to produce lifesaving technology. How will the Government ensure that the fee increases do not deter innovation, particularly for small and medium-sized medical device manufacturers? Could the Minister elaborate on how the fee adjustments compare with similar regulations in other countries? What measures are being taken to ensure that UK manufacturers remain competitive? The aim of the draft regulations is to increase the fees in line with cost recovery. What is the Minister doing to ensure that the MHRA is efficient and that costs are kept to a minimum? Is she satisfied that the regulatory service provided for the money is adequate? Page 3 of the impact assessment has caused me some confusion. It states that “the MHRA assumes a 2.2% pay increase for each of the next three years (2024/25 to 2026/27)”. I note that that is below inflation, which is currently running at 2.6%. Is it realistic to expect below-inflation pay rises, particularly with this Government? Does the Minister think that that figure will stand? If the fees do not provide for full cost recovery, who will foot the bill? Will the MHRA have to reduce services, or will the taxpayer have to provide more via direct grant to the MHRA? Finally, what provision is there for surveillance to monitor the impact of these fee changes on healthcare providers and patients, and whether they are enough, too much or not enough for the MHRA to cover its costs?

• 6 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, and I would be delighted to meet him to discuss it further. Unfortunately, when Labour negotiates, Britain loses. The Government capitulated to union demands with nothing in return. It is therefore of no surprise to anyone that within months, they are back in dispute with resident doctors and the British Medical Association has announced a ballot for strike action. What will the Secretary of State do to protect patients and taxpayers?

• 6 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Taking medicines on time is important, especially for those with conditions such as diabetes and epilepsy. Dr Acheson, an A&E consultant who has time-critical medicines for his own Parkinson’s disease, understands that well. He has been running a quality improvement programme to ensure that time-critical medicines are given on time in A&E. Will the Secretary of State lend that project his support and commit to reviewing how time-critical medicines are delivered on wards?

• 30 Apr 2025 · Gender Incongruence: Puberty Suppressing Hormones · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I start by making a declaration of interest as an NHS consultant paediatrician and a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. My work in the NHS at times involves looking after children who may have gender dysphoria, although it is not specifically for that purpose. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) on securing this important debate, and on her excellent speech. Hippocrates’ dictum, “first do no harm”—although it does not actually appear in the Hippocratic oath—captures a core medical ethic, and is an important guiding principle in policymaking. When it comes to children and young people expressing gender dysphoria, we must take a compassionate but firmly evidence-based approach. The causes of gender incongruence are not fully understood, but they are likely to be multifactorial and influenced by both biological and social factors. It is of huge concern that diagnoses of gender dysphoria have risen over fiftyfold, and that vulnerable and same-sex attracted children are over-represented. There are legitimate licensed uses for puberty blockers, such as in cases of children who enter puberty very young, and in the treatment of certain malignancies. However, using puberty blockers for young people with gender dysphoria represents a significantly different context, both medically and ethically. With most children with gender dysphoria, symptoms resolve without treatment, with many finding that the natural process of puberty leads to a resolution to their distress. The Gender Identity Development Service began trialling puberty blockers for adolescents with gender dysphoria back in 2011. Preliminary findings in 2015-16 showed no psychological benefit from the treatment and, alarmingly, a deterioration of wellbeing in some children, particularly some girls. The Cass review, published last year, showed that there is insufficient evidence on the long-term effects of using puberty blockers to treat gender incongruence. I ask the Minister: why does the planned trial not look at long-term outcomes? The Cass review made the risks of these drugs explicit. Puberty blockers can seriously compromise bone density and can lead to adverse long-term neurodevelopmental effects. As for the purported benefits, the review added that, “no changes in gender dysphoria or body satisfaction were demonstrated.” The often repeated justification that blockers are for “time to think” was not supported by the evidence, with concern that they may instead alter the developmental trajectory of psychosexual and gender identity. In May 2024, the last Government passed emergency legislation to temporarily ban puberty blockers for new treatments of gender dysphoria. The current Government have renewed that order twice, continuing restrictions until the end of this year. However, that does not affect cross-sex hormones. Does the Minister plan to commission research on the outcome of masculinising and feminising hormones on young people? Do the Government plan to extend the ban to cross-sex hormones in the fullness of time? We heard in February that the NHS has announced plans to start offering puberty blockers as part of a clinical trial. There are questions about this trial. Given that most children’s symptoms will resolve anyway, and that the Cass review clearly states there is no method of proving in advance which children will have improved symptomatology and which will not, the trial will be essentially treating a whole cohort of healthy children with drugs to see the effect on the around 15% whose symptoms may not resolve in adulthood. Former Tavistock clinicians, including David Bell, have said that they would not refer patients to the clinical trial. The Government are taking direct control of NHS England, so it is now the Secretary of State’s responsibility to ensure that any such trial is properly conducted. The gold standard for a medical trial is the double-blind randomised controlled trial. Will the Minister confirm that if the trial goes ahead there will be a control sample? The trial still requires ethical approval from the Health Research Authority. Will the Minister provide an update on when that decision is expected, clarify how the Government are ensuring the impartiality and safety of the decision-makers, and clarify whether provisions are in place to pause or suspend the trial if safety concerns arise?

• 30 Apr 2025 · Gender Incongruence: Puberty Suppressing Hormones · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend raises important questions that I hope the Minister will answer. It is important to look at the data that we already have. That was the next part of my speech—my right hon. Friend is, as usual, reading my mind. Given that these drugs have been used on hundreds of patients at GIDS alone, why not look at that data, rather than conduct new experiments on further children? Despite the last Government legislating to ensure that data could be made available for research, several NHS trusts refused to participate fully in the Cass review. What are the Government doing to retrieve that data and to ensure that NHS trusts, which are now more directly controlled by the Government, comply with data-sharing requirements in the future? If the trial does go ahead, how will the Secretary of State ensure the genuine impartiality of those conducting the trial so that we can rely on the results? In conclusion, this debate is about the wellbeing of young people. Gender-questioning children are not solely defined by their gender incongruence and gender-related distress; they are whole individuals. They deserve holistic care and the same rigorous evidence-based care as any other young patient.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Black Maternal Health Awareness Week · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for giving way again. I confess that I thought I heard the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill say “structural”. However, if the word she used was “systemic”, does the Minister think the NHS is systemically racist?

• 29 Apr 2025 · Black Maternal Health Awareness Week · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) on securing this important debate today. As she said in her opening speech, the UK enjoys some of the best outcomes in the world when it comes to maternity health, but there is always more work to be done to improve our outcomes further. I hope we can all agree that equal access to the best care, for all across our society, should always be our target. That should be based on excellence across the board as standard. We are considering Black Maternal Health Awareness Week, which is part of National Minority Health Month, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss this topic and exchange views with colleagues from across the House. Colleagues will know that as a clinician myself, I am always guided by data when assessing current healthcare practices and new policy proposals. A 2023 report by the maternal, newborn and infant clinical outcome review programme found that in the period from 2019 to 2021, 241 UK women died during pregnancy or up to six weeks after the end of pregnancy. That equates to a rate of 11.7 women per 100,000 giving birth. Each of those cases represents a tragedy for the woman and baby involved and their family and loved ones, and we must do all we can to prevent them. The data does, as has been mentioned, also show that women from black backgrounds face a mortality rate much higher than the average; it is equal to 37.2 per 100,000. Women from Asian backgrounds also face a higher rate, at 17.6 per 100,000. Clearly, those figures present a pretty stark picture, but we must exercise care in the interventions that we make, and balance our desire to solve the problem with ensuring that we do that in a way that resolves the problem without risking creating others. At the outset, it is crucial to ask what the Government are doing to understand the specific causes of these outcome disparities, because if we understand the causes, we will be better able to manage and treat them. The Kirkup and Ockenden reports have already been mentioned. What are the Government doing to ensure that those recommendations are fully implemented, and to develop a strategy to ensure that all women have the opportunity for a safe pregnancy and birth? What kinds of data held by the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care might cast light on other demographic, economic or geographical patterns that contribute to these numbers, which we may be able to help to resolve? We know that the most significant factor in predicting death during the maternity period is a pre-existing medical condition, and we know that disparities exist in the incidence of some pre-existing conditions that are relevant between some ethnic groups in the wider population. For example, a 2018 research paper in the American Journal of Kidney Diseases found that rates of heart disease were 20% higher among the black community than those from white backgrounds, and rates of stroke were a remarkable 40% higher. Do the Government know how the rates of pre-existing conditions among ethnic groups are influencing the figures on maternal health, and how are they going to work to reduce the risks of such conditions among these groups to try to improve the care not just during maternity, but during the whole of black ladies’ or ethnic minority ladies’ lives? Maternal mortality itself arises from a number of conditions and causes. In the period from 2019 to 2021, for example, 14% of maternal deaths were attributed to cardiac disease, 14% to blood clots, 10% to sepsis and 9% to epilepsy or stroke. What are the Government doing to understand the prevalence of those conditions among ethnic groups, how the conditions can be prevented, how they can be identified in black women—indeed, in all women—how they can be better treated to save lives, how they can be better managed to save lives, and what research can be done to ensure that they are, if possible, prevented? Socioeconomic deprivation has also been mentioned, and it is important to consider the impact of deprivation. In the period from 2019 to 2021, 12% of women who died during pregnancy or in the year afterwards were at severe and multiple disadvantage. That included, in particular, women who had suffered mental health conditions or domestic abuse, or had a history of substance abuse. How do the Government understand these factors and their influence on mortality rates, and what are they doing to help to resolve those issues? Closer to home, in February 2022 the NHS Race and Health Observatory published “Ethnic Inequalities in Healthcare: A Rapid Evidence Review”. The authors of that report noted: “Tackling poorer care and outcomes among ethnic minority women and babies continues to be a focus within the…NHS England and NHS Improvement Maternity Transformation Programme Equity Strategy, which includes pledges to improve equity for mothers and babies and race equality for staff.” The Government’s abolition of NHS England risks placing that ongoing programme of work, like many others, in jeopardy. Will the Minister tell us the current status of the maternity transformation programme and the implementation of the equity strategy under the NHSE and DHSC reorganisation? How is that work being prioritised, given the many other demands on the Department’s time and resources—not least from the reorganisation—that might previously have been spent on improving care? The previous Government improved the number of midwives per baby and made progress towards the national maternity safety ambition of halving the 2010 rate of stillbirths, neonatal maternal deaths and brain injuries in newborn babies. When will the Government set out their ambition for the next decade? The Labour Government promised more than 1,000 new midwives in their manifesto last year. Will the Minister update us on how many of those 1,000 midwives are now working for the NHS? The Minister for Care recently stated that the 41 maternal mental health services are now live and will be active in every integrated care system by the end of 2025-26. How will the Government ensure that access to those services can continue when ICSs face such high cuts in funding? Colleagues have mentioned the possible influence of systemic racism or unconscious bias in maternal outcomes. The NHS has an employed population of 1 million, and it is likely that some bad apples will be found within that overwhelmingly brilliant staff cohort, but I dispute that the NHS overall is a racist organisation. I work in the NHS—I should declare that interest—and I have not seen evidence of structural racism. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists reported that, as of 2024, 45% of obstetric and gynaeco-logical doctors identify as of a black, Asian or minority ethnic background, and 26% of births were to women of black or other minority ethnic backgrounds. Figures for midwives are harder to assert, because they are collated with nursing staff, but the proportion among nurses is 22%.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Black Maternal Health Awareness Week · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way on that point?

• 29 Apr 2025 · Black Maternal Health Awareness Week · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister talks about the importance of setting an achievable target and working on how it will be delivered, but the Government have now been at this for 10 months, and it was a manifesto commitment. Will she at least commit to a date by which it is likely to be set? Nothing will happen until there is a target and a plan. The Government are spending time deciding when to make a target, and all the while women are waiting.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Black Maternal Health Awareness Week · Hansard source

  More

  I did the junior part of my medical career in Nottinghamshire. I am describing what happened in the junior part of my career, which is about 20 years ago now. My experience 20 years ago was that it was very difficult to get interpreters, and that the people used to interpret were not proper interpreters and not the appropriate people. That should not be happening. The service is still not perfect, but over time we have seen translation services improve. Many hospitals have instituted new iPad systems where one can choose a country of origin or the language that the person speaks, and a dial-up system of interpreters working from home is used to provide an interpreting system. That is much better—it is more available to the patient than the services we had in the past, which required someone in person—but it is still not perfect. We still see areas across the country where those services and that interpretation are unavailable to people. How will the Minister ensure that women who have difficulties with the English language are able to access interpreters when they need them—not just for appointments, but for out-of-hours emergencies? That is when interpreters are most difficult to obtain, particularly for languages spoken by fewer people in the United Kingdom. I want to ask about the Government’s plans. The previous Government instituted a three-year plan, which comes to an end next year. When will the Government produce the plan? They talked about their 10-year NHS plan, which they said they would produce in the spring. I believe we are in the spring now—if we look outside, it is a beautiful day; the flowers are out and the lambs have been born. Where is the plan that the Government promised? What targets are they going to set, and when, to improve maternity care for all women, and specifically for black women?

• 29 Apr 2025 · Black Maternal Health Awareness Week · Hansard source

  More

  That is not what I said.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Black Maternal Health Awareness Week · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for giving way. I think we all agree that racism is wrong and must be weeded out wherever it happens. Could she say, in answer to the question posed by the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) at the beginning of her speech, whether she believes that the NHS is structurally racist?

• 29 Apr 2025 · Black Maternal Health Awareness Week · Hansard source

  More

  I think we have both made our positions clear. I accept that some people will have received poor care and that the people who delivered that poor care need to be hauled over the coals. They need to be called out for what they have done and we must ensure that such care does not happen again. But I do not accept that the NHS is a racist organisation. Another issue is language barriers. It is well recognised that it is difficult for people who have a language barrier to access health services. Can the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to help with that? In recent years in my medical career I have seen improvements in the delivery of language services, but when I was a more junior doctor an appointment needed to be booked in advance and an interpreter had to attend in person. Sometimes they were available and sometimes they were not. Sometimes other members of staff or family members would be used to interpret, which is a poor standard of care, relatively speaking.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Black Maternal Health Awareness Week · Hansard source

  More

  I understand the hon. Lady’s point. I do not dispute that some women, men, boys or children have awful experiences at the hands of bad apples. That will happen within any organisation of that size—the NHS employs more than 1 million people. That is wrong and should be rooted out; it is absolutely clear that that should stop. However, I work in the national health service, and I think the vast majority of people who go to work in it do so to care for the patients in front of them as best they possibly can. Care should be provided on the basis of clinical need and should not be affected by the ability to pay or by any other socioeconomic, ethnic or other demographic data. Although I accept the point that some individuals will have experienced poor care, which is reprehensible, I do not think that is the majority situation by quite some margin. I think most people receive extremely good care in the NHS, and care that is delivered on the basis of their clinical need, not the colour of their skin.