Helen Maguire MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2026 · Department of Health and Social Care · Hansard source

  More

  Today we are being asked to approve a motion on the main estimates for the Department of Health and Social Care for 2026-27, in which pharmaceutical spending is not separately identified, in either the estimate or its accompanying memorandum. We are being asked to approve spending without clear visibility of exactly how much is budgeted for medicines. That is against the principle of estimates day, which is to scrutinise spending before it is authorised. This is yet another example of the lack of transparency around the murky UK-US pharmaceutical deal. It was drawn up in secret and the Government are refusing to publish the impact assessment. The Government must be clear on how much is budgeted for medicines, how much they expect the deal to cost and the risks to the frontline associated with diverting money from elsewhere in the NHS. The UK-US pharmaceutical deal should never have been allowed to go ahead. The deal will see the NHS paying out at least £1.5 billion more in higher medicine costs by 2028, rising to over £9 billion by 2036. The Government have made it clear that there will be no additional money to fund that over the next spending period. That means frontline NHS services will be plundered at the behest of a foreign Government, while patients suffer in crammed hospital corridors and cannot get a GP appointment. We must support the British life sciences sector. We can find ways to achieve that, but it must be a domestic matter for the UK Government to solve holistically through negotiations with the sector. It should not be dictated from Washington. The Government refused to publish an assessment of the impact of the deal. What are they trying to hide? The bottom line is that medicine procurement should be based on sovereign health needs. This is not a matter of being pro or anti the pharmaceutical industry. We need to find a solution that works for patients, the NHS and the life sciences sector. Rather than defund vital NHS services in a knee-jerk deal, the Liberal Democrats would take real action to strengthen our life sciences sector by: developing a long-term plan with the sector to ensure certainty on issues such as VPAG—the Voluntary Scheme for Branded Medicines Pricing and Access—and rapid licensing by ensuring that the needs of our society are reflected in the approach of NICE and other regulatory bodies; promoting investment into upscaling UK life sciences manufacturing; encouraging investment in vaccine, medicine and antibiotic medicine manufacturing plants; reviewing the relationship between research and development tax credits and manufacturing; and establishing a fellowship programme for scientists working on health conditions, such as cancer, so they can continue the research Trump has defunded in the US. We would also cut the cost of visas for researchers, as well as boost R&D funding to 3.5% through a decade-long programme of public investment. Rather than spending billions to pay off a bully in the White House, the Liberal Democrats would oppose the deal, develop a plan for our life sciences that reflects our national interest and invest money in vital frontline services that are in dire need of funding. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has indicated that the deal could cost as much as £9 billion by 2036. That money would be transformative for so much of the NHS: it would end corridor care, hire thousands more staff, buy countless radiotherapy machines, or deliver high-quality care and help for elderly and disabled people. Any choices over money spent in our NHS must be made by the British people, not Trump. It is unacceptable that Trump thinks he can meddle in our NHS, and, worse still, that the Prime Minister lets him. That is why the Liberal Democrats wrote to the Prime Minister in December, demanding that the deal was put before Parliament for a vote. If the Prime Minister cares as much about the NHS as he claims, I encourage him to set the record straight, show his true feelings on the deal and, at the very least, bring it before the House for approval. This House, and the voters who elected us, decide matters of national importance, not the White House. That is why the Liberal Democrats tabled new clause 76 to the Health Bill, which would bring the deal before the House for a vote. Any deal that diverts billions of pounds away from NHS frontline services must be subject to democratic process and parliamentary scrutiny.

• 29 Jun 2026 · NHS Breast Screening · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for leading this important petition debate on NHS breast screening. It is hard to follow the passionate speech by the hon. Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper), but this is important, because there are about 60,000 new cases of breast cancer in the UK each year. Breast cancer represents 15% of all new cancer cases and 30% of all new female cancer cases. It is the most common type of cancer among women: a woman is diagnosed with breast cancer every nine minutes and there are approximately 11,200 deaths due to breast cancer each year in the UK. The human costs behind those statistics cannot be overstated. In the short span of today’s debate, 10 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and two will tragically lose their lives to the disease. Over recent decades, we have made huge strides in the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. It is remarkable that approximately 76% of women now survive for 10 years or more following their diagnosis. But as with any cancer, diagnosing breast cancer early remains vital and saves lives. Breast screening remains the most effective way to detect cancer at an early stage, which is also when treatment is most likely to succeed. More than 95% of people diagnosed at stage 1 will survive for at least five years, compared with about 25% diagnosed at stage 4. The Marmot review estimated that the current screening programme prevents about 1,300 deaths a year. In 2024-25, about 2.75 million women aged 50 to 71 were invited to be screened—a 10% increase on the previous year—and 2.15 million of them took the offer up. Nearly 20,000 women had breast cancer detected through that screening, but as those figures highlight, around 600,000 women did not take up the essential offer of breast cancer screening. Recent screening data reveals an alarming trend of women not attending their first screening appointment. The impact of not taking up the screening offer only compounds the issue. Women who do not attend their first breast cancer screening appointment are much less likely to take up subsequent screening invitations. In 2024-25, only 20.9% of women in England who had never previously taken up screening invitations attended, compared with the 89.1% uptake among women who had been screened in the last five years. Since the creation of the modern NHS breast screening programme, uptake for first-time screening invitations has never reached 70%. Had the screening uptake level reached the NHS achievable standard target of 80% in 2024-25, over a quarter of a million more women would have undergone routine screening, and that would have resulted in an estimated additional 2,228 cases of breast cancer being found. The scale of the missed opportunity to catch more cancer early is unacceptable, and women and their loved ones are paying the tragic price. I urge anyone who is eligible to take up the offer of breast cancer screening. The Liberal Democrats are clear that so much more must be done to ensure that every eligible woman attends screening when invited, particularly in England, where uptake is lagging behind the devolved nations and pre-pandemic levels. There are many reasons why women do not attend their breast cancer screening appointments, including misconceptions about the screening process and breast cancer, the fear of receiving a diagnosis, and cultural beliefs and attitudes. Others may not be able to attend due to everyday challenges such as limited transport, clashing work schedules or the burden of caring responsibilities. Health inequalities also affect screening uptake. Women from ethnic minority communities, those living in disadvantaged areas and women with disabilities often face additional barriers that reduce their access to breast screening services. What actions are the Labour Government taking to improve screening uptake nationally, particularly among disenfranchised women? What steps are the Government actively taking to support pop-up screening initiatives in community settings, and what is being done to ensure that those vital health services are meeting people where they are and at times that work for them? What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that women are able to receive the best screening test for their individual health needs? That might include, for example, providing women with an increased risk of breast cancer with an ultrasound if they are unable to have an MRI or they have dense breasts. That is particularly relevant to younger women with an increased risk, for whom an ultrasound will provide greater accuracy in screening their dense breast tissue. Mammograms can struggle to identify cancer in dense breasts, as cancers and dense tissue present in exactly the same way on imaging. The Liberal Democrats are also very concerned that so much NHS equipment, including diagnostic and scanning equipment, is out of date and decrepit. A quarter of England’s 280 radiotherapy machines are now operating beyond their 10-year lifespan, with a further 26 due to exceed the recommended lifespan by 2027. England has fewer radiotherapy machines than comparable European countries. Radiotherapy UK’s research reveals that England has just 4.8 linear accelerator machines per million population, well behind France at 8.5 and Italy at 6.9. Radiotherapy lacks clear accountability. While responsibility for commissioning it sits with integrated care boards, freedom of information requests found that around 70% of ICBs do not have a named person responsible for radiotherapy. Access to radiotherapy is well below international expectations. Around 52% to 53% of cancer patients are estimated to need radiotherapy, but only around 35% receive it in England. In some areas, the figure is as low as 22%. Radiotherapy also has the longest waiting times. Only around four in 10 patients—and, in some areas of the country, as few as two in 10— receive radiotherapy on time. Whether it is radiotherapy deserts or the mammogram machine glitch that left 7,000 women in parts of Essex without a screening service for almost two months, breast cancer patients are routinely being let down by faulty and inaccessible equipment. That is unacceptable and we must take action now. To address that, the Liberal Democrats are campaigning for a 10-year capital investment programme, under which all patients, including women with breast cancer, would benefit from easier access to newer, quicker and more accurate machines. Alongside screening, speed and quality of treatment are central to increasing breast cancer survival rates. The Liberal Democrats would introduce a guarantee that 100% of patients would be able to start treatment within 62 days of urgent referral. We would also replace the ageing radiotherapy machines and increase their numbers to guarantee that no one must travel ridiculous distances to receive the treatment that they desperately need. Currently, 3.4 million people in England live further away from a radiotherapy centre than the NHS target of 45 minutes. Taking those steps now is vital. We need to prepare our local cancer services for the future, as demand is increasing. Cancer cases are expected to rise by about 30% by 2040, and the new national screening programme is likely to identify more patients who need curative radiotherapy treatment. Without urgent action, the existing pressures on radiotherapy services will only worsen. We would also recruit more cancer nurses so that every patient had a dedicated specialist supporting them throughout their treatment, and halve the time for new treatments to reach patients by expanding the capacity of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. The future looks bright, with early pilots and trials using AI to analyse mammograms showing promising signs of potential improvement in both the speed and the accuracy of screening, but we must support our life sciences sector much more to champion vital research and innovation. The Liberal Democrats would pass a cancer survival research Act requiring the Government to co-ordinate and ensure funding for research into the cancers with the lowest survival rates. I want to reflect on the 10 women who were diagnosed with breast cancer and the two who will have tragically lost their lives to the disease in the short span of today’s debate. For them and the thousands of people—mostly women, but also men—living with breast cancer and their loved ones, I urge the Minister to carefully consider the important points and perspectives raised in the debate.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Nottingham Maternity and Neonatal Services · Hansard source

  More

  I thank Donna Ockenden and her team, the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) and all the Nottingham families who are involved in the development of this report. Today, I am angry and upset for all the families concerned, because this report reinforces what we already know: the maternity crisis must end and it must end now. Babies should have lived and mothers deserved better. The same systemic issues have come up again and again: unsafe staffing, lack of training, unchanging culture and a failure to listen to women. At the same time, we have increasing maternity negligence payouts of £2.5 billion. Following the report today, and bearing in mind the £2.5 billion of negligence payments, will the Minister commit to restoring the service development funding to support complex births and bereavement, after it was cut from £95 million to £2 million?

• 23 Jun 2026 · Role of Big Tech in Society · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) for securing this important debate and for raising the very real issues of the impact of big tech on democracy. Big tech has in many cases become synonymous with US tech, but that is not something that we should accept. The UK’s technology ecosystem is worth nearly £1 trillion. It is the third most valuable tech ecosystem in the world and the most valuable in Europe. The UK has a long history of technological innovation, from the industrial revolution to the creation of the world wide web. That legacy is still very much alive today, but we must continue to foster it. The shortage of STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—skills in the UK has been a concern for the past two decades, along with scale-up funding. Start-ups in the UK repeatedly say that their main challenge is finding funding to scale up, and that that is hindering the UK’s chance of having a thriving technological ecosystem with as large an impact as that of America. If we look at our pensions, for example, foreign pension funds invest 16 times more into UK start-ups than our own pension funds do. Overseas funds recognise the talent that we create, so why don’t we? Why are we allowing our brilliant British start-ups to be sold abroad? Backing British technology has never been so important, as we have heard in the debate, because big technology exists in every corner of our society. Even the Government run their computer systems on overseas cloud providers. As alluded to, the NHS data system is run by Palantir. The online systems used every day by workers across the UK’s economy are run by big tech companies, neither owned nor run from the UK. That is a question of not only economic security but, increasingly, national security. We cannot ignore the risks posed by overreliance on foreign technologies. That became apparent when the US Government switched off, across the globe, access to Anthropic’s Fable 5 and Mythos 5. While Fable 5 may only have been a feature for a day, a worrying precedent has been set for the US’s role in turning off international access to its big tech. What if that tech had been powering public services, such as our NHS records, when it was suddenly cut off? This must be a wake-up call. Our reliance on the technology that fuels our economy and underpins our services shows how desperately we need a digital sovereignty strategy to support British tech. The Liberal Democrats are not willing to take the risk, which is why we tabled and voted in favour of a digital sovereignty strategy during proceedings on the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill. We would have required the Government to establish a digital sovereignty strategy that placed British tech procurement at its centre. In an increasingly unstable world, the case for British digital resilience, technology and sovereign capability has never been stronger, but the Labour Government voted the proposed strategy down. I ask the Minister to explain what his alternative strategy is. Unfortunately, we cannot talk about big tech’s role in society without also thinking about the online harms. The world is increasingly moving towards the regulation of social media, and the Liberal Democrats welcome the action that the Government finally took on that issue, but the fine print really matters. The burden of safety must be on big tech, not on parents. The Liberal Democrats are clear that we must implement film-style age ratings based on harm, addictiveness and mental health impact. That is supported by the NSPCC, the Molly Rose Foundation and over 40 charities. Social media companies must also play a stronger role in tackling misinformation. The UK Government must introduce stricter regulations for social media companies to ensure that they challenge harmful misinformation and reduce its spread across their platforms. Social media companies must issue fact-checked corrections to scientifically inaccurate posts and ensure that those are seen by everyone who shared or saw the original inaccurate posts. They must also change their algorithms to de-promote misinformation and fake news. I recently witnessed the devastating and real-life impact of unregulated dis and misinformation in Epsom and Ewell when riots took place there in April. In analysing the social media around those riots, the Council for Countering Online Disinformation found that 62 right wing UK accounts produced 70% of the misinformation. It also found that 42 video posts containing misinformation reached 4.2 million views, accounting for nearly 25% of misinformation views, despite accounting for less than 1% of all Epsom misinformation posts. That false information reached at least 21.8 million views between 11 April and 23 April. It was also promoted by X’s algorithm and, alarmingly, it continued to sit in X’s trending tab for at least two consecutive days after it had been clarified by the police that the events in question never took place. Social media is not the only cause of online harms. Despite their transformative potential, evidence shows that AI and bots are also a cause of harm online. NBC News reported that 57.4% of search requests online are now initiated by bots, compared with 42.6% coming from humans—a terrifying reality where bots are outpacing and outnumbering humans online. At the same time, 70% of people are unable to correctly identify real and fake AI-generated content online. Those online harms have been driven by big tech, and current legislation does not actively prevent them. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the Government to create a new online crime agency to effectively tackle illegal content online. We would also introduce a digital Bill of Rights to protect everyone’s rights online, including the right to privacy, free expression and participation. The Liberal Democrats believe that the UK must lead the world in building a future where AI is developed and deployed ethically. That is why we would establish a cross-sector AI regulator that combines flexible, ethical oversight and technical expertise to ensure that the UK keeps pace with the rapid advances in technology. The AI legislation promised in Labour’s manifesto and the 2024 King’s Speech has not yet materialised. Internal conflicts and leadership challenges cannot be allowed—

• 16 Jun 2026 · Community Hospitals · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for securing this important debate on community hospitals. Community hospitals have been a core part of our healthcare system for more than 150 years. They are rooted in a strong tradition of providing care and a range of clinical services to support their local populations. There are over 500 community hospitals throughout the UK, and they vary considerably in the services they deliver as their fundamental focus is to adapt to ensure that they serve the needs of their local area. Community hospitals serve as multidisciplinary sites for immediate care across both health and social care, bridging the gap between primary and secondary care services. This adaptation and integration of services in particular makes community hospitals so valuable in bringing vital health services into the community and truly serving the specific needs of the community they represent, whether they have a significant older population or are situated in an area of high deprivation. The value of community hospitals cannot be overstated, as we have heard today. They are ideally placed to support effective prevention and the management of long-term conditions. They have the ability to be flexible, change and adapt with their population. By reimagining what we can do with community hospitals, based around the needs of an ageing population and rising complexity, we can make a significant difference to patients. I have seen the benefits of community hospitals at first hand in my constituency of Epsom and Ewell. Leatherhead community hospital, which is highly valued by the local community, demonstrates the importance of maintaining strong accessibility, continuity of care and patient flows across community health infrastructure. Leatherhead community hospital provides more than 33 specific consultation and out-patient services, including a stoma clinic, physiotherapy rehab, and speech and language therapy, for the diverse population it serves. We must support community hospitals to ensure they can continue to provide such services. Community hospitals also play a core role in reducing the pressures on larger acute hospitals. Their role will only continue to grow in importance as demand on NHS services continues to rise. Community hospitals support earlier discharge and step-down care to patients who are medically fit to leave acute hospitals, but still need further support to regain their independence prior to being fully discharged. The Health Foundation estimates that, in England, about 125,000 people enter intermediate care services each month. The cost of providing this care continues to rise, increasing the pressure on these underfunded services. The average local authority spend on a single episode of care in 2022-23 was 27% higher in real terms than in 2019-20. Community hospitals provide intermediate care beds, so they free up hospital beds, reducing the high demand on A&E departments. That intermediate support is particularly important in rural and coastal areas where, as we have heard today, access to acute hospitals is often limited. In 2021, the chief medical officer’s annual report on health in coastal communities provided official recognition of the range of healthcare needs across different rural communities. Those living furthest from healthcare services in rural and coastal areas are most at risk of experiencing inequalities, particularly when there are poor and unaffordable transport connections—not to mention the patients who, due to old age or disability, are unable to drive long distances to access essential healthcare. It takes twice as long for people in rural areas to reach their nearest GP by public transport as it takes people in urban areas; it also takes about a third longer for those who drive, according to the Rural Services Network. Those findings were affirmed by Lord Darzi’s report on the NHS, which found that across much of rural England—including nearly the whole south-west as well as much of the east of the country—there are fewer than 46 dentists per 100,000 people. A Liberal Democrat freedom of information request found that waiting times for life-threatening calls are 45% longer in rural areas than in urban areas. Community hospitals, like rural GPs, pharmacies and other healthcare services, have frequently been an afterthought. That situation is unacceptable: we must take action to change it, particularly given that the Government say they want to move services into the community. Access to vital community healthcare cannot be dictated by an unjust postcode lottery. Community hospitals receive less funding and less attention than larger acute hospitals, resulting in workforce shortages and rundown estates. There has also been an escalating process of service reductions at many community hospitals. Often, these changes are introduced under the guise of being trials, but they almost always become permanent. Pragmatic changes to services because of shifting demand are sometimes necessary, but too often changes are made without proper consultation or a proper explanation to the communities affected. The Liberal Democrats are clear that we wholeheartedly support the ambition to shift more care into the community, but we must get community hospitals to a place where they can complement and play a vital role alongside neighbourhood health centres. Rural communities know all too well the pressure that the healthcare system in their areas is under, and the important role that community hospitals play. Consequently, we have been calling for a rescue plan for rural health services, in which rural community hospitals would be an essential pillar. As part of the plan, we have called for a strategic small surgeries fund to sustain services in rural and remote areas, as well as a strategy to close the gap in access to primary healthcare between urban and rural areas. We are also calling for an emergency fund to reverse closures of community ambulance stations and to cancel planned closures of services where they are needed, which would particularly benefit rural communities. We would put an end to the postcode lottery of care provision, which disproportionately impacts rural communities, through a national care agency. We need a new national drive for first responders in rural communities. We need to protect air ambulances, integrating them into the emergency care system, and to ensure that they receive adequate NHS funding in addition to charitable donations. Will the Minister heed these calls and take the necessary steps to ensure that community hospitals that serve rural communities receive the support they deserve? The bottom line is that community hospitals are a service to us all. They are vital in the provision of care closer to home; they bring multidisciplinary services closer to the community; they bridge the gap between hospitals and GPs; they relieve strain on hospital beds and A&E departments; they support faster discharge and rehabilitation, and so help patients to regain their independence; and they improve healthcare access for elderly and vulnerable patients by reducing travel burdens for both themselves and their families. I urge the Minister to reflect on the important calls that I, my hon. Friends and others across the House have made in this debate, to ensure that we are all doing all we can to better support community hospitals.

• 15 Jun 2026 · NHS Dentistry · Hansard source

  More

  The phrases “dental desert” and “DIY dentistry” are becoming so normalised that it is easy to forget the human cost behind those terms. In 2025, over 5 million children did not see a dentist at all. Some 60% of adults have also not seen a dentist in at least the two years prior to June 2025. Barriers to accessing NHS dental care remain higher than ever, with workforce shortages, limited NHS capacity and geographical isolation creating an unjust postcode lottery. Those challenges are often most acute in rural, coastal and deprived communities, as we have heard. The Darzi report found that these communities particularly lack access to NHS dentistry. Across much of rural England, including nearly the whole south-west and much of the east of England, there are fewer than 46 dentists per 100,000 people. Research conducted by the British Dental Association and the Daily Mirror found that 96% of dentists in England are refusing to take on new NHS patients—we heard that today. This dental desert is leaving millions without access to dental care, with dire consequences. There is a significant correlation between lower availability of NHS dental care and higher demand on already stretched accident and emergency departments. Tooth decay is now the most common reason for hospital admission in children aged between six and 10 years. Between 2018 and 2024, over 100,000 children were admitted to hospital due to rotting teeth. This is utterly unacceptable. Our children deserve better. A 2023 poll found that one in five people who failed to get an NHS dentist appointment turned to DIY dentistry. One dentist in Epsom and Ewell shared his distressing experiences with patients. He described how, in desperation, his patient had resorted to using a pair of pliers to extract teeth, filing down the sharp edges of a broken tooth, and even purchasing temporary dental cement to try to fill an open cavity. This is a not too uncommon story that we hear among our constituents. In a recent survey looking into why people resort to DIY dentistry, 36% of participants said that their pain was so severe they acted out of immediacy, 33% cited the high costs of private care, and 30% said it was the inability to get an NHS appointment. This is a national disgrace. We must fix it now. The Labour Government have failed to take meaningful action. Their announcement in March to expand dental training schools amounts to only an extra 50 training places in real terms. It is a step in the right direction, but it is still a mere drop in the ocean. Even the previous Conservative Government, with their disastrous record on the NHS, overseeing waiting lists of up to 7.6 million, had more ambition. They committed to increasing the number of NHS dental training places by 24% by 2028-29 and 40% by 2031-32. Funding on their watch did fall by 16%, but they did have ambition. To make matters worse, Labour has also quietly dropped its manifesto pledge to deliver 700,000 more dental appointments, having delivered only around 100,000 urgent dental appointments so far. Labour also claims that the integrated care boards have commissioned over 1 million appointments, but commissioning appointments is different from actually delivering them. The Liberal Democrats are clear: we must take urgent and decisive action. We would implement a £750 million dental rescue plan that would guarantee access to an NHS dentist for all who need urgent and emergency care, which would end the dental desert and DIY dentistry. We would also introduce an emergency scheme to guarantee access to free NHS dental check-ups for children, new mothers, those who are pregnant and those on low incomes. In addition, we would provide guaranteed appointments for all those needing a dental check prior to undergoing surgery, chemotherapy or a transplant. Will the Labour Government implement those calls? The issues with NHS dentistry cannot be solved with those measures alone. We must also urgently reform the current dental contract, which is fundamentally unfit for purpose, to stop the exodus of NHS dentists and increase access to NHS dentistry. The current system effectively sets quotas on the number of patients a dentist can see on the NHS, as dentists are commissioned to deliver a set number of units of dental activity, or UDAs. The system pays dentists vastly different prices per UDAs delivered, with some practices receiving £30 for each UDA, while others receive over £50 for the identical work. One dentist constituent of mine told me about his practice’s commitment to providing NHS dentistry, but because of the UDA formula, he is compensated the same regardless of whether he fits one or five crowns in a patient. That means that his practice is having to subsidise the high overhead costs, including laboratory fees, to provide those vital NHS services. As a result, his practice is reliant on private dental services as a source of income, without which the business would not be able to survive. That model of NHS dentistry is simply not fit for purpose, and the impact of this system across the UK is undeniable. While the number of dentists registered to provide care in the UK is at an all-time high of nearly 48,000, having increased by 17% in the last decade, the number of dentists working in the NHS is falling. In England the total number of dentists doing some NHS work is only around 25,000, while the number of full-time equivalent NHS dentists is just 10,727. English dentists have the lowest commitment to NHS dentistry across the UK. Only 38% of them spend at least three quarters of their time on NHS work, compared with 59% in Scotland, 45% in Wales and 39% in Northern Ireland. In April, Labour announced a consultation on reform of the dental contract, which is due before this summer. But with a new Defence Secretary, a by-election, a potential leadership contest and possibly a new Prime Minister, this Government are clearly distracted. Those distractions cannot be allowed to delay reform of the contract. Any delay risks the prospect of rolling out a new contract in this Parliament, which is what the country needs and what the Government have promised. Will the Labour Government commit to ensuring that the consultation on the dental contract will take place before this summer as previously stated? The Liberal Democrats would fix the broken NHS dental contract, using flexible commissioning to better meet patient needs. That would also bring dentists back from the private sector to the NHS. We would also increase the number of dentist training places in the UK and continue to recognise the qualifications of EU trained dentists. NHS dentistry is in crisis and we must act now. Through the implementation of Liberal Democrat policies, people would be able to access the NHS dental treatments they need, ending dental deserts and DIY dentistry once and for all.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Secondary Breast Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank both my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) and the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) for securing this important debate, and for sharing their experience with cancer. I also thank the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) for her frankness and openness in describing her own experience. Secondary breast cancer is now the leading cause of death in the UK for women between 40 and 49. Each month, around 1,000 people lose their lives to secondary breast cancer. That is one person every 45 minutes, so two lives will be lost to this disease in the short span of this debate. Secondary breast cancer is incurable; treatment can slow down the disease, but it cannot cure it. Nevertheless, 13 years after data collection on secondary breast cancer became mandatory for all NHS trusts, the true number of people living with this disease remains unknown. It is estimated that the number is around 61,000. However, the lack of accurate data makes thousands of people who are in need of care invisible to the healthcare system. That is simply unacceptable. Those people count and we must count them. Collecting and publishing this data is essential. Without it, how can the NHS accurately assess the scale of need and appropriately plan services to ensure that support is available where required? The Government’s commitment within the national cancer plan to define and count all secondary cancers, beginning with breast cancer, and the target to meet all cancer wait-time standards by 2029, are steps in the right direction. But to achieve those ambitions in full, we must be bolder and do so much more. The Liberal Democrats are clear: quality and speed of treatment are vital to increase the survival rates for secondary breast cancer. The results of the research conducted by Breast Cancer Now in 2019 are damning. They make the lack of quality and the poor speed of treatment and care undeniable. They showed that 23% of respondents had to see their GP three or more times before they were diagnosed, and 53% of respondents said that they had not been given enough information about clinical trials by healthcare professionals. Just 30% of respondents said that they saw a cancer nurse specialist regularly and only 13% of respondents who had previously had breast cancer felt that they had been given enough information to recognise the signs and symptoms of secondary breast cancer. Those figures show a healthcare system that is creaking under the strain after years of neglect by the previous Conservative Government. They highlight that professionals lack the time and capacity to effectively diagnose, offer follow-up care and share sufficient information, for which patients ultimately pay the price. Every patient must get the care and support they need, when and where they need it. We must support the specialist cancer workforce, as well as GPs, to deliver the standard of care they would like and we expect. I therefore urge the Minister to take forward the Liberal Democrats’ proposals to introduce a guarantee that 100% of patients will be able to start treatment within 62 days from urgent referral; to recruit more cancer nurses so that every patient has a dedicated specialist supporting them throughout their treatment; and to expand the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency’s capacity to halve the time for new treatments to reach the patients who desperately need them. I think of the two people who will have lost their lives to secondary breast cancer in the 90 minutes of this debate. For them, and all the secondary breast cancer patients past, present and future, I implore the Minister to consider many of the calls raised by me and my colleagues here today.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Compassionate Use Medicine Schemes: VAT · Hansard source

  More

  I was deeply shocked to hear about the change in HMRC’s policy. It is extremely worrying that pharmaceutical companies must now pay VAT on drugs available through compassionate use and early-access schemes. In April, HMRC told the pharma industry that it would pause enforcing VAT bills while the Government considered measures to support the industry in supplying patients who desperately need these drugs. The changes have been mired in uncertainty and misunderstanding, and there has been poor communication from HMRC from the start. The Government must ensure that they create a workable long-term solution for the pharmaceutical industry to support these patients who are in desperate need. Patients must not lose access to medicines as a result and HMRC must communicate with pharma and patients effectively. For patients of all ages with rare cancer types, schemes such as these are the only way to access potentially life-extending treatment. Has the Minister spoken to cancer charities about the real-life effects that the changes will have? We should be making it easier for patients to access life-extending drugs, not harder. Will the Minister confirm that patients will not be denied lifesaving drugs as a result of these changes?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Epsom and St Helier hospitals need urgent funding now, not just patchwork repairs. In 2024, 600 operations were cancelled due to ventilation issues and the situation is only going to get worse, so will the Minister address the backlog of hospital repairs now to ensure that patients and staff have safe and modern facilities in Epsom and Saint Helier hospitals?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Maternity Commissioner · Hansard source

  More

  I have a constituent who had a history of rapid births. She wanted the safety net and support of a home birth team alongside the community team, as recommended, but she was unable to have both teams involved. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is difficult to have confidence in a safe birth if the right medical support simply is not there?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Maternity Commissioner · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 15 Apr 2026 · Draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I first want to express my condolences to all those affected by the Manchester Arena attack. The Lib Dems support bringing providers under CQC regulation, as the draft regulations would do, but we need to be careful about the impact on smaller organisations, as the shadow Minister says. I reiterate concerns raised by mountain rescue teams about the impacts that the draft regulations will have on their ability to provide services at temporary sporting events in remote locations, such as fell races or mountain bike events. They have emphatically said to us that they will cease providing rescue cover at those events if the regulations are applied. Will the Minister meet mountain rescue representatives and consider their calls to amend the legislation to provide an exemption on rescue cover? Because of those concerns, the Lib Dems will abstain today.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T5. In Epsom and Ewell, many residents face a daily battle to get a GP appointment. There are numerous potential housing developments on the horizon, and the rising population is set to put even more pressure on already stretched GP services. The Liberal Democrats would require developers to build new GP surgeries, ready for when residents move in. Can the Government explain what they are doing to support GPs in my constituency, so that they can manage the surge in patient demand from day one of a development being completed, rather than leaving communities to pay the price later?

• 16 Mar 2026 · GP Contract · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the fact that the Government have adopted our policy of seeing clinically urgent patients on the same day, but patient safety has been put at risk by increasing workloads, according to members of the Royal College of General Practitioners. One in five patients has been forced to wait at least two weeks for an appointment. Although the Government’s funding of 1,600 new GPs is welcome, it is insufficient to deliver the required shift to community care. The Health Foundation says that an additional 6,500 GPs will be needed by 2031, and the Liberal Democrats would provide 8,000. What is the Minister doing to address the shortfall? Residents in Epsom and Ewell, who already struggle to get a GP appointment, are concerned that increased housing will make it even harder. What is the Minister doing to ensure that there is funding for GP buildings, as well as GPs? I welcome the Government’s focus on the obesity crisis, but it does not fix the root cause. Aside from the junk food ban, what steps are the Government taking to encourage children and young people to create active and healthy habits for life from an early age?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Disability Equipment Provision · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing this debate. I also thank you for your chairmanship today, Mr Betts. There are fantastic organisations in Epsom and Ewell that support my disabled constituents, including Mid Surrey Mencap, which I met last year. Its work is profound, but without the right equipment, organisations can only do so much. A lack of equipment often leaves people reliant on family members to manually help them with essential tasks, including going to the toilet and washing. From grab rails to shower seats, equipment can mean the difference between dependence and independence. The report on this issue from the APPG for access to disability equipment revealed that staff shortages, supply chain delays and inconsistent local authority processes cause widespread delays to equipment provision. It is clear that we need structural change, and the NHS reform Bill provides an opportunity to deliver a co-ordinated, national approach on disability equipment. Will the Minister commit to using that legislation to deliver this? It is widely recognised that access to wheelchairs varies significantly across the country, and demand is skyrocketing. In September 2025, the charity Whizz Kidz was forced to close its wheelchair waiting list for the first time in its 35-year history because of high demand. Moreover, the average wait time between being discharged from hospital after life-altering injuries and being assessed for a wheelchair is 10 months. Although the Liberal Democrats welcome NHS England’s wheelchair quality framework, I am concerned that with ICBs facing cuts and reorganisation, a framework may not have the impact necessary to deliver change. What makes matters worse is that equipment wastage in the NHS is huge, and we only need to go to the local tip to see it. In July, I wrote to the Minister for Secondary Care following concerns from a constituent about NHS equipment wastage. In her response, she highlighted the Design for Life road map, which includes a framework for decontamination infrastructure across NHS trusts to enable the safe sterilisation and reuse of medical equipment. I find it shocking that disabled people are waiting months or even years for equipment, while other patients are forced to throw away useful equipment that could be reused once they have recovered. Will the Minister confirm how much equipment has been diverted from waste since the road map was published over a year ago? The debate has reinforced a simple but vital truth: everyone deserves to live independently and with dignity. After the Conservatives left social care in disarray, the Liberal Democrats are committed to ensuring that people with disabilities have access to suitable housing, meaningful employment and the opportunity to enjoy the activities that make life fulfilling. I ask the Minister to make the simple commitment that specialised services and disabled equipment will no longer be treated as an afterthought but as an essential part of enabling people to live full and independent lives, and to work if they can do so, and that more equipment is reused.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Type 1 Diabetes: Infant Testing · Hansard source

  More

  It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec, and to have the opportunity to debate this incredibly important issue. As a mum, I cannot begin to imagine the pain of Lyla Story’s family after she died last May from undiagnosed type 1 diabetes, less than 24 hours after a doctor diagnosed her with acute tonsillitis. It is an absolute tragedy that Lyla’s life was cut so short, and it is clear that change must happen. Every child must get the care that they need, when and where they need it. Every child should expect the best possible opportunities to grow up healthy and to exercise, play and eat well. Charities such as Diabetes UK have been instrumental in raising awareness of the common symptoms known as the four Ts, to which many hon. Members have alluded today: “toilet”, “thirsty”, “tired” and “thinner”. However, children are too often rushed into intensive care and hours later face a diagnosis of type 1 diabetes and diabetic ketoacidosis. DKA can mean a coma, organ failure and a traumatic hospital stay. If it is not treated quickly, it can be fatal. No child or parent should have to face that terrifying reality when the tools are at our fingertips. NICE guidance is clear: health professionals should know the signs and symptoms of type 1 diabetes, and any child suspected to have the condition should be referred on the same day to a multidisciplinary paediatric diabetes team to confirm the diagnosis and provide immediate care. The Liberal Democrats believe that early diagnosis of long-term health conditions is essential, offering the best opportunity for those suffering from type 1 diabetes to live healthy, long and fulfilling lives. I welcome the Minister to her place; will she confirm what steps have been taken to ensure that medical professionals are confident in identifying type 1 diabetes in children to avoid a traumatic late diagnosis? Research shows that patients who see the same clinician for most of their care have fewer hospital admissions and lower mortality rates. I therefore implore the Minister to take forward the Liberal Democrat proposal to guarantee a named GP to all those with type 1 diabetes to help improve their long-term care once a diagnosis is achieved. Another key issue with type 1 diabetes is that we do not know the exact cause of the disease. It is essential that the Government drive research so that we can establish the evidence needed for a viable and effective national screening programme. I urge the National Screening Committee to take on board all new evidence as it emerges, not least from the ongoing study of screening children aged three to 13, which is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research. The Government must also take steps to facilitate medical research in the UK to make progress on paediatric type 1 diabetes testing and other conditions. Will the Minister consult the Chancellor about whether she will consider reversing the employer national insurance contributions hike to support the life sciences sector and boost research and development funding to end this information desert? The Liberal Democrats are clear that no child should die because of a missed or late diagnosis. The UK needs to be a world leader on research, diagnostics and patient experience. I think of Lyla and the many other children whose lives could have been saved, and I ask the Minister to pay attention to the many calls in this debate to ensure that no family spends a lifetime grieving.

• 4 Mar 2026 · NHS Capital Spending · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is making an important point about the vital need for capital funding in the NHS. I and a number of colleagues are here in the Chamber because St Helier hospital is falling apart, and unfortunately patients are being affected, but the hospital build programme has been delayed another three years. There has been lots of goodwill in the debate, but we are looking for additional investment in the A&E. I hope the Minister will take that away, and that there might be something about it in a statement soon.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, the chief executive officer of Meta took the stand in Los Angeles as part of a landmark trial examining Instagram’s impact on the mental health of young users. This highlights the confusion about who is responsible for what in the online space. We know that we need Government legislation, but we also need clarity on what social media companies are responsible for. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time that we establish a clear framework and proper accountability so responsibilities are understood and the right people are held to account for any failings?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Ambulance Response Times · Hansard source

  More

  In November, I joined a local ambulance crew and saw at first hand the great work they do for our community, but services are under huge strain. Will the Minister designate ambulance stations as critical infrastructure to protect them from closure and set up an emergency fund to support them?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Decarbonisation Schemes: GP Access · Hansard source

  More

  Primary care accounts for around 25% of the NHS’s carbon emissions, with many GPs working in ageing, energy-inefficient buildings with high running costs. Research from the Royal College of General Practitioners reveals that only five GP practices in England and Wales have accessed the boiler upgrade grant scheme since May 2022, and most are unable to access the public sector decarbonisation scheme. GP partners across the UK identify a lack of capital funding as the main barrier to decarbonisation, yet 260 NHS trusts are rightly receiving Government funding for new solar panels. Will the Minister meet me and the Royal College of General Practitioners to discuss how GPs can access decarbonisation schemes, and will she expand GB Energy’s investment model to GPs?

• 9 Feb 2026 · Brain Tumour Survival Rates · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) and the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) on securing this really important debate in the Chamber, and I thank them for campaigning so tirelessly on this issue. I know how closely it affects families, including the family of my hon. Friend the Member for Witney. I was pleased to work with Georgie and Brain Cancer Justice on a letter to the Minister for public health and prevention, the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), regarding brain cancer vaccination trials before Christmas. For brain cancer patients in the UK, no vaccine trials are running. The national cancer plan, published last week, committed to delivering up to 10,000 cancer vaccines. The ambition is that this kind of treatment will be more widely available by 2035. However, for many, that will be too late. Around 35 families every single day hear the news that a loved one has been diagnosed with a primary brain tumour, and many see that as a life sentence.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Brain Tumour Survival Rates · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady brilliantly describes the real nub of the problem. One of my constituents got in touch to tell me that in the space of a few months, four people that she knew received a brain tumour diagnosis. With symptoms ranging from seizures to changes in behaviour, the diagnosis process for brain tumours can be dramatic, lengthy and hard fought. That is why we urgently need improvements in diagnosis. The national cancer plan aims to make great strides in speeding up diagnosis, but I was disappointed that the Government did not take up the Liberal Democrats’ calls for 8,000 more GPs, to ensure that everyone can get seen quickly and be referred for treatment. Once a referral is successful, the brain tumour should be treated. To see delays because of equipment shortages is a disgrace. The Government have pledged funding for 28 new radiotherapy machines, which is a step in the right direction, but the Liberal Democrats have long called for 200 new, fully staffed machines, so that we can end radiotherapy deserts and stop delays to vital treatment. Will the Minister set out when we can expect funding for more machines? Brain cancer has a more complex element; it does not occur in stages like other cancers, but is defined by grades. The grading system can also differ, depending on the type of brain tumour that the patient has. The national cancer plan has looked to offer some relief to patients by giving a commitment that a clinical nurse specialist or other named lead will support them through diagnosis and treatment to hopefully make the path clearer. I look forward to seeing how the Government intend to support this ambition by providing enough staff through the 10-year workforce plan. While we are waiting for that plan, will the Minister give some clarity on how he plans to implement the commitment to providing 5,000 learning and training opportunities per year for the first three years of the plan for people in cancer-critical roles? It is important that I mention benign brain tumours. Just because they are not cancerous, it does not mean that people do not experience a life-changing impact from being diagnosed with them. Those living with benign brain tumours must also receive the right treatment, care and lifelong support. I really hope that we are at a turning point in cancer care, especially for brain tumours, which kill more children and adults under the age of 40 than any other cancer. I am pleased to see many organisations, including Brain Tumour Research, welcome the national cancer plan, especially the proposed access to clinical trials and increased research. There is a lot of ambition in the plan that must be accounted for, so will the Minister confirm that the annual summary of progress for the national cancer plan will be presented in the House every year for proper scrutiny?

• 5 Feb 2026 · National Cancer Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement and for her personal experience that has gone into this plan. After the Conservatives failed to invest in our NHS, it is no surprise that cancer survival in the UK is still around 10 to 15 years behind leading countries, with worse survival rates for some cancers than Romania and Poland. I am therefore pleased that this Government listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) and brought this national cancer plan to life, because cancer touches everyone. One of my residents, a mum with a young family, discovered a lump in her breast. Despite attending the one stop breast clinic on four separate occasions, it took two horrendous years for her to be diagnosed with breast cancer. When she was finally diagnosed, the cancer was aggressive and required a mastectomy, chemotherapy and radiation therapy. That is why I welcome the Government’s target on meeting all cancer wait time standards by 2029, but the aim to halve the backlog in three years’ time is not ambitious enough. Will the Minister go further and back a Liberal Democrat plan to write into law a guarantee for all cancer patients to start treatment within 62 days from urgent referral? The focus on ending delays in cancer care is a step forward, but funding 28 new radiotherapy machines is not enough when the treatment is so cost effective and successful. We need to end radiotherapy deserts, so will the Minister extend her ambition to 200 extra radiotherapy machines? The Minister says that the plan will turn the NHS app into a gateway for cancer care, but how will she support older people and the digitally excluded? The plan promises to drive up productivity, end the postcode lottery, expand NHS diagnostic capacity, introduce personalised cancer plans and more. That is optimistic and will require more investment to increase NHS capacity, but without clear funding and capacity building plans, is it realistic? Labour was right to put patients at the heart of this plan and incorporate the Liberal Democrat’s calls for a specialist cancer nurse for every patient. We costed for 3,000 extra cancer nurses; how many additional cancer nurses does the Minister believe are needed? Finally, will the Minister confirm that the plan’s annual summary of progress will be reported in the House for Members to scrutinise?

• 28 Jan 2026 · Firearms Licence Holders: Mandatory Medical Markers · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree, and I will be coming on to that further in my speech. Let me be clear that this debate is in no way about firearm ownership—the Government are consulting on that separately, and that is its own debate. Today’s discussion is about how we can ensure that medical professionals have the information required to best support the individuals they serve. Emma and her daughter Lettie Pattison, who lived in my constituency, were shot and killed by Emma’s husband almost three years ago, before he turned the gun on himself. Before his latest shotgun licence renewal, George Pattison had used an online doctor to receive a “significant amount” of propranolol between 2019 and 2021. However, despite his change in mental health, the online doctor was unaware of his firearms licence, and the medication was not disclosed to his GP, which meant that neither professional was able to intervene. If they had, maybe Emma would still be working at Epsom college and Lettie might have celebrated her 10th birthday this year. Robert Needham killed his partner Kelly Fitzgibbons, and their children Ava, age four, and Lexi, age two, in West Sussex in 2020. In Needham’s case, as a result of changes to gun licence guidelines, a flag was initially inputted and then removed. A statement from Kelly’s family following the inquest into their deaths described the monitoring and sharing of information between police and medical professionals about Needham’s shotgun licence as a “shambles.” Having corresponded with medical organisations, I recognise that balancing the need for patient-doctor confidentiality is paramount. In the first instance, the GP should always ask for the individual’s consent before contacting another authority, such as the police, about how the issues they are facing may impact their ability to safely possess a gun. However, doctors can break confidentiality when it is in the public interest. According to the British Medical Association, public interest is likely to be justified where it is essential to protect other people from risks of serious harm or death. GPs also must already abide by several safeguarding protocols and laws. The Care Act 2014 sets out six key principles of safeguarding, including prevention, noting that it is sometimes possible to act before harm has come to an individual. With those existing guidelines, mandatory markers are not an attempt to reinvent the wheel; they are simply a way of flagging vital information that is key to the patients and public safety. The Royal College of General Practitioners considers it valuable to have those digital markers in place, and notes that software systems should develop, implement and secure the functionality of the markers in patient records. The college recommends that the Government work with the providers of GP systems to resolve this issue. The BMA also supports medical markers. They told me that doctors have a professional responsibility to share information that might impact on the safety of someone holding firearms in the community, and we need effective systems to do so. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s office welcomes the digital medical marker and recognises the work of bereaved families who have lobbied tirelessly to ensure that action is taken to prevent future harm and further loss of life. The British Association for Shooting Conservation and the Countryside Alliance, who have a combined membership of over 200,000 people, both support the introduction of mandatory medical markers. June 2010, March 2020, August 2021, February 2023—these dates are etched in the memories of families torn apart by gun violence: each one a failure of the system; each one a life that could have been saved. The Government have a choice: they can listen to the families of victims, to medical professionals, gun owners and the organisations working to end violence, or they can continue to leave the door open to tragedy. The Liberal Democrats believe that mandatory medical markers are a proportionate evidence-based safeguard. They allow concerns to be flagged early if someone’s health changes, rather than waiting years until a licence renewal, and can save lives. So I ask the Minister today: will he finally release the data on how many GPs are using the markers and will he commit today to making them mandatory?

• 28 Jan 2026 · Firearms Licence Holders: Mandatory Medical Markers · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of mandatory medical markers for firearm licence holders. It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Ms McVey, and have the opportunity to raise such a critical issue. In 2021, three-year-old Sophie Martyn was one of six people in Plymouth who lost their lives in a mass killing. At the inquest it emerged that the murderer’s GP had not placed a marker on the medical notes when requested to do so by the police. The murderer had already had his gun taken away previously and concerns about his health had been reported by his mother, who was the first person killed. When it mattered most, the system failed. That cannot be allowed to happen again. Almost a year after the anniversary of those horrific killings, the previous Government rolled out medical markers for new firearms licence holders. Medical markers, once applied to a patient’s record, flag that an individual has a firearms licence and automatically alerts doctors if there has been a relevant change in their medical situation. That could include a change in their mental health or evidence of substance abuse. That allows the GP to have a conversation with the patient and, if necessary, inform the police. Here is the catch: those markers are not mandatory. There is currently no obligation on GPs to use the marker. Their use is left to the best endeavours of GPs. I have written to the Minister for crime, policing and fire to ask for the number of GPs who have downloaded the marker, but I have yet to receive a response. That is a missed opportunity to save lives, to safeguard vulnerable adults with access to firearms, and to protect public safety. A survey carried out by the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners found that 87% of existing certificate holders believe that GPs should inform the police if they become aware of a change of health that could impact a certificate holder’s ability to own a gun safely. Why are the Government dragging their feet? In 2008, Christopher Foster shot his wife and teenage daughter. He then shot the family animals and burned his house down, dying of smoke inhalation. He had previously seen his GP on several occasions to discuss his depression and suicidal thoughts. Markers on medical notes for firearms owners were not then available, and there was no way that his GP could have known that he had licensed firearms. With medical markers still being optional, if that horrific attack were carried out today there is still no guarantee that a medical marker would be on his GP record. Our country is home to proud rural communities and individuals who rely on gun ownership for their work. The shooting industry makes up a vital part of the rural economy.