Jess Brown-Fuller MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2025 · Infant Feeding · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to bring this Adjournment debate to the Chamber on a topic close to my heart. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as the Chair of the all-party parliamentary group for infant feeding. I am pleased as always to see the Minister in her place. I look forward to her response on behalf of the Government just days before the long awaited 10-year plan for the NHS. When the Secretary of State for Health promised to create the “healthiest generation ever”, it was a bold and admirable ambition, and certainly one that I share with him. Every child deserves the opportunity to thrive regardless of their wealth or their postcode. When the Government talk of building a better future for children, their policies and schemes often start with school—with free school meals and breakfast clubs—or providing Government support for nurseries and early years settings, but there is little substance in the critical years from birth to three, and even less when it comes to policy around infant feeding, whether that is breastfeeding, formula feeding or a combination of the two. I had my son nearly 11 years ago, and I remember with fondness the lactation consultant coming on to the ward in the maternity unit and showing me how best to hold my son to feed him and what to expect in the first few weeks after taking him home. I did not have an easy journey with breastfeeding: I suffered with pain when he latched, I had multiple bouts of mastitis and swelling—the list went on. My husband and I ran our own restaurant at the time, so he took approximately three hours of paternity leave before returning to work.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Infant Feeding · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman highlights how important it is to have that community-based support in an area. Unfortunately, not every mother across the UK can say the same. There are areas where they have to travel up to an hour by car to attend that sort of group, and I will come on to that point. When I had my daughter, five years after my son, the support that I had relied on had all but vanished. The Milk group was now being run out of, in effect, a broom cupboard at my local leisure centre, with no opportunity to socialise with other mums. Only six months later, the pandemic hit and my daughter’s health visitor reviews were done via Zoom, often without my daughter even on the screen. The local children and family centre in my constituency never reopened in the same way after the pandemic. I was one of the lucky ones because I had already built my village around me five years earlier and I had a network of friends and family that I could call on. However, for those who have become new mothers in the last decade, that support has been all but vaporised, with community support groups patchy and often delivered by volunteers or those wonderful midwives in their time off. It is essential to acknowledge and support those parents who cannot or choose not to breastfeed, to ensure that they feel empowered and confident in the decisions they make for their children’s nutrition and wellbeing. I am a proud advocate of every parent having choice, but that choice should be an informed one. Currently, it is not a level playing field, with formula companies preying on the vulnerability of parents. The Competition and Markets Authority launched a market study into the formula industry in February 2024 and published its results earlier this year. The study provided a comprehensive, in-depth and up-to-date exploration of the infant formula market in the UK through a consultative process that has offered unique insights into the industry. A short extract from the CMA’s overview of its findings states: “parents are often in vulnerable circumstances when they first make choices about whether and which infant formula to use, their brand choice is often based on incomplete or unclear information, and they are typically then reluctant to switch brands. Against this backdrop, manufacturers place significant emphasis on building their brands—including through their willingness to supply the NHS below cost—and differentiating their products to attract parents, rather than competing strongly on price. And price competition between retailers has typically been weak…Our analysis indicates that these features, in combination, are leading to poor outcomes for parents in terms of the choices they make and prices they pay for infant formula.” In short, a vulnerable, extremely tired new parent is making choices on which formula to buy, but the claims on boxes of commercial infant formula are often unfounded. Parents have to choose between a £7 tin of formula and a £14 tin of formula, even though they are nutritionally equivalent. At a recent event, we heard the testimony of parents who had purchased the more expensive brand with the bold claims on its packaging, believing that they were doing the best for their child, only to then use fewer scoops when making a bottle to make the tin last longer. We have only to look at our supermarket shelves and see the formula milk locked in glass cabinets to understand that we have a crisis in families being able to feed their babies. The cost of living challenges have spiralled into a food insecurity crisis, yet formula manufacturers increased prices by 24% in one year in 2023 and prices continue to rise well beyond inflation. Research shows that parents rarely switch brands once they have introduced a formula milk. This gives formula companies a clear incentive to offer their products to maternity wards at reduced prices, knowing that parents are likely to continue using the same brand when they go home. To address this, the CMA recommends standardised infant formula labelling in healthcare settings, which would eliminate this form of exploitative marketing. Formula companies are also restricted from advertising newborn formula, but they get round this by advertising their follow-on, or stage 2, milk and making the packaging look exactly the same. The CMA recommendations ask for the Government to assess whether infant formula and follow-on milks are “clearly distinct”, then communicate that assessment to the manufacturers and enforcers. A Mintel report from 2016 reported that in 2015, for every baby born in the UK, companies spent a staggering £21 just on marketing follow-on formula. The CMA has made 11 recommendations to the Government, all of which aim to improve outcomes for parents. I am calling on the Government today to implement all 11 recommendations and finally to level the playing field for those parents who rely on formula to feed their babies. This debate is timely, as last week I was delighted to host the World Breastfeeding Trends Initiative’s launch of its 2024 report here in Parliament. I would be delighted to give the Minister a copy if she does not already have one. The key takeaway from the report is that the UK has one of the lowest breastfeeding rates in the world. The report not only highlights the gaps in policy but creates a report card system for each of the four nations. I want to highlight a few things that were mentioned in the report. Importantly, data—though its collection is uneven across the four nations—shows that the majority of mothers do set out to breastfeed. Despite this, by six to eight weeks, around 70% of babies in the UK receive some formula, and by six months only 1% of babies are exclusively breastfed.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Infant Feeding · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that these women have often been embedded in their communities for many years, helping women to raise their babies, and that they go on to do marvellous things in the community. The majority of those who stop breastfeeding early wanted to breastfeed for longer, but did not receive the help they needed to resolve problems, all of which could be addressed with support from trained health workers, skilled peer supporters or specialist help in hospital, at home or in the community. The World Breastfeeding Trends Initiative report highlights the absence of national policy and governance in England. The devolved nations have pulled ahead on this front, with Scotland publishing a strategic framework, Wales having had an action plan since 2019 and Northern Ireland currently finalising its strategy. Support needs to be baked into policy and legislation because communities cannot do this alone. It being so early in this Parliament, the Government have all the opportunities to act. I was delighted to see today’s announcement of a review of the parental leave and pay system, and I hope that infant feeding will play into the considerations of better support for parents on maternity and paternity leave. Health visitor teams have also dwindled over recent years, and an estimated 54,000 GP appointments could be saved every year if a professional feeding service was available in every community. Any strategy must be properly funded and integrated with current programmes across communities and healthcare settings, such as family hubs and Start for Life, which should themselves be expanded, particularly Start for Life, which is funded only in half of England’s local authorities. Some councils are choosing to make this an area to improve on, and I am pleased to see my local authority—West Sussex county council—include the early years as part of its health strategy for the next five years, even without the Start for Life funding, which it does not receive. I would like to use an example of a mother who got in touch just last week to share her story. She had a traumatic birth with unexpected interventions. Her baby was quickly fed formula by hospital staff. The pump kit did not work in the hospital, and no meaningful help was available. She wants to feed her baby herself. She looked online when she got home to find help nearby, but there was nothing less than an hour away by car. She is struggling with which formula to use and does not understand the differences between them. She does not know other women with babies. She is feeling lost and isolated. Social media is full of conflicting advice, so she has gone out of the area for paid support, which she cannot afford on maternity pay, to help her try to regain a sense of reality. I am sure this lady’s story is the same for parents across the country. If the reasons I have highlighted are not compelling enough, maybe the economic impact is. UK research back in 2012 on the costs of four diseases showed that even reaching moderate breastfeeding levels could save the NHS millions, and that the implementation of proven breastfeeding support systems would pay for itself within a year. For babies, breastfeeding strengthens the immune system and significantly reduces the risk of infections, obesity, asthma and long-term conditions, such as type 2 diabetes. For the mother, breastfeeding lowers the risk of breast and ovarian cancers and cardiovascular disease, and supports post-natal mental health. I could say much more, but instead I will move to my asks of this Government. When will the Government make their decision on whether they will accept the 11 recommendations from the Competition and Markets Authority? Will the Minister consider following the devolved nations and introduce a comprehensive national infant feeding strategy to end the postcode lottery and provide support to all parents in their feeding journeys? Can we expect to see something about infant feeding in the upcoming NHS 10-year plan? Finally, there is little about breastfeeding in most health professionals training, but primary care has successfully integrated assisted roles into services such as pharmacists and social prescribers. Could the same model be extended to lactation consultants? I would like to finish by thanking all those tireless activists and campaigners who have been fighting for all women to have support, guidance and trusted information when they begin motherhood. I will not risk trying to name them all as I will no doubt miss some, but a special thank you goes to the World Breastfeeding Trends Initiative steering group, First Steps Nutrition Trust and the former hon. Member for Glasgow Central who chaired the APPG before the general election.

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

  More

  That is exactly why the hon. Member for Strangford brought forward this debate, and we share his concerns that any attempt to create a market for egg donation could lead to perverse outcomes. Advertising for egg donors to come forward should reflect that, stressing the benefits to others rather than attempting to frame compensation as a primary motivation to donate. We must ensure that women donating eggs do so willingly, not out of financial necessity, and are provided with appropriate support throughout the process. It is right that the donors clinic is required by law to offer counselling, but the Government should investigate whether additional steps are needed to ensure proper medical regulation of that counselling, beyond what is already provided by the Professional Standards Authority. Is the Minister satisfied that the Advertising Standards Authority and the Competition and Markets Authority are adequately resourced and have sufficient capacity to uphold essential regulations in this area? I will briefly touch on an equally complex and emotionally charged topic: surrogacy and legal parenthood from the point of birth. For the sake of the child, the surrogate and the legal parents, the matter needs to be handled with great sensitivity. The Liberal Democrats believe that all potential cases regarding legal parenthood of a new baby must ensure that the wellbeing of all involved is balanced and respected. There are, understandably, concerns about financial incentives for surrogates. For example, the Law Commission found that there is a lack of clarity about what payments can be made by the intended parents to the surrogate, which makes the law difficult to apply in practice. We believe that any proposed legislation should be published and subject to scrutiny before any changes to current practice are made. So many lives around the world have been transformed by the miracle that is IVF, but there remains much work to be done to address the inequalities in NHS provision, end the postcode lottery, and ensure that lesbian couples have access to IVF fairly. We must also ensure that donors are not unduly influenced by exploitative marketing, and we hope the Government will take action following the debate to investigate that.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this important debate on an issue that affects so many. Although his focus was on egg retrieval, he also identified the value of IVF to families across the UK. Like other Members present, I have family and friends who have struggled with fertility. The pain it causes, and the emotional toll it can take on families, is immense and harrowing to watch. Modern medicine has eased those struggles through IVF, which is remarkable and a credit to the many scientists and medical professionals who have worked tirelessly to develop it. If you do not mind, Mr Efford, I will selfishly mention my best friend Lottie and her husband Marvin. They were both IVF babies nearly 40 years ago, and two years ago they managed to have their little baby boy Luca without any fertility struggles. What a gift he is. Sadly, there is currently a postcode lottery for IVF and fertility services, which undermines the generosity of those who donate eggs and shatters the hopes and family lives of many couples. In much of the country, couples are entitled to just one round of IVF on the NHS, while in other areas, people can receive up to three rounds. It is crucial that people can expect high-quality treatment wherever they live, rather than being priced out of having children simply because of their postcode. Can the Minister therefore set out what steps the Government are taking to reduce that inequality of access to these life-changing reproductive health services? A specific inequality still exists for the LGBTQ+ community. In England, NHS-funded access to IVF is available only to women who have not conceived after two years of regular unprotected intercourse or 12 cycles of artificial insemination. In practice, that requires all lesbian couples to pay for artificial insemination cycles before becoming eligible for NHS-funded IVF. That is an insurmountable financial barrier for many of those couples, given that cycles can cost thousands of pounds. Although the Government’s 2022 women’s health strategy pledged to remove that requirement for lesbian couples, the roll-out of that new policy has been painfully slow. As of April 2024, only four of the 42 integrated care boards in England have implemented it. The Liberal Democrats are pushing for all integrated care boards to make that change a priority to ensure equitable access to IVF for all lesbian couples who are looking to start a family. What work is the Department undertaking to ensure that the requirement is removed across all ICBs? It is important to recognise the immense contribution that egg donors make to the IVF process. The lives of couples and families across the country have been transformed by the generosity and support of those who donate eggs or sperm to help them have children. Becoming an egg donor is a complex decision, and as highlighted by hon. Members’ contributions, it can have lifelong implications, especially considering that donors can consent to have their eggs stored for up to 55 years, and children who were born through a donation and who have turned 18 may contact the donor. Added to that, donors must undergo rigorous medical screening. They are brave, selfless individuals who perform acts of love for family members, friends and strangers alike. It is absolutely right that eggs are donated rather than bought or sold, and that there are rigorous protections in place to ensure that.

• 25 Jun 2025 · GP Funding: South-west England · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing today’s important and timely debate. He is a tireless advocate for his local community, and I commend him for shining a spotlight on GP funding and the broader state of healthcare in the south-west. He spoke about the funding model for GPs, which is complex, obscure and outdated, and does not account for rurality. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for hospitals and primary care, I hear all too often from my constituents and from people across the country who are struggling to access the care they need. Our NHS is the pride of the nation, but years of underfunding and mismanagement under the last Conservative Government have left services in crisis. Nowhere is that more apparent than in general practice, with patients facing increasingly long waits to see a GP, as highlighted by my hon. Friend’s statistics. In 2019, the average GP had 1,900 patients on their books; today, they have 2,400, and some people cannot get an appointment at all. People rightly tell me that they are not included in the Government’s waiting list statistics because they have not managed to get on a waiting list in the first place—or even speak to a doctor. Those are not isolated complaints. I am sure many hon. Members will recognise those concerns from their own constituency surgeries, or from spending a morning with their local GP, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) described. We also need to be honest about the scale of the problem. In 2024 alone, more than 2 million people in the south-west waited over 28 days for a GP appointment, and that pattern is repeated across the country. Chichester is not in the south-west, but nearly 30% of patients in my constituency had to wait more than two weeks, and around 8% waited more than a month. That is not acceptable. The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) made an important point about tourism. The population of my coastal communities such as Selsey, Pagham and the Witterings doubles over the summer months with holidaymakers, which can put additional stress on primary care services. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) made an important point about the role that planning and ICBs play. Too often, developers come forward with large site proposals that include a GP surgery on the site. However, unless they have buy-in from the ICB, so often those GP surgeries that have been specifically designed for that purpose sit empty without a GP practice to go into them. My hon. Friend also spoke about her village of Sherston. It might not be the centre of my universe—that is my little rural village of Westbourne—but both Sherston and Westbourne face the exact same problems. My village of Westbourne is about to lose its rural surgery; we are waiting for the ICB’s final decision. Residents of Westbourne do not have a public transport link to the GP that they are being asked to go to, across the border in Emsworth. The Liberal Democrats believe that everyone should have the ability to live a healthy and fulfilling life, which means they must have timely and local access to healthcare, whether that is from a GP, a dentist, a pharmacist or a mental health professional. We must invest in early access to community care, in order to relieve the burden on hospitals and fix the social care crisis that leaves too many people stuck in hospital beds waiting for help that never comes. Research by the House of Commons Library that was commissioned by the Liberal Democrats found that funding for GP practices was cut by £350 million in real terms between 2019 and 2024. Those cuts have hit communities hard, and the impact is being felt not only by patients but by the hard-working professionals trying to keep the system going. GPs who I speak to are burnt out and overburdened, and GPs in general are leaving the profession in record numbers. The result is a vicious cycle, with fewer staff, longer waits and growing public frustration. I know some incredible GPs, and New Zealand is really lucky to have them, but I would rather they were here. Despite a 2019 Conservative pledge to hire 6,000 more GPs, by the general election last year there were 500 fewer GPs than when that pledge was made. In fact, the UK has 16% fewer qualified GPs per capita than comparable high-income countries. It does not have to be that way. Healthcare is not a luxury. It is a fundamental right and not a privilege. Everyone should be able to see a GP when they need to, and that is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a legal right to see a GP within seven days, or within 24 hours if the situation is urgent. To make this a reality, we are calling for the recruitment of 8,000 more GPs. We would achieve that by supporting junior doctors to specialise in general practice and by introducing new schemes to help experienced GPs to return to the workforce. As my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) said, we also believe that everyone over 70 and those with long-term conditions should have access to a named GP. Such continuity of care is not only vital for building trust and supporting staff morale; it also improves health outcomes and saves money in the long term. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), who is the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, has said, continuity of care is key. Patients who have had the same GP for more than 15 years have a 25% lower chance of dying compared with patients who change GPs regularly. Continuity of care builds trust, improves outcomes and reduces hospital admissions. It is good for patients, good for staff and good for the system as a whole. We must also address the broader picture. Community pharmacies are closing at an alarming rate when they should be playing a bigger role in delivering frontline care. Fairer and more sustainable funding is needed to keep these services open, to relieve pressure on GPs. I am a big fan of Pharmacy First and I know that the Minister is, too; I have heard him talk about his passion for it. But pharmacists in my constituency tell me that with the regular increase in targets, they are struggling to keep up.

• 25 Jun 2025 · GP Funding: South-west England · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure the Minister will talk about the hub and spoke model that the Government are championing, but my hon. Friend is right about the difficulties in rural areas especially. Many constituents have talked to me about the distance they are having to travel to get basic medication that means they can function, go to work the next day or get their children to school. This is why we have been calling for a fairer and more sustainable long-term funding model for community pharmacies. They play a vital role in relieving pressure on GPs, yet they are being squeezed out of existence. Since 2017, 1,200 pharmacies have shut their doors. Community Pharmacy England has warned of real-terms funding cuts of at least 25% since 2015, leaving the network on the brink of collapse. This is not just a failing system; it is a broken one. This Labour Government have a responsibility to act. They were elected on a promise of change, but that change must begin with fixing our NHS. I am sure the Minister will celebrate the budget increase, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) said, this has been swallowed by the increased costs and national insurance contributions. That is why the Liberal Democrats tabled an amendment to exempt healthcare services from the NICs rise, which the Government chose not to accept. General practice is the front door to our health system. If we do not invest properly in GP services, everything else suffers. We must not let that door remain closed to so many. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot rightly said, we do not have to accept broken systems—we can fix them, and now is the time to prove that we will. Will the Minister commit to the Liberal Democrat proposal of a legal right for patients to see a GP within seven days, or within 24 hours in urgent cases? Does he agree that everyone over 70 and those with long-term health conditions should have access to a named GP?

• 21 May 2025 · Chronic Urinary Tract Infections · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for securing today’s debate and for being a champion for both his constituents and the wider population suffering with UTIs. Although I will not mention all the contributions this morning, I must mention that of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), whose speech was not only passionate, but well informed and very personal. It is the hardest thing to share a personal story, and I commend her for her bravery this morning. Urinary tract infections are far more common than many realise and far more serious than many assume, and women are 30 times more likely to suffer from a UTI than men. They are agonising and can, in some cases, even be fatal. Between 2018 and 2023, 1.8 million hospital admissions in England involved UTIs, not to mention the no doubt countless GP appointments. Chronic urinary tract infections, where symptoms do not go away, are a particularly distressing form of this condition. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam spoke about sufferers being in bedbound isolation and unbearable pain, preventing them from living their lives and often from attending important family events and moments that should be celebrated, because this condition can be so debilitating. Short courses of antibiotics often fail, and urine tests can come back negative, even when the patient is in clear discomfort. That is because chronic UTIs can be caused by bacteria entering the lining of the bladder, which makes them much harder to detect and treat. The diagnostic tools available to us are simply not good enough. Midstream urine cultures are still considered the gold standard for diagnosing acute UTIs, but recent research shows that MSUs miss a wide range of bacteria, which leaves many sufferers undiagnosed, untreated and often feeling disbelieved. Like most women, I am grateful that I do not suffer from regular UTIs, although I do remember the panic as a child when I was in absolute agony. I do not know whether this is oversharing, but I remember my mum running in with a milk bottle of cold water to pour on me while I went to the toilet, just to take an element of that pain away for me, as a young child experiencing something I did not understand. I have seen how a UTI can be particularly debilitating for those living with dementia. I experienced that with my nana during her final years. She could not identify that she was experiencing pain, so it fell to us, as her family, to recognise the symptoms. Her carer would test her urine most days, as she became so prone to infections. Those can cause sudden and alarming changes in behaviour, known as delirium, which is often exhibited as confusion, agitation, hallucinations or sudden withdrawal. My nana ended up being hospitalised for some severe UTIs in her final months. Her hallucinations were quite often enjoyed by the family, and I particularly remember one where she was very cross at me for coming to her hospital late at night with an entire choir, singing to her and waking up the whole ward. That obviously did not happen, but in her delirium she was absolutely convinced that I had not respected her sleep. Such symptoms are often mistaken for the progression of dementia, leading to the underlying UTI going uncured. Social care has a key role to play in UTIs, but only 45% of care workers receive any sort of dementia-specific training. We were incredibly lucky that the carer we had for my nana was dementia-trained and recognised the signs of UTIs before they got too bad. Families are also vital in this process, especially when someone cannot advocate for themselves. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam mentioned, when patients are so exhausted from having to fight a system that does not believe them, families often have to step in and be their advocates. People cannot do this alone. Too often, UTIs are dismissed as short term or minor, but for many people, particularly those with underlying conditions, they are anything but. We welcome the NHS’s recognition of chronic UTIs as a legitimate condition since 2022, but too many people still suffer in silence or are dismissed, misdiagnosed and left without adequate support. That is why we urge the Government to explore ways to improve diagnosis, particularly for chronic UTIs. Further research is desperately needed. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a significant expansion in the capacity of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, and for a comprehensive agreement with the European Medicines Agency. We must ensure that new treatments can reach UK patients without delay, especially as we currently rely on three different strands of antibiotics to treat UTIs, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South said. Those who suffer regularly are at risk of developing antimicrobial resistance, which then makes treatments less effective. If they are also allergic to certain strands, they are incredibly limited in the antibiotics they can receive. The hon. Member also mentioned that there is a UTI vaccine in other countries, which I am very interested in. Continuity of care is equally important. Everyone with a long-term condition such as a chronic UTI should have access to a named GP. That would help to build understanding, avoid delays and improve outcomes, especially for those whose symptoms may be dismissed or misunderstood. Lastly, I want to touch on the role of community pharmacies, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned. The Pharmacy First scheme, which was introduced in England in January last year, has the potential to relieve pressure on GPs and to provide quicker treatment for uncomplicated UTIs, but many pharmacies are struggling to meet the consultation targets required to access funding. Ongoing financial and operational pressures are undermining the very service that we need to provide, and in the year to date we have lost the equivalent of four community pharmacies a week. My questions to the Minister are as follows. What steps is her Department taking to support community pharmacies in delivering the Pharmacy First service, especially those struggling to meet the increase in consultation targets, and to ensure that patients with UTIs can access timely, local and effective care? Pharmacy First is currently available only for those with UTIs between the ages of 16 and 64. Is there a plan to widen that age range? Given the known limitations of current testing methods, will the Minister also outline what steps are being taken to ensure that better diagnostic tools are made available? Is there any plan to introduce a UTI vaccine? Finally, will chronic UTIs be included in the 10-year health plan, and is that still on track to be published in June?

• 15 May 2025 · World Asthma Day · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq, and always a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this important and timely debate to mark World Asthma Day, which took place last week. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for respiratory health, he is a tireless advocate for the millions of people across the UK living with lung conditions—and, indeed, multiple other conditions. As my party’s health spokesperson, I have been in this Chamber many times for debates that he has secured. He is certainly a credit to the less-spoken-about health conditions. His commitment to raising awareness and driving change in health is deeply appreciated, and I commend him for his leadership. To mark World Asthma Day 2025, the Global Initiative for Asthma has chosen the theme “Make Inhaled Treatments Accessible for ALL”. It is pertinent that this debate follows one on international development and global health—a powerful reminder of the need to ensure people with asthma have access to the treatments they need, not just to manage their day-to-day symptoms, but to prevent life-threatening attacks. Asthma remains one of the most common chronic health conditions worldwide, yet, as the hon. Gentleman clearly set out, progress over the past two decades have been slow. Lung conditions are now the third biggest killer in the UK. Hospitalisations due to respiratory illness have doubled in the past 20 years, and the UK has seen little improvement in outcomes over that time. Those are not just statistics—they are people, and they reflect a systematic failure to treat respiratory health with the seriousness it demands. There are 7.2 million people living with diagnosed asthma in the UK today, including 2 million children—one in nine adults and one in eight children. The UK’s asthma death rate is higher than the OECD average, and the highest in Europe. Every day, four people in this country die from asthma attacks. Every 10 seconds, someone experiences an asthma attack that could be life-threatening. That should be a wake-up call. In my constituency of Chichester, 7.5% of GP patients aged six and over have been prescribed some form of asthma-related medication in the past year. That statistic is higher than the national average, and it represents hundreds of families trying to manage a condition that, with the right support, should not prevent anyone from living a full and active life. Yet time and again those are the families let down in other areas, by poor housing, air pollution—as the hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) mentioned—inconsistent care and a public health system that has been hollowed out over the past decade. The UK should be a world leader in public health. We have a long history of innovation, grassroots sports, high-quality food production and leading medical research, but, thanks to the previous Government, we now lag behind our international peers. It is profoundly troubling that our children experience some of the worst asthma outcomes across Europe and other high-income countries. The Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to take urgent action. First and foremost, we must reverse the Conservative cuts to public health funding, but we must not stop there. We need a comprehensive approach that tackles the root causes of poor lung health, from poverty and cold, damp housing to polluted air and hazardous working environments. We want an increase to the public health grant delivered by local authorities, with part of that funding set out for communities facing the greatest health inequalities. Those communities must be supported by co-designed solutions, including better smoking cessation services, stronger action on air quality and improvements to housing and occupational health. Prevention must be at the heart of our approach. That means investing in primary care, supporting individuals to improve their own health and giving local areas the tools they need to build healthier environments. It is one of the most effective ways that we can reduce pressure on NHS services and deliver better value for money to taxpayers. The Liberal Democrats would also take decisive action on air pollution by passing a clean air Act based on World Health Organisation guidelines and establishing a new air quality agency to enforce those standards. We must do more to ensure access to consistent, high-quality care for those already living with long-term respiratory conditions such as asthma. That includes guaranteeing that people with severe asthma have access to a named GP so that they do not have to constantly retell their story to new clinicians, and increasing the capacity of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency so that new treatments can reach patients more quickly. I was on a Delegated Legislation Committee earlier this week, with the Minister, where the funding for the MHRA was increased. However, it was not clear whether that would speed up the process of getting new medicines to patients. As the hon. Member for Strangford rightly pointed out, the scale of this issue demands urgency. Four asthma deaths every day and a life-threatening attack every 10 seconds are tragedies could be prevented, if only we prioritised respiratory health as we ought to. Will the Minister, therefore, commit to setting aside part of the public health grant to support those communities facing the largest health inequalities? Will the Government propose a new clean air Act based on World Health Organisation guidelines, to ensure those with severe, long-term respiratory conditions are not breathing in harmful pollutants? Finally, when can we expect the publication of the 10-year health plan, and will respiratory health be included? Asthma is not just a clinical issue; it is a question of justice and of whether we are willing to tackle the social and environmental factors that make people ill in the first place. I hope the Minister will reflect seriously on what has been said today.

• 15 May 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  There has been real interest in Westminster Hall debates on maternity services and the recently announced closure of the maternity service and special baby care unit at Yeovil hospital. Will the Leader of the House commit to time in the Chamber to debate the failure to implement in full the Ockenden recommendations that would see the improved maternity care we need across the UK?

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

  More

  I thank the Minister for her speech. As she says, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency is a world-class regulator that should be innovative, transparent and truly independent, while maintaining high standards and always putting public health first. In recent years, however, confidence in MHRA standards has been undermined by the Primodos, vaginal mesh and infected blood scandals. It is crucial that we ensure that those mistakes are never repeated, and that the MHRA regains the public’s trust. The MHRA has suffered from insufficient staffing levels and inflexibility around funding and resourcing, and patients are the ones paying the price. The Government should aim for nothing less than halving the time in which new treatments reach patients for life-threatening conditions such as cancer. The Liberal Democrats therefore support additional resource for the MHRA, but that must go hand in hand with greater capacity and a stronger service to address past failings. Can the Minister confirm that when the regulations are made, we will see an increase in the speed at which patients receive treatments? Can she tell us when that improvement will be delivered? Concerns were expressed during the consultation that fee hikes, some of which exceed inflation, will stifle innovation and undermine important research. What assurances can the Minister provide that there will be no deterioration in the number or quality of new products? Is she confident that payment waivers and easement measures are sufficient to stop small and medium-sized enterprises significantly cutting back their activity?

• 7 May 2025 · Personal Independence Payment: Disabled People · Hansard source

  More

  With limited time, I will share the voices of some of the 200 constituents who have been in touch with me about the proposed changes to personal independence payments. For example, one worried father, Robert, contacted me on behalf of his son, Richard, who lives with functional neurological disorder. Robert told me how vital PIP is to Richard, who will never be able to work again. They feel completely abandoned by these proposed cuts and, after countless attempts to engage with the Department for Work and Pensions, they feel ignored and disillusioned. Another example is James, who lives with multiple mental health conditions that have left him hospitalised several times in the past. He wrote to me saying: “Nearly all my PIP goes towards paying for my guardian angel carer. Without that support, I would have to move into a supported living arrangement, which would make my mental health problems much worse and I would end up in hospital again. I don’t want to lose my independence as I am just managing with the support I have now.” For James, it is clear that PIP is the difference between managing or entering crisis. Meanwhile, Susan is the sole carer and appointee for several disabled members of her family. Under these proposals, at least two of them would lose all of the support they get. She wrote to me saying: “I honestly am broken, life is hopeless—I can’t feed my family if these cuts go through. Please can you join us in fighting the cuts.” My constituents in Chichester are not asking for special treatment. They are just asking to live with dignity, fairness and, importantly, independence, which is what PIP gives them. The changes are the exact opposite of what the Government claim they want to achieve.

• 6 May 2025 · Eye Care: 10-year Health Plan · Hansard source

  More

  NHS Sussex ICB is one of only five in England not to commission a minor eye conditions service—known as MECS—in community optometry settings. That means that patients in Chichester with urgent or minor eye issues have to either join the 8 am queue for a GP appointment or go to their hospital rather than being seen quickly on the high street. Given that 99.9% of MECS patients elsewhere in England are seen within 24 hours, will the Minister set out what action he is taking to ensure that those services are commissioned consistently across all ICBs within the 10-year health plan?

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

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) on securing today’s important and timely debate, following Black Maternal Health Awareness Week earlier this month. Her opening remarks were comprehensive and thoughtful. I am always pleased to hear from the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh), who is a passionate advocate for improved maternity services in Nottingham and across the UK; I am pleased to serve on the APPG with her at the helm. Women are at their most vulnerable during pregnancy, as they carry another human life, and they deserve the very best care. They have more touchpoints with the NHS than they will have for most of their lives. We engage with the NHS when we are born and when we need to access care at the end of our lives. When we are carrying a child, we have more moments in front of medical professionals than for the majority of our lives. Following its inspection of 131 maternity units, the Care Quality Commission found that 65% were not safe for women to give birth, 47% required improvement on safety, and 18% were inadequate. The commission warned that it is concerned about the potential normalising of serious harm in maternity care. Those risks are particularly stark for women of colour in this country, for whom pregnancy continues to carry an unacceptable level of danger. As the Darzi report highlighted, black women are almost three times as likely as white women to die during childbirth, while neonatal mortality among the most deprived quintile is more than double that among the least deprived. That is nothing less than a national scandal. Maternity care is an issue close to my heart, having had two very different experiences giving birth in my local hospital in Chichester. I tabled an early-day motion on maternity care and secured a Backbench Business debate in this Chamber on that subject just two months ago. Like the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest, I am in regular contact with Donna Ockenden, who produced the Ockenden report. Her findings, along with those of Dr Bill Kirkup, show that the problems identified at the Shrewsbury and Telford trust and the East Kent trust are not isolated incidents. The same issues are systemic and widespread across many NHS trusts up and down the country. In preparation for the previous debate on maternity services as a whole, I spoke to families across the country who had experienced devastating failures in the system. They went into hospital expecting the joyful outcome of going home with a child, but instead they had to return without their baby, carrying the trauma of that experience for the rest of their lives. As the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill mentioned, the MBRRACE-UK report for 2021 to 2023 confirms that inequalities in maternal mortality rates persist, with a nearly threefold difference among women from black ethnic backgrounds, and an almost twofold difference among women from Asian ethnic backgrounds, compared with white women. Women living in the most deprived areas continue to experience maternal mortality rates that are twice those in the least deprived areas. Care for black women who experience stillbirth or neonatal death is often inadequate. Ethnicity is still not routinely recognised as a risk factor in, for example, the screening and prevention of conditions such as gestational diabetes. Births to black mothers are almost twice as likely to be investigated for NHS safety failings, and black mothers are twice as likely to suffer from perinatal mental illness compared with their white counterparts. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who has long talked about these disparities. She introduced the Miscarriage and Stillbirth (Black and Asian Women) Bill in 2022, which sought to require the Secretary of State to lay annual reports before Parliament on efforts to reduce miscarriage and stillbirth rates among black and Asian women, but unfortunately it was not carried over into the next Session. When so many of our conversations in this House and in the other place are about the economic pressure we are under as a country, it is worth reflecting that, on top of the enormous human toll of this issue, failure also has a financial cost. Obstetric claims make up just 13% of clinical negligence cases handled by NHS Resolution, but they cost more than £1 billion a year, which is nearly 60% of the total cost. Across the country, families face unbearable grief and trauma because of failures in maternity care, and that burden is falling disproportionately on black women and families. We Liberal Democrats are committed to transforming maternity services to make the UK the safest place in the world to have a baby, and we fully support the work of Black Maternal Health Awareness Week in drawing attention to these critical issues. Our general election manifesto pledged to revolutionise perinatal mental health support, not only for those currently pregnant and for new mothers but for those who have endured miscarriage or stillbirth. We have been clear that the Government must, as a priority of the highest urgency, implement all the immediate and essential actions recommended by the Ockenden report. It is deeply concerning that, years after the tragedies at the Shrewsbury and Telford trust and the East Kent trust, failures are still widespread and efforts to address them appear piecemeal. When my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) recently questioned the Department on the implementation of the Ockenden recommendations, it was alarming that it could not confirm whether the actions had been implemented, nor did it appear to have a system for centrally monitoring the progress. The Minister pointed to the three-year delivery plan for maternity and neonatal services as the Department’s main response. Deeper analysis shows serious shortcomings. Many measures in the plan have no meaningful numerical targets, which makes real accountability for the difference made by the plan very hard to track. Targets for expanding access to perinatal mental health support are being missed, even as some improvement is noted, and staff satisfaction indicators remain worryingly low, with some measures still recording fewer than half of staff expressing confidence in educational opportunities or in their management’s response to unsafe practices. The target set in 2010 to halve maternal mortality looks increasingly out of reach. Maternal mortality rates did not fall for a decade, and they actually increased between 2021 and 2023. Worse still, no updated data has been published for the last two years on the rates of serious brain injury, stillbirth, neonatal mortality or preterm birth. Without transparency and accountability, women will continue to be failed, and black women, who already bear the brunt of the disparities, will continue to be disproportionately harmed. That is why I ask the Minister to commit to reviewing these issues urgently, to meet me and my colleagues from the Liberal Democrat health team to discuss a more effective plan to improve maternity safety, and to set out a clear path to address the deep disparities in black maternal health. Alongside that, the Liberal Democrats are calling for a cross-Government strategy, led by the Department of Health and Social Care, with annual progress reports on reducing miscarriage and stillbirth rates among ethnic minorities. We also call for increased funding for public health initiatives, with a portion earmarked to allow communities facing the worst health inequalities to co-produce solutions tailored to their specific needs. We propose the establishment of a health creation unit in the Cabinet Office to lead work across Government to improve health and tackle inequalities. Black women have waited too long for their concerns to be heard, for the system to change and for justice to be done. We owe it to them and to every woman, family and baby in this country to get maternity services right. No woman should fear for her life or her child’s life because of the colour of her skin or the postcode that she lives in. We have to do better.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Eating Disorder Awareness · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing today’s important debate and for her tireless work over six years as chair of the all-party group on eating disorders. She has been a consistent and compassionate advocate for better awareness, better services and better outcomes for those affected. I am also pleased to see the Minister’s sharp elbows here in Westminster Hall today, as described by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). Eating disorders are among the most serious and complex mental health illnesses. As the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) pointed out, it is estimated that more than 1.2 million people across the UK are living with an eating disorder, and, tragically, eating disorders carry the highest mortality rate of any mental health condition. Instead of stepping up to meet the scale of the crisis, however, services are being cut. The statistics are shocking: in 2023 the proportion of 11 to 16-year-olds with an eating disorder had risen fivefold from 2017, and among 17 to 19-year-olds the rate had surged from 1.8% to 12.5% over the same period. Girls are disproportionately affected, with rates four times higher than boys, although we are seeing a concerning trend of more males suffering with eating disorders, as highlighted by the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters). As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) said, numbers across the UK have risen dramatically since the pandemic, but behind each of those numbers are young people whose lives, education and futures are being taken away from them by this illness. Hospital admissions for eating disorders have doubled over the past decade, yet the national treatment targets set under the previous Conservative Government in 2019—for 95% of urgent cases to be seen within one week and 95% of routine cases within four—were dropped by that same Administration under the 2024-25 mental health national priorities, or success measures, and have not been reintroduced by the current Labour Government. That is a moral failure and it must be reversed. Instead, most areas in England are planning real-term cuts in eating disorder provision. As many Members have highlighted, 24 of the 42 integrated care boards across the NHS in England are projected to reduce their spending for under-18s in 2024-25 once inflation is factored in. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has warned that even current levels of funding are too low to cope with the rising demand. Cutting further will only make the crisis worse. We must understand the true cost of inaction. Eating disorders strip people of their health, their relationships, their adolescence and, in too many cases, their lives. Still, many people are being told they are not thin enough to receive care. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) for his speech reflecting his experience, and that of parents across the UK, of waiting for a child to hit an arbitrary target on a scale that suggests that their mental health is bad enough to get the help that they so desperately need. We know that early intervention is effective. If people are not believed or not seen as ill enough, they are left to deteriorate until a crisis becomes a tragedy. The crisis is being compounded by the influence of social media and online platforms. As the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) told us, it is a “crisis of modernity” and of the increased societal pressures on our young people. Recent research by the Center for Countering Digital Hate found that algorithms on platforms such as YouTube are actively recommending harmful eating disorder-related content to young users. These are not passive platforms. They are powerful tools that are shaping the mental health of our children, and they must be held to account. I do not identify as a young person any more—my children definitely do not identify me as a young person—but I see it on my algorithms. I actively seek out body-positive profiles and yet what appears on my feed is people telling me that I can lose weight in 28 days, or shape myself for summer. Our young people see this all too often and think it is the norm. We as Liberal Democrats believe that addressing the crisis requires a bold and evidence-led strategy. That means building specialist support into the NHS, not as a niche service but as a fundamental part of mental health care. It means embedding early intervention through mental health hubs in every community, so that young people can access help long before they reach crisis point. We are calling for mental health check-ups or a mental health MOT at key points in people’s lives, when they are most vulnerable to developing serious illnesses. We believe every school should have a dedicated mental health professional so that children can get support early and in a familiar environment, without stigma or delay. Lastly, we must also recognise the crucial role of families. Unpaid carers, parents, siblings, partners and children are often left to navigate a fragmented and under-resourced system alone. As the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) mentioned, the Government must work with and not against carers to expand the support they need and deserve. No parent should have to fight for their child to be taken seriously. I saw that fight in my own patch of Chichester, where a mother had to leave work for two hours every day to go to her child’s school to sit in a room with them so that they were supported to eat their lunch. The school could not facilitate a member of staff to sit with that child, who was tackling a very serious eating disorder but who was desperate to stay in school. Campaigners like Hope Virgo have done an extraordinary job of raising awareness, but it should not always fall to campaigners and grieving families to fill the gaps left by Government inaction. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Bath in calling for the exploration of an eating disorder national strategy. This is a national crisis and it is costing lives. The Government must listen to those on the frontlines—patients, carers, clinicians and campaigners. They are not calling for sympathy. They just want action, and we owe it to them to respond.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Prevention of Drug Deaths · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing forward this important debate. I am particularly pleased to see the Minister in her place, which shows the Government’s recognition that this is a public health issue. Every drug-related death is a preventable tragedy. Every life lost represents not just statistics in a report, but families shattered, futures lost and communities left to pick up the pieces. As a Government and a society, we have a moral obligation to do better. The reality is stark, and it has been laid out very well by Members across the House in the debate: drug-related deaths have reached record highs. They are not just the consequence of addiction but often the result of inadequate support, stigma—as has been mentioned by many hon. Members—and a failure to adopt evidence-based strategies. In 2023, more than 5,000 deaths related to drug poisoning were registered in England and Wales. That is the highest number since records began in 1993 and 11% higher than in the previous year. My local hospital, which is in Chichester, records hundreds of A&E attendances involving drug use. For too long, the response to drug use has been focused on criminalisation rather than treatment. However, as hon. Members have said today, we cannot arrest our way out of the crisis. Those struggling with addiction need access to healthcare, not handcuffs. That means properly funding rehabilitation services, expanding mental health support and ensuring that no one seeking help is turned away due to lack of resources. For me, it is personal. I have witnessed family members self-medicate with drugs when mental health support was unavailable to them. My own dear dad battled with alcohol addiction throughout his adult life. Although it was a related cancer that took him in the end, the addiction had taken him away long before that. In fact, one of the many reasons that I am proud to be a Liberal Democrat is that we pledged, in our general election manifesto, to provide mental health MOTs at key points in our lives when we are most vulnerable to a change in our mental health. I often wonder if my dad would still be here today had he ever had the opportunity to tell a professional that he was struggling. Across the world, we have seen that harm reduction saves lives. I would like to acknowledge the role that hard-working GPs, nurses, community pharmacists and other health professionals play in supporting access to medication and safe consumption spaces, which is taking an evidence-based approach and using it to prevent deaths. In Glasgow, as many Members across the House have mentioned, where drug deaths are at crisis levels, pilots of safer consumption rooms are now under way. I was pleased to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray), as well as other colleagues from across the House, have visited those centres. We should be looking at those models with open minds, rather than relying on outdated ideologies, because the goal is simple: we need to keep people alive for long enough to access treatment and rebuild their lives. As the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) said, the savings that we find across health and justice far outweigh the investment needed in those centres. We also need a joined-up approach across the country, which lays out the most effective pilot projects so that they can be rolled out to other areas. In its February 2024 report, the Public Accounts Committee identified that there were delays in allocating funding from the 2021 drugs strategy to local authorities, and a continued lack of understanding about what works to prevent people from using drugs. It is unacceptable that there was a 14% underspend in the funding allocated to the strategy in 2023-24, when it is clearly desperately needed across the country to prevent deaths. Of course, prevention must also mean cutting off the supply of dangerous drugs at the source. We need stronger action to stop organised crime groups profiting from misery. That includes tackling county lines operations, which exploit vulnerable young people and push deadly substances into our communities. It is not a partisan issue; we must work together across the House to ensure that harm reduction, prevention and rehabilitation are at the heart of our national strategy. At the end of the day, it is not about politics; it is about people and ensuring that families do not have to endure the heartbreak of losing a loved one to drugs. At its core, it is about saving lives.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Hughes Report: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) on securing today’s timely and important debate on the first anniversary of the Hughes report. She has been a tireless champion for those harmed by pelvic mesh and for children born with birth defects as a result of sodium valproate. I commend her work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on first do no harm, mesh, Primodos, valproate—that is a mouthful and could have been a bit shorter—of which I am also a member. In 2024, the Patient Safety Commissioner estimated that at least 10,000 women in England have been harmed by vaginal mesh implants, some involving the mesh slicing into their bladder, bowels or vaginal wall, leaving them in permanent pain, sometimes unable to walk, work or have sex, leaving their lives changed profoundly. As multiple hon. Members have mentioned, including the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), the campaign group Sling the Mesh believes that the true number could be closer to 40,000 women. When Dr Henrietta Hughes agreed to produce this report, she made one thing very clear: this was not to be another review that just gathers dust—this report must lead to action, not just words. We are now a year on and the people affected are still waiting. The Hughes report makes the case plainly: there is a clear need for redress. These women were, in most cases, not failed by a single doctor or a one-off error. They were failed by the system, by healthcare structures, by regulators and by Governments who did not listen when they should have. The redress we need is not about blame but about restorative justice. It should be co-designed with the patients, and it should be distinct from adversarial court proceedings where, as other hon. Members have mentioned, women have to relive their experience and their trauma, time and again. The Hughes report recommended establishing an independent redress agency. The lack of clarity on creating a bespoke redress scheme has left patients in limbo, which is deepening the harm—on that point, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) shared his useful insight and learnings from the infected blood scandal. Several women in my constituency of Chichester have shared their stories with me: stories of being dismissed by clinicians, of medical records being incomplete, inaccessible or not reflecting the true circumstances that these women are in, and of suffering through chronic pain and ill health even after the mesh has been removed. I have met two of those women in person. I met one at her home because she is so profoundly injured and traumatised that she no longer leaves her property for any reason. With no access to social media or the outside world, my constituent had no idea that there were others like her, or that there is a national campaign for justice. She felt alone, embarrassed and broken by her circumstances, so I promised to stand by and with her, and with the thousands of others, up and down the country, who have been failed. I take this opportunity to mention Paula Goss: a national campaigner, and a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young). Paula was affected by a mesh procedure that was not covered by the original Cumberlege review. The surgeon involved was found guilty of serious misconduct but only suspended for six months. Of the 462 patients harmed at the Spire private hospital and the Southmead hospital, just five were called as witnesses to the General Medical Council. When Paula tried to complain, she was—as many hon. Members, from both sides of the House, have noted in this debate—told that she was out of time, and that it was not in the public interest to waive the deadline. How can we call that justice? It is not justice or accountability. Cases like that of Paula, and those raised by my constituents in Chichester, are why we Liberal Democrats believe that the entire set of recommendations in the Cumberlege report must be implemented without further delay. This scandal is not limited to mesh and sodium valproate. The same approach must be extended to other medical scandals, such as Primodos. We cannot continue to treat each crisis as an isolated issue, and need a system-wide approach to patient safety and accountability. That means a duty of candour on public officials. The Liberal Democrats would achieve that by establishing an office of the whistleblower so that safety concerns can be raised without fear or delay. It also means embedding patient voices in the heart of our healthcare system, not as an afterthought but as a fundamental principle. Earlier this year, 100 women secured a financial settlement from mesh manufacturers, but that is a drop in the ocean compared to the number of women who deserve redress. Every single woman affected by this scandal deserves proper compensation, not just those women able to pursue lengthy and difficult legal claims.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Women’s Health Services · Hansard source

  More

  Following on from the question asked by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), I held a debate in Westminster Hall a few weeks ago on maternity services and spoke to families across the country who have experienced failures in the system that ultimately left them without their babies to take home. It was a devastating experience for all involved. The immediate and essential actions in the Ockenden review were supported by the previous Government, and the Secretary of State for Health has been vocal in his support for their implementation. However, those families want to know how quickly they will see real change in maternity services up and down the country so that families can confidently go to deliver their babies.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Down’s Syndrome · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) on securing this important and timely debate ahead of World Down Syndrome Day this Friday. What a pleasure it was to take the opportunity before the debate, as we were slightly delayed, to chat to marvellous Millie, who is an incredible advocate for those who have been touched by Down syndrome. In my constituency of Chichester we are fortunate to have an incredible charity, the Chichester and Arun Down Syndrome Support Group, which works tirelessly to fill the gaps left by failings in public service provision. Ahead of this debate, the charity highlighted to me many of the challenges that people with Down syndrome face, particularly in accessing the support they need throughout their education. One of its core initiatives as a charity is the bespoke schools outreach programme, which ensures that children with Down syndrome receive the tailored education they require. They require additional support throughout their education, yet many families struggle to obtain EHCPs from local authorities. In West Sussex, the picture is stark: only 3.6% of EHCPs were issued within the statutory timeframe of 20 weeks in 2023, and the situation has not got much better. Those delays force children with Down syndrome to remain in unsuitable educational environments where their needs are not met, which hinders their opportunities. Most importantly, when an EHCP is issued, we need the accountability to see that that EHCP is delivered. The charity also highlighted to me the cliff edge of support that people living with Down syndrome face at the age of 18, when they are no longer in an education provision. I was pleased to visit Together Our Community at its exciting new venue in Chichester, which is due to open next month. That will provide a space for TOC members and a public-facing café where adults with additional needs between the ages of 18 and 35 will have the chance to learn and develop essential skills. For people with Down syndrome, charitable organisations such as those provide vital support and services and give these incredible people the opportunity to thrive, not just survive. The Down Syndrome Act recognised the needs of those living with Down syndrome and rightly acknowledged that public services must take those needs into account across health, social care, education and other local authority provisions. However, the Act must be properly resourced. The NHS website lists a range of specialists that a person with Down syndrome may need to see, including speech and language therapists, physiotherapists, opticians and occupational therapists. Yet local organisations consistently report a lack of those essential services, which undermines the opportunities for people with Down syndrome to live comfortably or independently. Three years on from Royal Assent, the Act is not supporting those who it was designed to support. The Liberal Democrats have long called for all individuals with long-term conditions or disabilities to have access to a named doctor, which would shift care from the corridors of hospitals to local communities. That is especially crucial for people with Down syndrome, who not only have learning disabilities but are at a significantly higher risk of conditions such as dementia, seizures and leukaemia, as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) mentioned. The impact of social care on people with Down syndrome cannot be overstated, which is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a comprehensive overhaul of social care policy. While we welcome the cross-party commission to establish a long-term agreement on social care, we strongly believe that it can be concluded within one year, not three. While the Down Syndrome Act was a step in the right direction, real change requires more than warm words; it demands proper funding and meaningful action. From healthcare and social care to employment and independent living, people with Down syndrome deserve better. As the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness stated, the guidance is where we are severely lacking at this moment in time. The Government must prioritise this issue, and we will continue to push for the improvements necessary to enhance quality of life for all.

• 17 Mar 2025 · Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend’s story of Yvonne reminds me of my constituent Christine, who had a long career in the NHS. She took a lower paid job in 2012 on the assumption that she would be able to claim her state pension in 2016. It was not until she contacted the DWP after she had left the NHS that she found out that she was not entitled to the state pension for twice the amount of time that she thought she would have to survive on a smaller income. This has been the experience of countless women in my constituency and across the country. They planned their retirement and future based on the wrong information. Does my hon. Friend agree that the continued betrayal of these women by successive Governments is disgraceful, and that ignoring the ombudsman’s recommendation sets a dangerous precedent?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Community Theatre · Hansard source

  More

  As my hon. Friend knows, I am a keen supporter of the arts, especially community theatres. Will she join me in congratulating Chichester Community Development Trust, which has managed to secure national lottery funding to redevelop part of the former hospital at Graylingwell and create a community hub that will be used as a rehearsal space for creatives and community theatres in the Chichester area? Does she also agree that sustainable funding, once the creative hub is up and running, will be key to ensuring that it is there for future generations?

• 10 Mar 2025 · “Break Down Barriers to Opportunity” Mission · Hansard source

  More

  The plan for change includes the mission to break down barriers to opportunity and build an NHS fit for the future, but many NHS trusts, including mine, which represents St Richard’s hospital in Chichester, report that they are unable to offer level 6 and level 7 apprenticeships, due to a lack of backfill funding. That often results in them handing back the apprenticeship levy. What steps is the Department for Education taking to address that fundamental flaw in the scheme, and to ensure that apprenticeships deliver the nurses and midwives of the future?

• 27 Feb 2025 · Women’s Health · Hansard source

  More

  It is lovely to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq, and I welcome the Minister to her place. I thank the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) for securing this important and timely debate, and for giving a passionate and well-informed opening speech. Women’s health has been overlooked for far too long, and today’s discussion is an opportunity to highlight the urgent action needed to address the crisis in women’s health, with International Women’s Day due to be celebrated next week. The Fawcett Society found that nearly two thirds of women in the UK believe that their health concerns are not taken seriously, and more than half have had negative experiences with healthcare professionals. I start this speech feeling very frustrated, because during the debate I have had a message from one of my good friends who was ignored two years ago when she had pain in her leg, and she has just texted to tell me that she will now have to undergo a course of chemotherapy and extremely evasive treatment so that she can retain her ability to walk. My friend is in her early 20s—she was ignored, so I am very cross. This is not just a health issue; it is an economic issue, as has been mentioned. The UK loses 150 million working days every year due to women’s poor health and inadequate support. If we want a healthier, more productive society, we must take action to close the gender gap in healthcare. During a drop-in surgery that I ran in my Chichester constituency, a woman told me that when her daughter started experiencing extremely painful periods, with pain outside of her period, all she could do was cry at the thought of her having to go through the same painful process with healthcare professionals that she had been through herself to get a diagnosis for endometriosis, which took that lady nine years. Gynaecological waiting lists have more than doubled since 2020, which is the biggest increase of any medical speciality. At the end of last year, 755,000 women were waiting for treatment. Behind every number is a woman experiencing chronic pain, worsening mental health and a disrupted daily life. One in four women with a gynaecological condition will end up in A&E because they could not access the care that they needed in time, yet the NHS is failing to prioritise these urgent needs. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has been clear: the system needs a complete overhaul so that gynaecological care is given the attention it deserves. An example is St Richard’s hospital in my constituency, which does not have a specific gynaecological ward. That means that women who have gynaecological issues or have received treatment are placed across several other wards. That could negatively impact their treatment as it makes it more difficult for them to receive urgent specialised support in emergencies. Also, as the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) said, clinicians do not have to do gynaecological training as part of their mandatory training. Delays in female cancer care are alarming. Between April 2021 and March 2024, 2,980 people waited over 104 days to start treatment on the 62-day urgent suspected breast cancer referral route. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) noted that younger women have a much worse prognosis, due to a lack of breast cancer screening before they are 50. For ovarian cancer, the average wait from GP referral to treatment is 69 days. That is one of the longest delays for any cancer. These prolonged waits are not just unacceptable—they have life-altering consequences. For generations, women’s pain, particularly in maternity care, has been dismissed. That has created a crisis of confidence in NHS maternity services. Several investigations have revealed fundamental flaws in our maternity care and how it is delivered across England. A Care Quality Commission inspection of 131 maternity units found that 65% of them were not safe for a woman to give birth in, and studies show that one fifth of all causes of stillbirth are potentially preventable. The CQC has also warned of a normalisation of serious harm in maternity care. That cannot continue. I held a debate on maternity services earlier this week, calling for the Government to fully implement the recommendations of the Ockenden report. That is urgently needed to reform the maternity care sector for the better. In 2024, the Patient Safety Commissioner estimated that 10,000 women in England had experienced harm as a result of vaginal mesh implants, although campaigning groups argue that the true figure could actually be closer to 40,000. One woman in my constituency asked me to go to her home because she does not leave it; she is a victim of the mesh scandal and she is totally isolated from her community because of it. I am a member of the First Do No Harm APPG, which builds support and raises awareness of the recommendations of the 2020 Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review, and I was really glad to hear the contribution from the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), who talked about the women living in poverty, isolation and pain, who are so often dismissed by the professionals. The review found that those suffering adverse effects from medical treatments including vaginal mesh found a system that was “disjointed, siloed, unresponsive and defensive.” So many of those women are still waiting for compensation. It is a national scandal and a grave injustice. I appreciate all the work that the hon. Member is doing with the APPG. The Liberal Democrats would ensure that medical scandals that have disproportionately harmed women in the past can never be repeated, including through the introduction of a statutory duty of candour for public officials. We believe that every woman deserves high-quality, safe and accessible healthcare. We would try to tackle the maternity care crisis by addressing chronic understaffing, improving retention and modernising outdated facilities. We will continue to press the Government to expand access to screening for conditions such as breast cancer and cervical cancer. We would also make a serious commitment to investing in women’s health research. For too long, the gender gap in medical knowledge has left women without the answers or the treatments that they need. Faster diagnoses and better treatment pathways for women’s cancers and gynaecological conditions must be a priority for this Government, not an afterthought, because this is not just about healthcare; it is about basic dignity, fairness and justice. Women should not have to fight to be heard when it comes to their own bodies. It is time to put women’s health front and centre of the NHS.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Creative Industries · Hansard source

  More

  I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Much like Loughborough and Bradford, Chichester is a city that punches well above its weight with its creative and cultural offering. Much of the local authority funding that supports organisations in my constituency—such as Chichester festival theatre, the Pallant House gallery and the Novium museum—comes via the district council. Local government reorganisation puts such funding streams at risk, especially when combined with an authority that is struggling with the cost of, for example, social care and highways. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that these vital organisations are protected during this reorganisation?

• 25 Feb 2025 · Maternity Services · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right; the key to providing strong maternity services that benefit both the staff and the patients is making sure that there is a full workforce so that they can do not just the “need to haves”, but the “nice to haves” in a maternity department, which can make such a difference to patients’ experiences when they are going through that service. The retention issue that we have directly impacts training. Newly qualified and inexperienced midwives need experienced mentors, but if seasoned professionals leave, the next generation lacks the support necessary to transition into leadership roles. Midwives and other maternity staff must train together at every level to be fully equipped for every situation, and ensure that concerns can be escalated effectively. That is why the Ockenden report and the Royal College of Midwives seek a commitment to including midwives in the long-term workforce plan. In 2017, bursaries for student nurses and midwives were ended, with the Royal College of Midwives warning that that decision threatened the future of our maternity services in England. It has led to one third of midwifery students having debts exceeding £40,000, with 80% of them knowing someone who has dropped out of their course due to financial hardship. Many also take on additional jobs to afford their studies, which detracts from their vital training. To mitigate those pressures on trainee midwives, I encourage the Government to explore alternative routes to support midwifery and nursing students, which have been laid out by the Royal College of Midwives, through new funding options or a scheme where student debt is forgiven after a defined period of service in the NHS. A similar funding issue affects apprenticeship schemes in midwifery. Despite receiving overwhelmingly positive feedback from trusts across the country regarding the apprenticeship route, many trusts cannot afford to offer those positions due to a lack of backfill funds, so trusts often hand back their apprenticeship levy, as the scheme is undeliverable. I hope the Minister will work with her colleagues in the Department for Education to address this fundamental flaw in the delivery of level 6 and level 7 apprenticeships, which have proven to deliver the midwives of the future. In preparing for today’s debate, I was invited to my local maternity unit at St Richard’s hospital in Chichester, where as I mentioned I had both of my children. University Hospitals Sussex had its maternity services inspected by the CQC in September 2021, which found all hospitals across the trust to be inadequate or requiring improvement. Although there has not been a formal inspection since, the trust assures me that all actions from the CQC have been completed, with the majority of the Ockenden immediate and essential actions implemented. However, to fully implement all the IEAs will require funding, which currently the trust does not have. St Richard’s hospital confidently tells me that it is now fully staffed for the first time in a long time, and the director of maternity services is keen to look at how she can further improve patient experience and communication. I know Members across the House are keen to work with their NHS trusts constructively to ensure the best outcomes possible for their constituents. I was reassured by the senior leadership team, those working in the department, and the new parents on the ward, who I had the pleasure of congratulating. Introducing tiny babies to the world was probably the best moment of my recess—it was very bizarre for those parents when the MP walked in and said, “Can I say hello?” I am pleased that the trust is taking seriously its responsibility to provide a much improved service. It would be a missed opportunity if I, as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for infant feeding, did not mention how we could do much more as a society to support mothers to breastfeed, if they choose to. The UK’s breastfeeding rates are among the lowest in the world. Only 1% of mothers exclusively breastfeed at six months, despite the World Health Organisation recommending exclusive breastfeeding for this period and continuation, alongside nutritious foods, for up to two years. Some 44% of mothers surveyed wished that they had breastfed for longer and would have done so if they had received better and more tailored support. New mothers need time, expertise and evidence-based information to make informed decisions on their feeding choices, and maternity services play a key role in establishing a feeding plan that works for mother and baby before they go home. But, across the country, community midwifery and health visiting services have been vaporised, so support is patchy and often delivered by volunteers or midwives in their spare time. I hope that the Government will support improved community services such as milk support groups, to give all women, regardless of their feeding choices, somewhere to turn when they need support. I will take this opportunity, perhaps selfishly, to get on record the name of one of the coolest kids I ever met. Benedict Henry Goodfellow was an absolute dude— [ Interruption. ] I am not going to cry—and I am proud to call his mum, Steph, one of my close friends and the strongest woman I know. This debate is so important to me because Bendy needed 24-hour care since birth after a case of extreme birth trauma left him with devastating neurological damage. Bendy was loved by everyone who came into contact with him until he died, aged 10. The experience left Steph traumatised and profoundly changed. Bendy was born nearly 30 years ago and yet Steph and Ben’s story is just as relevant today. It should not be. I am immensely grateful to Donna Ockenden for putting me in touch with families from across the country—including from Leeds, Nottingham, Shrewsbury and Sussex—ahead of this debate to hear their personal experiences of failures in maternity care.