Jess Brown-Fuller MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 Jun 2026 · Access to Dental Services: West Sussex · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about his local ICB. The underspend issue has plagued the dentistry contract over many years. The ICB for Sussex did manage to commission more urgent dental care using its underspend, meaning that it had very little to give back to the Treasury. That was absolutely the right thing to do; I commend my hon. Friend for recognising that that is an opportunity that Cornwall ICB could take. However, the Sussex ICB invested in urgent dental care while not addressing the problem that we have in routine dental care. Residents in Chichester cannot access routine dental care in their own city and are forced to travel considerable distances. That takes time out of people’s lives, costs money, and creates additional risks. Imagine someone making that 140-mile round trip for a routine appointment, only to discover that they require an emergency procedure. They would be miles away from their home and family, and might not be capable of driving themselves home afterwards. That is completely unacceptable in today’s society. To make matters worse, a number of individuals told me that they had been removed from their surgery’s patient list, particularly during the pandemic when they did not want to be in close contact with others. They had no notification that that was happening. Others were informed out of the blue that their surgery was switching to private care and that, unless they paid, they would need to seek treatment elsewhere. Given the costs involved, as reflected in the national figures, many simply choose to go without care altogether. On top of that, individuals who have been lucky enough to secure an NHS place often face enormous waiting times for treatment. Jade shared her experience of being placed on a waiting list for routine root canal treatment and then being ignored for months. At 28-weeks pregnant, she suddenly found herself in excruciating pain and required emergency surgery. As we know, that costs the taxpayer a lot more than if the issue is addressed before it becomes an emergency. Another mother contacted me to say that three years ago her son developed an abscess over Christmas. They were unable to secure emergency treatment so they joined a waiting list at three separate practices. They still have not secured an appointment. Those examples all point to a broken system in Chichester and across the country—one that is failing my constituents and worsening health outcomes. In the long run, it is also making the country poorer: the failure to invest in preventive care means that individuals require more serious and expensive treatment further down the line. This has to end. That view is shared by the dentists I spoke to ahead of today’s debate. A key issue raised by them and many across the profession is the state of the NHS dental contract. The British Dental Association identified it as a major factor driving NHS dentists into the private sector. The current settlement has been widely criticised since its inception back in 2006. The Health and Social Care Committee published a report in 2023 calling for an urgent overhaul of the system, and the Labour party promised to renegotiate the contract in its manifesto. One former dental nurse who contacted me described the contracts as being like “tying dentists’ hands behind their backs.” That is hardly practical if they are trying to perform a root canal procedure. The contracts are failing patients because the number of patients a dentist can see on the NHS is limited according to the units of dental activity that they have been commissioned to deliver. The nurse I spoke to suggested patients are being referred to hospitals for routine procedures because contractual arrangements prevent practices from carrying them out themselves and being renumerated. The Government promised to reform the contracts, but they have been slow to address problems that are widely recognised across the sector. The consultation that the Government announced in April must lead to a contract that is genuinely patient-focused, with greater flexibility in commissioning. When it was announced, the Government committed to bringing out the consultation before the summer, but the official line has changed slightly to “in due course”. I share the concern raised by campaigners that any further delay will mean that a new system will not be implemented before the end of this Parliament. Will the Minister commit to bringing out the consultation before the summer and to a firm deadline for when formal contract renegotiations will begin? Frankly, we cannot afford any further delays. Another issue is costs. Lab costs went up 9% last year, but NHS contract holders got just a 3.55% uplift—add to that the hikes in national insurance contributions, which have exacerbated an already dismal situation. The British Dental Association believes that an average NHS dentist is losing £25 per routine dental check. Without support and changes to the contracts, many practices will continue to be pushed into the private sector, as we have already seen happen to many. In West Sussex, the number of dentists with NHS activity has dropped by 13% since 2019. I imagine that that figure is actually an underestimation, because a practice can offer just one NHS appointment a year and still feature on the list of NHS providers. Local dentists are also concerned that the merger of the Surrey and Sussex ICBs, alongside a 50% reduction in ICB running costs, could undermine the local commissioning expertise and local relationships with providers. Can the Minister today provide any reassurance that, at a time of significant change within our ICBs, they will be given the resource to maintain and improve relationships with contract providers? The Government talk a good game on dentistry, but they are tinkering around the edges and leaving major issues such as the contracts so far unresolved. They quietly dropped their manifesto pledge of delivering 700,000 more dental appointments, under the guise of broadening the definition of urgent dental appointments for clinical reasons. That is a sticking plaster that addresses the requirement for more urgent dental appointments, but does not address those who cannot get routine care, which in many cases would prevent them from needing the emergency care. The Liberal Democrats have long called for reforms that will address the root of the crisis. Our £750 million plan would begin to undo years of underfunding, guarantee urgent and emergency dental care for everyone who needed it, and hopefully bring an end to DIY dentistry. That would be needed to address the backlogs in emergency care. I have heard of wait times of up to 18 months at St Richard’s in Chichester for complex dental treatment such as difficult extractions. It is clear that the system is broken. Nobody is naive enough to believe that it can be addressed overnight, but the Government have had two years. All the while, residents in Chichester continue to have a lack of access to basic dental services. Dentists want to help patients, but it is not currently financially viable for many to stay in the NHS. That has to change, and I urge the Government to listen carefully to contributions from all Members in today’s debate, and take the steps that they promised in their manifesto.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Access to Dental Services: West Sussex · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his passionate advocacy for NHS dentistry in West Sussex. I am grateful to him for caring about access to NHS dentistry across the whole country. He is a fierce advocate for Strangford and makes the important point that the situation we are in is a damning indictment of the failure of the previous Government—a failure that the Prime Minister himself referred to regularly in the run-up to the general election. It was a stick that he used to beat the Conservative Government with in every televised debate, when he spoke about rotting teeth falling out of children’s mouths. We are still going backwards, dealing with problems on a scale not seen for generations, all at a time when the British Dental Association has warned that NHS dentistry is facing an existential threat. Parliament often hears the term “postcode lottery”, but I cannot think of a more applicable example than NHS dental services for residents in Chichester and West Sussex. Last week I had the opportunity to conduct a little bit of research with a staff member who has recently moved to London and needs to register with an NHS dentist. Within two miles of his new postcode in London, 10 surgeries were accepting NHS patients. Entering the postcode of my constituency office in Chichester into the NHS search tool produced a very different result: zero surgeries accepting new adult NHS patients within a 12-mile radius. There were none within the city itself, and only one surgery was accepting new patients under the age of 17. That means that residents not registered locally have to travel to other towns and cities. At the time of looking, the closest surgery was in Littlehampton in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths). That is not close to the city of Chichester. I ask the Minister what his solution would be for people attempting to register locally, people living in the area already and people moving to it after years of increased mandated development in my constituency. I would like to share with the Minister a few examples of what this means for my constituents in Chichester, who very kindly got in touch with me to share their stories. Kathryn moved with her family to the area four years ago. She still travels to Three Bridges for dental care. Christine still returns to the Isle of Wight for treatment. Marina and Denise moved to Bracklesham in 2011—15 years ago—and have never been able to register for an NHS dentist locally. Jim contacted me to say that he undertakes a 140-mile round trip just to receive routine dental care.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Access to Dental Services: West Sussex · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered access to dental services in West Sussex. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, to have secured this debate—on Sussex Day, no less; I am confident that the Minister will have some excellent responses on behalf of all constituents in Sussex—and to have the opportunity to lay out the impact of the historic failings within the dental contract before the Minister. The state of access to NHS dental services across the country is utterly disgraceful. In Sussex, 63% of adults had not seen a dentist in the two years prior to June 2025. Similarly, four in 10 children had not seen a dentist during that time. Fourteen million people were unable to access NHS dental care in early 2025 across the UK. The result of people locked out of NHS dental services has been a rise in cases of DIY dentistry, with a survey earlier this year suggesting that 7% of UK adults had attempted some form of DIY dentistry. All that contributes to an alarming increase in hospital admissions for tooth-related issues. Tooth decay is now the most common reason for hospital admission among children aged between six and 10, with more than 100,000 children admitted to hospital with rotting teeth between 2018 and 2024. Those figures outline a dire situation that is only getting worse. Improvements in oral health are being wiped out, and tooth decay rates are at levels not seen since the 1990s.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Access to Dental Services: West Sussex · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all the Members who took part in the debate. This will not be something the Minister has not heard before, but I ask him to take this away: when constituents write to me saying that they are unable to register with an NHS dentist, if I send an email back to them saying, “But the Minister told me there were 67,000 more NHS dentist appointments in Sussex,” I am not getting an email back saying, “Bloody brilliant—I’ll forget it then. Don’t worry.” People are still frustrated and waiting. I am really glad that the Minister has committed to reforming the system, because it desperately needs it, and I look forward to holding his feet to the fire as he does so. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered access to dental services in West Sussex.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Water Companies · Hansard source

  More

  I refer members to my registered interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for infant feeding and inequalities. With water scarcity prevalent across the south-east and poor management of water companies leading to outages across the south, will the Minister consult with her colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to find a route to put new mothers on to the priority services register automatically, because for formula-fed babies there is no option other than a clean water supply?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Maternity Commissioner · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. and learned Gentleman is making an important point about the disparity in the guidance. If there is someone at the top of an NHS trust who is passionate about maternity care, that is more likely to trickle down, but that is not the same in every trust, and therefore we can end up with a postcode lottery. In Chichester, mothers going to give birth would have a totally different experience if they went to Chichester, Guildford or Portsmouth because they are three totally different trusts with totally different guidance and rules about when mothers should present or the sort of treatment they should get at hospital. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that introducing a maternity commissioner would give us strategic oversight across the country of the experiences that mothers should expect to have?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Maternity Commissioner · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is making a powerful speech, and she is absolutely right. We had the Bill Kirkup review, which made multiple recommendations; across all parties, the House said, “Now we need to implement those recommendations,” but that never happened. Then we had the Donna Ockenden review, which contained immediate and essential actions; we need to implement those, but the Government have not come forward and said that they will make them mandatory. Now we have Baroness Amos’s review. Does the hon. Lady agree that this must be the last review, for the sake of every single mother who has come and every single mother who is to come, so that they know that they are being well supported when they go into hospital settings?

• 15 Apr 2026 · Cost of Heating Oil · Hansard source

  More

  A constituent got in touch who had been in hospital over the winter and then in a care home while he convalesced. He finally got home and is now having to pay for carers twice a day. He is 70, and he has no spare money. His heating oil has run out, and he is being quoted twice the price he paid in September, before he went into hospital. He is totally trapped. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to protect the most vulnerable in our society from these shocks?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Southport Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. It is truly heartbreaking to know that there were so many missed opportunities to stop the Southport attack. My thoughts today are with the bereaved families whose young daughters were so cruelly taken from them and with the many other victims who suffered unimaginable trauma that day. We owe it to them to make every attempt to prevent a senseless attack like this from ever happening again. The report lays bare that agency after agency failed to step up and take ownership of the risks that the perpetrator posed. There are monumental failures across a number of authorities, from the police, Prevent and NHS mental health services to children’s social care, youth offending services and the perpetrator’s parents. That is simply not acceptable. Will the Home Secretary confirm how soon she plans to report back on whether the Government will accept all 67 recommendations? Will she commit to providing Parliament with an update on progress every six months? Today’s report exposes serious oversights by online giants that allowed the perpetrator to collect an arsenal of weapons without effective age verification checks. Will the Home Secretary confirm whether the recently published knife crime strategy will address the ease with which knives are available for purchase online? Will it crack down on big tech companies, like Amazon, that are putting profit above protocol when it comes to the sale of dangerous items? Finally, the Liberal Democrats have long argued that Prevent is not fit for purpose. It is deeply shocking that the perpetrator was referred three times yet no further action was taken. We understand that was because he did not possess a specific ideology—well, there should be no clearer sign of a system unable to address modern threats. Will the Home Secretary today commit to a full overhaul of Prevent within this Parliament so that future warning signs are not missed? Will she also commit to bringing forward the legislation recommended by Jonathan Hall KC in the next King’s Speech?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Endometriosis Services · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more with my hon. Friend about research into gynaecological conditions. If we invested as much into women’s health as we have done over many decades into men’s health, maybe we would not have so many different types of Viagra and we might have a response to women’s health. Clinicians, importantly, do not have to have specialist training in gynaecological conditions when they go through their training. It is not mandatory, so it is vital to ensure that such training is available and mandated for all clinicians, especially those in general practice, because the most important thing we can do as MPs is break down the barriers that our constituents face daily. Fixing the way we perceive endometriosis as a country is one of the things that we can do, so that we can look back on our time here and think about how we made a difference for women up and down the country. I know the Minister shares my ambition to do better for all women, so I ask her: what are the Government doing to break down the barriers to earlier diagnosis for women suffering with gynaecological issues, especially endometriosis? Does she believe that there are benefits to having dedicated gynaecological wards in hospitals? In my local hospital, St Richard’s in Chichester, there is no specialist gynaecological ward; patients are put in different wards depending on which procedure they have had, which means that they are potentially not receiving the specialist aftercare they could be. Finally, does the Minister believe that all medical professionals should have mandated gynaecological training so that they can give support as early as possible to those who so desperately need it?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation · Hansard source

  More

  As has been well established today, the blame for failures does not lie with postal workers, who are doing all they can to deliver a service. It lies with a private company that is telling its staff to prioritise parcels, but then pretending that is not its policy. My Chichester constituents have received hospital appointment letters four days after their appointment was due to take place. One constituent in Selsey received their letter for a specialist appointment in London an hour before it was due to take place. What can the Minister do to put pressure on Royal Mail, so that my constituents’ health is not put at risk as a result of its failures?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Access to Mental Health Services · Hansard source

  More

  After my young constituent was left in limbo between child and adolescent mental health services, health services and neurodevelopment pathways, with nobody claiming responsibility for her healthcare needs, her mum called 111 to get some advice. The advice she was given was, “If you’re not happy with the service, contact your MP.” With all mental health and emergency services stretched to breaking point, what tangible action are this Government taking to address the mental health crisis in our neurodiverse population, so that nobody else in my constituency is failed like this young lady?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Transport in the South-East · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has shown me the photos of what has happened in her constituency, and I share her distress that a main road—an A road—has literally fallen into the sea. Our constituencies share the fact that we are low-lying coastal plains at the forefront of climate change. As we see more storm events, we are seeing the damage in our communities. That brings me on to paying particular tribute to my residents living on the Manhood peninsula, who get completely trapped in the summer months because of congestion on the roads and are unable to get out of the area. Today, they are trapped because all the roads in and out of the Manhood are completely flooded. Georgia, a constituent of mine, left her job as a nurse because her commute was taking two hours, with one hour spent travelling just the handful of miles from Emsworth to Tangmere. Chris’s son has school transport, and has to leave an hour before school starts due to the traffic on the A259 on to the A27; again, he is only travelling a small number of miles. Melanie is planning on packing up her successful mental health business because the gridlock is, perhaps ironically, negatively affecting her mental health. Shaun owns a funeral company, and he told me of the time he had to get out of the hearse to physically clear the traffic to get to the local crematorium on time. Daniel owns a home carers company, and he regularly reports that staff get stuck on the A27, which means that the people they care for in the community miss medicine times and hospital appointments, and the backlog means that people get seen later and later in the day. I am in no doubt that the congestion on the A27 is strangling the city and putting off investment from businesses. It is stopping people shopping in the city or business parks and is impacting people’s daily lives. The A27 Chichester improvement scheme has a long history dating back to the 2000 south coast multi-modal study. Following several iterations, the scheme was included in the 2013 “Investing in Britain’s Future” White Paper and the 2014 road investment strategy. The scheme went to consultation in 2016, when 93% of respondents to a National Highways survey said that congestion was a problem on the A27. However, in 2017 the Secretary of State removed the funding for any improvements along the Chichester stretch. There remains significant anger and frustration among residents that they were never given the opportunity to vote on a preferred model of road improvements, especially as the Chichester district has seen more than its fair share of house building over the past decade. If the Government expect areas such as ours to continue to sustain such an increased level of development, residents need to see the investment in infrastructure too. Instead, it seems that their local services, be it GPs, schools, roads or buses, are expected to manage the additional capacity with no extra resource.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Separation Centres Review · Hansard source

  More

  I want to begin by paying tribute to those officers who suffered an appalling assault simply for doing their job. They and their loved ones will continue to feel the effects of that day for years to come. They deserve not only our thanks, but the assurance that everything possible is being done to prevent anything like this from ever happening again. That attack exposed serious weaknesses in how separation centres are run and made clear the need for urgent change. The Liberal Democrats therefore welcome the independent review conducted by Jonathan Hall KC and the work he has done to examine how these centres operate and what steps are needed to strengthen safety and security, so that something like this never happens again. Getting separation centres right is crucial for the integrity of our prison system and for the staff, who should never have to put their health or lives at risk simply to do their job. These facilities must be fit for purpose and capable of securely managing the most dangerous extremists and terrorists. The Ministry of Justice has been left firefighting crisis after crisis. If we are serious about restoring confidence in the justice system, we cannot afford complacency, especially when dealing with the most dangerous offenders. It is right that the Government are taking action, and I ask the Secretary of State today to set out a clear timeline for the implementation of those 13 recommendations and when the House will receive an update on the progress. Will he commit to a follow-up report, to assess whether these changes have genuinely improved safety and effectiveness? A recent report on separation centres by His Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons found that staff support and mandatory training were applied inconsistently across the prison estate. At one site, almost half of officers said that insufficient attention had been paid to their mental health, and at both centres, more than a third said they needed additional training to feel confident in their role. Will the Secretary of State update the House on whether conditions have improved since that report? If not, what concrete steps is he taking to address those gaps in training?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  That is an excellent point. The Government have rightly returned the number of days to 2016 levels, but with a rising backlog they need to go further and increase capacity. As pointed out by the Secret Barrister, we also have huge delays in the NHS, but we do not hear the Government proposing a cap on A&E sitting days to save the cost of having the lights on. In addition, the hours lost to unenforceable contracts have left many trials without a defendant while everyone waits for them to be delivered from prison. Given that one of the Government’s key arguments for reducing jury trials is the increasing length of trials, explicitly linked to complexity, I urge them to address the impact of those failing contracts. There are also key efficiencies to be gained from investment in the IT systems, given the widespread complaints about the functioning of wi-fi and about disrupted systems. The common platform system advertised to solve these issues is over budget and delayed. There are serious solutions to issues such as this, but rather than being addressed they are seemingly being ignored. Of course there are associated costs, but there are clearly major costs associated with not addressing the problems in the system. For example, it costs £55,000 a year to keep someone in prison, and the number of prisoners on remand has doubled in the last seven years. The savings are there as well; they just need to be realised. It is also clear from courts such as Liverpool Crown court—which I think was mentioned earlier—that efficiencies can be achieved, without spending, through a proactive and realistic approach. Jaime Hamilton KC has set out steps such as prioritising cases in which late guilty pleas are likely, which would lead to improved outcomes in case clearance. It is unfathomable to me that the Government have tasked Brian Leveson with producing two reports, the second of which is to focus on efficiency improvements and better use of technology in the court system, when surely it would be logical to produce that report first, in order to introduce those efficiencies and bring the backlog down. The Government have identified the problem that they inherited, but have arrived at entirely the wrong solutions. They are searching for an easy way out, a quick fix, but reducing access to jury trials is not that fix. It is unscrutinised, it is unfair, and it continues the trend of declining public trust in our justice system. The Government are right to say that victims are among those being let down, waiting years for justice and unable to move on with their lives, but we need solutions that work—solutions that address the causes of the crisis, reverse the systematic underfunding that has plagued the system, and genuinely improve efficiency.

• 15 Dec 2025 · NHS: Winter Preparedness · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent Fred is eligible for a flu vaccination, but has had his appointment cancelled three times due to a lack of vaccines in the local area. Pharmacies and GPs are asked to guess what their need will be, sometimes a year in advance and without sight of the JCVI’s eligibility criteria, and this naturally results in conservative estimates, so that they do not have waste. What emergency measures are the Government taking to get additional vaccines to rural and coastal areas like mine, in order to slow down the crisis in our A&E?

• 14 Oct 2025 · Criminal Courts: Independent Review · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure, Mr Efford, to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) on securing this vital debate, on his knowledge and expertise of this subject, and on taking the time to read 378 pages of what was a gripping read. Justice is a key pillar of our society, yet it rarely cuts through the noise or gets splashed on the front pages of the papers in the same way that our NHS does. Nevertheless, it is so important to have a functioning justice system when we need it, either as a victim or a defendant. I am also delighted to respond to this debate as the new spokesperson for justice for the Liberal Democrats and I look forward to working closely with the Government and His Majesty’s official Opposition on something that affects us all. Sir Brian Leveson’s report into the criminal courts has proven insightful and a concerning necessity. Some 45 recommendations were made, with a goal of clearing the court backlog and enabling cases to be dealt with more quickly, which is a desire felt across the House. As outlined by many hon. Members in the debate, our criminal courts are at a physical and operational breaking point. They are overburdened by an ever-expanding backlog of cases to hear and undermined by the deteriorating condition of our court estate. We also risk our criminal justice system becoming just a criminal system, because justice is being denied to victims up and down the country. The average wait for a verdict in a Crown court now stands at 22 months, while the number of cases facing a delay of more than two years increased tenfold over the course of the last Parliament. We are hearing of cases being booked as far in advance as 2029. As of June this year, there was a backlog of over 78,000 cases awaiting hearing in the Crown courts. Given that the Ministry of Justice’s own public target is to reduce that figure to 53,000 by March next year, the current position is nothing short of abysmal. Particularly concerning in this situation is the impact that delays are having on the delivery of justice. As my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames has noted in the other place, “evidence becomes less accurate with the passage of time.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2025; Vol. 844, c. 1427.] Delays reduce the willingness of witnesses to give evidence, or their ability to accurately recall the events that led to the trial, or even to relive harrowing events when they are keen just to move on with their lives. The hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) reminded us of the human toll by sharing the story of a constituent’s waiting five years for their day in court. That is totally unacceptable for that young woman and for the family supporting her. It can also be a huge strain on the mental health of all involved, and ultimately delays erode confidence in the justice system. It has been rightly said that justice delayed is justice denied. Both victims and defendants have a fundamental right to have their cases heard in a timely and fair manner—a right that, under the present circumstances, is simply not being upheld. At the same time, the physical infrastructure of our court system continues to falter. A recent Law Society report revealed that two thirds of solicitors have experienced delayed court hearings due to the poor state of court buildings, as was highlighted by the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) and the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne). The problems range from crumbling structures to outdated technology. Both contribute to the already unsustainable backlog of cases. Those cases of professionals walking away from the judicial system tell a really sorry tale, when we need them more than ever.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Defibrillators · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for securing this vital debate on such an important topic. The impact of heart conditions is felt acutely by so many across the country and, as we have heard, there are Members here today for whom this debate holds particular resonance. Cardiovascular disease affects 7 million people in the UK and is responsible for one in four premature deaths. It is also one of the starkest drivers of health inequality: those in the most deprived communities are twice as likely to die as those in the wealthiest, and for people living with severe mental illness the risk of death rises by 85%. The figures on heart attacks, many of which are caused by heart disease, are grim. Every year, around 80,000 people suffer an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Emergency services attempt to resuscitate roughly 30,000 of them, yet fewer than 10% survive, as we have heard from many hon. Members. Half those incidents are witnessed by somebody else, and survival depends heavily on immediate action: starting CPR, calling for help without delay and, if possible, getting access to a defibrillator. I recently spent time in my constituency at our first Emergency Services Day. I pay tribute to the tireless efforts of the paramedics and ambulance staff, and also the voluntary organisations, which play such a crucial role in saving thousands of lives. Public campaigns that explain the steps to take when someone collapses are crucial to improving survival rates. These must continue across the country, but the most decisive factor is timely access to a defibrillator. Defibrillation within three to five minutes of collapse can increase survival rates by 50% to 70%. Literally every second counts. Defibrillators have already saved thousands of lives, but access is patchy, and often, where need is greatest, the provision is weakest. Poorer areas often have fewer defibrillators than wealthier ones, with huge disparities between different parts of the country. The British Heart Foundation recommends that every postcode should be within a three to five-minute walk of a defibrillator. Currently, that is achieved in only 50% of postcodes. Access to lifesaving equipment must never depend on postcode or privilege. Too often, defibrillators are procured only after a tragedy has already struck, as I have seen at first hand. A good friend of mine, Andrew Chiverton, suffered a cardiac arrest as he left his front door. He survived thanks to the quick action of another friend of mine, Jeanette Sutton, who saw him collapse and performed CPR until the ambulance could arrive. That incident prompted a local campaign to fund a community defibrillator and train local people, myself included, in what to do when someone suffers a cardiac arrest. We must immediately take proactive steps to reduce the barriers preventing communities from having these lifesaving devices. The first of those barriers is cost. Community organisations, sports clubs, schools and businesses may have to pay up to £2,500 for a defibrillator. That is prohibitive for many, when they have so many other costs to consider. The Liberal Democrats therefore support the removal of VAT on community defibrillators, to make the devices more affordable across the nation. Maintenance and upkeep are equally important, as without them, the risk of a device malfunctioning when called upon increases—we have heard a perfect example of that today—but that requires local training and sustainable funding, for example through the community defibrillator fund. Investment in the technology is also vital. Defibrillators have already been transformative, but the development of smaller, more portable models suitable for households and workplaces could be revolutionary. May I press the Minister on what steps the Government are taking to encourage innovation and economies of scale in the production of small-scale defibrillators, so that they can become a regular part of households and workplaces, making access far more universal? Another priority must be better data. Ambulance services and 999 call handlers can only direct people to the nearest defibrillator if the location has been recorded. If nobody knows where it is, it is effectively useless. The Circuit has made excellent progress in mapping defibrillators and sharing that information with local ambulance services, helping to highlight the so-called defibrillator deserts, but it needs greater support. What steps are the Government taking to improve identification, registration and visibility of defibrillators, so that they can always be used when they are needed most? Beyond defibrillator access, we must address the root causes of cardiovascular health issues. Britain should be one of the healthiest countries in the world, but after years of Conservative government, the nation has become sicker and now lags behind its international peers. The Health Secretary promised to deliver the healthiest generation ever, but promises are not policies. The Government should start by reversing cuts to public health grants, enabling local authorities to take preventive steps against cardiovascular disease. These grants fund programmes such as smoking cessation, drug and alcohol services, children’s health initiatives and, vitally, the provision of free blood pressure tests. A portion should also be ringfenced for tackling health inequalities, which are so clearly reflected in rates of cardiovascular disease. Alongside that, national action is needed: investment in active travel, wider use of social prescribing and the implementation of a coherent food strategy. Taken together, these measures will lead to people living healthier, more active lifestyles, which, alongside steps to improve access to defibrillation, will save thousands of lives. Will the Minister look into the feasibility of removing VAT on defibrillators? How are the Government supporting staff in the maintenance of these devices and in understanding processes and procedures? What supervision is offered to staff tasked with being guardians or custodians of defibrillators in the public sector and what support is available after a defibrillator has been used in a community setting? Will the Government commit to reversing the cuts to public health grants to allow communities to begin tackling the causes of cardiovascular disease? This debate has shown both the urgency of the challenge and the solutions that are within our reach, but without Government action, progress will remain piecemeal.

• 22 Jul 2025 · 10-Year Health Plan: Perinatal Mental Health · Hansard source

  More

  Over the weekend, The Guardian reported that the number of women dying in the perinatal period had risen sharply since 2015. Families that have been failed, and health professionals feel that whether it is perinatal depression or unsafe births, lessons are not being learned and the same errors are repeated in review after review. Alongside the inquiry that the Secretary of State has launched, will the Government immediately implement every action from the Ockenden review and put an end to this national scandal in maternity service?

• 17 Jul 2025 · NHS Pensions: Frontline Patient Care · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for coming to the House to answer this urgent question. These administrative delays are deeply worrying. They make financial planning for those affected very difficult and, more importantly, stop doctors taking on additional work for the NHS as they could face large and unknown tax penalties. That was highlighted at the start of the year, when 4,000 NHS staff missed out on pension tax compensation after administrative failings. This is having a direct impact on patient care, so how will the Minister reassure NHS staff regarding their pension entitlements, and when can they expect to see the compensation the Minister mentioned to encourage them back into the workforce? Can she assure the House that the Government are taking steps to prevent doctors with missing pension records from being unfairly penalised? Can she tell us how the Government will address the 156,000 years of missing pension data for GPs? Finally, will the major reorganisation of the NHS—especially the 50% cut to the organisations that oversee local health services—potentially compound this problem?

• 17 Jul 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Starting a family is a huge moment for all who choose to start one, and for those facing fertility issues a time that can be fraught with difficulties. IVF offers a beacon of light for those who cannot conceive without help. My constituents in Chichester will no doubt be disappointed that NHS Sussex has chosen to reduce its offering of IVF cycles from three down to just one, citing financial difficulties, when data clearly shows that multiple cycles are more likely to result in a positive outcome. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on introducing a national strategy for IVF, so that those who want to start a family do not face barriers based on their postcode?

• 8 Jul 2025 · Down’s Syndrome Regression Disorder · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this important debate, and for her ongoing advocacy on behalf of people with Down’s syndrome and those with special educational needs. The hon. Lady was in the Chamber yesterday when the Secretary of State made her statement about Best Start centres, and her contribution was really valued across the House. Her commitment to raising these issues, both in Westminster Hall and in the main Chamber, does not go unnoticed, and the voices of the individuals and families she raises, who are too often overlooked, are heard loud and clear. I am grateful to Members from across the House for their contributions to this debate, and for shining a light on the often overlooked but deeply distressing reality of Down’s syndrome regression disorder, which is a little known but profoundly distressing condition that affects individuals when they are at a vulnerable point in their life, often during adolescence or early adulthood. As the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) said, it can be sudden and life altering for those with Down’s syndrome and for those who love them. This is not a rare curiosity that can be quietly ignored. It is a heartbreaking and complex condition that strips people of skills, independence and identity, often rapidly and with devastating consequences—and right now, families are being left to navigate it alone. Regression in this context is the sudden and unexplained loss of previously acquired developmental abilities, including speech, motor skills, self-care and social interaction. It is not autism or dementia—it is entirely different—and it is something that we must understand far better than we currently do. There is currently no single known cause for the regression, which can be triggered by significant life stresses, mental health deterioration, underlying medical issues, infections, nutritional deficiencies, exposure to toxins or, as the hon. Member for Thurrock spoke about, extreme moments of stress. She shared a heartbreaking story about the young person who had a heartbreaking moment in school and did not really recover from it. Despite its impact, frontline care staff have often never heard of the condition, and when symptoms emerge, diagnosis is often delayed or missed entirely. We need urgent investment in research to better understand the condition and develop evidence-based responses. It is a crisis of unmet need, because 80% of young people can make huge progress if it is caught and supported early enough. Families describe watching their loved ones retreat into silence, lose mobility or withdraw emotionally, often over just weeks or months. I do not have a child with Down’s syndrome, but I think it is the same for every parent—watching their child change in a way that is indescribable, losing all the things that make them who they are, must be the most distressing thing that they can go through. The impact must be devastating. These families need answers; they need access to specialist assessments, co-ordinated care and, above all, hope that with the right support, their loved one might regain some of what has been lost. Right now, there is no clinical consensus on treatment, no national guidance and very little research funding. In Chichester, my constituents are very lucky 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 their young people with Down’s syndrome face, particularly in accessing the support that they need throughout their education. Families have told me that, in hospital, when their Down’s syndrome child was born, they were presented with information from the Down’s syndrome group in Portsmouth, but were unable to access that service because they do not live there. Nationally, there needs to be support for every single child who is born. The Liberal Democrats are calling for three clear things. First, we would like regression disorder to be embedded in professional training for care workers, supported by new national standards set by a national care agency and a professional framework overseen by a royal college of care workers. The frontline workforce needs to be equipped to recognise and respond to the condition early and effectively. Secondly, we need the Down Syndrome Act to be properly resourced. That means far more than just warm words: it means access to speech and language therapy, occupational therapy, mental health support, physiotherapy and primary care. It means making good on the promise of joined-up, lifelong support, not just at school age but well into adulthood. Thirdly, we need real action on social care. We need bold, cross-party agreement on a long-term settlement now—not in a decade—and we must give unpaid family carers the deal that they deserve, with paid leave, guaranteed respite and long overdue recognition. Healthcare provision is also lagging. The NHS rightly recommends access to a wide range of specialists for people with Down’s syndrome, from physiotherapists and occupational therapists to speech and language support and mental healthcare, but too often families report waiting lists, postcode lotteries and providers that are simply not equipped to deal with complex needs such as regression. People with Down’s syndrome are often more likely to become seriously unwell from common infections such as flu and pneumonia, yet we are still not doing enough to ensure vaccine uptake. That is why we are calling for everyone with a disability or chronic health condition to have access to a named GP, to ensure early intervention, better diagnosis and ongoing support. Too many people with Down’s syndrome are being let down by the education system, the care system and the NHS. The regression that some experience in young adulthood is not inevitable; in many cases, it can be managed or even reversed with the right support, but that support needs to be in place for every young person. In my constituency I have seen the strength of local charities such as the Chichester and Arun Down Syndrome Support Group, and organisations such as Together Our Community, but we cannot continue to rely on charitable good will to cover the cracks left by a failing system. When a young person with Down’s syndrome starts to withdraw, lose speech or motor function or disconnect from their surroundings, their family do not need to be told to wait in a queue. They need a co-ordinated, knowledgeable and compassionate response, and they need it fast, so the question we must answer in this House today is simple: are we content to let families carry the burden alone, or are the Government ready to put in place the policies, funding and professional care that people with Down’s syndrome deserve? What steps will the Government take to drive forward research into Down’s syndrome regression disorder, get stronger training into the hands of those who need it, and guarantee that the joined-up care that people with Down’s syndrome so desperately deserve is finally delivered?