Jim Shannon MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 20 May 2025 · Pensions: Expatriates · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 20 May 2025 · Pensions: Expatriates · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for introducing this debate and for putting his case so well on a subject that has been brought to the House’s attention on numerous occasions, both in Westminster Hall and in the main Chamber. There are several people in the Public Gallery today who have been involved in the campaign; we thank them for all their correspondence to ensure that we can follow the campaign on behalf of so many British people. Just last week, I was working on some cases in my office. These issues occur regularly, as the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) said. As we are all aware, the Government’s policy on freezing state pensions for British pensioners living overseas affects some half a million pensioners and is fundamentally unfair. I believe that it is morally unfair, because it penalises pensioners who have earned their state pension through decades of national insurance contributions. They have done the same as everybody else and have paid national insurance contributions and tax. They made a contribution to the society that they lived in. Today they are being penalised, and it is grossly unfair. People who have worked for their entire life in United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are being denied the annual pension increases granted to UK residents simply because they chose to retire abroad, often to be closer to family. As they get older, they want to support their family, but their family also want to support them, so there is a physical necessity. People want to make the most of their savings elsewhere, as anyone is entitled to do. For example, a pensioner in Australia or Canada, where pensions are frozen, might receive some £7,000 annually, while UK-based pensioners get more than £11,000 annually as a result of triple-lock upgrading. There is a real differential and a real problem to be addressed. Over time, inflation diminishes the value of frozen pensions, pushing some expat pensioners into poverty. That has an impact not just on them, but on the countries in which they now live. In extreme cases, pensioners have reported surviving on pensions worth less than £20 a week in real terms. Nobody could survive on that—it is impossible. We ask the Minister to give us some support and give us something to tell our constituents and their families. The freeze is fundamentally unjust. It penalises pensioners who have earned their state pension through decades of national insurance contributions. I think of Anne Puckridge, a 100-year-old world war two veteran who served in all three branches of our armed forces decoding messages during the war. After working in the UK until the age of 76, way beyond her pension years, and paying all her taxes and national insurance, she moved to Canada in 2001 to be near her daughter. Her daughter wanted her to be there, and she wanted to support her daughter. Her pension was frozen at £72.50 per week, rather than the £169.50 she would receive in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which has resulted in an estimated loss of £60,000 over 23 years. When Mrs Puckridge notified the Department for Work and Pensions of her move, she was not informed that her pension would be frozen. At no stage was it intimated to her, “Look, if you go there, this is going to happen.” Because of that false pretence—because it did not disclose the full facts of the case—I believe that the DWP stands accused in the moral court of law for how it treated this lady. She only discovered the situation when her first expected increase did not arrive. She stated: “It’s the injustice of it that is so unfair, the fact that we were never warned.” They were never told. That is disgraceful. As other hon. Members have said, the widespread lack of transparency is reminiscent of the lack of transparency with WASPI women. The all-party parliamentary group on frozen British pensions has reported that nearly 90% of all affected pensioners were unaware of the policy before moving. Given that those half a million British pensioners have paid into the national insurance system throughout their working life, does the Minister consider it fair to deny them the annual pension increases that residents of the United Kingdom receive? An especially important factor is that the affected pensioners are not adding to the pressures on public services such as the NHS on their retirement. When people get to 79 or 80, their impact on the national health service will be greater. They may have complex needs. Their age is agin them. Very clearly, their dependence on the NHS at that stage is much greater. If we take that out of the equation and they go to Canada, America or Australia, there is a real saving to the NHS. There will be no prescriptions either. I speak as someone who takes 14 tablets a day just to stay alive; most of them have to do with diabetes, but that is by the way. If someone is saving the NHS all that money, is only right that that be considered in the financial equation. The findings in the 2020 inquiry report of the APPG on frozen British pensions indicate that the policy affects war veterans and even some members of the Windrush generation, who have returned to their country of birth but now face economic hardship as a result of this policy. The Windrush generation caught the imagination of this great nation. I became aware of their case through being an MP, and it is a really justifiable one. They are now being penalised if they decide to go back home to be close to their families, having come here, worked all their days and paid their national insurance contributions and taxes. As the current policy is leaving expat British pensioners having to return to the UK, I ask again whether the Minister will conduct a cost-benefit analysis to assess whether ending the freeze might reduce long-term costs by preventing the need to repatriate. The cost factor is of such magnitude that a review might persuade the Government to ensure that expatriates get their pension. The freeze is also morally indefensible. It punishes a perfectly valid legal choice to live abroad, and it ignores the contributions that these pensioners made to the economy and to our society. Many moved abroad with a reasonable expectation that their pension, a right earned through years of work, would retain its value. The arbitrary distinction between countries with and without an operating agreement lacks logics and smacks of red tape and bureaucracy gone mad: pensions increase in the US but not in Canada or Australia, for example. We always used to blame the EU for bureaucracy. We might blame it again, of course; later today I presume that we will have a statement in the Chamber on the UK-EU deal, so we will have a chance to go over the past once again. I support the APPG’s recommendations. It is time to end the frozen pension policy and provide full uprated pensions to British expat pensioners as soon as possible. I believe that that stance is supported by evidence from the Governments of Australia and Canada, with which we have a good working relationship. Has the Minister had the opportunity to talk to the relevant Ministers in those Governments? It is not that they are telling the UK what to do, but I understand that they have suggested that we may need reform. If the Minister has had the opportunity to talk to them, what has come out of those talks? It is unjust to penalise pensioners for living abroad when they have paid into the system like everyone else. By uprating pensioners globally, the UK would honour its moral and economic obligations and ensure that members of the post-war generation that rebuilt Britain can retire with the security that they deserve, wherever they choose to live. Today is an opportunity to make that request and that plea again, and to ask our new Minister to look at the issue in a positive way and consider all the cost factors. There are many things in the pot that should be looked at once again.

• 20 May 2025 · Adoption and Kinship Placements · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is frustrating to have a legalistic system that seems to try to hold up the process, when people are looking for a good way forward for the child. In October 2024, the Government announced that it would provide some £40 million to trial a new kinship allowance in 10 local authorities in England. The aim is to test whether paying some form of allowance to kinship carers could encourage more people to take a family member in when needed. The Government have said that trial will start in the autumn. Finances are often a block, and relatives who already have children of their own often find they simply cannot afford to take on kinship care. Would the Minister and the Government—those who hold the purse strings—consider extending funding for that trial to Northern Ireland and Scotland, where the figures surrounding children living in kinship care with family members are higher? A trial in those two places would give a better perspective, if the Minister does not mind me saying so. There are many reasons why a family may choose to adopt, but post-adoption support is paramount. I have no doubt that, with specialist long-term assistance, relationships can thrive. Access to therapeutic services for children is incredibly important to support the child’s emotional and mental wellbeing. For example, in education—I find this to be of major importance—children will naturally discuss their family environments, their parents and their grandparents. For many young people who do not have the same environment, those conversations in schools can become uncomfortable for them. Although we have fantastic pastoral support in schools, perhaps it is not a bad idea for outside specialists to engage with those kids in school to ensure that they have the specific support that they need. Statutory adoption pay is paid at 90% of earnings for the first six weeks and at a further, lower rate of £187.18 a week for the next 33 weeks. Perhaps kinship payments could also be looked at for those relatives who take on care from birth, so that they are not left behind when supporting young children, and giving them the best start. To conclude, the sacrifice that adoptive and kinship carers make for the lives of young people is incredibly wonderful. Many people out there make that decision for the betterment of a young person and to give them the opportunity to grow up. Government support for them must be unwavering so that they do not struggle, but have access to sufficient finance and wellbeing support. For the children, having access to long-term assistance will allow them to thrive. What more can we ask for in this debate other than their bright futures?

• 20 May 2025 · Adoption and Kinship Placements · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for leading the debate. The crowd that is present indicates how important the issue is. Adoptive and kinship care is a wonderful thing to offer children a safe and caring environment to grow up in, but there is no doubt that it has challenges that need addressing, and in particular need Government support. It is great to be in Westminster Hall to talk about that. To give an understanding of the topic, in Northern Ireland there are an estimated 8,000 to 10,000 children living in informal kinship care, and the number of children living with friends and family is consistently increasing. As of March ’24, there were some 4,000 children under the care of local authorities, even though a number of children had been adopted out of care in 2023—there are still many more in care than are being adopted. Northern Ireland, along with Scotland, seems to have the highest rate of kinship care, and there is no doubt that more should be done to support those agreeing to take on the care of relatives.

• 19 May 2025 · Legal Aid Agency: Cyber-security Incident · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her detailed answers and reassurances. The legal aid system is an imperative cog in the wheels of justice, and this attack on it must be seen as an attack on justice as well. Can the Minister say whether the attack encompasses legal aid details from the entirety of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? What discussions have taken place with the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland, where people will have justified fears about their addresses being leaked to those who may harm them? What support is available to those who are now in fear, such as domestic abuse victims?

• 19 May 2025 · Pubs and Community Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the hon. Lady, who is quickly making a reputation for herself in the House as an assiduous MP, whether it be in Westminster Hall, Adjournment debates or last Friday—well done to her. Every one of her constituents should be proud of all her industrious work here. Strangford and Ards have suffered greatly from the hospitality business downturn. To give one example, the Parlour Bar was built in 1735—it has been there a long time—but it is under pressure, like Romas and other pubs in Newtownards. Some 65% of hospitality businesses plan to reduce employment levels, risking job losses and impacting worker income; 55% intend to cancel planned investments; and 26% will cut trading hours due to the increase in the minimum wage and national insurance contributions. Does she agree—I think everyone in the Chamber has the same opinion, and we look to the Minister for a good reply—that the Government and the Minister, with the sympathy and compassion he has for businesses, need to step up to ensure that those businesses survive beyond 2025, and perhaps for another 300 years?

• 19 May 2025 · National Security Act 2023: Charges · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for her strong and determined words and actions—we appreciate them. I offer my thanks to the counter-terrorism unit for its work on the case. I know that this is the tip of the iceberg of the work being carried out unseen to keep us all safe across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The arrest of these three asylum seekers will naturally highlight the failings in the system, and I say that regardless of which party was in power at various times through that journey. What action will the Secretary of State and this Government take regarding the influx of young single men claiming asylum who seem empowered to declare war against this nation that has fed and clothed them for so many years? How do we assure our British public—my British public—that the end has come to housing these foreign nationals who hate this nation and all it stands for?

• 19 May 2025 · NHS and Care Volunteer Responders Service · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her answers. The importance of the work of the voluntary sector in the NHS cannot ever be overstated, whether it is those who volunteer to help people find their way around the hospital maze, those who provide vital phone support and work within communities or the volunteers in hospital radio. It is a huge loss, and the question is clear: who will replace these volunteers and the support they have given, which has made such a difference to so many at a time of vulnerability when they need it most?

• 19 May 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the Secretary of State for bringing this Bill before the House. On all occasions when I have inquired of him, he has been keen to share ideas and thoughts on legislation in relation to Northern Ireland. On mental ill health, deprivation and poverty, the figures for Northern Ireland are some of the highest in the United Kingdom, which worries me as the MP with responsibility for my constituents back home in Strangford. I know he will, but will the Secretary of State share all the ideas in the Bill with Mike Nesbitt—the Health Minister back home—so that Northern Ireland can also benefit?

• 19 May 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to make a contribution. I shall begin by saying that it is essential that we get this right. In his introduction, the Secretary of State outlined his case very well, and I welcome his policy, his strategy and his legal way forward here in Westminster. I also believe that that will set a trend for the rest of the regions of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and particularly for Northern Ireland. I know that the Minister has direct contact every month with the Health Minister in Northern Ireland, Mike Nesbitt, and that a very constructive dialogue takes place between the Secretary of State here and the Minister back home. Hopefully, this will allow all the regions across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to ensure that we are all on the same page when it comes to mental health support and obligations. The Minister and the Labour Government have set a strategy in place that I welcome. Mental health has increasingly, and rightly, come to the forefront of our minds. We are now taking it on board and teaching our children coping mechanisms from their early school days, for example with teachers practising breathing exercises with children and helping and guiding teenagers through exam situations. Those things are happening already; we have come forward in leaps and bounds. However, this is not a sprint. This is a generational marathon, and we are struggling to make the mile markers. That is why I welcome the whole premise and thrust of the Bill. The “Mental Health in Northern Ireland Fundamental Facts 2023” report was launched around 18 months ago, and it contained some interesting stats to consider. The wide-ranging report shows that 30% of people in the most deprived areas are likely to have a probable mental illness, compared with 20% in the least deprived areas, and that poverty, particularly child poverty, is a key contributor. It also shows that 24% of children in Northern Ireland are living in poverty. Stable housing is also a key driver of wellbeing, and almost 70% of people experiencing homelessness have a diagnosed mental health condition. In my intervention on the Secretary of State earlier, I welcomed his agreement to share the Bill and its recommendations with the Health Minister in Northern Ireland, because I believe that its constructive, helpful recommendations will help us to achieve some of the aspirations and policies of the Government and the Minister here. The report also highlights the association between poor mental health outcomes and adverse childhood experiences, with 47.5% of young people aged 11 to 19 experiencing at least one adverse childhood experience. Young people in the least deprived areas are more likely to experience no ACEs compared with those in the most deprived areas. One in five adults and one in eight children in Northern Ireland have a probable mental illness, according to the report, with rates in adults similar to other regions. However, our history of conflict and some 30 years of a terrorist campaign—with terrorists murdering and the IRA trying to kill Unionists and those who objected to their way of life—have repercussions and contribute to more complex mental health difficulties in the population. This is a snapshot of any, and indeed all, of the regions in the United Kingdom. We are all facing the same difficulties and we all need a more effective solution and support for individuals and families. I have had many anxious parents whose children have been referred to child and adolescent mental health services. The waiting list in Northern Ireland has approximately 2,100 total waits for a CAMHS assessment, with 1,104—over half of that number—waiting for more than nine weeks. These are children who may be self-harming or have OCD and whose bodies are feeling the effects of obsessive hand washing when stressed. These are just some of the things that young people have to deal with. There are so many things that affect their education. This is why I welcome the aims of new section 125A, which provides for the making of arrangements for ensuring that care, education and treatment review meetings take place for children. Education, hope and a future are essential and I welcome this aim. It is all about giving hope, and I think every one of us, as an elected representative, wants to give hope to our constituents—to the parents and to the children—of a better future. That is why we welcome this positive Bill. I gently question whether the Bill goes far enough in its legal obligations for children’s reviews on education and health. I look to the Minister for his opinion on whether more should be done to ensure that children and vulnerable adults have a pathway to education and a better health programme, and therefore hope and a better future. We must not have a postcode lottery. Indeed, children and vulnerable adults in each region deserve the same rights and deserve dedication and services. I hope that while this Bill applies only in England and Wales, it will make changes for the good of the entire United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and will put in stone—I use that political term—a focus that all can benefit from. The Minister and the Secretary of State gave me a commitment in my intervention. I look forward to the Minister continuing his positive thoughts on how we can all gain because tonight is one of them good nights in this House.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is very kind. At the moment, she is outlining the case for those who have problems with their eating and their diets almost to the point where they are unable to make their own decisions, and she is outlining what is going to happen here. What would she say about the situation in Belgium and in Canada, where assisted dying has been legalised for people with eating disorders? This may progress from what she has said and go way beyond that, as has been proven in other countries across the world.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the hon. Lady for tabling her amendments. Amendments that would have protected palliative care and hospices from facilitating assisted suicide services on their premises for ethical or practical reasons have been rejected, so the Bill leaves hospices with little choice but to comply. It also puts them in a difficult position when it comes to funding. Hospices will also have to provide a staff member to do this work. The problems that will create for palliative care and hospices cannot be ignored. The Bill goes against that right in its totality.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Speaker, I will always be at the end of the list, so it is important for me to make an intervention. The hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) set the scene very well on Second Reading, but since then things have changed. For instance, the Royal College of Psychiatrists has voiced strong concerns in opposition to the Bill about judicial oversight, robust protections against coercion and so on, as well as the effect it will have on vulnerable groups such as those with dementia, Down syndrome or mental illnesses. Does the hon. Lady not respect the viewpoints of my constituents who tell me that they are opposed to the Bill in principle and all the things that are coming forward? The new clause does not address the issues that the hon. Lady is referring to.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 15 May 2025 · World Asthma Day · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all hon. Members for participating in the debate. The hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) referred to the fact that someone dies every six hours—four people in a day—from asthma. He also talked about young George Coller, and the Minister kindly agreed to meet the hon. Gentleman and the family. That is very positive; I would not expect anything other than positivity of the Minister, but I thank her for that. Such meetings help us to represent our constituents in a positive fashion. The hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale), who is an asthma sufferer—I know about asthma only through my son, but the hon. Lady has lived experience—talked about how asthma affects her life, and I understand that her sister also suffers from it. She also referred to the Tobacco and Vapes Bill and the Renters’ Rights Bill, which are relevant to issues that contribute to asthma. Asthma goes way outside the remit of Health Ministers alone; Ministers in other Departments have to be part of addressing it. The hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) always brings her knowledge to the subject matter. She referred to air pollution and the Lib Dems’ commitment to addressing that issue. She mentioned poor housing and healthier homes, and said that the increase in children’s asthma needs to be addressed. Again, lung conditions are the third biggest killer in the UK, as others have mentioned. I have lost count of the number of debates that my friend, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), and I have been in together—it is like a tag team here on a Thursday afternoon—and I thank him for his personal story about asthma. He referred to the work of charities and to primary and secondary care, which the Minister referred to positively in her contribution. He mentioned smoking cessation, the passage of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, and preventable deaths. I thank him for bringing his knowledge as a doctor to add to the debate. I thank the Minister; I think that we are all impressed by her replies. She did her utmost to answer all our questions in a positive fashion. I thank her for agreeing to the meeting, which we will look forward to. It will give the APPG a chance to talk more insightfully, if that is the way to put it, about the issues. The commitment to asthma shines out across the nation. The Minister referred to the Government’s commitment to improving air quality, which we are all pleased about, and she referred to the national bundle of care—I hope I got that right—as well as regional funding. She also referred to spirometry diagnostic tests, which is an issue that the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth and I were trying to pursue. The Minister also mentioned action for those with severe asthma—biologics—and the training of staff; her positive replies to our questions were an example of how other Ministers should reply. She mentioned the moves from sickness to prevention and from analogue to digital. She discussed ensuring, first of all, that we prevent the deaths, but also that we help those who have asthma. It has been a positive debate. It may be a few weeks after World Asthma Day, but none the less it has been World Asthma Day for this hour or so. I thank everyone for their contributions and look forward to meeting the Minister. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered World Asthma Day.

• 15 May 2025 · World Asthma Day · Hansard source

  More

  I used to have close contact with a guy called Simon Hamilton, who was an MLA for the constituency that I represent. He had Crohn’s disease—my knowledge of it came through him—and he was caught short many a time, if that is the way to put it. May I ask the Minister a wee question? I asked about CDCs once NHS England is abolished— [ Interruption. ] I can see that she is coming to that. That is grand.

• 15 May 2025 · World Asthma Day · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered World Asthma Day. It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. We had a very productive parliamentary visit to Egypt to promote freedom of religious belief. I commend you for that publicly today in the Chamber. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for accepting this debate. I am pleased, as always, to see the Minister in her place. I will come to my request to her later. My speech has been given to her staff and, I understand, to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), and to the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller). I am pleased and privileged to be the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for respiratory health. I have a deep interest in respiratory health. It is probably because my second son was born with asthma. From a very early age, he was on medication. He had some psoriasis as well; there is an association between the two. He seems by and large to have grown out of it, but even now, at the age of 34, he depends upon the inhaler. Therefore, I have a personal interest in the issue, as most people do when they talk about asthma. I am delighted to sponsor the debate for this year’s World Asthma Day, which was on 6 May. This year’s theme, set by the Global Initiative for Asthma, is “Make inhaled treatments accessible for all”. GINA emphasises the need to ensure that everyone, regardless of their global location or socioeconomic status, has access to the inhaled medications that they need to control the underlying disease and to treat asthma attacks. I will be looking at that and other aspects of asthma care and treatment today. It is a pleasure to do so, and to see other Members who have been able to turn up to participate in the debate. This may be my first occasion where the Minister has responded specifically to my debate. I wish her well in her role, I wish her well personally—she knows that—and I wish her well in the debate. I am indebted to Asthma + Lung UK for its outstanding help and ongoing support. It has been enormously helpful to me and to the APPG. I welcome the work it does to serve the needs of people living with respiratory ill health. I also put on record my special thanks to Jonathan Fuld, the national clinical director for respiratory disease in England, for his expert advice, counsel and wisdom. I pay tribute to our expert stakeholder groups, which comprise senior clinicians, industry, professional bodies and other experts, for their ongoing work. The APPG has regular Zoom meetings, and Jonathan Fuld is always there to guide us and help us through the process. The APPG has welcomed the improvements in inhaler technology, specifically the move to combination inhalers, which will ultimately eliminate the use of twin inhalers. That is a significant step and one that we should welcome. As highlighted in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence asthma guideline and by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in its safety warning, SABAs—short-acting beta 2 agonists—should not be used by people with a diagnosis of asthma. Therefore, there are and will always be treatments that we need to be careful with for safety reasons. Combination inhalers combine two kinds of medicine in one device, helping to keep inflammation in the lungs at bay while giving relief from symptoms such as breathlessness and tight chest. I will come on to some figures later on, as we need to be reminded in this debate that, with asthma, it is not just that the inhaler saves someone and they are okay. There have been a number of deaths, which I will refer to later on. The availability of inhalers in the UK ensures that people with asthma get the most clinically effective treatment and also allows the NHS to take a step towards its net zero targets, given that they are low carbon. It is therefore right to acknowledge that the first inhaled respiratory medicine using next-generation propellant with near-zero global warming potential was approved this week. That is a step in the right direction. Although it is for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, the technology offers great promise for other inhalers in the future. It is wonderful to look back at all the advances made over the years in cancer treatments, or on diabetes or cardiovascular disease. They are trying to find a cure for dementia and for Alzheimer’s, and there are some ideas for how that could be progressed, so there have been advances. I am sure we have all seen the latest statistics on respiratory conditions and asthma—I will touch on them briefly. Lung conditions are the third biggest killer in the UK. Hospitalisations have doubled in the last 20 years and there has been little improvement over that time. I mentioned some of the improvements with inhalers, but there is still a long way to go. Some 7.2 million people in the UK live with asthma; 2 million children live with asthma. That represents one in nine adults and one in eight children. The UK has a higher death rate due to respiratory illnesses than the OECD average, and we have the highest death rate in Europe. Asthma kills four people in the UK every day and someone has a potentially life-threatening asthma attack every 10 seconds. These are the stats, but they are not just stats—they are families and individuals, and people who deal with this every day. The children and the parents worry, the adults worry and the families worry. Over the past 10 years, more than 12,000 people have died from asthma. Almost all of those deaths were preventable. The National Review of Asthma Deaths report, “Why asthma still kills”, published by the Royal College of Physicians in 2014, found that two thirds of asthma deaths were preventable. If they are preventable, why can we not do more and make that happen? That is one of my requests to the Minister. Some 66% of people are not getting an appointment with a GP or an asthma nurse within the recommended 48 hours after an emergency admission. Between 2012 and 2020, deaths from asthma have increased by 26%. The number of people who have died due to asthma attacks is very cruel. The costs to the country associated with asthma are substantial. Asthma and COPD cost the NHS some £9.6 billion in direct costs each year, representing 3.4% of total NHS expenditure, and they cause wider reductions in productivity due to illness and premature deaths, totalling £4.2 billion a year, with an overall impact of £13.8 billion on the economy. In my country, my region of Northern Ireland, asthma costs £178 million a year alone. These costs cannot be ignored. I will put forward some ideas that the Government and the Minister can hopefully take on board to reduce the expenditure and the death toll. Adding up the cost to the NHS and direct costs from the loss of productivity and the monetary value of people suffering lung conditions, the cost to the UK economy is some £188 billion a year. The annual estimated cost of asthma and COPD to the NHS is £4.9 billion, with an estimated 12.7 million lost workdays per year. There is a financial cost, a loss of workdays and a cost to the productivity of our nation. The impact of asthma on the NHS is considerable. Respiratory conditions are a major cause of avoidable hospital admissions. If we can avoid hospital admissions, that is a strategy and a way forward. There were some 56,853 admissions due to asthma in 2022-23. Waiting lists for respiratory care have risen by 263% over the past 10 years. Those are worrying figures. There is a need to have this debate, and today is the opportunity to do that and to look forward. Lung conditions, including COPD, asthma and respiratory infections, place a huge burden on the NHS, especially in the winter months, when it is always worse: respiratory admissions increase by some 80%. Breathing issues are the leading cause of all emergency admissions in England, and in common with other respiratory illnesses, asthma is hit hard by inequalities and deprivation. There is a link between poverty and asthma, so I hope that the Minister can give some encouragement in relation to that. The burden of respiratory disease disproportionately affects the most deprived. Those from the poorest communities are three times more likely to die from asthma, compared with those in the richest—that is another worrying trend. Children living in the most deprived 10% of areas are four times more likely to require emergency admission to hospital due to asthma than those living in the least deprived areas. Again, there is a clear statistical difference between those who live in deprived areas and those who do not. The findings of the national child mortality database report on child deaths expose the inextricable link between poor lung health and deprivation, with more than half—56%—of the children who died in the period that the report covers coming from the poorest communities. I know that when the NHS was set up, this would not have been the policy of the Government, but if there are more deaths among children who just happen to live in deprived areas, we really need to address that. I welcome and support the Government’s commitment to reducing inequalities and deprivation—in particular, inequitable asthma outcomes. We hope to run local meetings in the most deprived areas of the country to try to determine some of the causes of the variation in asthma outcomes. I would like to offer the Minister our support in any way that we can help. We are pleased to have here today representatives who carry out the admin for the APPG on respiratory health. We thank both of them, and others, for their contributions. There have been some welcome developments in respiratory health recently, including the introduction of a new integrated guideline for asthma, which was a joint collaboration by NICE, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network and the British Thoracic Society. It is being rolled out across the country. They are good steps in the right direction to try to do even better, but I urge the Minister to make sure that there is no implementation hesitancy across the integrated care boards, with uneven take-up. I also ask what steps she will take to ensure that it is rolled out equally across the country. That is one of our requests. The APPG also welcomes and supports the three shifts announced by the Secretary of State: analogue to digital, hospital to community, and treatment to prevention. I suggest that respiratory health outcomes could benefit significantly from all three of those commitments from him. I also welcome the upcoming neighbourhood health services, in principle. Although we do not know all the details yet, there is an agreement in principle for that work to happen. I ask the Minister what future she sees for the community diagnostic centres, following the transition to the abolition of NHS England? The APPG has already sent a submission for the 10-year plan, which we hope will deliver what we all wish to see. I welcome the Government’s commitment to investing £26 billion of extra money for health. I welcome the positive stance that the Secretary of State and the Minister have taken in relation to that. However, we feel that respiratory health should be key and in the centre of the 10-year plan. I understand that that plan is likely to have cancer and cardiovascular disease plans associated with it, and I hope that respiratory health conditions will be prioritised in the same way. Could the Minister ensure that respiratory health will be prioritised in national strategies and NHS guidance, including in the 10-year plan and the life sciences sector plan, which are in development, and in future winter resilience guidance? One major issue that we see every year in the NHS is winter pressure. We cannot deny it, and it is not anybody’s fault; it is a fact of life. Vaccines for flu and other respiratory infections are enormously helpful, of course, but ensuring that patients are on the right treatment can also contribute to reducing these pressures. The transitions from hospital to community and sickness to prevention are essential to making this happen. The question is, how best can it happen? Again, I hope that the Minister can give us some thoughts on that. The APPG will hold a roundtable in the next few weeks to discuss how good respiratory health measures can help to ease winter pressures. It might be helpful to consider those at this time of the year, long before we get to that stage in the latter part of the year. The APPG will report its findings to the Minister directly. A previous Minister agreed to a meeting with us, and I am quite sure that the Minister today will do the same, so I ask whether we could have that in the diary. Severe asthma affects up to 5% of people with asthma, and is associated with frequent exacerbations, hospital attendances and steroid use. Biologics have been described by leading clinicians as lifesaving for severe asthma patients, yet an Asthma + Lung UK report suggested that in June 2020 only 23% of eligible patients were receiving a biologic for their severe asthma. Those figures worry me. I understand that that was five years ago, but again I seek some positivity in relation to it. A recent poster at the European Respiratory Society congress showed that the uptake of biologics for severe asthma is low and variable in the UK. That has to be addressed, and I seek the Minister’s thoughts on it. The national median uptake of biologics by patients with severe asthma in England between 2016 and 2023 was 16%. ICBs are not maximising the uptake, which varies widely between 2% and 29%, against a target of 50% to 60%. That does not cut the cake. Based on current regional use of biologics in England, modelling forecasts that it will take 37 years for only 50% of eligible patients to be on biologic therapy. That cannot be satisfactory. We must do better. At present, with the existing severe asthma service specification, patients can wait years for access to these treatments. There is limited awareness of severe asthma and insufficient capacity in the system, and unnecessarily complicated multidisciplinary teams hinder timely access. This must not be ignored. We must not have a postcode lottery, with some parts of the United Kingdom providing the correct standard of asthma care and other parts falling behind. We await the publication of the new service specification, which I hope will minimise delays for patients who really need the biologics. In other areas, such as dermatology or rheumatology, secondary care clinicians can prescribe biologic medicines to patients who fit the relevant criteria without the patient requiring assessment at tertiary level, so can secondary care prescribing be introduced for severe asthma? I have had a lot of asks of the Minister, but they are positive, constructive asks that seek to move us forward, save lives and help those with asthma. Time is going far too fast, but the facts are clear: too many people living with lung conditions are missing out on the treatments that they desperately need to live and stay well at home. Current access is limited, patchy and being held back by workforce shortages. Severe asthma accounts for only around 4% of the total asthma population, but this is still almost 5,000 people, and they are probably the ones who will contribute the most to asthma deaths in a year. Such is the severity of their symptoms that this group is estimated to account for at least half of all expenditure on asthma—some £38 million a year. I want to give an example of what we are doing in Northern Ireland and show what it would mean here on the mainland. I know that this is not the Minister’s responsibility, but thousands of people across Northern Ireland are missing out on key diagnostic tests because of disagreements between primary and secondary care about who should deliver the services. If, for example, fractional exhaled nitric oxide were made available to all GPs across Northern Ireland, its use could save £4 million by optimising asthma treatment. An uptake in spirometry testing in primary care to just 40% of eligible patients would result in £1.7 million in direct health service cost savings in reduced COPD exacerbations —a reduction of 1,778 hospital bed days, of which 605 would be winter bed days. I used an example from Northern Ireland because I have access to those figures, but were we to replicate that for each healthcare trust or board in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the improvement to health and freedom from financial weight would be massive. It is not just about the money saved, or the lives saved; it is about the care of those with asthma. If we can make it better in any way through today’s debate, it will have been worth while. I look forward to everyone’s contributions. I believe that changes can and must be made. I look to the Minister to begin that process today.

• 15 May 2025 · Gavi and the Global Fund · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) on setting the scene so well. It is an incredible debate, which is why Members are here to make a contribution. Gavi has so far immunised 1.1 billion children, and it is estimated to have averted more than 18.8 million deaths globally. If we want a success story and something that is worth investing in, this is the scheme. Childhood mortality in under-fives has been reduced by over 50%, and vaccine-preventable deaths are down by 70%. That is another reason for supporting Gavi and the Global Fund. Like the hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald), I will focus on women and girls, because it is important that we look at the impact on them. It is a fact that women and girls are disproportionately affected by infectious diseases, and targeted investments in their health can drive broader social and economic progress. Indeed, vaccination results in better health, which in turn supports gender equality by enabling women and girls to learn, work and take an active role in their community, promoting them as individuals. Women and girls accounted for 63% of all HIV infections in sub-Saharan Africa. Malaria in pregnancy leads to over 10,000 maternal deaths and 200,000 infant deaths. These are not just figures but families, individuals, mothers and children. Tuberculosis remains a leading infectious cause of death among women of reproductive age. The Global Fund provides 76% of all international financing for TB vaccinations. However, cuts to the US Agency for International Development, and the UK Government’s decision to cut ODA, will knock back the very scheme that has done so much to advance the cause. I look to the Minister, who is always very responsive. I know he does not hold the purse strings, but I am sure his response will be helpful. Gavi also funds maternal tetanus immunisation and has helped to eliminate maternal and neonatal tetanus in over 20 countries. All of those things are happening because of Gavi and these organisations. Its work to prevent malaria in children and pregnant women cannot be ignored either. To conclude, I ask the Minister how the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is making the case in spending review process for the work that the Global Fund, Gavi and Unitaid do in prioritising women and girls’ health and supporting gender equality. If discussions are being held about a change in investment in those funds, how can Government ensure that women and girls, so often ignored and put down in their own communities, have access to the most basic immunisation? Will the Minister to commit to ensuring that the Government play their part for the most vulnerable women and children throughout the world? The UK has done good work. We must continue that in the most cost-effective way possible. I believe the Minister is seeking that balance, and I wish him and the Government every success in that endeavour.

• 15 May 2025 · Accountability for Daesh Crimes · Hansard source

  More

  The violence against and the murder and rape of Yazidi women has been truly horrendous. Way back in 2010 or 2012, I had a chance to meet some of them. Yazidi women who survived have a story to tell against their Daesh perpetrators. Has every effort been made to collate the evidence and pursue the perpetrators? The testimonies of the victims must be used to condemn the perpetrators to a long and very, very painful time in prison.

• 15 May 2025 · Recalled Offenders: Sentencing Limits · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is a very decent person, and he and I have been friends for many years, but I must ask this question, which I hope I can put in the way that I wish to. I really struggle to understand the rationale behind allowing a criminal to consider their options and work out whether what they intend to do is worth an additional 28 days in jail, or allowing a person to weigh up whether breaking a restraining or non-molestation order is worth a month in prison. Criminals need to fear that if they break the law again, it will be worse for them. How do the Minister and the Department think that the policy will disincentivise repeat offending?

• 15 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

• 15 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for setting out those positive opportunities for the future. Air passenger duty adversely impacts economic opportunity for companies in Northern Ireland. To continue the positivity from the Secretary of State, would she commit to asking Cabinet colleagues to adjust the block grant for Northern Ireland to allow a reduction in APD in order to enhance connectivity within this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?