Lewis Atkinson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q9. Too many people are waiting too long for NHS mental health care, with over 6,000 adults waiting up to two years. In Sunderland, grassroots organisations like the wonderful Betsy Jenny café are providing support to our community, but they cannot substitute for timely, NHS-funded care. As the Government consult on their new mental health strategy, will the Prime Minister agree that it must include clear waiting time standards?

• 22 Jun 2026 · Spinal Muscular Atrophy: Newborn Screening Test · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a matter of pace and of asking, “When?” not “If?” or “How?” because both those questions have already been answered. I turn to the Government’s response. The previous Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), met Jesy Nelson, the petitioner, in January. The Government accepted the case for an in-service evaluation and brought the date for that live NHS trial forward from January 2027 to October this year, when screening will begin to be rolled out. I, the petitioners and others welcome that, though there is a sadness that it has taken so long to get to that point. We must, however, be honest about where that decision leaves us. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) alludes to, the real argument now is about pace and fairness. The evaluation is funded. It will run at seven of England’s 13 screening laboratories, covering around 72% of births. The remaining six sites, which include the site that covers the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), and which account for the remaining 28% of babies born in the UK every year, are not at present in the plan. That does not seem to be an accident but the design. Put in human terms, of the 48 babies born with SMA in England each year around 35 would be diagnosed by the introduction of SMA screening in this evaluation but 13 would not: there would be 13 babies a year born with the same condition but on the wrong side of an arbitrary line that they did not choose who will go undiagnosed until damage is done. A baby born in one postcode will be screened, treated early and may walk, but a baby born in another postcode in the same week will not, and by the time anyone knows it may be too late. That is the postcode lottery that Jesy told me about, and which deeply concerns her, in its starkest form. It is not about a difference in waiting times but about whether a child walks, breathes unaided or feeds normally for life. That is why Professor Muntoni’s assessment needs to be heard. He asked me specifically to put this on the record: he described a trial that deliberately leaves some babies unscreened to serve as a comparison group as—his word—“unethical”. We are withholding from some children a diagnosis that we are fully capable of making and that we know will help to shape their lives in order to gather data on something that Professor Muntoni considers already internationally proven. That is the view of not just one eminent clinician, I am told, but the wider SMA clinical community.

• 22 Jun 2026 · Spinal Muscular Atrophy: Newborn Screening Test · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for making one of his excellent interventions. Clearly health is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland and Wales, where screening is also not available, but the hon. Member is absolutely right. It would be difficult to explain to parents anywhere in the UK why this screening is increasingly standard practice internationally but is not available in every nation of the United Kingdom. The petitioners are clear that all the conditions necessary to begin screening have been met. The test exists, the treatments exist and the evidence tells us that screening would save both lives and money. In the UK, screening is overseen by the independent UK National Screening Committee, which gives recommendations to Ministers. I was unable to meet with the committee in preparation for the debate, but I am sure that the Minister has had the benefit of its advice. I recognise, as we all must, that the committee’s independence matters. However, its decision making and the way in which it balances risk, evidence and benefit must be subject to ministerial oversight. In this case in particular, there are questions about how those three elements have been balanced, and specifically about how far the committee seemingly required NHS-specific evidence when significant international evidence already exists. When the National Screening Committee reviewed SMA for potential inclusion in the screening programme in 2018, the committee did not recommend screening, but campaigners like SMA UK did not walk away; they kept on doing the work. New cost-effectiveness modelling commissioned by the screening committee and published last year finds that screening for SMA is likely to be lifesaving and cost-effective.

• 22 Jun 2026 · Spinal Muscular Atrophy: Newborn Screening Test · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 755980 relating to spinal muscular atrophy and the newborn screening test. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Mundell, and a privilege to open the debate as a member of the Petitions Committee. I want to begin with two little girls. In May last year, twin daughters were born prematurely to the petitioner, Jesy Nelson, who is a constituent of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking). Several months later, they were diagnosed with spinal muscular atrophy type 1, which is the most severe form. Their mother was told that they would, in her words, “probably never walk”. In January of this year, Jesy chose to share that diagnosis publicly, saying that it would be “selfish to keep this to myself and not potentially save a child’s life.” This petition is the result, and I pay tribute to her for the way that she has courageously told her story, using her own unique reach. As a result, the petition was signed by 149,692 people, including 225 of my constituents in Sunderland Central. I was grateful to meet Jesy earlier in Westminster Hall, and I thank her and every family who has turned the hardest experience imaginable into a campaign for other people’s children. In preparing for this debate, I also met Giles Lomax of SMA UK, Muscular Dystrophy UK, and Professor Francesco Muntoni of the Neuromuscular Centre at Great Ormond Street. I thank all of them for their time, and I also thank the Petitions Committee staff for their help as I prepared for this debate. SMA is a rare genetic condition that attacks the motor neurones, causing progressive muscle weakness. Around 1,500 people in the UK live with it and about 48 babies are born with it each year—roughly one a week. With type 1 SMA, symptoms appear within the first six months and the effects are profound. Children cannot hold up their heads or sit unsupported; they may be tube-fed and need help to breathe. Until recently, up to 90% of untreated babies either died before the age of two or required permanent ventilation. I used the past tense there deliberately and happily, because the important fact in this debate is that SMA is no longer untreatable. There are now three disease-modifying therapies in this country, including a one-time gene therapy that did not exist a decade ago. They are approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and funded by the NHS. A condition that was too often a death sentence for babies is now one that we can treat.

• 22 Jun 2026 · Spinal Muscular Atrophy: Newborn Screening Test · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is entirely right and I have heard a number of those heart-wrenching stories; she does well to speak so movingly on behalf of her constituent. That is a testament to the key intervention of getting a diagnosis as soon after birth as possible. Today, a baby with type 1 SMA is typically not diagnosed until around six months of age. By then, for many the window when treatment would have had the most impact has closed. There is an alternative; screening at birth through the existing NHS heel-prick test, which is routinely done on day five of a baby’s life. That already screens for 10 different serious conditions.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  Like others, I sat with officials from the Department of Health and Social Care after Second Reading, so there absolutely was DHSC involvement, including in many of the amendments that Lord Falconer introduced. Going back to the principle of parliamentary democracy, I respect the point that my hon. Friend makes, but all the issues she has highlighted were aired before Third Reading. She says that we are not a debating Chamber but a decision Chamber, so why—

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  I will introduce the petitioners first, because they ultimately prompted the debate; I will then be happy to take further interventions. The petition was initially proposed by Nathaniel Dye, a man who felt the urgency for change and looked at his Parliament to deliver it. Nat was a music teacher, and after being diagnosed with stage 4 bowel cancer in his mid-30s, he campaigned for cancer awareness and support, being recognised with an MBE for his incredible efforts. Nathaniel knew he was going to die, and he believed that Parliament should engage seriously with the issues that affected him and many others with terminal illness. He campaigned strongly in favour of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) in the last Session. As a member of that Bill Committee, I had the privilege of meeting Nat on a number of occasions. He was a remarkable man. In his final months, Nat became frustrated—angry, it is fair to say—at how the Lords were dealing with their consideration of the Bill. True to form, he decided to do something about it, starting the petition that we are here to debate today. Nat died in January this year. I pay tribute to him and his family, who have continued to support his efforts following his death. I am grateful to Rebecca Scott, his sister, for meeting me as part of the engagement process for this debate. After Nathaniel’s death, his friend Sophie Blake became the petition’s sponsor, and it is a pleasure to see her in the Gallery today, as it was to speak with her in preparation for this debate, alongside a campaigner from Dignity in Dying. Sophie has incurable stage 4 secondary breast cancer, first diagnosed in 2020. She is allergic to opioids, which form an important part of the palliative care pain relief toolkit, and unfortunately her family have experienced what she describes as “bad cancer deaths”. She does not want her daughter, Maya—also in the Public Gallery—to run the risk of being left with those memories. She wants the option of an assisted death if she feels that that is required. The key demand of Nathaniel, Sophie and the 114,000 petitioners is that Bills supported by MPs and the public must be able to complete all stages of the parliamentary process and to become law; and that the unelected House of Lords should be able to scrutinise, yes, but not block legislation backed by the elected Commons. Sophie and Nathaniel were both determined that the voices of terminally ill people should be at the centre of parliamentary consideration of the Bill. They closely monitored its various stages. They were in the Public Gallery of the House of Commons on Second Reading and of Committee Room 11 for some of the 100 hours of Bill Committee proceedings, where we made more than 100 amendments, including 30 proposed by MPs who had opposed the Bill on Second Reading.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  I will finish my point. Fundamentally, the question is whether we can achieve social change in this country through parliamentary means, or not. I will just go back to how Sophie, the key petitioner, felt. She summed it up in the following way: “I’m living with incurable cancer and I know how precious time becomes when you’re facing the end of life. Watching Parliament waste that time because of the actions of a tiny number of unelected politicians is heartbreaking”. It is not that the House of Lords was improving the Bill. It may have been in some cases, but the fact that the House of Lords, in 16 days, did not divide once and decide on one amendment—

• 2 Jun 2026 · Milburn Review: Interim Report · Hansard source

  More

  The Milburn report identifies a state failure to provide timely and appropriate mental health support—and this is just about child and adolescent mental health services, up to adult services. Most tellingly, it states that there are no waiting time targets for mental health services. Will the Minister have a conversation with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to supplement the jobs guarantee with a mental health support guarantee, and ensure that young people are not waiting more than 18 months for mental health support?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The history of the NHS shows that there is no one way of securing improvement or accountability, and that a range of different mechanisms have a role. Patient voice, patient choice, performance management—including centralised performance management—planning, democratic challenge, competition and collaboration all have a place, and it is for the Government of the day to make a judgment about the right blend of mechanisms with which to pursue their objectives. Overall, I think that the Bill represents a good attempt to do that, given the NHS that this Government inherited and their ambitions, as set out in the NHS plan. There was undoubtedly duplication between the DHSC and NHSE, and returning to the situation before 2012, when there was direct departmental oversight of the NHS, is not a radical step. There are, of course, costs to this transition. Unfortunately, in terms of morale, I think that these costs were somewhat exacerbated by the regretful manner in which the original announcement about NHSE abolition and ICB changes were made, which did not do justice to the commitment and professionalism of impacted staff. But that does not change the fact that the Government’s overall diagnosis is correct: since the 2012 reforms, accountability has been muddied, and a total reset of regulation is required to empower NHS providers to meet the urgent health needs of the population with the resources available. However, I agree that there are significant questions about the role of HSSIB, and I hope that this issue can be resolved in Committee. The Government have been clear that they see the future role of ICBs as strategic commissioners. That capability needs to be developed, and I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) that it needs to be done with particular care in relation to specialist services. There also needs to be a resolution of how the development of neighbourhood health services will be strategically led. ICBs must retain the capacity to work at place level, and I join others in questioning the proposal to remove local authority representation on ICBs. Combined authority representation does not suitably replace that. Mayors’ responsibilities are entirely different and do not include anything to do with social care or public health that rightly sits with councils, and we need that to be hardwired into ICB membership. I want to end on an area of healthcare that is the subject of a manifesto commitment that is not currently in the Bill: delivering parity of esteem for mental health. It is unconscionable that waits for NHS mental health services are significantly longer than physical health waits and that, as yet, there is no specific commitment to bring them down. The Health and Care Act 2022 introduced a duty on the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on NHS mental health spend. I wonder whether, as part of this Bill, there is scope to widen that duty to include reporting on the different waiting times for physical and mental health, and to make some progress on the very welcome cross-Government mental health strategy that has recently been announced.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Disclosure and Safeguarding: At-risk Children · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 731497 relating to a disclosure and safeguarding mechanism for at-risk children. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and to open this important debate as a member of the Petitions Committee. The petition creator, Gemma Chappell, is the great-aunt of Maya Chappell, who was just two years old when she was tragically killed in September 2022 in County Durham. Maya was killed while in the care of her mother’s partner of nine weeks, Michael Daymond, who was subsequently convicted of Maya’s murder, while Maya’s mum was convicted of child cruelty and allowing her death. We are here today because of the extraordinary campaigning efforts of Gemma, her sister Rachael and other members of the family who refused to let what happened to Maya be forgotten. Across the north-east of England, Maya’s smiling, innocent face has continued to be prominent, posing a devastating but simple question: will we as a society do everything possible to prevent a tragic death such as Maya’s from happening again? As a result, and aided by campaign support from The Northern Echo newspaper, more than 110,000 people have signed the petition asking that a new, proactive information-sharing safeguarding framework be put in place to protect at-risk children. I would like to place on record my condolences to Maya’s family, as well as my admiration for how they are working on this issue through their grief. By telling Maya’s story in the media and in their campaign, they are encouraging others who have concerns about abuse to come forward and raise issues for investigation. However, awareness is not the family’s sole aim. Gemma says it is time to move from expressions of sympathy to action. To spur that action, Maya’s family told me in our conversation in advance of today that they want every MP here to have a vivid idea of who Maya was. She was a loving, happy, adventurous child who enjoyed nothing more than running around the park and who loved Peppa Pig. Rachael calls her “the smiliest girl”. Maya had a notably sweet tooth, and her family remember her cheeky look as she ate two slices of cake at another child’s holy communion—and then went back for more. Maya was learning how to talk, and she had only just started speaking before she died. Her favourite words were “park”, “Peppa” and “daddy”. As a parent, it is hard for me to comprehend the pain of losing a child, not least in such awful circumstances. Maya’s dad, James, was an important and loved part of her life. He raised concerns after seeing marks on her body, but those queries were dismissed by Maya’s mum. He was so concerned that he contacted police to ask about Daymond’s background, but Maya’s mum falsely claimed that she was not seeing him any longer, and that was accepted without corroboration. Gemma is clear that we must not shy away from the awful realities of this case and what Maya suffered—the type of horrors suffered by the around 60 children a year who are killed by abuse or neglect. Maya was abused over a period of time; this was not a one-off event. She was abused for weeks. She was hurt. She lived in fear. Pathologists found a catalogue of injuries. In the end, Maya died as a result of being deliberately shaken and having a head injury inflicted. The children such as Maya who are killed every year are not statistics: they are wonderful children, full of life and with their lives ahead of them. They are loved by many, but without a voice. Maya was too young to be able to alert anyone to the horror she was experiencing. It is for us in this House to be a voice for children such as Maya and to advocate for all possible steps we can take to prevent such deaths in the future. I now come to the four specific asks in the petition, which together are being termed Maya’s law. The first ask is to “Introduce a Child Risk Disclosure Scheme” that would operate similarly to Clare’s law, or the domestic violence disclosure scheme, and Sarah’s law, or the child sex offender disclosure scheme, but that would be “focused on the broader risk history of caregivers.” The second ask is to “Require statutory services (police, social care, health) to disclose relevant past” information “to the child’s parent or legal guardian when a risk is identified.” The third ask is to “Establish multi-agency response protocols, particularly where child contact, custody, or unsupervised access is being considered.” The fourth ask is to “Empower professionals to raise safeguarding alerts and initiate family court safeguarding interventions where known risks exist, even if not currently under active investigation.” Thanks to the work of Gemma’s MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist), these matters—particularly the introduction of a child risk disclosure scheme—were subject to debate in this Chamber six months ago and received a response from the Children and Families Minister, whom we look forward to hearing from again today. That debate, and the Government’s response to the petition, highlighted that the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will take key steps to strengthen safeguarding, including introducing a new information-sharing duty between agencies, which will end misconceptions about when information can and cannot be shared. In the six months since the last debate, the Bill has continued its passage through Parliament, and it should hopefully finally become law in the next few weeks. The petitioner welcomes the action taken in the Bill, but they want to see a clear timeline for implementation and they emphasise that any new duties can be implemented only with improved professional training and practice. The petition’s key ask, though, remains outstanding and is not included in the Bill: strengthening the right of parents and close family members to request and to be proactively given information about the risks that other adults might pose to a child. As part of my preparation for the debate, I had the opportunity to speak to a range of organisations working to protect children, as well as to organisations involved in existing disclosure and notification schemes, including Operation Encompass, which ensures that schools and, soon, early years education providers are notified when a child is at a home where there has been an attended incident of domestic abuse. A child risk disclosure scheme along the lines requested in Maya’s law would be a significant undertaking. It would need to be clear about thresholds. For example, would only convictions be disclosed, or would wider intelligence about risk be too? I note that, last month, the Government announced they would create a new child cruelty register, following campaigning from the adoptive mother of Tony Hudgell. Will the Minister say a little about how the Government envisage the information held in that register being disclosable and to whom? Could that serve as the first step to the wider disclosure scheme that the petition seeks? Any disclosure scheme would also have to specify who has the right to request or receive information. It is important to note at this point the range of different family structures that safeguarding, in practice and law, must operate with. In many cases, including Maya’s, a child’s parents may be separated. In some circumstances, wider family members, such as aunts, provide important supplementary caring roles, and their involvement is a contributing factor in strengthening the safety of a child. It is important that the professionals involved have the time and curiosity to understand the different structures and dynamics of the families they are working with. In Maya’s case, disclosure was directed towards her mother, who tragically did not ensure her safety. In the review of Maya’s death, it was recommended that agencies should have shown greater professional curiosity and follow-up when a separated father such as James shared worries about his child. Across all serious case reviews of child deaths, the failure to share information between professionals is the most common issue identified and the main area where improvement could prevent harm. However, it has also been flagged to me that there can sometimes be risks of sharing too much information beyond professionals, depending on the relationship dynamics of a particular family. Operation Encompass notifications are limited to trained recipients of information in professional settings. Gemma’s view is that the benefits afforded by proactive sharing would outweigh such risks, and she wants any disclosures to be as full as possible. I would be grateful if the Minister set out in his response what opportunities there are safely to increase the information available to families about the risks that children face, whether that be through a disclosure scheme or other mechanisms. Everyone I have spoken to recognises that any new disclosure scheme would require significant resourcing in order to be implemented appropriately. I have heard consistently that resources too often do not meet demand in the current safeguarding system, with many organisations concerned that police forces do not have the capacity to meet the growing requirements on them. Can the Minister say something about the level of resources he envisages will be required to implement measures in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill? Can he also say whether, following implementation of steps such as the unique child identifier, which may in time enable more automated sharing of information between agencies, there will be a release of resource that could then be utilised for disclosure schemes such as that sought through Maya’s law? Maya’s family believe that a disclosure scheme would have made a big difference in their tragic case, but they know that keeping children safe also requires child-focused services that can provide proactive and independent assessment of a child’s wellbeing and safety. That is a matter not of legislative change, but of clear service standards and proper resourcing. The Government rightly highlight their commitment to expanding early support for families, including through family hubs, but can the Minister say a bit more about his assessment of the wider services that contribute to safeguarding, especially health visiting, which the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has raised particular concern about? Maya did not receive the health visitor visits she should have, and such a visit could potentially have resulted in someone spotting the abuse she was being subjected to. Health visitor numbers have fallen by 43% since 2015, and some health visitors report caseloads of up to 1,000 families. One in five children does not receive their final health visitor review at age two—the age Maya was when she was killed. How do the Government plan to close that gap? Given that we know that child deaths from abuse and neglect are concentrated in the infant years, does the Minister believe that health visiting should be a priority area for investment in the forthcoming NHS workforce plan? I will draw my speech to a close with a reflection on the emphasis by Maya’s family on the need for urgent action. It is frustrating to me—I am sure that it is to other Members as well, but it is perhaps particularly frustrating to a new Member of Parliament—that the landmark child protection legislation introduced by the Government, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which we voted on for the first time in January 2025, has still not completed its passage through Parliament to become law. Although proper legislative scrutiny is of course necessary, I think it is fair to say that the public do not understand why it takes so long to pass changes in the law through this place. I think MPs and peers of all parties need to reflect on how we work here and how that impacts on the pace of change that families such as Maya’s rightly demand. When that law is enacted, what can each of us do to ensure that its changes are implemented as quickly as possible? Perhaps the Minister can say whether an implementation timescale will be published and reported back on. How quickly can we get to the point at which further changes, including a disclosure scheme bearing Maya’s name, are possible? Her family expect action, the 110,000 signatories of this petition expect action and our constituents expect action—action to ensure that fewer children are killed by abuse and neglect, action to share more information and action to develop better safeguarding systems to protect wonderful, smiling children like Maya. I look forward to hearing Members’ contributions to this important debate.

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

  More

  Analysis by Rethink Mental Illness of the latest NHS waiting time statistics shows that people are eight times more likely to wait over 18 months for mental health treatment than physical health treatment. Does the Minister agree that waiting 18 months for such treatment is totally unacceptable? What steps will the Government take to cut adult mental health waiting times?

• 5 Feb 2026 · National Cancer Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I wish to thank NHS cancer teams in Sunderland for doing such incredible work in my constituency. Other Members have mentioned the unacceptable variation in NHS performance against waiting times, and I commend the Minister’s focus on that. Can she say a little about the variation in waiting times by tumour site? In November last year, 82% of skin cancers were tret within 62 days, but for gynaecological cancers, the figure was only 58%.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  There is some merit in the hon. Gentleman’s proposal, not just for medical training but across the clinical workforce. As Members have acknowledged, we pay significant sums of public money training clinical staff, but the graduates incur significant student debt. If a UK-trained undergraduate student decides to work abroad, the UK taxpayer will have invested a significant amount in their training, and that is then lost. It strikes me that there is an opportunity for the Government to think about the sort of incentive that the hon. Gentleman describes as part of wider workforce planning. That is pertinent to my next point about the importance of the medical workforce reflecting our wider society, particularly the working class communities of the north-east of England. I want to ensure that a young person doing well at a state school in Sunderland has as much encouragement and access as anyone else in the country to study medicine and, crucially, progress through the ranks to the highest grades. We have heard some talk of international medical schools, but I can absolutely assure Members that there are not state school-educated kids in Sunderland thinking that they will pay privately to study in Grenada or anywhere else. As the Secretary of State rightly pointed out, there have been welcome improvements on diversity in the NHS, but we often fail to consider socioeconomic background in that. The first line of the NHS constitution states: “The NHS belongs to the people.” But sometimes it can feel like it is staffed by a pretty unrepresentative slice of the people, particularly in medical roles. In that spirit, I recognise the excellent work of the University of Sunderland medical school, which has placed widening access at the heart of its mission. Building on a 100-year history of wider clinical training, the school opened in 2019, shortly before the covid-19 pandemic—a period that starkly exposed our over-reliance on overseas recruitment and underlined the importance of growing our own workforce. By 2022, 47% of the University of Sunderland’s intake were local students, and it now ranks sixth in the UK for student satisfaction. However, it is no good universities like Sunderland in my constituency doing excellent work on widening participation at recruitment stage if when we get to foundation training and specialty training those students are disadvantaged in competition. In my view, the Bill will help to ensure that talent nurtured by institutions like the University of Sunderland is retained and prioritised for the benefit of our NHS. I highlight that medical schools such as Sunderland are increasingly placing a huge emphasis on training their medical students in a multidisciplinary environment alongside the trainee nurses and trainee pharmacists of the day, so that they are prepared to work in the multidisciplinary environment that our NHS rightly demands. I am not sure that all international undergraduate courses are always so advanced, so it is right to prioritise this UK-based training approach for the multidisciplinary ethos of the NHS in the future. Other Members have mentioned the wide variation in specialist training fill rates, and GP recruitment has been mentioned as part of that. It is also worth saying that the national statistics about specialty training mask significant regional variations. The GP specialty training fill rate has been as low as 62% in the north-east of England, and as we have heard, over 73% of applicants for GP specialty training in 2023 were international. That has a disproportionate effect in regions like mine. My constituents want to have the confidence that there will be a stable GP workforce as part of our community for the long term. I cannot tell them in all candour that the status quo delivers that, so we must make changes of the type that the Bill sets out. I hope that by introducing effective, regulated training pathways, the Bill will improve retention and strengthen workforce planning in our communities, including in areas such as women’s health, where training provision has not kept pace with rising demand. When I look at the shape of the NHS elective waiting list, it is no coincidence that some of the trickiest waiting time problems are in specialties such as gynae, where we have had recruitment and training challenges in recent years. To close my remarks, I re-emphasise the link between capacity and demand, which I hope the Minister will touch on in advance of the workforce plan. Will she also say a little about the medical training review and the phase 1 report for NHS England and how the Government will work with that?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Government bringing forward this legislation, and not just in response to the significant concerns that doctors currently have about access to training places, but as an important part of a reset, with a longer-term approach, to ensure that we have an NHS workforce that is fit for the future. I am going to go off script and respond to some comments that the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), made. He rightly pointed out that the Bill is about prioritisation, not immediate capacity. However, in week one or two of NHS manager school, one of the core techniques that is taught is about capacity and demand modelling. A fundamental assumption about the capacity of our workforce going forward is retention—how long they will work over the course of their careers. The GMC is absolutely clear that an international medical graduate will, on average, work for a shorter period of time in the UK than a UK medical graduate—they are more likely to leave. I suggest that it is entirely sensible that the Government are bringing in the legislation now, in advance of their NHS workforce planning, because the Bill fixes a core assumption of that plan. To give an example, I have managed cancer waiting lists and, knowing that I have a list of patients I am responsible for, feared that the lower gastrointestinal oncologist who is getting on will announce their retirement without a clear succession plan, as lower GI oncologists are in short supply. This Bill is not just the right thing to do but provides the absolute clarity around medical capacity that will allow the Government to do the proper demand work that is necessary to build the NHS of the future. Turning to the immediate situation, I have heard the views clearly expressed by medical graduates in Sunderland and across the country about the bottlenecks they face when trying to secure foundation and specialty training places. Many are left in prolonged periods of uncertainty, unable to progress despite years of study. When we talk about trainees, we risk giving the impression that the contribution made by these talented young people will all be in the future, but of course, in reality, people in training positions provide a huge contribution of direct service to the NHS today, forming the core of the medical workforce in hospitals up and down the country. When I was an NHS operational manager, I had to get to know the new rotation of core, foundation and specialty training doctors every time as they rotated around. Meeting those inspiring and motivated young people was not just a lovely thing to do but a hugely important one, as the day-to-day care of the patients in the specialties I was responsible for was largely provided by the people on those training courses. That experience also highlighted to me how, over a decade under the previous Government, there was a total failure to put in place a proper care framework for those foundation and specialty doctors, which left UK-trained doctors competing in increasingly crowded pools. We have heard some of the numbers already from the Secretary of State: in 2025, there were more than 30,000 doctors competing for just 9,500 training posts. That is not a system that shows proper regard for the commitment of medical graduates or for their wellbeing, let alone a system that is designed to meet the future needs of the country or the NHS. We invest hundreds of thousands of pounds training each medical student, but too often we fail to retain them. That represents a loss not only of talent, but of public investment. However, I think it is important, as others have done, to put on the record our recognition of the enormous benefit brought by medical professionals who have chosen to come to the United Kingdom and dedicate their careers to the NHS. I know that will continue even after this legislation is passed. As I always say, healthcare is a team sport, and in my experience, when a team is working together under significant operational pressure, the commitment of everyone in going the extra mile, no matter which country they trained in and what nationality they are, is always exemplary. That is the case throughout the NHS that I know. The contribution of international medical and wider clinical staff to our NHS is invaluable, and it must never be diminished or forgotten. I know that will continue. It is important, therefore, that the discussion of the Bill is not interpreted as a slight on their contribution or commitment. In aggregate, as I have said, the GMC has been clear that while international graduates are essential to the functioning of our health services, they are statistically more likely to leave the UK workforce within six years of joining compared with those who train here. That reality makes clear the risk of overreliance on a system that is unpredictable and, ultimately, unsustainable. This Bill is about balance, not exclusion; it is about ensuring that the significant public investment we are making in training doctors in this country translates into a stable and sustainable workforce for the years ahead.

• 15 Jan 2026 · Prisons: Illegal Drugs · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend and his Committee for their work on this really important matter. I would like to ask about the recommendations regarding substance misuse treatment commissioning. Does he agree with me and Collective Voice, the umbrella organisation for drug treatment providers, that drug treatment services are entirely different from general health services and need to be commissioned separately? There is no Minister from the Department of Health and Social Care present today, but will he join me in calling on the Department to think again about transferring commissioning responsibilities to ICBs, particularly given the changes going on? Does this not reiterate the need for a joined-up drugs strategy across Government, with the Home Office, Health Department and Ministry of Justice working together on this issue as a priority?

• 10 Dec 2025 · Resident Doctors: Industrial Action · Hansard source

  More

  The coming weeks are always the most dangerous time of year for the NHS, and it is important to note that the patient safety risks arising from the strike will be present not just during the strike period but in the weeks following it. Some of my most daunting, and indeed scary, times in the NHS involved working alongside resident doctors, nurses and others in the early hours of the morning in January and late December to try to ensure that ambulances could still be offloaded under the most difficult circumstances. In that spirit of one team working for patient safety, I urge the resident doctors to accept the offer that the Secretary of State has set out. Will he confirm that NHS England and local NHS leaders will have his full support in taking the difficult decisions that they need to take to keep patient flow going and emergency care going during this period if strikes do take place?

• 20 Nov 2025 · Migration: Settlement Pathway · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, particularly what she said about the more than 75,000 nurses working in our NHS who have arrived in this country since 2021. Those nurses and other healthcare professionals were actively encouraged to come here to fill the gaps left by the previous Government’s failure to do NHS workforce planning. Since they arrived, they have served our communities and cared for our citizens with distinction. I welcome what she said about maintaining a five-year route for those who are engaged in public service. Could she confirm that that will apply to NHS staff, such as those I have mentioned, and could she explain how she will continue discussions with DHSC colleagues to ensure that there will be no unexpected reduction in NHS workforce staffing in the months ahead?

• 14 Oct 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I thank him for his intervention. Part of the issue around poorly reported waiting times is that it is less easy to see that differential access than it would perhaps be in physical health services. Indeed, over the years when specialist teams have been set up—for example the early intervention and psychosis teams and assertive outreach teams, which I know my hon. Friend knows well given his professional background—they have been introduced with very good intentions and to target specific needs, but they sometimes make it more difficult for patients to get overall care rather than very specialist care for individual conditions. I will not take any more time, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will just say that the mantra of investment and reform applies to mental health services, as it should apply to all our health services. For us to make further progress in pursuing parity of esteem between mental health and physical health, we not only need to consider these amendments today and pass the Bill to modernise the legislation, but ensure the Government have sufficient political priority on producing and improving mental health services.

• 14 Oct 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Many Sunderland families, including mine, share stories of Cherry Knowle, the Sunderland borough asylum in my constituency, which opened in 1895. Severe mental illness has always been a feature of society. Thankfully, the legislative framework and services have developed somewhat since 1895, but arguably they have not developed fast enough, particularly over the 42 years since the Mental Health Act 1983 was passed. At the start of my NHS career, I spent time shadowing staff on the wards of the then Cherry Knowle, which in 2014 was replaced by a much better facility in Hopewood Park in Ryhope in my constituency. To this day, 2,825 adults are detained under the Mental Health Act in Sunderland Central as a result of that facility.

• 22 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  There were 5,448 drug-related deaths in 2023—the highest figure ever—and an 84% increase from the number that led the previous Government to publish their drugs strategy, which was supposed to save lives. Does the Secretary of State agree that the existing drugs strategy is not fit for purpose, and will he urgently start work on replacing it with a public health-led drugs strategy to tackle this public health emergency?

• 10 Jul 2025 · Resident Doctors: Industrial Action · Hansard source

  More

  Anyone who has ever worked in healthcare knows that it is a team sport and that delivering excellent care requires a range of staff across the allied health professions including nurses, doctors, administrative staff and estate staff. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is therefore essential that all NHS staff groups have confidence that their pay is being set fairly, and that going beyond the independent pay review body’s recommendations for one set of staff would undermine the “one NHS” team ethos that so many have worked to build?