Preet Kaur Gill MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 17 Jun 2026 · Mental Health: Parity of Esteem · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. That is the responsibility of the ICBs, which have been informed that they must make sure that waiting lists come down. We know that we need to go further. We are developing a new cross-Government mental health strategy for England covering all ages, which will be published later this year. The Department is keen to hear the views of hon. Members from across the House and I am happy to share with any hon. Member details of how they can feed into that work. The strategy seeks to transform mental health support by setting out a plan to respond earlier, reducing waiting times and helping people to remain active. Importantly, it will look beyond the NHS and recognise the critical role of schools, employers, local government and the voluntary and community sector, because achieving parity of esteem is not solely the responsibility of the NHS. This debate has highlighted both the progress made and the challenges that remain. We are under no illusion about the scale of the task, but this Government are committed to building a health and care system where mental health is treated with the same seriousness, urgency and ambition as physical health. Parity of esteem is not an aspiration; it is a necessity. Through sustained investment, service reform and a renewed focus on prevention, particularly early prevention, we are determined to make it a reality. I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett; I have a huge amount of respect and regard for her, not only because she secured this debate but because of all the work she continues to do. I know that she will continue to hold us to account. I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions. Question put and agreed to.

• 17 Jun 2026 · Mental Health: Parity of Esteem · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the wraparound care in Winchester citizens advice bureau. We need the local health ecosystem to partner with initiatives in the voluntary or charity sector such as that one, and acknowledge their impact, fund and support them. Some may think that things such as debt are basic, but their impact on mental health cannot be overestimated. I am sure that officials will want to meet the hon. Gentleman and others to look at the landscape across the country, because there are some fantastic initiatives that we need to recognise, partner with and support. The Government are taking action to elevate the status of mental health. For 2026-27, NHS mental health spending is forecast to increase to a record £16.1 billion, representing a real-terms increase of around £140 million compared with the previous year. Alongside that, the mental health investment standard remains in place. Integrated care boards are required to protect mental health spending in real terms over the next three years, ensuring that mental health continues to receive the investment needed to improve services and outcomes. Investment alone is not enough. We must transform how care is delivered. That is why the 10-year health plan sets out our vision for a neighbourhood health service, which my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett mentioned. That is about bringing care closer to people’s homes, communities creating genuinely patient-centred services, and moving away from a fragmented system that often leaves people navigating multiple services without the support they need. I hope the ICBs are engaging hon. Members in all parts of the House to feed into the design of the neighbourhood health centre model and asking about the unmet needs and service gaps in their constituencies and regions.

• 17 Jun 2026 · Mental Health: Parity of Esteem · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for securing this important debate, for her long-standing commitment to improving mental health services, and for her phenomenal work in her role as chair of the APPG on suicide and self-harm prevention. I am also grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate and shared experiences from their constituencies. I am sorry to hear of John’s death. Men’s suicide is a huge concern; many of us, myself included, can share personal stories. We need to do much more in that space. This debate speaks to the heart of what a modern health and care system should be. For too long, mental health has not been given the same attention, priority or esteem as physical health. That has had profound consequences for individuals, families and communities across the country. It also has significant economic impacts, as we heard from my hon. Friend, with an estimated 1.26 million 16 to 64-year-olds economically inactive due to mental health issues in 2024-25. The National Health Service Act 2006 states that health includes mental health. This Government are committed to giving mental health the same attention and focus as physical health, and ensuring that people can access timely, high-quality support, regardless of whether they are experiencing a mental or a physical health condition. As my hon. Friend said, parity of esteem means recognising that mental and physical health are inseparable. Far too often, services have treated them as distinct issues, when in reality they are connected. Of course, many people experience mental and physical health conditions at the same time, with a cause and effect relationship that goes both ways. We know that poor mental health can increase the risk of developing physical health problems, while living with a long-term physical condition can have a significant impact on a person’s mental wellbeing. People living with severe mental illness experience some of the poorest physical health outcomes in our society, and on average die 15 to 20 years earlier than the general population. That is why we are committed to improving the ways that services respond to people with co-occurring mental and physical health needs. Care must be co-ordinated around the individual rather than around organisational boundaries, ensuring that people receive holistic support that addresses all aspects of their health and wellbeing. NHS England has developed the mental health personalised care framework, which sets out how services should assess and manage people’s care in partnership with them and in collaboration with all relevant teams. That framework places particular emphasis on joined-up care, safety and risk management. It has been tested in local systems and will be published shortly. I know that will answer some of the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett, but not all of them, so I shall try to address those points in my speech.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Isle of Wight Dementia Patients: Discharge to Mainland Care Homes · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for raising this very important issue, and I recognise the deeply concerning experiences that he has highlighted of families on the Isle of Wight, including the story of Maggie Bennett and the café that she runs. For people living with dementia or complex disabilities, being moved away from their homes and loved ones can be profoundly distressing. Familiar surroundings, routines and relationships are often central to their wellbeing, and it is entirely understandable that families feel anxious when those links are disrupted. The Government are clear that people should be discharged from hospital safely, promptly and with appropriate care and support in place. This is essential not only for patient outcomes but to ensure that hospitals can continue to treat those in greatest need. Local authorities have a statutory duty under the Care Act 2014 to shape their local care markets, ensuring that there is a sufficient range of high-quality, person-centred services available to meet local needs. Decisions about care placements are made at a local level based on clinical need, the suitability of available services and the individual’s circumstances. Where a person requires specialist or higher-intensity support, it is essential that the placement meets those needs in full. However, I do recognise that local capacity pressures, particularly in geographically isolated areas such as the Isle of Wight, can mean that suitable placements are not always immediately available. My hon. Friend spoke about the impact of care home closures in his constituency and shared Phyllis’s story. While temporary placements further away are necessary to ensure that a person is discharged safely and without delay, those situations clearly have a huge impact on families. On the Isle of Wight, local partners are working to improve access to more seamless pathways across health and social care so that people can move more easily between services and receive the support that they need. This includes strengthening co-ordination and expanding care in the community so that wherever possible people can be supported at home or close to home. As my hon. Friend said, because of the island’s size and physical isolation, that also requires close working with mainland partners to ensure that residents can access the full range of care that they need, including specialist provision where it is not available locally. We will continue to explore and build on opportunities to deliver services for the benefit of the Isle of Wight community so that care can be delivered at the right place at the right time. We expect local systems to plan for demand and work with providers to strengthen capacity, including for people with dementia and complex conditions. As we heard from my hon. Friend, it is vital that when a difficult decision is made to close a care home, the process is handled as sensitively as possible. Local authorities should have procedures in place to minimise disruption, with time allowed to support a safe transfer that supports the wellbeing of individuals, families and carers. Providers should ensure that proper arrangements are in place to support the transition of residents to their new position. Our expectation is that every effort should be made to provide care as close to home as possible and to take account of family connections and personal preferences wherever practicable. It is also essential that individuals and their families are involved in decisions about discharge and ongoing care. The guidance is clear that planning should begin early and that patients and carers should be supported to make fully informed decisions where appropriate. We know that people who are discharged in a timely way with the right care and support in place experience better recovery and health outcomes. That is why we expect local systems to work together to ensure discharge processes are as effective as possible, particularly for people with dementia and other complex needs. The Government are therefore working with the NHS and local authorities to strengthen the local health and care system so that it can better meet those challenges. Through the better care fund, more than £9 billion is being used to support integrated working between the NHS and local authorities, enabling more joined-up services and improving the planning of care outside of hospital. We will also reform the better care fund to support more effective joint planning and delivery between health and social care. That will be focused on improving how services are co-ordinated and supporting care that helps people regain their independence, reduces unnecessary hospital stays and enables people to receive care closer to home. We also recognise the importance of improving care and support for people living with dementia. According to NHS data, NHS Hampshire and Isle of Wight integrated care board recorded that as of March more than 18,000 people had a diagnosed form of dementia. The Government want a society where individuals with dementia and frailty receive high-quality, compassionate care from diagnosis through to the end of life. That is why we will deliver the first ever modern service framework for frailty and dementia to deliver rapid and significant improvements in the quality of care and productivity. That will be informed by phase one of Baroness Casey’s independent commission into adult social care, which is under way and expected later this year. We are committed to feeding into the NHS and local government planning cycles in September and aim to publish the full framework by the end the year, as recommended by Baroness Casey. We intend to engage with a range of partners over the coming months and will ensure that the voices of people with lived experience are at the centre of our work to develop the modern service framework. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing his constituents’ voice to the House. I reiterate that we recognise the very real concerns raised by families on the Isle of Wight, particularly when people with dementia or complex needs have been moved away from their homes and communities. While there will be circumstances where temporary placements further from home are necessary, care should be provided as close to home as possible in a way that respects the individual’s needs, preferences and connections to their family and community.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Cross-border Healthcare · Hansard source

  More

  I am aware of the concerns that the hon. Member raises. NHS organisations on both sides of the border are working together to improve access for patients. NHS England is working closely with NHS Scotland to improve the compatibility of patient records. I believe that they must do much more and I would be happy to meet him to discuss that further.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Cross-border Healthcare · Hansard source

  More

  The Government are committed to ensuring patients can access timely, high-quality care wherever they live in the United Kingdom, while recognising ongoing challenges. We are working with the NHS and devolved Governments to improve digital interoperability, streamline cross-border billing and support more joined-up care.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Cross-border Healthcare · Hansard source

  More

  I would welcome a meeting with the hon. Member. As he knows, decisions about waiting list management in Wales are matters for the Welsh Government, but I agree that patients in border communities should be able to access care as quickly and conveniently as possible.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Men’s Mental Health Care: North-west England · Hansard source

  More

  I warmly welcome my hon. Friend’s report and thank her for all her work on behalf of her constituents. Locally, NHS and council partners are supporting delivery through services such as Thrive, Think Ahead and talking therapies, alongside community initiatives such as Male Health Survivors @ The Dale, and Andy’s Man Club Rochdale, supporting men’s mental health. We also have a mental health call for evidence, which is live until 10 July, seeking practical examples to tangibly improve outcomes and inform our mental health strategy. I would be keen to work with my hon. Friend on what more we can do.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Men’s Mental Health Care: North-west England · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that important issue. We of course must not overlook the needs of farmers. Our men’s health strategy has invested an extra £3.6 million in suicide prevention work in the most deprived parts of England, where men face the greatest risk of suicide. We are partnering with the Premier League’s Together Against Suicide initiative, to meet men where they are on their terms, so that they do not suffer in silence. I look forward to meeting the hon. Gentleman to hear more about the issue.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Men’s Mental Health Care: North-west England · Hansard source

  More

  We know that men are less likely to seek mental health support and that suicide rates are higher in men, and we are taking action to address that. Through our men’s health strategy, we have launched a partnership with the Premier League to improve mental health literacy. The suicide prevention support pathfinders programme will invest up to £3.6 million in areas where middle-aged men face the greatest risk of suicide—the north-west being one area with some of the highest rates.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Suicide Prevention Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  Yes. This Government have already recruited 8,500 mental health support workers, and more than 10,000 schools already have a mental health support worker. There is much more to do—we have to ensure young people are not left on a waiting list. We know that many face crisis before they can access care, and I would be keen to hear a bit more from the hon. Gentleman about the work he is doing locally on this issue.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Suicide Prevention Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady raises some important challenges, and the women’s mental health strategy will deal with some of them. Work is under way to develop a more comprehensive offer to address the critical issues that many young people transitioning to adult services face, including bespoke guidance in the revised Mental Health Act code of practice. The Government are also funding early support hubs, which provide free, open access to mental health support for young people up to the age of 25. Under the new developmental service specification, children and young people’s services will no longer be required to transfer or discharge a young person on their 18th birthday, where clinically appropriate.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Suicide Prevention Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  First, I commend my hon. Friend for her tireless campaigning to improve mental health and prevent suicides—I know this is personal for her. We have made progress on implementing the strategy, including launching the near to real-time suspected suicide surveillance system to detect trends earlier. We have also committed £3.6 million in support for middle-aged men for areas that need it, ensuring that it is co-produced with families and local partners so that it is accessible. We plan to update the strategy, which will consider the evidence, the progress so far, and where there are opportunities to go further, but I would welcome my hon. Friend’s input into this very important work.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Suicide Prevention Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important question, and I pay tribute to Emma. In the renewed women’s health strategy, we have committed to improving mental health support for women and girls. We must help women and girls to access mental health support in ways that work for them. We are promoting collaboration to improve women’s knowledge and healthcare professionals’ understanding of many women’s relationships and the barriers they face. There is much more to do, and I would be keen to work with my hon. Friend and to hear from Emma about what more we can do in this space.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Suicide Prevention Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  This Government are committed to delivering the five-year, cross-Government suicide prevention strategy, and have published NHS England’s “Staying safe from suicide” guidance. Although progress has been made, we recognise that there is more to do and will continue to drive delivery of the strategy.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Youth Mental Health Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) for securing this important debate. This is an issue I care deeply about, and I thank her for sharing such a personal story about her niece and the lost years that she faced. I also thank hon. Members for their contributions, including the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance), who shared how his youth club saved him at a time of very clear mental health distress, my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth), who talked about celebrating youth hubs in her area, my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon North (Will Stone), who talked about the powerful example of sports provision to support mental health, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee), who talked about the issues with CAMHS in Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas), who talked about his concerns about the impact of social media, and my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), who talked about PANS/PANDAS. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley mentioned Joseph and the delays in the SEND assessment. I am keen to work with the Minister for School Standards on the Health response to SEND reforms. The ICB is responsible for ADHD assessment and treatment services, and I hope that the NHS’s medium-term planning framework is clear that a system should use existing and new guidance to reduce long waits and improve the quality of assessments. The message I want to give today is clear: the country is right to expect a children and young people’s mental health system that is simple, faster and stronger at every stage, from early support in the community through to specialist CAMHS support where needs are most severe. We have to be honest about the pressure on that system, which includes long waits and uneven access, but equally clear in our determination, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said, to improve it and build a system that delivers for every child and young person. For parents, as my hon. Friend shared, that means knowing where to turn when they are worried about their child. For young people, it means getting help through schools, their GP, community services—many Members mentioned them and the power they have to engage young people today—mental health support hubs or specialist NHS care, depending on the level of need. For families, it means a clear local offer, more joined-up care and fewer children becoming more unwell before help arrives. To improve services, we have to be honest about how families experience them, and my hon. Friend shared some really powerful examples. Needs may first be identified at school, then raised with a GP and addressed through a community service, or they may come to attention only when there is a crisis, as my hon. Friend says. Support should become more intensive as need grows, but families too often do not experience a clear pathway and instead describe a search for help that is confusing, fragmented and exhausting. The pressure points are well understood: confusing local offers, different referral thresholds and delays that allow problems to escalate until a child presents in crisis. More children and young people are starting treatment, but too many are still waiting. At the end of March 2026, nearly 40,000 children and young people had already been waiting more than 1,000 days for a first contact. The pressures are visible nationally and matter locally too, including in Shipley. In Bradford district and Craven, young people can access support through schools and colleges, primary care, specialist CAMHS across Bradford and Keighley, and innovative community provision such as the Shipley Wellbeing Hub on Westgate, which offers walk-in support and links to wider services. Those are strong foundations, but we also know that in West Yorkshire ICB, where Shipley sits, almost 23,000 children and young people are still waiting for support, with median waiting times longer on average for England. Let me be clear about CAMHS, because a number of Members have raised it. CAMHS is central to our current system of support and treatment. It is not one service, but a specialist pathway that covers community teams, crisis support and in-patient care. It is where children and young people are assessed and treated when needs are more serious and complex. However, CAMHS is under sustained pressure: referral volumes have risen, waiting times vary too much between areas and too many children are waiting too long for an assessment or treatment. Delay is not neutral; anxiety can become absence from school and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley described, low mood can deepen into self-harm and eating difficulties can become much more entrenched. At the earliest stage, support should be available where young people already are, through mental health support teams in schools and colleges, open-access hubs, GPs and primary care, and community and voluntary services. For emerging needs, that should mean advice, brief intervention and practical help before problems escalate. For more severe or complex needs, it should mean timely referral into specialist CAMHS. For those in acute distress, it should mean a responsive crisis pathway. What good looks like is clear: visible local entry points, no wrong front door, support while families are waiting, stronger links between schools, GPs and community services, and better outcomes for children.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Youth Mental Health Support · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why I will now set out what the Government are going to do to address the fragmented system that we all find. We will strengthen the whole pathway, not just one part of it—I think that is really important, from listening to my hon. Friend today. I also want to thank her for raising the subject of the NEET population—those not in education, employment or training—because none of this can be done in isolation; we have to work across Government if we want to truly address the fragmented system. First, we are expanding earlier intervention. We are accelerating access to NHS-funded mental health support teams in schools and colleges so that, by 2029, all pupils and learners will have access to that early support. Alongside that, the Government have provided more than £20 million of funding to early support hubs over the last three years. That will deliver more than 30,000 additional mental health interventions for children and young people. These hubs offer open-access, community-based help without requiring a clinical referral. I think that is very important. This year, the Government have also launched young futures hubs. The first eight early adopter hubs are now operating in Birmingham, Brighton and Hove, Bristol, County Durham, Leeds, Manchester, Nottingham and Tower Hamlets, with a further 42 hubs to follow across England over the coming years. Together, they will help young people get to the right support sooner. Secondly, we are improving consistency in navigation. A modern service framework for children and young people up to the age of 18—up to 25 for those with mental health and neurodevelopmental conditions—will set clear expectations about what services should provide and for whom, and how those services should work together across the pathway to improve outcomes. Thirdly, we are increasing capacity in specialist services. We have already delivered on our commitment to recruit an additional 8,500 mental health workers for children and adults, three years ahead of schedule. Almost one in five are working directly in children and young people’s services, including within mental health support teams in schools and colleges—more than 10,000, actually—and in community CAMHS teams. Those staff are helping children and young people access support more quickly and closer to home. Fourthly, we are acting on the drivers of the crisis as well as the consequences. Children’s mental health is shaped by what happens at home, in school, and—as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley powerfully said—online and in their communities, which is why this cannot sit in the NHS alone. We are working across Government to tackle root causes, including taking action on social media and screen use, expanding perinatal mental health support and tackling inequalities and child poverty. As my hon. Friend has already stated, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has undertaken a consultation on children’s online safety, which received more than 70,000 responses. That is a national conversation we need to have. Guidance has been issued for nought to five, and I think it is important that we have a statutory footing on phones in schools. The measures are all there to assist parents and professionals in navigating what I know, with the Online Safety Act, lots of young people are evidencing: the impact of online harms on mental health. To bring this all together, we are developing a new cross-Government mental health strategy for England. The call for evidence is now live until 10 July. I urge hon. Members to please feed in and share that with their constituents, so that frontline services, experts and people with lived experience can help shape the next phase of reform. Alongside that, we have commissioned an independent review into mental health conditions, ADHD and autism to inform the longer-term changes needed for a more coherent and effective offer. Again, that report is due to be published at the end of July. The message to the country is this: we understand where the system is under pressure; we are being honest about the challenge; and we are acting where it matters most, which is on earlier help, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley has raised, clearer routes into CAMHS, more capacity in specialist care, and better support in the community. Every child deserves the chance to be well, stay in school, build relationships and look to the future with confidence. That is what this Government want for children, young people and families in Shipley and across the country, and that is the system we are determined to build. Question put and agreed to.

• 18 May 2026 · Audiology Services: Doncaster · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) for securing the debate. I commend her advocacy on this issue, and thank her for all her tireless work on behalf of her constituents in bringing it to the House's attention. I also know that my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) asked a business question on the subject during the last parliamentary Session. It is clear that there is strong local concern across Doncaster, and I am immensely proud to respond directly today during my first debate as a Minister. Let me begin by acknowledging what many constituents experience when audiology services are not working well. It is deeply frustrating when people need a hearing assessment, a follow-up appointment or a hearing aid repair and cannot get it within a reasonable time. For many, that is not just inconvenient; it can be isolating and can affect confidence, independence and wellbeing. Families and carers also feel the strain as they try to navigate appointments and periods without support. We will ensure that that changes. Like my hon. Friend, this Government will not stop until everyone has timely access to essential services such as audiology, as part of our mission to ensure that the NHS is fit for the future. I want to start with Doncaster. I was shocked to learn from my hon. Friend that constituents have faced long waits, repeat appointments, and periods without working hearing aids. It is also concerning that some people have been asked to return because the right assessment or adjustment was not available on the first occasion. That situation is a lose-lose: it is distressing for patients, and it is an inefficient use of clinical time. Let me be absolutely clear: it is not acceptable, and it must improve. I will now set out briefly what has happened, what actions have been taken, and what further progress we need to see. Doncaster’s audiology services have faced significant challenges, and I acknowledge that there were delays for hearing tests and follow-up appointments. I understand that one underlying issue has been insufficient numbers of staff who are fully trained to carry out all the specialist assessments. That created a backlog, with neighbouring services and external specialists supporting the most urgent cases. The NHS region has prioritised cases that involve safeguarding or developmental concerns. The trust has recognised those problems and has put in place a recovery plan, including upgraded facilities and improved booking and tracking. I am told that most adult hearing services have recovered. As for children’s audiology, the backlog is also shrinking, and outside specialists are helping until the local team complete their training. The hospital is also using new digital tools and regular review meetings to keep track of performance and risks. Further development on the recovery plan will mean an improvement in audiology services and patients returning to be seen on time. The pressures that we have seen in Doncaster also reflect wider challenges across diagnostic and community services. When we talk about diagnostic audiology, we mean assessments to diagnose hearing and balance conditions. Audiology services are not only about diagnostics; for many people, this means long-term support providing rehabilitation, ongoing monitoring, treatment and support for a number of lifelong conditions, such as hearing therapy and hearing aid fitting and maintenance. That is why cutting waiting lists, including those for diagnostic tests, is a key priority for the Government. We are backing that priority with investment to help services to recover performance and improve the experience for patients, including their experience of audiology. We are improving and transforming NHS audiology services, for instance through a national improvement collaborative to test changes that improve access and patient experience. Four NHS trusts took part in 2024-25, and a further eight have joined in the last financial year, including Somerset, Leicester, Oxford and Gateshead. We have learnt that when local teams have been empowered to drive change, that has led to improvements in services. Improvement depends on having the right kit and environment as well, which is why the Government have invested £13 million in audiology equipment and facilities across 66 capital schemes. We are also expanding access by delivering more diagnostics and assessment in the community. Let me now turn to children’s audiology more broadly. As my hon. Friend said, it vital that children and young people can access timely, safe audiology services. The paediatric hearing services improvement programme was established in 2023 to address the risks to paediatric diagnostic audiology across England, and as part of the programme progress has been made in improving the paediatric audiology service in Doncaster. I welcome the 2025 review of children’s hearing services, undertaken by Dr Camilla Kingdon and with a response under consideration. NHS England is committed to reviewing the future direction for high-quality, sustainable children’s hearing services, with clearer end-to-end pathways and shared priorities. The workforce requirements for hearing services are also being considered as part of the 10-year workforce plan. We know that clearer commissioning expectations help to drive consistency and equity across the country. NHS England is developing new commissioning guidance for integrated care boards and providers on safe, high-quality and equitable paediatric audiology, covering service configuration, workforce, estates, equipment, data and safeguarding. By taking action on multiple fronts, we will restore performance and ensure that improvement continues. Finally, I turn to community audiology services, which are delivered in community settings and commissioned by integrated care boards, based on the needs of their local population. We know that community health services have the power to better align care with people’s day-to-day lives, but when it comes to community audiology, people are waiting far too long and there is local variation in services. That is why, for the first time, we have set a clear target to reduce long waits for community health services, including community audiology services. By 2028-29, at least 80% of activity across community health services should take place within 18 weeks. To support the shift to neighbourhood health, we have asked systems to increase the capacity of community health services and to work to standardise the provision of core community services. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central for bringing forward this debate and for speaking up for her constituents. She mentioned the Doncaster school for deaf children and the Carr Fenton Foundation, and just how imperative it is that we deliver in areas like hers, which have such needs. We are committed to improving access through local recovery, national improvement support and more provision through community services. To return to Doncaster, I have heard the concerns about long waits for repeat appointments and the problems with hearing aid provision. The trust has made progress, particularly for adult services. The paediatric service is improving and the waiting list is reducing, with external support in place while workforce training is completed. We will continue to work with local leaders to deliver timely appointments and reliable support, and we will go further still by reforming community audiology to shift more care from hospitals to communities, ensuring that our NHS is fit for the future. Question put and agreed to.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  I want to pick up on that point. We have heard a lot of evidence today. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is clear that there were so many inconsistencies and so much confusion about the process that the Prime Minister was absolutely right to build back trust in that process and make the decisions he has made?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  Surely there can be no situation where the hon. Gentleman thinks officials should not flag concerns with Ministers or Prime Ministers, who are fundamentally accountable to this House and to the British public. What we are talking about here is accountability.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  The House and the public understand the importance of independent security vetting and why sensitive personal information must be protected, but they are also shocked that decisions of such significance could be taken without the knowledge of the Prime Minister. I have worked closely with the Prime Minister, and I know how seriously he takes national security and accountability to this House. Will he set out what steps he will take to remove any ambiguity, so that where there are serious concerns, those risks are flagged to Ministers, ensuring that accountability to this House and to the country is always upheld?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Public Body Data Collection: Sikh and Jewish Ethnicity · Hansard source

  More

  Can I seek clarity from the Minister? All the correspondence I have had from the Home Office says that it has been told to use existing categories in the census, according to the ONS, and that is why it does not collect the data.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Public Body Data Collection: Sikh and Jewish Ethnicity · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend does some fantastic work locally with her communities, and I know that she supports this campaign and really understands the real-life impact it has. She talked about anti-Sikh hate. We have seen a rise in hate crime across communities, but it is especially marked in the latest Home Office data. The data shows that there has been an increase of 20% in religious hate against the Sikh community. I will go on to say a bit more about how hate crime is recorded for both the Jewish community and the Sikh community. When public bodies do not count a community, that community is invisible. That is clearly the case for Jews and Sikhs. My Bill addresses that gap. It would give Jews and Sikhs the simple and fair recognition that the law already promises. As legislators, it is our duty to ensure that the law is upheld and implemented. It is not optional for arm’s length bodies or Government Departments; the law is the law. Covid-19 showed us what is at stake when communities are not counted. When the ONS belatedly analysed covid outcomes by religious group, it revealed that Sikhs had died at disproportionately high rates, even adjusting for deprivation, region and other socioeconomic factors. Critically, Sikhs were affected differently from other south Asian groups, proving that the existing ethnic categories failed to capture the reality, and for the Jewish community, the death rate was almost twice the rate of the general population. If we are serious about tackling health inequalities, we must be serious about collecting accurate data. After all, it is about life and death. If the evidence from this work is not compelling enough for the ONS, then I really do not know what will be. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) stated, we have recently seen horrific incidents of anti-Sikh hate crime in the west midlands. There have been two separate racially aggravated rapes of Sikh women, including one just outside my constituency, and a brutal physical attack on two Sikh taxi drivers. Of the 115,990 hate crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales between April 2024 and March 2025, 71% were recorded as being “racially aggravated”. Yet despite the Home Office requiring police forces to provide the ethnicity of victims since April 2021, we only know the ethnicity of victims in 40% of offences, and within that 40%, Sikh and Jewish categories are not offered. So the racially aggravated rapes that those two Sikh women were subjected to were not recorded as anti-Sikh hate crimes. As I said earlier, of the 9% of hate crimes that were recorded as being religiously aggravated, Home Office data shows a 20% increase in crimes specifically targeting Sikhs. Are we saying that Jewish and Sikh victims do not matter? I think that is a reasonable question for both communities to ask. The Jewish community continues to face horrific abuse, having the highest rate of religious hate crime of any group. The terrorist attack at Heaton Park synagogue in Manchester was an awful reminder that there is still much more to be done to fight antisemitism and keep British Jews safe. The lack of accurate data collection for the offence of racially aggravated hate crime is hiding the true severity of anti-Sikh and anti-Jewish hate crime, which means that the police and the Government cannot put proper targeted protections in place. The Sikh community is asking the Government, the Home Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government why they are not recognising and recording anti-Sikh hate crimes. What are they saying to that? That it is because the ONS asks them to only use the existing ethnic categories. The ONS does not seem to understand that Jews and Sikhs face racial hatred, which is distinct from religious hatred. How are we meant to track and combat this religious hatred without data? Why does the Minister think the ONS is treating Sikh and Jewish communities in this way, given the levels of hate that they have recently faced and the decades they have spent campaigning for fairness and equality? After many meetings and much correspondence from me over the past eight years, the ONS has acknowledged that ethnicity standards must reflect the United Kingdom’s diversity. The Government Statistical Service, led by the ONS, recently consulted on additional categories for the ethnicity harmonised standard, but the criteria for the evaluation of the responses, which were published last week, leave me apprehensive. Despite assurances to the contrary, I was disappointed that the criteria were almost identical to those used to decide the categories for the last census, in 2021, in which Sikhs and Jews were in the last four groups to be considered from a list of 55. Those should not be treated as the same exercise. The harmonisation standard is primarily intended to assist public bodies to meet their equalities responsibility—I say that again: to meet their equalities responsibility—and best serve all Britain’s diverse communities. The purpose of the census is, of course, much broader. With that in mind, I was struck by the lack of any legal test. Sikhs and Jews have been legally recognised as ethnicities for decades. We know that religion data is not used by public bodies that implement this standard. In fact, the ONS knows this, and has publicly acknowledged it. Surely the GSS, led by the ONS, needs to consider the bigger picture and form a harmonised standard with its implementation in mind. If Sikhs and Jews are legally protected ethnicities, public bodies have a legal duty to monitor their outcomes and deliver services to address inequality. The GSS should want to develop a harmonised standard that allows public bodies to meet their legal obligations. The ONS has claimed in meetings that there are apparently hundreds of potential ethnicities that could be included, but in the landmark 1983 case Mandla v. Dowell-Lee, the Law Lords made life easier by establishing crucial criteria for defining an ethnic group. The Minister should signal to the GSS that, as legislators, we expect the starting point of its considerations to be legally recognised ethnic groups such as Sikhs and Jews, given the protections in the Equality Act 2010. The second criterion—assessing whether there is a lack of alternative sources of information for the group—similarly demonstrates the ONS’s short-sightedness. Although many Sikhs may choose to record their religion as Sikh, the ONS knows that the question is optional, is not used to inform policymaking or service delivery, and is irrelevant to the execution of ethnicity equalities duties. Finally, the subjective “acceptability” criterion does not give me faith that the ONS has learned any lessons from past oversights. In the run-up to the 2021 census, the ONS pushed aside calls for a Sikh ethnicity tick box, citing divisions in the community—an argument that I am disappointed has been repeated since. I remind the House and the ONS that nearly 100,000 Sikhs and 65,000 Jews ticked “other” and wrote in their ethnicity in the census. That is hugely significant, because this huge number of respondents from the two communities is far bigger than the number of responses to any consultation, focus group or exercise that the ONS may choose to carry out. Citizens want democracy to work for them, so that they can have trust in our political system. That is our duty as legislators. I am therefore keen to understand what the Government are saying to the 165,000 Jews and Sikhs who clearly sent a message to the ONS and Government that they want the option to tick “Jewish” or “Sikh”. I am not advocating or forcing anyone to identify in a certain way. Respondents would still be able to record their ethnicity as they choose, as would any person from any background. The question is whether the GSS and ONS give greater weight to established legal precedent or a few dissenting voices in a focus group. That brings me to the relationship between the Government, the ONS and Parliament more broadly. In a recent meeting, the ONS made it clear that it expects the Government to tell it their data needs, yet in all my correspondence on this issue over past years, Ministers have responded by stating that they are relying on the GSS and ONS. Let me be clear: it is right that our country’s official statistics are independent of Government. However, at some point the relationship has shifted, and we have lost our way. The Government should obviously not be able to write their own scorecard, but that does not mean that Government Departments should not engage proactively with the ONS to outline what frameworks they need to best serve the British public. I tabled questions to every Department asking whether they fed into the consultation on the harmonised standard. The responses I have gotten back have been hugely disappointing. Many Departments dodged the question, telling me to wait for the ONS’s response to the consultation later this year to see whether Departments fed in. How does that give Jewish and Sikh communities any faith that, while they are dying disproportionately, we in this House are committed to addressing that inequality? It is a simple question. This is about transparency. I am grateful that the Home Office confirmed that it provided an organisational response. The relationship between the Government and the ONS should be reciprocal. These Departments hold the data, but many of them say that there is no data. They deliver services that are not directed at these groups, so they should be working with the ONS to push for better data that ensures that they can meet their legal equalities duties. The ONS is funded by the taxpayer and consists of civil servants. Civil servants must deliver for the public. In January, I tabled a question on ethnicity pay gap reporting and received an interesting response. The Minister who responded, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), stated that the recent consultation on ethnicity and disability pay-gap reporting considered whether ethnicity data should be collected following the GSS and ONS current harmonised standard, which does not include specific “Sikh” and “Jewish” categories. Will the Minister outline what provisions would be available for Jews and Sikhs to challenge ethnicity pay gap reporting if they are not included? This also demonstrates that some Departments recognise that they are not required to follow the GSS framework. I gently encourage Ministers across Government to consider whether the GSS harmonised standard is adequate for them to meet the equalities duties. To conclude, this campaign has the support a broad coalition: the Board of Deputies, the Community Security Trust, the Antisemitism Policy Trust, the Sikh Federation, the Sikh Council UK, the UK Gurdwara Alliance, many health professionals, local police and local government. Those organisations understand the lived reality of their communities. They see the consequences of missing data every single day in healthcare, public safety, education, housing and employment. In June last year, Birmingham city council became the first local authority in England to include Sikh and Jewish ethnic categories when collecting data and delivering services. I am grateful to the Birmingham Labour group for its leadership on this issue, but will it really take every council in the country passing its own motion for Sikhs and Jews to be counted? What we are asking for is simple: fairness. For more than 40 years, Sikhs and Jews have been recognised as ethnic groups in law. It is time for public bodies to recognise them in practice and for legislators to implement the law.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Public Body Data Collection: Sikh and Jewish Ethnicity · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely; I think that is really important. I have a staffer who, equally, is Jewish and does not feel that he is religious, and he wants the option to tick his ethnicity because, as he says, “I am Jewish.” This is simply giving people the option; no one is forcing anyone to tick any other box—they can tick any box they think reflects their ethnicity. But given the Equality Act, and given race hate and the rise in antisemitism, we absolutely should be collecting ethnicity data. My staffer should not be invisible.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Public Body Data Collection: Sikh and Jewish Ethnicity · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point, and I will come on to why this is important in practice. We are both legislators in this House, and he is right: we both take our responsibilities very seriously and want to see all communities treated fairly under the law, so we must implement it. I really value his intervention and thank him for it. As I said, my own written parliamentary questions have revealed that Government Departments do not collect ethnicity data on Sikhs and Jews. As the hon. Member has just said, the only information collected is religious data, but religious data is inconsistent and incomplete, and is rarely used in designing or delivering services. It also excludes people who are ethnically Sikh or Jewish but do not practise their faiths. User need has been clearly evidenced by the plethora of evidence available, and that simply cannot be ignored by the ONS.