Sojan Joseph MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I declare that I am a registered nurse. I have worked in the NHS for many years, and I have used patient records throughout my career. The Nursing and Midwifery Council code requires nurses, midwives and nursing associates to respect patient confidentiality, share information appropriately and ensure that patients are informed about how their information is used. That is the existing system, and every nurse, midwife and nursing associate has to follow the code of practice. A similar code is there for the General Medical Council for doctors, and all other registered professionals follow those codes. On top of that, information governance in the NHS ensures that patient data is handled legally, securely and ethically, providing a framework for data protection and confidentiality. We have numerous different digital systems in the health system currently. Before anyone gets access to those digital systems and patient records, they all have to go through information governance and data protection training. They are then given access to patient records. That is the existing system. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, has just mentioned the Nottingham incident, which is a good example. It is a clear example of where those who accessed the records were able to be identified. There is a clear audit trail, and I have my own experience of taking people through disciplinary proceedings for accessing patients’ notes when it was not relevant to those staff. The existing patient data systems do have provisions to safeguard and monitor who is accessing patient records.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My understanding is that the single patient record is just a single place where all of a patient’s medical records will be kept. It will not necessarily change the ways in which they access healthcare services, such as A&E, the GP or a dentist. Those ways of accessing healthcare will stay the same, whether we have a single patient record or not.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I agree that we are never going to have 100% proof. There will always be people accessing records. What I am talking about is the existing system, which does have provisions. What we need to strengthen is the training and the audit trail. All staff who do the training are aware that they are not supposed to check patients’ records unless it is relevant to them. Those who access records inappropriately should be identified and action should be taken. Just because we are moving to a single patient record system, it does not mean that everybody is going to access everything they want. People working in the healthcare system are given access based on their role. Not everybody is able to access everything. Systems are in place, and we need to strengthen those systems and the training. We should not be scaremongering by saying that, because we are moving to a single patient record, everybody will be able to see their records.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I do not know whether there will be the same system in Scotland, but my understanding is that in the north of England doctors will be able to see the same system. Again, we can hear more detail from the Minister. A single patient report has the potential to transform patient experience and safety by ensuring continuity of care, by reducing unnecessary repetition, by enabling better informed clinical decisions and the smoother discharge of patients, and by creating a more efficient and joined up healthcare system.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My patient record is currently kept by different organisations or providers, which cannot see each other. If I speak to the GP about my blood sugar and then end up in A&E, they cannot see that record. If I go to the mental health service, they cannot see what medication I was taking. When I get discharged back to the GP, he will not get the information on my medication. That is the clinical aspect I am talking about, although I fully understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. I hope the Minister will address some of those issues. The responses I collected demonstrate how disparate and fragmented digital record systems are within just one local area. I do not think any of our constituents are aware that their data is kept in different places and that the services do not talk to each other. That is what the Bill is trying to address. All that information will be available for doctors, nurses and any other healthcare providers so that they can see patients’ history and medication and those patients will be more safe. Things will be more transparent. It will be easier for admission to discharge processes.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I wish to speak in support of clause 47. I spoke on Second Reading about my strong support for the introduction of a single patient record. I am not a tech expert like my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield—

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely; a single patient record will not stop professionals from asking the necessary questions of patients at any time. Each ward round, the doctors ask the patients how they are feeling. They will have that conversation; that will not stop. We are talking about repeatedly having to tell the story. The point was highlighted when the Committee heard from Jacob Lant, the chief executive officer of National Voices, a coalition of health and social care charities. In his 15 years of patient and public engagement, the most consistent theme is patients’ frustration at constantly having to retell their story, and the fact that medical notes are not available across different healthcare settings. Not only is that frustrating for patients, but it can also be deeply distressing. Kath Abrahams, the chief executive of Tommy’s, told the Committee that “Women report constantly having to retell their story—highly sensitive or traumatic experiences of loss—and that repetition can happen across the early pregnancy unit and maternity services.” –– [ Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 66, Q108.] As medical professionals, we are taught the importance of empathy and understanding, but if the absence of a unified patient record system is aggravating traumatic experiences for patients, we need to address that. The absence of a national unified report can also compromise patient safety and lead to clinicians making decisions based on partial or incomplete information, significantly increasing the risk of error. We heard evidence of that from the chair of Healthwatch England, who highlighted the risk posed to patients with multiple comorbidities. He said: “Without a single patient record, we can find that a consultant or a GP has access to only one part of that multiple comorbidity…That can lead to all sorts of unforeseen errors.” That can result in poor health outcomes, increased hospital admissions and reduced patient trust, which is why he went on to speak about “the great advantage that we can get from a single patient record.” –– [ Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 49, Q79.] Experienced mental health patients often move between A&E, GPs and mental health services and have to repeatedly go through that traumatic experience. I have spoken in the House previously about my deep frustration that the digital records available to me in mental health services in Kent and Medway were incompatible with those used in other parts of the NHS, both locally and across the rest of England. I know that that frustration is shared, so in advance of the Committee’s consideration of clause 47 I spoke to some of my former colleagues, as well as other healthcare professionals in my constituency, to find out what systems are used to record patient information.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I hope that would be the outcome of this legislation. I will give an example. My constituency is very close to Dover. Lots of travellers go through Ashford, my constituency. We often get patients from Scotland, Manchester or Liverpool, for whom doctors cannot start a treatment because they have to wait 24 hours to 48 hours to get the information from the hospital where the person comes from. I am not saying that the story is the same across the country, but that is what we are experiencing.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It really surprised me to hear my hon. Friend talk about his experience of 450 systems in the computer system in his local hospital. I was shocked, because as a clinician who previously worked in the NHS, I wanted a system that made patient records readily available so that we could care for patients. My understanding is that the clause amends the National Health Service Act 2006 to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish a system to make patient information readily available to patients and to those involved in providing health or social care in England. Under the current system, care and treatment across different parts of the NHS are not as co-ordinated as they could and should be. All too often, that means that patients have to repeat their medical history every time they see a different medical professional. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, talked about how that can sometimes be useful for getting the diagnosis right, but it can be very traumatising for someone to have to explain the same story again in such a short period of time. Speaking in the Chamber, I previously gave the example of a mental health patient going to A&E on a Friday. They tell their story to the professionals there and they tell the same story later when a mental health professional comes to see them. When they are admitted into a mental health hospital, they have to explain the same story when going into the ward, and then again to the nurses. Having to repeat their story again and again is traumatising for most patients.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am very sympathetic to this amendment, and to the argument that patients and carers should have enough information about what they are providing care for. In the current system, carers get a copy of the care plan, which states what the patient’s care needs are, as assessed by health professionals. Does the hon. Member agree that carers need to see only the care plan for the patient, rather than the patient’s whole record?

• 25 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We are in 2026. Social media and the media scrutinise everything that we do. Will the hon. Member confirm if there has been any report in the media that somebody, anywhere in the country, has had their condition made worse, or died, or did not get treatment?

• 25 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  New clause 2 clearly states that everybody should have a legal right to an appointment with their GP “within seven days”, while the current provision is that patients are entitled to see a GP or other professional within 24 hours or two days for urgent care. Would creating this legal burden on GP practices not reduce their ability to prioritise, meaning that the people who need urgent treatment will be delayed further?

• 23 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to support clause 7 and amendment 33, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West. Having worked in the NHS for many years, I have seen that education and training, especially mandatory training, is absolutely necessary. Some may argue that health staff have too much training, particularly mandatory training, but this amendment specifically concerns training “in the wider determinants of health such as housing standards, exposure to air pollution, occupational risk, and use of harmful substances like tobacco.” We may have staff, especially those working in mental health, who have training in some of those areas, but staff in A&E, where patients first present, may not have that training, and may be missing that curiosity. We have heard many incidents involving families living in mouldy houses or people exposed to air pollution. It is important that staff have the curiosity to consider where a patient has come from when they turn up at A&E, or, when planning a discharge, where they are being discharged to. In the last few years, we have seen many internationally trained healthcare workers join our health sector who may not be familiar with the social and housing situation in this country. Whether this is to be a part of their initial training as nurses or doctors, or through mandatory training at work, the amendment is important because it could help to prevent illnesses and identify them earlier through professional curiosity. I support amendment 33.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I strongly support the argument that clinical staff, even if they progress into a senior role, should carry out some sort of clinical practice. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is what went wrong over the past few years, especially when NHS England was created? Many senior clinicians who were moved into management posts had no contact with clinical areas. That is what this Government are trying to fix by abolishing NHS England.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I used to work in a mental health trust for many years, and I am still its employee—I am on an extended career break from the trust.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Mr Lant, I am trying to understand a bit more about the patient experience and improvement in care that Healthwatch brings. My understanding is that when a patient raises a complaint with the local provider, it usually gets investigated by a local service manager or a matron, but when somebody is not confident about raising a complaint with the local provider, they go to Healthwatch, and that complaint usually filters down for the same local service manager or matron to investigate it—we have seen that happening. Patient experience is not being improved without local accountability or local change. Can you explain why you are concerned about abolishing Healthwatch and bringing more accountability to local ICBs or local authorities, which may improve patient experience and patient care? Jacob Lant: The issue is that the system—the NHS provider, the commissioner or whoever is picking up the individual complaint—will treat that as an individual incident to look into. Healthwatch may support the individual to raise that complaint or that individual piece of feedback, but the collective learning across that is more important, and it is pulling out the themes that are consistent across multiple bits of feedback, both positive and negative, that makes the difference. We see that evidence and insight from Healthwatch making a difference in local and national policy. It might not feel like that to the individual patient, but things like the creation of a single patient record exist in part because of a lot of campaigning by local healthwatch on the issue of people having to repeatedly tell clinicians about their experiences. It also could be issues to do with not being able to find a dentist, for example; the system will treat that as an individual incident of helping someone who is trying to find a dentist or not, but Healthwatch could use that insight to petition and push for national change around the commissioning of a service like dentistry. A topic like administration of care, which Healthwatch, National Voices and the King’s Fund have all worked on together, is invisible from the way that the system perceives performance at the moment, but because we listen thematically to patient experience, we can push for a much greater focus on things like the basics of communication and keeping patients up to date on what is happening with their care, which really matter. Healthwatch is thematically looking at patient feedback differently from the way that system does, and that is something I fear may be lost.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I want to touch on the single patient record. I declare that I used to work in mental health services. In my experience, mental health patients often navigate between A&E, GPs and mental health services during weekends. Often the clinicians do not know what medication they are on, or what kind of contact patients had on the Friday or Saturday. Also, during the discharge process, getting medication from the GP can be delayed until the discharge notification gets to the GP. Yes, there are concerns about who will own this data, but do you not think that the single patient record will bring a huge benefit for patient safety and continuity of care? Kay Keane: In the example you gave, the hospital should be giving seven days-worth of medication to the patient. That is clearly its responsibility. Within those seven days, the GP practice should get a discharge letter that says what has happened; if appropriate, we then take over the prescribing. If the information comes and is good quality—if the data is good and timely—the things you mentioned do not happen; they happen when neither of those things are the case. In my experience, information that comes out of A&E is often difficult to understand. A&E might make a diagnosis that it works with, but by the time that gets to the ward it can be different, so the A&E information we act on could be very different from what the patient is discharged with. Timely and good-quality information is therefore really important, and that GP record then becomes the centre of the patient’s care. Dr Dickson: You are talking about transfer of care between services and about a weekend being an important flashpoint, but I think that that transfer of care does not happen appropriately even during the week. It is getting better, with electronic systems, but it is still not necessarily working for the full benefit of patients, especially if they access multiple services. The value of the single patient record is to make that safe, but the question is, will it do that? Can it do that? Is it safe to do that? Will the patient’s data be protected? That is what we are we are worried about. I think that is what patients worry about. They perceive that we do that already, and when they come up against the healthcare service, they realise that it does not happen; they do not realise that it is not a personal thing to them, but a systemic problem. It is about getting patients to understand the systemic nature of the lack of data sharing at the moment.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Sarah, you mentioned that the patient should be the centre of all this. I do not think that anybody disagrees—including any politicians—that making these changes is in the best interest of the patients. However, many changes have happened over the decades, but data for the last 10 years shows that patient safety incidents and complaints are steadily going up, so those changes have not made any impact on patient care, safety or experience. We need to do something here. After each incident, there is a recommendation or an action plan, but clinical staff or patients do not have much involvement with those and do not see any difference. Healthwatch helpfully finds the issues, but it may not actually go back and see what changes are made following its recommendations. The CQC physically goes into clinical areas to see the difference, and has the power to take action against those responsible, so is it not a good change that more accountability will sit with the providers, and the CQC—or local authorities and ICBs—can take action against them? Professor Croisdale-Appleby: Forgive me; you asked several questions. Which would you like me to start with?

• 16 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I asked whether it is not a good change to streamline these bodies so that fewer of them have powers to take action like the CQC? Professor Croisdale-Appleby: There is always a danger, if I may say so, in the use of the word “streamline”. We have to think what is lost in the streamlining process. I do not want to repeat what I have said and waste your time, but one thing that is important is whether there is a golden thread running through seeking out and listening to patients’ views, putting those together in a coherent form, making recommendations for improvement—that is what we do all the time at Healthwatch—and then holding people accountable for that. I remember Penny Dash saying that one of the points of the Bill is to bring this closer to those who commission and those who deliver. I am not sure that it necessarily takes it closer to that simply by embedding it—as a colleague asked earlier—within the formal structure. There is a danger in that that the patient voice is often a spiky voice. As a former chair of hospitals and so on, I know that patients do not always say things that are convenient. That point about independence is vital. If I may, sir, I take slight issue with your term “streamlining” and would try to take that apart into the different components that might comprise it. Sarah Tilsed: I cannot comment too much on the CQC, but on the point about a rise in complaints but nothing seems to be happening, we are finding that patients do not want to complain any more because they are finding that they are getting a worse service of care. That might be a slightly separate issue, but considering that there are so many complaints and that patients are not wanting to complain because they are scared, I do not think that streamlining is the right way. We need an independent voice that will focus solely on the patient voice, which I think we are completely losing at the moment.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I was listening to Dr Byrne’s concerns about confidentiality and trust. I want to declare that I have worked in the NHS in the mental health sector for many years. I worked in one of the biggest mental health trusts, Kent and Medway mental health NHS trust. We use an electronic patient record called Rio. As Dr Cocker said, before anyone is given access to the record, they have to have training on information governance and data protection, and access is given based on their role. That system creates an audit trail, so patients can request to see how many people have accessed their information in the last month or two—there are facilities on the system to check that. Is staff training and raising awareness among patients important for creating trust and confidentiality? Dr Byrne: Those things are very important, yes. There are some technical solutions. Again, the SPR is an opportunity to look at that across the system, because systems vary greatly in the sophistication of their audit function, for example. Even when there is an audit function, if someone has legitimate access through their role as a doctor or a nurse, it can be difficult to know whether their access in any particular case is legitimate. These are not common occurrences, but it is extremely distressing for patients if their confidentiality is breached for any reason. It is not simply a matter of technical controls. We need to look at how we build stronger, more effective deterrents across the system by having effective sanctions when incidents do occur. I am keen to look at that and delighted that the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England are, I think, very interested in having that conversation with me. At the moment, it certainly seems that there is a variable response across the system to inappropriate access. Looking ahead to the SPR, we need to look at that make improvements, so that the public can have faith that, given the harm that it can cause them, it will be taken very seriously if anyone does access their records inappropriately. There are technical, cultural and system aspects to think about here. The SPR is definitely an opportunity to do that, and I am very keen to work with other stakeholders on that.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Water Supply in Kent · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for all her work, and all my colleagues, who are united on this issue. I thank the local authorities that reached out to raise their concerns, including the leader of Ashford borough council, who is here to raise his concerns with us all. Many issues and impacts can be measured, but, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), mentioned, when things like this happen, the mental health impact is not measurable, and it is important that all parliamentarians think about that. This is not a small matter for those with small children or animals. Once again, I thank everyone for their contributions. We need to continue putting pressure on the water company to improve its service. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered water supply in Kent.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We have already seen the difference that a Labour Government can make in improving our NHS. That is the result of the difficult choice that this Labour Government made to prioritise investment in the NHS and our other public services, but I know from my 22 years working in our health service that investment on its own is not enough. That is why I am pleased that this Bill will reverse the legislation passed during the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition, which made NHS overly rigid and too prescriptive, increasing bureaucracy and weakening accountability. The Bill is an important part of delivering a reformed NHS by implementing the elements of the plan that require legislation. I particularly welcome the parts of the Bill that will amend the National Health Service Act to make provision for the establishment of a single patient record. Patients too often receive care that is not as co-ordinated as it could or should be, meaning that they must repeat their story each time they see a different medical professional. From my experience in mental health services, I know that mental health patients go to A&E, explain their story to the doctors there, explain the same story to a mental health worker, and then explain the same story the next day when they are admitted to a mental health ward. That is very challenging for professionals and patients. The single patient record can therefore be very useful. We also have patients coming from other parts of the country. For example, a patient from Manchester could be admitted in Kent, where the doctors and medical professionals will, in some cases, be unable to access that patient’s records for many days. That delays the treatment, so it will be a big step to have a single patient record. The other area I welcome is the abolishment of NHS England. During my time in the NHS, I saw layers and layers of management structures and scrutiny by different organisations, which caused lots of repetition, so I welcome the abolishment of NHS England. I would like to see that money go to the frontline, so that we can recruit many more nurses for hands-on patient care. Finally, I would like to raise the issue that many other colleagues have raised: parity of esteem for mental health services. I would like to hear from the Minister that the single record system will be implemented not just in other parts of the health system, but in mental health services.

• 14 May 2026 · Getting Britain Working Again · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to be called to speak in the debate. I had the privilege of making my maiden speech during the last King’s Speech debate. Since then, I am proud to have supported 50 pieces of legislation that are helping to build a better Britain, deliver positive change for working people and, crucially, giving my constituents hope for the future. I will not list all 50 today, but I do want to reflect on some of the changes that I believe demonstrate the positive direction of travel that the Labour Government have set that have helped get Britain working again. In the last 22 months, we have delivered the biggest upgrade in workers’ rights in a generation, giving people greater security, fairness and dignity at work. We have taken decisive steps to strengthen protections for private renters so that families can feel more secure in their homes, and through the removal of the two-child benefit cap over 2,500 children in my constituency—almost half a million more across the country—will be lifted out of poverty. As a former NHS mental health worker for 22 years, I am particularly proud that this Labour Government chose to prioritise the long overdue modernisation of the Mental Health Act. This reform will strengthen patient choice, autonomy and legal protections and help ensure that people experiencing mental ill health are treated with the dignity, respect and compassion they deserve. I also welcome the progress made in my local NHS. I previously raised the case of a coffee shop at the William Harvey hospital in Ashford being converted into an emergency ward to treat accident and emergency patients. Steps have been taken to address corridor care at the hospital, including a share of the £29 million investment that East Kent hospitals NHS trust received to expand the same-day emergency care unit at the hospital. I equally welcome the recent announcement by the Department of Health and Social Care about the new intensive recovery programme. My fellow Labour colleagues and I have been pushing for an intensive strategy to provide help for hospitals in east Kent since we were elected. This is an opportunity for East Kent hospitals to receive the long awaited help they have been asking for and make improvements across the board. I thank the local hard-working frontline NHS staff. As we look to build on the many achievements of the last Session, it is important that the Government are bolder and faster in delivering the change that the people of Ashford, Hawkinge and the villages voted for at the last general election. Against that backdrop, I was pleased that in the King’s Speech the Government set out welcome measures to unblock the barriers to growth, protect households from the pressures of the cost of living and rebuild our public services. Through the King’s Speech, the Government continued to recognise the financial pressures that families are facing and reflected their determination to ensure that economic growth is felt in people’s day-to-day lives, not just in headline statistics. I am pleased to see the Government’s determination about how every child deserves the chance to succeed to the best of their ability and should not be held back by poverty or special educational needs. I also welcome what the King’s Speech said about further rebuilding our relationship with the European Union. In an increasingly unstable world, our long-term national interest is best served by closer co-operation with our European partners on defence, on trade and on strengthening our economy. In my constituency in particular, our trading relationship with Europe is critical to local prosperity. We must do everything we can to help businesses across Kent sell their goods and services to our largest and closest trading partners. That brings me to the vital issue of international rail connectivity and the future of Ashford International. Following the Office of Rail and Road’s decision late last year to grant Virgin Rail access to the international depot in east London, I welcome Virgin’s public commitment that its cross-channel services will stop at Ashford International, provided that the station is reopened. Two other operators, FS Trenitalia and Gemini Trains, are also developing proposals to introduce international services between the UK and mainland Europe to provide greater competition on the line, and both have previously expressed a willingness to include Ashford International as a stop. The return of international services to Ashford would be transformative, because it would deliver a major boost to economic growth locally and across the wider south-east. It would make it quicker and more efficient for local businesses to trade with mainland Europe, and it would encourage inward investment by improving connectivity. It would also open up Kent, Sussex and the south-east to even more tourists. The Good Growth Foundation estimated last year that the return of international services could inject £2.7 billion into the UK economy over five years—a prize well worth pursuing. I therefore urge the Government to work actively with private operators, regulators and other stakeholders to ensure that Ashford International can be reopened in time for new cross-channel services to stop there. As a Kent MP, I warmly welcome the announcement in the King’s Speech that the Lower Thames crossing will be built at pace. I know that work has already started on this highly significant road-building scheme, which will provide a boost to the economy locally and across the rest of the country. It will strengthen connectivity to major ports, including Dover, and will improve resilience and reliability for road users. As we strive to enhance the reliability and resilience of that part of the road network, I hope that we can find a long-term solution to the repeated use of Operation Brock on the M20. Every time it is put in place, it causes disruption and delays for residents, local businesses and haulage firms. Decisions on its deployment rest with the Kent and Medway Resilience Forum, and I once again urge the forum to ensure that it is used only as an emergency measure. I also ask the Government to continue pressing for improved resilience and smarter traffic management on the M20, to avoid Operation Brock being regularly deployed during school holidays and other busy periods. To conclude, I want to mention one final piece of legislation that I am pleased to see return in the King’s Speech. Having recently served on its Bill Committee, I look forward to the Representation of the People Bill completing its passage through Parliament. The Bill will extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, strengthen the rules on political donations, and implement the Rycroft review’s recommendations to better protect our democracy from foreign interference. Its passage will not only fulfil a clear Labour party manifesto commitment but, more importantly, help to safeguard our democratic system by making it more robust, transparent and accountable at a time of growing global instability. That is an objective that I hope Members across the House can support.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Meningitis Outbreak · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I pay tribute to all the health leaders in Kent and the school leaders for their calm and quick actions yesterday and over the weekend. I was able to get a briefing from UKHSA yesterday morning and also was able to visit my local hospital, the William Harvey, which has made immediate changes to accident and emergency to take care of those patients who are turning up. There is much speculation on social media and in local newspapers that vape sharing might be the reason behind this outbreak. I am not asking the Secretary of State to comment on that speculation, but can he reinforce the public health message? Can he offer advice to young people and parents in the Kent area on precautions they should be following at this time?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  This is an issue in which I have taken a close personal interest, because I have spent 22 years working in mental health services in the NHS. During that time, I have seen a gradual increase in mental health conditions, especially among young people. I do not want to say that this is all because of social media—there could be various reasons, such as 14 years of austerity, the cutting of NHS services or the closure of youth hubs—but I believe, and many studies show, that social media has played a role in the recent increase in mental health conditions and mental illness among young people. This is not just because of online content; as many Members have said, it is also because screentime takes away young people’s social interactions with the rest of society. I am particularly concerned about the high rates of depression and anxiety caused by cyber-bullying and exposure to the dark side of the internet, to which our children have almost totally unfiltered access through the devices in their pockets. I pay tribute to the work that has been done in schools across my Ashford constituency. In my visits to local schools, I have seen how effective measures, such as students locking their phones away in sealed pouches at the start of the school day, can ensure that mobile phones do not disrupt learning. Some of the studies done in those schools show that children’s academic work and behaviour have improved, especially their attitude towards teachers and fellow students.