Westminster Hall

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 9 October 2024

[Derek Twigg in the Chair]

Government Support for the RSPCA

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Westminster Hall

00:00

[Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for the RSPCA.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. It is fantastic to be able to open today’s debate on Government support for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and to recognise its history, praise its work and celebrate and thank its volunteers and supporters in its 200th year.

Two hundred years ago on 16 June 1824 a group of people met in a London coffee shop determined to change animals’ lives for the better. They created the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which sparked a movement that spread around the world. With kindness at the heart of the mission, they boldly set out to

“alter the moral feelings of the country”.

Since that first meeting the RSPCA has taken the lead in advocating for animal welfare, including working with politicians and decision makers to secure laws that have transformed the lives of millions of animals in the UK and beyond. Alongside that, the RSPCA, and its wide network of branches and partners, has played a significant role in changing attitudes and behaviours to animals through its education, prevention and scientific work.

The society was the first animal welfare charity in the world. Before that time, there was little discussion about whether animals could suffer and therefore animal cruelty was widely prevalent or not even considered an issue. Animals played a very different role in people’s lives. Few people kept pets. Animals were used for work, transport or even entertainment. Bear and bull baiting were common. Even Parliament Square contained one of the most notorious dog-fighting pits in the country, which was eventually closed in 1830.

Since then caring for animals has gradually become woven into the fabric of British society and our laws. People now recognise that many animals are sentient beings who deserve our respect and kindness. I am very pleased to say that Parliament recognised that two years ago in the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, but there is still a long way to go. Animals face some of the biggest challenges of the past two centuries as climate change, habitat loss, the cost of living and the pandemic take their toll. That means the RSPCA is needed now more than ever.

In 1840, Queen Victoria gave her permission for the then SPCA to add the royal prefix to become the RSPCA. At that time there were five full-time inspectors who were paid a guinea a week. Today the RSPCA has the equivalent of 361 full-time frontline officers, including 233 inspectors and 128 animal rescue officers. Those officers cover all of England and Wales, meaning the RSPCA has just one inspector or animal rescue officer for every 167,000 people.

The RSPCA was an early adopter of digital education and now has four education and community engagement hubs across the UK. Furthermore, it offers animal welfare education to schoolchildren, young people and families, with opportunities to engage with pets and wildlife. As part of the Pet Education Partnership, a collaborative initiative between eight of the UK’s leading animal welfare organisations, the RSPCA aims to make animal welfare education accessible for every child aged between five and 11 in the UK.

In 1835, bear and bull baiting were abolished and dog fighting made illegal, but we know it still continues as an illegal activity today and is investigated by the RSPCA’s undercover officers. Despite that, the killing of animals for sport in society has continued. Fox and stag hunting and hare coursing were popular pastimes in rural areas, but through a combination of campaigning, investigations and legal action, the RSPCA works tirelessly with other organisations such as the League Against Cruel Sports and the International Fund for Animal Welfare to end those practices.

In 1911, inspired by the RSPCA, the Protection of Animals Act was passed. That important law tackled almost every type of cruelty to animals. The RSPCA was a pioneer in recognising the need to work closely with politicians and decision makers to secure policy and legal change and in 1924 employed its first public affairs officer and first woman: Gertrude Speedwell Massingham. She was a real trailblazer for animal welfare and was the founder of the Council Against Bullfighting. This year, the RSPCA honoured her through the Speedwell Massingham advocacy award, which is part of the PawPrints awards scheme. It has been running since 2008 and awards local authorities and public sector organisations for going above and beyond for animal welfare.

Sir Robert Gower, MP for Hackney Central and chair of the RSPCA trustees, set up the parliamentary group on animal welfare in 1929, the first in the world and the first such group on any issue in this Parliament. The RSPCA still provides a secretariat for the all-party parliamentary group for animal welfare, or APPGAW, as it is known.

More recently, arguably one of the most important legislative changes for animals, the landmark Animal Welfare Act 2006, was introduced under a Labour Government. The Act introduced the concept of prevention of cruelty to animals, rather than only acting after cruelty has occurred. The overwhelming majority of convictions secured by the RSPCA in 2023 were under that very Act, but more work remains to be done.

Currently, more than 100 million animals around the world are still used in research and testing annually. In 2023, 2.6 million procedures were carried out in Great Britain on animals such as mice and rats. The RSPCA has always campaigned strongly for those animals to be replaced with humane alternatives, and data shows that 77% of people agree that the UK Government should commit to phasing out the use of animals in scientific research and testing.

The RSPCA supports the Government’s manifesto commitment to accelerate the phase-out of animals used in science and to set up a strategic advisory board, which will bring together stakeholders across academia, industry and charities to work towards that goal. That could have a meaningful impact on how we view and use animals used in scientific experiments, and I commend the Government on setting that goal. I hope that the board can be set up quickly. Perhaps the Minister can set out a timetable in his response.

Moving on to pets, today nearly 60% of households in the UK have at least one pet, with a total of 38 million pets being kept—

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. On pets, does she agree that we are a nation of pet-lovers? She is making a significant contribution to that commentary, but the pet-loving nature of our nation is often seen in examples of cruelty to pets, with outrage and indignation across the nation, indicating and vindicating the support that she and I hope the rest of us will express for the RSPCA and the need to support it and all its work.

[Ruth Jones]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. As MPs, we know that the amount of emails in our inbox every week and month testifies as to how much the public care about animal welfare. I thank him for his intervention; he made a valuable point.

In recent years, as owning a pet has become more popular, unfortunately we have also seen an increase in extreme designer dog breeding. For example, dogs such as French bulldogs have risen in popularity recently, but such types of dogs have welfare issues. They are known as brachycephalic or flat-faced dogs, and they can suffer from breathing problems, are often unable to regulate their own temperature and have difficulty with exercise.

Such trends will continue, however, until we have stronger regulations on the breeding of pets. Social media platforms also have a role to play, as extreme breeding trends are often exacerbated by what is promoted on platforms such as Instagram and TikTok. Under the Animal Welfare Act licensing conditions, it is illegal to breed an animal if its breed conformation causes welfare problems—but the wording is vague and has never been used to stop breeding animals that have welfare problems once they are born. The RSPCA hopes to see the Government clarify that point soon, perhaps as part of an animal welfare strategy.

We have had some successes, however. Only earlier this year, Parliament decided to phase out the private keeping of primates, showing how attitudes to pets are changing. In 2019, similarly, Parliament agreed that keeping wild animals in circuses was no longer appropriate in England as their welfare could not be guaranteed. I hope that we will now turn to reviewing the legislation governing the control, exploitation, welfare and conservation of wild animals in England and Wales, which has turned into a complex patchwork of overlapping and sometimes conflicting provisions.

In 2015, the Law Commission carried out a review into wildlife legislation, concluding that the legislative framework covering wildlife was outdated and in need of reform. The RSPCA supports the recommendations of that report and is calling for consolidation of wildlife law in England and Wales.

As attitudes change and people increasingly understand that animal welfare matters, they also recognise that they can do something about it. Shoppers are becoming more interested in the origin of their food and the wellbeing of the animals involved, and that affects what they choose to buy. That is why the RSPCA has been calling for the introduction of easy-to-understand, factual labelling on the method of production for all animal products. The consultation on that closed in May 2024. I appreciate it was under a different Government, but would the Minister set out when the Government will publish the results and a timetable for the introduction of such a scheme?

We have seen fantastic progress this year in farm animal welfare, after a 100-year campaign by the RSPCA. The exporting of live animals for fattening and slaughter was finally banned earlier this year, but there is still more that can be done to improve the lives of farm animals. The RSPCA is calling for an end to cages for laying hens and farrowing crates for sows in the UK. In the UK, enriched cages are still permitted; they house about 10 million egg-laying hens. They provide just 9% more usable space per bird than battery cages—basically, space equivalent to the size of an A4 sheet of paper for each bird.

About 6 million pigs raised for slaughter every year are born in farrowing crates—metal crates within a pen in which pregnant sows are placed one week before giving birth. Sows can have multiple litters in a year and can spend up to 15 weeks in those crates. The previous Government committed to a consultation on ending the use of cages for farmed animals, and I hope this Government will restart it.

In conclusion, I pay tribute to the RSPCA for its amazing work in the past, currently and in the future.

09:41

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for leading this debate and for setting out the detail and information so well. She obviously has a passion for animals, which I share.

The RSPCA is celebrating its 200th birthday this year. It is the first animal welfare charity to be founded in the world, so the impact of what it has done over 200 years is incredible. With its network of agencies and branches, it paved the way in tackling animal cruelty and neglect and worked closely alongside Government to change laws and create a better place for all kinds of animals, so it is great to be here to celebrate and support it.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

In my area, the Brent Knoll animal centre, a wonderful part of the RSPCA, rehomes dogs, cats, rabbits, ferrets and other small animals, and it is always full, but a lot of people do not understand that such centres are not part of the RSPCA’s main structure and are not funded centrally. Would the hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that they are locally funded through donations and the time and money of volunteers?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. Yes, I am well aware of the volunteers and the fundraising. We attend many events in our constituencies for giving to the RSPCA. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) said that we are often called a nation of animal lovers, and of course we are. In all my life—and it is a pretty long one—I cannot remember not having a dog. I am from Ballywalter, and we had Pekinese, collies, terriers and latterly springer spaniels. It has almost been an evolution from house dogs to dogs that we use for hunting.

The RSPCA has the equivalent of 361 full-time frontline officers, 233 inspectors and 128 animal rescue officers. Many of us have been touched by the advertisements on TV about cruelty against animals; it really breaks our hearts. The hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn is right that the cruelty is inconceivable. We cannot understand why anyone would want to harm or carry out cruelty against animals.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Would the hon. Member agree that a huge animal cruelty issue in Northern Ireland is badger baiting? Far too often, sentencing for such crimes is too lenient. Does the hon. Member agree that the law and sentencing on animal cruelty needs to be looked at, as badger baiting is a big issue for me and my constituency?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my friend and colleague for that intervention: I am well aware of those issues. The lady in the Police Service of Northern Ireland who looks after animal crime and welfare is Emma Meredith and I have known her all her life. She was a flower girl at my wedding, which was 36 years ago. She is now the police officer assigned to this area, and she is very aware of badger baiting. There is a need to come down hard on those involved. I think there has been some action on badger baiting over the past few years, because it is very much on the radar.

The situation in Northern Ireland is slightly different from that of the RSPCA. We are managed and supported by the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the second oldest animal charity in the world. It was founded in 1836 by Commander Francis Anderson Calder, a retired navy officer. The charity’s first initiative gives an idea of its history and purpose. It erected water troughs across the city for the sustenance of the heavily burdened working horses in industrial Belfast. That was the purpose of the movement at that time.

The USPCA also supports Northern Ireland schools by bringing the importance of animal welfare to life and understanding the needs of animals within the classroom. It runs an educational programme, although I am not sure whether that is run on the mainland. Many schools in my constituency and others frequently host the USPCA, which comes to them to engage with children. The fact is that children love animals and it is good to engage them, to engender in them an early interest in animals and their welfare. Many young people have a goal to work with animals in future. It is fantastic to offer to teach them how to do so. It instils a love of animals and an interest in animals for years to come.

Ahead of this debate, I read in the Library briefing that there were concerns about kitten smuggling across the UK. The week before last I met with Alice from the Cats Protection Centre in Dundonald. Kitten smuggling was one of the main topics of discussion, and the statistics I was shown that day were incredible. The centre takes in and rehomes a number of cats. It is not just about lost kittens. The purpose of Cats Protection—and all cat charities—is to try to find them another home. They are neutered to ensure there will be no more kittens coming along when they are given out. Some of the cats and kittens there had been badly treated. Again, it is inconceivable to understand how anyone could do that.

There have been significant changes in the cat market in the past five years, as highlighted in the CATS Report 2023 published by Cats Protection. There has been a significant rise in purebred and pedigree cats. In addition, pet smuggling poses risks to both humans and animals. There are risks not just to the cats but to humans, as well, and we need to be aware of those issues. Cats Protection and other charities are very much to the fore on that. Smuggled cats may carry transmissible diseases such as rabies and tapeworm, which can be dangerous.

When I got married 36 years ago, I was not that fond of cats, as I had always had dogs, but my wife was a cat lover. There was a very simple, “Love me, love my cats.” It brought about a complete change and now we have three cats in the house—it might be four cats. One of them stays outside all the time because we live on a farm and it hunts continuously. The other three like the warmth of the Aga cooker. I again make the point about how we have to look at things today.

I very much look forward to the Minister’s comments. Perhaps he can clarify whether he has any plans to engage with the devolved nations, including the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland, as I know he does regularly, on what steps we can take to tackle cat smuggling.

There is a need for stronger legislation. We know that the back door to the Republic of Ireland is through Northern Ireland, and that the back door to the United Kingdom is through Northern Ireland. To be fair to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), the last Conservative Government were very active in trying to change the legislation and get on top of this issue, so it would be reassuring to hear similarly from the Minister that legislation can be made tighter to ensure that dog and cat smuggling is not taking place.

The Minister will be aware that Northern Ireland still has to follow EU pet travel legislation, which complicates things a bit, and EU legislation regarding the transportation of animals, including pregnant animals. I look forward to hearing about plans that will ensure that Northern Ireland can align with the rest of the United Kingdom, and I hope that what we discuss will be something we can all grasp.

The RSPCA has proven itself in going above and beyond. Last year, it convicted 447 defendants, including two youth offenders, with a prosecution rate of 91.7%—wow. That tells us that when the RSPCA takes on a case, it wants to win it; if it can do it that well, it is worth doing. That rate is even higher than the rate in 2022, and higher again than 2021. The work it undertakes is incredible, and we are grateful for it. I look to the Minister to say how we can further support these societies and charities, because we are truly in debt to their fantastic efforts.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

If Members want to be called in the debate, they need to bob.

09:51

[Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship during my very first contribution to a Westminster Hall debate, Mr Twigg. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for securing such a timely debate, speaking so well about the achievements of the RSPCA over its 200 years and setting out some of the challenges that it faces.

I will focus my comments on the issues currently surrounding the microchipping of dogs and what more can be done to ensure the system is fit for purpose and properly enforced. I should declare an interest from the start: as a proud owner of a rescue Staffordshire bull terrier, animal and dog welfare is close to my heart.

Last week, in preparation for today’s debate, I visited Almost Home Dog Rescue, near Mold in my constituency of Clwyd East. The team at Almost Home do a fantastic job and are a credit to our community, but they were clear that there is a huge, UK-wide problem. In their words,

“the pounds are FULL, the rescue centres are FULL and hundreds of puppies and healthy young dogs are being put to sleep on a weekly basis.”

Their frontline experience is that the situation is becoming a crisis, and that Lucy’s law, which effectively makes it illegal for third-party and commercial traders to sell puppies and kittens, is not working as it should. After 40 years in rescue, they have never known pressure like this before.

I welcome the fact that I stood on a manifesto that committed to ending puppy smuggling and farming, and I welcome any update from the Minister on that issue. I also welcome the fact that the Welsh Labour manifesto committed to the UK and Welsh Governments working together on animal welfare issues, including microchipping. I also thank Dogs Trust for meeting with me and providing a briefing on the importance of microchipping.

I think everyone here will recognise the benefits of microchipping pets, and dogs in particular. When it works effectively, microchipping allows people to rapidly identify a stray or lost dog and return it to its owner, reducing kennel time and the cost for local authorities. A rapid return also allows local authority officers to re-emphasise the importance of responsible dog ownership, which deters people from abandoning these pets irresponsibly. In addition, microchips being traceable reduces the problem of puppy farming, as well as the incidence of infectious diseases and inherited defects. Importantly, it also provides a strong deterrent to dog theft.

The effective operation of the microchipping system depends on accurate records. Stray dogs that are microchipped and have up-to-date microchip records are more than twice as likely to be reunited with their keepers as dogs without a microchip. However, without properly maintained databases and proper enforcement, microchipping can never deliver everything that it set out to do.

In March this year, the previous Government published their response to the consultation carried out on the operation of cat and dog microchipping systems. The consultation ran from March to May 2022 and garnered more than 1,500 responses. The headline findings were that the overwhelming majority of respondents agreed that we should introduce a single point of search portal to improve access to microchip records for approved users; that we should stop pets being registered on more than one database at a time; that the existing keeper should have an opportunity to object before the microchip record is transferred to a new keeper; and that the database operators must record whether a pet is missing or stolen.

On making it easier for approved users to access the database records, the Government agreed to

“support the development of a single point of search portal, working further with database operators and key user groups.”

When it came to the requirements of databases and maintaining the accuracy of records, the Government agreed that they would

“require database operators to send reminders to their customers at least once a year to ensure their information is up to date.”

On the transfer of keepers’ records, the Government said that they would

“require database operators to have robust transfer of keepership processes in place and allow, where appropriate, the current registered keeper up to 28 days to object to the transfer.”

Crucially, on enforcement, the Government said that they would

“require dog breeder information to remain as a permanently accessible part of the microchip record for enforcement purposes.”

Those commitments were clearly made under the previous Government, so I would welcome the Minister’s comments on these issues and an update on whether actions, such as those I set out, will be taken forward.

I would also be more than happy, as I am sure others would be, to work with the Minister on ensuring that we get this system right and build on some of the important progress that has been made. The UK and Welsh Governments are working together closely on this issue, particularly when considering future changes in relation to microchipping databases for both dogs and cats, including accessibility and a single point of entry, and I welcome any update that the Minister can give on those discussions and the way forward.

Finally, as other hon. Members have done, I pay tribute to the work of the RSPCA, the world’s first and oldest animal welfare charity. I look forward to working alongside it and other animal welfare groups to raise the standards of dog welfare during the course of this Parliament and beyond.

09:57

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for securing this important debate.

It is a pleasure to speak on this topic, as protecting and advocating for the voices of animals that cannot speak for themselves is hugely important to me both personally and politically. It is important personally because care for animals is one of the things that I can remember, back to my childhood, first caring about the most. As a 15-year-old, I took the decision not to consume any animal products, which I have stuck with ever since. Like other Members, I have a rescue cat, called Bella. Our relationships with our pets often open our hearts to how we think about other species. It is important politically because animal protection issues are some of the top issues that I hear about from constituents in my inbox, as I am sure is the case for other Members. The British really are a nation of animal lovers. Of course, animal protection is core to Green philosophy and Green party politics.

I join others in recognising the vital work done by the RSPCA over the 200 years since its formation in a London café. It is the first and oldest animal welfare charity to be founded, and as a nation of animal lovers we know that it has been keen to foster that reputation, as well as helping to care for the hundreds of thousands of animals each year that are abandoned, neglected, tortured, or harmed or which simply need rehoming. The RSPCA has also been key when it comes to securing some of the strongest animal protection laws in the world, and I pay tribute to its remarkable achievements in that respect. It is no exaggeration to say that without the RSPCA, animals in this country and worldwide today would be far less protected from cruelty. I thank everyone who has been part of that successful track record, from the early founders to the frontline inspectors and from the protection officers who make a tangible difference on a daily basis to those who successfully bring such a high number of prosecutions for breaking laws such as the Animal Welfare Act 2006. That work really matters, and I hope that the Government will continue actively to support it.

Much has changed in the 200 years since the RSPCA was established, including the context in which it operates. For example, our understanding that suffering occurs when all types of animals are subject to testing has grown massively, and I very much hope that the RSPCA and the Government get behind promoting modern, more effective and cruelty-free methods of testing that do not involve animals. Our attitude towards animals has also changed: 61% of the British public feel some discomfort about the way animals are treated on farms, and factory farms in particular, according to research from this time last year by the Social Market Foundation.

Sadly, though, animal exploitation continues, from the treatment of the 15 Gentoo penguins at Sea Life London Aquarium, which are currently kept in an enclosure with no natural light or fresh air and only six or seven feet of water in which to dive, to the continued use of greyhounds in racing, where dogs face the constant risk of injury or death. I am incredibly proud that compassion towards animals has always been core to the Green party, and that at our autumn conference we became the first party to pledge a ban on greyhound racing—a position that the RSPCA supports, as does the majority of the public. I invite the Minister to comment on the Government’s plans for ending cruelty to animals in so-called sport.

Animal abuse is sadly endemic in considerable parts of our food and farming system. That includes the proliferation of huge chicken sheds, some holding tens of thousands of chickens in incredibly cruel, unnatural conditions, which is a big cause of the river pollution scandal. In my area in East Anglia, in Norfolk and Suffolk, we are seeing a proliferation of these huge industrial sheds, including in Methwold. The World Wildlife Fund has highlighted the real climate, environmental and animal welfare impacts of the project there, and suggested that it needs to be stopped due to the climate impact and the cumulative impact of the number of these projects, including on nutrient pollution and water quality. I challenge the Government, and invite the Minister specifically, to comment on what will be done to address the proliferation of huge industrial chicken sheds and its huge impact on basic standards of animal welfare, as well as on environmental pollution and other issues affecting local communities.

The RSPCA has sought to tackle the treatment of farmed animals specifically with the RSPCA Assured scheme, originally known as Freedom Food when it was created 30 years ago. The scheme seeks to hold certified producers to higher welfare standards than are required under UK law. However, as has been widely reported, it has fallen short of its own high standards, with concerns about overcrowding, poor hygiene and, in some cases, physical abuse of livestock by farm workers on certain farms. I therefore welcome the RSPCA’s decision to conduct an internal review of the scheme, which must be done to ensure that the RSPCA’s reputation is not used as a cover for such issues. I note that the president of the RSPCA, Chris Packham, and the vice-president, former Green MP Caroline Lucas, are closely monitoring the outcome of that review.

As we get to the 200-year anniversary of the RSPCA and warmly welcome and congratulate it on its many achievements, I encourage the RSPCA and the Government to consider the ways in which we need to strengthen protection for animals going forward. That includes addressing the cruelty involved in the proliferation of huge industrial chicken sheds and their impact on the environment and animal protection; addressing the smuggling of puppies and kittens, as other Members have mentioned; introducing stronger regulation on breeders to ensure high welfare standards for dogs and cats; and, in particular, clamping down on the trend of breeding for extreme traits in dogs, which causes huge concerns in terms of breathing, walking and basic welfare standards. I would like the Minister to respond on that specifically.

I also call on the Government to ban the manufacture and use of snares, and to address the cruelty that can occur with the use of animals in sport. Members may not be aware that there were 175 horse deaths on racecourses in 2023. The horseracing industry needs to show how it will stop deaths of horses on racetracks.

We have come so far, haven’t we? We are a nation of animal lovers. We are proud of the RSPCA’s work to support particularly dogs, cats and other animals that are our beloved pets. Yet there is so much more to do, and I look forward to seeing the RSPCA being central to that work. I would welcome hearing from the Minister at the end of the debate about some of the specific animal abuse issues I have highlighted, which I know the British public want addressed.

10:04

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Twigg, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones)— I hope I have got that right—on securing today’s debate and on her excellent speech.

The RSPCA is not just the UK’s largest animal welfare charity, but one of our nation’s most treasured and recognisable institutions. For a startling 200 years, it has been kept afloat thanks to the generous donations of the British public, which just goes to show that we truly are a nation of animal lovers and cherish the work done by the charity to help animals. The RSPCA’s work stretches across every part of the country, and I look forward to visiting my local branch on Friday. It is a shame that the life of an MP is not more compatible with pet ownership, otherwise I would not be leaving there empty-handed; in fact, I would probably leave with an armful.

The RSPCA’s workload is staggering. Last year, it averaged more than 2,500 calls every single day, received more than 20,000 abandonment calls and rehomed 27,000 animals. We appreciate all that it does. It is heartbreaking to hear stories of pets being abandoned by their owners. Sadly, the cost of living crisis and the surge of so-called pandemic puppies have created a perfect storm, whereby more and more people cannot afford to properly care for their beloved companions.

[Tessa Munt]

That is counterintuitive, isn’t it, because having a pet can be one of the things that keeps people’s mental health so fit and together. As I mentioned earlier, the cost of running my local centre is £1,300 a day, but where they can match pets with people, those people often benefit enormously from improved mental health because of the company of an animal.

[Gill Furniss]

I thank the hon. Member for that pertinent point. Throughout covid, which was stressful for everyone, people’s pets were their comfort and also their form of exercise. It is proven that dogs will calm us down when we are in distress and give us something to get up for in the morning.

As difficult as it can be, the RSPCA is always there if owners can no longer afford the cost of owning a pet. There is never an excuse for abandonment, but however the animals get to the RSPCA, it is there for every one of them. I am an animal lover; my father adopted a dog for me when I was a child and I adopted a cat some years ago. When I adopted the cat, I was surprised at the thoroughness of the vetting: we were interviewed, and someone came to my home to check the garden, to see whether we were on a busy road and to do the matching mentioned by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt). It is comforting to know that pets that have sometimes been abandoned are going to the right people in the right places who can look after them. I imagine that looking after a Chihuahua and looking after a Great Dane are different things— I have not had either, but I imagine there are different focuses and different housing abilities when doing that.

The ban on puppy and kitten smuggling is long overdue. The previous Government dragged their feet on it for far too long and animals have suffered as a result, so I look forward to hearing from the Minister about his plans in that area.

I also welcome our manifesto commitment to work towards phasing out animal testing. Although it has been vital for many of our most important scientific and medical discoveries, technological advances mean we can look forward to an age where it is no longer needed. I hope the Minister can outline the way forward for us.

I am confident that the Government’s work on these issues will extend beyond our manifesto commitments, to ensure that we remain world leaders in animal welfare. Given the RSPCA’s expertise, we must listen when it calls for legislative changes. Colleagues have mentioned regulation, and the suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn should be listened to. I will be interested to hear what the Minister says about establishing an animal health strategy, which I feel would have the support of Parliament, should it proceed.

I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn—I have said that so many times now that maybe I will remember it—for giving us the opportunity to celebrate 200 years since the RSPCA was formed. This debate has been a great chance to reflect on how far we have come and to discuss what more there is to do, and I look forward to seeing real progress in the years ahead. Most of all, I thank all those associated with the RSPCA—the donors, the workers, the board members and the fundraisers. I really want to congratulate them and wish them a happy 200th birthday.

10:10

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your guidance, Mr Twigg. It is a tremendous honour to follow so many great speeches, most of all that by the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones)—the hon. Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) gave us a masterclass in how to pronounce Newport West and Islwyn. The hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn made a really great opening speech and we ought to be very grateful to her for securing this debate.

It is incredibly important that we mark the RSPCA’s 200th anniversary. It was the first charity of its kind and it is still the leading one, as the largest animal welfare charity in the United Kingdom. There are no two ways about it: how we treat animals—wildlife, livestock, pets or whatever—is a mark of the kind of culture and society we are. Are we a people who are kind? Are we a people who are considerate? Are we a people who consider those who are more vulnerable than us, whether they be humans or animals? That is a measure of whether we truly are a civilised society, and we have to thank and praise the RSPCA for being one of the cornerstones of what it is to live in a civilised country today.

From a local perspective, we have so much to be grateful to the RSPCA for. I represent 1,500 farms, and the RSPCA inspectors help farmers and support animal welfare right across our huge and beautiful communities of Westmorland and Lonsdale, and specifically at the annual Appleby horse fair. We are very grateful for the RSPCA’s focus on that event and in the towns and villages around Appleby, such as Kirkby Stephen, where there is great need for its intervention. RSPCA Westmorland is a wonderful branch, and we praise the inspectors, the volunteers and all the people who make that outfit so very successful, from their base in Kendal to the shops in Bowness and Kendal itself.

As we have heard from many Members today, the RSPCA relies on donations—0.1% of its income comes from a Government source, leaving the rest of it to be raised by hard-working volunteers. That funding is spent incredibly effectively: 82p out of every pound that it raises goes on direct interventions to preserve animal welfare; 1p out of every pound goes on governance; and the other 17p is invested in raising the next pound. It is so important to remember that a really significant part of what the RSPCA does is raise money to be able to do its fantastic work. That is both practical and political, and it is important to reflect on that and to praise the RSPCA for both.

This has been a really great debate, and I will not cover everything that has been said, because of time constrictions, but let us start with the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn. She talked rightly about the lack of breeding regulations and the immense suffering that can be caused by specific bred characteristics. I had the pleasure—although it was a very sobering experience in many ways—of visiting Battersea Dogs and Cats Home last year, and I saw the tiny fraction of animals, including a dog, that have been lucky enough to have medical interventions to undo the consequences of such breeding—respiratory problems, great suffering and shorter lives.

That was a reminder of why it is important that we look to regulate ownership as well as breeding. When I were a lad, we had the dog licence, and I am not convinced that it is not a good idea to go back to such a system. We often talk about dangerous breeds, but we are generally talking about poor owners. We need to ensure that we have a licencing system that regulates these things, so that our animals are cared for and well reared.

The hon. Member made a wonderful point setting out the advances and reminding us of the many great things Parliament has done, both recently and over a longer period, including on animal sentience and preventing primates being kept as pets. Many if not all of those things happened because of RSPCA pressure, and we are grateful for that.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about a number of issues, but specifically about how much the RSPCA does with so little. He also rightly focused on the RSPCA’s educational work, ensuring that young people know from an early age how important it is to value animals and to treat them with kindness. I am the opposite of the hon. Member in that I was the one brought up with cats and my wife was the one brought up with dogs—and she won. We had a wonderful couple of ginger toms called Eric and Ernie when we were first married; they were terrorised by my toddler, who is now 23. They moved next door and lived long and prosperous lives as a result—there was no need for RSPCA intervention. Sadly, they were the last cats that I owned.

The hon. Member for Clwyd East (Becky Gittins) made a brilliant speech, and I welcome her to this place and to the Westminster Hall family. She talked about the importance of rescue centres and how many of them are full. There are too few resources available and so many healthy and otherwise happy animals are tragically put down. She talked about the importance of microchipping and of tackling puppy and kitten smuggling and farming, something that the last Government were shaping to do but did not. There was an animal welfare Bill in the 2019 Conservative manifesto that was good and ready to go, but they took it to bits and did some of it. That was a terrible waste, because there was absolutely a majority in the last Parliament to pass that Bill. I hope the new Government will now finish the job and go further. The hon. Member also made some other excellent alongside that.

I was pleased to hear the excellent and impassioned speech from the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay). He talked about the hard side of what the RSPCA does and the importance of bringing prosecutions. There must be justice: when people treat animals unfairly and cruelly we should do more than just wring our hands. We are grateful to the RSPCA and its inspectors and officers for ensuring that justice is done and prosecutions happen.

[Tessa Munt]

I do not want to say that people who have been violent to others start here, but there is a lot of research that indicates that cruelty to animals is often a precursor of cruelty to people. The RSPCA is well placed in its work to identify people who are capable of doing the most dreadful things to animals and who might then go on to offend against other people.

[Tim Farron]

Tragically, my hon. Friend is correct. There is much evidence to back up the idea that many people who abuse human beings started off or learned their trade with how they treated animals. That is shocking, but as the hon. Member for Waveney Valley pointed out, in dealing with prosecutions the RSPCA may end up protecting humans in the long run by tackling those who abuse animals. He also spoke about the impact of animal welfare issues on pollution, and in particular the huge industrial-style chicken sheds and what they mean for water quality. He spoke of the importance of the welfare of farmed animals, which I will come back to in my conclusion if I have a minute.

The hon. Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) spoke about many things, including the RSPCA’s commitment to rehoming and ensuring good homes for those animals that have been abandoned. We need to support it to do that because in many cases, as the hon. Member for Clwyd East said, not enough of those animals are being rehomed because of a lack of space in shelters.

In an earlier intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) talked about the clear and attested benefits of pet ownership for our mental health—there are no two ways about it. Having lost to my wife, we now have dogs. We have a chocolate Lab called Ted, who is my running companion. I have a running lead and he pulls me up the hills—it is awesome. We also have an elderly and decrepit springer spaniel, Jasper, who used to be my running companion. He improves my mental health by reminding me that I am not the most decrepit member of our household— bless him, but put him in water and you would think he was a seal.

[Tessa Munt]

I would like to offer some balance, because it comes to me that the RSPCA was involved in an amazing project working with young offenders on the south coast. Young people who had often effectively ended up in the prison system, who had never been loved or had anything to love, had the opportunity to work with horses—big, powerful animals that could hurt them more than the other way round. It was an amazing project that allowed the recovery of those young people, which gives a bit of balance to my previous point.

[Tim Farron]

My hon. Friend makes a good point; that is absolutely true. Animals are good for us, so we should be good to them. The RSPCA has been great at encouraging both sides of that.

We have rightly paid tribute to the RSPCA for its practical and political work lobbying to make this place and our society kinder to animals. It has a list of ambitions, and we have gone through many of them, but I will name a handful: to stop illegal puppy and kitten trading, to improve farmed animal welfare, to end the severe suffering of animals used in science, to secure legal protection for animals and establish an animal protection commission, to achieve statutory powers in England and Wales for RSPCA inspectors and, internationally, to secure a UN declaration for animals. To go further and meet the high standards that the RSPCA sets us, we in this place should be banning puppy and kitten farming and smuggling; ending the use of inhumane cages on an industrial scale, particularly when it comes to laying hens; and moving away from animal testing for medical and other forms of science where it is safe to do so.

There are broader things as well. In the last Parliament, we had a Government who did trade deals with countries with poorer animal welfare standards than our own, effectively exporting problems to other countries and, in the process, undermining our farmers, who have relatively high animal welfare standards. They rewarded those overseas producers with poorer welfare standards and penalised our farmers with higher welfare standards. That was wrong, and I hope this Government will do something about it.

For all the problems with the new farm payment scheme, I will praise the last Government for the farming in protected landscapes programme—FiPL—which provides grant support to farmers in places such as the lakes, the dales and other protected landscapes. It allows farmers to move towards accommodation and other capital kit that allows them to keep their animals at a higher welfare standard. That money runs out at the end of March; I would love the Minister to address that. FiPL has been one of the few good things so far to come out of the botched transition from the old farm payment scheme to the new one, and it is good for animal welfare and farmers.

More generally, let us remember that one reason we in this country have higher animal welfare standards in farming than in other places such as Australia and the US is because we have a tradition of family farming and close husbandry. Put bluntly, the first time an Australian or American farmer knows their livestock is unwell is when they find its sun-bleached bones the next year. The reality in the United Kingdom is that we have a closeness and therefore a tenderness and a practical way of being able to care for our animals.

We need to ensure in the farm transition that huge landlords are not the ones who benefit, as is currently happening thanks to the mistakes of the last Government, and instead that we support smaller farmers, who currently cannot get into those schemes. In yesterday’s debate, I mentioned a hill farmer I spoke to recently who has lost £40,000 in farm payments; he has gained £14,000 under the sustainable farming incentive to replace those payments, and even that cost him £6,000 for a land agent to try to get him through the hoops. People like him will potentially go out of business, and we will end up with ranch farming, rather than the family farming we need if we really care about animal welfare in farming in the UK.

In short, 200 years is absolutely something we should celebrate, but the RSPCA lacks resources, and we need to support it to have more. There are many laws that do not support animal welfare as we would like them to, including Government policy that advantages those who mistreat animals both at home and abroad. The RSPCA has done so much and wants to do so much more; it is our job as a Parliament to support it.

10:25

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) on securing this important debate. Having interacted with her many times in the previous Parliament, when she was a shadow Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I know that she cares deeply about animal welfare issues. It is good to see her championing those issues again—what better way than by securing an important debate on the RSPCA in its 200th anniversary year? It is thanks to the hard work of bodies such as the RSPCA, covering enforcement, education and campaigning, that the UK is the G7 nation highest on the world animal protection index. I welcome Chris Sherwood, the chief executive of the RSPCA, and his team to the Public Gallery.

The RSPCA’s work is truly staggering in scale and spans more than two centuries of dedication. In 2023 alone, the RSPCA responded to more than 110,000 incidents and provided more than half a million hours of care to animals needing treatment or rehabilitation. We must not forget that the RSPCA receives a call on its cruelty and advice line every 32 seconds. Nearly 10,000 people offer their time as volunteers to the RSPCA, which is truly commendable. This monumental effort provides thousands of wild animals, pets and livestock with care and protection from cruelty. Vitally, the RSPCA also conducts much work with animal owners to deliver important advice on how best to care for their animals.

I agree with all Members present who have made positive comments about the RSPCA. It is a real success story, showing how people across the country can come together to make a difference on something they care deeply about. It is fantastic that we live in a country where people are empowered to make a difference and feel free to act on their convictions without relying solely on state inspectorates. As has been highlighted, the RSPCA receives almost no Government funding, operating through charitable donations and its internal fundraising operations.

The RSPCA plays a vital role in the enforcement of our animal welfare laws. Through private prosecutions, every one of us has the right to bring forward a prosecution where we feel a crime has been committed, and the RSPCA regularly does this through a sponsoring individual. I hope the Government will continue to support private prosecutions; they are a vital part of our legal system, ensuring the law is owned and accessible to us all, and not just the state.

Of course, the RSPCA carries out this work under the law, and I will take a moment to highlight the previous Government’s work to strengthen the legal protections for animals. Since leaving the European Union, we have had greater freedom to determination our own animal welfare laws, including passing the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022—a landmark piece of legislation. The Act created the Animal Sentience Committee, which provides expert advice to Government on animal welfare reforms. The Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024 also delivered on the previous Government’s commitment to ban the export of live animals, ending the unnecessary stress, exhaustion and injury caused by their export. Several Members have already spoken in this debate of the Act being a good piece of legislation.

In 2016 and 2023, the Conservative Administration made changes to the law requiring dogs and cats to be microchipped in England, ensuring that they can be reunited with their owners. It was good to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Clwyd East (Becky Gittins), whom I welcome to Westminster Hall, on microchipping specifically. In 2019, wild animals were banned in circuses, and the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 increased the maximum possible sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years.

I shall pick up on the points raised by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) around the work that the previous Administration were doing collectively and with our devolved nations. I hope that the Minister continues the dialogue with all devolved nations—I am sure he will—to ensure that we can work at pace on improving animal welfare legislation.

I urge the Government to continue at pace with the key areas of work that we were doing on livestock worrying. In particular, we need to ensure that the toughening of regulations through the implementation of the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill continues to receive support from the Government. Too often, time and time again, we hear that farmers are seeing their own livestock being killed or seriously savaged—seriously injured—as a result of people taking their dogs across fields. This needs to stop. I therefore hope that the Government will introduce that piece of legislation, and that it can become law. I seek confirmation from the Minister that that will be the case. It is only right that those who are irresponsible with their pets, when privileged to pass across someone else’s land, feel the full consequences of their actions.

I thank the civil service team for their assistance not only to me but to previous Ministers in the work on the pieces of legislation that we introduced.

For some time the RSPCA has been campaigning on the distress caused to animals by the irresponsible use of fireworks. That issue is particularly relevant in my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley, where fireworks are regularly set off throughout the year, late into the evening and sometimes at all hours of the night. That causes huge distress to pets and other animals—not to mention their owners, struggling to sleep. I therefore take the opportunity to ask the Minister what work the Government plan to undertake to enforce our existing firework laws, and whether he believes that it is necessary to toughen up existing legislation in this area.

As all Members have highlighted through their contributions today, we are a nation of animal lovers, and what better way to celebrate that than by holding today’s debate and celebrating the work of the RSPCA over the past 200 years? Again, I would like to champion the work that my hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), has been doing on raising animal welfare matters. I hope that she will continue to champion that cause from the Government Benches, and I hope that, with continued cross-party support, the RSPCA will continue to deliver the fantastic care that it already does for animals throughout the country.

10:32

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

It is a great pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I join in the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones)—and she is indeed a very good friend—on securing this important debate. Her opening speech setting out the history and the issues was very thorough, and absolutely typical of her deep knowledge of these subjects, which she displayed, of course, when she served with me as a member of the shadow team over many years. I am delighted that my hon. Friend continues to be a staunch advocate for animal welfare in this place, and that her commitment to this cause was recognised last month, when, I am told, she won the Nature 2030 award for animal welfare. I also thank the shadow Minister for his kind words for my colleague; they are very well received.

I pay tribute to the RSPCA’s outgoing chief executive, Chris Sherwood, and wish him well in his new role, which I am told is at the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.

I am delighted to take part and reply in today’s debate celebrating the RSPCA’s 200th anniversary and some of the achievements since that first meeting in the London coffee shop in 1824. It has been a very good debate. I was warned in advance that probably a number of people’s pets would be mentioned, and we have had Bella from Waveney Valley and Ted from Westmorland and Lonsdale. I will not add my own.

I welcome new Members to this happy band that joins these regular Westminster Hall debates. I suspect we shall all get to know each other even better over the next few years. Of course, no debate like this would be complete without a contribution from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—I will come to some of his comments in a minute. I am particularly pleased to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd East (Becky Gittins), who made important points about the microchipping consultation. I can tell her that they are under very serious consideration. The points she made about the database were well made, but these are inevitably complex issues.

I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) here; he made a series of important points. There are clearly issues around greyhound racing and welfare. Those involved in that sport are making considerable efforts to address those issues, but we are monitoring them carefully and if action is needed, it will be proportionate and sensible.

The hon. Gentleman also raised important points about poultry production. Of course we want to improve animal welfare in any way we can, but I gently say to him that the trade issues are complicated, and there is no point in our moving unless we can move in tandem with others. Exporting cruelty does not solve the problem. This is a complicated set of issues, but we clearly want to make as many improvements as we can.

I was pleased to hear the important points that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) raised about animal testing. I will come to them in a moment.

As we always say, we are a nation of animal lovers. The RSPCA plays a crucial role and should be given significant credit for helping shape the attitudes towards animal welfare that underpin our society. The comments by the hon. Member for Strangford about the USPCA informed my thinking; I was not entirely aware of its work. The inspectors and animal rescue officers of the USPCA and the RSPCA work—in often extremely challenging circumstances—to investigate and rescue animals from harm, and they deserve our thanks and praise, as do the staff and volunteers who work tirelessly to rehabilitate and rehome so many animals and give them a better life. The RSPCA has proven to be a formidable champion of animal welfare over the past 200 years, and successive Governments have greatly benefited from its expertise and advice.

Hon. Members have raised a number of campaigns and issues, and I will try to set out our position on some of the main ones. In our manifesto, we outlined that we are committed to ending puppy smuggling. Since the pet travel rules were harmonised with the European Union in 2012, there has been a significant increase in the number of non-commercial pet movements into the UK. Sadly, it tripled since 2011 to more than 320,000 dogs and cats in 2023. The number of dogs, cats and ferrets imported under the commercial rules has also significantly increased over the past few years. I listened closely to the comments of the hon. Member for Strangford about cat movements. By the nature of the crime, we cannot know the true extent of pet smuggling operations, but we know that commercial imports of dogs and cats are being disguised as non-commercial movements, as they are subject to less stringent checks.

Sadly, there is also an emerging market for the importation of heavily pregnant dogs and dogs with cropped ears—a painful practice that has been rightly banned in the UK for more than 15 years. We intend to clamp down on unscrupulous traders who prioritise profit over welfare. This problem is linked to dog breeding issues. We are working closely with the UK Brachycephalic Working Group to reduce the number of dogs affected by that condition.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn mentioned the overriding recommendation of the 2015 Law Commission report into wildlife legislation—namely, that wildlife laws in this country need to be consolidated. I cannot today commit to bringing about that consolidation, but it is clear that we need more consistency and clarity. Our general election manifesto included an explicit commitment to bring an end to the use of snare traps, which I am sure hon. Members will welcome, but I am conscious that questions are posed about the humaneness of other wildlife traps. The law should be there to improve the protection of our wild animals, not only from an ethical standpoint but because the protection of wildlife is a crucial part of our approach to meeting our nature recovery ambitions.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his speech; it is wonderful to see him in his place. I spent five years before my election to this House working in the office of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), and in the shadow DEFRA team with the Minister, so it is very good to be here listening to him. On that point, I urge him to be bold and ambitious. The shadow Minister’s speech was like a rehash of a previous life, but his rose-tinted version did not quite match my recollection. We seek to have the strongest approach to animal welfare, so let us be bold and do what the Conservatives did not.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I shall always listen to my hon. Friend’s exhortations to be bold. Watch this space in the coming few months.

Finally on wildlife, significant sanctions are available to judges for those convicted of most wildlife crimes, but there are questions as to why there are different penalties for similarly abhorrent acts against different species. Bringing more consistency seems worthy of closer consideration. The Government will look at how best to deliver nature restoration and enforce animal welfare standards for wildlife.

Moving on to points raised especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough about phasing out the use of animals in experiments, the use of animals in science is a highly sensitive issue. We agree with the RSPCA that it is essential to replace the use of animals with humane alternatives. That is why we made in our manifesto a commitment to partner scientists, industry and civil society as we work towards the phasing out of animal testing. We are engaging with key stakeholders with an interest in animal research as to how we will take that commitment forward. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn asked for a timetable in her opening statement; I assure her that it will be done in due course.

The UK is world leading in the development of alternative methods to using animals. This Government are keen to ensure that such methods are used wherever possible. However, technology is not quite yet at the stage where animal testing can wholly be replaced. We want to replace the use of animals in scientific procedures where we can, but for now the carefully regulated use of animals in scientific research remains necessary if we are to protect humans and the wider environment.

The use of animals in such testing is limited to specific purposes. Furthermore, the use of animals in scientific procedures is permitted only if no alternative is available, where the number of animals used is the minimum needed to achieve the scientific benefit, and where the potential harm to animals is limited to the absolute minimum needed to achieve the scientific benefit. Those are collectively known as the three Rs of replacement, reduction and refinement.

I also recognise the significant public interest in the welfare of farmed animals, and the immense contribution that the RSPCA has made to help raise farm animal welfare standards through its lobbying and its farm assurance scheme, RSPCA Assured. I heard the comments by the hon. Member for Waveney Valley, but I am confident that the work that the RSPCA is doing will restore confidence in that very important scheme.

I appreciate the strong public demand for clearer animal welfare information on the food people buy, to help them make purchasing decisions that align with their values. The public consultation on fairer food labelling was undertaken earlier this year by the previous Government. That consultation sought views on proposals to extend existing mandatory methods of production labelling. We are carefully considering all the responses to the consultation before deciding on next steps. We will publish a response to the consultation in due course.

On cages and confinement, I am very much aware of the strong public feeling about keeping farm animals in cages and of the recent campaigns, including by the RSPCA, urging the Government to publish consultations on phasing out the use of enriched colony cages for laying hens and of farrowing crates for pigs. I appreciate the RSPCA’s role in leading the way on encouraging high standards when it comes to this issue, with RSPCA Assured not permitting the use of colony cages for laying hens or farrowing crates for pigs.

I am encouraged that the market itself is driving the move to alternative systems for laying hens—primarily free range and barn—away from the use of cages. The transition to non-cage egg production has been supported by the major supermarkets, which have pledged to stop selling shell eggs from hens kept in colony cages by 2025. That shift by retailers has accelerated the move away from colony cage systems. Free-range eggs account for more than 60% of total egg throughput in the UK.

We will not, however, leave the issue to market forces alone. The transition to cage-free systems is being supported by grants in England for laying-hen and pullet farmers with flocks of 1,000 birds or more to refurbish or replace existing housing, including those looking to make the transition from colony cages to higher-welfare non-cage systems.

As with cages for laying hens, the issue of ending the use of pig farrowing crates does not only affect the UK industry, but is something that our European trading partners are also considering.

[Jim Shannon]

I know that the Minister and I, and hopefully everyone else in this Chamber, appreciate the efforts and contributions of farmers who, by and large, want their animals to be well looked after and try to achieve that. The National Farmers Union here and the Ulster Farmers Union back home are working alongside farmers to improve things. Sometimes in debates we can get a wee bit lost in these things. It is important to remember that many people are trying their best to make things better.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. It is important to make the point that of course all our farmers want to raise their animals to the highest possible standards, but they need the right regulatory frameworks to make that possible, which is what we are working on. As with any change to our farming systems, as I said earlier, we need to consider the implications for trade.

[Adrian Ramsay]

The Minister says that he wants to be ambitious on animal protection and has asked us to watch this space, which we will do, given the cross-party interest in this roomin animal protection issues. He mentioned market forces and trends in animal welfare. May I highlight, therefore, that we are seeing a proliferation of huge industrial chicken sheds in Norfolk and Suffolk, and I am sure around the country? Tens of thousands of birds, and in some cases pigs, are kept in really unpleasant, cramped indoor conditions that are not consistent with welfare standards of the type that the Minister talks about. What action will the Government take to stop that trend? This is about animal protection, river pollution and environmental standards.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I disagree with the hon. Member’s assumption that animal welfare standards are lower in larger-scale production facilities; that is a false premise. I urge him to look at some of the smaller premises that are sometimes undercapitalised and, I am afraid, do not always achieve the welfare standards that we are looking for. I do not think it is as simple as he makes out.

The trade issues are really important. We already lead in Europe—I am going back to the pig sector here—in having a significant outdoor pig sector. Some 40% of the national sow breeding herd farrow freely on outdoor units, with no option for confinement. DEFRA’s statutory welfare code of practice for pigs states that the aim is for farrowing crates to no longer be necessary and for any new system to protect the welfare of the sow as well as her piglets.

In the meantime, under the new “Get funding to improve animal health and welfare” service, a fully funded vet visit known as the animal health and welfare review is available to pig farmers to improve pig health and welfare.

It is fair to say that the United Kingdom is rightly proud of the high animal welfare standards that underpin our high quality British produce, and we will work to ensure that we address low confidence and provide stability for the farming sector.

In conclusion, the Government look forward to delivering the most ambitious programme for animal welfare in a generation. I very much hope we can build on the excellent relationship that we have forged with the RSPCA over many years to progress the various important animal welfare issues that have been raised today.

10:48

[Ruth Jones]

I want to thank every hon. Member who has taken part in this debate today: my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd East (Becky Gittins ) and for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss); the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay)—it is good to welcome him to his place—and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). I also thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), and the Minister. Everybody has made intelligent, reasonable and well-informed contributions. Many valid and important points have been made.

Animal welfare would not be where it is today without the immense contribution of the RSPCA over the last two centuries. Today we know that the RSPCA’s animal rescue line receives around a million calls a year—one every six seconds. Staff work across England and Wales to investigate allegations of animal cruelty and neglect.

I was recently lucky enough to be able to visit the RSPCA centre in Newport East in my neighbouring constituency and I accompanied an RSPCA inspector on her rounds for the day. I urge all Members to go out with an RSPCA inspector; it really opens our eyes to what they have to deal with. I saw at first hand the vital work that they do. The RSPCA staff, supporters and volunteers continue to work tirelessly for a better world for every kind of animal.

In line with the shadow Minister, I want to finish by paying tribute to the RSPCA chief executive, Chris Sherwood, who is leaving the RSPCA, which I know will miss him—he has led it since 2018. I thank him and all the other staff for their hard work. Today we celebrate the RSPCA, a well-loved organisation whose work ensures that animal welfare is at the forefront of our agenda, so thank you.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for the RSPCA.

10:49

Sitting suspended.

Proposed Salt Marshes: Pawlett Hams

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

I will call Sir Ashley Fox to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates. At least one other Member has indicated that they wish to speak, and there may be interventions.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the environmental impact of the proposed salt marshes at Pawlett Hams and other sites.

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I welcome the Minister to her place.

I am grateful to have this opportunity to move the motion, which concerns an issue of great importance to my constituents in Bridgwater. I asked for this debate to discuss EDF’s plans to establish a salt marsh at Pawlett Hams in Somerset. The proposal was highly unpopular with the local community. In fact, it was difficult to find anyone who thought it was a good idea, and when I met representatives from EDF, even they seemed a little half-hearted about it.

Why, one might ask, does EDF, which is building the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station a few miles down the coast, want to flood 800 acres of beautiful Somerset countryside and turn it into a salt marsh? The answer is complex. When EDF was given planning permission to build Hinkley Point C, it was required to take measures to mitigate damage to marine life caused by the water intake pipes, which are situated in the Bristol channel and, as one might imagine, there is a risk of harm to fish, which might get sucked into them.

EDF originally set out three proposals to minimise the risk of harm to marine life. The first involved designing special low-velocity, side-entry water intake pipes, with a capped head design. These reduce the number of fish that are sucked into the pipe as they swim past the end. The second was a fish recovery and return system, which means that a good proportion of the fish that swim into the intake pipe are returned to the sea, with minimal injury. That is not a perfect system, but it is certainly one that will save the more resilient species.

The third was that EDF was required to install an acoustic fish deterrent, or AFD. This involves the installation of a number of underwater sound projectors that play a constant loud noise that is designed to stop fish approaching the area of the intake pipes. EDF now says that it is unable to install the AFD, because of engineering difficulties and health and safety risks to the divers who would need to maintain the system. To deviate from the AFD proposals, EDF has to submit a material change application. As part of the application, it is working with the Environment Agency to agree several compensatory habitat measures to deliver benefit to the estuary’s qualifying habitat.

EDF says that it is putting forward a mosaic of mitigation measures. Some of them seem sensible and beneficial to the natural ecosystem in and around the Severn estuary: for example, the creation of several hectares of seagrass in the estuary and a commitment to delivering 15 hectares of kelp forest. It is also considering upgrades to several weirs to benefit migratory fish. The most significant proposal, however, and the one that brings us to Westminster Hall today, is the creation of 800 acres of salt marsh.

At the beginning of this year, EDF consulted on the salt marsh being established in Pawlett Hams, in my constituency. Pawlett Hams is a precious ecosystem. EDF’s plans to flood the area with saltwater would endanger not just the land itself, but the myriad species that call it home. It would transform the biodiverse habitat into barren, species-poor salt marsh and tidal mud. What is most extraordinary about EDF’s plans is that the Hams is an area of great ecological importance. It forms part of the Bridgwater bay site of special scientific interest, which was first declared in 1989 and recognises the area as one of particular interest to science, due to the rare species of flora and fauna that it contains. There is a lush, biodiverse habitat for many animals in the Hams, including lapwings, redshanks, otters, water voles, water beetles, great crested newts and yellow wagtails. Those species would be driven out if the area was turned into a salt marsh. The Hams provide valuable grazing for local farmers that would also be lost.

EDF’s plan was a disaster, and even if it went ahead it was not clear how it would mitigate the problem of the fish that would be lost. I made my views abundantly clear to EDF over the months, so I was delighted when, a day after making a request for this debate, it announced that it is pausing its proposal. EDF says that it is now considering four other potential sites for salt marshes in the Severn estuary, at Kingston Seymour, Littleton, Arlingham and Rodley.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for all his detail and his excellent summary of exactly what is being proposed in Arlingham. The proposal was put to the people of Arlingham, they had a large meeting on Monday evening and, almost universally, there was a feeling that this was not a good idea for people there or for their landscape. Many of the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has put across are the same in Arlingham. It seems rather strange that the Arlingham site and salt marsh will somehow compensate for or mitigate the predicted loss of about 182 million fish; I do not think there is any way we can say that those two match each other. Although I support the principle of habitat creation and acknowledge the benefits of the salt marsh, does the Minister share my concern that EDF’s application to modify Hinkley Point C’s consent order seems like an unacceptably high price for an environmentally unique habitat to pay?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I will leave the Minister to answer those points, if I may.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I pay tribute, as I am sure the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) would, to the amazing community at Pawlett Hams, who campaigned ferociously, but in quite a gentle way, and single-mindedly to get its aims and dislike across. I hope that that is reflected in the comments made by the hon. Member for Stroud about the community; indeed, we have a meeting in the communities that I represent on Monday next week. It is the case that the communities feel that EDF and the Environment Agency may have been a little heavy-handed in their first approaches. They seemed to be rather fierce and not accepting of the fact that people have a view about their own community and its sustainability.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

The hon. Lady anticipates the next part of my speech.

As a new MP, it is tempting to believe that this change of heart by EDF is entirely due to my persuasive powers, but that is not the case. All credit must go to the Pawlett Hams Action Group, a genuine grassroots campaign that sprang up to defend the Hams. The group demonstrated the significance of the Hams by conducting wildlife surveys and collecting personal and historical testimonies. It also raised awareness of the issue through petitions, social media, community events such as a photography competition and collaboration with local schools. I pay tribute to the group’s co-ordinator, Judith Ballard, and to the other leading members, Moira Allen, Rachel and Molly Fitton, and Joy Russell. There are many others who worked hard to save the Hams so that it might be enjoyed for generations to come. I thank them all—perhaps they can help the hon. Members for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) and for Stroud (Dr Opher) in resisting unwanted salt marshes.

Although my constituents and I welcome EDF’s decision not to proceed with the plan, several outstanding questions need to be answered. My first question relates to the inclusion and, now, the planned removal of the AFD in the development consent order. That was included at the request of the Environment Agency. I want to know why it was included if, as we are now told, it is unsuitable for conditions in the Bristol channel. Related to that question, what was the process between the Environment Agency and EDF on agreeing that it should be removed?

To my local community, the process looks opaque. Some of my constituents believe that the AFD should remain as a condition of EDF being allowed to operate Hinkley Point C. I do not claim to have the technical knowledge to know whether it is a practical option or not—and the Secretary of State has yet to make formal decision—but it seems to me that EDF and the Environment Agency are putting together a package of mitigation measures in the hope that the deal will be signed off.

I want to know why, once the decision to explore the establishment of a salt marsh was made, Pawlett Hams was designated as the preferred site. As I said earlier, the Hams is recognised as a wetland of international importance. Turning it into a salt marsh is not a mitigation. It would be an intentional decision to cause environmental harm. It is a completely illogical and extraordinary choice by the Environment Agency. The view of many of my constituents is that the Environment Agency chose Pawlett Hams so that it could flood the land and save money on maintaining flood defences. I want to ask the Minister for an assurance that the Government will continue to maintain all the flood defences on the River Parrett.

Finally, I want to ask the Government to consider whether there might be a better way of delivering environmental improvements than through the Environment Agency. It was the Environment Agency that wanted to include an AFD in the initial development consent order. Now it apparently agrees that it should be removed, and is the prime mover behind this unwanted salt marsh. Having retreated from Pawlett Hams, it now wishes to inflict this on other parts of the countryside.

If an acoustic fish deterrent is truly impractical— I remain to be convinced—I would like to see the money saved, which would be tens of millions of pounds, put at the disposal of the local community to fund genuine environmental improvements. I want to see those decisions taken by democratically accountable bodies, such as Somerset Council and the local town and parish councils. In my view, they are more likely to spend the money wisely than the agency that thought that turning Pawlett Hams into a salt marsh was a good idea.

11:12

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Twigg, for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I recognise that I have very little time, because I wish to ensure that the Minister has an opportunity to respond to my questions and those of the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox).

I have already mentioned that this was a heavy-handed approach, which is how my constituents feel. The fact that there is little detail has caused enormous distress in my community of Kingston Seymour. I thank the hon. Member for Bridgwater for talking about the campaigners, many of whom I know. I also recognise the efforts of Claire Sully, who was one of the hon. Gentleman’s opponents in the general election. In an effort at balance, I recognise that in 2011, when a proposal affecting Kingston Seymour came from the Environment Agency in a previous iteration, Liam Fox helped us to see it off.

I want to mention a number of things briefly. Some expert evidence was offered in 2011 by Dr Robert Kirby, a coastal geomorphologist and scientist. He advised that any salt marsh would eventually wash away or be eroded. As I already mentioned to the Minister, this piece of coast is on the Severn bore. The rise and fall of the tide will have an impact on every one of the communities. It is the second highest tidal rise in the world, and therefore that seems highly likely.

I have been informed by local historians that the existing seawall is of Roman origin in places, and I cannot understand exactly what the Environment Agency intends. If it intends to breach the seawall, that will increase the level of flooding. If it intends to build up the seawall, it will not create any more salt marsh, so I am really very unsure about this. I will pick up on exactly the point made by hon. Member for Bridgwater about why we were all told that the acoustic fish deterrent would be the absolute answer to all problems many years ago. Now it appears to be utter fiction, and I do not understand how it is that we can suddenly be looking at creating salt marsh and dismissing the number of fish that are going to be killed when that was a critical factor when Hinkley Point C was being discussed. Everyone threw up their hands in horror at the possible mass destruction of fish, but the acoustic fish deterrent was supposed to get rid of that problem.

In the area that we are talking about, Kingston Seymour, the residents have concerns. I have to say that 100% of the population is not against this, but people need the detail. There was a meeting and a number of constituents raised the following points with me. They are really concerned about solar farms, the sewage works in this area and the adverse impacts of saltwater on the three freshwater fishing lakes in Kingston Seymour. They are also very concerned about the increased risk of flooding, and they have already experienced increased insurance costs for their properties and businesses in 2011 as a result of the Environment Agency’s proposals then. There is a brilliant coastal footpath, which is an opportunity for people to move back and forth along the coast. Shortly after being elected on this occasion, I went to the opening of the pier to pier coastal path, which is a multi-user path that connects Weston-super-Mare pier with Clevedon pier. It was massively well used even before it was opened a week after the election. It was incredibly popular in that first week and huge numbers of people were using it.

The other thing that the Minister might want to know is that Kingston Seymour contains sites of special scientific interest. It seems slightly perverse that, where we have conservation sites and we have all been working hard to protect that area, and there are a number of protected species there, we are now proposing to mitigate the mitigation that everyone has provided. It is absolutely bonkers. We will end up mitigating the mitigation of the mitigation of the mitigation if we carry on like this. I really do not see that it is particularly helpful.

I am aware that there are different and expanded tourist offerings in this area since the last EA scheme was got shot of in about 2012 or 2013. There has been significant investment in businesses, including barn conversions that have created tourism accommodation, office and commercial activities, new caravan and camping grounds and new golf course facilities, and several of those businesses have created all sorts of recreational amenity. I am really concerned and I wonder whether the Minister might enable local people in Kingston Seymour to understand exactly what it is that the Environment Agency proposes and the impact it will have on them. That needs to be done really quickly before investigations take place as to the suitability of the land.

11:19

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) on securing this debate and on his excellent representation of his constituents’ views here today. I begin by saying that this is the subject of a live planning case and I am sure that hon. Members will understand the limits on what I can say. However, I can assure hon. Members that I have listened carefully to the points raised, asked my officials some of the questions that they have asked, and have spent a considerable amount of time thinking about the issue. I hope that what I say will be useful to them and their constituents.

I will begin by setting out the facts of the case. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 protects special areas of conservation and special protected areas. The regulations require an assessment of whether a plan or project could have an adverse impact on the integrity of a protected site. Any harm must be mitigated unless there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest and no alternative. In those cases, compensatory measures must be secured.

In this case, an acoustic fish deterrent was part of the approved mitigation for the impact of Hinckley Point C on the Severn estuary. Hinckley Point C has applied to remove the acoustic fish deterrent. That means that compensation may be needed for the loss of fish within the Severn estuary site. The species of concern are Atlantic cod, sea bass, whiting and herring.

In a pre-application consultation earlier this year, Hinckley proposed Pawlett Hams as a suitable compensatory salt marsh habitat. As the hon. Member for Bridgwater has said, Pawlett Hams was designated as part of the Bridgwater bay SSSI in 1989. It is particularly important for its network of freshwater ditches and their associate invertebrate communities—insects. Pawlett Hams is also part of the Severn estuary Ramsar—which is a wetland site—and special protection area, a European designation for bird sites. It has a triple protection.

In its response to the pre-application consultation, the Environment Agency was unable to agree with the suitability of the Pawlett Hams sites until further evidence and assessment has been completed. Hinckley approached the Environment Agency; to gently correct the hon. Member for Bridgwater, the Environment Agency did not suggest it. It is my understanding that the applicant makes a request to the regulator.

I understand that following the consultation, Hinkley Point C is investigating new locations for salt marsh creation as an alternative to Pawlett Hams. It is holding early conversations with stakeholders ahead of public consultation, as we have heard from colleagues today. Any additional sites being put forward are sites identified and selected by Hinkley Point C, not the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency agrees that the marine measures proposed are an appropriate option within a wider compensation package. It has not agreed on the scale of the measures to off-set the predicted adverse effects. To the question raised by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt), flood modelling and flood risk assessments would be required for identified sites.

[Tessa Munt]

As I understand it, the Environment Agency is helping the integrity of the seawall by building it up at Kingston Seymour, so it seems incredibly perverse that it might agree that that should change. Currently, it is making it better by creating more flood protection for the villagers in Kingston Seymour.

[Mary Creagh]

Let me come on to flood protection, and I will say something about salt marshes later. If the hon. Member is not satisfied with my response, then I am happy to write to the Environment Agency on her behalf.

The application for a material change is currently in the pre-application stage. That involves consultation and engagement with various bodies, including statutory consultees such as the Environment Agency and Natural England, which looks after our SSSIs. Those bodies will be able to provide valuable information on environmental impacts. That will include the sufficiency of the compensation package and its ability to compensate for the impact on protected fish species—let us not forget that this is about protecting the fish.

To comply with the pre-application consultation requirements under the Planning Act 2008, Hinkley Point C must carry out an appropriate consultation about any proposed changes. The decision relating to the project will ultimately be for the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband) to make. I am confident that he will do so correctly, in line with the requirements of the Planning Act. However, in doing so, he will need to consider all relevant issues. They include whether the proposed compensation is required and if it is, whether it is proportionate to the detrimental impact on fish populations of not fitting the acoustic fish deterrent. The planning guidance is clear: Ministers and officials should approach all such decisions with an open mind, based on the evidence presented to them, objectively and without having or giving the appearance of having any predetermined views on the merits or otherwise of the case. I am sure that we are all, in this room, seasoned politicians in planning applications.

I cannot discuss the particular merits of this case, but I want to raise some broader points prompted by some of the issues, because I too have asked questions. I have heard what the hon. Members for Bridgwater and for Wells and Mendip Hills have asked and that has made clear that we must deliver our infrastructure goals in a way that is positive for our natural world and for our wider landscapes. If we are to meet our ambitious targets on nature restoration while accelerating to net zero, we will have to think carefully about how we use our land. That is why the forthcoming land use framework for England will consider cross-governmental issues, such as energy and food security, and how we can expand nature-rich habitats, such as wetlands, peat bogs and forests.

Spatial planning will play an important role in the delivery of the Government’s growth and clean energy missions, and the land use framework will work hand in hand with the strategic spatial energy plan. The Government will also explore the opportunities for spatial planning to support the delivery of other types of infrastructure. I recognise that in some cases the planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth, which is why the Government will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new grid connections, roads, railways, reservoirs and other nationally significant infrastructure.

The proposed Planning and Infrastructure Bill will accelerate house building and infrastructure delivery and streamline the delivery process for critical infrastructure, including accelerating upgrades to the national grid and boosting renewable energy. That will benefit local communities, unlock delivery of our 2030 clean power mission and net zero obligations and ensure our domestic energy security. We will simplify the consenting process for major infrastructure projects and enable new and improved national policy statements to come forward. We will also establish a review process to provide the opportunity for them to be updated every five years, which will give increased certainty to developers and communities.

We are just as committed to protecting and restoring nature. In England, we are committed to halting the decline in species abundance by 2030 and reversing it by 2042. We are also committed to reducing the risk of species extinction and we will restore and create more than half a million hectares of wildlife-rich habitat by 2042. Delivering those targets sits at the heart of our mission to ensure nature’s recovery. We will look to reduce pressures on species and protected sites, such as pollution and climate change, and we will take action to recover specific species.

I will say a quick word about solar farms, because I know there has been a lot of talk about them, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills. My understanding from conversations with my biodiversity net gain team is that when we put in a solar farm on grazing land, the actual biodiversity net gain is up to 140%. I understand there are concerns about solar farms, but actually, it is an interesting way to diversify farm income while providing a boost to nature.

Salt marshes have had a bad rap in this debate. They are incredible valuable habitats. Wonderfully mysterious places on the border between land and sea, they are a liminal landscape in constant change, shifting with the tides. They are often overlooked and undervalued and, as we have heard, they can be talked down. I want to speak up for the salt marshes. They play a vital role in supporting species. For many fish, including sea bass and herring, those wetlands serve as essential nurseries—

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

11:30

Sitting suspended .

Maternity Services: Gloucestershire

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir Christopher Chope in the Chair]

14:30

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered maternity services in Gloucestershire.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. The hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) sends his apologies; he was due to be here but he is counting the votes somewhere else at the moment in an important internal election. He wanted me to start by saying that he gives his full support to the comments that I and others will make in support of maternity services in Gloucestershire, so I hope Hansard reflects that.

It is not controversial to say that NHS services across the country are struggling. One of the services that impacts all of us at least once in our lives is maternity care. This service is at the heart of women’s healthcare; it must be treated with the utmost seriousness. Pregnancy and childbirth is a special moment for families. It is a memory I cherish—obviously I was not pregnant myself. It is something to be cherished by all. But for pregnant women it can also be an extremely stressful experience. If there are failures in the system, the consequences can be dire.

Some of those consequences were laid bare in the recent “Panorama” documentary on maternity services in Gloucestershire. In that documentary we heard too many harrowing stories. Brave whistleblowers from within the system and brave mothers told their stories—one brave father told a story too. Those stories were told in the most heartbreaking terms, and will stick with me for as long as I live. Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS foundation trust apologised for those failings. It has invested in increased staffing, worked to reduce staff turnover and has made changes to leadership in maternity care. But so much more needs to be done.

The service at Gloucestershire Royal hospital was rated inadequate in 2022 and again in 2023. The findings of a further inspection earlier this year are still awaited, but a section 31 safety enforcement notice was served in May. Cheltenham’s midwife-led Aveta birth unit serves a large chunk of our county. It was closed for births in autumn 2022, some time before six of our county’s seven Members of Parliament were elected. The closure was due to a shortage of midwives. The reorganisation by the hospital’s trust was carried out to ensure that one-to-one care across Gloucestershire’s wider maternity services could be achieved. It is an entirely understandable response; nobody would want to put mothers and babies at risk.

We were told, however, that the measures were temporary. Two years down the line they are still in place, and that is not an acceptable situation for people in our county. The NHS hospital trust suggests that the Cheltenham Aveta centre will not re-open for births before April 2025. Even then, nothing seems certain. The trust states that it is committed to reopening the centre when it is safe to do so. However, the byzantine way in which the NHS sometimes works means that it is difficult to work out who will be the ultimate decision maker. Sometimes decisions on resources are made by the integrated care board rather than hospital trust staff, and that collaborative process makes it difficult to work out who must be held to account for statements that have been made in the past.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Everyone in this room will be very aware that the difficulties in Gloucestershire are unfortunately replicated in every part of the United Kingdom—certainly in my part of it. We have some of the best staff in the world in our maternity wards, and we rightly recognise the good work that they do, but they are being hampered in doing their job and caring by understaffing, budgetary restraints and an inability to get support from senior staff. I believe this needs a root-and-branch change across all the United Kingdom. Would the hon. Gentleman agree with that?

[Max Wilkinson]

I would. The hon. Member makes a strong case, and I will come on to some of the evidence from the Royal College of Midwives later. It has done some important studies into the stress that midwives are put under in the system.

I will move on to Stroud—the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) is in his place. In Stroud, six post-natal beds were closed around the same time as the closure to new births at the Cheltenham Aveta centre. The reason given by the trust was that the temporary closure would consolidate staffing across the county and provide a safer level of care for births across the whole of Gloucestershire. I am certain the hon. Member will have more to say on this if he is called to speak later, and I am pleased to see him here.

In our county, the 6,000 families who rely on our maternity services each year view this as a significant downgrade in service, and it is a cause of worry for a large number of families. It is clear that these services can only reopen when staffing levels improve. At the moment, the trust says it is around 13% below the staffing level required to return to the previous level of service, with Cheltenham open and the beds reopened in Stroud. However, the nature of midwifery means that quite a lot of the midwives will be off on maternity leave themselves at any one time. Indeed, I will come on to talk about the stress that midwives are under and some of its causes, which have led to a larger proportion of midwives being off for a significant period of time each year than staff in the rest of the NHS.

Research into what is driving the recruitment and retention crisis exposes the scale of the challenge we face in Gloucestershire and across the rest of the country. We are told that recruiting to a trust under a section 31 safety notice is even more challenging than it is elsewhere. Midwives who are already under significant pressure are subjected to additional strains in the form of monitoring and bureaucracy, and that can have an impact on staff morale. Of course, monitoring and bureaucracy are important when we are trying to get trusts out of safety notices; however, we cannot look past the fact that that makes it more difficult to overcome those recruitment challenges.

If that were the only barrier, it would be somewhat simpler. The Royal College of Midwives conducted a randomised survey of weekly hours worked by midwives and maternity support workers. The findings were absolutely shocking. It found that the staff surveyed reported a collective total of nearly 120,000 unpaid hours that week. That is a stark illustration of the demands placed on frontline NHS staff, who go above and beyond in a system that appears to be falling apart at the seams.

It is no wonder that the Darzi review reports that there is a high rate of sickness absence among midwives at 21.5 days a year per midwife. The most common reasons cited for absence were anxiety, stress or depression, or other psychiatric illnesses. Midwives go into the profession because of a commitment to the health of women and babies and to giving care at a critical moment, and to be part of a joyful moment in so many families’ lives. The fact that they are collectively suffering such high levels of stress tells us just how badly wrong the system has gone.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on mental health, I believe we should acknowledge and pay tribute to NHS staff in general and specifically midwives because we know that one factor that causes stress is overwork. We are also aware that the NHS very much runs on good will—people working extra hours and unpaid hours. That has been the norm for many years, but it is not sustainable. We need to acknowledge the support they need from a mental health point of view.

[Max Wilkinson]

My hon. Friend makes a strong point. Employee assistance schemes have a strong role to play here. I understand that in the NHS there is quite good support in general. However, it is a massive struggle when people are working so many extra hours to ensure that they get the support they need. In the case of midwifery, it is a stressful job—a life-and-death matter in many circumstances.

There is a clear and obvious link between the extreme overwork identified in the RCN survey and the findings of the Care Quality Commission. Obviously, if staff are working so many extra hours, they will suffer. Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust has identified staff turnover levels and low morale due to the workload as significant factors. The Darzi report also calls for a shift away from care in centralised hospital settings towards communities, and states that that is a likely route towards the recovery of our health services. That being the case, and with a Minister in the room, I say that there is a clear argument for restoring Cheltenham families’ access to a fully functioning birth unit in our town as soon as it is safe to do so.

I have three questions for the Minister, if she would be so kind as to answer them. First, what is the Government’s position on seeking to reinstate maternity services in places such as Cheltenham and Stroud, which have been recently downgraded? Secondly, what will the Government do to address the ongoing recruitment and retention crisis in midwifery? Thirdly, in cases such as Gloucestershire’s, where a section 31 notice is exacerbating recruitment and retention issues, what can the Government do to help local trusts improve their staffing position? I understand that there are examples of trusts around the country being supported to pay high wages and salaries to ensure that midwives can be properly recruited and to overcome shortages.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

My local hospital, the Royal Berkshire hospital, is where my two children were born and many of our friends’ children were born. It has recently received an upgraded rating of good from the Care Quality Commission, and it is one of only nine organisations, out of 131, that got an upgrade to good over the last year, so I commend the Royal Berkshire leadership and staff for their diligence and dedication, and congratulate them on that result. Does my hon. Friend agree—

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions should be short. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a speech, he can do so later. Let us hear the response to the intervention.

[Max Wilkinson]

I am sure that I would agree with whatever my hon. Friend was about to say. He was making the point, I think, that it is easy to be down on our NHS and its staff. That is not the purpose of this debate at all; its purpose is to ensure that we give the support that is needed to our midwives, other NHS staff and, indeed, NHS managers, who are often maligned but, like other NHS staff, work long hours and are in it for the betterment of health services.

On a personal note, I offer my wholehearted thanks to the staff at Gloucestershire hospitals, who were there for my wife and me when our daughter was born in Gloucestershire Royal hospital in 2022. It was an important day for my family and for the country when we went into the operating theatre for the C-section: this country had no Prime Minister, and when we came out we had my daughter, Elodie, and we had Liz Truss. That is a memory that will live long for me. I particularly thank Fiona Liddle, the midwife who gave us the most care during my wife’s pregnancy, as well as all the doctors, nurses and healthcare workers who helped to make the experience so joyful for us.

14:44

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) on securing the debate and bringing attention to the challenges that our maternity services face in Gloucestershire. I must declare that as well as being an important subject for my constituents, this is a personal subject for me, and I am privileged to contribute my family’s experience to the debate today.

My little boy, who turns one later this month, was born in the county and spent his first night at Gloucestershire Royal hospital. While it is clear that there are challenges facing our maternity services and that improvements are required, I want to start by sharing the positives of our experience.

First, the support and care provided by the community midwifery team was second to none. Our midwife Lynsey was with us throughout our journey, and was even on call the day my wife went into labour, so she was there to deliver our little boy. Lynsey looked after us throughout my wife’s pregnancy, answering our questions and signposting us to courses that would enable us to become advocates for the birth we wanted. From the outset, our experience was positive, although I know that is not the case for all families, and it is essential that their voices are heard in this debate.

Being able to choose where you have your baby is important. Having conducted our own research, we decided that we wanted to give birth in a midwife-led unit. There are of course differing views on that, but that was our choice as we had read that midwife-led care can lead to fewer interventions. At the time in Gloucestershire, Stroud was the only reliable option, as Gloucester’s midwife-led suite was frequently closed due to a lack of available midwives. As part of our maternity care, we were invited to Stroud maternity unit to visit the birthing suite so that it was familiar on the big day. I understand that is very important, as stress produces hormones that can actually stop or slow down labour.

Once my wife was in labour, however, our plans were nearly changed at the last minute due to a lack of midwives at Stroud maternity unit—stress we could have rather done without. That highlighted to me the great reliance currently placed on midwives working overtime to cover shifts across Gloucestershire. However, with Lynsey on hand and with minimal intervention, the birth itself was relatively quick and our baby boy was born. It was truly the best moment of my life.

Unfortunately, my wife needed an operation after the birth, so we were transferred to Gloucestershire Royal hospital: wife and baby in an ambulance, me following behind on what was, following the best moment of my life, the scariest car journey of my life. The care we received that night was exceptional. Not only were my wife and baby looked after, the unbelievably compassionate team looked after me too. Something as simple as a cup of tea and a reassuring chat when I had been up for 48 hours and left on my own with a newborn baby was transformative.

Unfortunately, things were not so positive the following morning. All was well with mum and baby, and we were told we would be going home in the afternoon. I went home to grab a quick shower, get some shopping in and make sure the house was ready for our new arrival. I was gone for at most two hours. When I got back, my wife told me she had been visited by over 10 different people in those two hours: pharmacy assistants, nurses and midwives, each adding new information about her discharge. She had just had a baby and undergone surgery under general anaesthetic. There were instructions for her and our baby. None of them were written down. For her, it was overwhelming, and something as simple as written discharge notes would have made a huge difference.

After we got home, our baby unfortunately developed some issues with his breathing. That can be quite normal, I understand, as babies are used to breathing fluid and getting oxygen via the umbilical cord. But as first-time parents who had been awake for 60 hours, we were worried, and there was no one to turn to. We phoned Stroud maternity unit, where we had given birth, but their post-natal unit is closed due to a lack of midwives, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham rightly pointed out. They advised us to call 111, and they told us we had to call Gloucestershire Royal’s delivery unit. They told us we had to call Stroud maternity unit because that is where we had given birth. We went back to Stroud, then back to 111, and no out-of-hours GP service was available. The only solution was to go to A&E.

Taking a newborn baby to A&E on a Saturday night is an interesting experience. The staff in A&E were wonderfully friendly, but their procedures limited what they could do. Our baby could not be seen by the neonatal unit as we had been discharged from the hospital. He would have to go to the paediatric unit, which the staff warned us was rife with covid. All we wanted was someone medically qualified to listen to his chest and let us know he was alright. There must be so many parents in a similar position, learning the art of being a parent for the first time and needing that little bit of assurance that their baby gasping for air is going to be okay. We need to find a better way for those parents to access that care.

Overall, I have to say a huge thank you to the team who looked after us from the early days of pregnancy right up until our son was born. How lucky were we to have our community midwife there at the birth—the person we had grown to know and trust? But in a way, that points to another problem: Lynsey is just one of many midwives across the county being pulled from the community to fill gaps in midwifery services.

Across Gloucestershire, vacancies and turnover rates in midwifery services remain high. The increased workload is causing low morale, and the workforce is struggling with the level and pace of change required for the service. Community midwives such as Lynsey regularly find themselves on call when too few midwives are available at midwife-led units in hospitals. Right now, there are vacancies for 32 midwives in Gloucestershire, which is 13% of the workforce. When we take into account sickness and maternity leave, that figure rises to 63 full-time equivalent vacancies. It is no wonder that midwives such as Lynsey are being asked to fill the gaps.

As the hon. Member for Cheltenham pointed out, the Royal College of Midwives estimates that across the UK, midwives give more than 100,000 hours of unpaid time to the NHS every week to ensure the safe running of services. While no one could doubt the dedication and compassion of those incredible midwives, that cannot be right. We cannot continue to rely on the commitment of midwives to their vocation to fill those gaps. If midwives are working more than 100,000 hours of unpaid overtime a week, it is inevitable that services will be affected, and that the safety of mothers and their babies will be put at risk. Midwives are being driven from the profession because the work and the pressure of work is just too much. It is no wonder my wife left hospital with no written discharge notes—where was the time left to write them?

While our experience of Gloucestershire Royal was largely positive, others have not been so fortunate. Many will have seen the harrowing instalment of “Panorama” that aired on the BBC in January this year, which focused on maternity services in Gloucestershire. The programme included the tragic deaths of the mother and two babies at the hospital between 2019 and 2021. Feedback from staff suggests that chronic staffing issues and a poor culture where midwives felt unable to speak out about unsafe conditions played a large role in what were avoidable deaths.

We also need to ensure that in a diverse city such as Gloucester, all residents—including those for whom English is a second language—can access the care they need. The recent CQC inspections of services in Gloucestershire have been very concerning, and Gloucestershire Royal hospital was issued with a section 31 enforcement notice by the CQC earlier this year. I raised this with the chief executive of the trust in my meeting with him in my first few weeks as the new MP for Gloucester. I understand that the trust has already made progress on its improvement plan, and I will keep a close eye on that on behalf of all Gloucester residents.

Earlier this year, the CQC published the national review of maternity services in England. It reviewed 141 units across the NHS and highlighted widespread issues with staffing, buildings, equipment and safety management processes. There are many deeply troubling takeaways from this report, but what stuck with me was the CQC’s stark warning that across our maternity services, preventable harm is at risk of becoming normalised. The last Conservative Government pushed our maternity services—our midwives—to the point where preventable harm could become a routine consequence of understaffing in units and on wards up and down the country. We cannot accept this for the future of maternity services in Gloucestershire or the UK.

I urge the Government to ensure that maternity services are given due attention when considering the Secretary of State’s 10-year plan for our NHS. Staff shortages are not the only issue we need to address, but it is clear that they are fundamental to the challenges our maternity services face in Gloucestershire and across the country. The Government have committed to training thousands of new midwives. We must honour that commitment to ensure that giving birth in the UK is safe, that parents have choice, and that midwives feel supported and valued for the incredible work they do.

14:53

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. In 2021, my daughter was delivered by caesarean section following a complicated pregnancy. Thanks to the diligence of the delivery team, which included English, Indian, Italian, South African and Spanish experts, we were spared the trauma that too many parents endure, and took our daughter home 24 hours later. I cannot thank those professionals enough for their care and application of expertise. The midwifery profession and those who join it should be celebrated in this House, as they should across the country.

I would like to provide some national context to the issue of midwifery in Gloucestershire, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) did. Against significant budgetary constraints in the last decade, the NHS workforce has increased by 34%, while full-time midwife posts have risen by only 7%. In that same decade, caesarean section deliveries such as ours have increased by 10% to 23%, meaning that mothers and babies stay longer in hospital, and require additional care by midwives.

As my hon. Friend mentioned, a Royal College of Midwives survey in March 2024 recorded that nationally, midwives and maternity support workers carried out 120,000 hours of unpaid work in a single week. As my ex-colleagues across the Royal Air Force will confirm, when more is continually expected of a diminishing workforce, both the workload and the mental load will increase on those who remain until ultimately they leave or they break. Mistakes become more commonplace. Let us acknowledge the unique emotional load carried by our midwives, while they also carry the workload of 2,500 others due to our national shortage.

The inspection of Gloucestershire maternity services in April 2022 makes for concerning yet predictable reading. Like the hon. Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre), however, I am pleased to have received assurances from the chief executive of Gloucestershire hospitals NHS foundation trust that improvements have been and continue to be made. I look forward to a full debrief on the report that will follow the external investigation into Gloucestershire maternity care; the report must be transparent, and retrospective action must take place accordingly. That backdrop creates additional pressure for Gloucestershire maternity care as we look to attract newly qualified midwives to our beautiful county. My call to graduating midwives, as to those already in post, is, “Help us get this right and be a part of the success story.”

The outcome of our efforts must be the permanent reopening of birthing units at Cheltenham and Stroud. Local efforts will take us only so far. Page 99 of Labour’s 2024 manifesto pledged to train “thousands more midwives”—a drive that will, I am sure, enjoy cross-party support. I invite the Minister to press the Chancellor to include a funded plan to train thousands more midwives in the autumn Budget.

14:57

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for calling this debate. Maternity care in the Stroud area has been a big issue for the past couple of years in particular. I have been a GP for 30 years, and I have helped with antenatal and post-natal care and, indeed, intrapartum care for six months, which was the hardest work I have ever done in my life. I also delivered my second daughter in a Worcester hospital.

I know and have worked with fabulous midwives, who are the absolute key to maternity services, as we have been discussing. Doctors are occasionally called in for other reasons, but midwives run maternity services; they have to be central, and they have to make their decisions around women. That is one of the reasons I promote Stroud maternity unit: as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre) said, midwife-based units have lower levels of intervention and better outcomes for babies.

As many hon. Members have said, the key problem here is the lack of midwives. We should not shy away from that, but I also want to talk about a number of other issues. Something that seems to have been missing from the discussion is women’s choice over where they give birth—we seem to have reduced that choice to just Gloucestershire Royal hospital. Although Stroud maternity unit is open for intrapartum care, it does not have post-natal beds, so women are generally choosing it less often. That is a pity, because it is a fantastic place to give birth and has a low intervention rate. Equity and equality also seem to have been lost from the discussion recently, and we need to get them back into the decision-making process.

Maternity care is actually a longer process than just where someone gives birth. I will outline where those interventions take place. Pre-conception and antenatal care tends to be done in GP surgeries by community midwives with the help of GPs. Intrapartum care can be done at home—a small proportion of people do give birth at home—or in midwife-led units, such as Stroud maternity, or in either midwife-led or consultant-led units, such as in Gloucester Royal and Cheltenham. They are the possibilities. When it comes to post-natal beds, the only choice at the moment is Gloucestershire Royal; there is no other option in Gloucestershire. Either mothers go there for their post-natal care or they have to go home and have a community midwife.

The last part, I always think, of the whole maternity service is the eight-week check of the baby by their GP. I have done thousands of those checks in my life, and it is one of the best things I ever do. The GP can check babies for problems and talk to mums about not sleeping and all the other issues.

That is the whole, rounded nature of maternity care. I now want to talk about Stroud maternity, because that is what I know about most and what we are missing most. First, it is a very much loved and valued service in Stroud and we are missing the six closed post-natal beds. As I have said, it is a stand-alone, midwife-led unit. That is unusual in this country, and it is a shame it is unusual, because it is a really good place to have intrapartum care, so it is something that I am really trying to promote. We have 1,000 live births in Stroud a year, and at the moment only about 300 take place at Stroud maternity unit, but as I have said, there are lower levels of intervention and there is increased maternal satisfaction. For that reason, we must get these beds open again; they have been closed since 2022.

I want to make a few points about post-natal care, because often people say, “Oh, it’s a luxury; we can’t really afford it.” It is not a luxury. There is very good evidence that for certain families, certain mothers, good post-natal care saves a huge amount of money later on. It is about making sure that the baby and the mother bond properly and that breastfeeding starts properly. It is about making sure that they have a couple of days away from, perhaps, a number of other children and properly bond and that mothers learn how to look after babies. A lot of my colleagues say, “Well, post-natal care, we don’t really need that,” but we do need it. If we lose it, it will cost the country more, but it is also part of the whole maternity service. That is the first thing I would say.

Secondly, the people at the CQC have stipulated various things. The CQC is about safety, which none of us can argue about. However, some of its decisions, I feel, do not make sense and all they do is give safety to the organisation and not to the mother. For example, postnatal beds are being closed because it insists on having two midwives on the unit at all times; that makes it safe. However, closing the post-natal beds means that all these mothers have to go home. Are they safer at home or are they safer at hospital, with maternity care assistants and other nursing staff? I would say that the safety of the mother is better served with those post-natal beds open, even if there is just an on-call midwife as a second midwife. I want to slightly question the logic of the CQC—we must go back to it—so one of the things that I will do after this debate is write to the inspectors and arrange a meeting with them, because we must consider the safety of the mother and the child first. This is not about covering the organisation and making that safe; it is about making the mother safe, so I would iterate that as well.

There is something else that we have been doing. The League of Friends at Stroud hospital in general and at the maternity hospital is fabulous and has been providing extra services for post-natal and antenatal mums for some time. We now have an interim plan whereby we are going to open a sort of day hospital in the maternity unit so that at least mothers can come and have a bath while someone else looks after their baby, for example, and they can receive advice from health visitors and midwives. That is an interim plan. I do not want to say that it is a good replacement. We must get those post-natal beds open, so I am also due to meet the maternity and neonatal voices partnership, which is a crucial agent that we must talk to.

In summary, we need to train and, crucially, retain more midwives, because we have trained quite a lot of midwives who have almost immediately left the profession, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham was saying, because of stress. We need to secure a better working arrangement for them, and I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister outlining plans to train thousands more midwives. We need to review CQC safety and make sure that the stand-alone nature of midwife units is fully understood by the CQC. We also have to make midwife working much more flexible. There could be on-call systems for these stand-alone units, so a second midwife does not need to be present if they are available to be called in. I have talked to midwives about that, and they seem happy to run that type of service. We also need a commitment from the ICB and the Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS foundation trust to reopen all six post-natal beds at Stroud maternity hospital.

15:05

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for securing this debate.

Although my constituency is in south Gloucestershire—which I have spent many years as a unitary councillor explaining is a unitary authority, not a district of Gloucestershire—some of my constituents access health services north of the border in Gloucestershire. The serious concerns about maternity services in Gloucestershire are causing people to travel the other way across the border, into Bristol, where many other of my constituents use services, so they have a significant impact on my constituency.

I welcome this debate because I know from my own experience the impact that overstretched maternity services can have on outcomes for the mother and baby. I had the misfortune of giving birth in a hospital that had too many simultaneous emergencies. Even now, more than 20 years later, I vividly remember the feeling of abandonment, the horror when my newborn baby was rushed to the neonatal intensive care unit, and the panic as I felt myself losing consciousness and a team of doctors rushed into the room to deal with me. It was many hours before I was reunited with my son, six months before he was discharged from consultant care, and more than two years before I was discharged. My experience of early motherhood was blighted by trauma, pain and seemingly endless follow-up appointments for both of us with a huge range of specialists. Five or more years later, doctors still considered my son’s birth relevant to his health. Sadly, for some families the outcomes are far, far worse. I cannot begin to imagine the pain of losing a child or partner in childbirth, but for some that is the tragic reality. How hard it must be to bear if there is the possibility that better care may have changed that reality.

Let us not forget the impact on the wider family. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre) spoke about the support he received from staff when his son was born. The family, too, can be traumatised by what they see family members going through, so I understand how important it is to have good maternity services, and I am deeply concerned about the impact that the current shortage of midwives is having on outcomes for mothers, babies and their wider families. Stroud maternity unit is affected by the shortage, so people are choosing to travel to Southmead, which many of my constituents already use, and that extra pressure will make it harder for staff there to deliver the service that people need.

Being continuously supported by a midwife during labour can prevent a situation from escalating dangerously. Proper support after the birth, however it went, can set families up for the early months by helping mothers to recuperate, establish feeding, talk through concerns and get to know their baby in a supportive environment.

The hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) made a very good point about the importance of choice. There can be a sense that it is a luxury—people make these choices because they have an idealised view of how birth should go—but, as my own experience demonstrated, the manner of the birth can have significant, long-term consequences for the mother and baby, so choice is not a luxury. It is important to understand that in childbirth feeling comfortable allows hormones to flow, and that promotes the best chances of a successful, uncomplicated birth, which is obviously the ideal. Some people take comfort in knowing that they have the very best, high-tech facilities on hand in case there is an emergency. For others, it is about knowing that they are in a familiar environment—their home or a birthing unit that they feel comfortable in. Choice is important, not because it is a nice thing for mothers to have but because it has potentially long-term consequences on the physical and mental health of the mother and baby.

I am concerned that two years after the joint report on safe staffing from the all-party parliamentary groups on baby loss and maternity, staff levels are still frequently inadequate. We want to see a cross-Government target and strategy, led by the Department of Health and Social Care, for eliminating maternal health disparities, providing guaranteed mental health support and establishing a new workforce plan, backed up with adequate funding and an expansion of the maternity and neonatal workforce.

15:10

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for introducing this debate. The experiences that he and others have shared about maternity services in Gloucestershire are similar to those in my constituency.

In Carshalton and Wallington, the Epsom and St Helier trust has an overall good rating from CQC. However, its maternity services have recently been downgraded to requires improvement, and, more worryingly, the safety element of those services was downgraded from good to inadequate following the inspection. A critical reason for the downgrade was the state of the building, which makes it hard for staff to perform their jobs efficiently and for patients to have the comfort of quality services. Some examples highlighted in the report were that the bereavement room was not soundproofed, the ensuite facilities had a shower curtain instead of a door, and, at the time of inspection, the two operating theatres opened directly on to the delivery suite corridor and were not secured, allowing anybody using the service to gain access to potential deliveries and surgeries.

A hospital that is crumbling, where three quarters of the building is not up to standard and where infection control is tricky because of the cramped conditions, risks tragic consequences for maternity care. It is an exhausting atmosphere for staff to work in and has led to low morale. What we need is urgent investment in the hospital’s infrastructure. A new building was promised by the previous Conservative Government, but so far it has turned out to be unfunded and we are waiting to see what happens with the forthcoming review. I am due to meet the Health Secretary in the next couple of weeks, and I will make it clear that it is essential to deliver a new building for both A&E and maternity services. Preferably that site will be at St Helier, which serves a densely populated area with greater deprivation levels and higher health inequalities, which are particularly pertinent to maternity care.

The building is not the only issue; the phoneline is also an issue. I have noted other hon. Members’ remarks, and as one Member mentioned, having the ability to pick up the phone and speak to somebody to get simple advice after a baby is born is critical, and that is not functioning properly in our hospital either. Another point I wish to make, on staff retention and recruitment levels, has been well made already. Our staff, too, are hard-working, dedicated and doing their best, but they are under immense pressure, which is leaving them feeling burnt out and fatigued. The bottom line is that there are simply not enough staff members to go around.

The CQC report for the St Helier trust highlighted a shortage of midwifery staff with the necessary qualifications in lots of critical areas, and it further noted that not all staff had completed all the mandatory training. We have spoken to the chief executive officer of the trust about that, and he explained that it is not because staff are unaware of the problem, but because they are simply so stretched that getting them through those courses while trying to maintain a minimum level of care for people coming through the hospital has proved impossible. Childbirth, of course, waits for no one, and in that high pressure, life and death situation, it is a matter of working with the available staff or having no staff at all. If we can get the recruitment and training of midwives right, we can go a long way towards solving the conundrum.

The consequences of understaffed and underfunded maternity care are dire. In recent years, there has been a stark increase in maternal mortality, rising from around eight deaths per 100,000 to over 13 per 100,000. Women from lower socioeconomic and ethnic minority backgrounds are disproportionately affected, being twice and three times more likely to experience maternal mortality, respectively. Those last statistics are particularly harrowing in constituencies such as mine. It is an urban constituency, and we have a higher than average number of women from both ethnic minority backgrounds and more deprived areas.

Improving maternity care must be a key priority for this new Government as they seek to address the overall crisis in our healthcare system. Giving birth has been one of the most dangerous medical procedures for women throughout history and nobody wants to give birth in a crumbling and potentially unsafe hospital where there are not enough qualified staff to help them.

If the Government are serious about improving women’s equality and closing the gender healthcare gap, the UK’s serious decline in maternity care needs to be addressed. That is why the Liberal Democrats have called for the UK Government to ensure that the commitments made in the NHS workforce plan are backed by adequate funding and include the expansion of the wider maternity and neonatal workforce. In the meantime, I will continue to fight for the upgrade in maternity services that my area so desperately needs.

15:15

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

One of the biggest problems that has come up time and again in every maternity inquiry is that women are not being listened to, and too many times their concerns about their care are dismissed. That really needs to change, so we need to start prioritising the voices and experiences of women if we are serious about fixing this crisis.

I said earlier that I am the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on mental health, and I need to mention the shocking statistic that suicide is now the leading cause of death for women between six weeks and 12 months after they have given birth. World Mental Health Day 2024 is tomorrow and it is heartbreaking to think how many new mothers must be really suffering without the support they need.

We need to recognise the financial impact of this crisis. The NHS faces a £21 billion maternity negligence care bill—money that should be going into providing maternity care. When the negligence payout is three times the actual funding for the care, the system absolutely needs resources to be poured into it to ensure that we get that bill down and instead use the money to deliver safe and effective care.

In Winchester, people are particularly concerned about proposals to downgrade our consultant-led maternity services to a service that does not have consultants and surgeons on site. Unlike the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher), who is a doctor, I am a vet, so I do not have his experience. However, I have done countless emergency caesareans, so I know that when something starts going wrong in childbirth, especially halfway through a birth, timing is everything. The thought of starting to give birth in Winchester but then having complications and having to be transferred up to Basingstoke is understandably concerning and terrifying for many constituents. We are therefore fighting to keep consultant-led maternity services in Winchester, because the problem in Gloucestershire arose partly because of the downgrading of services and the move to other hospitals.

The safety of maternity services is a concern nationwide, including in the Hampshire hospitals NHS foundation trust area. In 2023, the Care Quality Commission downgraded the trust’s maternity services from good to requires improvement after it found serious safety concerns. The trust’s amazing staff have been working really hard to improve things, and I am pleased to report that the trust exited the maternity safety support programme in July this year. However, there is still a long road ahead to restore public trust in these vital services.

I want to acknowledge the brilliant work of a Winchester resident who is here today. Jo Cruse launched the Delivering Better campaign, and I urge everyone here today, who will obviously have a particular interest in maternity services, to engage with and learn more from it. Jo has shared her story with me, and with her permission I will read it out:

“My daughter’s birth in October 2021 was the most terrifying experience of my life. I entered motherhood injured by a series of poor clinical decisions, and deeply traumatised by a three-day labour during which my calls for help and pain relief were repeatedly ignored or dismissed.

The experience eroded my trust in a healthcare system I have always revered, pushed my marriage to the brink, stripped me of my dignity, led me to develop suspected PTSD and many months of painful recovery. It has had a significant impact on how I feel about whether I will have more children. I cannot overstate how far the shockwaves of that experience have extended in my life.

I live with the knowledge that what happened to me was not only avoidable, but is happening every day in maternity wards across the country. This is not an issue localised to a few ailing trusts. This is a public health crisis being allowed to unfold in plain sight.”

15:20

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) on securing this important debate. Maternity services affect every single one of us at least once in our lives, so it is important that we protect them to ensure that, for all of us, that moment—obviously, many of us experience it more than once—is a safe one.

I will not mention all the hon. Members who have spoken, but I am pleased to see so many of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, who have all made excellent speeches and powerful points. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) for sharing her experience, and the hon. Members for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre) and for Stroud (Dr Opher) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for sharing theirs. Obviously, the hon. Member for Stroud has his own medical expertise, which is very important. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) described his constituent’s shocking experience, which I think we were all upset to hear about.

This is not the first debate we have had on maternity services—not even the first in this Parliament—and the reason for that is the shocking under-investment in those services. On 19 September, during recess, the Care Quality Commission issued a report, and its contents are hugely disappointing if not surprising. As has been mentioned, it spoke of the risk of normalising avoidable harm, which is an unacceptable situation to be in.

Hon. Members might be aware that my interest in maternity care came about because I am from Shropshire—I represent North Shropshire—and my constituents Kayleigh and Colin Griffiths lost their daughter Pippa at Shrewsbury and Telford hospital NHS trust. They fought tooth and nail alongside Rhiannon Davies and her husband Richard Stanton to bring about the Ockenden review into the scandal that unfolded at the trust.

Since then we have had a report on East Kent, and there is a review going on in Nottingham. None of that is news to us, which is shocking. I sat on the all-party parliamentary group on birth trauma, which was brilliantly led by the former Member for Stafford, Theo Clarke, and on the baby loss APPG, and I am currently trying to reconstitute the maternity APPG. All those groups have found the same failings over and over again.

The CQC report tells us what we already know: 40% of maternity services are rated as requiring improvement and 18% are rated inadequate. That means that less than half are rated as acceptable, which is not excusable, particularly given that we have had so many high-profile scandals and so many commitments—I believe they were made in good faith—from the Dispatch Box that these things will not happen again, but they are happening every single day.

We know from all those reports that unsafe staffing is at the root of most of the problems and that it is pushing hard-working midwives, in particular, to the brink. They work their socks off to share in what should be the most joyful moment of each individual’s life. When I had my baby nearly 16 years ago in an emergency situation, the midwife, who had been with me all afternoon, stayed on at the end of her shift to make sure that I and my baby were okay. We received excellent care and were both fine in the end, thank goodness. However, we have all relied so much on the good will of those individuals that they are experiencing burnout at an alarming rate.

I was canvassing in my constituency during the general election when a midwife came running across the road in her dressing gown and slippers to tell me that she was emigrating because she had had enough and that two other midwives she knew in the county were taking the same step because they had experienced burnout on such a shocking level. Any workforce plan needs to deal urgently with that problem.

Staffing is one problem, but unsuitable buildings are another. In the shocking inquiry into the Lucy Letby case at the Countess of Chester hospital, which is slightly unrelated, I read that sewage was coming up into the hospital’s sinks. How can we control infection when there is literally raw sewage in the building? It is unacceptable. We need to ensure that this Budget invests not just in the GPs, healthcare workers and midwives we so urgently need, but in the fabric of our hospitals.

We have repeatedly heard that there is a failure to learn when things go wrong and that hospitals focus too much on protecting their reputation rather than on learning from terrible mistakes that might have happened—and that will inevitably happen on occasion, even with the best staff in the world, because sometimes things go wrong. Hospitals must learn from those mistakes.

Finally, there is a failure among hospitals to have an open culture, so staff who have concerns are unable to raise them. The duty of candour law, to which the Government have committed, is so important, and I urge the Minister to ensure that the people to whom workers in hospitals can speak up are independent of the hospital manager and the clinical director. If workers are reporting to the person responsible for giving them their jobs, that is not a safe process. We must have independent whistleblowing procedures for people raising clinical concerns. I am sure my constituents share my anger that we have to return to this topic again and again, when we should be looking at how far we have come since the Ockenden review over two years ago.

I want to touch on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) about outcomes. Black and Asian women and their babies have a far worse probability of surviving birth than white women. If that was happening in a single trust, we would have another big, important review, but because it is spread out across the country, it is being lost, so we must return to it. It is not acceptable in this country in the 21st century that ethnic or socioeconomic background is a determinant of whether having a baby is safe. We are not on track to meet our 2025 targets for reducing stillbirth and neonatal death, and those targets have not been renewed. I urge the Minister to renew them and to ensure that there is a plan in place to meet them.

Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester made the critical point that spending more on medical negligence than maternity services is totally unacceptable. This country cannot afford for that to continue. We must make maternity services safe, because it is better for the mothers, better for the babies and better for the taxpayer. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

15:28

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) on securing this important debate. Childbirth is a really special event. It has been described today as the best moment of someone’s life, and that description is often used. It is a special moment in the lives of not just the parents and of course the child, but the wider family and friendship group—the birth of a baby is enjoyed by everybody.

I have been privileged to attend many births over my career as a doctor, although aside from the births of my own three children, they have generally been skewed towards where things have not been going to plan—it is not, I hasten to add, that that is a result of my presence, but more that my presence is a result of things not going to plan. The work of the NHS—its midwives, its obstetricians and the wider team that look after women and their babies—is by and large exceptional. However, we hear stories of where things go wrong and we need to minimise those as much as possible.

Essentially, the talk of whether Cheltenham needs a midwifery centre comes back to the pull and tug that I have seen throughout my career between the centralisation and the localisation of services in general. When services are centralised, it can be argued that there is an increase in expertise and an increased volume of cases, which makes people more familiar with emergencies because they happen more frequently. More specialist services can also be offered for those with high-complexity and low-volume problems. There can also be more support from staff, because there are more staff present in the unit. However, centralised services can feel more remote, they can be too far away for people living in rural areas and they can feel too impersonal, particularly for a procedure such as giving birth. In a local unit, people may feel more comfortable and know the staff, and there may be a close-knit team. However, as our veterinary colleague, the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), so amply described, if things go wrong, people can be a long way from the help they need. So there is that balance and that push and tug.

As has been mentioned, choice is important to women who are making informed consent choices on where to give birth, based on the information they receive. The hon. Member for Cheltenham has made a good case for why the balance may not be as it ought to be in Gloucestershire; the Government should look carefully at that.

I was sorry to hear of the experience of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre) with his new-born baby. As a paediatrician, I am familiar with the need to weigh all the factors in the balance: the fact that a baby has gone home and may have picked up a viral illness that has brought them back in again; the risk to the baby from going on a children’s ward where the impact of disease is more predominantly based in infection and infectious conditions than in older age groups and adult wards; and the risk of putting a baby on a neonatal unit and introducing the virus to that unit, which could make the babies already there so very unwell. We need to think carefully about a solution to that, so that people do not go round and round in circles, as the hon. Member for Gloucester described, being passed from pillar to post. I am sure that was a frightening experience for him and I am sorry that happened.

I now turn to other issues raised today. The hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) talked about the importance of community midwives. Even though my eldest is now 17 and my youngest nine, I still remember my post-natal midwife Marie and the care she gave. Sometimes, maternity care focuses a little too much on what is going on in a hospital when what happens in the community is also very important.

The hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) suggested that we could have a midwifery in-patient unit with mothers and babies and only one member of staff. I am afraid I do not agree with her on that. The hon. Member for Winchester raised the concept of two simultaneous emergencies. If there is only one member of staff, how do they go on a break, or what if they are in the bathroom when they are needed? If we have a unit, unless it is attached to a major centre with more staff, we need that second person.

As of December 2023, there were 2,361 full-time equivalent midwives working in the NHS’s trusts and other core organisations in England. That is an increase of 3,707—18.9%—since 2010. On the one hand, the birth rate is falling and the number of midwives is rising, but I recognise that the births that are taking place are more complex in some ways than they used to be. At the spring Budget, there was a further investment of £35 million to improve maternity safety over the next three years, including £9 million for brain injury.

I asked the Minister, at the previous debate on maternity safety on 4 September, whether she would commit to that money being spent and I have not received an answer. I asked her several questions during that debate, including whether she could confirm that the Government would proceed with the fortification of bread products with folic acid to protect babies from spina bifida. I asked her about the non-essential communications budget, which the Chancellor had said on 29 July would essentially be cut, and whether that was affecting public health budgets. Those budgets are very important, particularly around optimising public health messaging regarding chronic illness and conditions such as diabetes and obesity before conception. I have not received an answer to either of those questions.

I also raised the NHS saving babies’ lives care bundle, which was due to be updated on maternity early warning scores and tracking tools, to ask the Minister whether that was on track. Again, she has not written to me as promised with the answer to that question. I asked her whether she would be supporting the healthcare safety investigations branch and about the £35 million budget I have just described. I have not received answers to any of those questions more than a month later; none of my staff can find any correspondence from the Minister. Can she answer those questions today, or at least commit to doing so by the end of the week? We have waited quite a long time.

My final question last time was about the group overseeing maternity services nationwide, because following the East Kent report—I was the Minister when that was published—Dr Kirkup’s recommendations were accepted. Maria Caulfield, then Minister for Women’s Health, set up and chaired a working group to review the work being carried out by a whole range of programmes to improve maternity and neonatal care and implement those recommendations. I asked her who would go on to chair the group and whether she could guarantee that the work would continue, but I still have not received an answer. It would be helpful for the Minister to answer the questions raised in the last debate as well as in today’s.

15:35

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher.

With your leave, I will start with a few words to mark Baby Loss Awareness Week. Many mums and dads across the country have suffered the heartbreak of losing a baby. Everyone deals with grief in a different way, but it has been moving to hear from parents how baby loss certificates have allowed them to process what they have gone through and have helped give them closure.

That is why this week we launched an extension to the baby loss certificate service, which is a voluntary scheme to enable parents who have experienced a pregnancy loss to record and receive a certificate to provide recognition of their loss, should they wish. Until now the service was only open to parents who had experienced a loss since 1 September 2018, but today we are removing that restriction, making the certificates available for every parent who has lost a child. We will update the House with a formal written statement shortly. The Government are committed to delivering compassionate care for women and support for parents who have suffered a baby loss. It is the right thing to do.

I think this has been a genuinely good debate. We have heard from experts—I commend the Opposition spokesperson the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for the work they do—and others have shared experiences. I knew that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) would bring forward good points too, so I contacted the trust myself so that I could give the hon. Gentleman and hon. Members present my frank assessment of what is happening on the ground.

To reiterate, as of August 2024 the midwifery vacancy rate in the Gloucestershire hospitals NHS foundation trust stood at 13%—the equivalent of 32 full-time midwives. That level is high for the south-west, though roughly in line with the national average. In April 2022, the Care Quality Commission gave the trust a warning notice for the maternity service, and rated it “inadequate” a year later. In May this year, the CQC issued the section 31 notice—a severe warning that requires at minimum an immediate action and improvement plan, which, as colleagues will know, in some other settings could result in a closure. It issued that after seeing postpartum haemorrhage rates, poor foetal monitoring and high levels of agency staffing.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham and others from the area are right to be concerned. We can all agree that it is unacceptable when new mothers do not receive the highest possible standard of care. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, we should be honest about the problems in our NHS and serious about fixing them. Maternity services are very far from where we want them to be. Childbirth should not be something that women fear or look back on with trauma. Safety is obviously paramount. As the hon. Member for Cheltenham said, it should be a special moment.

I thank the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) for sharing her experiences. I was in hospital for two weeks after having my first child, and it is a traumatic time, so the length of time she mentioned must have been very difficult. My second came out so quickly that I was in and out of hospital before we knew it. My third child, as has been mentioned, was almost delivered at home by my husband after we had chosen a home birth. He is not medically qualified, so I can tell you that the sound of the doorbell ringing for the midwives’ arrival was the best sound I have heard in my life.

To the second question asked by the hon. Member for Cheltenham, I will outline the steps the trust is taking to improve the situation. They include a new director of midwifery, an education and training midwife and a perinatal quality and governance lead. To improve retention, the new leadership has introduced a retire and return scheme and is holding monthly events for senior leadership to listen to staff and address their concerns. The trust has recruited 33 new midwifery starters since 2023, including from overseas. Ten midwives are due to start this month, with a further 10 expected in January. But there is still a gap. That is why the Aveta birthing unit and the postnatal beds at Stroud maternity will remain temporarily closed until they reach safe levels of staffing. The trust clearly felt that it could not continue those services without putting new mothers at risk, which is an impossible situation to be in.

I am pleased that the birthing unit at Stroud remains open, but the other closures have had an impact on women, their families and the local community, as has been eloquently expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester and mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate. The impact goes further afield to my own city of Bristol. In addition to those measures, the trust is developing new apprenticeship schemes; building partnerships with universities, including Worcester and Oxford Brookes; and launching a midwifery attraction campaign in the autumn.

Although the trust has had positive feedback from last year’s new starters, I am pleased that it is carrying out regular assessments, as per the recommendations in the Ockenden review, to ensure that midwives have the right skills to serve the people of Gloucestershire. The turnover rate is now settling, and I know the hon. Member for Cheltenham and other colleagues will do everything they can to help convince midwives that his county is a great place to live and work. The passion for those units is very evident here today, which I am sure will be welcome to those trusts.

I know from my career in the NHS that such changes take a long time. It is too soon to make an assessment until all the new midwives have started. However, we are not waiting for the CQC to do the rounds to ensure that the picture is improving. The local maternity and neonatal systems team and the regional NHS England team are meeting with the trust on a fortnightly basis to review progress. The trust’s monthly board reports will report on progress; I know hon. Members will be watching carefully.

It is important to give the new team space to prove themselves. I am hopeful that we will see improvements in time. At a national level, whenever trusts and maternity units do not perform on our watch, we will steer them back to safer ground. That is why we are supporting Gloucestershire maternity services through the national maternity safety support programme. That means that the trust is supported by a maternity improvement adviser for midwifery and obstetrics, who helps the trust to embed the maternity improvement plan.

I know that the hon. Member for Cheltenham and others will continue to hold the trust to account, until it is delivering for women in their constituencies. I am grateful to him for obtaining this debate and giving me the chance to put the Government’s position on the record. With regard to his third question, like many trusts in this position, the trust does have the budget for establishment; it is the recruitment and retention of midwives that is the issue. Some trusts do different things with incentives; I do not know whether this trust is particularly doing that. That might be something he would wish to pick up with the trust at another time.

On more general maternity improvements, in September the CQC published a report that demonstrated how much the previous Government let down new mothers in this country. Lord Darzi’s report has shown that, despite some improvements, there is still a disgraceful inequality of outcomes for black and minority ethnic women, as we have heard again today. We will look at every recommendation in the CQC report, and if officials object to any of them, I expect to hear a very good reason why.

There is ongoing work to improve maternity and neonatal services across England. The NHS put in place a three-year delivery plan to make maternity and neonatal care safer, fairer and more tailored to every new mother’s needs.

I shall now discuss the Government’s wider ambition. Choice—which was mentioned today by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate—is for us absolutely a key part of maternity care. As the hon. Member for Winchester said, our NHS must listen to and work with women and families on how their care is planned and received, based on what matters to them.

To get maternity care back on its feet, we need to train thousands more midwives as part of the NHS workforce plan, while encouraging experienced midwives to stay in the NHS. Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Cheltenham, spoke of recruiting midwives, with regard to morale and workload. That was also mentioned by the hon. Members for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean). The NHS will deliver the people plan, giving a stronger focus to a modern, compassionate, inclusive culture, which absolutely has to be part of our forward look in the 10-year plan.

We will ensure that trusts failing on maternity care are robustly supported into rapid improvement. We are setting an explicit target to close the black and Asian maternity mortality gap. NHS England is on the right track, boosting the workforce through training, apprenticeships, postgraduate conversion, return to midwifery programmes and international recruitment. I have been clear that the Government will build on those programmes, not replace them.

Finally, I want to end by restating our unwavering commitment to maternity services across the nation, including in Gloucestershire. We are actively working to improve staffing levels and are planning for the future needs of Gloucestershire’s maternity services. I say to the constituents of the hon. Member for Cheltenham that I hear his concerns and completely understand them, and I will work with him to set this right.

The Opposition spokesperson is an assiduous writer, and I have answered a number of her letters, but if I have not responded to particular points from the previous debate before recess, I apologise, and will ensure that that happens after this debate. She has raised important questions.

In the constituency of the hon. Member for Cheltenham and in mine, women have had to bear the brunt of inaction for the past 14 years, but this Government will deliver for women, not just in the south-west but in the country as a whole.

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

I call Max Wilkinson to respond to this very well-informed debate.

15:45

[Max Wilkinson]

Thank you, Sir Christopher. I thank the Minister for her long and detailed reply. I appreciate the time that she has taken. I also appreciate her background in the NHS; we have spoken elsewhere about how she worked in the NHS for a long time, and I know that she will bring a lot of expertise to her brief. I also appreciate the specific references to the constituency, and the work that she has done to ensure that she could give a detailed response about Gloucestershire’s services, rather than a more general response on the national picture. That has brought a lot to the debate.

We have heard some powerful contributions, not least the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young), who told her personal story. We also had a contribution from a member of the public via my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), as well as one from the hon. Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre), who had a harrowing few days, by the sounds of it, with a really good outcome. He referred to his son in his maiden speech the other day as well. That was joyful, so I thank him.

The Gloucestershire example is not unusual, as the Minister and others have pointed out. However, we suffer in Gloucestershire from an outsized problem; our NHS trust is suffering from a deficit of midwives in a way that other NHS trusts are not, and we need to address that. The Minister referred to the good work already being done by the trust, and it is important that in our contributions we recognise that work is being done, under new leadership, to try to turn things around. In my regular meetings with the trust’s chief executive, that has come through. An open and transparent communications culture is something that we will welcome as new Members of Parliament.

At its heart, this discussion must come back to the safety of women and babies, and to choice for mothers. Locally, we are suffering the symptoms of a widespread national issue, but it is not acceptable for people in Cheltenham and Gloucestershire to be denied that choice indefinitely. That is what we are dealing with. I urge the trust’s chief executive and others—who I know are listening to this debate, and who know that we are contributing in good faith—to keep members of the public and everyone else, particularly local MPs and councils, informed about what is happening next.

We know that there will not be a decision before April 2025, but it is important that there are milestones, so that people get updates and there is regular open, transparent reporting. That helps to maintain confidence in the system as the good work of supporting the rights of mothers, babies and families goes on, and ensures that our midwives are better looked after in the system. If we can keep this debate happening in public, we are more likely to reach a situation in which Gloucestershire families get the service from the local NHS that we all deserve.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered maternity services in Gloucestershire.

15:48

Sitting suspended.

Skills England

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Skills England.

It is an honour to serve under you as Chair, Sir Christopher. I am so glad to have the opportunity to raise the urgent need to reset our adult skills system in England, to press my case for my constituency and region, and to seek further information about the Government’s plans. The argument I will make today is this: Skills England cannot be just another quango. We need a confident and directive organisation that takes what our economy needs, directs provision, drives learner uptake, and delivers more workers with higher skills ready for better jobs on higher wages. I will also press the case for my constituency, for the Black Country and for the wider west midlands. Judging by the number of people here, there is some interest in this topic, and perhaps we should seek further opportunities to talk about these issues. I am sorry that in my inexperience, I asked only for a 30-minute debate.

We are here today because the Conservatives oversaw a decade of decline in skills, and it has made our country poorer. Employers are unable to fill job vacancies, more than a third of vacancies are down to skills shortages, learners cannot get the training they need and industry is left without the skills to tackle the challenges of the future. That is why Labour have pledged to overhaul our skills system and set up a new body for skills: Skills England. Skills England is a central part of our plan for growth, good jobs and prosperity. It will have three key jobs: to assess skills needs, to oversee the suite of qualifications and courses on offer, and to co-ordinate all the players in the sector, of which there are many. The point is to bring order to the skills system, joining it up and making it more responsive to what employers need.

I want to say a bit more about the nature of Skills England and how it goes about its job. I have five key points. First, Skills England must spot and respond to genuine skills needs through the best available data and intel. We sometimes forget how hard it is, caught up in the day-to-day, for employers to predict the shape of the market for their goods and services in the future, how the supply chains will change and what that means for their workforce, products and quality. I hope that Skills England, alongside our industrial strategy, can help with that.

One of the aspects of Skills England I am most pleased about is that it will be tripartite, with unions on the board as of right. Our movement has always taught working people to read, write, do maths and, more recently, use computers, to help them get on in life. As we face another industrial transition out of energy-intensive and carbon-reliant industries, we need to plan and manage with workers and use their insights too. Workers’ voices need to be around the table on skills, and with this Government, I know that they will be.

Secondly, Skills England must be co-ordinated across Government and, most importantly, with the Migration Advisory Committee and the industrial strategy. I looked at the shortage occupation list this morning and it is frankly an indictment of our skills system that so many vital jobs in manufacturing and construction are listed: bricklaying, welding—something those in my own area are expert in—roofers, carpenters, joiners and retrofitters. No more. Skills England must start to direct support to fill these skills gaps so that we can grow our own. Above all, Skills England must work hand in glove with our new industrial strategy and deliver the skills training that will make the strategy real.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

Let me put on record that I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on apprenticeships. In preparation for your speech, I totted it up and it seemed that Skills England will be the fifth such national quango set up by Westminster since the Manpower Services Commission in 1973. The average tenure of a Skills Minister since 1997 has been 15 months—

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. It is helpful if you address your remarks through the Chair, rather than turning away. Apart from anything else, it makes it difficult for Hansard to record what you are saying.

[Andrew Pakes]

I apologise, Sir Christopher; this is my first such intervention in one of these debates. Since 1997, the average tenure for a Skills Minister has been 15 months—longer than Liz Truss’s, but shorter than a premier league manager’s. The average life of a skills quango such as Skills England has been only eight years, less time than most people spend in primary school. Does my hon. Friend agree that the only way that Skills England will be a success is if it is linked to industrial strategy, is tripartite and brings together employers and unions? That would mean that we would have a durable system and not a repeat of the failures of the past, which saw short-term interventions that have not delivered for working-class people.

[Antonia Bance]

As my hon. Friend might expect, I agree with him on all those points. I hope very much that our current Skills Minister’s tenure is significantly longer than the average, and that Skills England proves long-lasting and effective in responding to the industrial strategy.

We expect the Green Paper on industrial strategy perhaps as early as next week, but certainly by the Budget. This may be a tangent, but it is important. I want an industrial strategy that makes choices and sets out which sectors are our priorities—yes, clusters where we are already world-beating, or could be, but also places that are our priorities for industrial development and catch-up. Good growth must level the playing field, and national growth cannot be at the expense of left-behind places like the one I represent.

However, Skills England must respond not just to industrial strategy and migration, but to all of Government, as it touches skills such as our agenda for getting people back to work. We want people helped into real jobs that offer a route out and a route up, and not just any job. That means no more jobcentres running their own skills and education programmes separate to the priorities of Skills England.

Third, we need a Skills England that is directive, not hands-off; one that sees its role as supporting training that meets the industrial strategy, not courses that do not. I will give an example: one shortage occupation is lab technicians for our world-leading life sciences sector. If the gap is lab technicians, then it is Skills England’s job to make sure that the courses for lab techs run, are funded, are supported and are filled. If that means that young women in an area cannot do low-level hair and beauty courses that set them on a path to a life on the minimum wage, but are instead channelled into a higher-wage, higher-skilled job that offers a career path, such as being a lab tech, so be it. That is Skills England doing its job.

It may be easier and cheaper to run a business management course in a classroom at a college, but given the shortage occupation list and the industrial strategy, we need bricklayers and welders. Yes, it will cost more to make the facilities available and we may have to pay the lecturers a bit more too, but that is what is needed.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that to achieve any of the outlined Skills England missions, we need a levelling of the playing field over time for further education, in particular for wages in the sector, and that we should work to rectify that, particularly in teaching sectors that are challenging to recruit for, such as critical minerals, as we see in Cornwall?

[Antonia Bance]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I was heartened to see that in her letter to the School Teachers Review Body my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education referenced the need to ensure that the implications for further education teachers are taken into account. I hope that, over time, we may be able to hear a little more about the plans in that area.

My most recent point raises a number of questions because Skills England does not hold the resources, although maybe it should—or at least some. I will leave that with Ministers.

Fourth, we need a Skills England that is relentlessly co-ordinating and engaging. As a country, we are still working out how to move away from the hugely over-centralised government machine, not least in places like my own west midlands where we are still in the infancy of having a set of institutions, people, power and money that help us determine our own future. I hope that Skills England will be a trailblazer not only for skills, but for a model of real partnership between regional and national where combined authorities can actually input into national policy.

I have three specific asks for the west midlands. Would the Minister consider moving responsibility for commissioning local skills improvement plans to combined authorities? Combined authorities such as ours could have more of a role in shaping the growth and skills levy. Finally, combined authorities are not just one of a range of stakeholders for Skills England; they should be represented at board level and in working groups as part of its structure. If this work is led only from Whitehall, missed opportunities will mean that local places are left behind. Those places may well be best placed to support the join-up required for coherent labour market policy, strategy and delivery when different Departments are intervening in the same place.

I will say one further thing—my fifth point—about how Skills England must work: it has to see its role as levering more money into training, pushing employers to do more and making it easy for them to do so. Employer investment in training has fallen over the past decade. Investment per employee is down 19% since 2011. I hope that a clear skills strategy will start to change that, sitting alongside, for the first time in a number of years, a stable Government giving business the confidence to invest. Skills England has to see its role as not just anticipating but driving demand among learners. It should raise hopes and aspirations and make it possible for young people to get the skills they need, as well as for people in their 30s, 40s and 50s to retrain and get on in life.

I will mention the role of unions again, because one of the least comprehensible acts of the previous Government was the sheer vandalism of ending the union learning fund in 2020. In 2020, 200,000 workers were supported into learning or training through the union learning fund. It was open not just to union members or in union workplaces, but to everyone, and it worked. Union learning reached people that other initiatives just did not. Most importantly, it reached basic skills learners. In union learning, over two thirds of learners with no previous qualifications got their first qualification. The fund added over £1.4 billion to the economy through the boost to jobs, wages and productivity. It cost £12 million, and that £12 million levered in £54 million from employers, unions and training providers in its last year. I very much hope that our new Government—so clear about the role of unions in social partnership—will make use of the reach of unions to workers and into workplaces that may otherwise not be reached by learning.

I will finish by setting all this in the context of my constituency of Tipton, Wednesbury and Coseley in the west midlands. We are industrial towns shaped by factories, foundries, mines and canals. In my area, 42% of young people leave school without English and maths at grade 4 GCSE, and 2.5 times the national average have no qualifications. Round our way, 40% of job postings are looking for people with level 4 skills and above, but just 16% of the applicants have a level 4 qualification. That is why our wages lag behind the national average, employment rates are low and poverty rates are high.

I have—indulge me—three skills priorities for Tipton, Wednesbury and Coseley. The first is manufacturing skills, and I wear the “Made in Britain” badge. In Sandwell, 1,000 firms and 21,000 jobs are in manufacturing, and we could make so much more than we already do with a determined effort to get local people into the right manufacturing skills courses to position us for advanced manufacturing supply chains across our region.

The second skills priority is construction. Our aspiration as a Government—something that is so close to my heart—is to build 1.5 million homes in the next five years. For that, the construction industry training board tell me that the current workforce needs to grow by 30%, with 150,000 more people working in construction. Everywhere in the country will need construction workers, but if we seek to bring up areas that have been left behind, we could turn that massive skills need into an opportunity, train those workers and bring those jobs to places such as ours.

Thirdly, we hear much about higher-level skills, but I am also always here to champion basic skills. Having solid literacy and numeracy skills gives workers a massive wage return and makes a big contribution to our economy. We could add over £2 trillion by the end of the century if we ensure that all young people get good basic skills by the end of the decade. I will always stand for high skills, good jobs and decent wages in Tipton, Wednesbury and Coseley. I hope hon. Members have heard from me today what approach Skills England should take to deliver for the country and for areas such as mine—it must deliver for areas such as mine.

16:16

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)]

It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) on securing a debate on this important subject. I am delighted to be the first Minister in this Parliament to respond to a debate on skills, which I am sure everyone across the House will agree are crucial to both individuals and our economy.

The honour of being Minister for Skills actually falls to my noble friend, Baroness Smith, who has recently laid a skills Bill before the other House. I know that she has already been out and about in her short time in the role, meeting people at the sharp end of skills delivery: providers, colleges, teachers and also students, young people taking T-levels and apprentices. It is for those people—people of all ages and backgrounds—that we need to ensure that the skills system is working.

As this is a debate about skills, I must mention the fantastic results that the UK achieved in the World Skills event in Lyon last month. Students and apprentices from across the UK competed with the best from around the globe and won two silver and two bronze medals, as well as 12 medallions for achieving the internationally recognised standard of excellence. The team finished 10th in the medal table out of 60 countries, which demonstrates the real commitment to excellence of our young learners. I pay tribute to them.

We need to ensure that learners like that—indeed, all learners—have access to the right opportunities. We know that the skills landscape is ever changing, and that new technologies, businesses and approaches all bring new skills needs. However, we have not always kept up with that need. The current system is incoherent, and too many people are unable to benefit from it.

[Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)]

I have the excellent MidKent College in my constituency, and they tell me that there has been constant change in the skills landscape over the last 10 years, with qualifications being removed and then reintroduced. They have put it to me that more certainty would make for much better long-term planning, not only for students but for colleges.

[Janet Daby]

I thank the hon. Member for mentioning the college in her constituency of Maidstone and Malling. She raises a concerning factor that should have been dealt with, so I am pleased to say that in July the Secretary of State announced a review, led by Becky Francis, of post-16 qualifications. Skills policy has too often been made in isolation, which has made the system confusing, as she has mentioned in relation to MidKent College.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Just for the information of MPs from the mainland here, Northern Ireland supplies construction workers to the mainland, who come over to London by plane every week on Monday morning or Sunday night. If we can produce workers in Northern Ireland who do work in London, perhaps some contribution should be made to our construction sector and our colleges back home so that we can keep producing workers of great skill.

[Janet Daby]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that very interesting point. I have not grasped the whole of that issue, so I would be happy to have a further conversation with him about it.

The lack of a clear plan has led to confusion and widespread skills shortages, which hinder economic growth. The lack of basic skills among adults and reduced employer investment limit our ability to meet domestic skills needs. Too many people have been unable to access the benefits of quality post-16 education and are more likely to face unemployment, lower wages and poorer health. That is why meeting the skills needs of the next decade is central to delivering the Government’s five missions: economic growth, opportunity for all, a stronger NHS, safer streets and clean energy. We aim to create a clear, flexible, high-quality skills system that supports people of all ages, breaks down barriers to opportunity and drives economic growth.

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

On economic growth, nearly 50% of UK businesses have experienced a cyber-security breach in the past 12 months, and cyber-attacks cost the UK economy £27 billion annually. The country faces a shortage of 93,000 cyber-security professionals, so does the Minister agree that cyber-security skills development should be prioritised in Skills England’s agenda?

[Janet Daby]

I thank the hon. Lady for that important and pertinent point. Skills England’s very purpose—[Interruption.] Indeed, I will come on to speak about that. It will ensure that there is training when employers identify skills gaps and those jobs are needed.

Skills England will ensure that we have the highly trained workforce we need to meet the national, regional and local skills needs of the next decade, and it will be aligned with the upcoming industrial strategy. That is a critical part of the Government’s mission to raise growth sustainably across the country, support people to get better jobs and improve their living standards. Skills England will provide an authoritative assessment of national and regional skills needs in the economy now and in the future. It will combine the best available statistical data with insights generated by employers and other key stakeholders. It will ensure that there is a comprehensive suite of apprenticeships, training and technical qualifications for individuals and employers to access, which will align with skills gaps and what employers need. As part of that, it will identify what training should be available via the new growth and skills levy, which will replace the rigid apprenticeship levy, as many have been calling for, to ensure that levy-funded training delivers value for money, meets the needs of businesses and helps to kick-start economic growth.

[Andrew Pakes]

Will the Minister join me in congratulating my constituent Grace Gourlay, who two weeks ago won the Peterborough Telegraph advanced apprentice of the year award for her work at the end of her second year of a four-year course at Caterpillar in engine and test design? Does she agree that one of the big challenges for Skills England in reforming the growth and skills levy is to ensure that we reverse the decline in the number of young people entering apprenticeships in skilled areas? We must begin to reverse the 70% drop in young people taking up an apprenticeship course.

[Janet Daby]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and join him in celebrating all of Grace Gourlay’s achievements.

Skills England will work together with combined authorities and other places with devolved deals, as well as with other regional organisations such as employer representation bodies, to ensure that regional and national skills needs are met at all levels, from essential skills to those delivered via higher education, in line with the forthcoming industrial strategy.

To support our aim to ensure more local say in skills provision, local skills improvement plans, or LSIPs, provide an agreed set of actionable priorities that employers, providers and other stakeholders in the local area can get behind, to drive change and help to make technical education and training more responsive to local labour market and employer needs.

Since autumn 2022, the designated employer representative bodies leading the LSIPs have engaged thousands of local businesses on their skills needs, helping to forge new and dynamic relationships between businesses, skills providers and other stakeholders in the skills system. The plans are a valuable source of information and will provide important intelligence for the newly established Skills England.

A £165 million local skills improvement fund has been made available across all areas of the country to support providers to respond collaboratively to the skills needs identified in the plans. I am aware that a local collaboration of colleges in my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury’s local area, which is led by Solihull College and University Centre, has been awarded £10.3 million of funding to support the west midlands LSIP’s priority actions. For example, Dudley College of Technology is leading a project that has received £2.1 million to support an expansion of the regional electrification and engineering technical training offer, capital investment is being used to upgrade existing facilities and offer new provision.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Janet Daby]

I am afraid that I will not, as I really need to make progress.

The west midlands LSIP has been recognising local challenges, as well as opportunities, including the advancement of the country’s fastest growing tech sector, facilitating emerging strengths in clean tech and green energy, and stimulating growth in priority growth clusters identified by the West Midlands Combined Authority, and creating a pipeline of new entrants into the logistics and distribution industry by increasing the availability of apprenticeships.

Offshore wind is a new technology that is being deployed around the UK, including in the Celtic sea. It is estimated that up to 5,000 new jobs could be created in the area from the new supply chain. Skills that will be critical to this industrial progress include welding, marine vessel operation and cable laying.

It is good to know that Truro and Penwith College wants to explore this sector. I know that green skills are a priority for the college, with its focus on electric and hybrid vehicles, renewables and retrofit for construction. The college also leads the local skills improvement fund project for Cornwall, which focuses on upskilling in these fields. We encourage colleges, including those in Cornwall, to utilise their full adult skills fund allocations. Colleges can grow their allocation by overdelivering on their formula-funded provision by up to 110%.

I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury for securing this debate, on a matter that we both agree is important. It has given me the opportunity to talk about our plans for Skills England and for skills more widely. I am sure that in the coming months and years there will be more discussion and debate about skills, because they are critical to the prosperity of our businesses and employers, the prosperity of individuals, and indeed the prosperity of the nation. As I have set out today, we are already starting to make reforms to the skills system with the introduction of key measures, such as establishing Skills England to ensure that we have the highly trained workforce needed to meet the national, regional and local skills needs of the next decade and beyond.

Question put and agreed to.

Sepsis Awareness

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered sepsis awareness.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. Sepsis is one of the least well known medical conditions and the No. 1 cause of preventable death in the world. Eleven million people die each year in the world from sepsis, and that represents one in five of all deaths in the world. Sepsis can be very difficult to detect and hard to distinguish from other illnesses. Sepsis claims more lives than lung cancer, bowel cancer, breast cancer and prostate cancer put together. That is truly astonishing. Across the UK alone, 48,500 people a year die from sepsis. The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges suggests that the figure is much higher—about 68,000 a year. That is incredible.

Given that there are approximately 200,000 cases of sepsis each year in the UK, it costs the NHS between £1.5 billion and £2 billion every single year and the wider economy at least £11 billion a year—some people think the figure is closer to £15 billion. The direct cost of sepsis to the NHS is 1% of its budget.

One reason why I requested this debate today is that I have many constituents who have been unfortunate enough to suffer from sepsis. I have a very brave young lady in the hall today. That is Abbi; she is sitting at the back. I am incredibly proud of the strength and determination she has shown to overcome this illness—she is a survivor. I will tell Abbi’s story. On 28 November 2022, she had been to her doctor’s for some antibiotics for her tonsils, because she was a long-time sufferer of tonsillitis and thought it was tonsillitis again. She had suffered with that all her life, so that was understandable. At 6 pm on that day, she was blue-lighted to King’s Mill Hospital in Ashfield, to the accident and emergency department, because she was fighting for breath and literally dying in front of her husband, Steve, who was sat there. She was given numerous injections of adrenaline while travelling to the hospital, because it was thought that she was having an anaphylactic fit and it was a reaction to the antibiotics that she had had that morning. When she arrived at A&E, she was put on 10 litres of oxygen by the staff, but it was evident that that was not enough; it was not doing the job. But they did not, unfortunately, administer any antibiotics or put her on IVs at that time; no blood tests were taken. Her husband, Steve, was constantly asking the staff, “Is there something else we can do for Abbi?” Only now, looking back a few years later, is it clear that sepsis was never thought of at the time.

Abbi very quickly deteriorated, so she was transferred to the intensive care unit at King’s Mill Hospital, where she was placed in an induced coma. She was fighting for her life, and all her organs began to shut down at a very rapid rate. Only when the ICU did some tests, when the results started to come through, did staff realise how ill she was and that she had actually got pneumonia, strep B and sepsis.

However, that was just the start of Abbi’s journey. When the ICU team realised that the situation was far more complicated than they could deal with at King’s Mill, they contacted Glenfield general hospital in Leicester. She was transferred there to be placed on an ECMO machine, which takes the place of the heart and lungs—I suppose it is a life support machine. She was lucky to have fitted the criteria to go on that machine. She stayed on it for the next three weeks, in a coma and fighting to stay alive. Without it, she would not be here today. There are only five of those machines in the UK, and it costs the NHS £20,000 per day, per patient. While she was on the ECMO machine, it was visible to Abbi’s family that she would lose both hands and both legs beneath the knee, because sepsis had taken over her body and given her gangrene.

On 17 December, Abbi was transferred back to the ICU at King’s Mill hospital because she no longer had to be on the ECMO machine at Leicester, but she still needed round-the-clock intensive care treatment. On 9 February, she was transferred to the burns and plastics ward at Nottingham city hospital, where she would wait for her amputations. Imagine that—having to wait in hospital knowing that they were going to take her arms and legs away, after everything she had been through. On 4 May, she was discharged after spending six months in hospital, coming out as a quadruple amputee. She told me just before the debate began—she sometimes forgets—she also lost the sight in her left eye. Incredibly sad. Incredible, brave lady. That is Abbi’s story, and I thank her for sharing it with me.

Other constituents have contacted me about sepsis, including Karen from Ashfield. Her elderly mother contracted sepsis and had an awful time at the hospital. Her diagnosis was slow. It was not picked up properly, and, just a few months later, she sadly collapsed and passed away. Neil from Ashfield was much luckier. It was picked very quickly. They got the antibiotics into his body and he made a full recovery. With Pam from Ashfield, it was lucky for her husband that she was a former nurse. She recognised the symptoms and insisted that the hospital put the IV antibiotics into his body very quickly. There is a window of about 12 hours to get the antibiotics in. The point of today’s debate is to get the awareness out there, not just in the wider community but in hospitals, because it is very unfortunate that sepsis is being missed. Maybe if they had picked it up quicker in Abbi’s case, we would not be sat here—I do not know. Shirley from Ashfield had a better experience. The hospital picked it up very quickly and she made a full recovery, so there are people making full recoveries.

We all know about the sad story of our colleague, Craig Mackinlay—Lord Mackinlay now. I have had conversations with him over the past few weeks about this debate, although he could not be here today. He had a torrid time. His wife was told he was going to die, but he fought back. I think she put pictures of his family on the ceiling of his room at the hospital. He is a fighter, is Craig. It nearly took his life and it has taken him several months to get over it. We did not know where he was; we thought he was just on holiday somewhere at first. We did not see him for months and then we heard what condition he was in. He came back to Parliament a few months back. I will be honest: there was not a dry eye in the House when he walked in as the bionic man. It was so emotional. He is living proof that we can fight back from this disease and have a reasonable quality of life, given the right support and a good hospital.

As I have said, 48,500 people a year die from sepsis. Other organisations put that figure much higher. That is almost 1,000 people a week dying from sepsis in this country, but if somebody was stopped in the street and asked what it was, they would probably struggle to say. The symptoms are a very high or low temperature, uncontrolled shivering, confusion, passing less urine than normal, and blotchy or cold arms and legs. I know that because a few years back, my wife had those symptoms. My wife has cystic fibrosis and she is post double lung transplant, so she has all sorts of medical problems as well, and we thought that it was maybe a rejection of the lungs or pneumonia. We managed to get her to the hospital, and it was sepsis. They told us at the hospital that if we had left it any longer, she would have died—simple as that—because of other complications and she has no immune system. Last year, when she had it again, we knew straightaway what it was. She had the same symptoms, so we got her there pretty sharpish.

I also learned today from Abbi that, on her road to recovery she got her prosthetic limbs but she is also—I do not know if the Minister is aware of this—on a list at Leeds hospital to have a hand transplant. She has a prosthetic for her right arm, but she is on the list for a hand transplant—it is absolutely amazing that we are doing that now. It offers people a lot of hope—Abbi does not stop smiling. We have a campaign in this country for strokes and we all know the symptoms now. We have all seen the stroke campaign on TV about the facial symptoms or someone not being able to talk or keep their arms up. We know all that now. I would like to see a campaign for sepsis so that families and, more importantly, our hospitals are fully aware. What does it cost to give somebody some antibiotics as a precaution if they are shaking, are cold, are blotchy and have a fever? For goodness’ sake, what does it cost to put an IV on them and get some antibiotics pumped into them while they do the other checks?

[Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Does he agree that sharing the stories of all those we know who are affected by sepsis, as he has done so sensitively today about his Abbi, helps to highlight the importance of early recognition of this dreadful disease and the importance of early diagnosis?

[Lee Anderson]

The hon. Member is absolutely right, if I am honest, and that is what this debate is about. It is about sharing stories. As I said earlier, we could probably ask 100 people on the street what sepsis is and the vast majority would struggle to tell us what it is and what the symptoms are. What we need, and it is quite right, is a campaign for awareness, whether that is through schools or on social media or the TV. I would really like to see a campaign on sepsis so that everybody knows the symptoms. I am going to wrap up now—I have spoken for 13 minutes. I know there are lots of colleagues present who want to speak as well and I am conscious that we have only an hour.

16:43

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) on securing this debate on such an important issue, which is very close to my heart personally. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I start by just speaking about myself a little.

In January 2017 after the Christmas break, I came back to Parliament, like many colleagues did, with a bit of a cold. Of course, we carry on working—after all, it is just a cold. Weeks went by and it was getting a bit worse, so I took a course of antibiotics. I suspect, like the hon. Gentleman, a seven-day course of antibiotics very rarely clears up an infection for a gentleman of my physique. Within a short period, the infection was starting to come back and I had a sore throat. Nevertheless, it was only a sore throat, so I went out to Strasbourg for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe meeting that week, and while there, my condition deteriorated.

I was feeling really grotty on the Tuesday morning so I just stayed in my hotel room. On Wednesday, things were so bad that I asked someone to do me a favour and go to a chemist. By Thursday, they had got so terrible that I booked an appointment with a GP in Strasbourg, which, as a typical man, was very much a last resort. The GP did the normal checks—blood pressure and the like—and gave me a throat spray. I was feeling pretty awful, so I flew back that evening and struggled through constituency events on Friday. By Saturday morning, I was getting up and putting on my suit on top of my pyjamas and telling my wife that I had to come down to Westminster to vote. She recognised that that was not entirely typical behaviour and phoned for an ambulance.

Within a few hours I was in an induced coma. I remained in a coma for the next 11 days after a septic shock diagnosis. The consultants told my family I had about a 10% chance of surviving and that if I were to pull through it would almost certainly be with life-changing effects—amputations, brain damage or other severe effects. Fortunately, of course, I was extremely and unbelievably lucky, largely because of the amazing care that I received from the staff at Russells Hall hospital in Dudley. Above all, I was lucky that on that Saturday morning as I presented at A&E, the nurse walking past happened to recognise that the symptoms, which looked much like any number of other conditions, particularly meningitis with a rash, could be sepsis.

Sepsis is a life-threatening condition. It is a response to infection that can lead to tissue damage, organ failure and death if not treated promptly. Despite its severity, the number of deaths and the many, many other people left with their lives fundamentally changed by sepsis, very few people are able to spot the signs, which of course delays diagnosis and treatment. Even the GP in France, who I am sure was an extremely well qualified and professional physician, did not spot that my symptoms could be sepsis.

That lack of awareness contributes to the staggering statistics that the hon. Member for Ashfield went through. There are around 48,000 deaths a year in the United Kingdom due to sepsis, which means that by the end of this 60-minute debate, the chances are that five more people will have lost their lives to sepsis. A further 25 people will have had their lives changed by sepsis. Globally, it affects around 49 million people, with probably around 11 million losing their lives each year. There is a growing body of opinion that believes that the majority of covid deaths were probably covid deaths where the infection triggered a septic response.

I keep saying “probably” because, frightening as the figures are, they are best guesses. We do not know. Although the reporting in the United Kingdom is better than in almost any other country, it is still not consistent. It is possible that a death will be recorded just as a multiple organ or respiratory failure despite it being a case of sepsis or of septic shock. It is important that we step up to the challenge of reducing those deaths, which, as has been said, represent more than the number of lives lost to breast, bowel and prostate cancers combined every single year. We need a sepsis register so that we know how many cases there are and how those cases progress.

One of the most alarming aspects of sepsis is that it often goes unrecognised until it is too late. I was lucky that it was spotted as I presented at A&E—even two or three hours later might have made the difference between a 10% chance of survival and a quite minuscule chance. Our friend and former colleague Lord Mackinlay was similarly fortunate; although his condition deteriorated at an astonishingly rapid rate, it was caught just in time for him to survive.

Early identification and diagnosis are important because, in most cases, timely broad-based intravenous antibiotics will be enough to stop the infection from triggering a septic response. Promoting Sepsis Awareness Month is therefore not just about sharing statistics or stories; it is about saving lives. By educating the public and healthcare professionals about the signs and symptoms of sepsis, we can ensure that more people receive the urgent care they need.

The UK Sepsis Trust, which does so much amazing work and is led by the incredible Dr Ron Daniels, has a three-point plan that we all need to get behind. We need to be able to measure and publish performance data on sepsis care pathways, so that we can see how they are responded to and can measure successes and where things have not been done correctly. We need fast and reliable diagnostics, to allow those on the frontline to make the correct decisions quickly, without lengthy waits for test results to be returned from central laboratories. We also need to increase awareness of sepsis, as the hon. Member for Ashfield is doing so well with his debate today, to ensure that medical professionals and the public are able to ask the question: could it be sepsis?

I am speaking with a slightly croaky throat, but I am fairly sure that this time it is not the strep B infection that triggered that septic shock in January 2017. I can be confident because, unlike nearly eight years ago, I am all too aware of the signs and symptoms of sepsis: slurred speech or confusion, extreme shivering or muscle pain, passing no urine for a day or more, severe breathlessness, skin that is mottled or discoloured, and a feeling normally described as “like you are going to die.” Having had it, I would say, “It feels like you want to die.”

If the public and healthcare professionals across the system are aware, can look out for those six signs, and ask that question—could it be sepsis?—then many more lives could be saved. Sepsis could then be spotted earlier in people like Abbi, whom the hon. Gentleman spoke so movingly about, and Lord Mackinlay, and we can ensure that life-changing conditions can be dealt with far sooner.

16:53

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for moving the motion and for speaking about not just the political side but the personal side of this debate, through the story of Abbi. I congratulate her on her bravery and on being here to hear the debate.

In reflecting on what the hon. Member said, what I will say to the Minister is that although we talk so much about health being devolved to the other nations, at times we have to take a step back and see what our national health service can do at that national level. The hon. Member’s ask for a sepsis awareness campaign is surely something that our public health agencies, health trusts, Ministers and Departments across this United Kingdom can take on and look at on a four-nations basis. Sepsis affects everybody and every region equally, so that is something that we can do. I thank the hon. Member for raising the issue here today.

I was Health Minister in Northern Ireland for three and a half years and, looking back, sepsis was not an issue that was high on our agenda—or even my agenda—at that time. There is a realisation from the stories that we have heard today, including those of Abbi, the hon. Member for Ashfield and the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), that brings home the seriousness of it. I looked back to see what had been done in Northern Ireland on raising awareness of sepsis. In 2019, Unison ran an awareness campaign in Northern Ireland for its members and, in 2020, the South Eastern health and social care trust—one of our five geographical health trusts— ran a campaign, but I could find nothing done centrally or pushed out by our public health agency. There is so much more we can do.

I found one positive thing: a piece of work was published last month by Sepsis Research FEAT and the James Lind Alliance, in which they identify the top 10 research priorities that could shape the future of sepsis treatment and care, with the goal of saving tens of thousands of lives each year, as well as addressing the financial implications that the hon. Member for Ashfield talked about. Those top 10 priorities address critical questions, including how to improve the accuracy and speed of diagnosis, which has been mentioned today; exploring alternatives to antibiotics; and investigating the long-term effects of sepsis, which is now referred to as post-sepsis syndrome because of the after-effects of having that illness. As a life-threatening condition that can affect anyone, sepsis often progresses rapidly, leading to death or life-altering consequences for survivors, with post-traumatic stress disorder even being identified in previous sufferers.

I mention that research because it was co-led by a professor from Queen’s University Belfast. It suggests that work on sepsis can be brought forward, so I encourage the Minister to look at that research, which was published last month and also involved professors from Cambridge and Edinburgh. The Minister can take that work forward after this debate, but he should also engage with his ministerial counterparts across the United Kingdom and follow the hon. Member’s appeal for UK-wide awareness of sepsis and what can be done to prevent it. In closing, I congratulate Abbi once again for being here to put a personal face on a very challenging condition. Hopefully, today’s debate will have a positive outcome.

16:57

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Christopher. I want to recount the experience of my constituency colleague and friend, Richard Lochhead, Member of the Scottish Parliament for Moray. Late last year, Richard became ill with flu-like symptoms at an event in Edinburgh. Days later, back in Elgin in the constituency, he collapsed at home and was blue-lighted to Dr Gray’s hospital in Elgin, and then on to the Aberdeen Royal infirmary. He had, of course, developed sepsis from what seemed like common flu-like symptoms.

Richard has said publicly:

“There’s no doubt that I’m lucky to be here.”

The sepsis had attacked his heart and he required emergency open heart surgery. He was an otherwise healthy individual who enjoys cycling and, hopefully, he will be able to get back to that—I certainly think he will, given how he looked when I saw him most recently. He spent six weeks in hospital and said there were times when he “couldn’t do anything”. He also described having to learn to walk again. He lost his voice and that took several weeks to return. For any politician, obviously, losing their voice is a difficult thing to deal with.

Richard has thankfully made a faster than expected recovery, having been at death’s door, although that recovery has still been many months. He is now back representing his constituents in his inimitable style, and carrying out his ministerial duties in the Scottish Government most effectively. I am sure colleagues will join me in wishing him well for his continuing recovery, albeit that he is most of the way there now. A combination of expert care, his own determination and, arguably, some luck, got him to that point, but many others—as we have heard from colleagues today—are not so lucky.

It was reported in the excellent Press and Journal newspaper that in the last year alone almost one person a day in Grampian, Highland and Islands has died from sepsis. More than 2,200 patients needed ward treatment, with around six admissions a day in an area represented by just 11 MPs. With more than 600 MPs in this place, that gives an indication of how big and shocking the impact of sepsis is.

This is bluntly a life and death issue, and I commend the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for bringing forward this debate and, vitally, for keeping the issue in the spotlight. The symptoms that have been described by others are critical for people to understand. No one should gamble on whether it may or not be sepsis. If they have the slightest inkling that sepsis might be the cause of an illness, they should get to a doctor and a hospital and get checked out.

17:00

[James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Reform)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for this debate. It is hard to think of a more appropriate topic. I also thank Abbi—who has shared with us the warmest smile that I have seen in a long time—and her husband for being here; it is a privilege to meet them.

I want to take a moment to share a personal story, to show why drawing attention to this subject is one of the most appropriate things we can do as Members of Parliament. I have four young children at home. After the birth of the most recent one, my wife began to suffer some of the symptoms we have discussed today, but—very much like the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood)—tough Brits do not easily give in to the hospital. As fate would have it, though, we had a meeting that morning with a carer who was checking on women who had recently had children. She popped round to check on the welfare of baby and mother, and although my wife and I were adamant that everything would be fine, this skilled professional spotted the symptoms immediately and demanded that we were rushed to hospital. We were there within half an hour and, within another 20 minutes, there were around a dozen doctors, nurses and support staff rushing around like maniacs. Although I cannot remember the specific number of signs, they were tenfold, fifteenfold, twentyfold what they should be in a healthy person. The staff may have saved my wife’s life in very real terms.

That is why I wanted to take this moment to recognise why this issue is extremely appropriate. The consequences of catching sepsis are minor, but the consequences of not catching it are extraordinarily severe. The difference is cheap: it is education; it is information that we can all carry with us for free, but which can potentially benefit someone’s life.

I want to take one last moment to again thank Abbi for sharing her story and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield for allowing us to hold this debate, and to thank the extraordinary staff at Basildon University Hospital.

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

There are two more speakers and six minutes to go, so that is three minutes each.

17:03

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I thank the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for raising this issue. He and I spoke this week, and his perseverance and hard work have given us a chance to make a contribution. I also commend Abbi for coming here today and for giving her personal story, which the hon. Member for Ashfield referred to. I salute her courage and bravery through all these hard times, as well as her wonderful smile, which the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock) mentioned.

As the DUP’s health spokesperson, I add my voice to those of other hon. Members to raise awareness of sepsis. With superior hygiene and antibiotics available on tap, we have a tendency to think that sepsis is a disease of the past, when it clearly is not. The sad fact is that, during this one-hour debate, five people in the UK will lose their lives. This debate is to hammer home the need for people to be aware of the signs of sepsis.

My dad had sepsis in hospital a long time ago. It was a minor case, with the advantage that he healed quickly. He was right there in the hospital where the nurses were and the reaction was immediate to ensure that he survived.

Most parents are aware of the glass test for meningitis, which has been hammered home on multiple occasions. However, when I did a quick survey of my office staff—three of the five are parents and one had training from St John Ambulance—it shocked me that the only person who knew what sepsis was was the St John Ambulance volunteer; the others talked about extremities turning black, which is almost end-stage sepsis. We need to be aware of the symptoms before that, and that quick survey has pushed me into thinking that there needs to be more awareness among parents and communities as a whole. I know that the Minister will try to respond—he always does and he is assiduous in what he does.

The charity Sepsis NI said that we currently have no recovery protocols in place in Northern Ireland for sepsis, although that is not just a problem in Northern Ireland. When patients leave hospital, the fact that they may have been treated and survived does not mean that they are in any way better; in fact, most are still seriously ill and need both physical and psychological help. We still need to work on a GP and hospital after-care plan, and I hope the Minister will share some of his ideas with the Assembly back home. The situation must change, and we need a UK-wide strategy to deal with this issue across the UK.

Lastly, this statistic is a good one to put on record: the best guess for Northern Ireland is that 7,020 people will be affected by sepsis this year and 1,240 will die. If those facts do not scare us, they need to. People need to be aware of the symptoms: the fast breathing, dizziness, pale and mottled skin, high temperature and cold body. We all need to be able to call those to mind as quickly as we do with other major killers, such as meningitis.

This debate is a good step in raising awareness. I very much support my colleagues in asking for more to be done centrally, using a co-ordinated approach to raise awareness UK-wide of the killer that is sepsis. I again thank the hon. Member for Ashfield.

17:06

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) on securing the debate.

These are extraordinary tales that we hear from loved ones and family. A very good friend of mine nearly died of sepsis seven years ago, but—I have to be honest—I had never heard of it until that moment when he nearly passed away. This could be one of the most extraordinary opportunities for our healthcare system to make a rapid difference.

Sepsis is so quick but so preventable. In the pressured environment of our hospitals and our GPs’ surgeries, it is so easy for healthcare professionals to miss it. If it becomes embedded in all of us through a major publicity campaign, which could be organised relatively quickly, to ask ourselves that simple question, “Could it be sepsis?”, in the same way that we often ask, “Could it be meningitis?”, and if we could help medical professionals by asking them that question too, we will have the ability to prevent death or major life-changing injuries and to save money for the NHS. It is a massive win-win, and I hope the Minister can rapidly respond both positively and appropriately.

17:08

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) on bringing this important debate forward today. I also want to take a moment to recognise Abbi, who is in the Public Gallery, for her bravery in all she has done and for coming here today and the work she is doing just by being here and raising the profile of sepsis.

While initiatives such as sepsis six have helped to improve outcomes for people who have sepsis in recent years, urgent challenges remain, in terms of both the awareness and the treatment protocols we have, and the resources we put into treating the condition. In preparing for the debate, I was able to grab five minutes with a constituent and a dear friend. She has looked after her mother, who was hospitalised and very ill for a long time, after being bitten by the family dog and developing sepsis. Eventually, over a number of years, she has been able to come home.

As well as caring for her mother, my friend is a consultant geriatrician locally to me in Mid Sussex and has a great deal of experience of what it is like treating sepsis in hospital. She wanted to emphasise that awareness of sepsis has grown among healthcare professionals and is much better understood than it once was. The UK Sepsis Trust, through its action and activism, has seen a real increase in public awareness of sepsis. In 2012, only 27% of people understood the severity of the condition, but that figure had soared by 2019 to 76%. Awareness is going in the right direction, although more certainly needs to be done.

While raising awareness is a part of this, public awareness alone is not enough. We must improve things such as diagnostic testing for sepsis through investment in hospital equipment and increased laboratory capacity. We cannot expect healthcare professionals to act swiftly if they are not given the tools they need to do their job to the best of their skilled ability.

I was grateful to the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock) for raising the issue of maternal sepsis. In September, the Care Quality Commission reported that 48% of trusts were rated “Inadequate” or “Requires improvement” for maternity services. Sadly, that includes my own trust, the University hospitals Sussex NHS foundation trust. Sepsis is just one risk factor in having poor maternity provision. All maternity units must meet high standards of care. That includes having adequate facilities and equipment and access to best practice care around the clock, especially for those experiencing miscarriage.

Moving on to emergencies, we know that demand for ambulances is intense, not just because of the winter pressures that come around every year but because of longer-term pressures. In my seat of Mid Sussex, the South East Coast Ambulance Service is predicting a 15% increase in demand for ambulances over the next five years. Response times for urgent conditions such as sepsis need to be improved. Across England last year, the NHS failed to meet response targets in every region for category 2 emergencies, which includes sepsis. We need to increase the number of staffed hospital beds and improve social care to cut delays in ambulance handovers, and it is imperative that the Government publish localised reports on ambulance response times. We must create an emergency fund to reverse the closure of community ambulance stations.

In conclusion, while we have made significant progress in raising awareness of sepsis, the fight is far from over. We must continue to push for better diagnostics, increased funding and improved care standards, ensuring that everyone, regardless of their background, has access to the best possible treatment.

17:12

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) on securing a debate on this very important topic. I should also declare an interest as an NHS consultant paediatrician. I have cared for and continue in my work to care for people with this condition.

I would like to thank Abbi for coming today. It was an honour to meet earlier today and to hear her story from her MP, which highlighted both the difficulties she faced in getting good immediate care for sepsis and the consequences of that. I commend her for the bravery she has shown in coming today and for raising this issue for the benefit of other people. This debate will increase awareness, which is a very positive thing.

I remember sitting in the Chamber earlier this year when the former hon. Member for South Thanet re-entered Parliament to a standing ovation—an exceptionally rare occurrence in the House of Commons. It is truly humbling to reflect on the journey that he has been through in such a short space of time. Little over a year ago, he had no outward signs of sepsis at all. He has now become one of the most well-known advocates for people with it. His case brought renewed attention to this disease, which kills nearly 50,000 people in the UK every year. As the hon. Member for Ashfield said, that is around the same number of people who die from bowel, breast and prostate cancer combined.

The case of our former colleague speaks to not only a remarkable recovery but the suddenness with which sepsis can utterly change someone’s life. As many people have said today, early identification is vital. Under the previous Government, awareness of sepsis improved significantly, as did the clinical recognition of symptoms, screening rates and the administration of antibiotic treatment, but there is much more to do.

I want to commend the UK Sepsis Trust and other public campaigners who played a significant role in improving awareness among the general public. A recent YouGov survey showed that the UK has high levels of public awareness compared with other countries. Will the Minister say what steps the Government will take to work with NHS England and patient groups such as the UK Sepsis Trust to raise public awareness, so that people can more easily identify the signs of sepsis? I have also asked this of another Minister, but have not yet received an answer. The Chancellor said that she was cutting the communications budget—can the Minister confirm that those cuts will not affect the important public health messaging for campaigns like this? It is important that we do not cut budgets that will save people’s lives and, indeed, save the NHS money. It is also important to raise awareness not just across the general public, but among health professionals, including medical staff in both hospitals and communities.

The national early warning score has been introduced and is being rolled out, along with the sepsis six, which was developed with the UK Sepsis Trust. The six—oxygen, cultures, antibiotics, fluids, lactate management and urinary output monitoring—must all be carried out within the first hour. Has the Minister established how well those measures are being rolled out across the UK, and what is he doing to ensure that is being done effectively? The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence updated its guidance earlier this year. Will the Minister update the House on how effectively that guidance has been implemented across the UK? Martha’s rule was introduced before the election; the rule relates to the ability for people to get a second opinion from another health professional if they remain concerned about their loved one or themselves. Will the Minister update the House on the work the NHS is doing to roll that out, too?

Research is the cornerstone of transforming sepsis care, and the last Government invested more than £1 billion through the National Institute for Health and Care Research. It is important that we research the causes of and treatment for sepsis, but we must also research new antibiotics, because we are starting to see antibiotic resistance to infections. If we do not invest in antibiotic research, new antibiotics will not be developed—we are essentially asking people to develop a drug to be kept on the shelf for when we need it, and there is no money in that, so it will not get commercial take-up. It is therefore important that the Government invest in that.

The UK Sepsis Trust is calling on the Government to publish data on the sepsis care pathway so that we can see where it is performing well and where it is performing less well. I urge the Government to do that. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm today that they will do so.

As we close the debate, let us remember what we are fighting for. Sepsis takes the lives of 50,000 people every year. It strikes suddenly and often without warning, as Lord Mackinlay’s case reminds us so powerfully. Early identification and rapid treatment are the keys to saving lives; we have made strides, and awareness is growing, but we must do more. We must continue to improve recognition, strengthen control and push forward with life-saving initiatives. I urge the Government today not just to maintain their commitment but to strengthen it by partnering with NHS England, publishing more data, researching the causes of sepsis and ensuring we can fight this disease together.

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

I thank the Front Benchers for sticking to their five minutes, which means the Minister now has 10 minutes; there will hopefully also be a couple of minutes for the proposer to reply.

17:18

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)]

It is good to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I start by welcoming new Members to this House. I know it has been three months since the general election, but this is my first opportunity as a Health Minister to welcome those who have a clear interest in public health and prevention matters. I assure Members of the House that I will work with all Members to try to get those better outcomes. Working across party is how I always operated in opposition, and I seek to do the same in government. I also want to welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), to her post. We very briefly went head to head in the past when I shadowed her—I hope that she gets to shadow me for longer.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) on securing this important debate. He is a chap who always wears his heart on his sleeve. Whether we agree with him or not, he is always forthright and passionate about the causes that he cares for. This is a cause for which there is commonality across the House, and I want to thank him sincerely for putting forward such an eloquent case to me, as the new Public Health and Prevention Minister, and for setting out the story of his constituent, Abbi. I am going to make her blush, and we have all said it, but she has a wonderful smile—she really has. I hope she will still be smiling at the end of the debate because I want to ensure that the Government do more on raising awareness of sepsis.

I have always taken the view that Members vastly enrich our debates with their own experiences and those of their constituents, and we heard it again in contributions over the course of the debate. I want to start by saying as the Minister that my deepest condolences go to the families and friends of everyone lost to sepsis, including those watching the debate elsewhere. Sepsis is a devastating condition. Last month was Sepsis Awareness Month. I want to pay tribute to the outstanding sepsis charities, including UK Sepsis Trust and Sepsis Research FEAT. They do so much to raise awareness, support families and fund research.

The shadow Minister mentioned Martha’s rule, and I want to touch on that. Throughout the history of the NHS, families have been at the heart of driving change and, indeed, holding our health service to account. Members may have read, as I did, Merope Mills’ article in the Guardian describing her daughter’s last few days in hospital. It was a difficult read—there is no getting away from that—and I cannot even begin to imagine how difficult that article was to write. At just 13 years old, Martha was a bright, bubbly young girl and, in her mum’s words, a “feminist in the making.” She should not have died. Her parents should have been listened to, they should have been kept in the loop, and they should have been treated with the respect they deserved. Talking to families should never be some tick-box exercise. On the contrary, nobody knows their child better than a mum and dad, as we know. Families have a critical part to play in their own care, and we need to ensure that their concerns are heard and acted on.

Thanks to Martha’s parents and other campaigners, NHS England will roll out Martha’s rule across 143 hospital sites by March next year. That initiative will enable patients and their families to seek a second opinion or a rapid review from someone outside their care team if they are concerned that their condition is deteriorating.

On sepsis training, NHS England has developed specific sepsis training resources to improve sepsis recognition for clinical and non-clinical staff in the NHS. Guidelines for recognition, diagnosis and early management of suspected sepsis were updated earlier this year. It is critical that those updates are constantly implemented by frontline clinical staff to drive real improvements on the ground. It is also important that we recognise the life-altering complications of sepsis, such as multiple limb amputations, as again was so eloquently set out by the hon. Member for Ashfield. Again, I want to thank Abbi for being here today—there is nothing more powerful than her presence in the Gallery.

Physical rehabilitation is an important part of the recovery process. It can be a long, difficult and frustrating process, so it is important that the NHS continues to place patients at the heart of rehabilitation services and focuses on meeting individual goals and improving their quality of life.

On public awareness, as has already been said by numerous Members, we all remember that incredible moment when Lord Mackinlay, who had a life-threatening battle with sepsis, walked into the House of Commons Chamber just before the general election was called. His moving testimony shone a spotlight on the physical and emotional pain of sepsis survivors and their families. I welcome his advocacy in that area. In the NHS, our focus must be on improving the early recognition and clinical treatment of sepsis. We should thank everyone who has campaigned on that.

Sepsis is a clinically complex condition. The signs and symptoms vary hugely, particularly in the early stages. Moreover, sepsis is not a single disease; it does not have a single diagnostic test. The NHS has got better at recognising and treating sepsis by the introduction of the national early warning score, a screening and decision support tool now used by 100% of ambulance trusts, and 99% of acute trusts, in England. Last year, NHS England ran a financial incentive scheme to encourage the use of the national early warning score to improve responses to unwell and deteriorating patients, and several trusts have rolled out the national paediatric early warning score to ensure the recognition of deterioration in children. We need to maintain that momentum, continuing to improve care and reduce preventable deaths from sepsis—because they are preventable, and we should do all we can to prevent them.

I want to see patients and families empowered to seek timely medical help. The job of the healthcare system is to ensure that frontline staff can recognise sick patients and respond quickly to provide lifesaving treatment. To support that, in the last five years, the National Institute for Health and Care Research has invested over £19.7 million of funding in 20 research projects on sepsis diagnosis, management and treatment, and it welcomes applications for research on sepsis.

I want to touch briefly on antimicrobial resistance. Our treatment of sepsis relies on effective antibiotics. That is why the Government are focused on tackling antimicrobial resistance by implementing the UK’s five-year national action plan.

On improving awareness, I spend almost every day thinking about prevention—it is in the title of my job—and preventing infection is the best way to avoid sepsis. I agree with the hon. Member for Ashfield, and indeed other Members, that we should be doing all we can to better educate and inform. It is heartwarming that in the latest statistics we have, awareness of sepsis is not only increasing, it is at relatively high levels. But we should never rest on our laurels. We have to keep reminding people of sepsis. That is why I will work with the hon. Member for Ashfield and others to ensure that we get the support we need.

I will work on a four-nation basis with colleagues across the devolved Administrations. One of my first jobs was to talk to Mike Nesbitt, the Health Minister in Northern Ireland, and the Welsh and Scottish Health Ministers, about health issues to which we have a common approach. Sepsis has to be one of those.

Finally, I assure the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, that the comms budgets will not be cut for public health measures.

17:28

[Lee Anderson]

I thank every hon. Member here for making some wonderful contributions and sharing some stories. I think the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) summed it all up perfectly: “Could it be sepsis?” That is the question all health professionals and families should be asking themselves if they see the symptoms.

It has been a wonderful debate. Once again, I thank Abbi and Steve for coming here, because it is real-life stories such as Abbi’s that inspire us as MPs to tell them in this place. If we cannot do anything about sepsis awareness, such as having a campaign, I would be very disappointed. However, I have been very encouraged by what the Minister has said today, and by fellow Members from all parties. All I can say to sum up, Sir Christopher, is, “Could it be sepsis?”

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered sepsis awareness.

17:29

Sitting adjourned.