Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Defibrillators
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered defibrillator access.
I thank everyone for being here. We often hear it said that people are generous with their time when they take interventions, but I think it is extremely generous for everyone to show up at 9.30 am for a debate like this. I will deliberately keep my comments brief so we can get as many people in as possible. I am grateful for this opportunity to talk about the need to build more national resilience by increasing access to defibrillators.
May I begin my remarks by paying tribute to my friend George Smith, who died yesterday from a heart attack? George was chair of the parish council in West Auckland and a former Durham county councillor. To everybody who knew him, he was a great man who always had a twinkle in his eye and an energy and desire to serve others. I do not know whether access to a defibrillator would have saved George, but I do know that the national survival rate of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in the UK is just 8%. Let that sink in: only 8% of people survive. But we also know that the chances of survival increase by 70% where people have rapid access to a defibrillator within three to five minutes, saving the lives of our friends, family and neighbours.
In Bishop Auckland, which I represent, 51% of postcodes are outside the recommended distance for timely access to a defibrillator. We have 17 defibrillators per 10,000 people, which is above the national average, but that still falls far below the recommended 50 to 100 per 100,000 people. I ask the Minister what plans there are to address the stark regional disparities in coverage, particularly in rural areas and disadvantaged communities.
A constituent wrote to me recently to share the experience of her father. He had a cardiac arrest at work and his life was saved by rapid access to a defibrillator. She explained, though, that had he had that cardiac arrest at home—she looked this up—it would have taken her 30 minutes to get to the nearest defibrillator. So we know that there are huge gaps—defibrillator deserts—in national provision.
The Government’s community automated external defibrillator fund has been exhausted and all funds are allocated, with no plans for expansion. That fund delivered 3,000 defibrillators—a small fraction of the 100,000 defibrillators registered on the Circuit. Costs remain a major barrier, with community groups facing a cost of £2,500 per device and not getting VAT relief on that, which is a campaign we have fought previously. Will the Government therefore finally commit—I appreciate the Minister cannot comment on tax affairs, but she can pass this on to her colleagues—to removing VAT on defibrillator purchases, as has been done for other lifesaving equipment?
It is also important to note that registration on the Circuit is not the same as being accessible, because many devices are locked away in offices, schools or businesses and are not available 24/7. That makes survival even less likely for cardiac arrests outside of working hours. What steps are being taken to ensure that the national defibrillator database is accurate, up to date and reflects actual availability? Will the Department work with local authorities and community groups to ensure that placement is in genuinely accessible locations—outside buildings, in community hubs and transport stations?
Last year, I had the opportunity to host Jack Hurley here in Parliament. Jack is an outstanding young man. He had a cardiac arrest while playing football and his friends were able to access a defibrillator and perform CPR on him. It was great to see him standing tall and back doing the things that he loves. Jack has been campaigning for some time, and I want to pay tribute to him and his campaign. His story reminds us that behind every statistic is a family, including a young life that could be cut short or saved depending on access to a defibrillator.
Every Member here will have similar stories and will no doubt have been contacted by constituents asking for help in acquiring defibrillators. Many will have experienced seeing a loved one in a moment of peril. When I was just 11 years old, my mum collapsed with a seizure while we were at church. It was only by the good fortune of there being a paramedic in the congregation that her life was saved. Had that not been the case, I would have grown up without a mother.
This is about not only survival, but recovery. Early defibrillation means better neurological outcomes, shorter hospital stays, lower long-term costs to the NHS and a chance to turn the UK’s poor survival rate into something far more hopeful. We all know what works, so will the Government please act to ensure equitable access across every constituency?
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
We have a good attendance this morning. If hon. Members bob after a speech, whether or not they have put in to speak, that will enable us to do the complicated calculation of how much time we have. Rather than relying on me doing mental arithmetic on the hoof, the Clerk will calculate a reasonable solution.
Right—we will start with a three-minute time limit, which might have to be reduced. The actual calculation comes out at two and a half minutes, so I hope hon. Members will bear that in mind.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for bringing this debate to the House, and I wish him well in his recovery.
A few years ago, not many of us in rural Scotland would have known about the importance of defibrillators, and far less about how to use them in the unlikely event of something going wrong. But thanks to the efforts of one Scottish charity, Lucky2BHere, and the work of one individual, the late Ross Cowie of Portree, an old friend of mine, there are 1,000 public access defibrillators, and 5,000 people have been trained in their use over the past two decades by that one organisation.
Ross Cowie suffered a cardiac arrest in 2006 outside the clubhouse of Skye Camanachd, the island shinty team he led to victory in the 1990 cup final. His life was saved only because the local ambulance with a defibrillator happened to be passing by. His original aim was to install one external defibrillator outside his clubhouse in Portree, but the campaign has grown to deliver more than 1,000 defibs across rural Scotland, from Shetland to Dumfries. There is even one in the Flannan isles, 21 miles west of the Isle of Lewis and uninhabited apart from the ghosts of lighthouse keepers, but it is there should it be needed by passing fishermen or yachtsmen.
Just as important as its work in installing defibs, Lucky2BHere has trained thousands of volunteers to administer devices, to ensure that people know how to use them and the associated first aid emergency kit in the instance of cardiac arrest. We are all sometimes left feeling helpless. My hon. Friend mentioned his friend Jack Hurley, a footballer who collapsed while playing. We all remember the collapse of the Danish footballer Christian Eriksen during the Euro 2020 championship. That case highlighted the important difference between Denmark and the UK, because every Danish player on that field knew what to do in the case of cardiac arrest because they had been trained in school. That is a key difference between the UK, or Scotland, and Denmark. Training on defibs and lifesaving is compulsory in schools in Denmark. In Scotland, every local authority has committed to teach CPR in its secondary schools, yet as far as I know, it is up to individual schools to implement that, rather than its being mandatory.
British Heart Foundation Scotland has launched a new interactive online learning tool to equip thousands of schoolchildren with essential lifesaving skills. Classroom RevivR teaches students aged 11 to 16 how to save lives. It meets Scottish curriculum standards and can be taught in one lesson plan. It should be rolled out across all Scottish schools, because if young people learn the difference between cardiac arrest and a heart attack, and how to respond to an unconscious person, they can save lives, just as Ross Cowie and Lucky2BHere saved lives in his time.
Ross passed away in October 2024 at the age of 64, but his legacy lives on in the hearts and actions of all who support Lucky2BHere. It would be a fitting tribute to him and to the work of Lucky2BHere if training in life support became part of the curriculum across Scotland, and I would venture even further to say that such training should be a requirement to obtain a driving licence in the UK, so that we all knew what to do if we saw someone collapse.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I commend the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for securing this important debate.
I want to focus on a local charity in my constituency, Hearts for Herts. In 2017, my constituent Justin Honey-Jones, an experienced paramedic, began the mission to provide an inclusive education programme of lifesaving skills and to champion the provision of public access lifesaving equipment, all from his garage in Hoddesdon. Since then, he has personally trained more than 1,000 people in lifesaving skills, raising hundreds of thousands of pounds, with every penny used to provide and maintain lifesaving equipment.
In the last 18 months alone, the charity has installed 75 public access defibrillators across Hertfordshire, and it will install another 55 before February next year. I have been proud to attend many of the openings of those vital defibrillators across my constituency, including at Barclay Park, where the first solar-powered defibrillator in Hertfordshire is now in place, and at the Methodist church in Hoddesdon. Incredibly, just 36 hours after the defibrillator was installed at the church, it was used in a medical emergency.
Hearts for Herts rightly focuses its efforts on making defibrillators as accessible as possible and installing them where they are most useful to nearby residents. That aim is justified by stories such as that of the Methodist church defibrillator, and is driven forward by the charity’s unique aim to make all school defibrillators publicly accessible. At no cost to the school, Justin will organise the entire conversion process, ensuring that the crucial equipment can be accessed all year round, at any time of the day. That has saved lives: a converted defibrillator at Broxbourne school was activated on Christmas day, and over this year’s summer holidays the defibrillator at Wormley primary school has been used three times.
Hearts for Herts goes further: alongside the defibrillators, it places bleed control kits in its cabinets. The ability to control heavy bleeding is the difference between life and death following, for example, a road traffic collision. That is why Justin has included 200 bleed control kits alongside his defibrillators and has plans to provide even more. The kits buy injured individuals valuable time until an ambulance can arrive. I hope all hon. Members will join me in commending Justin for his incredible work. I look forward to supporting him and Hearts for Herts for many years to come.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for securing this important debate. I know that the subject matters a great deal to constituents who have contacted me about defibrillators over the years.
I recently met a young woman in my constituency who told me about the cardiac arrest that her father experienced on the Derwent walk in January this year. Her dad was in his early 50s, with no prior major health issues, when he and his wife decided to take a walk in the snow. They were about two miles away from their home when he suffered a cardiac arrest. Although they were on a popular route for people across our region, and part of the famous coast-to-coast cycle path, there was no defibrillator within easy reach of him. Thankfully, nurses and policemen nearby were available to do CPR until the ambulance arrived about 20 minutes later, and he was able to make a recovery.
In April, however, he suffered a further cardiac arrest. He was found by his teenage daughters, who both work as lifeguards at Consett leisure centre in my constituency, and they were able to administer CPR while they waited for the ambulance to arrive. They were just 16 and 18 at the time. Their actions clearly saved their dad’s life. I commend their bravery at what must have been an incredibly frightening moment, but sadly people all too often cannot be revived by CPR after suffering a cardiac arrest. That is why it is so important that we make sure that defibrillators are easily accessible and that people know how to use them in emergencies.
As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland, MPs are regularly contacted by organisations that seek to fundraise and to tell us about incidents in which defibrillators have been used, which is really important. I say a massive thank you to all my constituents in Blaydon and Consett who have organised the installation of defibrillators across our communities, including the councillors, community partnerships and groups of volunteers who have fundraised to provide them. I applaud the efforts of those at Stargate and Crookhill community centre, who are currently doing exactly that to ensure that they can maintain their defibrillators.
Once there is a defibrillator, it is not a done deal. The machines need new batteries and pads or replacements when parts can no longer be replaced owing to the age of the machine or after use. Communities who fundraise to set up defibrillators may be left to cover those costs, which puts areas with fewer resources at a disadvantage. Perhaps that is why research has shown that distance to the nearest 24/7 defibrillator increases with deprivation levels in England.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
As the MP for the South Cotswolds, I know that living in a rural area brings many blessings, but also some challenges. Ambulance wait times are nearly 50% longer in rural areas. When every second counts, that delay can make the difference between life and death. That is why access to defibrillators matters so profoundly.
Let me share the story of one of my constituents, Sonya Harris. In October 2023, Sonya collapsed outside her son’s school in Malmesbury after suffering a sudden cardiac arrest. Only about one in 10 people survive such an event. Sonya was one of those lucky ones: someone nearby knew CPR, a defibrillator was close at hand and she received swift care from the NHS and her family. Without that chain of good luck, she would not be here, and her son would be growing up without a mother. But survival from cardiac arrest should not come down to luck; it should come down to preparation.
I recently visited a newly installed defibrillator in my constituency. With huge thanks to the Lechlade Lions, the South Western ambulance service and Gloucestershire street lighting, Lechlade and Fairford now have some of the best defibrillator coverage in the country. They have pioneered the use of lamp post power to run devices, the first scheme of its kind in the south-west, making installation simpler and cheaper.
We should be broadening that approach across the whole country. Every community, rural or urban, deserves the same safety net. I advocate for defibrillators as a standard requirement in the planning process for all new housing estates and industrial estates. If developers include them from the outset, the cost is very reasonable—far lower than the cost of trying to retrofit them later on. New estates should be designed so that no home is more than 400 metres from a defibrillator, because when cardiac arrest happens, every moment counts.
Each year, thousands of lives are lost because help simply does not arrive quickly enough. By ensuring that defibrillators are widespread, visible and easy to access, we can change that. Let us make defibrillators as commonplace as fire extinguishers and as trusted as seat belts. Let us make sure that help is never more than a few steps away.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
I sincerely thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for securing this important debate. I will focus on the maintenance of defibrillators, which is intrinsic to access to this lifesaving equipment. In my constituency of Crewe and Nantwich, it represents a very real challenge. I want to share a story about the gravity of the situation.
In September last year, my constituent collapsed in Nantwich town centre, from a suspected cardiac arrest. CPR was administered by the public on site and a 999 call was made. The operator directed the member of the public to a defibrillator in the town centre, only for the member of the public to find, when they opened it, that it did not work. Another call was then made to 999 and they were directed to another defibrillator, which meant another 10-minute delay in finally administering treatment. We all know how vital it is that quick treatment be provided in cases of cardiac arrest. Sadly, the man who had the cardiac arrest did not survive; he passed away later. We do not know whether finding a working defibrillator first might have saved his life, but I am almost certain that it would have helped. I ask the Minister what plans the Government have to better regulate the maintenance of defibrillators.
I have spoken at length about the situation with the British Heart Foundation, which operates the Circuit, and with the British Healthcare Trades Association, and it is clear that there are improvements that we could make. As of August 2024, in Crewe and Nantwich there were roughly seven defibrillators per 10,000 people. The national average is just 10. They recommend that there be between 50 and 100 defibrillators per 10,000 people. What is more, according to the British Heart Foundation, 46.4% of postcodes in Crewe and Nantwich are out of direct reach of a defibrillator. In a context in which we know that, with defib use, the chances of surviving a cardiac arrest increase from just 8% to above 70%, the existence of such defib deserts is clearly not acceptable.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I am experiencing exactly the same problem in Wolverhampton North East: I am sad to announce that almost 70% of postcodes are not within easy reach of a defibrillator. Local community groups are stepping up, but they can be hit with a VAT charge of anything between £200 and £500 per device. Does my hon. Friend agree that an important step forward would be to review VAT on defibrillators, to widen access?
Connor Naismith
My hon. Friend has almost taken the words out of my mouth, because I was about to move on to some of the steps that we could take to address this issue. She is absolutely right. Clearly there is an issue with the VAT; as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland, that is something that the Government should look at. It is also about ensuring that defibs are always accessible outside, about education on administering the equipment, about maintenance and about ensuring that defibs are on the Circuit wherever possible, because we know that in many cases they are not.
One thing is certain: inaction is not an option. This equipment saves lives. If we fail to act, we will continue to have avoidable deaths, unfortunately, as in the case of my constituent. The opportunity is there to save lives. I urge the Government to grip it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for setting the scene so very well and for his generosity in allowing time for us all to participate.
My interest in defibrillators goes back to an incident outside a school in my constituency. A parent who was coming to collect a child collapsed outside the school. Due to the good work of those who were there—there was a nurse there—CPR saved him. After that, a defibrillator was installed at the school.
Hon. Members may be aware that in December 2020 I introduced a private Member’s Bill about public access to defibrillators. The Government made movements at the time, although the Bill did not pass. I was proud of the steps that were taken, as the need for action had been made clear by the British Heart Foundation, which has been instrumental in pushing the matter forward.
Some 1,400 out-of-hospital cardiac arrests are reported in Northern Ireland every year, with fewer than 10% surviving. Public access defibrillators are now used in fewer than 5% of cardiac arrests that happen away from a hospital. When someone has a cardiac arrest, every minute without CPR or defibrillation reduces their chances of survival by about 10%. That was the rationale behind the Bill. I was pleased when the then UK youth education Minister and Health Minister, Jo Churchill, both reassured me that they would do all they could to ensure that schools and public areas would have ready access to AEDs, and that is what happened.
I have continued to press the Government on the issue. On 17 February, in answer to my question on access to defibrillators, the Minister wrote:
“The Government is committed to improving access to Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) in public spaces, and reducing inequalities in access to these life saving devices. Following the depletion of the existing AED fund, launched in September 2023, the new Government approved a further £500,000 in August 2024 to fulfil existing applications to the fund.”
Who has filled the gap? It has been local charities and community groups. The Orange lodges have provided one in Newtownards in the past month, and another just before that in Craigantlet. The British Heart Foundation has opened a charity shop in the Ards shopping centre; the funds that it raises will save lives. I say a big thank you to all of them.
Clearly, we need effective, accessible defibrillators throughout communities as a standard, not as a bonus. Will the Minister give us some indication of discussions with the relevant Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly to ascertain whether there is a policy to move these things forward in a positive way? I fully support those calls. I was pleased that the Northern Ireland Assembly introduced a number of such measures through the then Education Minister, Peter Weir, who now sits in the other place.
I believe that more can and should be done to educate the general public to be fully confident in how to use defibrillators. Local churches, community groups and coffee shops should all have people who are trained and able to step in when needed. I commend the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland for moving the motion today; I will stand with him in this place as we seek to take steps to make a difference.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I thank my colleague and neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), for securing this important debate.
Nearly half the postcodes in my constituency are not within easy reach of a defibrillator. That is not just a statistic, as we have heard; it is the difference between life and death. We know that when a defibrillator is used within three to five minutes of cardiac arrest, survival chances rise from just 8% to more than 70%, yet too often communities in Durham are left without timely access. This inequality is compounded by cost. Community groups, sports clubs and small businesses fundraising for devices face average VAT bills of £500 per defib. That is an unnecessary barrier to saving lives, so I join colleagues in urging the Government to look at abolishing the so-called heart restart tax.
One organisation that has done magnificent work in helping to get defibs into key locations across our region is Rotary North East, which has installed more than 100, including in Durham city centre. The work it does, particularly the work of my constituent Tom Sharples, has genuinely saved lives in the north east. Not only has Tom worked to roll out defibs across the region, in conjunction with our brilliant police community support officers for Brandon and Brancepeth, Paul and Dan, but he has invested his time in delivering training sessions for young people in those communities.
Following the harrowing scenes during the 2020 Euros, when Christian Eriksen suffered a cardiac arrest on the pitch, I became determined to improve lifesaving equipment. I supported the roll-out of CPR training for young people across my constituency.
In 2021, I led a campaign that helped bring about a change in Football Association policy. Since then, all new FA-funded facilities must have a defibrillator as standard. That was an important step forward, but it is only part of the solution. Every day, 80 to 90 people die from cardiac arrest outside hospital, and many of those lives could have been saved. Wider availability of defibs would save lives, reduce pressure on our ambulance service and prevent the devastating long-term impact of brain injury and loss that follows so many of these cases. I urge the Government to act to close the defibrillator gap, end the postcode lottery and give every community, including mine in the City of Durham, the fair access that they deserve.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) on a sincere and thoughtful speech.
I am indebted to a lady called Elspeth Husband, a community first responder in Caithness. She made a point to me that echoed exactly what the hon. Member said about VAT: she services defibrillators, and the cost of pads and batteries is all subject to VAT. That seems straightforward wrong for such important lifesaving equipment. She also suggested that the same law that applies to lifebelts should apply to defibrillators—in other words, it would be an offence to use one wrongly or to remove one. I ask the Government to consider tightening up on that.
All the right points have been made about why defibrillators are so important, but I draw attention to my constituency, which is the northernmost, the most remote and the largest in the UK. Hon. Members can imagine that an eight-minute response time is extremely difficult in the area that I have the honour to represent. That is compounded by a decision taken by the Scottish Government in 2016 to centralise maternity services in Inverness, which obliges mothers to make a 200-mile round trip from the north of my constituency to give birth. I have talked about this many times in this place, and I am sorry if I have bored Members on the issue. Let us think on this: when the ambulance goes from Wick, Thurso, Bettyhill or a remote part of the north coast to Inverness with the mum on board, if somebody has a cardiac arrest, the defibrillator has headed south in the ambulance. To me, that is straightforward bonkers. That kit, which is vital for life saving, could be on the road many miles from where it is needed. To my mind, that is a perfect example of not-joined-up Scottish Government thinking, which is a disgrace. I conclude by saying this: I am more than disappointed that there is not a Scottish National party Member here to take part in this debate, because health does not respect boundaries between states or countries. Health is for everyone.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for securing this important debate. There can be no overstating the importance of publicly accessible defibrillators. If used within the first three to five minutes of a cardiac arrest, as hon. Members have said, they can increase the chance of survival by up to 70%. For a device that costs only a few thousand pounds, that is a truly remarkable statistic. I was told that stat by a remarkable constituent of mine, Naomi Rees-Issitt, at a defibrillator and CPR training session that she had arranged for the community. She knows more about the critical importance of defibrillators than most people, because she set up the OurJay Foundation after the tragic death of her son Jamie, who suffered a cardiac arrest. Although a defibrillator was nearby, it was inaccessible.
It is clear that a lack of accessible devices continues to hinder lifesaving intervention, but thanks to the incredible work of Naomi, her family and the OurJay Foundation, Rugby now has a significant number of accessible defibrillators. But it should not fall solely to charities and grieving families to bear the cost of this vital equipment. When the OurJay Foundation was established, Rugby had just seven 24/7 defibrillators for a town of 80,000 people. Today, thanks to its efforts, the number has risen to more than 170. They are triggered six to seven times a week. I welcome the Government’s commitment to improving access to automated external defibrillators, as hon. Members have referred to, so I will not rehearse that. The Government have also committed to providing a defibrillator in every state-funded school in England. Sadly, there remains no legal requirement for organisations to make AEDs available on their premises, although many have done so voluntarily. Could the Minister comment on whether the Government are considering this?
Naomi and the OurJay Foundation are also campaigning for AEDs to be put in every police car. Recent Home Office funding, which was very welcome, has enabled additional defibs for every force. Warwickshire police has secured 30 new defibs, which it is putting in specialist operations vehicles. I saw that for myself, alongside Naomi, and met the officers whose dedication to the public I commend. The urgency is underlined by recent figures from the Resuscitation Council, which show that out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in the UK have risen to 40,000 each year. The survival rate remains a devastating one in 10.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for bringing this important discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) rightly points out the survival challenge. We know that survival is improved with quick access to these vital devices. Many Members have described deserts of access to these devices in their constituencies. In my own constituency there are only four devices per 10,000 people, so 70% of people do not have access in the three to five-minute timescale that my hon. Friend recommended. Does he agree that to improve that stat, it is vital that we get more devices in the community and, fundamentally, that we make it cheaper to access these devices for community groups, local and national Government and the police forces that he mentions?
John Slinger
I agree entirely. Obviously, there is not an unlimited amount of money, but we—whether Government, hon. Members, charities or businesses—must do everything we can to ensure more devices in our communities.
I will conclude by saying that Naomi is calling for Jamie’s law. This would make it mandatory for all police vehicles to carry defibrillators. I am sure that hon. Members in and beyond this room would agree that across our country we should do everything we can to increase the number of defibrillators, and am sure that I am not alone in having lost a friend who died young from a heart attack. I pay tribute to Naomi Rees-Issitt for her effort and her dedication to saving lives in the community in memory of her son. She is an example to all of us of taking action to save lives.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for bringing this important debate. As someone whose parents both died as a result of cardiac arrest, I know the impact that these kinds of sudden medical events can have on families.
Every minute without defibrillation after a cardiac arrest reduces a person’s chance of survival by 10%. That means just five minutes of delay could cut their chance of survival in half. Yet in the south-west, in constituencies like Frome and East Somerset, access to these lifesaving devices remains dangerously limited, especially in rural communities where ambulance response times can be alarmingly long. Defibrillators are already expensive, typically costing between £800 and £1,500 per unit, but there is a hidden barrier that the Government could easily remove—the 20% VAT on them. This tax drives up costs, making it harder for schools, sports clubs, public buildings and community centres to afford them. For a device that can mean the difference between life and death, charging VAT is simply unacceptable. I endorse the calls that have been made here for first aid training in schools, and the call by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for defibrillators in new developments, but removing VAT now would make defibrillators more affordable for community groups and local councils. It would also signal a clear commitment from the Government to improving survival outcomes in the UK, particularly in more rural communities.
In Frome and surrounding villages, we are very fortunate to have 29 defibrillators that are monitored and maintained by eight dedicated defibrillator guardians, who are part of Friends of Frome hospital. These eight guardians regularly check the defibrillators to ensure that they are in working order and fit for the community. When originally supplied, the defibrillators had a service life of 10 years, but this was reduced to eight years in 2018. This year, 20 of Frome’s defibrillators will reach the end of their service life. Their replacement will come at a significant cost to the Friends of Frome hospital, made worse by the added burden of VAT. We are incredibly lucky in Frome to have this group of dedicated volunteers, but for many people in more rural areas of my constituency, access to a defibrillator is still too far away. I ask the Minister to tell us why the Government will not remove VAT from this essential device. This would allow more to be installed and ease the financial worries of volunteers and communities who work tirelessly to keep their neighbours safe.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for bringing forward this important debate. I declare my membership of the all-party parliamentary group for defibrillators.
As has already been said, every minute that someone is in cardiac arrest without receiving CPR and defibrillation, their chance of survival decreases by 10%. I recently hosted CPR and defib training in my constituency, with an outstanding East Midlands Ambulance volunteer trainer, supported by Resuscitation Council UK. It was made clear that every single moment counts when starting CPR. If it needs to be performed, get help. Every minute can feel like a long time when carrying out chest compressions, but it is vital to continue until professional help and a defib become available. I also encourage everyone to complete free training online, and, if possible, attend an in-person course.
In my constituency, almost 50% of postcodes are not within easy reach of a defibrillator. On average, my constituents have a five-minute run, not including the time it takes to locate and unlock the defib. The stark reality of how far a new local business, CoalWorks, was from the nearest defib inspired it to take action. It successfully fundraised to install one at its gym on the business park. With its efforts, it was able to purchase an additional unit, and thanks to the partnership with Hinckley and Rugby building society, a second defib will soon be available in the centre of Coalville, benefiting the wider community. The cabinet outside the building has already been installed.
Having publicly accessible defibs is so vital. Let us imagine it is a Sunday and the only defib nearby is locked inside a closed shop: with so many sports clubs active on Sundays, and with exercise known to exacerbate underlying cardiac conditions, it is vital that these defibs are 24/7, yet too many remain tucked away. It is no surprise that Resuscitation Council UK estimates that the survival rate for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in North West Leicestershire is just 1.6%. But small changes can make a huge impact.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the work of Bournemouth Heart Club, which promotes good heart health, and also Regency Living, HENRA—Hengistbury Residents’ Association—and St Nicholas Church, which funded a defibrillator at St Nicholas Church that, just seven weeks after installation, saved a life at Hengistbury Head? Some 41% of postcodes in Bournemouth East are outside of direct reach of a defibrillator. Does she agree that we need to end this postcode lottery now?
Amanda Hack
Of course, I agree; heart health is really important, but access is key, too. We can all do our own bit. We can check if the defib nearest to us is registered and encourage a community audit. If it is not registered, someone in an emergency might not know it is there. Every school in North West Leicestershire has received a defib from the Department for Education, but it appears that only 28% have registered theirs—not even half. I will be writing to every school in my constituency to urge them to get their devices out of the box and on to the register.
We can also petition our local stores, supermarkets, schools and GP practices to mount their defibs on the outside of their buildings, where they are always accessible, and we can fundraise to secure new defibs in the most impactful locations. One resident contacted me after a fundraiser at the Kings Arms in Coleorton, expressing frustration that VAT is charged on lifesaving equipment purchased with charitable donations. I ask the Minister to consider that in her response.
There is so much more to say: I feel deeply passionate about the urgent need for more defibs, greater knowledge about CPR and defib use, better awareness of heart health and a wider screening programme to detect risk—in young people in particular.
That was it: around three minutes. Had resuscitation not been started while I was speaking, the chances of surviving a cardiac arrest would have dropped by 30%.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) on securing this important debate, and I start by sending my condolences to George Smith’s family at this very difficult time.
Many Members may know that, before coming to this place, I was both a doctor and a barrister. As a doctor, I worked predominantly in acute care, so I have seen the brutal speed with which cardiac arrest can lead to death. But as a barrister, I specialised in inquests and clinical negligence, and I also saw what happened when people did not get timely interventions, and the devastating consequences that arose.
As many Members have set out, the stark reality is that every minute counts. Every minute reduces life expectancy by 10%. If someone gets prompt intervention, their survival rate can be as high as 70% if their defib is within 200 metres of their location. That is a three-to-five-minute brisk walk there and back. But the stark reality is that out-of-hospital arrests have a survival rate of less than one in 12. Compared with in-hospital arrests, the survival rate to discharge is in the region of 25%. That is why this was an important focus for me when I was elected to Parliament for Solihull West and Shirley.
Despite the fact that my constituency has a mix of urban and semi-rural places, only 40.32% of our defibs are within the recommended distance and there are only seven public defibs per 10,000 people, which is well below the national recommendation. Across the United Kingdom, the per-population count for defibs is approximately five to 10 times lower than it is in a country such as Japan. That cannot be right in this day and age, which is why, for one of my office fundraisers this year, we all went and did the Solihull way. We walked 20-odd miles in the day, and raised money for two defibs and some bleed kits on behalf of a brilliant charity called the Daniel Baird Foundation. It was particularly moving to be able to donate one of those defibs to the Wave café in my constituency, where a valued member of the community had sadly died some months earlier because they did not have access to a defib.
I am going to reiterate a couple of calls that have already been made to the Minister, who I know has been listening carefully. First, we should exempt defibs from VAT—it is ridiculous. For every five defibs that are currently bought, we could afford another if we got rid of VAT.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
I agree with the hon. Member that this is a UK-wide issue. However, my concern is the potential for inequality and the need to ensure that poorer communities such as my constituency, where 63% of postcodes are out of direct reach of these lifesaving machines, are not left behind. The hon. Member referred to the fact that he is a barrister; believe it or not, because public and community access is essential, defibs are often stolen or vandalised, so does he agree not only that a VAT exemption would help to tackle the issue of inequality in poorer constituencies, but that we should consider creating a specific criminal offence to help to protect these vital machines?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
The hon. Member makes a really important point. The consequences of vandalism or damage to this equipment can be life-changing—it can end a life. The ramifications have to be clearly pointed out and reflected in the law of the land.
Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) and I recently wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport about expanding education on lifesaving skills as part of driving tests, and we should also incorporate it more into the national curriculum. Will the Minister speak to her colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Transport about ensuring that everybody in this country knows not only where a defib is but how to operate one, to enable lifesaving interventions as quickly as possible?
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for securing this debate, because it could not be more important.
Cardiac arrest can strike at any time and in any place, and when it does, every second counts. We know that defibrillation within three minutes can increase survival chances by more than 70%, but those odds fall by 10% for every minute without access to a defibrillator. A cardiac arrest is one of the most terrifying experiences that anyone, or their loved ones, can face. It often comes without warning at the very moment we least expect it.
The harsh reality is that, in rural Scotland, delays in ambulance response times can mean the difference between life and death. It cannot be right that people in rural communities face lower survival chances simply because lifesaving tools are out of reach.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
First, I add my voice to those calling for VAT to be removed from defibs. That appears to be an easy win for the Government at the coming Budget.
Secondly, a lot of Members have spoken about voluntary groups and charities in their constituencies that do good work. The Southport Saviours charity in my constituency does sterling work to raise funds and awareness and to put defibrillators into parks and on to the streets. The charity organises the annual “Defib Dash” fundraising run, which takes places later this month and which I have, perhaps in an ill-advised moment, signed up for. Will my hon. Friend commend charities across the country and give her support for the work they do?
Johanna Baxter
I absolutely commend the work that charities such as the Southport Saviours are doing to raise money for this vital equipment.
If anything, the lack of emergency services makes it all the more vital that defibrillators are readily available, yet too often they are not. In my constituency, our vibrant villages are at the very heart of our cultural identity. Kilbarchan is a village of 3,500 people, with one of the oldest populations in Renfrewshire. It has a proud and active community council, which recently undertook public CPR projects, hosted training sessions and ran a thorough consultation on this issue. The findings were clear: the village did not have enough public access to defibrillators for its size and layout.
Kilbarchan needed three more devices to bring it up to the recommended standard. The cost? Just £3,800. Despite its fundraising efforts, it fell a little short and applied to the SNP-run Renfrewshire council for support through the villages investment fund. The council’s response, delivered last week, was to grant only £1,600—less than half of what was required. One of Kilbarchan’s brilliant local councillors, Gill Graham, described that decision as “stingy in the extreme”. I have to say that I wholeheartedly agree with her. For the sake of £2,200, the council chose not to ensure that the village has the lifesaving equipment it needs.
Is it any wonder that trust in politics is so low when communities are met with that kind of penny-pinching? This is about not just the message it sends but the lives it risks. What makes it even more incomprehensible is the broader context: last year, the Labour Government provided the Scottish Government at Holyrood with the highest funding settlement they have ever had in the history of devolution. It is therefore unacceptable that communities in Scotland are being forced to rely on fundraising and charity drives to secure something as basic and essential as a public defibrillator.
The truth is that the SNP Government in Holyrood are not funding defibrillators themselves and have underfunded local authorities, which could provide the money, year after year. That chronic underfunding has forced councils into incomprehensible choices where, unbelievably, public safety and survival are being sacrificed. That is indefensible and I urge the Minister to raise this issue with her counterparts in the Holyrood Government.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for raising this important issue.
Saving lives should be in the interests of us all, and I am sure that is what brings us here today, but we have some hard questions to ask of Government. When the availability of defibrillators can definitively save lives and the absence of them can cost lives, we have to address the question of whether the Government are doing enough to fill the gap. One particular issue of concern relates to VAT, which I will return to.
We know from the statistics that the chances of surviving a heart attack that takes place outside a hospital setting are low—maybe as low as 8%—but that if a defibrillator is available, the chance of survival can increase by 70%. The key factor is the proximity of the defibrillator: the three to five minutes—the vital lifesaving window. Therefore, many of us who represent rural constituencies are concerned at the dearth of supply in some of our areas. In my North Antrim constituency, 63% of postcodes do not have a defibrillator within the three-to-five-minute lifesaving range. That is quite disturbing.
I pay tribute to the many community organisations that provide this lifesaving equipment. Very often, it is not the Government, education authorities or health trusts that put a defibrillator in the local village, but a local community organisation. The Government demand 20% in VAT from that community organisation, which is not VAT-registered and has no possibility of reclaiming it. It really is quite disturbing that the Government think they need that pound of flesh in taxation on defibrillators.
If the Minister takes away nothing else from this debate, I ask her to take away this fundamental humane appeal: instead of making it harder by putting a tax on lifesaving equipment, the Government should make defibrillators VAT-exempt supplies. If they made them VAT-exempt, there would be a huge opportunity to bring an uplift in life and survival to our communities.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) on securing this important debate.
I pay tribute to Dylan Rich, a Rushcliffe constituent who tragically passed away aged 17 from a cardiac arrest, during a game between West Bridgford Colts and Boston United in Nottinghamshire in 2021. He was an extremely talented footballer, and his family and friends have dedicated themselves to creating a positive legacy from his tragic early death, notably through the Dylan Rich Legacy, a registered charity that provides funding for charitable projects that, among other things, promote access to sport for young people in Nottinghamshire.
In addition, Dylan’s family and friends have raised money for the installation of defibrillators in the local area and for fantastic related charities such as Cardiac Risk in the Young. I am sure the whole Chamber will join me in paying tribute to their important work.
Despite that very high profile, tragic death in Rushcliffe, data from 2024 suggests that over 60% of my—admittedly rural—constituency is still not within a three to five-minute walk of a defibrillator. I acknowledge the work of the last Government on this matter, but I think everyone here would agree that our ambitions must go further and faster if we want to improve survival rates.
As so many Members have said—we have clearly read the same briefing note—every minute without a defibrillator being used reduces a cardiac arrest victim’s chance of survival by 10%. In other words, a lack of access to a defibrillator means a high chance of death, longer stays in hospital or more complex care needs in the long run. Greater accessibility and the quicker use of defibrillators will therefore save the NHS in long-term medical care costs.
I want to put on the record my support for the Heart Restart Tax campaign, which many Members have talked about. We already exempt from VAT defibrillators bought by the NHS and some small charities, but a cricket club, football club or small business in my constituency should not be discouraged from taking the same lifesaving action. This is a classic example of a small policy change that could go a long way. Many other examples have been mentioned, and I hope that the Minister, on behalf of the Government, has listened closely to what Members have said in reiterating the importance of such small policy changes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. There are three hon. Members left wishing to speak. We have done quite well, but I am going to reduce the time limit to one minute and 30 seconds, which still means taking a bite out of the wind-up speeches.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer.
We have heard the terrifying statistics on the number of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests that occur each year, and about the terrifying survival rates. The outcomes for cardiac arrests remain stubbornly poor in London—which should be one of the easiest places in the country to provide good access to defibrillators—primarily because the equipment is still out of reach. That is why the work of charities such as the Paul Alan Project is so important. The charity was founded by Sutton resident Clare Parish in memory of her late father, Paul Alan Parish. She was standing beside her father when, in January 2022, he died of a cardiac arrest without warning while they cheered on Fulham at Craven Cottage.
I have heard Clare talk movingly about her father, and her resolve that CPR and defibrillator training should be widely accessible to everyone. She told me that losing her father in a crowd full of people, none of whom had had proper CPR training, was a tragedy that inspired her into action. The Paul Alan Project provides that training—which I have taken myself—free of charge, raises awareness of accessible emergency equipment, and fundraises for and installs bleed kits and defibs across the community. Clare is tireless in making sure that barriers to accessing not just training, but the defibs themselves, becomes a thing of the past. She partners with local businesses to get defibs—
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for securing this debate on what is literally a matter of life and death.
Last week, I was fortunate enough to unveil a new community defibrillator in the Evington ward of my constituency, thanks to the dedicated work of community champions such as Teej and organisations such as the Evington Road Neighbourhood Association, and to the generosity of the local pharmacy, Pearl Chemist, which allowed them to use its wall. That work shows that when people get together they can achieve anything, but it also highlights the wider crisis that access remains a postcode lottery.
A quarter of the postcodes in my constituency are not within easy reach of a defibrillator. Every single day, 80 to 90 people die from a cardiac arrest out of hospital. However, when a defib is used quickly, not only does it save lives, but recovery is faster and the risk of comorbidities, including brain damage, and the need for long-term care are dramatically reduced. An intensive care unit bed costs around £2,300 a night, but a patient treated with a defibrillator within one minute will often avoid intensive care altogether and suffer far fewer longer-term complications. Early access to a defibrillator therefore saves the NHS and the Government significant amounts of money, as well as saving lives.
Defibrillators should be readily available everywhere, but one area where they are not is places of worship. I ask Ministers to scrap the VAT and give peace of mind to our communities.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for raising this important issue and for highlighting that every day in the United Kingdom, people suffer out-of-hospital cardiac arrests and do not survive, when they might have been saved by access to a defibrillator.
In my constituency, more than 60% of people live in a defib desert. Concerned about that, Kirkintilloch Rob Roy football club has compiled a list of locations of defibrillators in its area and shared the information widely, while groups such as Torrance parish church and Milngavie and Bearsden Men’s Shed have equipped their facilities with them. The efforts of people in our communities are saving lives, and the increasing number of defibrillators is a good sign. While there are still not enough, we are heading in the right direction.
I want to highlight the Lauren’s law campaign, which was started following the sudden death of a 19-year-old from an asthma attack and calls for the provision of non-prescription salbutamol asthma inhalers at defibrillator sites. In that way, we can save even more lives by having emergency equipment available and accessible in our communities. I urge the Government to make defibrillators easier for our communities and first responders to access—and by providing inhalers in the same locations, we can prevent even more unnecessary deaths.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
We come now to the Front-Bench contributions. I ask spokespeople to keep their speeches to about eight minutes, which will leave a very short time for the Member in charge to respond to the debate.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for securing this vital debate on such an important topic.
The impact of heart conditions is felt acutely by so many across the country and, as we have heard, there are Members here today for whom this debate holds particular resonance. Cardiovascular disease affects 7 million people in the UK and is responsible for one in four premature deaths. It is also one of the starkest drivers of health inequality: those in the most deprived communities are twice as likely to die as those in the wealthiest, and for people living with severe mental illness the risk of death rises by 85%.
The figures on heart attacks, many of which are caused by heart disease, are grim. Every year, around 80,000 people suffer an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Emergency services attempt to resuscitate roughly 30,000 of them, yet fewer than 10% survive, as we have heard from many hon. Members. Half those incidents are witnessed by somebody else, and survival depends heavily on immediate action: starting CPR, calling for help without delay and, if possible, getting access to a defibrillator.
I recently spent time in my constituency at our first Emergency Services Day. I pay tribute to the tireless efforts of the paramedics and ambulance staff, and also the voluntary organisations, which play such a crucial role in saving thousands of lives. Public campaigns that explain the steps to take when someone collapses are crucial to improving survival rates. These must continue across the country, but the most decisive factor is timely access to a defibrillator. Defibrillation within three to five minutes of collapse can increase survival rates by 50% to 70%. Literally every second counts. Defibrillators have already saved thousands of lives, but access is patchy, and often, where need is greatest, the provision is weakest. Poorer areas often have fewer defibrillators than wealthier ones, with huge disparities between different parts of the country.
The British Heart Foundation recommends that every postcode should be within a three to five-minute walk of a defibrillator. Currently, that is achieved in only 50% of postcodes. Access to lifesaving equipment must never depend on postcode or privilege. Too often, defibrillators are procured only after a tragedy has already struck, as I have seen at first hand. A good friend of mine, Andrew Chiverton, suffered a cardiac arrest as he left his front door. He survived thanks to the quick action of another friend of mine, Jeanette Sutton, who saw him collapse and performed CPR until the ambulance could arrive. That incident prompted a local campaign to fund a community defibrillator and train local people, myself included, in what to do when someone suffers a cardiac arrest.
We must immediately take proactive steps to reduce the barriers preventing communities from having these lifesaving devices. The first of those barriers is cost. Community organisations, sports clubs, schools and businesses may have to pay up to £2,500 for a defibrillator. That is prohibitive for many, when they have so many other costs to consider. The Liberal Democrats therefore support the removal of VAT on community defibrillators, to make the devices more affordable across the nation. Maintenance and upkeep are equally important, as without them, the risk of a device malfunctioning when called upon increases—we have heard a perfect example of that today—but that requires local training and sustainable funding, for example through the community defibrillator fund.
Investment in the technology is also vital. Defibrillators have already been transformative, but the development of smaller, more portable models suitable for households and workplaces could be revolutionary. May I press the Minister on what steps the Government are taking to encourage innovation and economies of scale in the production of small-scale defibrillators, so that they can become a regular part of households and workplaces, making access far more universal?
Another priority must be better data. Ambulance services and 999 call handlers can only direct people to the nearest defibrillator if the location has been recorded. If nobody knows where it is, it is effectively useless. The Circuit has made excellent progress in mapping defibrillators and sharing that information with local ambulance services, helping to highlight the so-called defibrillator deserts, but it needs greater support. What steps are the Government taking to improve identification, registration and visibility of defibrillators, so that they can always be used when they are needed most?
Beyond defibrillator access, we must address the root causes of cardiovascular health issues. Britain should be one of the healthiest countries in the world, but after years of Conservative government, the nation has become sicker and now lags behind its international peers. The Health Secretary promised to deliver the healthiest generation ever, but promises are not policies. The Government should start by reversing cuts to public health grants, enabling local authorities to take preventive steps against cardiovascular disease. These grants fund programmes such as smoking cessation, drug and alcohol services, children’s health initiatives and, vitally, the provision of free blood pressure tests. A portion should also be ringfenced for tackling health inequalities, which are so clearly reflected in rates of cardiovascular disease. Alongside that, national action is needed: investment in active travel, wider use of social prescribing and the implementation of a coherent food strategy. Taken together, these measures will lead to people living healthier, more active lifestyles, which, alongside steps to improve access to defibrillation, will save thousands of lives.
Will the Minister look into the feasibility of removing VAT on defibrillators? How are the Government supporting staff in the maintenance of these devices and in understanding processes and procedures? What supervision is offered to staff tasked with being guardians or custodians of defibrillators in the public sector and what support is available after a defibrillator has been used in a community setting? Will the Government commit to reversing the cuts to public health grants to allow communities to begin tackling the causes of cardiovascular disease? This debate has shown both the urgency of the challenge and the solutions that are within our reach, but without Government action, progress will remain piecemeal.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for securing this very important debate. I declare an interest: as an NHS consultant, I have used defibrillators on patients from elderly adults to very young babies—although, thankfully, their use on children is relatively uncommon.
Modern defibrillators are clever devices—they are capable of delivering varying joules of energy and of delivering synchronised shock, in line with the heartbeat, for cardioversion—but in their simplest, most common use, they deliver an electrical shock to the heart, essentially depolarising all the myocardial cells at the same time, allowing a reset moment, which hopefully allows the natural pacemaker to take over with a normal rhythm.
As we have heard this morning, that can be lifesaving. The survival rate for cardiac arrest is poor, and it is lower still for the 30,000 that happen outside hospital settings every year. According to Resuscitation Council UK, 9% of people who have an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest will survive to discharge from hospital, but research suggests that defibrillation within three to five minutes for those patients who need it can increase that figure to 50%. If we want to save lives, improving access to defibrillators is really important. I pay tribute to the community groups supporting and fundraising for their communities—both those mentioned today by various hon. Members, and the very many across my constituency and the wider UK that have not been mentioned.
I want to talk about the last Government’s work in this area. They instituted the community automated external defibrillators fund to allow town halls, parks and post offices to install defibs, and they matched it, based on an application form, to areas of rurality and increased need where there were less likely to be defibrillators. In 2023 the Conservative Government also supplied external defibrillator devices—more than 20,000 of them—to every state school across our country, making them much more available.
Many people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), have talked today about the importance of education and making sure that people know how to do CPR. Others have talked about the success of CPR in individual cases. The previous Government added first aid and CPR to the national curriculum in 2020. Has the Minister been advocating for it to remain there, in the light of the current Government’s review of the national curriculum?
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) talked about the catastrophe that can occur when a defibrillator that is supposed to work does not. The 999 call handlers will direct people to the nearest defibrillator that they are aware of, but there is no national Government register of defibrillators. The British Heart Foundation’s The Circuit network collects data, which is provided voluntarily, that it can then provide to 999 call handlers and others. As part of that, it issues reminders to ensure that maintenance is done and that people are checking that the equipment is still in good order. Is the Minister happy with the current processes? Is she aware how many times a year somebody goes to a defibrillator that is not working, and what is she doing to minimise that? Maintenance requires battery and pad changes because of expiry dates, and machines need to be kept clean and checked after use. Is the Minister satisfied with the feedback loop for that? What is she doing to improve it? Medical devices regulations ensure that adverse events are reported. Can she tell the House how many people experience such events and what she is doing to minimise those?
I also want to talk about managed obsolescence. I was talking recently to a resus officer for an NHS hospital in England, who told me that every single defibrillator in the trust, which covers several hospitals, is being replaced because the company that makes the defibrillators that are currently used has stopped making spare parts for them. That has required the trust to buy a raft of very expensive new equipment. What is the Minister doing to ensure that spare parts have to be kept available, and for what period will they have to be available?
I want to talk about the safety of women. We have talked about health inequalities in this debate, but women are 28% less likely to receive CPR in a public venue—a shocking statistic. Why is it the case? Partly it is because when someone is doing CPR and wants to move on to defibrillate, the defibrillator pads have to be put on to bare skin. That means removing the clothing from the patient. It means exposing the chest. It may mean touching the breasts, to move them slightly out of the way to place the pads. People are uncomfortable and concerned about that, in some cases. In fact, in some cases they are concerned about the legal issues they may face if they do it but perhaps get something medically wrong. We need to ensure that that is not the case, and that people are aware. The mannequins that we use do not have breasts; they are essentially male mannequins. We have child and baby mannequins, but female mannequins are not in widespread use. What is the Minister doing to ensure that the 51% of the population who are female have the same access to defibrillation, and to reassure the public so that they are well educated in how to provide defibrillation to female patients and know that they can do so without fear of litigation?
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) talked about Justin’s Hearts for Herts campaign. One change during my medical career was from ABC—airway, breathing and circulation—to catastrophic haemorrhage ABC in trauma cases. I am pleased to hear that, across my hon. Friend’s constituency, bleed packs are being made available. I want to thank the people from SHOCK Sleaford, North Kesteven district council and the Safer Lincolnshire Partnership, who have just completed fundraising and co-located four bleed packs across my local area. That means that people experiencing catastrophic haemorrhage, perhaps from a farming or vehicular accident, will be able to have their lives saved. Does the Minister have any plans to ensure that such bleed packs are located across the country, to improve the safety of people everywhere?
I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) said about inhalers. There are arguments for provision of all sorts of things: inhalers and EpiPens come immediately to mind when thinking about how we can improve the safety of people across the country with access to things that can immediately save lives. Finally, as many hon. Members have mentioned in this debate, it is important to ensure that such devices are available without being taxed. Although I know that the Government like to tax, it seems counterproductive and counterintuitive to tax something that is potentially lifesaving, and that could even save the NHS money.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. It has been really well attended, with over 20 Back-Bench contributions. I also thank the Front-Bench spokespeople for their contributions. I will try to respond to all the issues raised, but there have been a tremendous number, so if I cannot respond to them all, I will write to hon. Members on any that I do not cover.
I recognise the individuals who have been honoured by hon. Members, particularly Tom Sharples, Naomi Rees-Issitt, Dylan Rich and his family, and Andrew and Jeanette, all of whom have been appropriately recognised. I also particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for securing the debate. I was sorry to hear how his mum needed emergency resuscitation when he was a child, and I offer my deepest sympathies on the death of his friend and colleague, George Smith.
A cardiac arrest can be an incredibly frightening experience for a person and their loved ones. My hon. Friend knows that rapid access to defibrillators can be the difference between life and death. As he said, early defibrillation within three to five minutes of collapse can increase a person’s chances of survival by as much as 50% to 70%. Thanks to data collected by the British Heart Foundation, we know that AEDs are only used around one in 10 times where they could have saved a life. I am pleased to update the House on what the Government are doing to drive that figure upwards. Our 10-year plan for health is shifting the focus of our NHS from hospitals to community. It is right that local communities are leading the way through public bodies, businesses and charities. I commend the hard work of London Hearts, AED Donate and the Community Heartbeat Trust and other organisations raised today. Forgive me if I miss some of them: Hearts for Herts, Lucky2Bhere, Stargate & Crookhill Community Centre, Lechlade Lions, Friends of Frome Hospital, the Daniel Berg Foundation, Southport Saviours, the Paul Alan Project, Evanton Residents’ Association and Lauren’s campaign. There are many more organisations and projects working hard to improve access to AEDs for all.
There are now more than 110,000 AEDs across the UK registered on the Circuit, the independent AED database backed by the NHS. The Circuit continues to see a regular increase in the number of defibs registered. I was delighted to hear hon. Members talk about encouraging defib guardians in their areas to register. More than 30,000 have been added in the past two years alone and we look forward to more. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland highlighted, more than 3,000 were provided by the Department of Health and Social Care’s community defibrillator fund.
My hon. Friend also rightly pointed out gaps in provision across the UK. As someone who represents a rural constituency, I completely understand his position and that of hon. Members from other rural communities, many of whom spoke in today’s debate. That is why we have partnered with Smarter Society, which has helped us get AEDs to communities with the greatest need where they have the greatest impact. That includes remote communities with extended ambulance response times, places with high footfall and hotspots for cardiac arrests, such as sporting arenas, venues for vulnerable people and deprived areas.
We fully funded the first 100 devices distributed by the Smarter Society, and have committed to supporting communities by matching the funds they spend on defibrillators pound for pound. Local communities will determine where defibs are kept for the best response to the needs of their communities. Unfortunately, defibs sometimes get stolen and communities are best placed to decide whether they should be in locked cabinets. Some charities, such as the British Heart Foundation, insist that devices they provide are kept unlocked.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) made the interesting suggestion that the theft or damage of a defib should be a specified offence, which I will raise with relevant Ministers. If the defibrillator is registered on the Circuit, the national AED network, the guardian will receive regular reminders to record checks on the AED. To support maintenance, the Circuit sends guardians notifications and records when an AED is used, so as to notify the guardian that pads will need to be replaced.
Many hon. Members referred to training. AEDs are designed to be simple yet lifesaving devices that anyone can use without formal training. That said, training can help people use defibrillators with greater confidence. The NHS runs training sessions on first aid, CPR and the use of defibrillators in communities and schools, to support Resuscitation Council UK’s “Restart a Heart” initiative. The NHS England has trained more than 35,800 adults and children in CPR and defibrillation in the past 13 years, and more than 2,100 people since January 2025. NHS England also runs workshops in harder-to-reach communities and ethnically diverse groups, training more than 400 people this year.
I was interested to hear the shadow Minister’s comments about women, and some people’s reluctance to use defibs. I will speak to the Minister responsible for women’s health about how that can be improved.
Many Members raised ambulance response times, which the Government are determined to improve so that people can be reassured that help is on the way. Our urgent and emergency care plan commits to reducing ambulance response times for category 2 incidents to 30 minutes on average this year. We are tackling unacceptable handover delays by introducing a maximum 45-minute standard, ensuring that ambulances are released more quickly and get back on the road to treat patients. I am pleased that in the region of my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland the latest figures show that average response times for category 1—the most serious, life-threatening cases—were six minutes and 13 seconds, which is faster than the national standard of seven minutes. The hard work of paramedics, clinicians and NHS staff makes that possible, and I commend them for that. We will continue to do all we can from Government to support those improvements and reduce variation in response times across the country.
Many hon. Members who spoke today raised the issue of VAT on devices and parts. I do not want the provision of defibrillators in communities to be a matter of cost—I will discuss that with Treasury colleagues. Decisions on VAT are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I will make sure that Treasury colleagues are aware of the issues raised in this debate today. The Government will continue to keep the matter under review.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland spoke powerfully about the prevention issues. Anyone who has read our 10-year plan for the NHS will know that he is pushing at an open door on that with this Government, because our ambition to cut premature mortality from heart disease and stroke by a quarter within a decade is a key tenet of our 10-year plan. We are making that shift from treatment to prevention. While we are tough on treating cardiac arrest, we will act on what public health doctors call the “causes of the causes”, with action on smoking, obesity, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and access to green spaces for exercise. This year we have set targets for integrated care boards to increase the percentage of patients with GP-recorded CVD who have their cholesterol levels managed to safer levels. Almost nine in 10 people with GP-recorded hypertension in England had their blood pressure checked in the last year, and more than two thirds had their blood pressure treated to target in the last year.
The NHS health check programme engages over 1.4 million people and, through behavioural and clinical interventions, prevents around 500 heart attacks or strokes a year. We are also making the shift from analogue to digital. To improve the programme’s uptake and engagement we are developing the NHS health check online, which will be available through the NHS app.
The Opposition’s shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), spoke about the national curriculum review. I will ensure that the issues are raised with my colleagues in the Department for Education. I was very interested to hear the ideas and thoughts of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), on innovation; I commit to exploring that further.
I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland for securing this important debate. I look forward to working with him long into the future to get stuff done. I hope we have shown that the Government are committed to shifting the focus from hospital to community, moving care closer to people through community-based initiatives and targets, and embracing the digital transformation of the NHS. Together those shifts will mean healthier communities, more lives saved and an NHS fit for the future.
Sam Rushworth
I thank everybody who has participated today. There have been 22 Back-Bench contributions from across six political groups, all in broad agreement with each other. We have heard some strong calls about VAT; I am grateful for the Minister’s commitment to raise that with Treasury colleagues, but that is just the start—the common-sense, no-brainer stuff about not having a tax on restarting hearts.
I really appreciated the contributions on working to ensure that more defibrillators are external and that more are registered; on preventing theft; on ensuring they are in working order; on the potential to add other medical devices; and on ensuring that more people are trained. I also appreciated the contribution from the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) about the propensity to act, which can be challenging in the circumstances. I thank all the people who have spoken about different community groups in their areas. In a month when the media have been focused on the meaning of patriotism, nothing is more patriotic to me than the group mentioned by the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), the Friends of Frome Hospital, who no doubt are baking cakes and running jumble sales to provide vital lifesaving equipment. That is true patriotism from the British public. But it should not just be left to the British public—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. Will hon. Members leave as quickly as possible so that we can move on to the next debate?
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Pony and Trap Racing: Regulation
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. I will call Sarah Green to move the motion. I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will be no opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the regulation of pony and trap racing on public roads.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. The debate is about the regulation of pony and trap racing on public roads but, to be more specific, there is no regulation and it is sorely needed. If someone wants to organise a cycling competition or road race in the UK using the main roads, there are regulations to follow. There are licences they need to get and authorities they have to consult, which means that cycling races are routinely organised safely and with minimum disruption to the community hosting a race. None of that is true for pony and trap racing. I suggest that the Government need to introduce regulations for pony and trap racing along the same lines, primarily because of road safety, but also because of the significant policing resource that these unofficial races eat up.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this issue forward. She is right to highlight it. The reason is quite simple: there is no doubt that there are significant safety risks that come along with it, especially for young drivers. As an example, in 2023 on the Antrim Road in Belfast, Northern Ireland, a teen lost control of what is referred to as a sulky cart, resulting in a collision with a car and causing serious injury. Does the hon. Lady agree that for the safety of drivers, pedestrians and indeed the animals themselves, there must be greater discussion with the devolved nations on guidance for pony and trap racing, especially on our public roads?
Sarah Green
I agree. These races happen in my constituency on a fairly regular basis and I have similar stories to share. One such race took place this weekend. Residents of Chalfont St Peter and Gerrards Cross have their weekends disrupted by pony and trap racing events, also known as sulky racing, far too often. During these events, the A413, a stretch of busy dual carriageway, becomes an unauthorised racetrack. The races attract not just competitors and their support vehicles, but spectators who gather to watch them and place bets on the outcome.
To be clear about what I am referring to, pony and trap racing is a form of horseracing where two-wheeled carts are pulled by a single pony that thunders down a stretch of public road. These events can involve multiple traps racing each other or a single vehicle completing a time trial. Those taking part in these races in my community gather at a section of the A413 and run a series of races along the straight stretch of dual carriageway. The immediate danger is posed to those already using the dual carriageway. While the races are taking place, support vehicles follow the ponies and traps. Those are larger vehicles, usually 4x4s or pick-up trucks, which sometimes have a horse box with them. They drive next to each other and block both lanes of the carriageway, creating an illegal rolling roadblock to allow the race to take place.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
My experience of treating horses that are taking part in these races, and that of all other equine vets, is that there is very little regard for animal welfare in these situations. Not only are they often unshod, they are often underdeveloped and immature and carrying large, often multiple, men in a cart. This can cause a huge amount of animal welfare issues. The injuries are horrific. Does my hon. Friend agree this is as much an animal welfare issue as it is a public safety issue?
Sarah Green
I do agree, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising the animal welfare point. It is legal to ride a horse down our public roads, but they are being put in unfair danger.
On a busy dual carriageway with vehicles travelling at speeds of up to 70 mph, the lives of innocent road users and of the animals themselves, as my hon. Friend has just mentioned, are endangered as the rolling roadblock forces motorists to slam on their brakes with no prior warning of the hazard ahead. Without proper regulation in place, there is a high risk of a serious accident or worse. Without licensing, there is no organiser to hold accountable for any of the unacceptable and sometimes dangerous behaviour taking place.
The regularity of pony and trap events has increased in recent years, and it is outrageous that my constituents should be put through this on a regular basis. Just last month a constituent reported being run off the road twice by the vehicles supporting the race taking place. As the law stands, it is legal to use a pony and trap on the public highway, but there are no regulations in place and no licence is required. There are no procedures to follow and no accountability for those who organise pony and trap races. On the grounds of road safety alone, I urge the Government to introduce a licensing scheme.
I would also like to mention the impact these races have on policing locally. In February, Thames Valley police received reports that over 3,000 people were expected to attend an event on the A413. The worry among the local community was palpable. Following significant commitment of resource and effort by Thames Valley police, the projected 3,000 people did not attend on that particular day. However, this is my second reason for calling for regulation: quite apart from the road safety angle, the level of policing time and resource that these races eat up is unacceptable.
Thames Valley police has confirmed that there have been 200 incidents connected to pony and trap racing in our area alone in the last five years. At present, police forces are able to deal with individual offences as they arise, like dangerous driving. If reports are received far enough in advance, section 34 dispersal orders have previously been issued. While these give the police powers to deal with antisocial behaviour, or to disperse crowds, they do not prevent the races themselves from taking place. Once the race has started, it becomes extremely difficult and dangerous for officers to intervene. On this point I echo the Thames Valley police and crime commissioner that prevention is better than cure; I know he is calling for regulation in the way I am today.
It is true that changes to the road infrastructure could act as a deterrent, but such a change in the road layout, at significant cost, would simply shift the activity somewhere else. That became clear when racing was displaced from Hampshire to south Buckinghamshire. There is a similar issue with the use of traffic regulation orders, both in terms of cost to the local authority and the shift in location of any racing event that comes as a result of it.
There is an alternative solution available. The Road Traffic Act 1988 prohibits the racing of motor vehicles and regulates cycle races. There is no equivalent regulation for pony and trap racing. I urge the Minister to consider formal regulation for pony and trap racing. I am not seeking to ban the activity in its entirety; I am calling for a permit or licence scheme, like that for cycle racing, for those wanting to race ponies and traps. Such a scheme would require an organiser to meet certain conditions and to seek permission from the local authority and police, to ensure events are well managed.
Should there be any issues during or following the race, a single point of contact could then be held accountable. The police would be able to deploy officers resourcefully and in line with the scale of the event. Disruption to local residents would be significantly reduced, with advanced warning when a road closure was due to happen. Restrictions could even be placed on the dates and timings of events and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) referred to, animal welfare could be put front and centre.
There are many obvious risks involved with the act of pony and trap racing on public roads, and it is high time the Government imposed formal regulation. I request a meeting with the relevant Minister to explore that further. The safety of my constituents and other road users should no longer be put at risk due to unregulated pony and trap racing, and the officers of Thames Valley police, whose resources are regularly deployed to respond to reports of racing, should be better supported to enforce safe and fair use of the road for all, while not penalising those who wish to safely stage legitimate racing events.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) on securing this debate. I thank her for raising pony and trap racing, which is clearly an important issue for her constituents, although I confess that, until I started to prepare for this debate, it was not something that I had experienced, nor have I seen it in my constituency. I imagine that it is not something found in all constituencies, but it is clearly an issue in some.
As the Minister responsible for road safety, I am pleased to be able to respond on behalf of this Government. I want to be clear that ensuring the safety of all road users and improving road safety is one of the Department’s highest priorities. We are currently considering a variety of road safety measures for inclusion in a strategy, and I reassure the hon. Lady and others that the Department takes road safety seriously. As we develop the strategy, I am committed to continuing to engage with hon. Members, stakeholders and road safety organisations. Today’s debate forms part of that work, so I thank hon. Lady for taking this opportunity to bring the issue of pony and trap racing to my attention. I look forward to publishing the road safety strategy in due course.
I note that concerns have been raised in this debate about pony and trap racing being a seasonal problem on certain roads, the potential for it to create risks on our roads and the disruption it can cause to local residents. The hon. Lady made a powerful case, setting out how the issue impacts people in her local area and why she is bringing it to the attention of the House. She also drew attention to the absence of a licensing framework similar to the licensing scheme for cycle races held on public roads. I also note the animal welfare concerns highlighted by the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers).
In considering and potentially dealing with the issue of pony and trap racing, there is a challenge of ensuring that the use of a pony and trap as a legitimate transport means is not made illegal. The question is how to differentiate between activity that is legal and that which is not. There are already existing powers in the legislative framework to deal with occurrences of pony and trap racing that breach the current road traffic legislation. That is a local policing matter, and we believe that the existing powers are sufficient. The police can use those powers to tackle any unlawful pony and trap racing; for example, I understand that they have utilised existing powers such as dispersal notices as a means of preventing potentially unlawful pony and trap racing, and the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham referred to the use of such measures.
I want to make clear that the police are operationally independent, and that it is for them to treat each case according to its individual merits and make appropriate risk assessments about what action to take. It is clearly impossible to consider every conceivable set of circumstances that the police face in dealing with potential breaches of the law. As I have said, it is their role to make that judgment. There are existing powers under the law to deal with instances of dangerous or careless driving by motor vehicles or with people seeking to obstruct traffic, as the hon. Lady described—to deal with driving that falls below the required standards or with those who unlawfully obstruct the highway.
Let me turn to the possibility that the hon. Lady suggested: regulating pony and trap racing in the same way as cycling events. I need to say at the outset that, to be frank, the Government do not currently have any plans to do so. The legislation on cycling events dates from 1960 and, although there have been reviews in the past, no legal changes have been deemed of sufficient priority for inclusion in any legislative timetable.
It might be helpful to clarify how the requirements operate for cycling events. It is the event organiser’s responsibility to ensure compliance with the law and good practice, for example by providing sufficient numbers of marshals, with the appropriate training, at each event. The Government do not currently have any plans to legislate to require all cycling events to be licensable by local authorities. The current voluntary system works well, and local cycling events are a good way of encouraging more people to take up cycling, in line with the Government’s plans to boost cycling and walking.
The Government often have to make difficult choices regarding legislative priority. The hon. Lady and other Members will be aware that Parliament has a packed legislative timetable and that the issues facing the nation and the Government are of a huge scale. Such measures as called for in this debate would therefore not be foremost in any Bill consideration. We do, however, always keep the law under review to ensure that it is fit for purpose, and I would be happy to meet with the hon. Lady to better understand the evidence she has on the nature of this problem and how widespread it is. Then we, as a Government, can revisit our priorities and look at the matter in further detail. As I have already said, I look forward to laying out our road safety plans in due course.
Once again, I thank the hon. Lady for securing this important debate and for drawing to my attention the concerns of her constituents and the specific issues that she has raised.
Question put and agreed to.
The Battle of Britain
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of commemorating the Battle of Britain.
Thank you for chairing this debate, Sir Desmond; it is an honour to serve under your chairship. I thank all those who will contribute to this debate and the Veterans Minister, whose presence is always greatly appreciated.
In 1940, the six-week battle of France saw British soldiers, including those of the Gloucestershire Regiment, fighting side by side with Belgian, Dutch, French and Polish soldiers against the advancing Nazis. Eventually pushed back to the edge of the western front to the beaches at Dunkirk, British troops were evacuated alongside their valiant but defeated allies to Britain over the 10 days to 4 June. With France lost to the Nazis, Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill declared on 18 June 1940 that
“the ‘Battle of France’ is over. I expect that the battle of Britain is about to begin.”
He continued:
“The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war.”—[Official Report, 18 June 1940; Vol. 362, c. 60.]
Within weeks, this very Hall had been struck by German bombs, as had the Elizabeth Tower and the House of Lords, while the House of Commons lay in ruins.
Over the almost four months of the battle of Britain, this island suffered sustained bombardment as the Nazis, through the Luftwaffe, desperately—and in vain—tried to destroy the Royal Air Force and break British morale. They failed, and the battle of Britain stands proudly alongside the battles of Trafalgar and Waterloo among our greatest military successes, but it is so much more. Every day across these isles, the legacy of the battle of Britain is lived. Modern culture and, to a significant degree, our national identity have been built on it.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member on this debate and his magnificent introduction. I am sure he spent some time preparing it, and it is a tremendous introduction. Would he agree that what he is outlining, and I think we all have to commit ourselves to this, is not just that our generation remembers the tremendous sacrifice made all those years ago, but that the coming generation—those born in the past 25 years—remembers, so that we never repeat any of the mistakes of the past and that we achieve victories such as the one he is describing?
Cameron Thomas
The hon. Member speaks acutely to the point of this debate, which is that we must not forget what this country both suffered and achieved, and that we must support our current generation in the challenges it faces.
One toils to resolve any other historic snapshot that so well encapsulates the British mindset: the gradual withdrawal of liberty across western Europe before, on this small outpost, those forces—British, Belgian, Czechoslovakian, French, Irish, Polish, Commonwealth and even a handful of Americans—came together for Europe’s final stand to halt the fascist advance in its tracks and set the stage to push the Nazis back across Europe.
The iconic airframes of the battle of Britain memorial flight remain the most celebrated of fly-pasts at air shows and ceremonies throughout the year. I love a Eurofighter Typhoon as much as anybody, but, respectfully, I am really waiting to hear the Hurricane, Lancaster and Spitfire. I recall waiting for Iron Maiden to take the stage at Download festival in 2013, when the audience roared for the Spitfire fly-past, which Bruce Dickinson had squared away through his friends at the BBMF. Even at a festival where I had seen Motörhead and Queens of the Stone Age for the first time, the Spitfire remains the standout memory. Through those historic exploits of the Royal Air Force, air power is today one of Britain’s most recognised and celebrated brands. On the shoulders of the Hurricane and Spitfire, the Hawks of the Red Arrows spearhead British soft power across the globe, not just a display team but a diplomatic force all their own.
In commemorating the battle of Britain, the greatest tribute we can pay to its victors is to apply those lessons that can be learned from it. The stage is already set. As they did following the interwar years of the 1920s and 1930s, our armed forces, following years of diminishment, once more face the likelihood of a kinetic war against a battle-hardened and well-resourced aggressor. By July 1940, despite popular belief to the contrary, the RAF had ramped up production to such an extent that RAF Fighter Command was more than a match for the Luftwaffe, and held a minor numerical advantage.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
The hon. Member is making a powerful point about the preparedness of the RAF being much more than what was perhaps seen by the public. Will he join me in paying tribute to the Hurricane pilots of 602 and 603 Squadrons, based in the cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh, who conducted the first interception of world war two over the firth of Forth, which borders my constituency, when Junkers 88 aircraft sought to attack HMS Hood in the Forth? The action resulted in the death of 16 civilians on the ground and three German aircrew, but it showed how prepared the RAF was even at that early stage of the conflict.
Cameron Thomas
The hon. Gentleman is an excellent ambassador for his constituency and its heritage. We absolutely should celebrate the achievement of those brave pilots and the nation that supported them. I have a question for the Minister on preparedness. If the Russian war in Ukraine breaks out into Europe within five years, will the RAF be so well equipped?
If we strip away some of the folklore that has been built on the battle of Britain, the fact is that a British victory was almost inevitable. Crucial to the outcome was the Chain Home radar and the Dowding system within which it operated, delivering early detection of Luftwaffe aircraft to Sir Hugh Dowding’s Fighter Command. Three factors ensured the resilience and continuing serviceability of the Dowding system: redundancy, misdirection and interconnectivity.
Thanks to that system, the Luftwaffe would routinely reach Britain with just enough fuel remaining for a few minutes’ flight time, only to be met every time by Fighter Command, which had seen them coming 100 miles from the coast: numbers, formations and direction. Furthermore, every Luftwaffe pilot or crew shot down over Britain became a casualty or a prisoner. Every RAF pilot downed simply knocked on the nearest front door and returned to circulation.
The picture from the Führer bunker in Berlin, now under a nondescript car park on which I have proudly scuffed my shoes, was hopeless. I have too often seen Hitler unduly recognised as a strong leader; he was anything but. He was superstitious, paranoid, vengeful and feared by his officers, who were afraid to report their losses upward. His war in Europe was ultimately doomed by his leadership and that of his cabinet, comprising obsequious pleasers and party loyalists. The Nazis could never have won on or over British soil. Churchill knew that, as would have any rational leader.
That inevitability of British victory takes nothing away from the exploits of our courageous aircrew, the genius of our codebreakers and the resilience of the British people. What was achieved was a heroic, decisive national victory of liberty over fascism, and it needs no exaggeration. Britain’s victory is best commemorated with due recognition of the contribution of over 500 foreign pilots under Sir Hugh Dowding’s Fighter Command. In fact, that evidences my assertion that Britain is at its best not standing alone but when it leads in Europe, and that Europe is strongest with Britain at its centre. I will shortly conclude.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Before he does, I mention that I am very grateful indeed to the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate to the Chamber. It is well known that the only Victoria Cross to be awarded to a fighter pilot in world war two was awarded to James Brindley Nicolson for re-entering, on 16 August 1940, a burning plane to shoot down an enemy bomber near Southampton. What is not so well known was that one of the British casualties in the same action was the youngest pilot to die in the battle of Britain. His name was Martyn Aurel King. To mark the 85th anniversary of his heroic death in that action, two months short of his 19th birthday, a memorial service was held at Fawley church in New Forest East, where he lies buried with honour among several of his comrades.
Cameron Thomas
What a wonderful intervention. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman made it. We must never take for granted the sacrifice that so many made so that we may today live in peace.
I would like to contextualise the battle of Britain alongside Britain’s near future. Today, in 2025, we understand with absolute certainty that the Geneva convention will not be adhered to by the Russian military, nor by its unbadged operators of the hybrid war that it has been conducting against our country for over a decade. I remind the House that Putin deployed a chemical weapon on the streets of Salisbury. We must not blind ourselves to the significant likelihood that this hybrid war will go kinetic within the coming decade. To our adversary, civil infrastructure will be viewed as a viable target.
In Ukraine, Russia has deliberately and consistently targeted energy infrastructure in a bid to break Ukrainian morale and undermine its ability to replenish its armaments. The Russians have failed to recognise a lesson learned by Hitler in 1940 that trying to bomb a population into submission only strengthens its resolve.
Nevertheless, Britain must be ready to face such tactics in the near future. Just as redundancy ensured the resilience of the Dowding system, Britain can build redundancy into its energy infrastructure and industrial capacity by increasing our production of renewables and ramping up the installation of that technology to reduce reliance on the national grid. The introduction of peer-to-peer energy sharing within localities would be a game changer for UK energy resilience, public services and bill payers.
Once more, I thank you, Sir Desmond, and I look forward to welcoming the contributions of Members from across the House.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. and gallant Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for securing this important debate.
There are few more pivotal moments in our history than the battle of Britain. France had fallen and the new Vichy regime had sued for peace. Britain stared down the prospect of invasion by the German forces. The Nazis already believed that the war was over and that Britain would be forced to recognise its hopeless military situation. Hitler counted on the British Government agreeing to his terms. It was not until months later that the Nazis finally came round to the truth that we would not concede so easily. Hitler had misjudged not only our fighters, but the determination of an entire nation. Against overwhelming odds, 600 British fighters faced more than 1,300 German bombers supported by hundreds of enemy fighters. And they won.
The scale of sacrifice in the battle of Britain was captured best by Churchill, who said:
“Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.”—[Official Report, 20 August 1940; Vol. 364, c. 1167.]
I have spoken in this place before about how victory in war was secured by ordinary people. The same is true, I believe, of remembrance. I pay particular tribute to one of my constituents, Beryl Spelling, who sadly passed away recently. She gave her time supporting the local RAF association, keeping alive the memory of those who served and what they stood for. It was Beryl who first invited me to the annual remembrance service for the battle of Britain, which is held every year in Morecambe.
Remembering our triumphs over fascism naturally leads me to remember what led to that dreadful time. For more than a century prior to that war, Europe had suffered under the clash of extreme nationalistic aspirations. In the wake of the first world war, treaties were signed and agreements were made, but these nationalistic passions flared up once more and fed off the despair and suffering of ordinary people. It was in this environment, while America was facing inwards and Europe was fractured and uncertain, that Hitler was able to exploit fear and mass hysteria.
I would hope that this speech could stay in the realms of history, but I do not believe that the echoes of that time can be ignored today. I feel a moral duty to use my position in this House to bring those echoes into focus. I speak, of course, of the actions of the new far right. The far right will always exploit feelings of fear or insecurity, putting forward a false image of what true patriotism is. I believe we must push back against this false narrative and the lies of the far right. The people who promulgate this distortion entirely fail to see the values that truly bind us together as a nation, such as democracy, fair play, the rule of law, and kindness.
To me, patriotism is not about racial or cultural superiority. It is not ethno-nationalism or the fear of others. It is not hating other people or undertaking violent acts, such as breaking into hotels and trying to make places that should be safe unsafe. It is not the racists who attacked a British nurse or the spreading of false rumours about asylum seekers. It is not exploiting the scourge of violence against women and girls to make gross and false political points. It is not sending people back to the Taliban to be tortured or flogged in the street or to have their basic freedoms taken away merely because of their sex. It makes me ashamed to see a small number—but a number, none the less—of Members of the British Parliament exploiting these false narratives about asylum seekers and using lines that would not have been out of place in the Third Reich.
Hatred of others, racism and dividing people along false lines was exactly what we fought against in world war two in order to keep Britain free from the scourge of fascism. It is from our history that we learn what we are capable of—acts of good and acts of evil. I believe that history is not predestined. We were not destined to win the battle of Britain or to defeat the Nazis, just as Germany was not destined to fall to fascism in 1933. These were choices made by people, shaped by courage or by fear. Hitler’s approach was to stir up prejudice, divisions and hatred. The same thing happened in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. In Latin America, we saw dictators rise on nationalistic, far-right propaganda. Today, we must be vigilant against those who try to do the same.
We have the strength to overcome this and we must overcome this, unfortunately, again and again, because remembrance never ends. The story of the battle of Britain is the story of our nation—ordinary people of all colours and creeds standing firm in the face of extraordinary danger, showing courage, perseverance and belief in something greater than themselves. It was a moment in which Britain’s true character shone through, undaunted by the odds, unwearied by the challenge and unbroken by the blitz.
There will always be those who will downplay the character of our country, who say that we cannot fight global adversity and who urge us to turn inwards and face away from the rest of the world. They echo the same misjudgment that the Nazis once made. The truth is that Britain’s strength has always been in its resilience, its openness and its refusal to give into fear and hatred. That is what we must carry forward today, and that is the true legacy of the battle of Britain.
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
I suggest six minutes for Back-Bench speeches.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I cannot think of anyone I would rather have chairing this debate, so it is of course a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) on raising this matter. In the time that I have been in this place, I think this is the first debate we have had about the battle of Britain. I ask myself why we have not had one before—I am rather guilty in that regard myself.
I rise simply to make some comments about the fact that my father was a fighter pilot throughout the second world war. He flew almost constantly in Spitfires and came in during the latter stages of the battle of Britain, so I grew up with stories about what happened. Almost the first story that my father told me was about when he was just finishing off his training—somewhere up near Liverpool, I think—and he and a couple of others were in a pub that night.
This was just after Dunkirk, and a bunch of soldiers who had returned from Dunkirk saw these RAF figures sitting by the bar and immediately came and attacked them under the stupid belief—it was not their fault, because the information was not given to them—that the RAF had not turned up at Dunkirk, because they could not see the aircraft overhead. The truth is somewhat different, because the fighter pilots had gone inland to break up the bombers long before they got anywhere near the beaches. If they got near the beaches, it was too late. He said, “We bore”—how can I put it?—“the imprint of a disgruntled set of pongos, who I remembered all the way through the rest of my life.” But he went on to qualify as a fighter pilot.
Most fighter pilots were not trained massively. There was a rush to get them done, so they had no real combat training. What they had was basic training on the aircraft to go solo, a few fighter runs and feints, and then they would be sent off to their squadrons, so the first time they would understand how to fly the aircraft properly was in combat. My father talked about what he used to say to his pilots when he later became a squadron leader and eventually a group captain. He said, “I used to tell my pilots that you have to abandon all that you have learned and understand only one thing: you don’t get into this aircraft; you strap it on—it becomes an extension of you. If you learn that, this aircraft will never let you down. It can always go as far as you want, and it will test you, but you will always come out of it.” That stayed with him all the time, and his pilots, I think, had very good records as well.
It is worth reminding ourselves that of course it was the pre-war planning that enabled us to have enough time and warning to put the fighters up in the air to take out the bombers. Sir Robert Watson-Watt and others developed the chain of radars. The Germans never understood fully what that was about until too late. And of course there was Dowding’s two-pronged determination. No. 1 was that this home chain should exist, and the system to run it through the tables, with the WAAF—Women’s Auxiliary Air Force—pushing all the details about individual squadrons coming across. The second bit, which was really important, was his argument with Churchill about not sending Spitfires over to France. That was critical because had we done that, we would not have been ready and prepared for what was to come next. That was a very big dispute. I think Churchill never really forgave him for standing up to him on that, but he was right to have done so, because we were ready and prepared with the right squadrons and the right aircraft.
The other side of it was that although, as the hon. Member for Tewkesbury said, the Germans were never going to succeed, there was a period when they were pretty close, and that was when they were bombing the airfields endlessly. That meant that many squadrons were coming back to find their airfields destroyed and were having to be diverted to amateur airfields and everywhere else, where there was no support, no supply, no ammunition waiting for them and often no fuel. It would then take them longer to be ready, and by the time they were ready, it was almost too late.
Dowding was within, I think, two days of ordering his squadrons north of London, because they were pretty much exhausted, as they were not able just to come back and fly again. At that point, Germany switched the bombing to London. That was a critical moment. It gave him breathing space to reconstruct, rebuild, and be ready for them a second time when they came back to the airfields, and that is exactly what happened. His leadership in all this was critical, for which he was not properly rewarded directly afterwards but was later on. As the commanding officer, Dowding was as important to this as Nelson was to Trafalgar or as Wellington was to Waterloo, and we should honour him and others who worked with him.
My father got five gallantry medals during the war—two Distinguished Service Orders and three Distinguished Flying Crosses, which are all combat awards—but like many other pilots who were there, he did not ask questions about this. He became a very good friend of the actor Christopher Lee, who was the godfather to my brother. I remember as a young boy, sitting in a back room with my brother while they had a drink together—that was normal in those days—when he came through and said to me and my brother, “Your father is a man without fear.” This troubled me for some time. When I eventually was in the Army myself, one evening over a drink, I said to my father, “Christopher Lee said you are a man without fear.” He said, “That’s not true. A man without fear is a dangerous man, because he cares not about anybody else. I was scared all through the war, but I controlled it because I could not let those around me down.”
My father said that the toughest thing he ever had to do was to eventually deal with a pilot who had clearly lost it—who had broken. He had to send him down because he was a risk to the others around him. He said that these men would break down in tears in front of them because that was the end of their time—that was it; there were no further chances for them. He said, “That was the toughest thing you had to do; but, for the sake of the others, you made that decision, even though you hated doing it at the time.” Although they have become heroic figures, it is worth reminding ourselves that every day they were fighting for their lives and the lives of the people next door to them in the air. That is important.
I want to finish by saying that the lesson they taught us, from the 1930s all the way through, is one that we are now faced with again. We are faced by the growth of totalitarianism: brutal states like China, Russia and others, who will stop at nothing and who care nothing for human rights, nothing for the rule of law and nothing for freedom. These countries are growing in potency. Russia is invading a nation that is trying to become a democracy and fight for freedom. What we have to understand is that we are now under as big a threat as they were in the 1930s. We must understand that the preparation in the late ’30s is where we have to be today—I say that nodding to the Minister, who has served himself and will understand that fully.
There are three lessons that we draw from this. First, we can never appease dictators. Dictators of brutal totalitarian regimes must be confronted, never appeased. The second is: never trade land for peace. Fight for the souls and the hearts of those who honour freedom. Do not betray them with shabby deals, as we did in 1938, when we sold land of those we had no right to. The third bit, which I will finish on, is very simple: “Si vis pacem, para bellum”—“If you would have peace, prepare for war”—because if we are unready, you can bet that the others will not be. What is it that our fighter pilots taught us, those brave men who went on to fight through the rest of the war like my father and others? They said: “Never again find yourself in a situation where you have to put young men and women under fire because politicians failed to recognise what they had to do early on.”
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for bringing this important debate to the House. Equally, it would be remiss of me not to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) for her passionate speech, or the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who gave a powerful and interesting speech about his father’s experiences in the second world war. I thank him for bringing that to the House today.
I wish to commemorate the battle of Britain, one of the defining moments in our nation’s history, but also to champion the extraordinary contribution of my local community in Essex. While the courage of the Royal Air Force pilots is rightly celebrated across the country, we must not forget that the defence of Britain was not won by pilots alone; it was secured by towns and villages, by the people who built, maintained and sustained the airfields, roads and communications, and by ordinary citizens, who became the backbone of our nation’s resilience.
Essex played a pivotal and proud role in that effort. Airfields such as North Weald and Duxford were protecting London and southern England from the relentless attacks of the Luftwaffe. Near Harlow, RAF Matching, which is in my constituency, contributed to the broader air defence and bomb operations, reminding us that the battle of Britain was fought not only in the skies but on the ground, in every village and town that supported it.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
In a similar vein, I pay tribute to the brave radio operators around the country, one of whom, in my constituency, was awarded the George Medal for staying at her post in the Sherborne post office, even after it was hit. It was thanks to the bravery of civilians such as Maude Steele that we were able to succeed in the battle.
Chris Vince
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We cannot talk about those heroes often enough in this place, as far as I am concerned, so I thank him for his contribution. In Hatfield Heath, which is in my constituency, we preserve living links to that history. Prisoner of war camp 116, which was established shortly after the battle of Britain, housed Italian, German and Austrian prisoners. Despite the ravages of time, it remains one of the most complete surviving internment camps in the UK, offering us a window into the human stories of the war.
We also remember the 1944 B-26 Marauder crash, slightly after the battle of Britain and not far from Hatfield Heath, which claimed the lives of three American airmen. The memorial, which was unveiled in 2021, ensures that their sacrifice, and the deep bond between our communities and the wider allied effort, will never be forgotten. I will mention their names: Howard H. Noland, Jacob E. Crider III and Warren E. Terrain. I thank local historian Mark Ratcliff for championing the need to recognise those brave airmen. They came from a foreign land to fight for us, and they lost their lives in my constituency.
I also thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury for mentioning the foreign airmen who joined forces with the RAF, across our skies and across the channel, to fight fascism. It is not particularly relevant to Harlow, but I pay tribute to the 303 Squadron of Polish fighters, who were some of the bravest and most successful—if that is the right word—pilots who fought in that battle.
Cameron Thomas
In his 1941 report on the battle of Britain, then Air Chief Marshal Hugh Dowding wrote that the other commands, the Commonwealth countries and four allies contributed unstintingly to meet the emergency, but
“Had it not been for the magnificent material contributed by the Polish squadrons and their unsurpassed gallantry, I hesitate to say that the outcome of the battle would have been the same.”
Chris Vince
I know that a friend of mine who sadly passed away, Paul Walentowicz—whose father fought in the battle of Britain as a Polish fighter—would be very proud to hear the hon. Gentleman say that, so I thank him.
When commemorating these events, it is important to look back. It is about honouring the courage of the RAF, the allied forces, and the local men and women whose work, diligence and sacrifice made victory possible. However, let us recognise that RAF and Army personnel still serve and protect this country. We have an hon. Gentleman in the room today, the Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who we should mention in that same breath. We should recognise them at every possible opportunity.
Ultimately, the events and the information that I have shared today connect our local identity, educate future generations, and preserve the heritage that connects national history to everyday lives. I put on record my thanks to Hatfield Heath parish council and Hatfield Regis Local History Society for their work. I recently joined them for their VJ commemorations, and saw the effort that they make to preserve that history.
Let us remember that the story of the battle of Britain is not just about the pilots in the sky; it is the story of Essex, of Hatfield Heath, of Matching and of every community that stood together to defend our country. We must ensure that the courage, determination and sacrifice of those who came before us continue to inspire and guide us today.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for choosing and securing this debate.
In June 1940, with France fallen, Hitler expected Britain to negotiate a peace deal. When Britain made it clear that it would fight on, Hitler prepared the invasion of Britain, Operation Sea Lion. But first, he had to win command of the air over southern England. It sounded simple, but Devon had other ideas. Devon became one of the most militarised parts of England—the beaches of Beer, Seaton and Sidmouth were lined with barbed wire and scaffold barriers. Eighty-five years later, defensive bunkers still sit above Jacob’s Ladder in Sidmouth and at Beer beach. These are blunt reminders of how close invasion then felt.
RAF Exeter, to the west of today’s Aylesbeare, was a No. 10 Group sector station. It is now Exeter airport, but at that time was for the benefit of the Royal Air Force. From there, Hurricanes of 87 and 213 Squadrons took off to protect the channel and support the hard-pressed south-east of England. The station opened on 6 July 1940, and by August its pilots were already intercepting raids along the coast and near neighbouring Dorset and Portland. It was on 20 August 1940 that Churchill said those famous words,
“Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.”—[Official Report, 20 August 1940; Vol. 364, c. 1167.]
Devon was home to some of the few.
Born in Teignmouth, Group Captain Alan Richard Wright flew with No. 92 Squadron through the fiercest months of 1940, recording 11 confirmed victories over the Luftwaffe before being shot down near Brighton in September and awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross in October 1940. In Devon itself during the battle, our farms, our coves and our clifftop posts became part of that national nervous system that we have heard referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). Observers’ eyes and telephone wires fed the Dowding system that cued the fighters on to their targets. The young men and women of 1940 fought for a Europe where free nations decide their own future, and today those ideals are being tested once again in Europe.
Ukrainians are resisting Putin’s attempts to dictate their future, and in so doing, they defend democracy and the rule of law for the rest of Europe, just as we did in 1940. As we remember the courage on our cliffs, the squadrons at Exeter and the courageous servicemen we lost, we must also face today’s reality. Europe is turbulent, even though the threats do not now start at our shores and, of course, the battle of Britain was not fought alone by Britain; it was flown by pilots from across the Commonwealth and from across Europe. It reminds us that we are most secure when we stand with our allies and with our friends. Let remembrance be matched by resolve to work again to protect our nation, strengthen our shared security, and keep the democratic, liberal ideals that were bestowed on us by the few.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
The Dumfriesshire town of Moffat, which I have the privilege of representing and of living in, has a close association with a number of famous people. But few of our notable local sons or daughters had such a profound influence on the future of the United Kingdom as Hugh Dowding, who was born on 24 April 1882 and whose leadership of RAF Fighter Command during the battle of Britain was decisive, as we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), in defending the nation from both air attack and invasion by Hitler’s Nazi armies. It was during those summer and early autumn months of 1940 that the struggle for what was literally the survival of our nation was fought and ultimately decided.
Central to that fight were the character, leadership and effective tactics of Air Vice-Marshal Hugh Dowding. The later Lord Dowding was not a flamboyant man. He was pragmatic, and a believer in meticulous planning. Having served during world war one and thereafter joined the RAF, he made his mark during the 1930s as a member of the Air Council for Supply and Research, as a firm believer that research and development was essential. He argued for adequate funding for research, knowing that the days of the biplane were numbered, and pushed for development of faster, advanced fighter aircraft. This initiative is largely credited with the development of the legendary Hurricane and Spitfire aircraft, which were ordered into production in 1934, and which would go on to play such an iconic and pivotal role in the Battle of Britain.
Dowding showed enormous interest in emerging technology connected to the detection of enemy aircraft, and threw his support behind radio direction finding equipment, which again was central to victory in the skies over Britain in 1940. The foresight and determination to match emerging advanced aircraft and technologies with new, effective tactics led to the creation of what would become known as the Dowding system, which the hon. Member for Tewkesbury referenced in his opening remarks. That was an innovative air defence network, which integrated radar stations, ground observers and a centralised command structure. For the first time in history, an air force could see incoming attacks, track them in real time, and direct interception with precision. The new system meant that Britain, with its smaller number of aircraft, could resist the numerically far superior Luftwaffe, leaving German pilots often astonished at how swiftly RAF pilots appeared, seemingly out of nowhere, to disrupt their formations.
However, Dowding’s enthusiasm for new equipment, technologies and tactics was matched by an equally important human quality: his commitment to the principle that preserving trained men was as vital as preserving machines. He rotated squadrons to rest them; made full use, as we have heard, of pilots from across the Commonwealth, occupied Europe and even the United States; and was deeply moved by the sacrifice of his young airmen. Behind what was undoubtedly a reserved demeanour, he was deeply concerned for the wellbeing of his pilots and all his men, even speaking in later years of feeling their presence after death.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
It is a fact that partly because of the great efforts of Lord Beaverbrook overseeing aircraft production, we never ran out of aircraft in the battle—but we very nearly ran out of pilots. So does my right hon. Friend agree with me that part of Dowding’s genius was generating enough pilots and then taking sufficient care of them so that we won?
David Mundell
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. Dowding was someone who valued the trained individual and who really stood up for his men.
From a number of excellent contributions we have heard Churchill’s assessment of the battle of Britain, in which he paid tribute to the courage of the RAF fighter pilots whose defence of our skies delivered both victory and the survival of our country. However, it is perhaps the more unvarnished estimation of an opposing protagonist that pays the most compelling tribute to Dowding. Following the battle of Britain, Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt commanded German forces in the west and had been involved in planning the invasion of Britain which was ultimately cancelled after the battle of Britain. During interrogation by the allies, the Field Marshal was asked at what point during the course of the war he had seen the tide turning against Germany—was it Stalingrad, Leningrad or El Alamein?
“Oh no,”
replied von Rundstedt,
“it was the Battle of Britain.”
That was the first time he realised that the Nazis were not invincible.
That shattering of progress towards what was seemingly an inevitable Nazi victory was down to the courage of the young pilots who fought and died in the skies over Britain in 1940, and their memory must always be honoured; but the vital contribution made by the son of a schoolmaster from Moffat should also be remembered. The quiet determination of Hugh Dowding, which gave those pilots the tools, the system and the strategy to succeed, was central to winning the battle of Britain and ensuring the survival of a nation and the freedom and liberty we enjoy today.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you for giving me the chance to speak, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for allowing us all to sow into this debate, and boy did he set the right tone for it. Every one of us respects him for that—well done to him. I am pleased to see the hon. and gallant Minister in his place. He understands the issues that we talk about because he has lived them, and I very much look forward to his response to our contributions on a subject that we all love. It is a pleasure to see the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), in his place; we see his passion for this subject in every intervention he makes on it. I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire)—she has served as well—in advance for her contribution, too.
Members will be aware—I am always very proud to say this—that I served in the Territorial Army, the Royal Artillery and the Ulster Defence Regiment for some 14 and a half years as a part-time soldier, both in an anti-terrorism role and at the time of the iron curtain. I believe that gives me a small understanding of what service means, and I regard it with great honour. Having seen the impact of service on so many of my comrades over the years, it is with that personal view that I approach discussions concerning our veterans. The Minister encapsulates—I am not giving him a big head—the thing that I want for our veterans and, I think, that we all want for our veterans. We thank him for standing by them, as he always does.
I am aware that, as time moves on and values change, a shifting narrative of the wars and the actions that we took is appearing. The acts of courage and valour that we once held as a gold standard are increasingly being seen by some as acts of shame, and that concerns me greatly. Today, we sometimes look on those acts through a distorted modern lens that could never accurately portray the reality of war in the 1900s, or of the RAF during the second world war, which this debate is all about. I believe that the greatest commemoration of the battle of Britain is the education of our children to accurately reflect that war and the lessons learned, and I will try to focus on that.
We must ensure that every cycle of children who go through school receives more than simply an hour-long lesson on a battle fought back in the 1900s, as our young people now categorise anything that is over 20 years old. As a pensioner—indeed, well by a pensioner— I listen to my grandchildren and children, and they perhaps do not always see the sacrifices made over the years. Children must be taught the reasons the war was fought and the bravery of those who boarded the ships on D-day, those on the planes at the battle of Britain, which everyone has spoken about, and those behind the intelligence gathering that allowed men of influence to make decisions that they knew would sacrifice the lives of thousands to save the lives of millions. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) referred to Winston Churchill’s words:
“Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.”
As we all know, Winston Churchill was an incredible capturer of the English language and was able to say things with words that were so effective and helped the nation.
While I absolutely support the hon. Member for Tewkesbury in his wish to recognise the battle of Britain as one of the most important battles of the 20th century, it is my firm belief that true commemoration has to be much more than that. There has to be a determination to ensure that true history is not skewed or changed, but honoured in our education systems. The battle of Britain is certainly worthy of that honour.
Northern Ireland more than played her part in that battle, and I want to give a couple of examples of the role of the RAF in Northern Ireland. In my constituency of Strangford, the RAF was stationed at Ards airport and at Ballyhalbert airport, where the Polish squadron was based. About 10 years ago, a memorial was made at the Ards war memorial in Ards town for the Polish pilots. Some of them came and died in their battles, but some came and stayed. I always say that when any young men such as those pilots come to Northern Ireland and meet a Northern Irish girl, she is always special. More often than not, they do not go home; they stay in Northern Ireland. We happen to have that talent, I believe, among us menfolk. I am a one-woman man, by the way—I make that very clear. My wife has been very good for me over the years and has settled me down a bit, and I thank her for making that be the case. Without her I would not be half the man I am.
The tradition of RAF service in my constituency has also been carried through by the air cadets. In Regent House school in Newtownards, we have one of the largest detachments of air cadets. I am always minded— I attended a memorial service just before Easter—that 1,000 people or thereabouts were killed when the Luftwaffe attacked shipbuilding and aerospace sites during the Belfast blitz. I do not know why, but the Luftwaffe came down and bombed Newtownards as well, and 13 young Irish Fusiliers were killed. It is sometimes good to remember that the battles were not only in London, or in the north-east, Scotland and Wales, but in Northern Ireland, when the Luftwaffe went straight across to Northern Ireland, but our men and women of course served in uniform, and conscription was never needed there.
Northern Ireland has a proud aviation history, and it hosted military airfields such as RAF Sydenham. Those facilities were used by various squadrons, including those of the United States air force and of Polish forces. Again, that is a reminder that the horrors of war did not stop at Dover, but carried right on over. Northern Ireland produced vital fighter pilots for the battle of Britain, with at least some 28 serving. Notable among them was Brendan Finucane, one of the Irish pilots who fought for Britain. We sometimes need to be reminded that the Irish nation also contributed to the war against Nazism. The Republic of Ireland stayed neutral during the war, but there were many who fought, and today many serve in uniform in the Northern Irish regiments and those here on the mainland as well.
Belfast was a major industrial centre and made significant contributions to the allied war effort by producing naval ships, aircraft and munitions, which made it a target for the Luftwaffe during the Belfast blitz. Northern Ireland hosted the crucial No. 9 Group RAF headquarters at RAF Barton Hall. It was established in September 1940 to control fighter operations in north-west England and Northern Ireland, including bases such as RAF Limavady and RAF Ballykelly, which were vital for protecting Atlantic convoys. Churchill said that Northern Ireland’s contribution in the war was of such significance because we helped the convoys coming over from the United States and had our Air Force there to respond.
The naval historian John Hewitt made clear the role of Northern Ireland in our victory in the second world war when he stated very clearly:
“If we hadn’t won the Battle of Britain the Nazis would have invaded England and there’s no doubt about it. We would not have the freedom that we have today and Northern Ireland’s fighter pilots played a key role.”
However, I am not convinced that schools throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are explaining this history, and I believe we need to do that as the ultimate tribute to and commemoration of the battle of Britain. We need to once again instil a pride in our armed forces, whose courage and loyalty is the stuff of legends and worthy of our honour and regard.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, and indeed every Member who has spoken or intervened, on what has been an incredible debate and one of those debates that has inspired us. I look to the Minister to bring to the Cabinet the determination we have, and which I know he has, to teach such commemoration and allow our children to once again have that pride in being British. I love telling people that I am British because I am proud to be British. We stood alone and faced a threat of terror and oppression, and the blood that ran through the veins of the people in those days still runs through each of ours. We must honour that and honour them in living memory.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for securing this important debate.
The battle of Britain remains one of the most decisive victories in our nation’s history. In the summer of 1940 the Royal Air Force, outnumbered and under immense pressure, faced down the Luftwaffe. In doing so, it prevented invasion and gave our nation hope. Victory was a turning point in the war, a symbol of resilience and testament to the power of co-ordinated defence. We rightly honour the few—the young pilots whose courage inspired a nation. But we must also honour the many—the engineers and fitters, the armourers, the women of the Women’s Auxiliary Air Force who tracked raids on vast plotting maps, and the factory workers, many of them women, who ensured that damaged aircraft could be replaced. Their unseen work sustained our pilots in the air. Their story is one of collective effort, resilience and sacrifice.
This was an international battle. Pilots and personnel came from across the Commonwealth and from occupied Europe, Canada, New Zealand, Czechoslovakia and, most famously, Poland, whose 145 pilots played a decisive role. Indeed, the Polish No. 303 Squadron was the highest scoring unit of the entire campaign. Even volunteers from neutral countries such as Ireland and the United States chose to fight for Britain’s freedom. The battle of Britain was in every sense a collective endeavour. It was fought not only with Hurricanes and Spitfires, but with morale. Ordinary people endured blackouts, bombings and sleepless nights in the shelters. Yet the blitz spirit, stoicism, humour and neighbourly solidarity carried communities through. Churchill’s words and the sight of duels overhead helped forge a powerful sense of national unity—that resilience, both military and civilian.
In my constituency of Epsom and Ewell, the war touched daily life. Residents sheltered in Anderson shelters through long nights filled with anti-aircraft fire. On 18 August, remembered as the “hardest day”, Flying Officer Peter James Simpson of No. 111 Squadron was forced to bring his stricken Hurricane down on the RAC golf course at Woodcote Park, Epsom. Having engaged a Dornier bomber, his aircraft was raked with fire. He was injured but managed a forced landing near the clubhouse in an act of skill and courage that left its mark on our town’s history. A painting of that moment still hangs in the clubhouse, a vivid reminder that Epsom itself lay beneath the skies of the battle, and that this is not just a national story, but a local one as well.
Commemoration must go hand in hand with commitment. Just as the country pulled together to defend our liberty in 1940, so too must we pull together now to support those who have served. The UK Government must provide better care for all veterans, ensuring that their contributions are not forgotten and that they receive the recognition and support that they so rightly deserve. It is a scandal that in 2025 veterans continue to fall through the cracks. More than 2,000 veterans’ households were assessed as homeless in 2022-23, which is unacceptable. A fair deal for veterans must mean access to high-quality, affordable accommodation. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the building of 150,000 new social homes every year.
Mental health support must also be a priority. Between 2017 and 2023, more than 30,000 referrals were made to the NHS veterans’ mental health service. Over half of veterans surveyed said they had experienced mental health problems. These are men and women who put their lives on the line for us. It is not right that so many are left suffering with depression, anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder without timely support. The Liberal Democrats are calling for regular mental health check-ups at key stages of veterans’ lives, better recording of outcomes, and a campaign to end the stigma that still too often prevents people from seeking help.
For today’s serving personnel we must get the basics right. It is shameful that some members of our armed forces are housed in substandard accommodation. Peers reintroduced to the Renters’ Rights Bill the Liberal Democrat amendment to extend the decent homes standard to Ministry of Defence housing. I urge the Government, when the Bill returns to the Commons next week, to accept that amendment as a positive safeguard for our service personnel. They deserve that decent standard as a minimum.
Remembrance is also about education and awareness, as many have already alluded to. The story of the battle of Britain must continue to be remembered in ways that reach future generations, whether through services of commemoration in our communities or through museums, exhibitions or teaching in our schools. Access to local stories, such as those from Epsom and Ewell, should sit alongside the national narrative so that young people see that this history is not distant; it happened on the very streets where they live today, and for their freedom and the peace that we enjoy today.
Eighty-five years ago, the few gave everything to defend the many. Today we honour their courage, but the greatest tribute we can pay is to ensure that their legacy lives on not only in words, but in the way that we care for those who serve today, and in the way we continue to tell their stories for generations to come. Remembrance is much more than words; it must be action as well.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Good afternoon, Sir Desmond. It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship as we debate these momentous events in the run-up to Battle of Britain Day, which commemorates the 85th anniversary of the culmination of the battle on 15 September 1940. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) on securing this very important and timely debate, which he introduced so very admirably. Lest we forget.
On a personal note, I regard it as a genuine privilege, as the son of a world war two veteran—albeit one who fought in the Royal Navy—to be able to sum up for His Majesty’s Opposition this afternoon. I would like to begin by declaring two personal interests, first as an amateur military historian and a battle of Britain buff in particular. Southend airport, which abuts my constituency, was RAF Rochford in 1940, one of Fighter Command’s vital forward airfields. Secondly, several years ago I worked with a former constituent and local historian called Steve Newman on a project to help restore and refurbish our official war memorial at Wickford. Steve is now involved in another ambitious project, this time to restore a world war two Hurricane, serial Z5134. With a dedicated band of helpers, he is attempting to rebuild this historic aircraft almost from the wheels up. I was privileged to view the fruits of their labour during the summer recess. Realistically, it will take them several years to achieve their ambition. I would like to place on record my admiration for what they are attempting, and to wish them every possible success.
Turning to the battle itself, there is no doubt that it was an example of heroism on multiple levels, beginning with the pilots, from some of the well-known aces, such as Peter Townsend, Bob Stanford Tuck, Douglas Bader and Sailor Malan, through to those who only flew in combat once and never returned. Those young men, some of whom had barely 10 hours on type, must have known before they took off that the chances of their returning alive were slim. Nevertheless, they took off anyway. In all, almost 3,000 allied pilots fought with Fighter Command in the officially defined period of the battle of Britain, which runs from 10 July to 31 October 1940.
However, it is important to note that the defence in the battle was by no means solely a British affair—far from it. As well as the RAF squadrons, those from other nations also played a crucial role, perhaps most famously the Polish 303 Squadron, based at RAF Northolt, which shot down more enemy aircraft—126—than any other squadron. It was supplemented by other Polish squadrons, plus the Czechs and Canadians, and indeed the three Eagle squadrons of American pilots who volunteered to fight with the RAF more than a year before Pearl Harbour.
History also owes a great debt to those who kept them flying, not least the ground crew of Fighter Command, but also the Royal Observer Corps, the General Post Office technicians who assisted with communications and those working in the factories to produce the iconic Spitfires and Hurricanes on which the defence so crucially depended. Although Churchill rightly paid tribute to “the few”, in fact there were many who contributed to that critical victory in 1940, the vast majority of whom never flew in combat.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I just wanted to make the small point that I was fortunate enough to sit next to Jock Colville, who was assistant private secretary to Churchill throughout the war. They were visiting Uxbridge on 15 September, when a huge armada gathered. Churchill was watching as, one by one, the lights went up, until everything was up. He said to the air officer commanding, “What are you going to do now? Where are your reserves?” The officer said, “We have no reserves, Prime Minister.” Churchill asked, “What will you do?” The officer said, “I don’t know about you, but I’m going to pray.” Jock Colville told me that, with that, Churchill stayed silent for three hours, something he never did, but that when he got into the car, he turned to him and said, “Never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few.”
Mr Francois
The whole House is grateful to my right hon. Friend for that very telling intervention. While I have the opportunity, I pay tribute to his marvellous speech and, more than that, to the wonderful service of his father, of whom he can be immensely proud.
Also fundamental were the RAF commanders, principally Air Chief Marshal Sir Keith Park, who famously commanded 11 Group, which bore the brunt of the battle. Park, a New Zealander, displayed tactical brilliance in the husbanding of his squadrons, while also fighting a highly aggressive and effective defence.
Overall, however, perhaps the greatest single contribution to victory was that of the leader of Fighter Command throughout the battle, Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding. As well as being a pilot, Dowding was keenly interested in scientific development, which he pursued zealously when promoted to the Air Council in 1930, with responsibility for supply and research. That critical appointment was to have profound consequences for the subsequent conduct of the battle a decade later, as several right hon. Members have alluded to.
Dowding had three great attributes that materially contributed to the RAF’s victory. First, he possessed tremendous foresight. Like Churchill, he realised very early on that Nazi Germany and its nascent air force would one day provide a potentially fatal threat to Britain’s security, and he began to plan accordingly.
Secondly, Dowding’s genius—I use the word deliberately —was that he conceptualised years in advance the battle that the RAF would have to fight. He then used his new appointment enthusiastically to pull together multiple strands of scientific development, crucially including Watson-Watt’s experiments with radar, to create a highly resilient defensive system.
In May 1937, Dowding presciently delivered a lecture to the air staff regarding the air defence of Great Britain, in which the scenario he outlined was one of a war with a European dictator—the inference was obvious —attempting to starve Britain into submission by the aggressive use of submarines, but not before the United Kingdom had been subjected to an all-out assault designed to destroy the RAF and cripple the nation’s ability to make war, by remorseless attack from the air.
As head of the newly created Fighter Command from July 1936, Dowding went on to create a command and control network alerted by radar, all feeding into Fighter Command headquarters at RAF Bentley Priory, and supported by an organisation of group and sector headquarters designed to co-ordinate timely fighter interception of incoming German aircraft. That was all interconnected by a system of telephone and, later, teleprinter communications. The historian and operational analyst Stephen Bungay, in his brilliant book, “The Most Dangerous Enemy”, describes that system as “the world’s first intranet”, albeit an analogue version, half a century before Tim Berners-Lee. Critically, the Dowding system, as it became known, allowed the RAF to make best use of its resources in combating an enemy that frequently outnumbered it three, or even four, to one.
Thirdly, Dowding possessed tremendous moral courage in dealing with superiors, up to and including Churchill. The epic 1969 movie “The Battle of Britain”, with its all-star cast, opens with the Dowding letter of 16 May 1940, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) referred to. In it, Dowding famously argued the need to conserve Britain’s fighter strength during the fall of France. As he trenchantly put it,
“if the Home Defence Force is drained away in desperate attempts to remedy the situation in France, defeat in France will involve the final, complete and irremediable defeat of this country.”
In Dowding, Britain possessed a commander with an absolutely single-minded determination to prepare meticulously for, to fight and then to win the battle, for which his pilots, whom he referred to affectionately as “my boys”, held him in particular reverence. His truly was the controlling mind that orchestrated the ultimately successful defence of these islands.
Like many commanders before him, Dowding was a maverick, but he was not an extrovert. He was socially awkward, which led to his nickname “Stuffy”. He never suffered fools gladly, and his manner could be abrupt, even when dealing with superiors, which ultimately led to his downfall. Nevertheless, he was a man utterly dedicated to his task, and one to whom history owes an immense debt. Arguably, had Dowding never been born we might even have lost the battle, as we would undoubtedly have been far less well prepared to fight it.
David Mundell
My right hon. Friend will be pleased to know that this Saturday, at his birthplace in Moffat, a bust of the then Lord Dowding will be unveiled alongside a replica Spitfire, and that his former home has been turned into sheltered housing accommodation for RAF personnel, known as Dowding House.
Mr Francois
I am sure that I speak for the whole House in saying that that is entirely appropriate.
James Holland, in his excellent book “The Battle of Britain: Five Months that changed History”, highlights the fact that the Luftwaffe made multiple mistakes in the campaign, but nevertheless concludes:
“This should not detract from the achievement of the RAF in the summer of 1940. Had it not had such a superb defensive system and had it not had such inspired and brilliant leaders, the Luftwaffe would still have prevailed, no matter how valiant or skillful the pilots.”
To conclude myself, the importance of winning the battle of Britain cannot be overstated. Had the RAF lost and had Hitler successfully invaded these islands, the whole history of the world thereafter would have been brutally different. Put another way, the debate today would not be taking place and there would be no Parliament or House of Commons for it to take place in. The Royal Air Force, as a service, can rightly be proud of the immense contribution it made in the battle of Britain to the defence of democracy, not just in the United Kingdom, but across the free world. The pilots whom Churchill famously christened “the few” have a special place in the annals of history, but so do the very few who so brilliantly commanded them to victory. We honour all of them today.
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for initiating today’s debate, and to all Members and gallant Members for their contributions—particularly those with service history, but also great knowledge of the battle of Britain.
On 2 September 1940, 85 years ago today, the Luftwaffe launched a series of massive attacks on RAF airfields and multiple other strategic industrial targets across our great country. Just one of those waves consisted of 250 German aircraft, which is almost incomprehensible today. They darkened the sky as they crossed the English channel in a fearsome display of force and intent. Yet, even with all that firepower and industrial might, it turned out to be another costly day for the Luftwaffe. Harassed, harried and hounded by the RAF, the Germans’ air force was failing to meet its objectives.
At a briefing about the lack of progress, Reichsmarschall Göring criticised his airmen for the mounting losses. When he asked one of his leading flying aces, Adolf Galland, what he needed to turn the battle in Germany’s favour, Galland famously responded,
“I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my squadron”—
a reply that left Göring speechless with rage. He stormed off in disgust.
The excellence of the British aircraft was surpassed by the extraordinary courage of the heroes, such as the father of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who flew them. Today, we come together once again to say thank you to the generation who gave so much.
It is difficult to imagine the mood, but also the courage and fortitude, of the British people as they contemplated Hitler’s next move during the summer of 1940. It is easy for us now, with hindsight, to look back with certainty, but for those sat here in Britain in 1940, invasion was imminent. They had watched our European allies fall to Nazi Germany one by one. They knew that a momentous battle was approaching—a battle for the future of not just Britain, but freedom and democracy. They knew that we might be defeated—certainty was not guaranteed.
The battle proved to be an immense test of national character and many made the ultimate sacrifice, with 23,000 civilians losing their lives and more than 1,500 RAF air crew personnel dying trying to protect them. Pilots often flew multiple sorties day after day, week after week, scrambling to their planes every time the next wave of bombers was detected, fighting on after sustaining damage and injuries high over the fields of south-east England, locked in high-stakes combat against a deadly foe. The battle was not only a contest for the control of our skies; it was a test of will that would determine the fate of our entire nation. At a time of supreme Nazi confidence, the battle of Britain demonstrated to ourselves, and was a signal to the rest of the world, that Hitler could be defeated.
What lessons can we learn from that for today? First, in an increasingly fragile world, we must continue to defend and to stand up for what we believe in and who we are against the rise of autocracy. We must be able to stand up, no matter how dangerous and no matter the threat of physical or economic consequences.
The second lesson is about the importance of alliances and friendships. United we are stronger. As one great general once said:
“The only thing worse than working with allies is working without them.”
We honour the crucial role played by the US, the French nationals, the Poles, the Czechs, the South Africans, individuals from New Zealand and many others on the ground and in the air during the battle of Britain. More than 15 nations, and some more, came together, united by a shared purpose and shared beliefs.
The third lesson is in the importance of consistent innovation. In 1940, the world’s first integrated radar-based air defence system gave the RAF a critical advantage. Just a few weeks ago, an audacious Ukrainian drone attack on Russian bomber airfields reminded us of how new and evolving technology is vital to success in modern warfare. We are continually innovating to keep our skies secure. We are investing heavily in uncrewed systems, but we must do more in satellite technology, as space becomes a key defence domain in the future and in our global combat air programme, alongside our allies and partners.
The fourth lesson we can learn for today is the importance of our defence industry. Behind the “few” who Churchill spoke about—the heroes who manned the aircraft and took on the might of the German air force—were the many. As the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) mentioned, it was the many who supported, armed and sustained our fighters throughout the battle.
Finally, in 1940, when we fought the battle of Britain, the whir and the echo of air raid sirens reverberated around every city in the UK. That is going on right now in one place not so far from here—the sirens echo every day in Ukraine, which is under sustained and relentless attack by an aggressor.
Churchill fully grasped that this was a war of production, and said:
“The front line runs through the factories. The workmen are soldiers with different weapons but the same courage.”—[Official Report, 20 August 1940; Vol. 364, c. 1160.]
I have always said that, while armies, navies and air forces may respond to crisis and fight wars, it is industry, economies and societies that win them.
Britain prevailed because our supply chains turbocharged our fighting power. Our victory was built in significant measure on manufacturing excellence and organisational strength, and our modern defence industry remains just as integral a part of our national security. That is why the Government are rolling out our new defence industrial strategy by making defence an engine for growth. We create a robust pipeline for the equipment and munitions that keep Britain safe, and we create secure, skilled jobs up and down this wonderful country, with the workforce continuing to play a vital role in the protection of our nation.
A variety of issues were raised by hon. Members from both sides of the House. One that resonated was the requirement to remember. I would argue that remembering is not just for individuals of our age in this wonderful place, but is about education, communication and remembering across every section of society at all ages, because those who do not read history are unfortunately doomed to repeat it.
I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury for highlighting preparedness. The reality is that the first 70 to 80 pages of the strategic defence review are all about industry. Finding the fighting power and the humans to fight is quite easy during conflict; it is very difficult to build the industrial base to sustain the ability to wage a defence of a nation.
The tributes that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) paid to his father were truly unbelievable. I cannot comprehend the bravery of his father—day in, day out, he jumped into an aircraft and flew into the unknown. I am truly jealous of the right hon. Gentleman’s ability to sit in the flank and listen to some of those stories, probably as his father sipped a whisky and regaled him about his time defending this great country. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned courage and fear; I always say that courage is a decision and fear is a reaction. The courage to volunteer and then fly into the unknown every day is utterly commendable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) made a really valid point, highlighting the fact that anyone can be a patriot, but we must not allow anyone to hijack that narrative to the point where people feel nervous about championing their patriotism. We are all proud to be British, first and foremost, and I argue that our duty here is to serve our country as a No. 1 priority.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted the manipulation of the narrative, or indeed the past. I am absolutely galled that we see protesters defacing and damaging military aircraft, and pressing industry and universities not to get involved in the defence industry. The naivety is utterly remarkable, for the very freedoms, permissions and laws that allow those individuals to protest in the first place are defended by the individuals and equipment they attack. The naivety rings through and potentially will be called out only when we are called to respond to an existential crisis.
The battle of Britain was a defining conflict of world war two. We collectively remain in awe at the courage, conviction and stalwart self-belief of the men and women of this great isle who faced down Nazi Germany. But we still live in a time that demands courage, resilience and sacrifice. Today, our armed forces are actively engaged in keeping Britain safe in a more volatile and more dangerous world than I have seen in 24 years of service. We are profoundly grateful for everything they do, and, indeed, for everything that everybody in this House does to remind both the population and the international community of the threats that they may face.
This anniversary reminds us that we cannot grow complacent about peace. Our military serves as our insurance policy against threats to our security and our way of life. The battle of Britain generation continues to inspire us to be strong in the face of overwhelming odds and adversity, to stand up for the values that we believe in at any cost, and to proudly defend our great nation and our western way of life. That is the best way to honour the heroes of 1940. As a fellow veteran, I particularly thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury for helping us by bringing this great debate to the House today.
Cameron Thomas
The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) spoke bravely of the dangers that nationalism might replace patriotism today, as it did in Europe throughout the 1920s and ’30s.
The right hon. and gallant Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) spoke passionately about his father’s extraordinary service. I am so glad that the House was able to hear that. I also thank him for the astonishing rallying cry with which he concluded.
The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) ensured that in remembrance we do not forget those who served on the ground, nor our gallant allies who fought for freedom alongside us; my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) well represented Devonshire’s refusal to bow to Hitler; and the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) spoke well of his righteous pride in representing the home of Sir Hugh Dowding.
The hon. and gallant Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke eloquently of the importance of continuing to reflect on past conflicts, and of supporting our veterans and saluting their personal sacrifices. I am grateful that the contribution of Northern Ireland to the battle of Britain was included in our debate.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), a fellow retired military police officer, ensured that today we honoured the many who so diligently enabled the few. She also spoke of the importance of telling the local stories as well as the national legend.
The right hon. and gallant shadow Minister is a self-described aviation devotee, and I hope he will take it sincerely when I say that there is nobody I would rather have had at the Opposition Dispatch Box today. I wish his constituents well in their refurbishment of a Hurricane. I hope that one day he will inform me that tail number Zulu-5134 has seen completion. He spoke glowingly of the genius of Air Chief Marshal Hugh Dowding, who used his assets sparingly, often outnumbered three to one, which itself led the Luftwaffe to underestimate the strength of Fighter Command. I thank the gallant Minister for Veterans and People, who spoke sincerely of the threat recognised and faced by Britain—a threat that, through tireless resilience, innovation and courage, was defeated by the Royal Air Force, the world’s oldest independent air force and the most celebrated. As the Government look to the defence industry for growth, I hope they will look at Tewkesbury and at Gloucestershire to contribute. Once more, thank you so much for chairing this debate, Sir Desmond.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of commemorating the Battle of Britain.
Violence against Women and Girls: Pornography Prostitution
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
I will call Joani Reid to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the mover of the motion and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the mover of the motion to sum up afterwards.
Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of pornography prostitution on violence against women and girls.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I begin by thanking two organisations that have been hugely helpful in preparing for today’s debate: UK Feminista, which provides the secretariat for the all-party parliamentary group on commercial sexual exploitation, and the Centre to End All Sexual Exploitation—CEASE—and particularly Gemma Kelly, its head of policy.
Let me set out from the beginning precisely what I mean by pornography prostitution. It is the fusion of the pornography industry and the sex trade into one system. It is the buying, selling and consumption of sexual access to women, livestreamed, or filmed and uploaded, and monetised as entertainment. It is seen by many as a new and booming industry. I disagree: it is commercialised abuse, repackaged and sold as entertainment. It is a form of violence against women and girls.
Nowhere is that clearer than on OnlyFans, a UK-based company that has now become the global giant of online sexual exploitation. Last year, it generated $6.6 billion in revenue. It markets itself as a harmless subscription platform but, in reality, it is the largest pimping empire in the world today. I want to focus on three areas where OnlyFans is enabling violence against women and girls.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First of all, I commend the hon. Lady on bringing this forward. I spoke to her beforehand to ensure that my thoughts are similar to hers. There is no doubt that online platforms such as OnlyFans pose a potential threat to how young people perceive sexual relations. Does the hon. Lady agree—the Minister is here to answer this, of course—that the law needs to be brought up to date to ensure that OnlyFans and all other online pornographic platforms, including adult services websites, put proper age and consent checks in place to protect young people from damaging content online?
Joani Reid
I agree. I think that age verification is hugely important in tackling children’s exposure to pornography. It is not just on those websites; it is found on mainstream websites as well, and I think that is something that we need to look at in the next regulations under the Online Safety Act 2023.
As I said, OnlyFans is the largest pimping empire in the world. It is a playground for child sexual abuse and exploitation. Harm and coercion are suffered by women who become so-called content creators, and there is a wider societal and cultural impact, particularly on children and young people.
I begin with the most damning evidence: OnlyFans claims to have a zero-tolerance approach to child abuse, yet Reuters has documented at least 30 criminal cases between 2019 and 2024 in the United States alone involving child sexual abuse material on the platform, including hundreds of videos and images, some depicting extreme abuse. In one horrific case, the graphic abuse of a 16-year-old girl was monetised for more than a year before it was taken down, and that was only after Reuters started asking questions. We should be under no illusion: OnlyFans is not a safe platform for consenting adults to express and enjoy themselves. As one survivor put it,
“A whole company has made money off of my biggest trauma”.
The truth is that all that is just the tip of the iceberg, because OnlyFans hides content behind millions of individual paywalls, and there is no meaningful way for independent investigators, charities, or even law enforcement to monitor the full scale of the abuse. That is not transparency; it is secrecy by design.
Ofcom fined OnlyFans for providing misleading information about age verification. While the company claims to set a global standard, the reality is stark. It has no meaningful age verification in the vast majority of the more than 100 countries in which it operates. How many of the 500,000 new users signing up every day are children? We do not know because OnlyFans will not say. OnlyFans likes to boast that every video is reviewed by a human moderator, but the figures just do not add up. Last month alone, 62 million pieces of content were uploaded. Independent experts have said that it would take tens of thousands of moderators to review it all, but OnlyFans employs just a few dozen staff. It outsources the rest to Poland and Ukraine, behind non-disclosure agreements, with no transparency. When the company tells us it has zero tolerance for abuse, we must ask: zero tolerance or zero credibility? The evidence suggests the latter. It is not a British success story; it is the British export of the abuse of children to the world.
The second reality is that OnlyFans is not the empowering feminist fairytale that its marketing suggests. It claims to give women financial freedom, but the facts tell another story: 73% of the profits go to the top 10% of creators, and the average woman makes just £4 a month. That is not liberation; it is a lottery in which a handful at the top get rich and millions of others are driven to push their boundaries further and further to survive. As one former content creator described it,
“I wasn’t there. I was doing things like a robot.”
Another said,
“When you’re making an OnlyFans, you are gambling…Betting that your clients are strangers who don’t cross into your real world.”
She said it was the worst thing that ever happened to her when she discovered that the man who had paid her over $10,000 over a two-year period for her explicit videos was not a stranger but her uncle.
Research by Talita, an organisation in Sweden that supports women out of prostitution, pornography and trafficking, found that almost all women drawn into online pornography had suffered childhood trauma: 96% reported abuse, 88% sexual abuse, and 79% physical abuse. Predators deliberately target vulnerability. Women do not wake up one day just wanting to make porn. As one survivor put it,
“At first I told myself, I’ll just sell a foot photo. And before you know it, you’re drawn in step by step.”
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
I must congratulate and thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. This debate should be difficult to listen to, but it still does not compare to the violent impact of pornography on women and girls. Does she agree that the upcoming violence against women and girls strategy should explicitly recognise and address prostitution and pornography as forms of commercial sexual exploitation?
Joani Reid
I completely agree. I hope—and this is a point that I am sure the Minister will respond to later in the debate—that there is a section within the strategy to address these issues. That could possibly be advanced as a result of collaboration between the Home Office and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.
I was talking about the abuse that women who are involved in online pornography have suffered: 56% were physically assaulted as a result of their online pornography, and 65% raped. No other industry in Britain would be allowed to operate with those statistics. Meanwhile, OnlyFans executives pay themselves handsomely and its owner reportedly takes home £1.3 million a day. That is the price of women’s pain. But the harm extends well beyond women directly exploited. Its cultural impact is shaping the attitudes and behaviours of an entire generation.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Does she agree that the normalisation of violent porn can mean that these horrors come out of the screen and into real life, particularly when defence counsels argue that consent was given to crimes of strangulation? Does she welcome, as I do, the Government’s steps to make strangulation an aggravating factor when sentencing for murder?
Joani Reid
Again, I agree with my hon. Friend’s point. I am delighted that the Government have brought forward plans to ban strangulation in pornography, but there is a whole host of behaviours within pornography that we know affect real-life abuse.
Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does she agree that, having created the ban on non-fatal strangulation in pornography, the Government now also need to ban depictions in pornography that encourage a sexual interest in children—so-called paedophilic-adjacent porn—as well as depictions of step-family incest?
Joani Reid
Let me take the opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that she did with other members of the APPG to get the Government to make that commitment around strangulation. Yes, I think it should extend to those categories as well. We have to tackle pornography that normalises and glamourises child abuse. It is not niche; we know from the work that we have done and through the Bertin review that, on Pornhub, incest porn is a main category. It is absolutely repugnant and should be tackled through Government intervention.
The impact extends into the behaviours of children and young people: eight in 10 children have seen violent pornography by the age of 18. Increasingly, children’s first exposure to sex is not a healthy relationship but online abuse marketed as entertainment.
Imogen Walker (Hamilton and Clyde Valley) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Pornography is nothing new, but access to the kind of content she has described is something that previous generations did not have to deal with. The most responsible and vigilant parents are struggling to prevent access to it. Does she agree that we need action from the companies that promote and disseminate this type of material, in addition to the work of parents, and the important work that the Government are doing?
Joani Reid
We have recently seen a step forward in the age verification process but, as we know, parents cannot be omnipresent, particularly online. Companies such as Facebook, Meta and Instagram are allowing pornographic content to be pushed and used within algorithms, and it is completely unforgivable. Yes, I completely agree with my hon. Friend.
The academic Dr Elly Hanson talks about a parasitic ecosystem, which refers exactly to what my hon. Friend mentioned: OnlyFans feeds off mainstream social media platforms, where sexualised clips are pushed to children by algorithms, which pushes them on to their sites. Teenagers are bombarded with adverts and the grooming is blatant. Children have reported seeing OnlyFans content creators appearing alongside exam revision ads on their feed, the content of which was so graphic when I looked at it in preparation for this debate that I cannot bring myself to quote it. Children are being pushed this content, and it is being normalised. It is not a bug in the system; it is the business model. One child said,
“The amount of porn and fights I get on twitter is just horrible.”
The result of all this is that girls report feeling coerced to imitate what boys expect, and boys describe being desensitised, seeing violence and degradation as normal. Doctors link the 40% rise in non-fatal strangulation during sex to pornography consumption. As a result, as we have already mentioned, the Government have announced that the depiction of strangulation in pornography will be banned, in a move to protect women and girls from violence. CEASE’s report “Profits Before People” makes clear that pornography is harmful not just for those in it but for society. It grooms boys to perpetrate violence and grooms girls to accept it. It is not a fringe issue; it is a public health crisis.
Let me briefly address an argument sometimes presented by so-called progressive voices, particularly on the left, who claim that they are advocating for the rights of sex workers. Let me be clear: what they are really doing is prioritising a tiny minority of privileged individuals—people like Bonnie Blue—who pursue this work out of commercial choice rather than desperation. In doing so they ignore, and in fact further marginalise, the vast majority of women trapped in cycles of abuse, violence and poverty. Elevating the voices of those who profit from glamorising exploitation is not progressive; it is regressive, and it fundamentally betrays the women, girls and children who are suffering.
I ask those who support Bonnie Blue, Lily Phillips and other successful porn prostitutes: are you really content to ignore women who are raped on camera, and coerced and trafficked then disregarded, simply because a tiny minority can make millions from the same system? To celebrate them is to turn a blind eye to the abuse of thousands of others. The truth is simple: they do not represent the vast majority who engage in this activity. Those women have no voice, and if we are to claim to be on the side of progress, it is their voices, not the voices of those who glamorise abuse, that we must hear.
We must face facts. OnlyFans is not a neutral digital platform company. It is a profiteer of exploitation. We cannot regulate it in the same way that we do Facebook or Instagram. It requires tougher and targeted measures. First, we need transparency. OnlyFans must prove that its 4.6 million creators are all over 18 and have consented to their content. It must also allow independent child protection and trafficking agencies behind its paywall. Secondly, we must protect children online. Ofcom’s current child protection codes are not strong enough. It must ban algorithms that feed sexual content to children. The wider tech sector is critical in this.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. One of the issues with OnlyFans is the way that it does its marketing. Content creators can only market their content by pushing it out on to other platforms. Does the hon. Member agree that we absolutely have to keep the law up to date with modern technology—pornography laws are now well out of date—to stop pornography not only being available on OnlyFans but creeping out on to regular social media platforms?
Joani Reid
I completely agree with the hon. Lady. Social media companies should not be allowed to push pornography and sexual content to under-18s, and they should be banned from doing so.
The wider tech industry is crucial to this issue—it is not just OnlyFans. It should not be allowed to profit from directing children towards pornography. If it does not comply, economic levers could be considered. If OnlyFans refuses to reform, it could face a levy on profits to fund services for survivors and education for young people.
We should learn from Sweden. On 1 July this year, Sweden became the first country to criminalise the purchase of sex online. The OnlyFans law sends a clear message that buying exploitation is not a digital game; it is a crime. The UK could look seriously at following that path. However, I appreciate that much work needs to be done before we reach that point. We must acknowledge that the prostitution laws in our country remain rooted in Victorian values and were designed in a different age.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
In my view, prostitution and sexual exploitation are inherently violent. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is right that we shift the criminal burden on to those responsible for sexual exploitation and violence, and that more should be done to criminalise those who buy sex, whether it is through prostitution or OnlyFans?
Joani Reid
What my hon. Friend describes is the Nordic model, which I fully support and hope to see implemented in this country some time in the future. Ash Regan, a Member of the Scottish Parliament, brought forward a private Member’s Bill there that made a serious attempt at trying to implement that way of doing things. We should modernise the system and appreciate that vulnerable women should not be criminalised—those who create the demand should.
Ultimately, we must be clear about the principle. For too long, it is the women who have paid the price while the men who purchase and the corporations that profit walk free. We need to turn that around. As survivors in Sweden put it: “It feels like redemption.” This is not about prudishness; it is about confronting violence and exploitation in plain sight. Pornography prostitution is not a career and is not harmless entertainment. It is abuse—filmed, monetised and uploaded.
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
Order. I urge the hon. Member to give the Minister some time to respond.
Joani Reid
I have one sentence left.
OnlyFans is not a success story; it is a pimping empire built on the pain of women and children.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
Thank you, Sir Desmond, for thinking of the time that I might have to respond. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I thank and commend my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride and Strathaven (Joani Reid) for securing this debate. She is clearly very passionate and informed about the topics in question. That absolutely shone through in her speech. It would be hard to listen to much of the testimony from women who have been abused in this way and feel anything else. My hon. Friend was one of a number of speakers to have referenced the challenges around pornography in the debate on violence against women and girls that I responded to at the start of the year. I am grateful to her and to all Members who have contributed today.
This is not the first time that Members of Parliament are considering the impact of pornography on violence against women and girls; the general themes have been long-standing subjects of concern. However, it does feel that the issues around pornography are taking on greater significance all the time, for many of the reasons that have been identified today. In lots of ways, that is inevitable given how universal the internet has become and the massive proliferation of online devices, especially among young people. Similarly, prostitution is another established area of focus for discussion in this space, and I note the points that have been made.
I will return to those issues shortly, but I want to couch my response in the Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls, because of the fundamental recognition of the damage that is being done by these kinds of abuses, many of which we have heard about today. As a society, we must do much better, and we will. The Home Secretary, the Prime Minister and I are all committed to ensuring that these issues are dealt with once and for all.
On the points raised, as Members are aware, and as has been covered today, the online space is a significant enabler of sexual exploitation, and our response needs to reflect that. I would say that today the online space is the most significant enabler of sexual exploitation of both adults and children. It becomes an ever-increasing concern.
Online platforms must be responsible and held accountable for content on their sites, including by taking proactive steps to prevent their sites from being used by criminals. We are implementing the Online Safety Act 2023, which sets out the priority offences, including sexual exploitation and human trafficking offences. Online platforms now have a duty to assess the risk of illegal harms on their services, albeit this issue has a globally challenging element to it, and obviously our laws apply within the UK. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride and Strathaven pointed out, many of the cases that she highlighted were US-based.
As of 17 March, online platforms need to take safety measures to protect users from illegal content, as set out in Ofcom’s code of practice, or face significant penalties, which OnlyFans has, as my hon. Friend pointed out. We are going further: schedule 13 to the Crime and Policing Bill will equip law enforcement officers with new tools to disrupt sexual exploitation that is facilitated through online platforms. They will be able to apply to the court for an order to suspend internet protocol and domain names for a specified period, up to 12 months, if they are used for serious crime, including the offences relating to sexual exploitation and modern slavery—anything that is illegal, essentially.
Through operational activity aimed at tackling modern slavery threats and targeting prolific perpetrators, the Government are further supporting law enforcement to tackle the drivers of trafficking for sexual exploitation. I will take away from the debate the point about the specific model. I have seen the work of law enforcement in respect of adult websites—I have seen women who were found on those sites being supported and taken to safety. I have also seen perpetrators criminalised—nowhere near as many as I would like, but that is an evergreen statement—in relation to violence against women and girls. However, I take my hon. Friend’s point about the specific model used by OnlyFans and the need to get behind what might not be able to be seen, and to ensure that that is possible. I will absolutely take that away and ask those questions.
The Government will continue to keep under review policies to tackle online enablers of sexual exploitation, and we want to ensure that online companies fulfil their duty to eradicate exploitation from their sites. If necessary, we will take further action to do that.
More broadly, Baroness Bertin’s independent review of the impact of pornography has given us valuable insights into the role of pornography. Nobody wishes to seem prudish; what we wish to do is safeguard the women who may be abused in this manner and the children in our country. There has been an exponential increase in the scale of pornography, but it has also become increasingly violent, degrading and misogynistic. We should all be seriously concerned, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) said, about the ideas of stepchildren, child-based hooks, “barely legal” and so on. We absolutely must focus on that.
We are already working to change things. In July, we oversaw the coming into force of measures under the Online Safety Act that require all websites that show pornography and are accessible in the UK to have highly effective age-assurance checks. That means, quite rightly, that children should not be able to access pornographic content online. Ofcom has launched an enforcement programme to help to ensure that that is the case. We continue to monitor how well that works.
It is so important that children—both boys and girls—are supported to understand the potential dangers of pornography, and to understand how to form positive relationships. That is why the Government have committed to ensuring, through education on healthy relationships, sex and health, that we have a curriculum that equips young people with the knowledge and skills they need to build positive relationships. The new content was launched on 15 July, and it explores many of the things that we would want to see in happy, healthy relationships.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride and Strathaven and other Members that the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology and I, along with many other ministerial colleagues, are looking across Baroness Burtin’s review for inspiration and action. On the ask to include this issue in the violence against women and girls strategy, I do not just hear it; I believe it—and I think I can confirm that it will be.
I have absolutely no doubt about the harms to the individuals involved in the pornography that my hon. Friend outlined, and also about the cross-fertilisation to other sites through algorithms. I remember my son telling me, when he was 14, that he had been watching the Sidemen—there is a sea of blank faces in Westminster; the Sidemen are very mainstream online influencers—and they had been roller-skating with a load of women from OnlyFans. That was painted as being completely legitimate. My son said it to me as if there was nothing in it at all. I am grateful that I have that relationship with my son, but I can also see that there is danger in that cross-fertilisation of the expectation that violent, misogynistic porn is the kind of sex or relationship I would want my sons to grow up with. I hear my hon. Friend’s cries and look forward to working with her.
Question put and agreed to.
Eating Disorders: Prevention of Deaths
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of the prevention of deaths from eating disorders.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank all hon. Members for attending this debate on a topic extremely close to my heart. As hon. Members may know by now, I am the very proud Member for Isle of Wight West and do my utmost to champion the island in this place, but I have brought forward this debate not only as an MP, but as a father who for some years was genuinely fearful as to whether I would see my child reach their 18th birthday.
From the moment someone becomes a parent, their instinct is to protect and nurture their children—often, admittedly, much easier said than done—yet nothing can truly prepare anyone for the overwhelming sense of powerlessness that comes when their child develops an eating disorder. Eating disorders, in all their destructive forms, are one of the few types of illness where the person affected does not want to recover and they actively work against you. Watching your child struggle not only with the illness but with the very treatments meant to help them is truly something I would not wish on any parent, yet it is the reality faced by thousands of parents, families and friends up and down the country.
We all know by now that the pandemic has taken a wrecking ball to children and young people’s mental health, but we cannot pretend that these issues do not predate 2020. Since the mid-1990s, eating disorders have been found to carry the highest mortality rate of any psychiatric illness. However, in the UK, we are unable even to quantify the true havoc that eating disorders cause, because of the lack of a national register for eating disorder deaths. The most recent year with confirmed data from the Office for National Statistics is 2019, when 36 deaths were recorded. However, a US study suggests that the real figure in the UK could be closer to 1,860 deaths, which I am sure people in this room would more than agree with.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
A constituent got in touch with me because sadly his daughter did not see her 30th birthday owing to an eating disorder. The point that my constituent made was that that was in part because of a lack of adequate services for those affected by these life-threatening conditions. Does the hon. Member agree?
Mr Quigley
I agree entirely. We are fully aware of the political situation and the condition that the NHS was left in under the previous Government, but the point of today’s debate is not to make cheap political attacks; it is to focus on the matter in hand, which is eating disorders, so I thank the hon. Member for his intervention.
With widespread under-reporting, misclassification and inconsistencies across the country, many of these deaths are wrongly recorded as organ failure, masking the true role of eating disorders and preventing us from fully grasping the scale of the crisis, especially among otherwise healthy young people.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, further to masking the scale of the crisis, excluding eating disorders as a contributing factor on death certificates also cruelly extends the pain that families feel, insinuating that otherwise healthy young people have died from organ failure?
Mr Quigley
I thank my hon. Friend for that important point—it does. The loss of a loved one is harrowing enough without the true cause not being recorded. That is why we are calling for a confidential inquiry into eating disorder deaths.
Given the concerns about under-reporting and inconsistencies in the data, it is even more alarming to read the findings from the Health Service Journal that revealed that between 2018 and 2023, 19 deaths related to eating disorders could have been entirely avoided. These tragic outcomes are attributed to severe failures in care, including missed or poorly managed safety risks, a lack of specialist knowledge among healthcare professionals and unacceptable delays in accessing appropriate treatment. If I were to ask for a show of hands in this room, I am sure many would be raised on that point.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
As the MP for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, I take a great interest in the progress of the Norfolk and Suffolk NHS foundation trust under the leadership of Caroline Donovan and Zoë Billingham, who I met recently in Parliament. Does my hon. Friend agree that early intervention is no more expensive and in many cases cheaper than delayed intervention, but is much more effective and saves lives?
Mr Quigley
I thank my hon. Friend for his extremely pertinent point. Early intervention saves not only lives but a huge amount in costs to the NHS.
I know the vast majority of NHS staff go above and beyond to support patients, often under immense pressure, and many of us here would like to put on record our thanks to them. However, these failures point to a systemic issue.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
One of the issues in geographically remote areas like Carlisle and Cumbria is that, sadly, the in-patient treatment for young people with eating disorders is delivered by an out-of-area NHS trust. Tragically, the inquest into the death of a young woman from my constituency earlier this year found that there had been a failure in collaboration between the two trusts, resulting, sadly, in her death. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just a question of resource, and that we also need a culture of collaboration and patient-centred care across all our trusts if we are going to prevent deaths?
Mr Quigley
It is true that a lack of understanding among professionals about the severity of the problem contributes to the situation. To have it put down to a lack of collaboration would be infuriating for that parent, as well as truly tragic.
We know well by now that early intervention is crucial for identifying and supporting recovery in patients with eating disorders. However, as a parent of someone affected, I must say that has not been my experience on the ground. Hospital admissions for eating disorders have surged, exceeding 30,000 for the first time in 2023-24, which is a 60% increase compared with pre-pandemic levels. While the NHS struggles to meet this growing demand, private equity firms are profiting from the crisis by owning many of the in-patient units the NHS depends on.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that his point highlights the urgent need for the Department to examine the influence of private equity in NHS in-patient mental health services? It is vital that private sector involvement complements the NHS’s mission to deliver high-quality patient-centred care and does not serve as a vehicle for profit-making at the expense of vulnerable patients.
Mr Quigley
My hon. Friend is entirely correct. Our experience of private equity is that it is selective in terms of the patients accepted. It profits from misery. We were put in the awful position of having to choose to send our youngest child to a hospital that had just seen the tragic death of Ruth Szymankiewicz—I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Ruth’s parents. Our second trip to a private equity-run hospital led to them forgetting to feed my daughter 11 times. My hon. Friend’s point is, unfortunately, well made.
More concerning still is that I do not believe that our approach to treatment is changing year on year to confront the heightened demand. If these admission increases were associated with a disease such as cancer, the treatment would quite rightly adapt. Our approach to mental health treatment, especially eating disorders, remains stagnant, outdated and alarmingly resistant to progress.
Another deeply concerning issue is how we respond when patients with severe anorexia refuse treatment and are subsequently diagnosed as terminally anorexic, a classification that holds precedent in UK Court of Protection rulings. In such cases, treatment may be withdrawn entirely, resulting in preventable deaths, such as that of a young patient known as BG who tragically died aged 19 in 2022. For those who may argue that treatment will be withdrawn only when a patient is terminally ill, I point to the case of Patricia, previously deemed untreatable by the Court of Protection, only to have the judgment overturned last month—August 2025. That reversal highlights not only the fallibility of such decisions but the danger in labelling eating disorder patients as beyond help.
We cannot ignore the fact that eating disorder deaths are most likely to occur due to suicide. Following an evidence session of the eating disorders all-party parliamentary group, one expert stated that their research found that anorexia sufferers are 18 times more likely and bulimia sufferers seven times more likely to die from suicide than the average patient, due to a combination of pre-existing and untreated mental health conditions, early discharge and the physical effects of eating disorder recovery triggering suicidal ideation. I do not wish to pre-empt the response from the Minister, who I know is keen to make improvements in this area, but I believe that eating disorders must be included in the suicide prevention strategy if we are to meaningfully tackle this worrying trend and stop patients from falling between the gaps in the already patchy world of child and adolescent mental health service provision.
The eating disorders APPG and campaigners from Dump the Scales are urgently calling for a confidential inquiry into avoidable deaths of eating disorder patients. Eating disorders are treatable illnesses. They are dangerous and life-threatening when untreated, under-treated or poorly treated. The risk to life is entirely preventable; deaths from eating disorders are not inevitable. With integrated, well-resourced and evidence-based treatment, recovery is possible, even in the most severe cases and after many years of suffering. Despite that, coroners, families and communities continue to see too many lives needlessly lost. That should not happen, and it does not need to be that way.
Although the facts I have set out today are difficult and harrowing, they must be heard. I also believe, however, that there are reasons to remain hopeful. I know at first hand that the Department, right up to the Secretary of State, is committed to improving outcomes and getting this right. As a Back Bencher, and more importantly as a father, I see it as my responsibility to push for this change to go further and faster.
Jade Botterill (Ossett and Denby Dale) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing such an important debate. I recently met a constituent who has been living with an eating disorder for years and who raised a number of important issues. She is fortunate to have a loving, supportive family but they often feel the system is impossible to navigate. Would my hon. Friend join me in encouraging the Minister to look at how the Government can support the families and loved ones of those living with an eating disorder, and to consider how care could be better structured to effectively treat the combined mental and physical effects of eating disorders in healthcare settings?
Mr Quigley
I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent intervention. I agree that this is a family-wide illness. We must reach the point where no one in the UK dies from an eating disorder, where every individual—man, woman, girl, boy—regardless of age, location or clinical classification has access to the support they need when they need it.
I want to finish with the story of a young woman called Zara. She was diagnosed with anorexia nervosa in May 2013 and was admitted to an eating disorder unit almost immediately. Instead of being good news for her recovery, that was when the nightmare began. From May 2013 to June 2021, Zara endured 13 in-patient admissions across seven different units, including three years as a continuous in-patient, nearly two of which she spent without leaving one of the units or going outside. With each admission, her eating disorder and mental health deteriorated further.
During that time Zara was restrained daily, often by a minimum of six people holding her down. She received very little therapy; instead there was a culture of patient blaming and shaming. In the last two years of her life, Zara was crying out for help but no one would listen. The eating disorder unit eventually discharged her completely, handing her over to the community mental health team. Her mum, who is with us today, spent nearly every day taking ligatures off her neck, lifting her down from a wardrobe when she was nearly unconscious, and performing CPR when she was found unresponsive in the shower.
Zara’s mum states there was little to no support from the community psychiatrist; her family were left to cope alone. No matter how much they pleaded for help, it was a constant battle and they never received the support Zara so desperately needed. Zara should never have died of this illness. There was a whole world out there for her and she had so much to give, but ultimately she felt everyone had given up on her. She was only 24 when she died, but she was exhausted and did not know any other way to keep going without support.
Unfortunately, Zara’s story is just one of many, and it is a story unfolding for countless others across the country. Behind these tragedies are systemic failures, often overlooked and hidden behind a lack of national data, questionable legal decision making and cost-saving agendas. In many parts of the UK, the treatments available to patients are not supported by evidence and can even be harmful, rather than providing integrated and evidence-based care. Underfunded services and poorly trained staff often leave high-risk patients institutionalised or without any meaningful or appropriate support. The system currently fails to listen to those who matter most—the patients, their families and supporters. Too often, it fosters a harmful culture of patient blaming rather than delivering compassionate, personalised care that supports recovery. We now know that eating disorders do not discriminate, and neither should our services.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
Order. There will be a formal time limit of one and a half minutes, and I will not be able to call everyone.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
I will be quick, in that case. I express my appreciation to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) for a very important speech; I am grateful to him. I particularly welcome the points made by him and the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) about the need for better understanding and collaboration in the system, and I echo his call for the national register of deaths to reflect deaths from eating disorders.
I pay tribute to the Cotswold House unit, run by the Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust in Marlborough in my constituency, which is a really important in-patient and out-patient unit working with adults. I echo the points, which I think are shared across the Chamber, about the value of NHS units as opposed to operations run by private equity companies, whose work I have real concerns about.
I want to add a couple of points to those made by hon. Members about the very legitimate campaigns of the organisations to which we are all indebted for their work. First, the point about early intervention has been made and I will not repeat it, but we clearly need to invest in more understanding both at GP level and among communities and families, and support people while they are still at home. Secondly, we must ensure we have a better and more adequate transition from children’s to adult services, which is a real issue I have come across in casework.
My final point is about the importance of step-down provision. It is not enough just to get people back to a healthy weight and then leave them to themselves; they need proper support for many months—
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) on securing this debate and—if he will permit me—on his strength and resilience as a parent.
There have already been many profoundly moving contributions, and I think everyone here understands that the care and support for those with eating disorders, and for their families, are not good enough. The average wait of three and a half years between onset and start of treatment is not acceptable. In the Government’s 10-year plan for the NHS, where we are delivering record investment and groundbreaking reform, we must ensure that eating disorder services are part of that agenda.
There are great services out there, leading the way in showing what change for patients could look like. I am fortunate to have one of those in my constituency. The ABBI eating disorder clinic in Altrincham is an outstanding facility offering specialist day care and intensive out-patient services. It is an alternative to far more costly in-patient care, and in practice it means that patients remain at home with their family support networks around them. That is what patients want and what their families want—and it is what works. Such services change lives and save lives, but they face huge issues with highly fragmented commissioning. This disjointed commissioning creates significant inefficiencies; we need a change in commissioning to ensure proper pathways for patients and early intervention.
In this debate, we must also look at what young people are exposed to online, with one in three adolescents saying that they have engaged in disordered eating behaviours due to social media content. I look forward to hearing the Minister set out in more detail the good work the Government have already done, and what we will be doing to build on that success to prevent tragic deaths caused by eating disorders.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I have been the chair of the eating disorders all-party parliamentary group for six years and, frustratingly, things have become worse, not better. We set up the APPG six years ago to make eating disorder services better. I had hoped this Government would finally confront the crisis in eating disorder services after years of Conservative neglect, but in the entire 10-year health plan eating disorders were not mentioned once—not a single word. Other mental health disorders were rightly highlighted, but the one with the highest mortality rate was overlooked.
Screening data from England shows that the proportion of adults with a likely eating disorder rose from around 6% in 2007 to 16% in 2019. This is a national emergency hiding in plain sight. In the APPG’s most recent report, “The Right to Health”, we highlighted significant barriers to accessing treatment: insufficient training for healthcare providers, fragmented care pathways and a lack of standardised data for research.
Each death caused by an eating disorder must read like one, yet death certificates routinely list organ failure, cardiac arrest and other conditions rather than the disorder that primarily contributed to the person’s death. By masking the true cause, we underestimate the scale of the crisis and fail to target lifesaving resources.
In the debate here in April on eating disorder awareness, the Minister for Care said that he did care. I hope that this is the one thing that the Minister will look at.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond.
I will keep this fairly brief. Many of the points I was going to raise have been mentioned, but I want to say that tackling this issue is not new, and contrast the challenges we now face under this Labour Government compared with the previous Labour Government.
I had the pleasure of working for Tessa Jowell, and I remember her telling me that as Culture Secretary one thing she focused on was banning size zero models from the catwalk at London Fashion Week, and the impact that that made on the promotion of unhealthy body images.
This week I have two students from Beckenham and Penge, Claudia and Arek, doing work experience with me, and they are here today. Speaking to them about the challenges that they and their generation face as sixth formers today, they mentioned the constant bombardment of images on social media and trends such as #SkinnyTok. Our previous Government did not have to face that, but we have to face it today.
It will be really interesting to hear from the Minister how he thinks we can, all of us, address the new emerging challenges for the new generation, where we see eating disorders and associated conditions at a record high, in no small way down to the prevalence now of social media and smartphones.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) on securing this vital debate.
As has been said, early intervention is vital—but sufferers and their families invariably face an overstretched and underfunded system, with services unable to meet demand and treatment offered far too late, if at all, while those who manage to get seen early on are not infrequently told, in effect, “Go away and come back when you are thinner.”
It is not only difficult to get help early on, but also, at that stage, to recognise there is a problem in the first place, as my wife and I know personally. One of our daughters, who has given me permission to tell her story, suffered with an eating disorder for many years. Neither my wife Samantha nor I recognised the early signs. By the time we realised, she was deep in the grip of this terrible disease. She did not want help, and actively and strenuously tried to refuse it.
Young people with eating disorders become adept at hiding them, and health education interventions can sometimes be counterproductive. My daughter told me that her PSHE—personal, social, health and economic education—lesson at school, which was supposed to educate pupils on the dangers of anorexia, was more like a how-to guide for the various means of hiding the condition from family and friends. That is why it is so important that parents, teachers and all those who work with children are better educated to be aware of potential warning signs. It is also a salutary riposte to those siren voices that, in other contexts, urge us always to accede to a child’s wishes.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I would like to draw on the time that I spent working at the brilliant Coventry and Warwickshire Partnership trust. That part of my career still has a huge impact on me and what I do in this place. In particular, I would like to focus on T1DE, or type 1 diabetes with disordered eating—a dangerous, often fatal condition that combines the comorbidities of type 1 diabetes with an eating disorder. Sufferers often stop insulin in order to lose weight, often coupled with well-known symptoms of disordered eating, such as obsession with nutritional information, binging and purging, and the use of laxatives. Consequences can be incredibly severe, including bone loss, blindness, amputations and even death.
The condition can sometimes be seen as niche, but actually 100,000 people in this country are sufferers of T1DE, including a staggering 40% of women and girls with type 1 diabetes. Because it sits at the intersection of physical and mental health, historically T1DE services just have not existed and many people have been bounced between different consultants. To their credit, the previous Government realised that and set up pilot sites for T1DE services, but, sadly, some of those closed last year. In response to calls from across the House, the Government extended the funding for the remaining pilots by 12 months, but now we once again face their closure in April 2026. I hope the Minister can give us some assurances on that, because T1DE specialist services are a literally matter of life and death for people suffering with this rare eating disorder.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) for securing this important debate. My constituent Katie is mother to a daughter who, at the age of 14, became unwell from anorexia in the aftermath of the covid pandemic. She identified the warning signs early, but when she sought help, early intervention was unavailable. She describes how her daughter was eventually admitted to a hospital, only to be put on a waiting list. Her health would crash, she would go back to another facility and of course the cycle continued. Katie described how her whole family now lives with the eating disorder. I hope that she will take some measure of comfort from the fact that her experiences and those of her family have been echoed so consistently across this House, but that also speaks to the prevalence of eating disorders. It is astonishing that there is no reference to or strategy on them at all in the Government’s 10-year health plan, and I hope that the Minister will put that right this afternoon.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) for securing today’s debate. I will focus my remarks on the more than 360,000 children and young people living with an eating disorder in England. What work is the Department undertaking to ensure that the access and waiting time standard for children and young people with eating disorders is being met? When does NHS England intend to publish its refreshed guidance on young people’s services?
I would also like to raise the case of my constituents Amy and Kester. Their six-year-old son has been diagnosed with ARFID, or avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder, a less known and understood eating disorder. They found that few healthcare professionals are aware of ARFID and, once they finally received the diagnosis, they discovered that there was no treatment pathway available in our area. While there is a specialist team at Addenbrooke’s hospital, referrals are only available for children aged eight and over, meaning that their son will not be able to access services for two years. More damage is still being done, so could the Minister set out what work is being done to open up further pathways and help to better understand ARFID?
On artificial intelligence, the Centre for Countering Digital Hate recently published a report in which a fictional 13-year-old girl was given instructions and material related to disordered eating by an AI chatbot. What work is taking place across Government to ensure that we are tackling the potential harm being done, and that young people are not being given misinformation by AI that will drive more eating disorders?
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) on securing this important debate.
Prior to entering this place, I worked in the charity sector for type 1 diabetes charity JDRF, as it was then. In the last Parliament, Theresa May and Sir George Howarth published an inquiry report into T1DE, or type 1 diabetes and disordered eating, which the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) outlined. Over the course of the summer recess I met with Dr Tony Winston at the Aspen Centre in Coventry. One of the key takeaways when it comes to diabetes and disordered eating and that complex condition is making sure that there are clear criteria. At the moment, as has already been outlined, as an eating disorder, T1DE falls through the net: it is referred to diabetes services, but often diabetes services try to refer it on to eating disorder services too. There is a bit of a gap in the net.
One of the key needs is integration of services between those two Departments. There must also be better collection, integration and use of data to prevent death before it occurs. People with T1DE have a three times higher chance of mortality, and we know that over 100,000 people are at risk of it. One of the key findings of the inquiry report that I helped to work on was the lack of education for healthcare professionals when it comes to identifying eating disorders, particularly in other areas and specialisms. Can the Minister comment on what his Department is doing to pick up that report and implement some of those recommendations?
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend and very good friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) for securing this important debate and for his tireless campaigning on the issue, which I know is close to his heart. It cannot be at all easy.
According to Beat, one in 50 people in the UK are living with an eating disorder. Among 17 to 19-year-olds, the figure rises to a staggering one in eight. These are not just statistics. Behind every single number is a person struggling with what is often the most difficult moment in their life; behind them are families and friends who are heartbroken as they watch their loved one deteriorate.
We hear about GPs who, through no fault of their own, have received minimal training on these disorders and have just 10 minutes with their patients to make life-altering decisions. We know the cost of delayed treatment: longer recoveries, deeper relapses and, in most cases, lost lives. That is why early support is so vital. In my constituency, Derby-based charity First Steps ED is leading the way, from delivering body image workshops in schools and across Derby and Derbyshire to its brilliant Scroll Safe campaign.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
I strongly endorse what my hon. Friend says. The majority of the people First Steps ED support are children and young people, but sadly demand is at a record high, outpacing the support available. I welcome the additional funding that the Government are giving to these services, but does my hon. Friend agree that ensuring early support for young patients is vital and cannot be left to charities alone?
Baggy Shanker
That is the point that I was just about to make. It is absolutely vital that Government support be available, because the charity sector alone cannot be left to provide that support and fill the gap. We need a national response that matches the scale of the challenge that we face.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to expanding community-based disorder services, but I urge the Minister to act swiftly. We know what works: early interventions, properly trained professionals and joined-up care that is close to home—a point that some hon. Members have made already. What we need now is urgency, because behind every delayed referral and every missed diagnosis is a life at risk.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) on securing the debate. In the short time that I have, I want to make three points about Northern Ireland.
Stats show that 22 individuals—20 women and two men—died from eating disorders in Northern Ireland between 2008 and 2018. Reports have highlighted that these deaths can often be connected to complications such as heart failure and organ damage, and are frequently misclassified on death certificates, so realistically the figure could be even higher.
Secondly, there has been rising demand for support for those with eating disorders. There is a higher prevalence of disorders today than 20 or 30 years ago, especially among young people. A youth wellbeing survey undertaken in Northern Ireland in 2019 showed that 16.2% of 11 to 19-year-olds exhibited signs of a disorder in eating—a much larger figure than in previous years.
Thirdly, the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action revealed that between 2017 and 2021, 26 people had to travel outside Northern Ireland for specialist care in relation to eating disorders. We must ensure that across this nation that is not the case, as it would leave us with prolonged recovery times, excess stress, anxiety and avoidable hospital admissions. Everyone is worthy of support, but we are simply not doing enough to make the recovery process as simple as it should be. I look to the Minister, as always, for his commitment to the country as a whole. I ask him to endeavour to ensure that treatment does not fall behind in different regions.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) for organising this important debate.
I come to this debate through my work with the all-party parliamentary group on suicide and self-harm prevention. There is a clear link with eating disorders, which has been drawn to my attention by the charity Eating Distress North East. Up to a third of people with eating disorders have made suicide attempts, and they are 18 times more likely to die by suicide. Measures to prevent this are really important and must be a priority. The suicide prevention strategy does highlight the need to tackle issues for eating disorders, but I know that lots of organisations in the field would like to see more done in that area.
I want to talk about the role of online harms, which are really problematic. Attention has been drawn to particular sites, and I know that the Government will want to work with Ofcom to make regulations effective for these people, but it is also about the impact of less harmful content. We need greater agency for people to control what they see. Saying that they are not interested is not sufficient. AI, of course, presents new issues.
Eating disorders are devastating and on the rise. Eating Distress North East recorded 78% more referrals in 2024-25—
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
Order. I call the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is a honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) for securing this important debate, but also for very bravely and emotively discussing his personal experience.
Those of us in this Chamber who have had relatives suffering from these disorders know that it can be so frustrating when someone does not appear to want to help themselves. It causes a huge amount of stress for the family and for the carers who are looking after them. We know that eating disorders kill more people than any other mental health condition. Those who do recover have been robbed of years of life: they have missed their adolescence and have had their school and social life affected. That can have ongoing effects for the rest of their life.
I am reminded of several people I spoke to while knocking on doors in Winchester. Securing mental health care for children seems to be one of the top issues with which people are struggling. In particular, I remember two different mothers saying that they had been told that their daughters, who were suffering from eating disorders, had to reach a lower BMI before they qualified for treatment. We know that that means having to be sicker for longer, so not only is a successful outcome less likely, but it will require longer and more intensive treatment and will be more expensive for the NHS. As the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) highlighted, with the benefit of his expertise, it is more cost-effective to have early intervention than to treat people once they have been sick for a long period.
The Minister and the Opposition spokesperson both served with me on the Public Bill Committee on the Mental Health Bill. It was a conciliatory piece of legislation with cross-party support; there was genuine intention and passion on all sides to improve mental health in the UK. The disjointed provision of mental health care, especially for eating disorders, was one reason why I tabled an amendment to review how services for eating disorders are delivered. I will never forget a consultant psychiatrist coming to my surgery. He said that he was trying to get mental health care for his own child; it was not specifically about eating disorders, but he was struggling to navigate the system. He said, “If I, as a consultant psychiatrist, am struggling to navigate the system to get healthcare for my own child, what hope does anyone else have?” It is a very confusing situation.
There are plenty of other elements of this topic that are a real cause of concern. I will not repeat what everyone else has said, but I am really concerned that eating disorders are increasing, with hospital numbers doubling in a decade, and yet 24 of the nation’s 42 NHS integrated care boards are due to reduce their spending on under-18s in 2024-25, once inflation is taken into account. It is a really difficult situation: there will be increased pressure and less real-time resource to deliver.
We must all remember that although they are very serious, eating disorders are treatable. No one should be condemned to suffer for years on end because they cannot access treatment. We must all be committed to tackling damaging stigma. We must take an evidence-based approach to preventing eating disorders, which are hugely multifactorial. The factors are often non-clinical; social media has been mentioned already.
Eating disorders are the mental health crisis hiding in plain sight. They carry the highest mortality rate of any psychiatric illness, yet services are being cut, waiting time standards have been abandoned and young people are being left to deteriorate before help arrives. Early intervention saves lives, and we must be bold and move heaven and earth to deliver it. We must reinstate waiting time targets, protect funding and build a properly resourced national strategy so that no child or family is left trying to fight this illness alone.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) said that he wants to push for change, and he is a tremendous advocate for doing exactly that. We are six months on from a very similar debate on eating disorders. The fact that so many Members across the parties are here to support the debate shows the strength of feeling.
In the short time that I have, I will not repeat everything that I said last time. Following the debate in April, I wrote to the Government to find out more and ask some questions. I received a letter from Baroness Merron on 12 June. The first question I had asked was whether the Government had a plan for eating disorders. The reply stated:
“The Department has no current plans to create an eating disorder strategy”.
It went on to say:
“NHS England is currently refreshing guidance on children and young people's eating disorders. The refreshed guidance will highlight the importance of awareness and early recognition of eating disorders within schools, colleges, primary care, and broader children and young people’s mental health services.”
I hope that the Minister can provide us with an update on when that updated guidance will be brought forward.
Back in April, I also posed the question whether the Government would be open to having a cross-party meeting or roundtable with experts in APPGs. I have not yet had a response to that question, either in a debate or in the letter that I received, but I think it would go a long way towards helping to explore this issue in a way that would make a difference.
In the previous debate, the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) raised an issue around the recording of death. She said:
“Accurate recording will raise awareness and ultimately save lives.”—[Official Report, 1 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 30WH.]
The Minister responded:
“I share the concern of the hon. Member for Bath about accurate recording of deaths to understand the extent to which eating disorders and other factors have caused or contributed to deaths. This matter is being explored with the national medical examiner for England and Wales, the Office for National Statistics and the Coroners’ Society of England and Wales.”
Can he provide an update on where that has got to and what the outcome is?
Back in April, the Minister also gave us great expectations about the 10-year health plan:
“Through the 10-year health plan, this Government will overhaul the NHS and ensure that those with mental health needs, including those living with eating disorders, are given the support that they need.”—[Official Report, 1 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 49WH.]
He also said:
“Raising awareness of eating disorders and improving treatment services is a key priority for the Government, and a vital part of our work to improve mental health services.”—[Official Report, 1 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 47WH.]
I will be grateful if the Minister can respond to the Beat CEO, who has said:
“We’re very disappointed to see that mental health hasn’t been consistently highlighted as a priority throughout the Government’s 10 Year Health Plan, and that there are no specific commitments on eating disorders.”
That is a concern—not as a party political point, but because people who are suffering can now see it written that there is no strategy, and it is not mentioned in the 10-year health plan. I will be grateful if the Minister can alleviate the concerns about whether this issue is truly a priority.
Finally, one of the big plays that the Government have made is changing integrated care boards. In the last debate, the Minister said:
“The Government’s view is that ICBs are best placed to make decisions as close as possible to the communities that they serve and to target and, if necessary, reallocate funding accordingly.”—[Official Report, 1 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 47WH.]
The changes brought forward by this Government have seen a reduction in staffing of 50% in many ICBs. Are the Government concerned? Has any analysis been done of whether there will be an impact on commissioning in respect of eating disorders, given the severity that has been highlighted across the Chamber?
It is often said that treatment is about progress, not perfection. I guess that much the same could be said about formulating policy as we deal with the rising number of people with eating disorders. To that end, I hope that the Government will take these questions as part of the process, helping to highlight this area in which we all want to see progress as the Minister brings his policies to bear on this country.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) on securing today’s debate and speaking so bravely and movingly about his family. I pay tribute to his work in the all-party parliamentary group on eating disorders, and I know that he and many other hon. Members present have worked tirelessly to advocate for those with eating disorders.
Every death from an eating disorder is a tragedy. We have heard from hon. Members about the devastating effect of these conditions, both for patients and their loved ones. But we must be clear that eating disorders are not terminal illnesses. With the right treatment and support, recovery is possible. Many across the Chamber have made that point, and I pay tribute to everyone who has contributed so powerfully. I also congratulate Arek and Claudia, who I know made outstanding contributions to drafting the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon).
Through the 10-year health plan, the Government will ensure that those living with eating disorders are given the support they need. We will cut waiting times and ensure that people can access treatment and support earlier. Improving eating disorder services is a priority for the Government, and a fundamental part of our work to transform mental health services. Last financial year, we provided £106 million in funding for children’s eating disorder services, an increase of £10 million since 2023-24. That increase in funding is helping our clinicians to support more people, and to change and save lives.
Tom Gordon
One of the great organisations that does a lot of work on the accountability of services, including eating disorder services, is Healthwatch. We know that these organisations are going to be scrapped. They have done loads of valuable work at local and regional levels. What levels of accountability will the new systems put in place for eating disorder services?
Stephen Kinnock
I agree that Healthwatch did some important work, but what we are doing is changing the culture of how our NHS works. As the hon. Gentleman will have seen, we are abolishing NHS England. That is of a piece with our belief that proper leadership, proper accountability and proper management of a complex system such as our NHS, and particularly its interaction with ICBs and trusts, is about having a clear line of accountability from the Secretary of State through Ministers into the system and those operating at the coalface. We believe that if more layers are put between, and cut across, those lines of accountability, that does not actually drive better outcomes—it drives poorer performance. That is the approach we are taking to the entire system.
Wera Hobhouse
As I said, I have been the chair of the APPG for six years, and nothing has changed and got better. I really trust that this Government will make a difference—I hope they will. This is about culture change, but eating disorders are a very complex illness. The APPG has therefore called repeatedly for a dedicated strategy on eating disorders. Will the Minister please look at that?
Stephen Kinnock
I will come on to talk about the guidance that is being produced. There is a risk that we can end up with a proliferation of documents, strategies and plans. Our view is that the more streamlined we are and the clearer the lines of accountability, the better the performance becomes. We are committed to the guidance, and I will talk a bit about that, but we are not convinced that having strategies alongside guidance, plans and other documents will help the process.
Members here will be well aware of the increase in the prevalence of mental health conditions, including eating disorders, since the pandemic. The increase in demand has placed significant pressure on services, but the extra funding is making a difference. The latest quarterly figures from NHS mental health services monthly statistics show that, between April and June 2025, 3,138 children successfully entered treatment in community eating disorder services. That is the highest figure on record since NHS England began collecting this data in 2021.
At the same time, waiting lists to begin routine eating disorder treatment have shortened by 20% from the year before. NHS England has also commissioned the Royal College of Psychiatrists to carry out a national audit of eating disorders. That audit is collecting data on eating disorders across community and in-patient settings to drive improvements in the identification and treatment of eating disorders. The audit will monitor how services are performing against standards, and highlight any inequalities in access to care. That will help services to provide safe, effective, patient-centred, timely, efficient and equitable care.
In addition to improved services for the treatment of eating disorders, we are also working to tackle their underlying causes. In particular, we are deeply concerned about harmful online content that promotes negative body image, harmful eating behaviours, suicide or self-harm to those who are most vulnerable. The Online Safety Act 2023 has now come into force and delivers on our commitment to make the United Kingdom the safest place to be online. By now, all sites with a significant user base in this country are required to have conducted children’s access and risk assessments, and to follow the new children’s safety codes to prevent them from accessing harmful content, such as promotion of eating disorders. Ofcom now has the ability to investigate or carry out enforcement action against any site that will not abide by those codes.
Hon. Members today have raised the need for early intervention to lower the numbers of hospital admissions from eating disorders. We know that the earlier the treatment is provided, the better the chance of recovery, and we are committed to ensuring that everyone with an eating disorder can access specialist help. As part of our mission to build an NHS that is fit for the future, there is a critical need to shift the treatment of eating disorders from hospital to community, including children’s community eating disorder services, crisis care services and intensive day-hospital or home-treatment services. Improved care in the community will give young people early access to evidence-based treatment involving families and carers, thereby improving outcomes and preventing relapse. By preventing eating disorders from progressing into adulthood, we will build on our aim of raising the healthiest generation of children.
We have also committed to expanding mental health support teams to reach full coverage in England. To date, we have expanded MHSTs to 52% of pupils; they are working hard in schools to support staff and students alike in meeting the mental health needs of children.
Dr Luke Evans
I thank the Minister for giving way. I am pleased that his Government have continued the roll-out, because we share the aim of trying to deal with this early. On that point, there was mention of the updated guidance, and clearly these hubs are going to need that guidance if it is updated. Will he set out when that guidance will be brought forward?
Stephen Kinnock
I absolutely will; that is just coming up in my comments. I am not sure that the shadow Minister will be satisfied with the answer, but I will refer precisely to the question that he is asking.
The MHSTs will continue to provide assistance to school staff in raising staff understanding, recognition and awareness of eating disorders, ensuring that they can provide crucial early intervention for children at risk.
Early intervention is also a priority for adults with eating disorders, as set out in the NHS’s adult community mental health framework. NHS England has established 15 provider collaboratives focusing on adult eating disorders. Those collaboratives are working to redesign care pathways and focus resources on community services. By providing treatment earlier and closer to home, we will see better outcomes for adults with eating disorders and their families.
Turning to the guidance, which a number of hon. Members, including the shadow Minister, have raised, we are producing updated guidance to help services to implement those transformations. NHS England first published guidance in 2019 for adult eating disorder services to ensure that they are integrated with day-patient services or in-patient care. A new service specification for adult eating disorder in-patient provision has been through a public consultation and will progress to publication this year. So I can guarantee that it will be published before 1 January, but I cannot give the shadow Minister a precise date.
Stephen Kinnock
Can I come back to the hon. Gentleman on that? I will double-check. My understanding was that this was for both. My notes do say “for adult eating disorder services”, but my understanding was that this was a holistic process that would include children and schools. I will come back to him to confirm that point, so apologies if that is not entirely clear. Actually, I am sorry—it is next in my comments. NHS England is also producing updated national guidance for eating disorders in children and young people. That will reflect the full range of eating disorders in children and young people, and the treatment options available to CYP and their families to address them. It will focus on early identification and intervention, community treatment and support, and it will highlight the importance of integrating schools, colleges and primary care to improve support. Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, he will have noted, as I have, that there is no specific date for that, so I will come back to him on that. The adult one will be before 1 January.
I would like to address the very serious concerns that have been raised about reports of people with eating disorders being offered end-of-life care. Let me be absolutely clear: these reports are deeply troubling, and I acknowledge the distress that they will have caused to families and all those affected by eating disorders. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has been crystal clear that eating disorders are not terminal illnesses. It has updated its guidance to re-emphasise that important point, so that no person, nor their loved ones, should ever feel that treatment has reached a point of no return.
NHS England is clear that all those with severe, complex or long-standing eating disorders should have access to eating disorder services, including hospital care when needed. A personal recovery model, with a focus on harm minimisation, symptom management and quality of life, is well established in providing hope and opportunities for recovery for many people with eating disorders. English law provides a robust framework for safeguarding a patient’s best interests.
I assure hon. Members that we take these concerns very seriously. We will continue to work with clinicians, NHS England and families to ensure that the highest standards of care are upheld, and that every person is given hope and support in their recovery.
Hon. Members have raised how those with eating disorders are disproportionately at risk of self-harm or suicide. The national suicide prevention strategy has highlighted the increased risk, and is committed to working with policy, clinical and personal experience experts to explore bespoke suicide prevention activity when needed. Specialists in eating disorders must ensure that they take a holistic approach to eating disorder treatment, and ensure that they are not likely to inadvertently increase the risk of suicide.
Several hon. Members, as well as the APPG report published in January this year, have raised the creation of a national register for eating disorder deaths, and the holding of a confidential inquiry into all eating disorder deaths. I reassure colleagues that the Department of Health and Social Care is wholeheartedly committed to learning from deaths, in order to prevent future tragedies and to improve quality of care.
The Department receives and responds to prevention of future deaths—PFD—notices relating to eating disorders, and it uses that work to inform practice going forward. For example, the medical emergencies in eating disorders—MEED—guidance was created following a coroner’s report and has since been rolled out nationwide. This Government are determined to focus funding directly to frontline services, in order to best support those currently struggling with this deadly illness.
Similarly, we share the concerns that have been raised about eating disorder deaths not being accurately recorded. It is vital that the extent to which eating disorders have caused or contributed to deaths is properly known. That matter is currently being explored with the national medical examiner for England and Wales, the Office for National Statistics and the Coroners’ Society of England and Wales.
To draw my remarks to a close, I would like to thank all the hon. Members here today. The fact that the debate was so well attended reflects how important the issue is to all of us and our constituents. The service that we provide can often be a matter of life and death. We are all very conscious of the gravity of the responsibility that we hold in that context. I thank all those in attendance for advocating for their constituents and all those across the country who have been affected by an eating disorder.
Mr Quigley
I thank the Minister for his response and all hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions. It has been truly heartening. This is the main message I hope to leave today: one death from any eating disorder is one too many. These deaths are not inevitable; they are preventable, yet far too many lives have already been lost, and far too many people continue to suffer needlessly.
I am pleased that the Minister and the Department have committed forcefully to improving the area, and to working with members of the APPG and me. We look forward to launching our report, at the end of October, on preventing eating disorder deaths. I hope to see many of my colleagues there when we do.
Lastly, I pay tribute to Zara’s mum, to Debs and cousin Tricia, and to all the parents fighting for the wellbeing of their children.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of the prevention of deaths from eating disorders.