Preterm Birth Committee Report

Baroness Sugg Excerpts

Friday 6th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

My Lords, when the House of Lords Preterm Birth Committee released its report in November last year, it was an important contribution to our national conversation about preterm birth. It brought overdue attention to a complex but urgent challenge that affects over 45,000 babies born prematurely in England each year.

As the report highlighted, while many premature babies go on to thrive, the reality is that preterm birth remains the leading cause of neonatal mortality and morbidity in the UK. It is also a contributor to long-term disability, childhood illness and immense emotional and financial strain on families. The report highlights the importance of action across this area.

In 2015, the then Government set an ambition to reduce the preterm birth rate to 6% by 2025. As we have heard, the most recent figures show that it is still hovering around 7.9% in England: that target will not be met. This is a failure not of will but of equitable access, resources, infrastructure and consistency.

We now look to the Government’s upcoming 10-year health plan as a real chance to change course. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has joined others, including the charity Bliss and the Inequalities in Health Alliance, in calling for clear, detailed and funded targets that address not only the rate of preterm birth but the inequalities that shape it. As we have heard from other noble Lords, rates remain highest among black and Asian babies and among families from deprived communities. These disparities are not inevitable; they are the result of systemic inequalities that we must confront directly. Like others, I am very interested to hear from the Minister where the Government have got in their consideration of future ambition.

The Preterm Birth Committee was absolutely right to stress that reducing the preterm birth rate is only part of the story; we must also improve the outcomes for families experiencing it. Too often preterm birth happens very suddenly, without warning or identifiable risk factors. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, in his comprehensive introduction to the debate, highlighted that parents can spend weeks or months in neonatal units, often in hospitals far from home, with limited accommodation, scarce emotional support and inconsistent follow-up after discharge.

The committee’s call to improve postnatal assessments and invest in accommodation on neonatal units is a powerful ask. The Government’s commitment in their response to the report to review funding in the next spending review is very welcome, but timelines and delivery are, again, key here. That is also true of our maternity workforce. Without adequate staffing and support, even the best-intentioned policies will fall short. As the Royal College of Midwives highlighted in its briefing, we need workforce planning to be much more joined-up. My noble friend Lady Seccombe highlighted the crucial role that midwives play. We need more midwives; therefore, we need to train more midwives, as well as retaining the existing ones, and we need to make sure that they are employed when they qualify. The revised NHS workforce plan, due this summer, should specifically address midwifery. Like my noble friend Lady Penn and others, I ask the Minister to confirm in her response that midwifery will be explicitly addressed.

We must also recognise that maternity safety does not begin and end in the labour ward. A life-course approach to women’s health that includes pre-conception counselling, support for mental health, smoking cessation and access to reproductive services is essential. Nearly one in five preterm births in England can be linked to socioeconomic inequality and, again, if we are serious about that prevention, we need a cross-government strategy that really tackles the root causes of poor maternal health. I welcome the Government’s commitment to revise the national maternity safety ambition and to include disparities in preterm birth rates among their priorities. As the RCOG president, Dr Ranee Thakar, said earlier this year, we need timelines, funding and accountability.

Looking outside the NHS to how employers can help on preterm birth, I welcome the implementation of the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act and acknowledge my noble friend Lady Wyld’s important role in taking it through this place. But we should also look to employers to do more to support their employees dealing with preterm births. They can do so more effectively by adopting compassionate, flexible and proactive HR and workplace policies. They can do this through enhanced parental leave—offering extended paid maternity and paternity leave in cases of preterm birth, starting from the actual birth date rather than the expected due date—and, through improved flexibility with remote working, phased returns to work, and improved emergency and compassionate leave policies. There are many excellent examples of best practice here, and I hope the Minister will discuss this further with her colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade.

I thank my noble friend Lady Bertin for proposing this report, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who has obviously been an excellent chair, and all the members of the Preterm Birth Committee, many of whom have made powerful speeches today. The Preterm Birth Committee has laid out a blueprint for change and, if we act on all its recommendations and align that ambition with delivery, we can make meaningful progress not just in reducing preterm births but in transforming how we care for women and families at every stage of their life.

NHS England Update

Baroness Sugg Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

That will be declared in due course, once the work has been completed.

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

My Lords, I spent yesterday morning at the women’s health department in Mile End hospital—I know the Minister is a great champion, and I highly recommend a visit. What will the NHS England update mean for the women’s health strategy, and, specifically, for NHS England’s commitment to eliminating cervical cancer by 2040?

Women’s Health Strategy

Baroness Sugg Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

We are not closing women’s health hubs—it is important to put that on record. I have already said how successful the pilot has been; it therefore does not require a further target. I hope that noble Lords have seen that the changes to the planning guidance move away from the old centralised operating model to give more control and direction locally. As I said, the decision not to mandate women’s health hubs reflects a new approach to the guidance: fewer national directives and more empowerment of local leaders. Women’s health hubs are also described in the elective reform plan, which is one example of another area where their importance is recognised and boosted.

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will know that women’s health hubs are vital in reducing gynaecological waiting lists. We have seen that through their success in areas such as Birmingham, Tower Hamlets and Liverpool. I hear what the Minister has been saying, but there is strong concern from the sector that many of the existing hubs are in their infancy or are not yet operational. They will not progress unless there is operational guidance for the NHS or formal commitment to them from the Government. With their removal from the planning guidance, what actions is the Minister taking to ensure that every ICB has a women’s hub? Given what she said about local decision-making, what steps are being taken to make sure that we learn from the success of the highest-performing hubs and share it with others?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

We continue to learn from the best. I am committed to speaking with the leadership of ICBs about the importance of women’s health hubs, not least because it is about improving women’s healthcare. Having visited a women’s health hub myself, I can testify to the points that the noble Baronesses have made. However, I gently repeat that we need to look not just in the planning guidance but in the elective reform plan, which states about the NHS that:

“In gynaecology we will support … innovative models offering patients care closer to home”.


That is exemplified by the women’s health hub. The Neighbourhood Health Guidelines, published just last week, include women’s health hubs as an example of a neighbourhood health model.

HIV Care: Access

Baroness Sugg Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

Yes, we will be looking at all the work currently going on and at the successes—and there are many. I believe that my noble friend is referring to Fast-Track Cities, an international initiative involving cities tackling HIV through a multidisciplinary, multi- sectoral approach. There are 13 signatory cities in the UK, and all are beacons of good practice that we must learn from, including in order to find out what is not working. I also want to emphasise peer support, which has been shown to reduce self-stigma, but also to improve engagement in care and the taking of treatment, and to having low levels of virus. This area will obviously very much feature in the new strategy.

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

My Lords, looking at HIV internationally, the UK has long been a proud supporter of the Global Fund. In 2022 alone the Global Fund reached over 15 million people with HIV prevention services, including 710,000 HIV-positive mothers, who received medication to keep themselves alive and to prevent transmission of HIV to their babies. Will the Government commit to continuing to support the Global Fund?

Vaginal Mesh Implants: Compensation

Baroness Sugg Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for her significant work on highlighting the issues around vaginal mesh implants that have impacted at least 10,000 women, probably many more, and for her continued efforts to make some progress, in particular in tabling this Question for Short Debate. The evidence that your Lordships will have seen of women reporting severe complications from mesh implants, including chronic pain, infections, organ perforation and, in some cases, permanent disability, underlines how crucial it was that her work led to the pause on the use of vaginally inserted surgical mesh in 2018.

As my noble friend has set out, establishing a compensation scheme for women affected was recommended by her independent review First Do No Harm in 2020 and that was echoed by the Patient Safety Commissioner, Dr Henrietta Hughes, in her report in February this year. It has been a long-running concern and all the while many women are continuing to suffer the consequences of this treatment. I welcome the positive steps that were made by the previous Government, including the appointment of a Patient Safety Commissioner, but there remain many issues that, sadly, they were not able to resolve. I know that the Minister, as Minister for Patient Safety, Women’s Health and Mental Health, must have an overflowing in-tray, but I look forward to her response today in the hope that we will hear clear plans for progress.

As we heard, following a group claim, the financial settlement in August from three manufacturers of mesh implants was welcome news, but there is a clear argument that more needs to be done. Compensation is a tangible way to acknowledge the suffering of women and provide the support that they need to continue to live their lives. While that case in August was a success, and some women have pursued legal action individually, these cases have often been long, costly and emotionally draining. Many women do not have the financial resources or the legal knowledge to take on large medical corporations or hospitals.

In my research I was pleased to see that information on compensation was readily available on the NHS website, but it is clear that the existing approach is inconsistent and fragmented. Hundreds of women were prevented from making a claim due to the strict 10-year time limit that is in force from the date that the product was manufactured. I hope that the Government will consider looking at that. A national government-backed compensation fund would ensure a uniform and fair approach to dealing with claims, ensuring that all affected women have a fair chance of receiving the financial redress that they deserve without being forced into these lengthy legal battles.

I appreciate the complexities and the expense here and, of course, the importance of spending limited resources on improving health services. There are options for how compensation can be delivered and how it can be funded, and I know that other noble Lords will address that. Of course, financial compensation should go hand in hand with strengthening the regulation of medical devices and improving patient safety.

I pay tribute to the campaigners who have worked so hard to highlight this treatment over the years—the individuals, the women’s health organisations, and in particular the campaign group Sling The Mesh. I know that this work can be frustrating, exhausting and often thankless, but thanks to them, this issue, which can sometimes be seen as taboo, has been highlighted. We have seen some progress and will continue to push for more and I hope that they realise the difference that they are making.

In addition to the compensation scheme, Sling The Mesh is calling for a number of actions, from raising awareness of implant risk to tougher approval systems, regulations and oversight to protect public safety. In her response, I hope the Minister will also find time to comment on its calls for better databases to track the long-term harm of medical devices, which would help spot trends of harm, and for a sunshine payment Bill to improve transparency in the UK health sector by ensuring that the pharmaceutical and medical device industries declare all the money given to doctors, researchers, lobby groups, health charities, surgeon societies and teaching hospitals. That is not to stop that money being invested, just to be clear and transparent about what is happening.

I support my noble friend Lady Cumberlege’s call for action on implementing the recommendations in her First Do No Harm report and the more recent Hughes report. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Black, Asian and Minority-Ethnic Women: Maternal Mortality Rates

Baroness Sugg Excerpts

Monday 29th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is quite right to draw the House’s attention to the important matter of sickle cell. We look to specialist midwives to assist us in this. I have been asked for a particular assurance and it is correct that the noble Baroness seeks that. I shall be pleased to look into it to be able to come back to her in much greater detail.

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

My Lords, the previous Government introduced the first ever UK women’s health ambassador, who can help to co-ordinate the complex changes that are needed to reduce the mortality rate for black, Asian and minority-ethnic women and their babies. Can the Minister commit to continuing to support the ambassador’s work?