Sudden Unexpected Death in Childhood

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Andy MacNae]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which again focuses on the need for co-ordination in the effort to meet the scale of this challenge.

One of the most compelling issues requiring investigation is the association between SUDC and febrile seizures. National and international data show that 30% of SUDC cases involve a history of febrile seizures—10 times higher than in the general population. Frankie Grogan had 12 seizures before he died, but he was never reviewed by a specialist. At this point, it is really important to stress that febrile seizures are very common and SUDC is rare, but the persistence of this correlation—known before the last debate—demands investigation. A national plan must accelerate understanding of the link and determine whether children who have repeated febrile seizures, or a particular subset of affected children, need different pathways of care.

We must also improve public information. Information for families is inconsistent and, at times, invisible. Leaflets on febrile seizures vary significantly across NHS trusts; some fail to mention that seizures can occur during sleep or that monitoring options exist. SUDC itself—including the 60% of cases with no seizure history—is missing from the NHS website. After the 2023 debate, a token reference was added to the SIDS page, but then removed. Imagine a family receiving a post-mortem conclusion of SUDC but finding nothing when they search the NHS website. That is clearly unacceptable, but something that the Government can easily fix.

There has been welcome progress in other areas. The national child mortality database is a world-leading resource. Since the previous debate, the NCMD has created SUDC-specific forms and launched pathways for genomics and cardiac screening. SUDC UK, a charity founded only in 2017, has helped to ensure that families have access to whole genome sequencing through the R441 pathway. That advocacy was born out of what Nikki Speed, chief executive of SUDC UK, describes as the “paralysing fear” that she and many families carry every day. She explained to me that for years after her loss, she got little sleep, because she was constantly having to have a hand on her surviving children to be sure they were alive and well.

That fear leads families to delay trying for another child, even though a new life could be a source of hope and healing amid loss. It is completely rational for a parent to fear, if one of their seemingly healthy children has died without explanation, that their other seemingly healthy children could also be at risk. That is why genomic and cardiac screening is so important: it not only informs research but protects surviving siblings. For some families, genetic analysis has revealed risks requiring vital preventive treatment, yet those crucial tests are currently available only after the post-mortem process concludes, which brings me to the next point.

Paediatric pathology is in crisis, as summarised in a recent report by the Royal College of Pathologists. Families experiencing SUDC routinely wait nine to 12 months, or sometimes longer, for a post-mortem conclusion. During that time, they live in fear—fear for their surviving children, fear of future pregnancies, fear of the unknown. Their grief is suspended and their lives are on hold. Only after that traumatic wait can they finally access genomic testing or cardiac screening to safeguard their children.

After speaking with Brian and with Nikki, I would like to outline the typical timeline for a family affected by SUDC. Your child is fine. Then they die, leaving you traumatised and in shock. The child is taken away from you, and you have no control over what is happening. The ensuing process is statutory, but the response is based on evidence from infant death and so is suboptimal. After scary interactions with the police and in deep shock, you return home to deafening silence or to the child’s siblings, to whom you must tell the very worst news. Then you wait. You do not wait one week or two. You do not wait a month or even six. You most likely wait nine to 12 months. If the pathology is complex, you wait even longer. Throughout the whole wait, you are scared for your other children and scared to get pregnant again. You put your life and your grief on hold. Only then, often about a year later, do you receive the post-mortem report. You have been desperately waiting for this moment, but now it is here it brings back all the trauma of losing your child, and only now are you eligible to see whether anything hereditary is putting other family members at risk.

This is inhumane. When we lost our daughter, we had the answers right away, yet the trauma is still with us. I cannot fathom what it would be like to sit in deafening silence for months, and the long-term damage that that could do. This must change. A national plan should establish faster pathways for cases in which timely information directly affects vulnerable bereaved families and child safety.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The hon. Member is certainly making a very powerful speech on this issue. On 7 January 2024, Teddy Jason Williamson, aged just seven weeks and from my constituency, died of sudden infant death syndrome. Does the hon. Member agree that more practical support is required? Yes, we need research, but we also need there to be practical support: bereavement nurses, dedicated suites in hospitals, and counselling support post the death of the child.

[Andy MacNae]

Yes. I will touch on that in a moment. It is part of a wider picture of bereavement support and bereavement pathways nationally. From baby or infant loss to unexplained death in childhood, bereavement services are patchy and in many cases far below the standards that we need to see. We need to make that service universal.

Let us move on to another cause of trauma: child death investigations. This issue is wider than SUDC but has profound impacts. Current national guidelines—the statutory guidance and joint agency guidelines—are built on historical evidence from infant deaths and have not been updated since the new pathways for genetics and cardiology were launched. That is important as it may affect inequity of care and access to these important tests. Guidelines should be updated to reflect new evidence and current pathology timeframes, and any consultation on those updates should include charities such as SUDC UK, which supports families of children up to 18 years old.

From investigation to family support, NCMD data tells us that 30% of all child deaths are sudden and unexpected, and a fifth of families leave A&E with no understanding of why their child has died. While consistency has improved since the last debate, the quality of bereavement support remains deeply uneven, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) has raised. Families affected by SUDC often experience complicated grief with severe and long-lasting consequences for parents and siblings, and this requires specialist support. The NIHR-funded Quintet project and the wider strategic partnership for sudden child death will soon provide evidence-based recommendations for supporting those families. These should be incorporated into a national plan.

To conclude, what is lacking is not expertise nor compassion; rather, it is co-ordination and leadership. I am calling for a Government-led national plan for sudden unexplained death in childhood. That would turn the issues that I have raised into strategic objectives with clear timelines, milestones and measurable outcomes. It should be developed alongside families, clinicians and researchers, and report back to Parliament every two years. Such a plan would send a powerful message: these children matter, their deaths are not footnotes, and unexplained does not mean unimportant. My thanks to Brian Topping, Nikki Speed, the courageous families here today and all those who have worked tirelessly for progress and understanding. I hope that this debate can play a part in delivering that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for raising this issue and pay tribute to him for his bravery in exposing his own devastating grief at the loss of his precious daughter to try to bring about the change in research and support that is so desperately needed.

This is an incredibly difficult subject; indeed, it is often whispered about, if it is spoken of at all. SUDC is a tragedy that strikes without warning, leaving families across our communities in a state of profound, unanswered grief. Over the years, I have met too many families whose joy has gone, and my heart aches for them as well.

In Northern Ireland, we pride ourselves on our close-knit communities, our resilience and our ability to respond to things in a family way. However, when a family faces SUDC, that resilience is tested by the unique pain caused by having no answers. Unlike sudden infant death syndrome, which affects babies under one year old, SUDC claims the lives of children aged from one to 18.

I will look at the reality at home and, as I always do, give a Northern Ireland perspective. According to recent data from the Lullaby Trust, although the number of children who die is small, the impact is immeasurable and is felt not only by the parents and siblings but by the extended family, in schools and churches, and throughout the community. When that stone hits the water, the ripples go far.

In 2023, 16 unexpected deaths of babies and young children were recorded in Northern Ireland. While thorough investigations may eventually find explanations for many of those, those that remain unexplained leave a permanent void. Northern Ireland has historically seen the highest infant mortality rate in the United Kingdom, and it is currently at 4.2 deaths per 1,000 live births. The trends are quite worrying. Although SUDC is distinct from infant mortality, those figures highlight the broader, urgent need to prioritise child health and research in Northern Ireland.

For children aged one to four, SUDC is one of the leading causes of death across the United Kingdom, often ranking higher than traffic accidents or fire, yet it remains one of the most under-recognised medical tragedies of our time. When we ask the Minister for help, that is what we are asking about.

[Carla Lockhart]

Will my hon. Friend join me in commending Dr Julie Rankin, a consultant in emergency medicine, who has been instrumental in working with the Williamson family from my constituency to create a bereavement suite in Craigavon Area hospital in memory of those little children who have died suddenly in unexplained circumstances? As we speak today, they are actually at a research event at Queen’s University Belfast, which demonstrates that Northern Ireland is advancing these things for families who are impacted.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She and I, and probably everyone else in the Chamber, would recognise the importance of parents having someone there to comfort them when such an awful tragedy takes place, and it is vital that my hon. Friend underlined that. One of my three asks of the Minister—which I will come to shortly—will be for research, and Queen’s University is to the fore on that.

For a child aged one to four, SUDC is one of the leading causes of death across the United Kingdom, yet it remains one of the most under-recognised medical tragedies. That is really the point I want to make: this is a medical tragedy and we are not doing enough, so we need to do more, as I think everybody has said.

The unexplained nature of these deaths is perhaps the cruellest part. Families go to wake their child for school or for a day of play, only to find the unthinkable. The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency continues to track these tragedies, noting that they can affect any family, regardless of background.

But we are not here today simply to acknowledge or indeed to remember; we are here to advocate for change. When he set the scene, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen was very clear about what he wanted, which is probably what we all want. First, we need more research, and that is one of my three asks of the Minister. I am very pleased to see her in her place; it has been a pleasure to work alongside her on many subjects over the years we have been here, and I wish her well—I wished her well last time and I wish her well again—in the role she plays. We need more research in order to move beyond the unexplained and find the “why” of the problem. Secondly, we need better support for families navigating the complex joint agency response that follows a sudden death. Thirdly, we need something that today’s debate will help to raise: awareness.

Those are my three asks, so that no parent in Glasgow, Newtownards, Swansea or Somerset feels that they are the only one in the world that this has happened to. We owe it to the children we have lost and to the families they have left behind—[Interruption.]

Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Children deserve protection, not experimentation. In Upper Bann alone, 1,300 people signed the petition—more than twice the number of signatories in any other constituency. Their message is clear and I stand with them.

Animal testing on mice and monkeys shows that puberty blockers cause irreversible damage to brain development. If these hormones are unfit for animals, why on earth are we about to inject them into our children? Children are once again being used as lab rats for a dangerous medical experiment. It is wrong. We should not be experimenting on a fresh cohort. Instead, we should be prioritising a data-linkage study of the hundreds of children who were given puberty blockers at the now discredited and closed Tavistock clinic.

It is reckless to allow minors to take certain risks while they are still maturing. All trial participants will be under 16. We do not allow teenagers to drive, get married, buy alcohol or own a gun. We should not put them on a medical pathway with such life-altering consequences. In fact, for most children who are questioning their gender, going through puberty will naturally resolve their gender dysphoria. We should offer vulnerable young people support and stability, not give them life-altering drugs.

It should send a shiver down our spines when we look at the documentation relating to safeguarding. Participants are warned against getting pregnant while taking puberty blockers; there is no mention of the fact that the legal age of consent is 16. Even more concerningly, girls will be advised to consider getting their eggs harvested, which is normally a procedure for in vitro fertilisation or cancer treatment. Complications include ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, which can cause severe abdominal pain and even death. There is no mention of those risks in the document.

I have met Keira Bell. She is sounding the alarm for anyone who will listen. Doctors did not give her holistic care; instead, they affirmed her false belief that hasty medical intervention was the answer. My constituents and I need a total ban, not just a temporary pause to this dystopian medical trial.

Meningitis Outbreak

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I am not sure about the point of prevalence, but we will look carefully at the genesis of this outbreak. Of course, in common with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser), we will think about what advice ought to be offered. As ever when it comes to travel advice, we rely on the evidence available, and with our partners at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, we regularly offer good travel advice to British citizens travelling abroad where there may be exposure to greater health risks.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Given that we are nearing the Easter holidays, what discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Minister of Health in Northern Ireland about ensuring that students travelling home are aware of the situation and the need to take precautions?

Hughes Report: Second Anniversary

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for giving us the opportunity to contribute, and allowing me to mention Northern Ireland and what is happening there. It is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place, and I thank her for all she does.

The Hughes report was for England only, but the ripple effect is UK-wide. As of February 2026, Northern Ireland victims remain in limbo. The Northern Ireland Department of Health has stated that its approach will be informed by the final position of the UK Government—right here—but their final position has not been determined. Because nothing has been done here, nothing happens in Northern Ireland, so we are being affected. I know that the Minister will be responsive, but I ask her to give us some indication of the timescale.

Patients continue to contact me and Members of the Legislative Assembly in an attempt to see the adoption of the report’s recommendation, and the phrasing is that families feel abandoned by the lack of progress and financial compensation. I can understand that the Department of Health (NI) needs guidance from Westminster; the UK as a whole is waiting to see what implementation and redress will look like. While financial payments are stalled, some progress has been made on the non-financial report, with the continued operation of specialist mesh centres and improved clinical guidelines for prescribing valproates. That is welcome but—to put it simply—it is not enough.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Women have been left in lifelong pain; children have been born with preventable disabilities; families have endured financial and emotional stress; many women have lost their jobs, their homes and even their marriages. Does my hon. Friend agree that, although financial and non-financial support are important, to prevent such issues in the future it is also important that the dots are joined up early and that early warning signs are not buried in bureaucracy?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. A specially accredited unit operates at Belfast city hospital, featuring a multidisciplinary team to treat mesh-related problems. If complex removal surgery is required, there is also the option to perform it locally, so we are doing our best in Northern Ireland to address the issue. Even so, advocacy groups such as Sling the Mesh Northern Ireland have expressed concerns over the conflict of interest in requiring the original implanting surgeon to sign off on referrals for outside treatment. All those factors must be taken into consideration, which was the very point my hon. Friend made.

Between 1998 and 2018, some 11,000 vaginal mesh implants were performed in Northern Ireland. Other Department of Health figures indicate that nearly 7,000 procedures occurred between 2005 and 2015 alone. With conservative estimates suggesting that between 5% and 10% of those patients experienced significant problems, the scale of the issue is clear.

For children affected, while the UK-wide estimate is roughly 20,000, specific Northern Ireland figures often have to be extrapolated. Reports for the Republic of Ireland, for instance, estimate that there are some 1,250 children affected there; those significant numbers down south are separate from Northern Ireland figures, but based on similar prescribing patterns. As of 2023, the Patient Safety Commissioner noted that even now, across the UK, an average of three babies a month are born having been exposed to the drug.

I will not take an extra minute for the intervention, Dr Allin-Khan, because I recognise that others need time to speak.

All those people, including the 600 members of Sling the Mesh NI, are awaiting action. On this, the second anniversary of the report, the stagnation of action is not acceptable. I take this opportunity to speak on their behalf, as well as on behalf of my and my hon. Friend’s constituents in Northern Ireland: I ask that we stop waiting and start moving on the compensation, providing help for those who are suffering this very minute, even as this debate takes place.

My request for the Minister is that we hurry the process, so that we in Northern Ireland can fall in behind what happens here in Westminster. Let us not see a third anniversary without fulfilment of the recommendations and of our word in this place.

Puberty Suppressants Trial

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I am very happy to receive further clinical representations on this issue and to hear from experts on it. I hope the public will understand why, on this particular issue, I am not simply led by opinion polling. I have to follow the clinical advice and evidence, particularly given the enormous risks that surround these children and young people, including the risks that weighed on my shoulders and conscience when I denied access to puberty blockers by upholding the temporary ban and then making it permanent.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

It is nigh-on child abuse to give children puberty blockers. This trial will take confused little minds and vulnerable children and place them on a medical pathway with profound, life-altering consequences. Childhood is a time of uncertainty, yet the state is intervening with drugs that many former patients now say they were never even capable of consenting to. How can this Government justify experimenting on children, rather than prioritising safeguarding, evidence and psychological support?

[Wes Streeting]

The hon. Lady has offered a political opinion, not a clinical judgment. By that logic, we would not have any medicine for children and young people; we would never have undertaken clinical trials or studies, because we would have judged that children and young people could not take part in them. That is objectively not a sensible position.

I understand the sensitivity surrounding this issue, and the hon. Lady is right to say that people in our country have received life-changing clinical interventions that they later regretted. As part of that regret, they have shared that they did not feel, at the time, that they were making or could have made an informed decision. That is why this trial is set up in such a way that it has such strong clinical oversight locally as well as nationally. It cannot happen without not just the assent of a young person but the consent of their parent or guardian. Those are important protections and safeguards. I do not share the hon. Lady’s characterisation of the trial.

Sudden Cardiac Death in Young People

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for securing this debate. I believe I saw him with a little person—a little man—in the corridor, so I congratulate him and welcome him to parenthood. When he spoke of Clarissa, as parents we could not help but be moved.

I know this may be a slightly different direction, but many out there are concerned about the increase in the numbers of particularly young people dying from sudden death syndrome, and the potential link to vaccination and covid vaccination. This is not to get controversial, but can the Minister just assure the House that data is being looked at and assessed? The Minister has spoken of labs and technology. Can she give some information to the general public about the Government’s interest in this subject, and assure them that this is being looked at?

[Ashley Dalton]

The hon. Member will know that all vaccines are assessed and are not issued unless they are considered safe. We collect data on conditions and potential impacts right across the medical estate. I have not seen any data that would suggest there is a link to any particular vaccine, but if there is, the data would show us that and it would be considered.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow and I stood on a manifesto to tackle the biggest killers, including cardiovascular disease, to halve the gap in healthy life expectancy between the richest and poorest regions in England, and to reverse the legacy left to us by the previous Government. Through his work with the CRY campaign and everything he said in the Chamber this evening, it is evident that he is staying true to those promises. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) for further highlighting the work of CRY. Any MP who campaigns on prevention is pushing at an open door with this Government. We are shifting the focus of our NHS from sickness to prevention. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow rightly points out, it is a tragedy when young lives are lost to preventable illness. He and others make a powerful case for a national screening programme, so let me address that point head-on.

I fully support a national screening programme, as long as the experts agree that it would do more good than harm. Our National Screening Committee gives advice based on a range of factors and while balancing the pros and cons of screening population level groups, the committee has previously given evidence that introducing mass screening for sudden cardiac death could cause harm by misdiagnosing some people. For example, receiving a false diagnosis could lead to people being prescribed medication they do not need; people undergoing medical procedures they do not need, such as having an implantable defibrillator fitted; and people living in fear of sudden cardiac death when they are not genuinely at risk. However, the committee is currently reviewing the evidence for sudden cardiac death screening and will open a public consultation in early 2026. We will look carefully at the findings of the consultation and I know that the CRY campaign will make its voice heard.

Several Members discussed defibrillators, and their training and use. NHS England runs training sessions on first aid, CPR and the use of defibrillators both in the community and in schools under the Restart a Heart programme. NHS England has trained over 35,800 adults and children in CPR and defibrillator use in the past 13 years, and 2,134 so far this year. NHS England delivers the sessions via its resuscitation team and via its community first responders, and also runs lifesaving skills workshops for harder to reach communities and ethnically diverse groups. It has trained 407 people in lifesaving skills in that group so far this year.

It is important to remember the care and support that loved ones receive when they lose a loved one to sudden cardiac arrest, or when they find out that a family member has an inherited heart condition. NHS England’s service specification sets out how that care should be provided by specialist teams in a way that is tailored to meet the needs of families.

Budget Resolutions

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Despite all the “lines to take” that the Labour Whips have handed their MPs in an attempt to sell the Budget as something positive, the reality is very different. The content of this Budget is deeply damaging to pensioners, employees, employers and the wider economy. This is a Government who, it appears, are making up reasons to take back double or treble. While the rise in pension is welcome, it is not a new policy. Yes, the protection for pensioners’ ISA savings is welcome, but it penalises those who have not yet reached pension age and limits their ability to save. Where do hard-pressed workers get the benefit to invest their money? At the same time, saving into pension schemes has become yet another tax grab.

We have been consistently told of a £20 billion black hole, and for weeks we have been fed the line that it has ballooned into a £50 billion crisis in just one year, but now we hear that there is no black hole at all. The OBR has been keeping both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor updated on a bi-weekly basis in respect of their forecasts. We now know that when the Chancellor and other Labour Ministers were out in the media painting their stories of doom and talking down the situation, creating volatility in the stock market, the Government knew all along that their briefings were inaccurate.

What we have in this Budget penalises those who work. I noted a quote yesterday from the Leader of the Opposition about how a working family needs to earn £71,000 per year to be as well-off as a family of three on benefits. This Budget is a burden on workers, and it is clear that Labour Members are not the friends of workers. For years in opposition, they made great promises to the nation that they would lead, but the reality has been very different, with broken promises and broken manifesto pledges, and they are slowly breaking our country’s workers, who cannot give any more.

Looking closer at the Budget, the increase in the minimum wage is positive in principle, but it will mean little in practice when employers are hit with the double blow of the national insurance rise and higher wage costs. Retailers and other businesses will inevitably raise prices to cover these additional burdens, and perhaps have to make redundancies, wiping out the benefit for many workers.

[Blake Stephenson]

Does the hon. Lady agree that while Labour in government pretends that it is the party of fairness, this Budget is deeply unfair to both her constituents and my own constituents?

[Carla Lockhart]

I thank the hon. Member for his point.

The poorest will become poorer while workers are asked to pay more to support people who come here from overseas and go straight on to benefits, with little incentive to work. The system means it is more lucrative not to work than actually to contribute. It is time that this Government put British citizens, British workers and British employers first. It is time for the Chancellor to get tough on tax avoidance and offer genuine support to the hard-pressed workers who are doing the right thing and paying their way.

Perhaps the most appalling tax grab in this Budget is the attack on our family farms. The announcement making business property relief and agricultural property relief transferable is a meaningless gesture and an insult. The family farm death tax remains fully intact—farmers gain nothing. Across the UK, the picture is grim. The Government seem intent on taxing family farms beyond profitability. It is a tax on death and a tax on tragedy. What can be more immoral? This path will damage agriculture at its core. Farming is the backbone of our nation. Food security is national security. Undermine it, and food prices will rise and we will rely on lower-quality imports at higher cost. There is no good news for farmers in this Budget, and when we vote on that resolution later, I urge Members to do the right thing.

Furthermore, the Budget does nothing to remove the trade barrier separating Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom. The £16.6 million package does not change the reality that businesses still face checks, paperwork, delays and extra costs when trading with Great Britain. If the Government remove the checks, they will save the £16.6 million immediately. We look with some envy at the Department of Government Efficiency in the United States, and wonder why the UK cannot match that level of waste reduction. There are quick, real-time savings available such as to cut excess immigration spending, make work genuinely rewarding, ensure everyone pays the tax they owe, pulp the costly madness of net zero and tackle waste across Government.

This Budget offers presentation rather than substance. It fails workers, employers, farmers, policing, health, hospitality and our taxpayers. There is a clear solution: get tough on immigration, tough on crime and tough on tax evasion, and get our country back to being the envy of the world. That is where we belong.

Pandemics: Support for People with Autism

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jack Abbott]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I will come to some of that in a moment. I pay huge tribute to those who were working in Northern Ireland at the time. The pandemic was worldwide and the response hit all parts of our communities.

The years of the pandemic were very difficult for many people, but for people like Ivan they were deeply and profoundly traumatic. Ivan still bears the scars of that time. He lives with post-traumatic stress disorder and continues to experience flashbacks. He has not left the house at all in four years, and to this day the TV stays off. I will be really blunt: Ivan and those like him were betrayed by the previous Conservative Government. They utterly failed him, along with so many other autistic and neurodivergent people.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The hon. Member is speaking so eloquently about his constituent Ivan. Does he agree that children with autism were failed by school closures during lockdown? That was particularly difficult for children who rely on structure and routine. Research from Queen’s University Belfast shows that that measure harmed children’s rights to play, rest and leisure, with autistic young people reporting fear, uncertainty and isolation. Does he agree that any future response should avoid school closures?

[Jack Abbott]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that that had a huge impact on many autistic and vulnerable children, not least because of the lack of clear and consistent communication that I am outlining. I will not go into the issue of school closures—the Minister may touch on that in a moment—but of course they had a profound impact on all children, and we are seeing the effects of it.

Suicide: Reducing the Stigma

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for setting the scene, as she so often does. I know that this issue is very close to her heart; indeed, it is very close to all of us. I will give a couple of examples from Northern Ireland. They are never easy stories to tell, but both of them are solution-based. I will tell them without mentioning any names or specific details, so we can consider what steps we are taking to address the issue.

It is a real pleasure to see the Minister in his place—I wish him well in his role—and, as always, to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans). He and I seem to be tag-teaming all the time on health issues in Westminster Hall and the main Chamber.

When I thought about this issue, and I have given it a lot of thought because it is so real to all of us, I went back and forth in my mind about the title of this debate. The motion refers to “reducing the stigma associated with suicide”. I believe that we need to normalise talking about how we feel. I say that as a man, because men—myself included—seem to have some difficulty in understanding the issues that we face, especially the difficult aspects, relating them to others and acknowledging that we are not alone in having these thoughts. It is important that we recognise that, and that there is help for so many.

The hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) is not here, but anyone who heard his Prime Minister’s question today will know that he lived the story that he told. We need to recognise what suicide truly is. He took us through his experience: he did us proud and did his family proud in how he dealt with the things he faced up to.

When I was first elected to this House back in 2010, the constituency of Strangford took in a new part, Ballynahinch. Around that time—in 2010, 2011 and certainly in 2012—there was a spate of suicides of young men in the area. It was horrendous. It was almost impossible to comprehend what was happening. However, a local Presbyterian minister, Rev. Mairisine Stanfield, galvanised the community in Ballynahinch to come together. What a lady she is! She organised all the churches and the individuals, who were all hurting and all wanted to know what to do. She was the prime mover: she created a hub in the area, which was a brand-new idea that gave young people and others a place to come together, talk about things, relate, socialise and have a chance. Alongside other things that were happening, the hub helped to reduce the suicides in that town, so I have never forgotten Rev. Mairisine. Indeed, I met her last Friday night at the mayor’s do over in Bangor. There she was, as bright as ever and with that wonderful smile. That lady motivated the people of the area, the community groups and others to come together and try to help, so I am always deeply indebted to her.

I remember that when I was younger—this goes back to the title of the debate—a stiff upper lip was expected. That was the demand of the day, but that approach is not helpful attitude to take to mental health. If we look at the cultural climate across most western countries, attitudes were shaped by fear, silence and, in some cases, religious views. This was not spoken about.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend will know that in Northern Ireland there are somewhere in the region of 200 suicides per year, which is deeply troubling and terrible for each family walking that difficult pathway. Online platforms and social media now play a huge part in some of those suicides. Does he agree that this Government need to go further in regard to platforms that are sharing information on how to commit suicide, and that we all need to play a role? Our mental health champion in Northern Ireland has said that by asking someone how they are, we are not likely to make the situation worse. There is a challenge for us all to reach out and ask people how they are, so that we can be more in tune with them and help them through difficult situations.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for her words of wisdom. I know that she has tried, before and during her time in this place, to address the issue of online access to information about how to commit suicide. I cannot conceive how that can be available; maybe I am from a different generation, but the availability today is scary. It is not the Minister’s responsibility, but I know that he will give us some ideas on how to tackle that.

People did not talk about mental health in the past. There was no awareness, and psychological conversations were not had day by day in the way they are today. We had a spate of suicides of young men in Newtownards a few years ago, and it was so tragic. There was a wee group of young boys who ran about together. One committed suicide, and unfortunately the other four or five all did the same. It is really difficult, sometimes, to deal with things.

The hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) spoke about the suicide rate among farmers. This is not about pointing fingers—I do not want to do that—but I can say from the family farms that I know in Northern Ireland that the pressure on farmers today due to the family inheritance tax is incredibly worrying. I will leave it at that.

While any suicide is devastating, I would like to focus on the stats surrounding male mental health and suicide in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency revealed that there were 171 male suicides registered in Northern Ireland in 2023, which accounted for some 77.4% of all suicides. My goodness me! We men—that includes me and every one of us—need to have a look at how we deal with these things. Males in Northern Ireland are consistently three to four times more likely to die by suicide. It also noted that for males aged 15 to 49, such as those I referred to in Ballynahinch and Newtownards, suicide was the leading cause of death in 2023, followed by drug-related deaths.

Male suicide in Northern Ireland has been a painful and persistent issue for years, and the stigma around it can make things even harder for those who are struggling. The harsh reality is that men do not talk. We tend to be private about our health issues. There is a very strong cultural script back home that we just get on with it; we do not want to come across as weak or unable to cope, which is how we fear it would be perceived. Furthermore, for many men and their families, the pattern is passed down from our parents. To give a Northern Ireland perspective, our dads and grandads who suffered during the troubles were told to be silent at that time and swallow their feelings. Some of them had PTSD—we never knew what that was until the last few years, by the way. That has had a knock-on effect on how we deal with issues now.

We must do more to ensure that talking about mental health is as normal as talking about the weather or the news. That is how we will reduce the stigma. Transparency and openness is the way forward. First and foremost, we must ensure that help is accessible and available in this country. That is our responsibility.

Our mental health services are not where they need to be. More should be done to provide counselling services, as opposed to going to the GP and walking out with a prescription for anti-depressants. With great respect, they are not always the answer. I urge the Minister to tell us how the Government will do more to ensure that those services are properly funded so that we can help more people stop making that final decision, which some feel is the only way forward.

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tessa Munt]

Probably most of us have constituents in exactly the same situation. In just over a year, two prevention of future deaths reports have been issued related to severe ME. I have already referred to one of them, regarding the case of Maeve Boothby O’Neill; the other was on the case of Sarah Lewis. Neither report has yet resulted in satisfactory action. The risk of death, specifically from malnutrition, is real and ongoing.

Earlier today I spoke with Dr Binita Kane, a private sector clinician with a special interest in ME and long covid. She told me about the case of a 25-year-old woman, a medical student, who developed severe ME after a viral infection in 2018. The young woman has been in an acute NHS hospital for 17 months with nutritional failure and has deteriorated to the point that palliative care is being instituted. Her family is being prepared for the worst—it is dreadful. She has been disadvantaged not because of the individual clinical decisions, but because she suffers from a condition for which there is no safe or established service model. There have been multiple missed opportunities to prevent her condition progressing to this stage.

Sadly, that young woman is not alone. I have heard of many other cases today, and before today. What is being done to help patients like her? In the foreword to the final delivery plan, the Minister stated that

“tragically avoidable deaths of people with ME/CFS, in England…must become never events.”

However, the plan does not clearly set out what actions the Department will take to guarantee patient safety. No one is being held to account. The plan committed the DHSC and NHS England to

“explore whether a specialised service should be prescribed by the Secretary of State for Health for very severe ME/CFS”.

I hope that the Secretary of State will do the right thing and commission that service, but it is frankly astonishing that the option of leaving this group of patients without specialist NHS care, as they are now, is even on the table.

I ask the Minister to clarify what progress has been made in commissioning such a service. That is not to mention that developing a new service from the ground up is, at best, a medium-term solution. It may take years. It is astonishing that no interim solution has been proposed to ensure that patients with very severe ME, whose lives are at risk right now across the country, do not become tomorrow’s mortality statistics. How many more preventable deaths will it take? I ask the Minister to commit to work with groups such as #ThereForME to rectify the situation immediately, for example by convening a national advisory group to advise in these cases and by undertaking a full review of the lessons learned from ME deaths. Will the Minister clarify what data is being collected to better understand the number of those with ME who are affected by life-threatening complications?

The third area on which I would like to see the Government do much more is accelerating ME research. I spoke earlier about the need for investment in research and improving healthcare. For many patients, biomedical research represents their best hope of regaining their former life, yet the condition has historically received very low levels of research funding from the UK Government.

Based on parliamentary answers and official announcements, I estimate that around £10 million has been invested in ME research over the past 12 years. To put that figure into context, on the current numbers that is about 60p per person living with ME per year. Four times as much was spent on a helicopter for the former Prime Minister as has been spent on ME. We spent £125 million—12 times as much—on a bat tunnel for HS2. We spent £10 billion—about 1,000 times as much—on personal protective equipment that turned out to be unusable. Money talks, and the record of the past decade makes it clear to people with ME that their collective futures have been valued by successive Governments at astonishingly little.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Tessa Munt]

Forgive me, but I am going to carry on.

The final delivery plan rightly points to the need to build capacity in ME research, given the small UK research community and very few funded research projects. The University of Edinburgh’s DecodeME project has been a notable exception, recently reporting groundbreaking findings that revealed distinct genetic signals in people living with ME—medical, not psychological. This gives us a solid and compelling foundation for future research. Can the Minister explain what plans are in place for future funding to capitalise on this research? Again, the delivery plan is light on actions to build UK capacity in any research. A consensus recommendation for a post-infectious disease research hub was not funded.

A joint showcase event was held earlier this month by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and the Medical Research Council, with the goal of stimulating research, yet it is not clear whether this will yield tangible results or how its outcomes will be monitored. Again, I ask the Minister what the plan is if, as seems possible, it is not a lack of information holding back capacity, but secure long-term finance to encourage researchers to build a career in the field.

The final delivery plan gestured to HERITAGE and PRIME, which were effectively pre-existing funding announcements. The only genuinely new funding announced through the plan from the National Institute for Health and Care Research for research into repurposed therapies was capped to grants of £200,000. The Government’s response on this issue, including in the letter sent in response to concerns raised by the 72 Lib Dem MPs, tends to be that it is not usual practice to ringfence funds for specific conditions, and that researchers can apply for funding in open competition. Yet historical funding imbalances mean that it is not realistic to expect ME researchers to compete with researchers of diseases that benefit from more advanced research and much stronger institutional capacity.

The UK Government do, in fact, set aside funding for specific conditions when they are considered a strategic priority. Just this June, £50 million of funding was announced for cardiovascular disease research to be awarded through open competition. In 2021, £50 million was committed to research into motor neurone disease. If we can award ringfenced funding through open competition for those conditions, why not ME? To echo a question asked at a recent research showcase event, why is ME not considered a strategic research priority? Can the Minister clarify that?

The fourth and final point on which I would like the Government to go further is support from wider Departments, particularly the Department for Education and the Department for Work and Pensions. Children and young people are uniquely affected by ME. The condition disrupts and can derail key life stages and developmental milestones. Among educational professions, poor understanding of ME contributes to a lack of adjustments, limiting access to education and increasing school absences. The final delivery plan acknowledges the need for access to education and improved life chances among children and young people with ME, but while this is in theory a cross-Government plan, engagement from the Department for Education seems to have been extremely limited. Can the Minister outline what engagement has taken place so far and commit to speaking with colleagues in the Department for Education to ensure that they will engage with the delivery plan moving forward and ensure that children and young people with ME receive appropriate accommodations?

Meanwhile, welfare benefits are the most common issue that constituents with ME raise with me. Many have struggled for years to access the benefits they are entitled to, feeling that they are fighting a system that works against them. Like most people living with disabilities, my constituents are terrified at the prospect of future welfare reforms and losing the support that they have and rely on to meet their basic needs.

Looking at the current situation, I am indebted to a benefits adviser focusing on ME for her summary.

“People with ME face intersectional and compounding barriers when interacting with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). These include structural flaws in benefit design, widespread misunderstanding of their conditions, systemic disbelief, inaccessible systems, poor-quality assessment practices, and the cumulative harm of being required to repeatedly prove their illness. The current benefit system and emerging reform agenda both fail to reflect the fluctuating, energy-limiting multisystemic nature of these conditions.

And then, the Universal Credit Act 2025, together with the proposed abolition of the Work Capacity Assessment (WCA) and on-going threats to PIP eligibility, signals a fundamental shift in how disabled people meet entitlement to financial support.”

I am particularly concerned about the proposals to replace the new-style employment and support allowance with a time-limited unemployment insurance and to abolish the work capability assessment. Replacing the new-style ESA would disproportionately harm individuals who are not eligible for means-tested support, for example because their partner works. Among other harms, that would increase the risk of domestic abuse while heightening financial dependence—a particularly pressing concern, given that ME is considerably more prevalent in women.

Abolishing the work capability assessment removes critical safeguards in regulations 29 and 35 of the Employment and Support Allowance Regulations 2013 for those whose health would be seriously harmed by work or work-related activity. Those protections are vital for people with ME, who are at particular risk of harm and long-term health consequences if they push beyond their energy limits.

Time prevents me from providing more detail, but I will conclude my observations by saying that, on the whole, what people with ME want most is to recover their capacity to contribute to their families, their community and wider society. They hate being ill. An appropriate benefits system must acknowledge that and treat them with dignity and fairness. The way to get people with ME and those caring for them back into work is not to take away crucial support, but to invest in helping them to get better.

Many will be watching this debate from home, desperately hoping that we are doing everything we can to build them a better future. They deserve the assurance that the Government are committed to a clear, ambitious and, crucially, properly funded vision for change across healthcare, research and all forms of Government support. I ask the Minister for a meeting to discuss myalgic encephalomyelitis and the way forward for the 1.35 million people affected. I very much hope that today’s debate represents a big step forward in delivering that for them.