Junior Doctors’ Foundation Programme

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab) [R]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Foundation Programme and its role in supporting and retaining resident doctors.

Thank you, Mrs Barker, for chairing today’s debate. First, I must thank everyone for coming and say something about my interests. As many know, I am an ear, nose and throat surgeon and I have a son who is a registrar in accident and emergency medicine. I am a fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, I have an MD from the University of East Anglia, and my medical school was at Sheffield.

This debate is to consider the foundation programme and its role in retaining resident doctors. It is a privilege to introduce the debate, and I am grateful to all the colleagues who have come along this morning. As we all know, our resident doctors just spent six days on the picket lines; the wards were covered by others, operations were postponed and patients’ appointments were rescheduled. When the strikes ended, as they did just over a week ago, the problems did not go away. That is why I asked for the debate. If we are serious about resetting the relationship between this Government and the medical profession, as I believe we all are, we must begin somewhere, and in my view we should begin where every doctor begins: at the foundations.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

From this morning’s papers—perhaps the hon. Member will wish to refer to this—it seems that the Health Secretary had engaged with the British Medical Association and had an agreement with its leader. Does the hon. Member share my disappointment that even with that agreement, it went ahead with the strikes? When it had agreed a wage packet for doctors that could be anything from £50,000 as a starting wage to £100,000, it seemed that we had the recipe for an agreement, yet it was all thrown away by, it seems, the BMA.

[Peter Prinsley]

I heard the same thing; indeed, I met Dr Fletcher from the BMA yesterday myself and heard exactly this story, so the situation is intensely frustrating, but I believe that we can get ourselves back to a position in which an agreement can be reached.

My argument this morning is simple. The foundation programme, the first two years of a doctor’s working life, is, in its present form, not supporting and retaining doctors as it should. The problem is that the doctors are treated like numbers on a spreadsheet rather than the people they are, and some of our brightest young doctors, at precisely the moment when they need the most support, are considering leaving the NHS altogether.

Let me set out what the system does, why it is failing, what we have learned from recent attempts to reform it and what I believe we ought to do instead; but let me first refer to a Royal College of Physicians survey of resident doctors that was done in 2025, which has some interesting findings. Only 44% of the resident doctors stated that they were satisfied with their clinical training. Just 26% of the respondents felt ready to move on to the next step. About 20% of the doctors thought that the recruitment process was fair, which meant that 80% of them thought that it was unfair. About half of them want to work less than full time and, most alarmingly, only 65% of them said that they thought they would be working in the NHS in five years’ time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for setting the scene incredibly well. We all appreciate his in-depth portrayal of the issues. I thank him for his 40 years, as I understand, of service to the NHS. It probably does not seem that long but, on paper and statistically, it clearly is.

The hon. Member has forgotten more than I will ever know about the procedures, as I speak from a layman’s point of view. I can, however, outline what young doctors have told me, which certainly bears repeating. They work through their F1 and F2 years in fight-or-flight response. They work unsociable hours without a support network. They make life and death decisions, then return home from that night or day on duty and wonder whether they made the right decision. They wonder whether they missed something and they worry about their patients.

Doctors are empathic with their patients, they are compassionate and they understand the issues incredibly well. They follow shift patterns that on paper look like a different week but, in reality, they are working 80 hours over seven days. Off days on call keep them on tenterhooks waiting to know if they will be called in to do more work, which they will respond to out of duty and compassion. They are scheduled to finish work at 8 o’clock and on a regular basis they only leave at 9.30 pm. They start work before 8 am and take their first break at 2.45 pm, and that is not a one-off on a busy day—every day is a busy day. It is almost like “Groundhog Day”—that film where the alarm goes off at 6 am, he gets up, he does all the things, he goes back to bed and the next day starts the same—but for doctors, it is life and death.

When I asked how they function on that lack of sleep and sustenance, one 23-year-old doctor told me:

“I keep sweets in my pocket and pray for guidance.”

It needs to be more than that. I carry sweets in my pocket because, as a diabetic, if I feel myself going down, I have a chew on one and it brings me back up again, but for them, it is to ensure their concentration. Christians always pray for guidance in everything they do. They need wisdom in all the work that they do.

When I asked that 23-year-old doctor what was next for her in life, what she wanted to specialise in and what her hopes were for the future, she said:

“I am so exhausted that I don’t think anything is next.”

The exhaustion takes over. The workload is overwhelming. Put simply, she is burnt out and feels unsupported and uncertain—not because she is not a confident person, but because the workload and all that she has done have overtaken her. That is replicated numerous times, in too many doctors for us to attribute it to personality. It is not her personality, because she is a lovely young lady; it is the current procedure.

I am very pleased to see the Minister in his place. He has empathy and understanding of what we need for our doctors. I am confident that his reply will encourage and hearten us. Hopefully, it will also help with the expectations on young doctors from families and with the paperwork—that has never been more onerous, yet there is no time for them to set aside to do it because they are overwhelmed by the workload in wards and A&E and surgical work supporting doctors. If their placement is in a smaller hospital, they do not have the support of house doctors or consultants during evening shifts, and the pressure is immense. I said earlier that it is overwhelming, and it is, to the extent that they sometimes just say to themselves, “My goodness me, how am I going to keep going?”

We all understand that medicine, by its very nature, is highly pressured and that skills are learned not only in books, but in practice. For the junior doctors I met back home, it is a physical practice—they learn by what happens in the ward. Home-grown students are not being retained, however, so changes to the system must take place, and take place soon. In his introduction, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket referred to one doctor who went from Norwich to Belfast and another who went from Belfast to Norwich. It is unreal, and it seems idiotic—I use that word in a very gentle way—that that should take place.

Training a doctor in the UK costs the taxpayer roughly £230,000 to £327,000 per student from medical school through foundation training. That is a big sum of money, but we are training someone on whom we depend to be the best in a critical situation in hospital. Who of us, when we have a chat with our doctor and ask for their opinion, will not accept what the doctor tells us as gospel? We trust that we can depend on that doctor’s diagnosis of the disease, so that money must result in qualified, capable doctors and not just young people who could have made a difference if they had been given the support and reasonable working hours with reasonable pay to make all the on-calls and missed sleeping patterns worth it.

[Alex Easton]

Another problem we have in Northern Ireland is that many doctors are moving over to private care, which is leading to shortfalls of NHS doctors. Is that something we need to tackle to retain doctors in the NHS?

[Jim Shannon]

It certainly is. To be fair, I do not know of any doctors who have made the journey, but I know that they are certainly aware of the bigger wage packets available in, for instance, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, where they can go for two or three years. The problem is that if they go away for two or three years, they may never come back. It is not just a matter of going to earn big money to pay off student fees and move forward—it is more than that. It is a critical issue, so the hon. Member is right to mention it.

I wonder whether the Minister would consider in his response the option of having student doctors sign a retainer that would keep them in the NHS, and consider providing a bursary for their fees. I understand that Wales does that; I know it is a regional matter for us in Northern Ireland, but if Wales can do it, there are certainly points for us to consider.

I have constituents who have gone to Wales from Northern Ireland for the purpose of going away for two or three years—I think of one young lady in particular whose family I know well. She went to Wales and completed her full studies there at university and in the hospitals. Then, of course, what happens? She meets a young Welsh guy and he sweeps her off her feet and the next thing we know, she is engaged, she is married—she is never coming home.

We will not have the advantage of that young lady’s expertise, but Wales will. I am very pleased that Wales will have that expertise, because she is an excellent student and person. I am sure there are many other people for whom the same thing has happened, because love is a funny thing, is it not? When it gets you, you cannot get off it. You are caught forever. From my point of view, my wife has stuck with me for 39 years—my goodness, she needs a medal.

I have spoken at length about intelligent, capable young people who feel overworked and underappreciated but who, most importantly, feel overwhelmed. That can change with support—support that must echo from here not with words, but with appropriate pay and staffing. If we do that, we will retain the best of the best within the NHS. I do not doubt that that is the desire of the Minister and this Government, and of every hon. Member here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

That gives me an opportunity to highlight the fact that this Government have delivered a 29% pay increase for resident doctors. Although I absolutely accept that, prior to July 2024, over 14 years of dealing with an incompetent Government, they suffered from being underpaid and neglected, and we had to seek to fix that—we have done that in good faith and with good will—there have to be limits to what we can offer. The sky is not the limit; the limit is the deeply damaged and parlous state of the public finances that were left to us when we took over in July 2024, and the significant pressures across every aspect of Government.

We implore the resident doctors and the BMA to come back to the table. The Secretary of State believed that he had a deal with the officers of the BMA, and those officers then took that deal to the broader committee. There is no doubt that that committee has ideological motivations, and it refused to accept the deal. We are now in a very challenging position. The Secretary of State has asked several times for a face-to-face meeting with the entire committee, and that request has been refused. We have to make progress, but I simply remind its members that most of our constituents would see a 29% pay increase as a pretty positive deal.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for that comprehensive response to the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan). So near and yet so far—that is the way I see it. I have always supported the Secretary of State in his endeavours to secure a deal, and it is incredibly frustrating to get so close to one and for it then to fall down. I am probably reiterating what the Minister said, but although the deal fell and we did not secure what we all hoped for, does the Department intend to continue engaging with the BMA and the junior doctors to secure a deal? We have got so close that we must be able to get this over the line.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The short answer is yes, absolutely—our door is always open. We have to find a constructive way through this. I accept that it is not always just about pay; it is also about broader terms and conditions—exactly the things we have been debating today. That is why I was so excited by the fast-track legislation we brought forward specifically to address the bottlenecks and the impact of the disgraceful decision under the previous Government to remove the resident labour market test. We are seeking to fix all those problems, and we need a constructive partner on the other side of the table to do that. We are starting to see in opinion polls that public support for the action taken by the BMA and resident doctors is eroding quite seriously, and I hope they take that into account before they make their next decisions.

Osteoporosis and Bone Health

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sonia Kumar]

I believe that we should be rolling those services out across the entire country, and I will come on to that in the rest of my speech. I am sure that the Minister will also comment on that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady and thank her for the work that she did on this before she came to this place. We are very much indebted to her. Does she agree that the fact that this condition affects one in two women and one in four men over the age of 50 means that there should be greater awareness? The fact that there are some 72,000 people living with osteoporosis in Northern Ireland alone highlights the need to ensure that people know that they can do some things themselves, and that calcium and vitamin D could make such a difference to their quality of life as they age—I speak as one who is ageing quickly.

[Sonia Kumar]

The hon. Member comes to this with a lot of experience. I agree that people do not know what osteoporosis is, which is why we are having this debate. It is important to discuss what it actually is. For those less familiar with it, osteoporosis is a disease characterised by low bone mass and a structural deterioration of bone tissue, resulting in an increase in bone fragility and a susceptibility to fractures. Osteoporosis is asymptomatic and often remains undiagnosed until a fragility fracture occurs. It develops silently, without symptoms, until the moment that it declares itself—a fall from a standing height causes a fracture, or a twist or even a cough causes a low-grade insufficiency fracture. Normal stress has an abnormal effect on the bone. The bone is able to withstand the stress, but because it is of such poor quality, it then crumbles.

Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Olly Glover]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and pay tribute to his constituent and their family. I am going to be talking quite a lot about what we can do to prevent such occurrences in the future.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. I spoke to him beforehand and, like the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), I am here to represent my constituents and those who are affected by this issue in Northern Ireland. SUDEP affects one in 1,000 people with epilepsy annually, which includes many cases in Northern Ireland, yet many families say that they are unaware of the dangers of these night-time tonic-clonic seizures. Does the hon. Member not agree, as he to what the Government need to do, that more must be done to educate patients and family members to ensure that the information is known and that precautions can thereby be taken?

Wheelchair Provision: Independent Review Body

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. A special thanks to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) for the opportunity to support him in this debate on a subject of which he has personal knowledge, and for his opening speech. If I recall right, we had a 30-minute debate on the issue some time ago, and now we have a more substantive debate on this important subject, which gives us the opportunity to highlight the need for improvements for many of our constituents. I know that the Minister does not have responsibility for Northern Ireland, but I will give our perspective to support the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford and those who will speak after me. It is nice to see the Minister in his place; he is becoming a bit of a regular in Westminster Hall.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

Not as regular as you!

[Jim Shannon]

He is trying to catch up. I look forward to his response and that of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans). I tapped him on the shoulder and said, “Luke, you’re back again!” It is a real pleasure.

When Members use phrases such as “postcode lottery”, it brings a smile to my face, but not in a humorous way; due to our legislation, my constituents do not have the ability to participate in the postcode lottery and benefit for their street, and yet when it comes to provision for disabled people, we seem to be right in the heart of that painful reality. Whether someone is in Newtownards or Newcastle, their ability to live an independent life should not depend on which trust’s boundaries they live within. I concur with the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford that the current situation is not acceptable, and the changes we seek from the Minister must be transformative.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Recently, I was listening to the radio and heard the story of Phil Eaglesham, a former Royal Marine who served in Afghanistan and, as a result, needed a wheelchair. He founded a company, Conquering Horizons, which designs all-terrain wheelchairs for indoor and outdoor use. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to get beyond the basic needs and look towards the real-life needs of those who need wheelchairs? Does he agree that it would be beneficial for the Minister to meet Phil, hear his story, and hear how he is transforming the lives of those who need wheelchairs?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention; she underlines the point. I was going to give the example of a young fella from Newtownards. He lives in Dundonald, but he is more seen in Newtownards. He has severe, complex mobility needs, but he is the brightest wee boy you ever met in all your life, and he always encourages and lifts me when I meet him. He is a Chelsea supporter, so he needs some help at the minute, because they are not doing too good. I am a Leicester City supporter, and we are not doing too good either, so we have something in common.

There was just no way in the world that the NHS could give him the wheelchair that he needed for his special needs—similarly to the example that my hon. Friend mentioned in respect of those who have served in the forces. The only way that wee boy could obtain the wheelchair that he needed was through fundraising. Dessie Coffey in Newtownards has been fantastic. He raises money for all charities, but he did so especially for this wee boy. Over a period of time, we raised about £6,000 to help him with his wheelchair, and today that wee boy has some independence.

I wrote to one of the Manchester United stars—my mind just went blank and I cannot remember who it was, but he no longer plays for them—and he sent me a signed autograph, so I gave it to the wee boy and he sold it for £100. Again, if it was not for individual fundraisers, he just would not have had the money. I very much believe that we need an independent national review body to oversee wheelchair provision, and I support the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford in his call for one.

Some might ask why we need another body in an already complex system. The answer is quite simple: because the current system is failing the very people it was built to serve. Northern Ireland has the longest health waiting lists in the United Kingdom. People are waiting years for orthopaedic surgery, and while they wait, their mobility needs change, often without the system keeping pace. Just last year, we saw the collapse of NRS Healthcare, which was the main provider of repairs for our regional service. The Business Services Organisation stepped in to steady the ship, but that moment of crisis exposed the fundamental truth that out wheelchair services are fragile.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

The NRS case is so important. I am keen to understand how the Government are ensuring the ongoing provision and servicing of wheelchairs, given that NRS has gone bust. I have been contacted by constituents who worked at high levels in NRS, and who are concerned that those contracts will not be followed up. Is the hon. Member concerned about that, too?

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly am. The shadow Minister always speaks with great knowledge on such matters, and I look forward to his speech. Hopefully, the Minister will respond positively to his point. Although waiting lists do not fall under the Minister’s responsibility, the fact is that they are of such length all over the country that mobility is declining, and support is needed more than ever.

One of the greatest merits of having an independent review body would be the death of the data desert. Currently, we do not have a full, transparent picture of the true demand for wheelchairs in the United Kingdom. An independent body would mandate high-quality, comparable data, forcing the Department of Health to confront the true scale of the backlog. The issue of data comes up during almost every debate we have on health. How can we know how to respond if we do not have the data and information? Perhaps the Minister could tell us how we can quantify the demand through data, which clearly needs to be collected.

We also need accountability that has teeth. Currently, when things go wrong, users are often left to navigate a complaints maze with their trust. An independent body would act as an impartial watchdog, ensuring that the wheelchair equality framework is not just a document on a shelf in Belfast or elsewhere, but a standard to which every service user can hold their trust. I gave the example of the wee boy—his name is Reuben Walls—and how fundraising got him what he wanted, but we need a system to help those who cannot fundraise and do not have the finances.

Every day that a child waits for a wheelchair or an adult sits in an ill-fitting seat that causes pressure sores, the cost to the health and social care system grows. Research shows that the right wheelchair can deliver a societal return worth triple its cost. Having an independent body would ensure that we treat wheelchair provision not as an optional extra, but as a vital investment in our economy and health. We need a national body that listens to the Wheelchair Collective, champions the user voice and ensures that the promise of

“the right chair, at the right time, right now”

is kept for every citizen in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I look to the Minister and the Government to ensure and provide that, and I think all of us here today wish to see the same thing.

NHS Federated Data Platform

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Gentleman for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for giving us the opportunity to think about and discuss this important issue.

Central to my contribution is the issue of trust, which the hon. Gentleman also referred to. We stand at a crossroads in the history of our national health service. For too long our frontline staff—the very heartbeat of our communities—have been battling a 21st-century crisis with 20th-century tools. They are held back by fragmented systems that do not speak to one another, waiting lists that remain stubbornly high, and expectations and red tape that are obstacles to actually practising medicine and helping our people.

I want to look at the issue of trust. The federated data platform represents a significant opportunity for change. By connecting trusts and boards, we are not just moving numbers on a screen; we are making sure that surgery happens sooner rather than later. The DUP supports the maximisation of technology, but we will never support the compromise of trust. Protecting health and protecting rights must go hand in hand.

I have three issues and three requests to raise with the Minister. On local control and accountability, there must not be a Big Brother database in Whitehall. Each hospital trust must remain the master of its own house, acting as the sole controller of its data. Can the Minister provide assurance that private partners are mere processors, locked out from selling our data or using it to train their own models?

Secondly, on compromising security, with the rise in cyber-threats, good enough is no longer enough. The Government must ensure that privacy-enhancing technology promised to us is not just a secondary feature, but a robust, audited shield that keeps personal identities anonymous.

Thirdly, on patient empowerment, my vision for the NHS is one where every citizen can access and input into their own medical record online. Data should empower the patient, not just the system. We have heard concerns about the choice of suppliers and the ethics of data sharing. We must be certain that we have solutions to those concerns and not just hope that it will work.

To conclude, the DUP—and I as its health spokesperson—wants Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom to lead the world in e-health. We will only do so if we can look every patient in the eye and say, “Your data is safe, your privacy is absolute, and your care is our only priority.” I look to the Minister and the Government to understand that fully and to agree to those three principles.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

Those statistics are shocking and a stark reminder that the NHS is not immune from the prejudices at large in wider society. All Muslim staff and patients—indeed, people of all faiths—should feel safe and confident as patients and staff in the NHS. As my hon. Friend knows, I am awaiting the review being conducted by Lord Mann. As well as looking at antisemitism, it will include recommendations that I have no doubt will apply in tackling Islamophobia and racism more generally. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend and I do meet, and would be very happy to meet again, the BIMA to discuss how we tackle this pernicious hatred in our national health service and what more may need to be done, in addition to any recommendations Lord Mann makes.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitments about hostility to those of the Muslim faith, but I want to make a point about those of the Jewish faith. The Secretary of State referred in his reply to people of all faiths, and that includes those of the Jewish faith. However, we are well aware of recent newspaper headlines, including about a person who supports Palestine Action and one person who has made slurs against those of Jewish faith and Israeli nationality. Is it not time to ensure that everyone in the NHS, irrespective of their religious beliefs, is respected? I respect everybody’s beliefs. I am sure that the Secretary of State will tell me that that is the case in the NHS—I hope that it is.

[Wes Streeting]

The hon. Gentleman is right. I only wish that I could tell him that it was the case that Jewish patients and staff are always being treated in the way that they deserve to be, but unfortunately I have heard first-hand accounts of Jewish people being afraid to disclose their race and faith when completing forms. That is not just a question of indignity; it is a question of safety because risk factors, particularly those related to genetics, need to be taken into account by the NHS, and it is about the provision of things that lead to people having a dignified and high-quality experience, such as the provision of food. I am afraid to say that I have also heard about shocking racism experienced by Jewish staff in the NHS from patients and from other NHS staff. That has got to stop.

Finally, all staff in the NHS have a right to speak and express opinions in a democracy, but all of them must always ask themselves, especially when writing on social media, “Will a particular comment or a particular action make my patients feel more safe or less safe in my hands? Will they question my commitment to treating all people fairly and equally or not?” That is the standard on which too many doctors have fallen short, and that is before I get to the explicit, vile racists whom we are taking on.

National Suicide Prevention Standard

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for businesses implementing National Suicide Prevention Standard BS 30480.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. This debate is about a risk we often overlook in our workplaces, but which can have a great impact on families, work colleagues and a much wider group of people. We have rigorous standards for fire safety and electrical wiring, and for hard hats on construction sites. We accept those as the cost of doing business safely yet, until now, we have had no such road map for the most complex safety risk of all: the mental health and lives of our employees.

Research shows that one in four adults has contemplated suicide, and one in 13 has attempted it. For every suicide death, at least 135 people, including colleagues, clients and communities alike, are directly or indirectly affected. Suicide is the leading cause of death for men under the age of 50. According to the Office for National Statistics, it was the leading cause of death for males and females aged 20 to 34 in the UK for all years observed, accounting for 27.1% of male deaths.

Suicide touches nearly every workplace, yet most organisations lack the tools to address the emotional aftermath.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First of all, I commend the hon. Lady for introducing the debate; this is a massive issue, absolutely. Does she not agree that, as 90% of businesses are small businesses with no human resources department, it is difficult for employers to be aware of the help for staff, and to be trained? Further, does the hon. Lady not agree that the Government, and particularly the Minister, need to ensure that accessible training is of no or minimal cost to small businesses? The very thing that the hon. Lady wants to happen can happen, but it needs that wee bit of help.

[Liz Twist]

Of course small and medium-sized enterprises are in a difficult position without large resources, but there are lots of things we can do. As the hon. Member suggests, I will ask the Minister what we can do to ensure that SMEs also have the ability to take part in this training.

Young Cancer Patients: Experiences and Outcomes

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

I am grateful to have had the opportunity to secure this important debate on a subject that matters deeply to me in my role as parliamentary champion for the Teenage Cancer Trust, and as an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on cancer in children and young people. It is an issue that matters profoundly to my constituents. In Mansfield, I am contacted regularly by young people, by parents and by families whose lives have been turned upside down by a cancer diagnosis. They write to me not just about treatment but about their wider experience—the fear, the uncertainty, and the disruption to education, work and relationships. They write because they want to be heard, and I hope that tonight the House, and indeed the Government, will listen.

Every few hours in the United Kingdom, a young person hears the words, “You have cancer”. It is mostly blood cancer, including leukaemia, lymphoma and myeloma—the most common cancers among children, teenagers and young adults in the UK. The reality is stark: more young people are getting cancer. Rates have risen by a quarter since the early 1990s, and the increase is projected to continue. Cancer remains the leading cause of disease-related death among teenagers and young adults in the UK, but even for those who survive, the impact can be lifelong—physically, emotionally and socially—especially when the right support is not there. This is happening at a time when life is already tough for young people, many of whom are facing economic uncertainty, struggling with mental health issues, and worrying about their futures. A cancer diagnosis compounds all that, often at the most formative stage of life.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this issue, which is clearly very important to him—he has illustrated that through his commitment to these debates, which he always gets involved in. I congratulate him on that.

In Northern Ireland, approximately 60 children under the age of 16, and 80 teenagers and young adults between the ages of 16 and 24, are diagnosed with cancer each year. Although these cases are rare and account for only 1% of all diagnoses, they require a highly specialised, family-centred approach. Around 87% of young people survive for at least one year, and 78% survive for five years or more. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that improvements can be made to ensure that our children have the best possible treatment, regardless of where they live? There should be no box for them; they should get treatment wherever they are in the United Kingdom.

[Steve Yemm]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention.

This is Teenage and Young Adult Cancer Awareness Month, and it is right that we use this moment to shine a light on a group that is too often overlooked: young people who fall between children’s and adult services, and whose needs are too often not fully recognised. Before 1990, young people with cancer were treated either on children’s wards or alongside much older adults, with very little recognition of their distinct needs. The Teenage Cancer Trust changed that. It pioneered specialist care for 13 to 24-year-olds, creating dedicated units within the NHS that are staffed by expert nurses and youth workers, and which are designed to support not just treatment but the whole person. Today, 28 units across the UK help young people to receive care, alongside others their own age, in environments that protect their independence, dignity and mental health. At that age, cancer is not just a medical condition; it disrupts young people’s education, relationships, identity and plans for the future.

We know that when young people receive age-appropriate care, their experiences and outcomes improve significantly, but only around half of young people with cancer currently benefit from this type of specialist support. One of the most critical issues facing young people with cancer is the speed of diagnosis. Unlike many adult cancers, those affecting young people are often rare and cannot be prevented. Blood cancer, which is the most common cancer for young people, does not have the same focus or understanding as other types of cancers. That means early diagnosis is absolutely crucial, yet too many young people face delays.

Awareness of cancer symptoms among young people remains worryingly low. Fewer than half of 18 to 24-year-olds can identify key warning signs—things like unexplained lumps, pain, tiredness or significant weight changes. In Mansfield, I have heard directly from families about the consequences of that lack of awareness: multiple GP visits, uncertainty and delays before being referred for diagnosis. Indeed, nearly half of young people with cancer report attending three or more GP appointments before being referred. That experience was echoed by the family of 11-year-old Joel from Mansfield, who in 2024 sadly passed away after a nine-month battle with acute myeloid leukaemia. He made four initial GP visits and presented with a range of symptoms, which were dismissed as simply bruising from football or as a laundry detergent allergy. After the symptoms worsened, it took a second opinion from another GP and an emergency A&E visit before the cancer was diagnosed correctly.

It is important to recognise that such delays are not just clinical; they are often psychological. Evidence shows that waiting two months or more for a diagnosis significantly increases the likelihood of anxiety and depression. I ask the Minister, how will the Government ensure that teenagers and young adults are not simply funnelled through paediatric diagnostic pathways, but are recognised as a distinct group with distinct needs? What steps will be taken to raise awareness, both among young people and across primary care, of the signs and symptoms of cancer in this particular age group?

The second issue that I want to address is psychological support. A cancer diagnosis at any age is devastating, but for a young person it is often overwhelming. They face fears about survival, about treatment and about their future. Their education is interrupted, their friendships are disrupted and their sense of identity can be shaken. It is deeply concerning. Studies including research from Young Lives vs Cancer, which provides specialist social care support, show that 90% of young people undergoing cancer treatment experience anxiety, 83% report loneliness, 70% experience depression and nearly half experience panic attacks.

Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome and Craniocervical Instability

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for leading the debate. In the short time that he has been in Parliament, he has made a name for himself as an assiduous MP who works hard on behalf of his constituents. They should all be very proud of what he does for them. We welcome his speech today, and I wish him well in what he does.

I am also keen to speak in this debate due to my role as the Democratic Unionist party’s health spokesperson. Through that role, I always fight for more funding for the study and research of rare diseases. I have always had an interest in rare diseases, going back to my time in the Assembly—I was an Assembly Member for 12 years—and during all my years here as a Member of Parliament since 2010. There are some ladies in my constituency who have a deep interest in rare diseases. I had discussions with one family in particular just last week.

In Northern Ireland, conditions like Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and related issues, such as craniocervical instability, sit within a wider set of challenges around rare diseases, diagnosis and access to specialist care. The figures for Northern Ireland are limited and, unfortunately, Northern Ireland does not publish detailed prevalence data for EDS or CCI. Those conditions are often underdiagnosed and not consistently coded in health data systems. We have a lot to do in relation to data. Data is one of the things that always comes up when we talk about diseases, especially rare ones, because we need the data to know what the problems are and how to deal with them.

The Minister is certainly earning her money this week—I think this is her third or fourth debate in Westminster Hall. We are privileged to see her in her place, and I look forward to her contribution. She has a good heart, which she expresses through her responses to our questions.

It is estimated that one in 5,000 people have EDS. That suggests that 10,000 to 15,000 people are officially diagnosed, but that is an underestimate. My first question to the Minister is: do we have a better idea of the numbers in relation to EDS, and, if we do not, how can we get them? Furthermore, some 80% to 90% of diagnosed patients are female, as women are more likely to be diagnosed and more likely to present with chronic pain and joint issues. The hon. Members for Cannock Chase and for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) illustrated that with examples from their own constituencies.

One of the most prevalent issues is diagnostic times, because it takes five to 10 years to be diagnosed. Many people will see multiple specialists and they can also initially be misdiagnosed. For example, they might be told that they have fibromyalgia, anxiety or joint hypermobility. Specialist care is important for conditions such as EDS, especially regarding rheumatology, neurology and pain management, for which waiting lists are already extensive. Delayed recognition and treatment of physical symptoms can significantly affect mental wellbeing—the impact on people’s mental wellbeing as their bodies deteriorate cannot be ignored.

Prolonged uncertainty, unmanaged pain and reduced quality of life often contribute to anxiety, depression and wider psychological distress. More must be done to ensure that we do not allow it to get to that stage, and investigations should be carried out in a timely fashion. I ask the Minister, in relation to doctors and their diagnoses, does something need to be done with our GPs, our A&Es, our surgeons and those people who patients interact with first?

This debate highlights the urgent need to do more for those living with complex and often overlooked conditions. Too many patients face long delays, inconsistent pathways and a lack of specialist support. We owe it to patients to ensure that their symptoms are taken seriously, their diagnoses are not delayed and their care is not determined by their postcode. By investing in better data, stronger specialist services and greater awareness, we can move towards a system that delivers timely, fair and effective healthcare for all.

I have one more question for the Minister: she knows that research is incredibly important—it seems to have popped up in every debate that there has been this week. What is being done, through universities and partnerships with medical companies, to ensure that we chase up that cure for EDS and ensure that any patient, wherever they are in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, have the care and treatment they want, and have it now?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Hodgson]

I will commit to looking into that for my hon. Friend. Obviously, aftercare for surgery abroad is tricky—not for conditions such as this, but often for beauty related purposes—but I will take that on board and take it back to the Department.

[Jim Shannon]

I apologise if I missed the answer, but I asked about research and how we can create partnerships with universities, which are very keen to do that—Queen’s University Belfast is one example, but there are many others across the United Kingdom—and with medical companies that want to pursue cures, as we all want to see them do. The Minister may not have an answer today, but I would be very happy if she would come back to me, and to all of us, to show that we are pursuing that research opportunity to find the cure and help people if we can.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I did touch on research, but I did not specifically mention universities. I am pleased that the hon. Member got in another plug for the wonderful Queen’s University Belfast—he did that when we were in this Chamber the other day—and I will take his point on board. I thank him for that.

In closing, I return to the people at the heart of this debate: those living with EDS and CCI. Connor, Jo, Rebekah, Carley, Hannah, Stevie and Natasha have been named by their MPs today. They and their testimonies, as we have heard, are just examples of the many more people across the UK and Northern Ireland suffering from these terrible conditions. They are not asking for miracles; they are asking for clarity, consistency, safe care and to be treated with respect. They are asking for a system that joins up around them, rather than leaving them to piece it together alone. That is a reasonable ask, and one that we should meet.

Again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase for securing this very important debate. I look forward to working with NHS partners, clinicians and patient groups to ensure that people living with these complex conditions receive the timely, safe and compassionate support and care that they deserve.

NHS Continuing Healthcare

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered NHS continuing healthcare.

It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. The continuing healthcare—CHC—system should represent the very best of our national health service, offering 24-hour, round-the-clock care for approximately 50,000 of the country’s most vulnerable adults, but at the moment the reality is quite the opposite, exposing some of the system’s innermost failures.

For those who may be unaware, continuing healthcare is a package of care arranged and fully funded by the NHS for adults with significant ongoing health needs. Crucially, eligibility is based not on diagnosis, but on whether a person has a “primary health need”. If they qualify, the NHS covers all their care costs; if they do not, they are left to navigate a complex and means-tested social care system, often at catastrophic personal cost to their carers and family.

CHC was created to protect those with the most severe and complex needs, but today it often does the opposite: it confuses, delays and denies. CHC is a lifeline for people with the most complex, severe and often life-limiting conditions, making it all the more crippling when funding is stripped at short notice without a clear reason, and yet there is a body of evidence, which is growing year on year, to suggest that the system is unfair, inconsistent and often inaccessible to those who need it most.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. I spoke to him beforehand, as I always try to be helpful in my contributions. He may only now be aware that in 2023, the High Court in Northern Ireland determined that the previous Northern Ireland continuing healthcare policy breached obligations regarding equality for older people—some of the very things that he is referring to. As a result, the Department of Health in Northern Ireland is in the process of reviewing and developing new, fairer guidance. Does he agree that, UK-wide, this must be tailored care, with an understanding that one size simply cannot fit all?

[Ayoub Khan]

I totally agree about the need for parity of service across the United Kingdom. That must be not only the right thing, but the only thing to do.

A recent report from the Nuffield Trust describes CHC as an “all or nothing” affair for applicants that creates a cliff edge between carers getting full NHS funding and paying out of pocket to care for loved ones. But although chance certainly plays a role in determining who gets funding and who does not, there is also a sinister practice at play—one that violates the very principles of our health service and inflicts unnecessary hardship on families across the country. That is the ever more common practice of revoking funding, and making vulnerable people appeal and fight for the right to retain the funding they should have had all along. We see the same pattern emerging with benefit claimants and home-to-school transport for 16 to 18-year-olds with special educational needs and disabilities. In the vast majority of cases, after all the time and energy wasted by applicants and assessors, the decision is overturned.