World Suicide Prevention Day

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered World Suicide Prevention Day.

I am grateful for having secured this debate, Sir Christopher, and it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair for it. This Thursday is World Suicide Prevention Day, an event marked through the World Health Organisation. Each year, 10 September provides a moment for individuals, communities and Governments around the globe to unite behind one clear, unambiguous message: that suicides are preventable.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate on World Suicide Prevention Day. The Farm Safety Foundation has surveyed some 450 farmers under the age of 40, of whom 92% identified poor mental health as one of the leading hidden problems facing farmers today. Those challenges can be further compounded by stigma and reluctance to seek help, which are particularly prevalent in rural communities. Is the hon. Lady aware of the challenges people in rural farming communities face when trying to access mental health support? Does she agree that more must be done for that sector, who seem overwhelmingly to suffer isolation?

[Liz Twist]

I am indeed aware of that work and of the difficulties faced by the farming community, and it is important that we address those. This year, as in the last two years, the theme for World Suicide Prevention Day is “Changing the Narrative on Suicide”, accompanied by a direct call to action to start the conversation.

Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 763161 relating to surrogacy law and legal parenthood.

It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard, and I am sure today will be no different. The petition calls for a change in the law so that the intended parents of babies born through surrogacy can be considered to be the legal parents from the moment of their child’s birth. Under current law, that is not possible. Intended parents must go through a months-long process in the courts and be visited by a social worker before they are considered to be the parents of the children in the eyes of the law.

Ahead of this debate, I met the petition’s creator, Adam, his fiancé, Jamie, and their daughter, Leven, who was born via surrogacy in Connecticut. I am pleased to say that Adam and Jamie have joined us in the Public Gallery today. Although baby Leven has not joined them, she made a cameo appearance on our call ahead of the debate. Adam and Jamie are listed as Leven’s parents on her birth certificate in the United States, but more than six months after her birth, they still are not recognised as her legal parents at home in the UK. That is what prompted Adam to create this petition. When we met, he said,

“We’re changing Leven’s nappies, we’re putting her to bed—we are her parents, we’re bringing her up”

and yet he says that babies like her are in “legal limbo” under current legislation.

My role today is to introduce the petition by setting out the petitioners’ views and framing the debate to follow. It is good to see so much interest from Members across the House. In preparation, as well as meeting Adam, I have drawn on the expertise of a range of organisations and individuals, with the expert support of the petitions team. They are often not thanked enough, so I place on record my thanks to the entire team for their support in preparing for the debate.

We met groups such as Surrogacy Concern, Stop Surrogacy Now UK and Brilliant Beginnings, and Dr Herjeet Marway of the University of Birmingham, who is the founding chairperson of SurrogacyUK’s ethics committee. We also met Professor Nick Hopkins of University College London, a former law commissioner for England and Wales, and Professor Gillian Black of the Scottish Law Commission and the University of Edinburgh. Together, they authored the joint Law Commission report on surrogacy reform, which was published in 2023. I will start with the current state of the law and the reforms proposed by that Law Commission report.

When a child is born to parents via surrogacy, whether in this country or abroad, as baby Leven was, the surrogate mother is considered the legal mother at birth under UK law. If she is married or in a civil partnership, her partner will automatically be the second parent on the birth certificate, irrespective of the child’s genetics. There are children out there today whose parents, as considered under UK law, have no genetic relationship to the child at all. That is because in UK law, the person who gives birth to a baby, and no one else, is considered the mother. That has led to a complicated reality in today’s world, where a growing share of babies are not born via natural conception.

If you give birth using a donor egg, you are considered to be the child’s mother in the eyes of the law. But if you cannot carry a baby, and if you and your partner have an embryo that is biologically yours carried by a surrogate, you are not considered to be the legal parents when your child is born. Intended parents and their surrogates can draft a surrogacy agreement setting out how they want parental rights to be arranged for the child, but those documents have no legal standing in the UK.

To become legal parents, intended parents must apply for a parental order through the courts. They have to make that application between six weeks and six months after the baby’s birth. Organisations that specialise in assisting intended parents say that the process normally takes between six and 12 months to complete. In that time, the baby will almost invariably be living with the intended parents, but legally, they are strangers to that child.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman is putting the case very well. There are also very practical hurdles, such as registering the child with a GP, the child’s medical circumstances and applying for a passport. The whole thing is illogical. The practicalities add to the timescale, and it is time that the Government address the issue.

[Dave Robertson]

It is always a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in his place in this Chamber. I will touch on health later, so I ask him to hold fire.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for introducing the debate on this petition on behalf of the Petitions Committee. As the DUP’s health spokesperson, I am particularly interested in advocating for the protection of the women and children at the heart of this process. Although health and social care are devolved, surrogacy policy is a reserved matter and is decided by Westminster. The thrust of my concern and contribution to this debate is more about urging caution to ensure that, while we need to legislate for the new scenarios that we face in modern life, protection is in place and the legislation is thoroughly considered. I think that reflects the opinion of most of us who are putting forward points in the debate.

I recognise that surrogacy can be a lifeline for those struggling with infertility or who are unable to have children themselves. Surrogacy can no doubt represent an extraordinary act of kindness where a woman chooses to help a friend or family member to fulfil their dream of becoming a parent. However, I must stress that I have significant concerns about the increasing commercialisation of surrogacy. I have spoken on this issue in a separate debate in Westminster Hall and I want to reiterate the concerns that I expressed then. An important distinction must be made between the women who voluntarily agree to carry a child for someone they know, perhaps with reasonable expenses being covered, and the wholly exploitative system whereby a woman’s womb becomes a service that can be bought. That concerns me greatly.

The background information that we got from the House of Commons Library—we always thank the Library for its contributions—refers to the international and regional human rights relevant to surrogacy: the right to respect for family life, the rights of the child, women’s rights, the right to equality and non-discrimination, the right to dignity, and protection from human trafficking. A number of issues were outlined in the background information that we got from the Library. We must tread very carefully to not contribute to a market that preys on the financially vulnerable and pressures them to use their bodies for the benefit of others. Compensation for genuine expenses incurred in carrying a baby is one thing; paying a woman for carrying a baby is quite another. The distinction becomes increasingly blurred—the hon. Members for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) and for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) both made contributions on this, and I would echo them—when payments for carrying a child are disguised as expenses. There must be no room for ambiguity in this process. I should have welcomed the Minister to her place. We wish her well in the role that she now plays, and we look forward to her responses to our concerns.

In my intervention on the hon. Member for Lichfield, I referred to the practical hurdles, such as registering the child with a GP, making critical medical decisions for a child who may have complex medical needs, and applying for a passport. Prolonged uncertainty is not in the best interests of the child, nor is it fair to the families who have planned for, prayed for and loved that baby from the beginning. Does the Minister not agree that access to these scientific advances means that we must regulate well for them? That is the thrust of what I am putting forward.

I must also raise my wider concerns about the rapidly growing fertility market, as young women are being encouraged to donate their eggs in return for compensation. In fact, it is the clinics themselves that profit most substantially from the donation, and clinics take advantage —I say this with respect—of those who may be in financial difficulties or who need the money. I would argue that sufficient information is not being provided to these women about the potential long-term health consequences of egg retrieval. I am deeply grieved by any idea that promotes fertility as something that can be bought and sold. That is wrong, and I put that on the record.

The concerns that I have outlined become even more significant when we look internationally. Commercial surrogacy is illegal in the UK but permitted in some countries abroad, leading many UK couples to circumvent the law by using a surrogate abroad. That leaves room for exploitation, as the UK Government cannot control the protections available to those surrogate mothers. I ask the Minister what is being done to close those loopholes. We should legislate, if necessary, to ensure that protection is in place. Will any Government action extend to Northern Ireland? I understand that it will, because the matter is not devolved from Westminster. Therefore, if the Government take a decision here, it will apply to us, but I am keen to have that confirmed.

That brings me to the petition, which calls for the intended parents to become the legal parents of the child from birth, rather than having to go through a parental order process. In the Strangford constituency, 131 people have signed the petition. They did so for a simple reason—because they have concerns. I want to reflect their opinion on this process. I can understand why some families may want to simplify the process, and there is perhaps a balance to be achieved. However, does the Minister agree that any reforms cannot be allowed to come at the expense of safeguards for surrogate mothers and the children themselves? The Minister is a compassionate lady—I say that in all honesty and know it to be the case. In my dealings with her over the years, I have always found her to be of that opinion, but we need some reassurance.

Surrogacy should remain an incredible act of generosity. It cannot be anything else—not a commercial transaction that risks exploiting vulnerable women and commodifying their children. That can never happen. With that in mind, I look forward to the Minister’s answers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Pritchard. I start by declaring an interest in this debate as a former member of the appeals panel of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for the tone in which he opened the debate, and I recognise the more than 113,000 people who have signed this petition. Behind many of their signatures will be personal experience of infertility and loss, and a long-held wish to start a family. For intended parents, surrogacy is not simply a legal process; it is about getting a family they never thought they could have, and in many cases, it comes at the end of a long and difficult journey.

Nobody doubts the love that such parents have for their children. Families formed through surrogacy deserve dignity, certainty and respect. However, our job in this House is to consider more than the wishes of the adults involved. We must speak for the child who cannot speak for themselves. We must also protect the woman who carries and gives birth to that child.

The issue for us to consider is whether legal parenthood should pass automatically at birth, before the state has considered the child’s welfare, the surrogate mother’s consent and the circumstances in which the arrangement was made. As a starting-point, any reform to the legislation must do three things: first, and most importantly, it must protect the child; secondly, it must preserve the free and continuing consent of the woman who gives birth; and thirdly, it must address the safeguarding concerns arising from the increase in international commercial surrogacy.

First, on protecting the child, the petition describes the upset and strain of months of court proceedings and visits from social services workers before the intended parents are legally recognised. I understand why that process might feel intrusive and unsettling. Intended parents have planned for the child and cared for them from birth, and already see themselves as a family. However, a parental order is not merely words on a piece of paper; it is the legal means by which parenthood is transferred from one person to another. That is a serious act, with lifelong consequences for the child.

The process, as it currently stands, allows a court to consider the child’s welfare, establish that the surrogate mother has freely consented, examine any payments that have been made either through expenses or cash, and consider the circumstances in which the child will be raised. CAFCASS provides an independent assessment, so that the decision is not based only on what the adults expected or agreed before the child was born.

It is argued by some people that those checks are unnecessary because the overwhelming majority of applications are approved. I simply do not accept that. The fact that a system usually finds that everything is in order does not mean that the checks serve no purpose at all. Their existence helps to ensure that proper standards are followed. If the process is too cumbersome, it should be made more intuitive; if families receive inconsistent advice, that advice should be made clearer; and if the courts or CAFCASS lack the resources to deal with applications promptly, the Government should address that. Delays should be reduced, but that does not warrant the underlying protections’ being diminished. I ask the Minister whether the Government remain committed to the parental order process, and what they will do to reduce unnecessary delays while retaining independent welfare assessments.

My second point concerns the woman who gives birth. Under the present law, the woman who carries and gives birth to a child is the child’s legal mother. Legal parenthood is transferred only after she has given valid consent following the birth. It would be ill-judged to dismiss that as an outdated legal technicality, as it recognises the physical, medical and emotional consequences of pregnancy and childbirth. The law normally prevents consent from being given until six weeks after the child is born. That period of time is necessary: a decision made before childbirth cannot fully account for the experience of giving birth, the mother’s health afterwards or how she may feel when the child is born.

If intended parents became legal parents automatically, that protection would be reversed. The woman who carried and delivered the child would instead have to take legal action if she wished to withdraw her consent or assert her own rights. That should concern us all, particularly where there is a financial or social imbalance between the surrogate mother and the intended parents. A system that depends on someone’s having the knowledge, confidence and money to begin legal proceedings may offer very little protection in practice.

Compassion for intended parents cannot require Parliament to treat the woman who gives birth as a temporary party to somebody else’s story, nor should this be presented as a contest between traditional and modern families. Recognising different kinds of family does not require us to reduce the rights of the woman who carries the child. If the Government are considering recognising intended parents from birth, I ask the Minister to set out what protection would remain for a surrogate mother who changed her mind after giving birth.

The third issue is of growing concern: the increase in international commercial surrogacy. The majority of parental order applications now concern children born overseas. Applications relating to children born internationally reportedly rose from 215 in 2021 to 509 in 2025; in that same year, there were 150 applications relating to children born in the United Kingdom. That marks a significant change in surrogacy in this country. International arrangements may involve large differences in wealth and power, commercial contracts that would not be enforceable here, complicated payment arrangements made through intermediaries and serious doubts about whether consent was properly informed and freely given.

[Jim Shannon]

I should have said this in my earlier contribution, but I refer the hon. Gentleman to page 31 of the Library’s “Surrogacy in the UK” briefing, where it refers to some physical circumstances and risks that came up in a Canadian population-based surrogacy study that I think are incredibly important. It says:

“Some research suggests that using an egg from a relative may reduce these risks”.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to consider the Canadian perspective and the surrogacy study that they did?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

The hon. Member always comes to these debates well prepared and well briefed. I think the point he is making, which we can all agree on, is that this is an incredibly complex area that we cannot rush to legislate on, nor should we seek to water down the clear protections that currently exist.

Health Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I have tabled several amendments to the Bill, but I will hopefully keep my remarks focused so there is a good opportunity for other Members to make their speeches.

The Bill should be about fixing the front and back doors of the NHS. It offers the opportunity to bring in tangible changes for patients to address pressing problems and introduce desperately needed improvements to patient safety and experience. The primary care and social care crisis, in particular, are millstones around the neck of the NHS. But instead of addressing them, the Bill has focused on a top-down reorganisation, which risks diverting time and money away from those pressing issues, and it gives sweeping powers to the Secretary of State, which is not in itself without risk.

The Liberal Democrats would instead have put social care and general practice at the heart of the Bill—a move that would represent real reform of the health service. In particular, new clauses 54 and 56 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) would together transform the rights of family carers through guaranteed respite care and reform of the carer’s allowance. They would put free personal care, and an end to catastrophic care costs, at the heart of social care reform.

New clause 53, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), would ensure that everyone can see a GP within seven days, or 24 hours if urgent, and amendment 17 would introduce a primary care investment standard. Although general practice is the core of a patient’s relationship with the NHS, it has seen its funding decline as a share of NHS spending. Less than 10% of the NHS budget is spent on primary care, although that is estimated to constitute 90% of a patient’s direct experience with the NHS. A primary care investment standard would help to reverse that trend. Dentistry is another area of primary care that has been neglected, leading to dental deserts and dangerous DIY dentistry. New clause 18 would introduce a scheme to end dental deserts, and guarantee appointments for children and those most in need.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

New clause 82 refers to the family mental health pathway, but from diagnosis right through to treatment and, tragically for some, bereavement, mental health support for families cannot be an afterthought and must be a statutory proactive duty. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government and the Minister should take that on board?

[Helen Morgan]

I broadly agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am about to come to mental health. It is right to modernise the NHS and end some of the duplication that we see between NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care, but the way it has been handled has been chaotic. It has been combined with 50% cuts to ICB budgets, unfunded redundancy payments, and chaos through the system. I was alarmed to read the report in The Times at the weekend about advice to the Secretary of State that the changes envisaged under the Bill are impossible to implement, given that the staff of NHS England are on different pay scales to those in the Department. Given those significant hurdles, I hope that in her closing remarks the Minister can provide some reassurance that abolishing NHS England in the way the Bill envisages is achievable.

We are particularly concerned that the functions of the Secretary of State under these reforms open the door to political capture, which is a huge risk given the unstable political climate we live in. Amendment 16 would create a firewall between the Secretary of State and operational decisions. These new powers are particularly worrying in the context of patient safety issues created by the Bill, which we will discuss in more detail tomorrow.

Beyond the Department, the Bill is complacent on taking seriously the vulnerability of our NHS to foreign interference and its implications for national security. That is why we tabled new clauses 2 to 5, which recognise and address the role of the NHS as part of our sovereignty, and the sensitivity of patient data. New clause 17 would require scrutiny in the House of the arrangement between the United States of America and the United Kingdom on pharmaceutical pricing. That deal, forced on us by Donald Trump with no say from the British people, will hike medicine prices in the coming years by billions of pounds, and deserves parliamentary scrutiny. All those shortcomings of the Bill attest to the fact that the NHS already spends far too much time and money responding to failure, rather than improving the safety and quality of services in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

I strongly welcome this landmark Bill, which will protect and strengthen our health service for decades to come, but for children with special educational needs and disabilities who are disproportionately impacted by not getting the healthcare that they need, I believe that it should go further. That is why I tabled new clause 85, which seeks to address the fundamental imbalance in the provision of health services for disabled children and young people. Currently, the statutory duty to deliver education, health and care plans—the legal mechanism by which children with special educational needs and disabilities can receive support—sits entirely with local authorities.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the hon. Lady for all her endeavours in this regard. Does she share my concern that when a child is diagnosed with cancer, the parents are instantly overwhelmed by medical jargon, by appointments and by sheer panic? Does she agree that the Minister, and the Government, should accept the common-sense duty to ensure that no family faces those critical first two weeks completely alone?

[Jen Craft]

I do agree. The hon. Gentleman has made a very good point about the impact of childhood illness, not only on the child but on the family. I also agree that support for families is crucial. They are part of the care team for children when they are unwell, and that acknowledgment needs to be strengthened and acted on.

As I was saying, the statutory duty to deliver EHCPs sits solely with local authorities. In practice, that means that councils are the only bodies that can be held legally responsible for providing the service that a disabled child needs to access education, including health services such as occupational or speech and language therapy. Health bodies are not subject to the same requirement, and I know from my work as a member of the Health and Social Care Committee and a constituency MP, and as a parent of a disabled child, that that too often means that they are not at the table when it comes to delivering services for children with special educational needs and disabilities. There is a fundamental lack of accountability in the system. That, in practice, can force local authorities or families to procure privately, which can drive shortages in the NHS workforce or can mean that provision is substandard or non-existent.

My constituent’s son Haider, for example, has an EHCP which outlines his need for speech and language therapy to gain full access to education. Despite his mother Qaila’s relentless efforts, that support was not delivered for months. Qaila tells me that she has been forced to watch while Haider has become withdrawn, anxious and isolated. My constituent Elizabeth has a similar story. She has been fighting to get occupational and physical therapy for her son William, but significant delays in securing assessments from healthcare professionals have resulted in inaccurate, unhelpful support arrangements.

Vaccination Rates: England

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker—you are certainly earning your money, because you were here yesterday and are back again today. I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) on introducing this debate, and I thank him for setting the scene incredibly well. As the Democratic Unionist party’s spokesperson on health, I am particularly interested in this topic and how it affects those in Northern Ireland. It is good to see the Minister in her place again, and I wish her well in her role. I know that her answers will encourage us—no pressure!

Vaccines have saved millions of lives, protecting our children from serious illnesses and life-changing complications. However, over the last decade, vaccination uptake has declined across the United Kingdom. In 2021, data showed that none of the routine childhood vaccinations had reached the World Health Organisation’s recommended 95% coverage target. That trend reveals a significant risk to public health, which we have already seen with localised outbreaks of measles and whooping cough in areas across the United Kingdom. Research published in August also showed further falls in UK-wide uptake among 12-month-old children of vaccines including pneumococcal conjugate, rotavirus and MenB. If vaccines are not done, it can lead to serious illnesses including pneumonia, meningitis and other life-threatening infections.

I will briefly comment on Northern Ireland, and then I have some asks of the Minister. In Northern Ireland, for children aged 24 months, coverage was above 84% for all reported vaccines. In 2024, the Department of Health warned that a measles outbreak was likely unless urgent action was taken to increase MMR vaccine uptake in Northern Ireland.

New parents must have access to clear, accurate and reassuring information that addresses uncertainty and maintains confidence in the safety of these vaccines. However, my biggest concern is related to practical barriers, which I want to ask about. Research from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has emphasised that vaccine confidence remains generally high across the UK, while practical issues in accessing vaccination services are far more likely to contribute to declining uptake. Practical barriers are largely faced by those living in deprived areas, for example, or those living in rural areas who do not have access to transport.

Can the Minister comment on those who are prevented from accessing vaccines by lack of transport? Will she have discussions with the relevant Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive on vaccination uptake in Northern Ireland? We must get the correct messaging across social media and into schools with a non-condescending approach. Vaccination is in all of our best interests, but an educational approach must be the way forward. With great respect, this should not be a stick with which to beat parents who believe they are doing the best for their children.

Sudden Cardiac Death: Young People

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I have initiated this Adjournment debate on behalf of my late constituent and his family. It concerns a tragic case that raises serious questions about emergency response, clinical training, information sharing, and whether the systems meant to save young lives are fit for purpose.

On 31 January 2024, Adam Ankers, aged just 17, collapsed while playing football for the Wycombe Wanderers Foundation’s under-19 development team. He was a much-loved son, brother, friend and team-mate. He dreamed of a career in professional football, and on the captain’s armband that he was wearing that day he had written the words “strength, inspiration, leader, desire.” Despite the presence of first-aid-trained coaches, despite a defibrillator being brought straight to the pitch, and despite multiple calls to 999, no one recognised that Adam was in sudden cardiac arrest. No cardiopulmonary resuscitation was started.

The coroner found that Adam’s brain had been was starved of oxygen for about eight minutes because no one had attempted CPR, and heard evidence that for every minute without CPR, the chances of survival decrease by 10%. South Central Ambulance Service’s serious incident review reached the same conclusion independently, acknowledging an eight-minute period in which CPR should have started and did not. The ambulance arrived within 11 minutes of the first 999 call, at 2.31 pm, but by then the critical window in which to act, having been led by telephone, had already been missed.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Member has raised a heart-rending and very difficult case, and I congratulate him on that.

The British Heart Foundation estimates that in Northern Ireland one person under the age of 35 dies every month from an undiagnosed heart condition. In view of that, does the hon. Member agree that more must be done to ensure that the public are equipped to perform effective CPR and to use a defibrillator, and are confident about carrying out bystander CPR?

[Greg Smith]

I do agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I will explore many of those issues later in my speech.

When paramedics arrived, they found Adam cold, blue, not breathing, and without a pulse. They immediately started CPR, and took him to Harefield hospital, with the support of Thames Valley Air Ambulance. Despite the best efforts of clinicians, Adam was declared brain-stem dead on 4 February—in law, that was the moment of his death—and his heart stopped for the final time on 5 February, when life support was withdrawn. His parents, Alastair Ankers and Naomi Wakefield, both work in healthcare. Through devastating experience, they came to the conclusion that Adam’s death could have been prevented.

Adam’s parents fought for more than two years for a proper, in-depth inquest, rather than the four-hour online hearing first offered. They were represented by a single barrister, paid for by remortgaging their house, against an array of solicitors and counsel for the NHS bodies and the Football Association. That is not a fair fight. The underlying condition was arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy—ARVC, a genetic heart disease, the first sign of which can be sudden cardiac arrest. This was a failure to identify a life-threatening emergency in real time, and it is why recognition, escalation and response matter so much.

The inquest raised serious concerns about the handling of 999 calls and the ability of call handlers to recognise abnormal breathing and cardiac arrest. Ambulance services in England use one of two systems: MPDS—the medical priority dispatch system—and NHS Pathways. NHS Pathways is used by just over half of 999 services and by all 111 services in England, and it was the system used on the call that day. The inquest heard expert evidence from paramedic David Davis—not the one of this parish—who told the court,

“I am unable to say that NHS Pathways as is currently configured can always properly support members of the public to identify agonal or ineffective breathing. I am also uncertain as to whether NHS Pathways can adequately identify potential out-of-hospital cardiac arrest where there is seizure-like activity at the outset.”

That is about as serious a warning as an expert witness can give. If the system cannot reliably recognise the signs of cardiac arrest, people are being put in danger, and if the public are left uncertain about whether to follow the advice they are given or to act on instinct, that is a public safety problem.

The coroner issued a five-point prevention of future deaths report on 16 April this year. It was addressed to 13 bodies, including NHS England, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Football Association, South Central Ambulance Service, the UK National Screening Committee and Cardiac Risk in the Young. Responses were due by 11 June. There is a pattern in those responses: every organisation expressed sympathy and described some work under way, but almost none attached a date to anything. NHS England says that a genetic service specification is “currently being revised”, but with no timetable. Staff at Resuscitation Council UK say that responsibility sits with NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care, not them. The Association of Ambulance Chief Executives says that it is

“not constituted to mandate or instruct ambulance services”.

Everybody has pointed to somebody else, and there have been warnings for years about call handlers and cardiac arrest, sepsis and other conditions, with no clear public evidence of improvement. Why?

I therefore ask the Minister to instruct the Care Quality Commission to urgently and regularly assess ambulance services on call-handler skill in detecting and managing abnormal breathing and suspected cardiac arrest. A CQC inspection of South Central Ambulance Service before Adam’s death had already found call handlers struggling to recognise abnormal breathing, with serious incidents leading to patient harm as a result—this is not new information to the trust. South Central Ambulance Service’s own response to the coroner’s report suggests that the public should understand that call handlers follow a fixed script, and that callers may need to act independently of the advice given. If it is genuinely the Government’s position that people in the worst moment of their life should second-guess the emergency services, the public deserve to hear that plainly, not discover it buried in a filing after a child has died.

Training alone will not be enough. NHS Pathways plays a central role in how millions of emergency and urgent care calls are handled every year, yet there is strikingly little publicly available data on its safety and effectiveness. That is not good enough. Will the Minister commit to a fully independent review of the effectiveness and the culture of NHS Pathways—not simply a restatement that the National Clinical Assurance Group already provides oversight? That body assures the clinical safety of dispositions; it does not examine culture. Its terms of reference are set by NHS England and it reports to NHS England, which is the body that runs NHS Pathways.

I want to press further on one other point, because it speaks to whether the Government can even get the basic facts right in responding to a dead child’s inquest. NHS England’s own prevention of future death response states that Adam was triaged through “Protocol 12, Convulsions/Fitting”—an MPDS reference. However, the coroner’s findings state that NHS Pathways, a different system owned and run by NHS England itself, was used as the script for that call. Why did NHS England’s response point to the wrong system entirely, rather than confront the failings of the system it actually runs? Did national leadership check its own response against the coroner’s findings before sending it? Will it now formally correct the record and explain how that error ever happened?

Moving on, there is the question of how genetic risk is communicated within families. Distant relatives in Scotland had known since 2018 that a genetic variant, PKP2, which is associated with ARVC, ran in the family, but that was not passed to Adam’s immediate family in full until after his death, and only then because Adam’s parents themselves had to go back to that distant relative and ask directly whether there was a letter he had not shared. There was. Once the risk was confirmed, the genetic service’s answer for cascading that information further to the wider family was a brown paper envelope containing 10 photocopied letters, which the family were left to hand round themselves—a grieving family doing the NHS’s job of tracing and warning their own relatives, with no support offered.

Adam’s grandmother had, in fact, raised the family history with her cardiologist at Papworth hospital, who accepted that it was recorded in three places in her notes but said he had not seen it. A 2022 referral from the GP was read by this doctor but never followed up due to an administrative error. Separately, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, which held the original genetic records, refused to disclose them to the English coroner’s inquest as it fell outside its jurisdiction. The coroner considered applying to the Scottish High Court to compel co-operation, but decided against as it was not a proportionate use of public funds. No family should be told that it is not proportionate to pursue the truth about their son’s death across a devolved border. I ask the Minister to raise this issue with counterparts in the devolved health systems, so that no hospital anywhere in this United Kingdom refuses to co-operate with an inquest into a child’s death ever again.

Lobular Breast Cancer: Moon Shot Project

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for the Lobular Moon Shot Project.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. MPs from across the House are here today to mark the anniversary of the death of my constituent Dr Susan Michaelis, founder of the Lobular Moon Shot Project. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding time at very short notice in the parliamentary schedule for this debate. Unfortunately, that short notice has prevented many MPs who would have liked to have spoken today from joining us. Unfortunately, that was a necessity.

Today is a sad moment because Susan is no longer with us, but it is also a time to celebrate what she has achieved. Susan was a remarkable woman. She was warm but incredibly stoic. At no time was that clearer than on her last trip to Parliament in the summer of last year, oxygen tank in tow. Determined but evidently suffering, Susan stood for 22 minutes in a silent vigil outside No. 10 Downing Street with fellow campaigners and lobular ladies around her. We all understood that Susan was in her last days or weeks, so to watch her husband, campaigners and fellow lobular ladies rallying around her, literally supporting her, was a sight to behold.

In her haste to deliver her petition to No. 10 that day, Susan had forgotten her ID. She was distraught. All that effort would be wasted, as the rules were clear: no ID, no entry. But that, of course, was not Susan’s way. Susan, with our support, blagged her way past security. Susan was never one to take no for an answer. Not long after, Susan died—just days after her meeting with the then Health Secretary.

It might seem odd to say, given that I met Susan when she was already very ill with the lobular cancer that she was campaigning to prevent, but I feel that I met her in her prime. It was immediately clear to me that this was a person with an unparalleled commitment to her cause. Despite her illness, Susan never looked for the sympathy vote. She was always calm and matter of fact. She led by example. It is a reminder that her cause, while not yet complete, is a worthy one, and with a champion to match.

Susan’s first campaign was in fact not lobular breast cancer; it was aviation safety. She flew commercial aircraft in the Australian outback, one of the few female pilots to take up this challenge, and piloted the first all-female crewed Qantas flight. This was before contaminated cabin air ended her flying career in 1997. She spent the following decades building the evidence base on aircraft cabin air contamination, with a PhD, an MSc, peer-reviewed research and a leading role in her home country’s Senate inquiry into cabin air quality. Her focus in her final years was on lobular breast cancer, and it is on this endeavour that I was pleased to support her as her local MP.

Susan was diagnosed with invasive lobular breast cancer in 2013. It was a one millimetre mark—no lump, no pain. Two mammograms and two ultrasounds told her that there was nothing to worry about. An MRI scan found 2.5 cm and surgery then confirmed 7 cm. That gap between what standard imaging can see and what is actually there is the heart of why lobular breast cancer needs its own research programme. It behaves differently. It is missed because it is different and it is currently treated exactly the same as the most common form of the disease, because the underlying biology has never been properly funded.

In May 2023, with her husband Tristan, Susan launched the Lobular Moon Shot Project in Horsham. She built it from nothing into a campaign that has cross-party support in this House, a partnership with the Manchester Breast Centre and a research plan costing £20 million over five years.

In June 2025, Susan travelled to Manchester to help launch the scientific programme that she had spent years fighting for. It was a programme that, of course, she knew she would never benefit from herself. Nine days later, Susan died. She never received a reply from No. 10 and never got a chance to make her case to the then Health Secretary. So today, I will again make the case to the Government on behalf of Susan, the 22 patients a day who are diagnosed with lobular breast cancer, and the 463 MPs who have publicly supported her campaign so far, which I believe is the highest number of MPs to publicly support any individual campaign.

Every day, 22 women in this country are told that they have lobular breast cancer—that is over 8,000 a year. This is not a rare disease; in fact, it is the sixth most prevalent cancer in women.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. He has been very vocal on this subject matter and we all support him. I apologise to him, to you, Mrs Hobhouse, and to the ladies in the Public Gallery today, because I have an early flight home so I cannot be here to make a longer contribution to the debate.

This debate is not just about the women the hon. Gentleman has referred to. Alongside Northern Ireland’s Health Minister, Mike Nesbitt, I have met women in Northern Ireland who have lobular cancer. Some of them will not have a long time in this world and I was very moved by what they told us. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that now is the time for the Minister and the Government to ensure that the small amount of money that is needed to help to alleviate the health issues for women with lobular breast cancer is made available, as well as the money that is needed for research? If that happens, the ladies who are here today and my constituents in Northern Ireland can get the help they need.

[John Milne]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution and I very much agree. I also note that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), who is potentially our next Prime Minister, comes from Manchester, has visited the clinic and is already familiar with the campaign, so I am hopeful.

As I was saying, lobular breast cancer is the sixth most prevalent cancer in women. That puts it ahead of melanoma cancer, ovarian cancer, brain cancer, kidney cancer and pancreatic cancer combined. Incredibly, there is still no specific treatment.

Breast cancer as a whole costs this country over £3 billion a year. It takes around 11,200 lives annually, or the lives of roughly 31 women a day. Many of these are lobular cases, yet lobular breast cancer receives none of the targeted treatment that drives down mortality for other forms of this disease. Every woman who is diagnosed with lobular breast cancer is given the same drugs, the same protocols and the same guidelines as someone with an entirely different cancer. That is because the basic biology of lobular has never been established.

It is this gap that the Lobular Moon Shot Project exists to close. We need £20 million over five years, which is just £4 million a year to crack the biology of this disease. That is not speculative research; it is a certain outcome. Other researchers in the UK and around the world can then take things forward to find targeted treatments, because this is a world problem and the world can find the solutions. Of course, there are many demands on Government funding and the national budget is always under pressure, but I think we would be hard pushed to find another project with such a relatively small need for such a big reward. This is a precise unfunded gap, and we already have a delivery partner in the shape of the Manchester Breast Centre, which is ready to begin this work.

I will conclude by quoting Susan’s husband, Tristan, who is sitting behind me in the Gallery—it is strange that I have to speak these words rather than him, but that is the procedure of the House. He said:

“The last overseas holiday Susan and I took together was to Easter Island, one of the most remote places on earth. Like so many people, I had always imagined the island’s famous stone statues—the moai—looking out across the Pacific Ocean. But when we arrived, we discovered something rather beautiful. Most of them face inland. We were told that they were positioned that way because they watch over their people rather than looking out to sea. Whether that is history, tradition or simply one interpretation, it touched us both deeply.

Before we left, Susan found a beautifully carved wooden replica of one of the moai. We brought it home together, and today it sits in our house. Every time I look at it, I think of Susan. It reminds me that although she is no longer physically with me, her love, her courage and everything she stood for remain with me every single day. In my heart, I like to think she is still watching over me, just as those remarkable statues have watched over their people for generations.

If Susan could stand in Westminster Hall today, she would not ask Members to remember her. She would instead ask you to remember the thousands of women diagnosed with invasive lobular breast cancer every year who still have no treatments designed specifically for their disease. That is why this debate matters. That is why the Lobular Moon Shot project matters. And that is why Susan’s legacy deserves not only our admiration, but our action.

As Susan’s husband, I know she would have been deeply humbled that Members from every corner of this House have come together today to honour her life. She never sought recognition for herself. She simply wanted to leave the world a little safer, a little fairer and a little kinder than she found it. My sincere hope is that history will remember this debate not simply as a tribute to one remarkable woman, but as the day Parliament chose to transform admiration into action for future generations of women diagnosed with invasive lobular breast cancer. That would have been the greatest tribute we could ever have paid to Dr Susan Michaelis.”

Patient Safety Review

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Preet Kaur Gill]

I thank my hon. Friend for putting that on the record. He will know that we are in Committee stage of the Health Bill and there will later be the opportunity to debate this issue on the Floor of the House.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for outlining the case incredibly well. I have a request in relation to the vital lessons learned on data collection, streamlined complaints and patient safety culture. It is important for us all that those lessons are shared with the Northern Ireland Assembly Minister, Mike Nesbitt, as health is a devolved matter; we need to ensure that there is safety for all across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[Preet Kaur Gill]

Absolutely. I am very privileged to have patient safety in my brief. I know everybody across this House really cares about it, and I will make sure that officials do as the hon. Gentleman requests.

Heart Disease and Stroke: Premature Deaths

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster) for setting the scene incredibly well on a subject that affects all of us. As always, I will give some stats for Northern Ireland, where unfortunately we seem to have a particular problem when it comes to premature deaths from heart disease and stroke. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on vascular and venous disease, which has looked at the subject in some detail.

It is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I wish her well; she seems to be in Westminster Hall almost as much as I am, but with much more authority, I have to say. She and I have been friends for many years. I always start looking forward to her contributions the day before I hear them, because I know she will work incredibly hard to give us the answers we wish for; I thank her for that in advance.

It is also nice to see the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) in his place. He was a busy man when he was in Government and is now a busy man as a shadow Minister. He is always approachable, always dedicated and always dependable. We thank him for his commitment to the subject.

We cannot shy away from what the British Heart Foundation has rightly called a “ticking timebomb” on heart health. Across the United Kingdom, cardiovascular disease claims a life every three minutes. This debate will last for about an hour and a half, so the mathematics are quite clear: 20 people will have passed away between the start and the end.

I must do what I always do in this Chamber, which is to bring a specific perspective from Northern Ireland, where the crisis is acutely felt. It replicates the rest of the United Kingdom, in a way, but unfortunately the stats tell us that it is probably worse for us. The stats for Northern Ireland are indeed scary: an estimated 225,000 people are living with heart and circulatory diseases. To put that into context, because it is important that we do so in this Chamber, our total population is 1.95 million, so one in 10 of our citizens are fighting these conditions. When I walk up the high street in Newtownards in my constituency of Strangford, every 10th person I see will potentially be affected by heart disease, stroke or circulatory disease. That concerns me greatly.

The statistics from the British Heart Foundation’s Northern Ireland analysis are also deeply alarming. Cardiovascular conditions are responsible for 24%—nearly a quarter—of all deaths across Northern Ireland. That concerns me greatly, too. Even more heartbreaking is the fact that one in four of those deaths are premature, which means that the person could have been saved if they had had their checks or if help had come earlier. Because of my age, I can remember many occasions when someone has had a stroke or a heart attack and has died instantly. That includes some friends whom I have known over the years and who are not here any more.

It is also heartbreaking that those premature deaths are stealing the lives of people under 75. In a single year, we saw some 4,227 deaths due to cardiovascular disease. That means that every single month, 350 families in Northern Ireland are losing a loved one to a heart attack or a stroke. To put that into perspective, that is 350 empty chairs at the dinner table and 350 families left grieving. Sometimes, when we look at the stats, we think of the people who have passed away, but we must also think of the families on whom there is a significant impact.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is, as always, generous with his time. We all fully appreciate the slant that he brings from Northern Ireland. Would he agree that there is also the issue of regional inequalities within England? We see in Yorkshire and the north of England some of the worst rates of survival when it comes to cardiovascular disease. Does he agree that we need to do more to close the gap when it comes to people from more deprived backgrounds and the poorer health outcomes that they face as a result of heart disease, stroke and other CVD?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman always sums up the thrust of the debate in his interventions; he has outlined that there is sometimes a postcode lottery. He is also right to underline that in areas with deprivation where the emphasis on health is probably less, the issues and the number of those with heart disease rise as well.

I must also declare an interest: I have lived with type 2 diabetes for over 20 years. To put that into perspective, I could call myself a big fat pudding—I was 17 stone at one time. I am now 13 and a quarter stone. I have done that through a bit of willpower, but also by trying to cut out the sweet stuff. I am not always successful, but I do try very hard. My diabetes is controlled by medication, and I thank God every day that we are able to control it that way. I know first hand how closely linked diabetes and high blood pressure are. I take a tablet for blood pressure; I cannot speak for anybody else here, but when hon. Members come to a certain age, they probably will as well. Along with high cholesterol, those two things increase the risk of a catastrophic stroke or heart attack.

I was recently at the diabetes event in the Churchill Room. The lady in charge told me that people with diabetes must always get a check at least once a year—have their heart checked and ensure that their blood pressure is under control.

[Tom Gordon]

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for diabetes, I should say that we have been pushing to make sure that, when people with diabetes have those diabetic care processes, those are better linked with other comorbidities and ancillary services. Does he agree that we need to see more of that to get better outcomes for people with those comorbidities?

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly do; the hon. Gentleman and I most definitely agree about that.

The tragedy is that so much of this premature loss of life is entirely preventable; if it can be prevented, then we should be doing more. The British Heart Foundation reports that half of all strokes and heart attacks are linked directly to high blood pressure. In his intervention, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) has again underlined that, as I have likewise tried to.

Right now in Northern Ireland, over 42,000 diagnosed hypertension patients are not being treated to clinical guidelines. That is unfortunate. Furthermore, 66,000 high-risk individuals are missing out on statins to control their cholesterol. There are things that can be done and prevention strategies that we should focus on. My hope would be that those will improve. If we optimise care, we can save hundreds of lives almost immediately. Surely if we can do that, we should be doing it. If we can treat blood pressure properly over the next three years, we can prevent 380 strokes and 260 heart attacks in Northern Ireland alone—the place I am bringing the stats from.

The issue is not just about statistics, of course. It is about early detection, standardising care and addressing health inequalities. I look to the Minister to outline what direct, co-ordinated action the Government are taking with their devolved counterparts: the hon. Member for South Ribble referred to that in his speech—I thank him for referring to the devolved Administrations, because this issue is about us all.

I know the Minister is always very responsive; has she had a chance to talk with the Health Minister in Northern Ireland, Mike Nesbitt, to ensure that the good things done here are exchanged with him? What can be done with devolved counterparts to tackle the missing patients? They are missing patients, but if they are missing then it is time to put them on the list, to ramp up the diagnostic screenings and, please, to defuse this ticking time bomb before it claims any more of us in this Chamber, or our constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Hodgson]

Right, the hon. Lady said 2015. I am being too clever for my own boots. I wrote down 2010, but of course, as I said in correcting myself, the big cut was in 2015. I am pleased that the hon. Lady has corrected the record for us all.

As I say, we have set an ambitious goal to reduce premature mortality from heart disease and stroke in the under-75s by a quarter in the next 10 years. As part of the first wave of the new generation of modern service frameworks, we will publish a cardiovascular disease modern service framework soon.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble asked me about that, and I shall move on to answer his questions. He asked when; the answer is soon. The Department and NHS England have engaged widely to consider a range of conditions that are most likely to drive progress on the Government’s ambition and the CVD MSF—if Members do not mind me using the acronym to save words—will set out 12 high impact priority action areas, descriptions of how unwarranted variation should be addressed and a road map for the next 10 years. The framework will be backed by clear accountability and routine monitoring of progress using existing NHS performance and oversight arrangements.

To support the delivery of the framework across the system, we will launch a series of ambitious strategic partnerships between Government, the NHS, industry and the voluntary sector. We thank the British Heart Foundation for its support and participation as a task and finish group member for the CVD MSF.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble asked about type 2 diabetes. I pay tribute to and thank his friend Jared, who is with us today, and who I am aware is a type 1 diabetic. Type 2 diabetes is very prevalent in cardiovascular disease. We are taking steps to reduce overall prevalence of type 2 diabetes by supporting programmes such as the NHS health check and the highly effective “Healthier You” NHS diabetes prevention programme. I will talk more about obesity prevention and the obesogenic environment if I have time.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble asked me about cholesterol. We know that addressing raised cholesterol is key to preventing CVD. Statins cut CVD risk in just four to six weeks, and are readily available and quite cheap, as interventions go. As of December 2025, 85% of people with CVD were being treated with cholesterol-lowering therapy, including statins, across England. He also asked me about arterial fibrillation. The Government recognise the importance of optimising arterial fibrillation treatment. As of December 2025, 92% of those with high-risk arterial fibrillation were being treated with anticoagulants, which was an increase from 87% in March 2020.

[Jim Shannon]

There are indications that the weight loss injections and tablets available on the NHS are very effective, but there is some concern about the side effects of weight reduction programmes. Has the Department ever looked at addressing side effects for those who want to lose weight but face other problems because of it?

[Mrs Hodgson]

As with all medication, it is obviously up to GPs to consider side effects when prescribing. Some side effects might be apparent sooner rather than later, but they are definitely conversations that patients need to have closely and quickly with prescribers and GPs. I encourage all constituents to be cognisant of side effects and not just hope that they will go away or that they do not matter. They should always be raised with their GP.

The modern service framework, which is coming soon, will identify and set standards for the best-evidenced interventions to support consistent, high-quality and equitable care across the cardiovascular disease pathway. It will set out an ambitious vision for the future, identifying areas where further progress is needed to build the evidence base or to accelerate innovations to deliver best outcomes for patients. We know that there are unacceptable inequalities across CVD prevention, diagnosis, treatment and care. That is why the CVD MSF will set out strategic priorities and a clear direction on what health and care systems should focus on to drive improvement and outcomes and to tackle unwarranted variation.

A number of hon. Members have highlighted prevention issues and I will address their questions at this point. We know that around 70% of the CVD burden is preventable and due to risk factors that can be modified by behaviour changes, early identification and management, so the early detection of risk factors is key. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee), who is no longer in his place, made a short but colourful point about access to fresh food and food deserts. He mentioned that in some parts of the country, it is easier to get vodka than a banana. I have used a similar analogy with regard to blueberry vapes versus blueberries. We all know of places like that across our constituencies.

The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex, also mentioned access to healthy food for young people living in poverty and free school meals being extended to those children. The Government are extending free school meals to all children of families on universal credit from September, and that is very welcome. We are already extending breakfast clubs so that they are universal. That will be reaching all children; not all children take advantage of them, but there will eventually be access to them for all children in our primary schools.

A lot of the work that I have been doing in the Department since taking up this post has been around my passion. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) mentioned the work that we have done together in the all-party parliamentary group on school food. That group was set up in 2010—I know the date, and I am not going to get it wrong, because I set it up. Healthy food is so crucial. As we are rolling out breakfast clubs and rolling out free school meals to all children of families on universal credit, we want that food to be as healthy as can be.

That is why we had the consultation on new school food standards, which closed in June. They will be in force from September 2027. They will be a lot better, a lot more stringent, than the current standards. I hope that, when they are made public, all hon. Members will be able to buy into them and therefore encourage the perception to change. I think my hon. Friend also said that the perception of school food needs to change, and I totally agree. Come next year, school food will be so much better—it already is in so many of our schools.

As a local MP, I am a bit obsessive about going into my local schools, or whatever school I happen to be in, so much so that it got a bit embarrassing—I will tell this quick anecdote, if I have time. I was visiting a school, and it said that it would get me some sandwiches from a well-known store—I will not advertise the store, but this was pre-packed sandwiches from a nice, upmarket supermarket—because my secretary had said, “Oh, make sure Sharon gets some lunch.” I had to point out to the headteacher that I did not want the nice sandwiches from Marks & Spencer, and that I actually wanted to stay for lunch with the children in the canteen.

I was there to visit and talk about whatever, or to meet the school council, but I would always do those things either side of the lunch break in order that, with my school food APPG chair hat on, I could stay for lunch. My lovely secretary at the time had not explained that bit, so the headteacher, on her way into work that day, had rushed to a well-known supermarket to buy me a selection of sandwiches. I was mortified, so I say to hon. Members that, if they want to eat on their school visits, they should please ensure that they are clear that they do not just want any old sandwiches bought, and that actually they want to sit and eat with the children.

School food is important. I have seen the good, the bad and the ugly. There is more good, and I hope that it will continue to improve, because good habits need to start early. I am talking about the prevention that we all want to see and the healthier lifestyles that we want for the next generation. It is a manifesto commitment of this Government to have the healthiest generation of children ever. That starts in our health service, but it also starts with prevention, and the move from sickness to prevention.

I think the hon. Member for Mid Sussex mentioned junk food advertising, and the other thing that I have been working on is the new nutrient profiling model. The consultation on that has just closed. We are going to be using the new NPM when it is agreed and announced. It will be applied to the junk food ad ban, which is already in place, and we will set out next steps with regard to that in due course. We are also planning work on monitoring and reporting on the healthy food standards. All that is in train, and I am very keen on continuing to do that work, but who knows what might come?

I will now turn to points from other hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport mentioned walking and that he had lost 4 lbs during the recent by-election; it seems to me that maybe what we all need is more by-elections—or perhaps not. The serious point is that we all need to be walking more. If we are walking more, that is good, but we need to be walking briskly. We are supposed to get out of breath and a bit hot and bothered. It is also important that we are trying to eat healthier food.

Department of Health and Social Care

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Layla Moran]

I believe that by the end of my speech, the hon. Gentleman and I will be in violent agreement, if we are not already. There is one more aspect of this, incidentally: the supply chains deal, which I understand is being crafted. We do not have time to go into that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady on the speech she is making. It is really important that we talk about the disadvantages of this deal, and there is a clear disadvantage to Northern Ireland. Access to everyday medicines in rural communities in Strangford and across Northern Ireland will be inhibited, so does the hon. Lady agree that the Northern Ireland Assembly in particular should receive the resources necessary to deliver vital frontline service improvements? At this moment, it is not receiving those resources.

[Layla Moran]

That is a really good point. I will come back to generics, which make up nine in 10 of the medicines that the NHS uses. There is also an issue of devolution here, which I am sure other Members will cover. At the moment it is very complex, and it is not at all clear how the deal will apply in Scotland and Northern Ireland in particular.

We cannot divorce this deal from the geopolitics. It is only happening because Trump decided that he wanted to slap tariffs on every country in the world and on a number of different sectors. The reason why the US came after the NHS is that historically, we get an incredibly good deal, but we have to admit—this is why this debate is so important—that we are using the NHS and NICE in geopolitical negotiations to appease the current President of the United States. Although Trump probably wants to be President for much longer than he will be, his term will come to an end, but the effects of this deal will last much longer than the period of time he might be in office, and the amounts of money involved are eye-watering. I wish we had more information in the estimates, but everyone knows the pressure the NHS is under.

NHS Breast Screening

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 742179 relating to NHS breast screening.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I would like to start by thanking the petitioner, Gemma Reeves, for all the hard work she has put into starting the petition and gathering over 106,000 signatures from across the UK. The petition is titled “Lower the age for invites to regular mammograms to 40 & perform annually”, and says:

“Lower the age for when you are first called to 40 and provide funding to carry out Mammograms Annually instead of every Three Years.

Early detection is key and the prevalence of Breast Cancer in young patients is rising.

I am a Chemotherapy Nurse and working in this Clinical Setting for 8 Years and I have seen a rise in Breast Cancer in Patients under the Age of 40 increase.

Early detection is key in identifying those Aggressive forms of Breast Cancer”.

This is an issue that many people here and outside the Chamber care deeply about. Breast cancer still affects too many women, and far too many women die from it every year. I had the privilege of meeting with Gemma, who is here today. She told me about her experience of being a nurse for 15 years, eight of which have been in oncology, and about her concerns from having seen a rise in breast cancer cases in younger women, especially since covid.

Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer for women in the UK—one in seven women may get it. As Gemma wrote in her petition, “Early detection is key”, and has led to improved recovery and survival rates. Over half of breast cancer cases occur in women outside the national screening age, and one in six occur in women under 50. Men, too, get breast cancer; however, they make up approximately 1% of all cases. Currently, the NHS invites women to come to their first breast screening between the ages of 50 and 53, and this goes on until they are 71. They are invited every three years, after which a woman can choose to continue going for mammograms, but will not be automatically invited. Although everyone is at risk of breast cancer, women are at a higher risk if they are over 50, have dense breast tissue, have a family history of breast or ovarian cancer, or have particular breast conditions, for example benign breast disease.

There is a breast screening pathway for those identified as NHS-targeted very high risk. It is also important to note that NICE guidelines recommend annual mammography scans for women aged between 40 and 49 at moderate risk, as well as annual mammography or MRI surveillance for some high-risk groups.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. Unfortunately, many women are diagnosed with this cancer each year. Invasive lobular breast cancer accounts for some 15% of all breast cancer cases, yet it is routinely missed until it reaches an advanced stage. Hundreds of members of this House have backed the call for a dedicated £20 million five-year research investment into the fundamental biology of lobular cancers. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Minister—I believe she is sympathetic to this—must undertake to incorporate advanced screening technologies, such as contrast-enhanced mammography or MRI, into the NHS pathway for women with dense breast tissue or a suspected lobular profile? The Government must grasp the issue and do something now.

[Irene Campbell]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I, too, look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on that issue.

Some 1.94 million women between the ages of 50 and 70 were screened in 2024-25, and almost 20,000 cancers were detected. Cancers were detected in nine in every 1,000 women, which is a 16% increase on the previous year. Attendance to screening reached the highest level in a decade and has been championed by charities such as Breast Cancer Now, which shares public figures, stories and personal messages.