Wheelchair Provision: Independent Review Body

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) for securing this important debate and setting out so clearly and in such detail why this matters.

Access to a wheelchair is essential for many disabled people’s quality of life. It enables independence, supports physical health and allows people to participate in daily activities, work and their community. This debate is about whether the current system is capable of delivering that access consistently, fairly and effectively, or whether there is merit in establishing an independent national review body to help achieve that goal.

As we have heard this morning, when access to a wheelchair is delayed or when equipment is unsuitable the consequences are serious. People can become housebound or bedbound and their health can deteriorate, leading to preventable complications, and in some cases avoidable hospital admissions.

Across England, wheelchair services remain inconsistent. Too often, access depends on where someone lives. Long waiting times are widely reported, with some individuals waiting months and, as we have heard, in some cases over a year for appropriate equipment. For something so fundamental to mobility and dignity, that level of delay is unjustifiable.

The impact extends beyond the individual who needs the wheelchair. Family carers provide vital support to their loved ones. Without a suitable wheelchair, carers may need to help with lifting and movement, increasing the risk of physical injury to themselves. There are also clear effects on mental health and wellbeing, both for carers and for the user of the wheelchair, and those are linked to the loss of independence and reduced privacy resulting from unsuitable equipment.

These issues point to broader structural challenges. The Liberal Democrats believe that everyone should be able to live independently and with dignity; yet the current state of wheelchair provision reflects wider pressures within the health and social care system—pressures that contribute to inconsistency, delays and gaps in accountability.

There have been efforts to improve services, including the NHS’s wheelchair quality framework, which sets out important principles and standards. However, it is reasonable to question whether guidance alone is enough to drive meaningful change, particularly in a system facing financial strain and ongoing reorganisation. Frameworks can outline expectations, but they do not ensure delivery.

Wheelchair services are frequently delivered by private contractors on behalf of the NHS. In some cases performance has fallen short, as we have heard this morning, with long waiting times, poor communication and limited flexibility for patients. Where oversight is weak or fragmented it becomes harder to ensure the consistent high-quality provision that people deserve. This is where the question at the heart of today’s debate becomes especially relevant. There is a strong case for a more co-ordinated national approach that ensures clear accountability, consistent standards and better use of data to monitor performance and outcomes.

An independent national review body overseeing wheelchair provision could offer solutions. It could provide clear accountability at a national level, helping to ensure that responsibility for performance does not become diffused across multiple organisations. It could support more consistent data collection, addressing current gaps in understanding around demand, waiting times and user experience. It could also strengthen the oversight of providers, including private contractors, ensuring that poor performance is identified and addressed more effectively. Importantly, it could help to ensure that best practice is shared and implemented more uniformly across the country, reducing the postcode lottery that currently affects so many people.

Establishing a new body is not a solution in itself. The body’s effectiveness would depend on its powers, its independence and how it integrates with existing structures. However, given the persistent challenges in wheelchair provision, it is entirely reasonable to assess whether such an approach could deliver improvements that existing mechanisms have struggled to achieve.

The issue is closely connected to wider policy challenges affecting disabled people, which extend beyond the responsibilities of the Department of Health and Social Care. For example, the Access for All scheme of the Department for Transport will make railway stations more accessible but I know from my Mid Sussex constituency that the promise of step-free access at Wivelsfield station, made under the last Conservative Government, was not funded and the upgrade has been cut by this Labour Government. The Access to Work scheme of the Department for Work and Pensions can help people with physical and mental disabilities get or stay in work but, as I previously set out to the Minister in this Chamber back in March, the wheelchair that one of my constituents needs has been delayed by years due to the DWP’s bureaucracy and “computer says no” attitude. All such schemes should work together to enable disabled people to live fulfilling lives. By extension, where the schemes are working properly, timely access to support would reduce pressure on other parts of the NHS, as we know is desperately needed. At present, provision is too variable and too slow.

In considering the potential merits of establishing an independent national review body, the key question is not whether change is needed, because it clearly is, but how best to deliver it. A national body could provide the focus, oversight and accountability that are currently lacking. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I urge the Government to look into the arguments voiced in this debate and assess whether an independent national review body overseeing wheelchair provision is the best way to achieve the improvements that are so clearly needed. Those improvements are achievable but require sustained attention at a national level. For the many people whose independence depends on something as fundamental as a wheelchair, that change cannot come soon enough.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

Absolutely. I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Phil Woolas, who was an outstanding Member of this House and is dearly missed. I know the whole House will join her in sending condolences to Tracey, Josh and Jed, and their thoughts will be with them today. I am pleased to report that the National Institute for Health and Care Research brain tumour research consortium, backed by over £25 million-worth of investment, aims to unlock new treatments and transform outcomes. Earlier this year, we announced £3 million, with Cancer Research UK, for the brain tumour centre of excellence, including the glioma centre of excellence. Only recently, I was at Edinburgh University looking at progress there. It feels like we could be close to major breakthroughs, but she is absolutely right to hold NIHR and NHS England’s feet to the fire on this issue, and I will continue to join her in that.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

Cerys was just 22 when she took her life while an in-patient at Park House in Greater Manchester. The coroner described the unit as “a shambles”. Cerys’s was just one of a number of deaths at the unit. There is a national pattern of mental health trusts failing to learn and act when tragedy occurs. Although reports on preventing future deaths are issued, there is no mechanism to ensure that their recommendations are acted on. How can accountability be strengthened?

[Dr Ahmed]

Anyone receiving mental health treatment, in particular acute mental health treatment, deserves dignity and high-quality care. Where care falls short, this Government’s approach is that sunlight is the best disinfectant. That is why we are absolutely committed to learning, and to taking action to protect patients and improve in-patient mental health care up and down the country. I am deeply distressed to hear about this case and about other cases, including at St Andrew’s. NHS England and the Care Quality Commission are acting to keep patients safe. I am happy to take forward any further discussions with the hon. Lady, as necessary.

Sudden Unexpected Death in Childhood

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for his brilliant opening speech setting out the frame of our conversation.

I am mindful of the families in the Public Gallery, who have had unimaginable loss and who represent just a fraction of the families across the United Kingdom who have gone through this tragedy. I also know that some hon. Members who have met families who have lost a child through sudden unexplained death in childhood could not be here today, and they have asked me to extend their thanks to SUDC UK for the advocacy and support it has provided for those families.

As hon. Members have said, losing a child is one of the most devastating experiences a parent can face. For parents to lose a child suddenly and to not know why is even harder to comprehend, leaving them without answers and wondering endlessly whether anything could have been done. That is a burden no parent should have to carry alone, yet that is the reality for families affected by sudden unexplained death in childhood.

As we have heard this morning, the experience for families is far from what we would hope. According to research by SUDC UK, only about half of families who experienced an unexplained child death were assigned a bereavement key worker. Many parents reported distressing and at times traumatic experiences when dealing with authorities in the aftermath of their child’s death. At the very moment families need compassion, clarity and support, too many are instead met with confusion, delays and even suspicion. We must do better than that.

Of course, that is a reflection not of the incredible staff across the NHS and other services but of a wider system that is failing. When a child dies unexpectedly, there is meant to be a structured review process. Families should be guided, supported and treated with care and dignity. Not only do more than half of NHS areas in England not have a specialist bereavement nurse available to visit parents after such a death, but as the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen set out, there is a shocking shortage of paediatric and perinatal pathologists across the United Kingdom. I am going to spend the next few minutes focusing on that often overlooked profession.

I recently met the president of the Royal College of Pathologists, Dr Bernie Croal. He explained that with vacancies for this specialism running at 37%, bereaved families are suffering. Let me set out the scale and consequences of the situation. In December last year, there were only 52 paediatric and perinatal pathologists, or PPP consultants, working in the United Kingdom. There were no PPP consultants working in Northern Ireland, none in the south-west and none in the midlands. The royal college says that that has led to

“total service collapse in these areas.”

In Northern Ireland, there has not been a paediatric and perinatal consultant in post since 2019. For children from Northern Ireland, post-mortem examinations are being carried out on an interim basis at Alder Hey children’s NHS foundation trust in Liverpool. Bluntly, if a baby or child needs a post-mortem, their body must be transported from Northern Ireland by ferry or plane to England.

Right across the UK, the lack of PPP consultants is having a harrowing effect on bereaved families, with one in five families having to wait six months or more, and some waiting more than 12 months. This matters because the support and expertise of paediatric and perinatal pathologists can give families answers where they exist, and in many cases, a diagnosis can help to screen other family members who might be affected by a certain condition. They can also potentially give information that aids treatment should a family decide to try for another baby.

I have three questions for the Minister. The first is on the root causes; namely, the shortage in the paediatric and perinatal pathology workforce. Given that the royal college recommends that training posts should be expanded to 37 places by 2030, what concrete, funded plans do the Government have to deliver those to ensure a sustainable pipeline of paediatric and perinatal pathologists?

Secondly, on the delays affecting families, will the Minister commit today to bringing forward a plan to improve the resilience of paediatric pathology services so that bereaved families receive timely answers when they are trying to understand the shocking and unexpected loss of their child?

Thirdly, on investment in the wider pathology workforce, what investment will be made in the multidisciplinary workforce, such as biomedical scientists and pathology technicians, to ensure that paediatric pathology services can function effectively? Even with more doctors, services fail without the supporting team.

A sudden unexplained death in childhood is truly shocking; it happens to around 40 children each year. Those deaths will never be explained, as things stand, and could not have been anticipated, but we have a moral obligation to make sure that what we can control—the right people with the right training in the right places—is there for families. Paediatric and perinatal pathology services is just one specialism where there are gaps in provision, and as we have heard from other hon. Members, there are other specialisms, too. More can be done, and so more must be done.

Meningitis Outbreak

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement. Like other hon. Members who have spoken, first and foremost my thoughts are with the family and friends of the two young people who have lost their lives, and everyone who has been touched by this devastating outbreak. It is understandable that many young people and their families will be feeling anxious. With that in mind, is the Secretary of State confident that this outbreak is contained and has not yet spread beyond those present at the initial event?

It is not unreasonable for young people and their families elsewhere in the country to be wondering whether they should be seeking catch-up vaccines. Young people will not have been protected by the menB vaccine that is available to those born after 2015. Is the Secretary of State confident that there is sufficient stock to deliver protection to all those who need it? As well as talking to the JCVI, will he involve Meningitis Now, which has called for teenagers and young people born prior to 2015 to be vaccinated against meningitis B on the NHS?

Vaccination rates are falling in the UK, including for meningitis. For that reason, all politicians and political parties have a moral duty to support science over conspiracy theories. It is deeply regrettable that certain parties have not been responsible in this respect in recent months, and I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues are worried that these avoidable deaths will become more common should a conspiracy theory narrative persist. We must encourage those communities and healthcare workers who are not currently taking up vaccines to do so. We must build trust, tackle disinformation and encourage people—regardless of where they live—to take up lifesaving vaccines.

[Wes Streeting]

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for her response, and I strongly endorse what she said about the importance of vaccination. When it comes to determining which vaccines are available and to which cohort, we follow the advice of the JCVI, but if one good thing can come out of this awful situation, I hope it is general public awareness of the importance of taking up vaccinations where they are available. They remain one of the best public health tools available to us.

On the one hand, it is a very good thing that few people alive in this country today remember the dark days when this country did not have a national health service and did not have vaccination available for common treatments. It is wonderful that we now live in a country where the memories of some of those everyday conditions being widespread killers are distant, but there is also a real risk of a return to those Victorian conditions, because of the misinformation and irresponsible anti-science political positioning that we see in certain corners of even this House. I hope that politicians in particular will think carefully and responsibly about our shared duty to the public in helping people be protected.

On the specific concerns that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson raised, the public health risk to the wider population remains low, but we are actively contact tracing and offering antibiotic prophylaxis to those in close contact with cases. The antibiotics are one course, and they are effective in 90% of cases. I once again emphasise to those watching that if you or someone you know develops symptoms of meningitis or septicaemia, you should seek medical help urgently by calling 111 or 999, particularly if symptoms deteriorate. If you are one of those students at the University of Kent who may have left campus and would otherwise have been visiting one of those four sites, we are making arrangements for you to be able to see your GP and receive the antibiotics there.

Disability Equipment Provision

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing this debate, which is timely because I want to highlight the case of a constituent and ask the Minister to work collaboratively with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to intervene urgently in what has become a deeply troubling example of administrative failure in the DWP’s Access to Work scheme.

My constituent lives with cerebral palsy and ME. She wants to do exactly what Government policy encourages people to do: work, contribute and maintain her independence. To do that, she requires a wheelchair through the Access to Work programme—an essential piece of equipment that enables her to remain in employment. My constituent has done everything asked of her ever since her first application in July 2024. Her assessment was completed, quotes for a suitable chair were submitted and the case had progressed to the point of an award. Then, the system failed her. In September 2025, her case manager informed her that he was retiring, and that the case had been passed to a colleague, who would contact her. That contact never came.

Despite my constituent’s repeated attempts to follow up, no one in the Access to Work scheme took ownership of the case or progressed the order. Instead, months later, she was told that her case had been closed due to “no contact” since July, which was demonstrably untrue. When my office intervened, the Department acknowledged the issue, and stated that it would contact my constituent within 10 working days. That deadline then passed. When she attempted to chase the matter herself, she spent nearly an hour on hold, only to be told that the manager was unavailable. What is perhaps most concerning is the reason now being given: the Department would prefer my constituent to submit a completely new application for the wheelchair, rather than reopen the existing case, purely because reopening it would affect its management information.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

Last year saw the first fall in Access to Work approvals in more than a decade, including a 16% drop in approvals for aids and equipment, despite the alleged surge in disability claims overall. That suggests that, behind the scenes, the Government have instructed the DWP to get tougher on approval criteria, but without announcing any formal change to policy in public. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a strange way to go about improving employment prospects for the disabled?

[Alison Bennett]

My hon. Friend makes an important and interesting point, and I very much want to get underneath the detail of why that change has happened.

Returning to my constituent’s case, I want to ask the Minister three questions to which I believe my constituent deserves a response; if he is not able to answer them, perhaps he can write and raise these matters with the correct Minister. First, does the Minister agree, as I hope he does, that the case should urgently be reopened? Secondly, does he disagree with the DWP’s apparent position that the integrity of its management information is more important than ensuring that a disabled person has the equipment that they need to work? Thirdly, will he ask his colleagues in the DWP to review the so-called integrity of the Department’s management information, given the serious concern that cases may be closed and replaced with new ones in a way that creates the appearance of efficiency, when the reality for constituents like mine is repeated failure?

At its best, Access to Work is a transformative scheme, but when the system fails and the metrics appear to matter more than the people who the scheme exists to support, confidence is undermined. My constituent is not asking for special treatment; she is simply asking for the Department to finish the job it started. I hope the Minister will help me to swiftly put that right.

Palliative Care

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful and moving contributions this afternoon. The hon. Members for Worcester (Tom Collins) and for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) spoke so movingly about their own very personal loss. Of course, we would not be holding the debate were it not for the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who set out the frame of this debate so brilliantly and has done so much outside the Chamber to strive for better palliative care.

The hon. Member for York Central concluded her remarks by talking about bereavement support, and that is where I will begin mine. Last week, I was out in Burgess Hill. I saw an elderly gentleman who was standing by the edge of the pavement holding on to a walking frame. I got talking to him, and it turned out that he was waiting for a lift to St Peter and St James hospice, where he was going to a bereavement café. He told me that he had lost his wife two and a half years ago, but he had no recollection of the first two years following her loss—I think it had been a blur for him. For the past six months, he has been going back to St Peter and St James for the bereavement café, and he is beginning to feel a little better with that support each week. My thanks go to St Peter and St James, and to all the hospices that support our constituents, for what they do.

Our palliative care system is at tipping point, with a funding cliff edge approaching. Some 75% of hospices are running a deficit, two in five are planning reductions in clinical services in the year ahead, and 380 hospice beds across England lie empty, not because there is no need for them, but because there is no funding to staff hospices, as many hon. Members have said. Around 300,000 people are cared for by hospices every year, yet around 100,000 more need it. One in three of those who need hospice care miss out, and demand is rising sharply.

Over the next decade in England, just over 5.75 million people will die. Around 90% of them—an estimated 5.18 million people—will have palliative care needs. New research commissioned by Marie Curie and published earlier this month showed that nearly one in three dying people have both unaddressed symptoms and concerns and insufficient access to GP services at the end of life. That equates to nearly one person dying with unmet needs every three minutes. Without intervention, around 44,400 more people are projected to have unmet palliative care needs in 2050 compared with 2025. That is the scale of the challenge before us.

Hospices are essential pillars of our health and care system, especially at a time when the NHS is under such immense strain. The economic case for funding them properly is overwhelming. Approximately 15% of all emergency hospital admissions in England involve people in their last year of life—nearly 1 million admissions in 2023 alone. Those patients account for around 30% of all emergency hospital bed days. In the last six months of life, around 360,000 people spent a total of 8.4 million days in hospital. With the average acute bed day costing around £500, and with roughly 40% to 50% of the NHS budget concentrated in acute settings, the potential for a more appropriate allocation of resources is obvious.

Around 69% of people are admitted as in-patients in the final six months, with a median stay of 13 days, and 80% of those who die in hospital had an emergency admission in their final month of life. These are real people—people who, with better planning and properly resourced hospice, community nursing, GP, pharmacy and paramedic services, might have experienced a calmer, more dignified end of life and spared the NHS considerable cost. But the very sector that relieves this pressure is itself under extraordinary strain. Between 2022 and 2024, there was a £47 million real-terms cut in hospice funding. As the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) noted, the disastrous rise in employer national insurance contributions alone is costing hospices in England an estimated £34 million a year.

Hospices collectively raise about £1.4 billion themselves. Government funding amounts to just over £500 million—barely a quarter of the income—and in some areas, hospices receive as little as 8% of their funding from NHS grants. There is no robust national methodology underpinning these variations. It is a postcode lottery and, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) noted, the variation in funding for children’s hospices is even more acute than that in the adult hospice sector. Access to compassionate end-of-life care should not depend on geography, the strength of an area’s ability to raise funds or whether someone is an adult or a child.

Hospices, of course, welcome the capital funding from the Government, but it quite simply does not pay nurses’ salaries. Staff account for around 70% of hospice costs. Without revenue funding for core services, capital investment does not keep beds open or prevent service reductions. This is a national, structural problem, but it is also a very real one for all our areas across the country, particularly for my area in Sussex, where the Southern Hospice Group is consulting on how to cut its costs.

Marie Curie and others have warmly welcomed the Government’s commitment to developing a palliative care and end-of-life care modern service framework, with an interim report expected in the spring and a final report in the autumn. It will be the first national plan for palliative and end-of-life care since 2008. That is, of course, good news. The Government have rightly identified five core challenges: delays in early identification, inconsistent commissioning, workforce shortages, gaps in 24/7 provision, and limited uptake of personalised and advance care planning. But those are not new problems that need solving—we have known about them for some time—and if this framework is to succeed, it must go further.

My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are campaigning to double the funding for bereavement support payments, reversing the last Conservative Government’s cuts since 2017. We would also reduce isolation following a bereavement, by improving access to social prescribing and through the work of a dedicated Minister for tackling loneliness. We would improve support for children who have lost a parent by appointing a Cabinet member for children and young children, and extend pupil premium plus funding to children in kinship care. The Government must provide stronger national leadership and oversight, and they must place palliative and end-of-life care at the heart of plans for a neighbourhood health service, looking beyond hospices. They must deliver a new funding and commissioning model that ends the postcode lottery. They must invest properly in the workforce, and scale up proven models of care that shift support from hospital to community, improving patient experience and delivering better value for taxpayers.

The Government seem happy to talk about moving care from hospitals to the community, but we need a material change. The Liberal Democrats believe that the Government have a choice: they can allow hospices to drift from crisis to crisis, with beds closed, staff lost, and unmet need rising year after year, all while still struggling to plug gaps left by the struggling NHS; or, they can seize the moment, through the modern service framework, to build a sustainable system that matches funding to need and delivers dignity for all. No one should face death in avoidable pain, no family should be left unsupported, and no responsible Government should ignore the evidence that properly funded palliative care is both the compassionate and the economically responsible choice.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill

Alison Bennett Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

With respect, I think the hon. Gentleman has got his chronology slightly wrong. As shadow Health Secretary, I proposed that we should double the number of undergraduate medical school places. That policy was poached by the then Conservative Government, who made modest progress with it. We then came into government, looked at their long-term workforce plan and concluded that it was not a particularly long-term workforce plan, and we are revising it as we speak. The number of medical school places will be determined by future need. We will publish our long-term workforce plan in the not-too-distant future.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

rose—

[Wes Streeting]

I will give way to the hon. Lady and then to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds).

[Alison Bennett]

The Secretary of State rightly notes that there is international competition for healthcare talent. On Friday, I met Dr Osoba, a GP who trains future GPs. She told me how disheartening it is to train future GPs whose intention is to leave the UK. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that British-trained medics stay working in the NHS?

[Wes Streeting]

The hon. Member puts her finger right on the issue at the heart of the Bill. That is exactly the challenge we want it to address. The Bill is not a panacea—it does not solve all the problems—but reducing competition for specialty places from around four to one to less than two to one, as the Bill will do, will make it far more likely that people who have undertaken their training here in the UK will stay here and contribute to our national health service. Of course, there is much more to do on career structure, pay and conditions, but we will go as fast as we can and as far as the country can afford. We recognise that we need to keep the great people we have invested in, because doing so is in their interest and in our national interest.

NHS: Winter Preparedness

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Responsible trade unions think about the wider workforce and the impact on service users, whether they are children or other users of public services. Crucially, for most trade unions in this country strike action is a last resort. It is astonishing that the BMA chose to go on strike after a 28.9% pay rise, well ahead of the Government making any decisions on future years’ pay and with the Government willing to discuss future years’ pay with the BMA.

It is extraordinary that the BMA has chosen to go on strike after we proposed to take action on jobs, including by bringing forward legislation at an expedited pace. By the way, that involved ensuring that the legal advice was watertight and that, operationally, we could deliver a new application round. It involved working trust by trust to secure the extra training places, and working with my counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Even after all that effort was strained to bring forward something quickly for this application round, the BMA rejected it. It is unreasonable, and to have rejected the offer of postponing strikes until the new year on the grounds of patient safety and doing the decent thing by their colleagues was unconscionable.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

Next week, families such as mine will be coming together across the generations to celebrate Christmas, and there will be a mix of people who have been vaccinated and those who have not, whether by choice or by default. Teenagers and young adults are struggling to access vaccinations, and they cannot walk into a pharmacy like an adult can. Is the Secretary of State content that everything is being done to ensure that if families want to get their young people vaccinated, they will be vaccinated in time for Christmas?

[Wes Streeting]

Yes. The JCVI makes evidence-based recommendations, and we follow its evidence. With the best will in the world, we of course give out practical, common-sense advice, but we should not infantilise our constituents. They are perfectly capable of working out who can get together this Christmas. They really do not need Government Ministers to start issuing directions about who can get round the table for Christmas dinner and who can get together in the days after. In the exchanges we have in this House there is sometimes a degree of patronising of the British people. They really, really do not need us. They really do not need our advice on the seating plan at Christmas dinner; what they need is for NHS services to be there when they need them, and that is what the Government are focused on.

Acquired Brain Injury Action Plan

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Dame Siobhain. I sincerely thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for securing this debate, for his thoughtful remarks and for his advocacy on this subject over many years.

As we have heard, an acquired brain injury is an injury to the brain occurring after birth, often caused by a car accident, a fall or, as hon. Members have said, a sports incident. The consequences can be profound. Acquired brain injuries can alter movement, senses, memory, reasoning, personality and emotions. In other words, they can change the entire direction of a person’s life and the lives of their families and carers.

Although the injury itself may often be sudden, the struggle that follows is not. For better or worse, it is shaped by the systems meant to support recovery. At present, those systems are failing far too many people. For years we have seen the same problems persisting: too little access to specialist rehabilitation, chronic workforce shortages, incomplete data, fragmented commissioning and Departments that do not work together. Those failings translate directly into poorer recoveries, greater long-term disability and immense emotional and financial strain on families and the economy.

The NHS 10-year health plan committed to delivering effective rehabilitation in the community—a promise that was warmly welcomed, but it is frustratingly vague. We know that access to rehabilitation is central to enabling people with an ABI to live fulfilling, independent lives, and that rehabilitation works best when delivered by a skilled multidisciplinary team. Despite that, rehabilitation remains underfunded, understaffed and inconsistent across the country. Earlier this year, the UK Acquired Brain Injury Forum published a report that laid bare the scale of the challenge and the opportunities to tackle it. It is estimated that acquired brain injuries directly cost the UK economy £43 billion every year, while ABI-related wellbeing costs amount to £91.5 billion. Crucially, as the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) said, neuro-rehabilitation yields a remarkable 16:1 return on investment.

The message is clear: investing in rehabilitation is not only the right thing to do morally, but one of the smartest decisions economically. Yet local capacity is shrinking when it should be expanding. Headway UK recently revealed that delays in receiving payments from local authorities and ICBs have had severe impacts on local brain injury services. My constituents in Mid Sussex are lucky enough to have Headway Sussex, which partners with brilliant local organisations such as Carers Support West Sussex. However, in the past two years alone, almost 10% of local Headway groups have been forced to close their doors. Each closure represents a community losing vital expertise and support.

There has been some progress. In October 2025, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence published new guidance on rehabilitation for chronic neurological disorders, including ABI. The evidence underpinning that guidance showed what people with ABI have known for a long time: that many do not feel empowered to share feedback, that often rehabilitation is considered only once symptoms already affect daily life, and that people with acquired brain injuries typically need cycles of intensive treatment followed by lighter ongoing support. The new NICE standards set out clear minimum expectations across all health, mental health and social care settings, but they are just that—expectations.

In July, in response to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), the Government confirmed their intention to publish an acquired brain injury action plan in autumn 2025. As the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings noted in his opening remarks, we are yet to see that plan. This follows years of long overdue commitments from the previous Conservative Government, who, having consulted in 2022, promised an ABI strategy back in 2024. People with an acquired brain injury should not have to wait any longer. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I believe the Government must publish that action plan without delay, and it must include a commitment that every person with an acquired brain injury has access to a named GP.

Continuity of care is essential and at the heart of Liberal Democrat policy, but our vision goes further. We are fighting for better social care for disabled people, including free personal care, more support for family carers, more respite breaks and paid carer’s leave. That would offer desperately needed stability to families who have been carrying the burden alone for too long. We would extend the right to flexible working to everyone and give every disabled person the right to work from home, unless there are compelling business reasons not to.

We want people with an acquired brain injury to live not only independently, but with dignity and opportunity. To make that a reality, we would adopt new accessibility standards for public spaces, modernise the blue badge system and incorporate the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities into UK law. We would also introduce adjustment passports, ensuring that support and equipment stay with the person, not the employer, when someone changes jobs. Those are practical reforms, grounded in common sense.

However, we simply cannot talk about acquired brain injuries without talking about the crisis in social care. People with long-term conditions such as an acquired brain injury often have the most complex needs, yet they are among those suffering the most from the failings of the system. Hundreds of thousands of people are waiting for care, and many are stranded in hospital beds because the support they need simply does not exist in the community. In my time since being elected, I have heard that from constituents in Mid Sussex. The situation is bad not only for those individuals, but for the NHS, and it is disastrous for the taxpayer.

The Liberal Democrats would fix the back door of the NHS by introducing free personal care based on the successful Scottish model, creating a social care workforce plan, establishing a college of care workers, raising the carers’ minimum wage and ensuring that unpaid carers get the respite breaks and financial support they deserve and need. The Liberal Democrats would reverse the increase in national insurance contributions and invest directly in community nursing. We would create an independent pay review body, implement a 10-year retention plan and expand access to flexible working and childcare. We would reduce reliance on expensive agency staffing by rebuilding a flexible and sustainable NHS workforce.

People with acquired brain injuries and their families and carers deserve better. Our country, which bears the enormous economic and social cost of inaction, deserves better too. It is time for the Government to act, so I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say today.

Unpaid Carers: Inequalities

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) not only for securing this important debate on Carers Rights Day, but for all her work championing carers since her election to Parliament.

I welcome yesterday’s publication of the terms of reference of the employment rights for unpaid carers review, which suggests that the Government are looking in the right direction. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) noted, the pace is not as fast as it could be—it has already been going a year—and the period of consultation may actually be too short, given the demands that carers and the people who support them face, as everybody in this Chamber understands. I hope this review will usher in paid carer’s leave, as it would make the biggest difference for those on the lowest wages, who cannot currently afford to take unpaid carer’s leave.

This year, the theme of Carers Rights Day is, “Know your rights, use your rights”. It is all about making sure, as hon. Members have noted, that the millions of unpaid carers who support loved ones through illness and disability, know that they have access to support and rights, such as carer’s assessments, carer’s leave and hospital discharge support.

In my Mid Sussex constituency and across the UK, hundreds of thousands of people are waiting for social care. Many are stranded in hospital beds simply because the support they need in the community is not there, which in turn puts immense strain on our already creaking NHS. That is why my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are campaigning so passionately for a social care system that values care users, supports care workers and, crucially, recognises the millions of unpaid carers who quietly keep this country going.

The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) set out her frustrations, which we share, with the pace of the Casey review. It is worth noting that only one cross-party meeting has happened since the Secretary of State announced that review in January, and a second meeting has not yet been convened. Can the Minister advise us when we can expect to secure a second meeting?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I want to express my thanks to Baroness Casey, who, although she has been appointed to this commission, is doing other work for the Government. I would not want that to go unrecognised when we are talking about the delays.

[Alison Bennett]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s excellent point. It is regrettable that there seems to be only one person that the Government like to call on to do very important work across a number of different areas.

[Dr Chowns]

The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) make very good points. I gently point out to the Government that it is not Baroness Casey’s job to convene cross-party talks. Political leadership is needed, and it should come from the Health Secretary himself. We do not need to wait for Baroness Casey to bring all the parties together—the Government need to do that.

[Alison Bennett]

I agree with the hon. Lady’s comments.

Unpaid carers, who are the focus of Carers Rights Day, do remarkable, difficult and emotionally demanding work every single day. They do it out of love, without recognition and, too often, without the support or rights that they deserve or should have access to.

As the spokesperson on care and carers for my party, this is something I say a lot, but it bears repeating: unpaid carers are the backbone of Britain’s care system. There are 5.7 million carers across the UK, and together they provide care worth an estimated £162 billion every year—almost the size of the entire NHS budget. For that to be the case, however, they make huge sacrifices. Every single day, 600 people leave their job to care for someone they love. If carers are expected to shoulder that vast responsibility, they must have rights. Those rights must be well known and easy to access, and must make a meaningful difference to carers’ lives. Today is about making sure people know and use their rights.

I am proud that my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife changed the law with her Carer’s Leave Act 2023, which secured the right to unpaid time off work for carers. That legislation was an enormous step forward for the almost 2 million employees who balance work and caring responsibilities. I am also proud that Liberal Democrat campaigning helped to secure an increase in the carer’s allowance earnings limit in last year’s Budget, easing pressure on people who want to remain in work while caring. I recently tabled the Unpaid Carers (Respite and Support) Bill, which would guarantee regular respite breaks for unpaid carers—something that is not readily accessible across the country.

There is much more to do, however, and unpaid carers face inequalities on all fronts. On gender, women become carers earlier and more frequently than men, are more likely to provide care and more likely to work in part-time and lower-paid roles. On employment, carers face barriers to remaining in paid work, with large numbers reducing their hours or leaving their jobs. On health and wellbeing, caring drives significant and preventable health inequalities, with high rates of long-term conditions, worsening physical and mental health, difficulty accessing support, and greater impacts for women and those providing the most hours.

On poverty, there are currently 1.2 million unpaid carers in poverty and 400,000 in deep poverty, who struggle financially due to low carer’s allowance, a reduced ability to work and a complex benefits system. Young carers face substantial disadvantages in terms of education and future opportunities. Those spending more than 35 hours a week caring are far less likely to gain a degree or enter employment. That is why the Liberal Democrats want unpaid carers to have real financial support, including an increase of £20 a week in the carer’s allowance to bring it to £103.30. In next week’s Budget, should the Chancellor be minded to increase the minimum wage, I sincerely hope that carer’s allowance will be pegged to that increase.

We also want a review of the requirement of 35 hours’ care per week, which too often forces carers to make impossible choices. Critically, we want a taper on the earnings limit so that, if a carer’s earnings go above the limit even by a few pence, they do not immediately lose all their carer’s allowance. That is plain common sense. It is precisely because there is no such taper that the carer’s allowance overpayment scandal has been allowed to happen, with horrendous consequences for thousands of carers.

Carers deserve better. They deserve respect, they deserve support and they deserve rights that they can rely on and easily exercise. Carers Rights Day reminds us that rights are powerful only if people know they have them and feel able to use them. Too many carers do not know what they are entitled to; too many assume that support is not for them and too many are simply too overwhelmed to navigate unnecessarily complicated systems. That is why fantastic organisations such as Carers UK and Carers Trust are vital. They look out and speak up for these extraordinary carers to whom we owe so much.

On this Carers Rights Day, I close by echoing the words of the Princess of Wales, who urged us this week to restore

“the dignity to the quiet, often invisible work of caring…as we look to build a happier, healthier society.”