Oral Answers to Questions

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I recognise that some women exposed to DES still face difficulties accessing advice, monitoring and referral. Clinicians should consider individual medical histories, symptoms and risk factors. I had a look at the letter that was sent on 12 December explaining what more should be done by clinicians. I will again ask officials to look at whether we need to reissue that letter or whether we need to take any other action to ensure that the information about DES is spread as widely as possible among clinicians.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I am pleased that the Minister is talking about ensuring that medical professionals are more aware of DES and the risks for those who were potentially exposed to it, but what is her assessment of the feasibility of tracking and informing those who were potentially exposed? My constituent Heather did not realise that she—or her mother—had been exposed until long after her mother’s death.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

As I just said, the Government are improving identification and support for people affected by DES by raising awareness among clinicians and strengthening the dissemination of existing NHS guidance. There are considerable challenges associated with recalling records from the 1940s to the 1970s, particularly because of the record-keeping practices of that era and the fact that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency had not yet been established at that time, but I am mindful of the point that the hon. Member makes.

Unpaid Carers

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of support for unpaid carers.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. This is an important debate, and I am grateful to hon. Members from across the House for taking time to attend it. I thank Carers UK, Carers Trust and the many other fantastic organisations working in this space. I also thank all the contributors to the Petitions Committee survey that went out nationally in anticipation of the debate: the words, wisdom and experience of those contributors, from every part of the country, including my own constituency of Mid Sussex, are gold dust if we in this place are going to make the right changes. Even in the short window the survey was open, hundreds of people shared stories and ideas for change. I am sorry I cannot read them all out, but plenty of those stories paint a picture of a country that is failing its carers and those they care for.

That is having horrendous consequences. Last night a harrowing case from my area was brought to my attention, and I will share it as it brings to light what happens when we get this wrong. Two young boys were living with their mum, who had multiple health issues and regular emergency hospital admissions. The mum told the hospital and medical staff multiple times that her sons would look after her at home. Despite this, neither boy was ever identified as a young carer. Eventually, in February 2025, one of the boys found his mum dead following a medical incident at home and had to call emergency services. I would like the Minister to share what steps the Department is taking to improve identification of young carers by health services.

Lots of the contributors to the Petitions Committee survey talked about carer’s allowance, with varying opinions as to its efficacy. Some said they had never heard of it. I would like to share a short extract from the contribution of a former human rights lawyer who gave that up for her caring responsibilities. She wrote in to the Petitions Committee survey with a poem that ends:

“You have the privilege of debating important things every year,

But when my day of caring is particularly gruelling or heart breaking, I sometimes debate whether to go on in this life.

That’s when the strongest and kindest pair of hands curl around my neck,

And say ‘Mum, why are you sad, I love you, it’s going to be all right.’

Carer’s Leave Act 2023 now puts some new responsibility on employers,

So, we ask our employers—and it’s maybe fair to say this is the state

In the most democratic, fair and established country in the world in terms of governance, rights and liberties,

Why do up to 16.2% of the population get just 19% of the national minimum wage—and how is this still even up for debate?”

Unpaid carers are the people who look after family members, friends and loved ones who cannot manage alone. They are partners, parents, children, siblings, friends and neighbours. They provide care in all our communities, often without support and at considerable personal cost. According to the 2021 census, 5.8 million people provide unpaid care across the UK. Some 1.7 million provide at least 50 hours of care every week. Their contribution is extraordinary. The value of unpaid care across the UK has been estimated at £184 billion a year.

Those people sacrifice sleep, put their own health needs aside, limit their career prospects, use up their savings and worry about what will happen if they can no longer cope. Carers UK research estimates that 1.2 million unpaid carers live in poverty, including 400,000 who are in deep poverty. Its 2025 State of Caring survey found that 74% of respondents had felt stressed or anxious, while almost half had cut back on essentials.

No one should be pushed into poverty because they care for someone they love, and no one should have to sacrifice their own health, financial security or future simply because the support they need is not available. This is an issue of financial security, employment, health and wellbeing, and equality of opportunity. It affects people of every age and background in every constituency represented in this House.

We are right to keep saying these things: that unpaid carers do extraordinary work, that without them our entire health system would collapse and that, too often, they go unsupported. However, we also have to make tangible changes that move us on from a status quo that is not good enough—words and actions, not words and inaction.

There have been some welcome developments in recent months. The Government’s carers action plan, the announcement of a dedicated Government champion for unpaid carers, the review of carers’ employment rights and the work to reform carer’s allowance all offer opportunities for meaningful progress. I welcome those steps, but what matters is whether they lead to practical improvements in the lives of carers and those they care for.

We must ensure that unpaid carers are at the heart of the new plans for adult social care, including the work of the Casey commission and the development of a national care service. A new system must recognise that unpaid care cannot be taken for granted. Carers must have a genuine say about what they are willing and able to do, and there must be dependable alternatives when they cannot provide care. Their voices must help to shape the design of services and the decisions made about them and the people they support.

When we get this wrong, we see terrible injustices, such as the carer’s allowance overpayments scandal. The reassessment exercise is welcome, but so far the Department for Work and Pensions has reviewed just 1% of identified cases in six months, which is a woefully slow pace. I would like to hear from the Minister about the Department’s plans to resolve what is clearly an inadequate pace of redress.

As we approach Carers Rights Day next month, this debate is an opportunity for colleagues of all political persuasions to ask the Government to give us a clear and credible plan for unpaid carers. I hope it will be constructive and cross-party. There is much on which we can agree: carers deserve recognition, financial security, access to breaks, support for their health and a fair opportunity to remain in paid employment if they wish to do so.

I would particularly welcome the Minister setting out what concrete improvements carers can expect over the next 12 months, how progress will be measured and how Parliament can hold the Government to account for delivery. Unpaid carers make an enormous contribution to our national community. They should not have to struggle alone, and they should not have to wait indefinitely for the support they need. Properly supporting carers means properly supporting our NHS, our fellow Britons and the nation as a whole. I look forward to hearing colleagues’ contributions and the Minister’s response.

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

There will be a time limit of five minutes for Back-Bench speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Bennett]

I appreciate the opportunity to wind up. I realise that I was remiss in not declaring an interest at the start. As the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) pointed out, I am the new chair of the APPG for young carers and young adult carers—so new, in fact, that I forgot to declare it.

I thank all hon. Members for their speeches and interventions. I can say to the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) that I have had a similar surgery, in which somebody asked about carer’s allowance and the state pension. I was very pleased that the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned the work of Siobhan O’Dwyer at the University of Birmingham. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) talked about her family’s experience of dementia. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his constant kind words and support, and for giving us the Northern Ireland perspective.

The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) talked about Carers Week and the Rochdale carers’ hub. I did a similar event for Carers Support West Sussex. The hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) talked about Freda and her mum, and her own lifetime of working to support carers. I thank the hon. Member for Harlow—I will call him my hon. Friend—for his work fighting for young carers, both as a teacher and now in this place.

The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) shared stories of her own caring responsibilities, and my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) set out the Williams family story, which gets repeated everywhere. I thank the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) for putting those clear questions to the Minister.

Finally, I appreciate the Minister recognising that, although there is consensus in this Chamber, there is still much more work to be done.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

National Care Service

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

I know that the only job my hon. Friend ever wants is to be the Member of Parliament for Harlow—it is such a great job. As we build the national care service, it is important that the voice of family carers and unpaid carers is heard loud and clear. They have a specific viewpoint on some of the changes that we are trying to achieve. Once we have made the announcement, whoever is appointed will work very closely with him, particularly on young carers.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I appreciate being called at this point, because at 1.50 pm there is a debate in Westminster Hall on support for unpaid carers; I encourage all hon. Members to join us. Does the Minister think that the national care service can be funded through efficiencies in the NHS?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Lady not just for her question, but for seeking the debate in Westminster Hall. I apologise to her for not replying to it myself, but there is a sort of time clash going on. My very good friend, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith), will respond to her.

The argument I was making in my statement was that unless we are prepared to grapple with the issue of social care properly, we will pay for the cost of failure, most especially in what we are seeing in the NHS. I feel sure that this is the right thing to do for the country financially, as well as in terms of ensuring that people can live very good lives into old age.

Baby Loss Awareness Week

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Members for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) and for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh), and the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), for their advocacy for better maternity care and for their opening speeches.

I want to begin by talking about an extraordinary woman, my constituent Jane Plumb, from Haywards Heath, and her son Oliver, and the work that they have done with their colleagues in running a charity called Group B Strep Support. They visited Parliament in the summer, and some hon. Members came along to learn more about their campaign, which calls for all expectant mothers to be offered GBS-specific tests late in pregnancy as part of their antenatal care. If that test were offered, more babies could be protected from a life-threatening infection.

I spent some time this afternoon looking at the Group B Strep Support website, and found the history of the charity. I knew that Jane set up the charity after her baby, Theo, died from the infection, and that she had been working on it for decades since then. The first time I saw a photograph of her at Parliament was outside this building with David Cameron; then, a few years later, she met my predecessor, Sir Nicholas Soames, and Theresa May, again while campaigning. That gives hon. Members a sense of the decades that she has put into fighting for babies not to have the same outcome as baby Theo.

The second set of constituents I want to reflect on are the families in Mid Sussex who are part of the Truth for Our Babies campaign. Since last year’s debate to mark Baby Loss Awareness Week, progress has been made for the families in Sussex who lost their babies, the families whose babies were harmed and the mums who were harmed themselves. In last October’s debate, I called for the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), to listen to the calls from those families and the Truth for Our Babies campaign. Their ask was quite clear: an independent review into maternity services at the University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust led, critically, by Donna Ockenden. It was not until April, six months later, that their requests were met.

In the intervening months, the meetings that those families convened with the right hon. Member for Ilford North were raw, emotional and stark. They are meetings I will not forget. I wish the bereaved parents from Truth for Our Babies had not been put in the position where they felt they had no choice but to lay out their babies’ stories again and again in order to be heard.

As so many hon. Members can attest, the distress, pain and exhaustion felt by parents and families tragically stretches on beyond the loss of the baby. It is right and proper that these families receive reviews to better understand what went wrong and to stop things going wrong in the future. I am of course glad that the Sussex maternity review is now under way, but when I receive extremely concerning correspondence from my constituents, such as that which I will briefly go on to quote, I have serious doubts about the way in which reviews are being conducted.

My constituent tells me that

“there is currently no funding available to cover families’ travel expenses to review meetings and that no remuneration arrangements are in place for our time, expertise and emotional labour.”

My constituent rightly notes that this is

“particularly concerning given the review’s commitment to being inclusive and non-discriminatory.”

That is despite the fact that National Institute for Health and Care Research guidance is clear about the importance of properly resourcing public involvement. It recommends payment for public contributors’ time, skills and expertise, alongside reimbursement of reasonable expenses such as for travel. The guidance recognises that financial barriers can prevent people from participating and that appropriate payment and expenses are important to ensuring that involvement is accessible and inclusive.

If families cannot afford the cost of travel or to take time away from work or caring responsibilities, and if they repeatedly revisit traumatic experiences without appropriate recognition and support, the evidence gathered will inevitably be incomplete and potentially fuel the inequalities already in place. I hope that Department of Health and Social Care officials and the Secretary of State will reflect on that. I would be happy to engage with them further as a matter of urgency. I also ask the Secretary of State whether she will heed Group B Strep Support’s calls for screening to be put in place for all expectant women.

Pharmacies: Government Funding

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I sincerely commend the hon. Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) for securing this important debate and setting it out in such clear terms. Community pharmacies are often overlooked as a source of care for those in need, but in constituencies such as mine in Mid Sussex they are vital.

Many of us know what the 8 am rush for a GP appointment can be like, so the fact that there is an alternative trusted high-street healthcare service where people can walk in, speak to a professional and receive advice and treatment is enormously valuable. It is also exactly the kind of shift towards preventive and community-based care that we need to see more of and not less.

Pharmacies take pressure off GP surgeries. They help people get advice earlier, manage conditions locally and, importantly, can keep people out of hospital, but community pharmacies are under immense pressure, as we have heard. Last year, I visited Kamsons pharmacy at the Vale primary care centre in Haywards Heath, where I met Julia from Community Pharmacy Surrey and Sussex, as well as Mark and the wider Kamsons team.

I was struck by just how much local pharmacists do beyond dispensing medicines. A little like the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) when he was much younger, Kamsons provides free home deliveries for prescriptions and help patients organise multiple proscriptions into pill organisers. For vulnerable and elderly residents, these services can literally be a lifeline. They enable people to remain independent and to continue living safely in their own homes, while having the support they need to manage their medication.

The team I met were enthusiastic and deeply committed to helping local people, but they also expressed real disappointment at the level of support currently available to community pharmacies. There is a strong feeling among local branches that the extraordinary contribution pharmacies made during the pandemic has been forgotten. They are struggling to balance the books, as a number of Members have explained.

Community pharmacy funding has fallen substantially in real terms over the past decade. The Government’s recent funding settlement is a welcome step in the right direction, with significant increases announced for ’24-25 and ’25-26 and continued support for services such as Pharmacy First, blood pressure checks and contraception, but we must be honest about the scale of the challenge. That additional funding came after years of financial pressure, while analysis has identified a funding gap of more than £2 billion across community pharmacies.

Rising energy, staffing and medicine costs are placing further strain on businesses that are already operating on tight margins, and patients increasingly experience another pressure directly: medicine shortages. Pharmacists tell me that they can spend hours every day simply trying to source medicines that they have been asked to dispense. That time could be spent with patients, and it means that the pressure does not stop at the pharmacy door. In my constituency, I have heard from patients whose pharmacies have had to reduce opening hours and staffing because of financial pressures. When a pharmacy closes earlier, a prescription issued later that day can potentially be delayed until the following day. For someone waiting for an essential medicine, that can be deeply distressing.

When a pharmacy is struggling to fulfil prescriptions, the consequences ripple through the entire health service: a patient who cannot get their medication may return to their GP; that GP surgery then has another appointment to deal with; a patient whose condition worsens may ultimately require hospital treatment; and another pharmacy, already under pressure, may have to pick up the pieces when a patient desperately seeks an alternative. That is why I ask the Minister to look at community pharmacies not as an optional extra but as a vital piece of the system.

We can see the difference locally. Through Pharmacy First, community pharmacies in my area have reportedly saved almost 2,000 GP appointments—1,937, to be precise. That is 1,937 occasions when people have been able to receive appropriate care closer to home, freeing up GP capacity for those who need it most. That is the model we should be expanding, but we cannot ask pharmacies to keep doing more with less. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a new long-term and sustainable funding model for community pharmacies.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) tabled amendments to the Health Bill about rescuing pharmacies when they have gone bust, which the Liberal Democrats supported; will the Minister seek to add those to the Bill when it goes to the Lords? We want further investment to be directed towards smaller towns and rural areas, as other Members have set out, including parts of Mid Sussex where access can be particularly difficult. We want Pharmacy First to be expanded, giving patients more accessible routine services and freeing up GPs to concentrate on more complex cases, and an exemption for pharmacies from the national insurance contribution increase so that funds are being spent on patients and vital medications.

We also need to tackle the practical problem of medicine shortages. Pharmacists need greater flexibility to substitute medicines where clinically appropriate, rather than spending hours trying to source a particular product that may simply be unavailable. The message I heard in Haywards Heath was very clear: pharmacists want to help. They want to provide more services, support their patients and take pressure off GPs and hospitals, but they need a system that recognises the value of what they do.

Community pharmacies are often the first place someone turns to when they need healthcare advice. They are local, accessible and trusted. When they are properly funded and supported, they can keep people healthier for longer, help vulnerable residents remain independent in their own homes and take pressure off the rest of the NHS. The Government have made a start with their recent funding settlement; I welcomed that, but a first step is not enough. I urge the Minister to listen to the pharmacists I have spoken to in Mid Sussex and across the country and put in place a genuinely long-term plan for community pharmacy. Our local pharmacies have been there for our communities; we need to make sure that the Government are there for them.

Summer Health and Resilience

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome my hon. Friend standing up for healthcare in his constituency. We are asking ICBs to look at the priority needs at different locations in each area, and it is vital that they look at pressures around rural areas and for every community in each area to ensure that all areas have the services they need.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

On social care, the Secretary of State pointed to the better care fund in her statement. I am glad that she recognises its importance, but why is she weakening provisions for pooled budgets, including the better care fund, in the Health Bill? Will she reconsider that?

[Yvette Cooper]

The better care fund is hugely important—I think it has £9 billion that is being jointly allocated. It is for the NHS and local authorities to work together on ensuring that we help to prevent people from entering hospital when they do not need to and that we have the proper services and co-ordination in place. We are also looking at the neighbourhood health programme, as that is another area in which we should look place by place at better co-ordination and ways of working. Those things are really important and will continue. As part of the response to Louise Casey’s review, we also want to look at how we can better bring together all these different approaches, because there is the same fundamental, core issue: whatever we have tried at different times, we are still not effectively co-ordinating health and social care, and we have to do that.

Vaccination Rates: England

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Mrs Barker. I commend the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) on setting out the work that the Health and Social Care Committee has done, and all its members on looking into this vital issue.

Not so long ago, hospitals in this country were filled with rows of iron lungs ventilating children paralysed by polio, and schools were forced to close their doors as measles swept through entire classrooms, leaving some children permanently disabled, and some parents burying their children. We do not see those scenes today, and that is because of one the single greatest achievements in the history of medicine: vaccination. In 2026, it is easy to forget that and to take for granted a world in which parents do not fear that a common childhood illness might kill their child.

However, we are at risk of forgetting the lessons our grandparents learned the hard way, and the numbers prove it. In England, just 81% of five-year-olds have received their 4-in-1 jab against diseases such as polio and tetanus, down from 89% a decade ago, and only 84% have had both their MMR jabs, down from 88%. No childhood vaccine in this country now meets the 95% coverage threshold the World Health Organisation tells us we need in order to keep these diseases from spreading—and they are spreading. Over 800 cases of measles have already been confirmed this year, closing in on the total for the whole of last year.

Vaccine take-up is not evenly spread across our country either. In London, MMR coverage is just 72%, but in the south-west it is 83%—an 11 point gap mapped on to deprivation, inequalities and communities that already find it hardest to access the healthcare they need. It is not just children: only 70% of over-65s and 42% of pregnant women received a flu vaccine this past season, both figures well short of where they need to be. Last year gave us one of the worst flu seasons in memory.

As the hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) noted, the tragedy we saw with the Kent meningitis outbreak earlier this year led to a change in policy on vaccination for meningitis, and we saw that there was the capacity for authorities to do more and to take action. As a mum to a teen who has been called for a meningitis vaccination this summer, I am hugely grateful for that change in policy. That action tells us something important: that when we make vaccination easier to access, uptake follows, and that this is not a lost cause but a policy failure, and policy failures can be fixed.

There is also a darker force at work, and we must be honest about it. Online medical disinformation is a genuine threat to public health, and it is increasingly being given a platform by people who should know better. Reform has refused to condemn Donald Trump’s conspiracy theories linking vaccines to autism. As was noted by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley), at Reform UK’s conference last year a keynote speaker blamed vaccines for cancer in the royal family.

We have seen in the United States exactly where this leads: trusted scientific institutions hollowed out, and the health of a nation put at risk. Doctors and nurses in our own GP surgeries and walk-in centres are now telling us that they are hearing these same conspiracy theories in this country today. We must listen to scientists, not conspiracy theorists, and politicians who lend credibility to dangerous medical falsehoods must be held to account for the harm they cause.

What can we do about it? First, we can invest properly, and for the long term, in our vaccination programmes. This cannot keep being treated as a cost-neutral afterthought. NHS England’s strategy exists on paper, but everyone—from clinicians to campaigners—agrees that it lacks the funding and senior leadership to actually turn things around.

Secondly, we can take vaccination to where people already are. Community spaces and the places people trust should be central to how we deliver an ambitious new push for record vaccination rates. That is particularly true among the communities that we too often write off as hard to reach.

Thirdly, we need a serious, funded strategy to fight medical disinformation head on—not one or two well-meaning social media videos, but a real strategy. That means supporting doctors and nurses with the tools and training to engage constructively with vaccine-sceptical patients; investing in public health messaging that works with trusted local voices and online influencers, not against them; targeted outreach to the communities where scepticism runs deepest; criminal liability for online influencers and politicians alike who profit from spreading dangerous medical disinformation; and a new verification system so that no one can falsely claim to be a medical professional online.

None of that is about shaming families who have been misled. It is about meeting them where they are, with facts, compassion and a system that makes doing the right thing the easy thing. We owe it to every family who lived through the era of iron lungs and empty classrooms not to let their hard-won progress slip away on our watch. Let us fund vaccination properly, let us take it into every community and let us have the courage to say clearly and without apology that we follow the science, not the conspiracy theories.

NHS Corridor Care

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) for setting out so brilliantly, with her professional expertise and human touch, what it means for corridor care to be a normal habit across the NHS in all parts of the country—not just in the winter, with winter pressures, but throughout the year. She made many good points, and I hope I can add some context with the stories I have gathered in Mid Sussex, from constituents who have experienced corridor care first-hand, whether as patients or staff. They have shared some of the most frightening, painful and vulnerable moments of their lives with me. First, I thank them, and to those whose stories I cannot share today due to a lack of time, I apologise.

Many of those people wanted the House to be told one thing before anything else: the staff who cared for them were extraordinary. They spoke of nurses who never stopped smiling despite being exhausted, doctors who apologised because they knew patients deserved better, and paramedics who stayed compassionate under impossible pressure. One constituent arrived at the Princess Royal hospital in Haywards Heath after falling and breaking both a shoulder and a kneecap. It was a Friday night, and A&E was overflowing. After X-rays, they spent hours on a trolley in a corridor beside the nurses’ station because there was nowhere else for them to go. They told me that the nurses were attentive and kind throughout the night. They checked in constantly and did everything they could. However, kindness cannot create another treatment cubicle, compassion cannot magic up another doctor, and dedication cannot create a bed that is simply not there.

Another constituent, Chris Philpot, shared an experience that I found impossible to forget. Following a ruptured appendix and serious complications, he spent 19 hours on a trolley in the corridor at the Royal Sussex county hospital. During that time, he watched an elderly lady have her blood pressure taken while resting her arm on his leg because there was nowhere else to support it. No privacy, no dignity—that is not the standard of care patients should expect in modern Britain.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

My hon. Friend has just highlighted a point that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan). That kind of experience causes concern not only for its lack of dignity, but for infection control, antimicrobial resistance and hospital-acquired infections. That kind of treatment not only has a lack of dignity, but can be lethal. That is a huge public health issue, which my hon. Friend’s specific example highlights.

[Alison Bennett]

I agree with my hon. Friend. What we see time and again is that one problem becomes another until eventually the patient pays the price. My constituent, Catherine Jeater, has seen corridor care as a patient and as a relative of a patient. She watched her father being treated for appendicitis in an emergency department that was so overcrowded that patients were double-parked on trolleys, changing into hospital gowns in full view of strangers. Months later, while undergoing chemotherapy herself, she attended the Princess Royal hospital with a chest infection. Because she was immunocompromised, she should have been isolated. Instead, she received intravenous antibiotics sitting on a chair in a corridor, because no cubicles were available. She told me the staff were amazing, but she also made it clear that amazing staff should never have to work in those conditions

Perhaps the most difficult responses I have received were from the healthcare professionals themselves. One doctor told me that they regularly examine patients in corridors. Another said that corridor care is not just an A&E problem, and that it is now normal for people to be on trolleys in non-clinical areas throughout the hospital. That means there are no curtains to provide privacy, no piped oxygen and no name above the bed, and patient safety is inevitably compromised. A senior nurse described to me the moral injury that they and their colleagues face every day, having to try to deliver the best care possible in terrible conditions, all the while apologising for something that is beyond their power to fix. They have to do that every single day. I am not personally enjoying this third heat wave, but imagine A&E departments without air conditioning: they become furnaces. Imagine trying to treat incredibly frail patients when the temperature in a corridor is 40°C. Another clinician wrote something that stopped me in my tracks. They said that corridor care had become so common that they were teaching medical students and junior doctors how to provide it—and that is not just during winter pressures, but all year round.

This should trouble every single one of us. We are training the next generation of clinicians to adapt to something that should never have become normal in the first place. The real danger is not simply that corridor care exists, and not that we begin to accept it, but that we shrug our shoulders and tell ourselves that this is just how the NHS works now. The solutions are not easy—hospitals cannot fix this on their own—but we do need to get it right. We need to invest in capacity, in workforce, in social care, and in reducing waiting lists so that treatable conditions do not turn into emergencies.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Alison Bennett]

I am sorry, but I will not, in the interests of time.

This is happening not because our NHS staff are failing, but because they are being asked to deliver excellent care in circumstances that make excellence almost impossible. My constituents have not shared these stories because they have lost faith in the NHS; they have shared them because they believe that the NHS can and should be better than this. Let me therefore end with a plea that we never describe corridor care as the “new normal”, because there is nothing normal about receiving intravenous antibiotics during chemo in a corridor. There is nothing normal about waiting 19 hours on a trolley. There is nothing normal about losing your privacy, your dignity, and sometimes even your safety, simply because there is nowhere else to go. The NHS was founded on the belief that every person matters. We need to make that happen once again.

Heart Disease and Stroke: Premature Deaths

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster) on securing this important debate and thank him for sharing his story. Like so many families across the country, mine has its own history of heart disease, either with tragic, early death or, for my father, a triple heart bypass in 2012. He celebrated his 80th birthday this year.

Reducing premature deaths from heart disease and stroke is one of the defining public health challenges facing our country. It is also one of the greatest opportunities. We know what works and where the risks lie; the question is whether this Government are prepared to invest in preventing illness rather than simply responding to it once people become sick. Cardiovascular disease remains the second biggest cause of death in England; every day, around 390 people die from a heart attack or stroke. Heart and circulatory diseases are responsible for one in four premature deaths, while more than 6.4 million people in England are living with cardiovascular disease.

It is particularly concerning that progress has stalled. After years of improvement, premature mortality from cardiovascular disease has begun to rise again. The latest figures show that rates have returned to around where they were over a decade ago. Behind those statistics are families who have lost loved ones far too early; many of those deaths could have been prevented.

Perhaps the greatest injustice is that outcomes are not evenly distributed. People living in the most deprived communities are twice as likely to die prematurely from cardiovascular disease as those in the least deprived areas. If we are serious about reducing premature deaths, we have to be serious about prevention. Too often, prevention is spoken about warmly but funded poorly. We hear Ministers say that they want to shift healthcare from hospital to community and from treatment to prevention. Those are welcome ambitions, but ambitions alone do not reduce blood pressure, identify atrial fibrillation or prevent strokes.

The reality is that the NHS and local government continue to struggle to fund many of the programmes that are proven to save lives. Freedom of information data published earlier this year reveals that more than 70 local authorities are limiting the number of NHS health checks that GP practices can carry out because of financial pressures. The programme designed to identify people at risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes and kidney disease, which is credited with saving hundreds of lives every year, is being rationed because councils simply cannot afford it. That is the direct consequence of years of underfunding in public health.

A straightforward first step would be restoring the public health grant to its 2015 level, which would give local authorities the resources they need to expand NHS health checks and deliver wider prevention programmes that reduce smoking, improve physical activity and help people to manage the risk factors that lead to cardiovascular disease. The Liberal Democrats have also proposed widening access to blood pressure checks by making them routinely available in community settings such as pharmacies and libraries.

An estimated 7 million people are living with undiagnosed high blood pressure. Many of them have no idea that they are at increased risk of suffering a devastating stroke or heart attack. Detecting hypertension earlier is one of the simplest and most cost-effective interventions available. However, prevention is about much more than screening alone. If we want to tackle heart disease properly, we must also be far more ambitious in addressing obesity and the wider causes of poor health.

The evidence is clear that obesity is closely linked to deprivation. A poor diet often begins in childhood, and families facing food insecurity are more likely to rely on cheaper foods that are higher in fat, salt and sugar. That contributes to stark inequalities in health outcomes later in life. That is why we believe that more children living in poverty should receive free school meals. We would also do more to protect children from the relentless marketing of unhealthy food, including supporting councils to restrict outdoor junk food advertising and maintaining stronger protections on television advertising.

For those already living with heart disease or recovering from a stroke, continuity of care is equally important. The Liberal Democrats want everyone living with a long-term condition to have a named GP. Continuity improves outcomes, reduces unnecessary admissions and ensures that patients receive co-ordinated care over many years, rather than fragmented treatment from multiple clinicians. Recovery following a stroke also deserves much greater attention. Around 60% of stroke survivors leave hospital with a disability. Rehabilitation cannot be treated as an optional extra. Every stroke survivor should have access to personalised, high-quality rehabilitation services that help them regain independence and improve their quality of life.

Finally, I want to touch on emergency care. When someone has a stroke, every minute matters. Rapid assessment and treatment can mean the difference between a full recovery and lifelong disability. I pay tribute to Olivia, the wife of the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), for the work that she and her team do at Queen’s hospital. I pay tribute to all practitioners carrying out the same work across the country.

Ambulance delays and overcrowded emergency departments continue to place patients at unnecessary risk. We know that too well in my village, where, a few years ago, we lost a dear friend far too young as a result of a slow ambulance response time. We need action to reduce ambulance handover delays, expand staffed hospital bed capacity, improve social care so that patients can be discharged safely, and ensure that every A&E waiting room has a qualified clinician able to identify patients whose condition is deteriorating while they wait.

Preventing premature deaths from heart disease and strokes will require action across the whole health system. It means investing in prevention rather than allowing it to become the first casualty of financial pressures. It means tackling the inequalities that leave poorer communities carrying the greatest burden of disease. It means strengthening primary care, community services, rehabilitation and social care rather than focusing solely on elective waiting lists.

The Darzi review warned:

“Care for cardiovascular conditions is going in the wrong direction.”

That warning should not be ignored. If the Government are serious about achieving their ambition to reduce deaths from heart attacks and strokes, they must match warm words with sustained investment in prevention, public health and community care. The best way to reduce premature deaths is not simply to become better at treating illness; it is to prevent people from becoming ill in the first place. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Dame Siobhain. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster) for securing this debate on such an important issue. I also commend him on sharing his own personal experience with his diagnosis of a congenital heart defect. I thought, as he was speaking, that it just goes to show that we should never judge solely based on how someone presents on the outside, because we never know what is going on inside; I know he served in the Royal Engineers, and he is also very fit and active. He rightly highlighted why this Government are determined to tackle cardiovascular disease head on through earlier prevention and diagnosis, because that is what is really going to make the difference.

I also thank all hon. Members for their valuable contributions this afternoon. It is clear that far too many lives are still being cut short by cardiovascular disease. In recent years, heart disease and stroke caused around 33,000 premature deaths per year, and it is the second leading cause of death in England after cancer.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) gave a powerful speech, bringing this issue into stark focus with regard to Northern Ireland. I have to say, I share his pleasure in spending so much time in these important debates in Westminster Hall; he and I are usually the common denominator. I want to refer to some of the things that he said, specifically about the ticking time bomb that cardiovascular disease can be. He mentioned that 225,000 people—one in 10—in Northern Ireland live with heart and circulatory conditions. That was very sobering; this is not a niche condition at all. He said that it accounted for 24% of deaths in Northern Ireland—one in four—and that most of those were premature. As always, I will commit to ensuring that key learnings and best practice are shared between both our health services and, indeed, with the other devolved Administrations. I always learn a lot from the hon. Member’s contributions, so I thank him for them. That is why, as part of our 10-year health plan for the NHS, we have committed to shifting from sickness to prevention and to ensuring that fewer lives are lost to the biggest killers, including cardiovascular disease.

I have made so many notes, but the trick is now whether I can find the right note for the right person and not just forget about them all; I am trying to be too clever for my own boots here. The hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) who speaks for the Lib Dems, spoke a lot about prevention and about the shift from treatment and sickness to prevention. She asked me whether the public health grant would go back to 2010 levels. I cannot commit to that. Obviously, something did happen in 2010 and, as much as I like and admire the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), there were big cuts to the public health grant—although I think the biggest cut was in 2015. However, we have provided the first three-year public health grant settlement in over a decade. That will give surety and confidence to the local authorities and public health directors in all our areas for the three years.

[Alison Bennett]

For the record, my request was that the public health grant be restored back to 2015 levels, not 2010 levels.

[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.

National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for his emphasis on the need for us to tackle the deep-rooted cultural problems in maternity services. He talks about how the only ideology that we should follow should be based on science and evidence. I agree with him on the importance of science and evidence, and of making sure that women are aware of the risks and benefits of the different options available to them, so that they can make informed choices. I add that the only ideology I would be comfortable signing up to is one that says that women must be listened to. That is a principle that I think we can all agree on, and we should make sure that it is embedded in our maternity services.

My hon. Friend mentions investment in technology, including the single patient record. The single patient record can be of real benefit and make a difference, particularly in maternity services, and it will be enabled by the NHS modernisation Bill that is going through Parliament. I want to make sure that the single patient record is available to maternity services as quickly as possible. I am happy to share a copy of the report with the Scottish Government.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

The Secretary of State’s announcement of 1,000 extra midwives is welcome, even if the funding is temporary. However, this is a review of maternity and neonatal services. In Baroness Amos’s review of Sussex, she noted that in the 12 months ending in October 2025, only 50.1% of shifts at the Royal Sussex county hospital in Brighton were staffed according to British Association of Perinatal Medicine guidelines. What provision is the Secretary of State making to ensure that neonatal staffing is safe?

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Lady for welcoming the additional 1,000 positions to make sure that newly qualified midwives can find a way to contribute to the NHS. She raises staffing and training, as other Members have rightly done. The taskforce will consider questions about ensuring that we have the right staffing in place, with the right training to support it, ahead of the publication of the national action plan at the end of the year.