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.

Diethylstilbestrol: Intergenerational Impact

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jessica Toale]

Yes, I agree that research is needed and that is one of the things that DES campaigners are calling for.

One of those 300,000 women was Rita, the mother of my constituent, Jan Hall. Rita was prescribed DES when she was pregnant with Jan, but when Jan was just a toddler, Rita died of breast cancer. She was only 32. Jan herself later developed cervical cancer in her twenties. Because of the surgeries she had to undergo, she was told she may never be able to have children. She lived not only with that physical consequence, but with decades of uncertainty, fear, grief and anger. Her daughters have experienced significant gynaecological health problems, and now Jan worries about her grandchildren as well.

Jan is not alone. Across the country, men, women and their families have come forward to share their stories and their experiences as victims of this scandal. Some of them are in the Gallery with us today and have allowed me to share some of their painful testimonies.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

One of the people in the Gallery is my constituent, Heather Farrant, who came to Parliament today with two of her three daughters. She has lived with the lifelong consequences of her mother’s exposure to DES. Will the hon. Lady commend Heather and all the campaigners for their bravery in speaking so publicly about something that has been hidden for a long time? Until Heather came to speak to me in my surgery, I had not heard of DES, and without those campaigners, we would not have known about it and been able to raise it here today.

[Jessica Toale]

It was a pleasure to meet Heather today, along with all the other campaigners. I thank them all for having shown such strength in coming forward to share their stories.

One of the cruellest impacts of DES, which sets it apart from other medical scandals, is that its consequences do not stop with the women who were prescribed it or their immediate children. There is growing evidence of intergenerational impacts affecting grandchildren, and possibly beyond. We do not yet know how far those consequences reach. That uncertainty is part of the harm that the families face.

Research suggests that women who took DES during pregnancy—the DES mothers—may face around a 30% higher chance of breast cancer. Female babies exposed in the womb—DES daughters—have around 40 times the risk of developing clear cell adenocarcinoma of the vagina and cervix. They also face increased risks of reproductive complications, including infertility, ectopic pregnancies, premature births and a range of other conditions and complications that we are learning about all the time.

Clare, who is in the Gallery today, described being robbed of her fertility and suffering ovarian failure, and later developing an autoimmune inflammatory condition. At the age of 18, Juliette, who is also with us, was rushed to A&E with severe haemorrhaging after a reaction to the contraceptive pill, and she has stage 4 endometriosis. Anne-Marie, who is also with us, was taken off the pill due to stroke risk and has described being housebound due to the gynaecological issues she has faced. Many of them describe managing complex hormonal challenges and, later in life, debilitating menopausal symptoms. That is a common experience for a lot of these women.

Nottingham Maternity and Neonatal Services

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to regulatory failure, which has been drawn out very strongly by Donna Ockenden’s report. For me, what is completely unacceptable is that in their response to what has happened in Nottingham, they have sought to protect their own. That is something we must change, because it is only through effective regulation that we can have true accountability, and it is only through true accountability that we can get action and change.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I thank Donna Ockenden, the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh), and the Nottingham families for all the work they have done to bring us today’s report about what went on across Nottinghamshire. It is truly shocking. At the same time, they were also supporting Sussex families to get their own justice when those families were repeatedly begging the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) to appoint Donna Ockenden to review what happened in Sussex. I thank them for their support for other families right across the country.

When the Secretary of State was appointed to his role, I shared with him a letter I had written along with Sussex and Leeds MPs, asking for the duty of candour to be written into the terms of reference of the Leeds and Sussex reports. I am so grateful that he has announced today that the Hillsborough law will apply once it is enacted. That is very welcome, but that law has not yet been enacted, and it was delayed in the last Session. Does the Secretary of State know when the Hillsborough law will be enacted, and if he is not clear on that, will he commit to pushing at Cabinet to make sure it becomes law as soon as possible?

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Lady for welcoming our decision about applying the duty of candour to future maternity reviews and inquiries, including those in Sussex and Leeds. We have always been clear that the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—the Hillsborough law—is an important priority for this Government. As soon as it is in law, we will ensure that the duty of candour is applied. Our commitment today is to ensure that NHS staff, current or past, cannot refuse to take part in what the lead investigator wants in future inquiries.

Puberty Blockers

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

This debate is on a subject that, it goes without saying, is emotive and complex. We must therefore as always endeavour to have this conversation with compassion and empathy. The Liberal Democrats’ position is clear and simple, as reflected in our amendment to the motion: any medical treatment and the approval of any clinical trial, including the one we are discussing, must be led by expert medical advice. It should not be led by personal belief, no matter how sincerely and passionately that belief is held. Politics has a place, but not in questions of medical trials and clinical consensus—those are better left to experts.

The Cass review, originally commissioned by the Conservatives, was clear that there was a need to gather more evidence. The safety of young people is paramount, and the experts involved in this space know that better than anybody; they work with these children day in, day out and understand the risks of both action and inaction. That is why we supported the previous decision to pause the trial after the MHRA raised concerns, and why we now support the decision to start it again.

We will listen to the experts and the clinicians, but to build trust in expert advice we need transparency and clarity, and throughout the process, we have pushed for exactly that. We want the expert opinions on the public record, as that allows us as politicians, as well as the wider public, to approach this issue with clarity and facts, not ideology or misunderstanding. That is why we called for the Government to publish how the MHRA arrived at its decision when concerns were first raised, and yesterday we called for the Secretary of State to confirm that the MHRA had confirmed that its concerns had been substantially addressed. Transparency is needed so that people can be confident that clinical advice is being followed.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Alison Bennett]

I am afraid that I will not.

Liberal Democrats have been arguing for many years that improved access to better specialist healthcare services for children and young people struggling with their gender identity is extremely important. Those young people have been badly let down by low care standards and extremely long waiting lists. The closure of the Gender Identity Development Service made it clear beyond doubt that change was needed. We have consistently campaigned for real action to tackle the shocking waiting times across the NHS, including for gender identity services.

Liberal Democrats welcome the move to create new regional centres to offer this care to the young people who need it. There is a need for multiple geographically dispersed clinics so that care is closer to those who need it, but roll-out has been slow, and more needs to be done to tackle the waiting lists—quite simply, a three-year average wait is not acceptable. For the centres to run effectively, we must support the specialists who provide children and young people with high-quality, compassionate and clinically appropriate care.

Treatment, first and foremost, should be based on talking therapies. Space and time to talk through feelings is vital for young people struggling with their gender identity. It is a deeply complex set of feelings, and questioning and understanding one’s identity is never an easy thing, especially for a child, but for talking therapies to be an effective first step, children must be able to access them when they need them, not after years on a waiting list.

The debate is about access to a form of healthcare—one that is led by doctors and clinicians—and, as for any other form of healthcare, we must listen to the experts: the people who have spent years training and years delivering care.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Alison Bennett]

I will not.

We must never lose sight of the fact that at the core of the debate is young people’s wellbeing and health. It is not about ideology; it is about what is best for young people. The Government must always prioritise clinical evidence and put the interests of patients at the heart of care.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.

Spinal Muscular Atrophy: Newborn Screening Test

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for opening this debate so well. I am grateful to the petitioners for securing this debate, including the 287 constituents in my own patch, and to the many families, clinicians, charities and campaigners who have worked so hard to raise awareness of spinal muscular atrophy and the importance of newborn screening. I would like to say a big thank you to them, and I truly mean that.

This issue goes to the heart of what our health service should be about: identifying serious conditions as early as possible, ensuring equal access to life-changing treatment and giving every child the best possible start in life. Spinal muscular atrophy, or SMA, is a devastating genetic condition, as the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar) so eloquently set out when he shared that letter. It causes progressive muscular weakness and can have a profound impact on almost every aspect of a person’s life. Many people with SMA face significant mobility challenges, difficulties with breathing, and bone and joint complications such as scoliosis.

An SMA diagnosis can be life changing for whole families. It brings uncertainty, anxiety, and in many cases, the prospect of intensive and lifelong care needs. Historically, SMA was one of the leading genetic causes of infant mortality. Before effective treatments became available, up to 90% of babies with the most severe forms of the condition would die or require permanent ventilation before the age of two. That stark statistic reminds us just how serious this condition can be.

Thankfully, the picture today is different. Thanks to years of scientific research, medical innovation, and the determination of patients, families and campaigners, we now have treatments that can dramatically alter outcomes for children diagnosed with SMA. These advances represent one of the great success stories of modern medicine, but there is one crucial factor that determines how successful those treatments can be: timing. The earlier SMA is diagnosed, the better the outcomes. In many cases, treatment before symptoms develop can prevent irreversible damage to motor neurones and dramatically improve children’s future quality of life. Earlier diagnosis can mean the difference between a child learning to walk independently or their never achieving that milestone. That is why newborn screening matters, as all hon. Members who have taken part in today’s debate have made so clear.

The debate is about ensuring that children can benefit from treatments at the point when those treatments are most effective; it is about giving families the opportunity that comes with early intervention; and it is about ensuring that where a child is born does not determine whether they have access to life-changing care. That is why there is understandable concern about the current rollout of the in-service evaluation for SMA screening. The principle behind the evaluation is sensible, and gathering evidence and ensuring that the NHS is prepared for wider implementation are important objectives. However, the rollout to date has been inconsistent and incomplete. Some parts of the country have been included, while others, as we have heard, have not.

Families living in areas such as Oxfordshire currently have no access at all to the programme. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) has campaigned tirelessly on behalf of his constituents affected by this issue. In response to a parliamentary question that he submitted, it was confirmed that the current in-service evaluation will offer screening to about 400,000 babies. By comparison, a national screening programme would cover approximately 650,000 babies every year. In other words, under the current arrangements about one third of babies born each year will not be covered by the evaluation.

That inevitably brings up questions, and not just those asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who rightly said that services for rare conditions should cast the widest net possible. Why should access screening depend on geography? Why should one family benefit from early detection, while another family living elsewhere does not? If the evidence increasingly points to the importance of early diagnosis, how can we possibly justify such uneven access? Too often in our NHS, patients and families face postcode lotteries. Whether it is on access to dentists, GPs, mental health services or specialist treatment, geography can end up determining outcomes.

The Government and NHS England have acknowledged concerns about the rollout. We welcome indications that NHS England is considering whether implementation can move faster, and whether the evaluation could potentially be extended more widely. That is encouraging, but families and clinicians need greater certainty. At present, there is a lack of clarity about how long the evaluation will run, when additional sites may be added, and when a final decision on a national screening programme can be expected. Those are issues that it is reasonable to ask questions about, and people deserve answers to such questions.

The Minister might point to the need for robust evidence before national implementation. Of course evidence matters and of course changes to screening programmes must be safe, effective and carefully planned, but if the stated purpose of the in-service evaluation is to gather evidence, surely there is a strong case for gathering that evidence from as broad and representative a population as possible. A wider rollout would not only improve equity of access; it would also strengthen the evidence base on which future decisions will be made.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

A couple of my constituents with direct experience of SMA got in touch with me. The thing that they identified as being most difficult about the current arrangements with the in-service evaluation is the lack of detail about how long it will take. Does the hon. Lady agree that if the Minister could provide a level of clarity about the length of time that the ISE will run, that might give us the sense that there is forward momentum on this issue?

[Alison Bennett]

The hon. Member makes the good point that often the uncertainty and the unknown length of time for which people are in limbo matter, and I hope that the Minister can address his question when she responds to the debate.

In conclusion, the story of SMA over recent years is ultimately one of hope. Medical science has transformed what was once considered an overwhelmingly bleak diagnosis. Children who previously would have had very limited prospects now have opportunities that simply did not exist a generation ago, but those opportunities depend on timely diagnosis. The treatments exist, the evidence is growing and the need is clear. The challenge now is to ensure that every child has the same chance to benefit from those advances, regardless of where they happen to be born. Families affected by SMA deserve urgency, clarity and, above all, a system that acts as quickly as science now allows. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.