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.

Access to Dental Services: West Sussex

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship on Sussex Day, Sir Desmond. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on securing this important debate on access to dentistry services in West Sussex. I also thank my fellow West Sussex MPs, my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) and the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), for taking part in the debate. Of course, I particularly thank the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), and my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire), for their interest in the debate and for making links between our experience in West Sussex and their experiences in their constituencies.

My constituents in Mid Sussex know all too well about the challenge of accessing dental services both for them and their children. An incredible 133,560 children covered by the NHS Sussex integrated care board did not see a dentist last year. That is 41% of them. The figure was even worse in 2024, with more than 140,000 children not seeing a dentist. Dozens of my constituents have contacted me to say that their local dentists are no longer taking NHS patients, leaving them and their children without the vital preventive dental care that they need and that we know saves the NHS a fortune down the line.

Recently, a constituent contacted me after spending months trying to find an NHS dentist. Practice after practice told her the same thing—that no NHS places were available. Faced with either a long wait or private fees she simply could not afford, she was left with nowhere to turn. Sadly, as we have heard during the debate, that story is anything but unique.

[Carla Lockhart]

I apologise for intervening again, but I want to make a point about cancer patients, similar to the one made by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths). The teeth of cancer patients are heavily impacted by the strength of the drugs, so does the hon. Lady agree that the Government need specifically to consider how they can support cancer patients post-treatment and that cancer patients should be able to access free dental care quickly and efficiently?

[Alison Bennett]

The hon. Lady makes a really good point. We know that cancer treatment is a real priority for this Government and it certainly makes sense that her suggestion is considered.

I hear from parents who are worried about finding appointments for their children; I hear from pensioners who are living with pain while waiting for treatment; and I hear from families who are forced to choose between paying for private dental care and paying for other essentials. There is currently only one dental practice in Burgess Hill accepting under-17s and the same is true in Haywards Heath; they are the two main towns in my constituency. For too many people in Mid Sussex, access to an NHS dentist feels less like a right and more like a lottery.

When discussing this crisis, we often hear the phrase “DIY dentistry”. Its use has become so commonplace that we risk forgetting what it actually means. It means people pulling out their own teeth with pliers, or gluing crowns back into place. It means people attempting to treat serious dental problems themselves, because they cannot access professional care. A recent survey found that around 7% of UK adults had attempted some form of DIY dentistry. Over a third of those had tried to extract a painful tooth themselves; others had attempted to drain abscesses or repair fillings at home. People are doing these things because they are in pain and because they feel that they simply have no alternative.

The scale of the challenge to turn that situation around is enormous. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester noted, recent NHS figures show that around 60% of adults have not seen a dentist in the last two years, and over 5 million children did not see a dentist at all in the year to June 2025. Tooth decay remains the most common reason for hospital admission among children aged six to 10. That is truly shameful.

The previous Conservative Government left NHS dentistry in a deeply fragile state. Years of neglect and a fundamentally flawed dental contract drove dentists away from NHS provision, leaving patients to pay the price. Although the current Government inherited this crisis, they simply cannot inherit the excuses. The public were promised 700,000 additional urgent dental appointments, yet only around 100,000 have been delivered so far. Ministers might point to commissioning figures, but patients judge success by whether they can get an appointment when they need one. Far too many people across West Sussex still cannot do so.

I welcome any increase in dental places, and the Government have made moves in that respect. However, I am sure that we all accept that there will be a long pipeline before the trainees of today become the fully fledged dentists who are able to carry out work doing NHS contracts.

More importantly, training more dentists alone will not solve the problem. The dental contract remains broken, as we have already heard today. Dentists continue to tell us that the current system discourages them from doing NHS work and fails to reflect the complexity of the treatment that they provide. Unless the Government are prepared to commission and fund more NHS dentistry, increasing the number of dentists will not automatically increase access for patients. That is why contract change is so important.

In April, Ministers announced a consultation on changing the contract, with proposals expected before the summer. Midsummer’s day is next week. Patients waiting in pain cannot afford further delays, and dentists who are considering their future in the NHS cannot afford further uncertainty. The Government must set out a clear timetable for reform and ensure that implementation is not kicked into the long grass.

The Liberal Democrats believe that there is a better way forward. We have proposed a £750 million dental rescue package to end dental deserts and restore access to NHS dentistry. We would guarantee access to an NHS dentist for everyone requiring urgent or emergency care. We would fix the broken dental contract, expand training places, continue recognition of EU-qualified dentists and put proper workforce planning into law. We would also guarantee free dental check-ups for children, pregnant women, new mothers and those on low incomes while investing in prevention and oral public health, because if we are serious about solving this crisis, we must stop treating dentistry as an afterthought.

This debate is about real people in Mid Sussex and across West Sussex and the country. It is about the parent in Haywards Heath who cannot find an NHS dentist for their child, and the older resident in Burgess Hill who is living with pain while waiting for treatment. It is about families who are doing everything right, but finding that accessing basic NHS dental care is increasingly impossible. No one in Mid Sussex should ever be forced into DIY dentistry, and no child should end up in hospital because routine dental care was unavailable.

I would be grateful if the Minister could address three points. First, when will the Government publish and implement proposals for dental contract changes? Secondly, how will Ministers ensure that additional training places result in greater NHS capacity, rather than simply increasing the number of dentists working outside the NHS? Thirdly, what specific action is being taken to tackle unmet dental need and dental deserts in areas such as West Sussex? People in Mid Sussex and across our region deserve access to timely, affordable NHS dental care. I hope the Government will respond to this crisis with the urgency it demands.

Allied Health Professionals

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for opening the debate, and to the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for her work on the APPG and as a physiotherapist.

Medical staff in my constituency and across the country are the backbone of our national health service. While doctors and nurses are often front of mind when the public think about the NHS workforce, as we have heard this afternoon an army of highly skilled professionals keep our health services running every single day. They save lives, provide comfort in moments of fear and, as set out so brilliantly by the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), aid rehabilitation, enabling people to get back to their normal lives.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I am conscious that this debate is on a devolved matter, but I thought it worth mentioning that the Allied Health Professions Federation held a hustings for the Scottish Parliament elections earlier today. Topics included having input from health professionals during primary care and the crisis in vacancies. On rehab, does my hon. Friend agree that we need to ensure that allied health professionals get the access they need to, for example, care home patients, so that we can get those people out of hospital and into the right setting to receive the care that they need?

[Alison Bennett]

My hon. Friend is right. We know that with the right support, often from allied health professionals, people do not need to present at A&E and they can get out of hospital and into suitable accommodation with the right level of support much more quickly, which is better for them as individuals and also supports the NHS in carrying out its functions more efficiently.

Many of our allied health professionals—the third largest professional group in the NHS—do amazing work, as we have heard. They are central to prevention, diagnosis, treatment and public health. As pressures on our health and care services have grown, their role has become indispensable. From the paramedic first on the scene in an emergency, to the radiographer enabling rapid diagnosis and the physiotherapist helping someone regain their independence, those professionals are there at every stage of the patient journey. They are often the difference between life and death, between recovery and long-term disability, between dependence and independence, yet their contribution is overlooked.

After years of mismanagement, our NHS has been left on its knees. Nowhere is that more visible than in our emergency departments. We have seen avoidable deaths in A&E waiting rooms, we have seen patients waiting hours for ambulances, and we have seen the shocking normalisation of corridor care—patients left on trolleys without privacy, dignity or proper attention. There are now even reports of people receiving end-of-life care in hospital corridors. This is a health system under intolerable strain. Public confidence is being shaken. It is no surprise that two thirds of people are worried about long A&E waits.

The data is stark. Last year saw the worst level of 12-hour trolley waits ever recorded. On average, hospital trusts are now seeing thousands of patients waiting more than 24 hours in A&E every year. That is unacceptable. The Liberal Democrats have been leading the call to end corridor care within a year. We believe the crisis can be tackled, but only with serious, practical action. That includes creating a bank of safety net social care places and expanding step-down care for patients who are medically fit to leave hospital but still need support.

At the heart of the solution are allied health professionals. By delivering rehabilitation packages through physio- therapists, occupational therapists and others, we can help people leave hospital sooner, recover more quickly, and regain their independence at home. That is better for patients and it is essential for freeing up hospital capacity and ending the gridlock in A&E.

Will the Government commit to ending corridor care and 12-hour waits this year, and will they back that commitment with real investment in community care, social care and the allied health workforce? If we are to rely on those professionals—as we must, and as we already do—we need to support them properly. Right now, working conditions across the NHS are driving morale into the ground. Staff face inflexible rotas, burnout and, shockingly, workplace violence. That is not sustainable for them or for the patients they serve.

The Liberal Democrats have a number of proposals that we would be grateful if the Minister considered. We would establish a truly independent pay review body. We would expand access to affordable childcare so NHS staff can balance their family with their careers. We are also calling for action on everyday costs such as reducing car parking charges at hospitals. Those are practical steps that would make a real difference.

There are also growing staffing pressures among the allied health professionals. The Library reports that there has been a 57% increase in allied health professional full-time equivalents over the last decade, with the number of employees rising from 75,000 to 118,000. However, in conversations with the Royal College of Podiatry, it described high vacancy levels for NHS podiatry positions, a declining pipeline of applications to study podiatry programmes in England and rising demand for podiatrists’ services, all the while with the draw of working in the private sector. In physiotherapy, eight in 10 physiotherapists report that they do not have enough staff to meet demand, yet many services are facing recruitment freezes. Those contradictions speak volumes.

The long-delayed national workforce plan must finally deliver for allied health professionals. It must address regional shortages and embed these roles fully into workforce planning from the outset, not as an afterthought. If the Government are serious about shifting care into the community and focusing on prevention, investment in AHPs is essential. Too often, we see a gap between rhetoric and reality. While Ministers talk about prevention, funding decisions continue to prioritise short-term fixes elsewhere.

Our NHS is one of this country’s greatest achievements, but it cannot function without the people who sustain it. Allied health professionals are highly trained, autonomous practitioners. There are nearly 118,000 of them working across the NHS in England. They are central to modern, multidisciplinary care and to the future of a sustainable NHS. If we want a health service that prevents illness, reduces inequalities, and supports people to live healthier, longer lives, we must recognise and invest in their contribution. We must continue to fight for an NHS that works for patients, and we will continue to stand up for the staff, especially those too often overlooked, who are doing everything they can to get our NHS back on its feet, because they deserve nothing less.

Wheelchair Provision: Independent Review Body

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

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

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

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

[Dr Ahmed]

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

Sudden Unexpected Death in Childhood

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

“total service collapse in these areas.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meningitis Outbreak

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

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

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

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

[Wes Streeting]

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

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

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