World Suicide Prevention Day

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Liz Twist]

I look forward to meeting Alfie’s Squad later today; they are doing a great job on suicide prevention in my hon. Friend’s area. I will come on to the Premier League shortly.

I turn to the global statistics. The World Health Organisation calls suicide a “major public health challenge” and estimates that it claims the lives of more than 720,000 people every year. In the UK, the latest Office for National Statistics figures show that in 2024 there were 7,147 deaths registered where the cause was recorded as suicide. We know from the data that men account for three in four of those deaths, and that suicide is the biggest single cause of death for men under the age of 50.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate and for her dedication and hard work in this space. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for tradespeople, and having previously served on the all-party parliamentary group on male suicide and mental health, I am concerned that the construction industry faces a suicide risk 3.7 times higher than the national average. Will she join me in ensuring that the men’s health strategy moves from paper to practical action in workplaces, particularly in the construction industry? When we talk about workers coming home safely, that must mean both physically and mentally.

[Liz Twist]

Having done some work with the construction sector, I know exactly what my hon. Friend is talking about and how much attention must be paid to that issue.

Sadly, my region, the north-east, has the highest number of deaths by suicide. That is not a league table that we want to top. The latest figures put the north-east’s rate at 15.1 deaths per 100,000 people. For men who have been referred to secondary mental health services, it climbs to 157.8 per 100,000. That harsh reality demands urgent, targeted intervention.

Whenever we see such statistics in Parliament, we must immediately remind ourselves that there are real people behind the numbers. Each one of those individuals whose life was cut short leaves behind a devastating legacy of grief. The ripple effect of a single suicide spreads relentlessly through families, circles of friends and workplaces, and inflicts severe social and emotional consequences on entire communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Twist]

The right hon. Gentleman touches on another angle, namely the world of the internet, which provides such a challenge. The work of Ripple is important in preventing that harm, but there is so much more to do. I congratulate Ripple on its award.

Jami UK is a Jewish mental health organisation with which I have done a good deal of work; given the subject of our previous debate today, it seems particularly appropriate to mention it. It does fantastic work in London and beyond, and is a regular contributor to the APPG.

Individuals have also transformed personal tragedy into relentless campaigning. We have already heard about Philip Pirie, who has worked on an assessment of suicide risk and is now pushing for training on it to be mandatory for NHS staff. The 3 Dads Walking campaign has captured the attention of the entire country. After losing their daughters Sophie, Beth and Emily to suicide, they marched together across the UK to demand that suicide prevention be taught in schools.

[Amanda Martin]

It is amazing that my hon. Friend is highlighting the fact that, so very often, out of tragedy come amazing families campaigning. I want to raise the case of Chloe Holland and Skye Nicholls. Their families have been campaigning because their family members took their own life following coercive control. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must recognise the devastating link between suicide and coercive control, and ensure not only justice, but proper recognition and response?

Health Bill

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 8th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I will speak about new clause 41, which stands in my name.

We put enormous, unquestioning trust in those who care for the bodies of our loved ones when they die. However, in this Chamber six months ago, I told a former Health Minister, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), about Elkin and Bell, the Gosport funeral directors who left 46 bodies decaying in an unrefrigerated room. One of them, an elderly gentleman whose family had already paid for his cremation, was left decomposing for 36 days. I said then that the funeral sector was nothing better than a lawless wild west with no mandatory qualifications to practise, no accreditation for professionals, no licensing of businesses, no inspection of premises, and no law to fall back on when things go wrong. It was only persistence and ingenuity on the part of Hampshire constabulary that saw Elkin and Bell brought to justice. The Minister at the time told me that a decision on regulation would come in the Government’s full answer to the Fuller inquiry, and we are still awaiting.

Since then, matters have worsened. In July, Robert Bush, a funeral director in Hull, was sentenced to 20 years in prison after pleading guilty to 67 charges for bodies left decomposing in squalor. Forty-six grieving families had been reunited with the wrong ashes, but the real horror is that these will not be isolated cases. Under the law as it stands today, almost anyone can set themselves up as a funeral director.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her work in this area in the neighbouring constituency. The vast majority of funeral directors operate with integrity, compassion and professionalism. Does she agree that, as reputable businesses, they are crying out for robust regulation?

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

I genuinely could not agree more. This is not at attack on the profession. The vast majority of funeral directors do their job with extraordinary skill, great care and huge professional integrity. It is precisely because of the trust that grieving families place in them every single day that we cannot allow a rogue minority to drag the reputation of the whole sector through the mud.

In a written statement on 1 September, the Government said they intended that proposals for regulation would be forthcoming, but they set out no timetable, and detailed plans were promised only “in due course”. Families have already waited years and cannot be expected to wait indefinitely. New clause 41 would require the Secretary of State, within six months of the Bill passing, to extend the remit of the Human Tissue Authority beyond hospital mortuaries, which it currently covers, to funeral directors, private mortuaries, direct cremation services and any other organisation that transports or holds the bodies of the deceased.

Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

Amanda Martin Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 4th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Helen Hayes]

I agree with the right hon. Member about the importance of face-to-face services. I mentioned the excellent community midwifery services that I was able to benefit from as a new mother. We have got ourselves into a terrible state with maternity care right across the country, with tragedies and a real challenge in turning those services around. One of the things I found so important and appreciated so much about that community midwifery service was that during the course of my pregnancies, I got to know the team of five midwives who worked in that service. One of those midwives took me through labour and the antenatal period. That was so important for building the trust that, in midwifery and maternity services in particular, has been badly damaged by service failures in lots of areas of the country.

My second daughter has two middle names, one of which is Agnes. Agnes is the midwife who delivered both my babies through that excellent community midwifery service, about which I cannot speak highly enough. Those services have now largely gone; midwifery services are not delivered in that way anymore.

On the delivery of online services, parents and carers—all of us—look for advice online all the time, so it is important that there are accredited, reliable, trustworthy sources of good information online. I do not dismiss the role of online services, but they cannot ever be a substitute for the delivery of in-person services.

As our Labour Government seek to restore some of the provision that was lost as Sure Start was dismantled, and to respond to the challenges that families face by expanding Best Start family hubs, there are some vital considerations. The first, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) alluded to, is the principle of universality. None of us comes to parenthood for the first time knowing everything about what is best for our baby. For many new parents, irrespective of material resources, the experience is overwhelming. It is an incredibly vulnerable time of life: 10% to 15% of new mothers experience post-partum depression. We should therefore ensure that all new parents can access support and advice in the earliest years, and that it is easily accessible for everyone in their local communities. If support was delivered in that way, there would be no stigma associated with accessing it, and there would be the added benefit of helping to build community cohesion by giving parents from different backgrounds living in the same area an opportunity to connect with each other.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making some valid points about Sure Start, which I was able to use for two of my children; the service had disappeared by the time I had my third child. When we talk about involving all parents, does she agree that we need to make sure that fathers are involved? In the parental leave work that is going on, we have to ensure that self-employed fathers are not left out due to a lack of access to paternity leave. That would make it really difficult for them to attend these places that we are introducing and would cause stigma.

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I begin by paying tribute to the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) for breaking with his decades-long tradition of eschewing private Member’s Bills and engaging with this process. I congratulate him on coming top of the ballot and was very amused by his response when he won that lottery—one that many of us in this House would love to win. I congratulate him on his choice of Bill, and the work that he has done with the 1001 Critical Days Foundation—with Andrea Leadsom, Will Quince and others—to enshrine in law the support that babies, parents and carers should receive, as well as ensuring that there is proper accountability in place to make sure that that support is forthcoming.

Many Members have talked about their parenting experiences. I was just thinking how I remember my first being born, and today she has just started year 8 of school aged 12. I cannot even begin to imagine how quickly she has grown up, and I remember those sleepless nights. I think about those tiny babies: vulnerable, defenceless, voiceless—except for when they are screaming for food at 3 am—yet so often overlooked in policymaking and service planning, something that the NSPCC has described in its briefing as the “baby blind spot”. We have so many other services and provision for older children enshrined in law, but not for our youngest and most vulnerable citizens.

As others have already said, we know that a person’s quality of life and outcomes are profoundly shaped by those early months and years. People have talked about the rapid brain development; the first 1,001 days lay the foundations for a child’s development, including attachment, emotional regulation, language and lifelong physical and mental health. As we have heard, babies are entirely reliant on the adults around them to protect and nurture them. Again, that is why I was shocked to read in the NSPCC briefing that 61% of child deaths happen in babies under the age of one. That is profoundly shocking. It underscores the importance of the support that we provide to parents and carers, ensuring that people are going into people’s homes to see what is going on, as the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), has said.

We have talked about the first 1,001 days being crucial, but that actually starts at conception, going through pregnancy and birth and into a child’s early years—we have to ensure that support is there before those difficulties become crises. Yet at the moment, help and support for parents and carers remains really quite patchy across the country. The healthy babies programme is extremely welcome, bringing together infant feeding, perinatal mental health and parent-infant relationship support alongside wider health and family services, but at the moment it covers only 75 local authorities in England. It is quite right and sensible that the Government have targeted the areas of greatest disadvantage first with the roll-out of that programme, but we do need that support quickly right across the country.

I represent an affluent constituency, but we do have pockets of real deprivation within the constituency, and pockets of deprivation within a much more affluent area tend to be overlooked even more. Also, let us face it: whatever someone’s sociodemographic situation, new parents need support. Yes, some of that support can be bought, but being signposted to a trusted place in those early days and weeks is absolutely critical.

We have talked about people going into the homes of new parents and babies to provide support. The number of health visitors has fallen by 40% over the past decade, and in some areas practitioners are responsible for more than 1,000 children, far exceeding the recommended caseload of 250 children per practitioner.

Research by the NSPCC has found that more than half of parents of young children do not feel confident about the support that was available to them in their local area. There are issues with both accessibility, which we have talked about, and which is variable across the country, and awareness—although 66% of parents had heard of family hubs, only 16% had actually used one.

I want to pay tribute to the many voluntary sector organisations that often step into the gaps in national and local government service provision and support that are left around the country. I have seen this in my constituency with charities such as Home-Start, which supports new parents and children, and specifically with the charity The Extra Mile, which was set up by the Hampton Methodist church in Hampton. It takes in donations of all sorts of baby equipment and clothes. It gets many referrals from GPs, midwives, health visitors and social services and is constantly giving so much out to families in need, not just in my constituency, but well beyond it.

I also want to give a shout-out to Reach family hub in Feltham, which is not in my constituency but just down the road, in an area of deprivation. Thanks to the inspirational work of a headteacher at Reach academy, Reach has worked with health services and the local authority to provide a family hub with charitable support very close to the school, meaning that the academy is engaging with parents-to-be right from conception through to when their children go to school at Reach, up to 16, and then on to Reach college, up to the age of 18. The academy has identified that that early support is absolutely crucial for the most disadvantaged families.

It goes without saying that babies cannot speak for themselves, advocate for their needs or demand better services. I think that that is one of the reasons they are so overlooked. It should not fall to exhausted parents and carers to have to fight tooth and nail for the essential services they need to protect and nurture their children.

It is our duty as elected representatives and policymakers to ensure that parents and carers have access to the support that they need, when they need it, so that every child has the best start in life. As the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) said, however, this needs to be coupled with a serious review, which I know the Government are undertaking, and I hope they will make their proposals soon for better maternity, paternity and shared parental leave arrangements. I include leave for kinship carers in that. Many in this House will know that I and other Members from across the parties have been working on this issue for a long time. We want families to have genuine choice and flexibility in how they look after their children, and all the evidence shows that having a parent, whoever it is—it does not have to be the mother; it often is, but in my children’s case, often my husband was with them, while I was out at work—more present at home helps with attachment and emotional development.

Government policy over the years has been heavily skewed towards trying to get parents back into the workplace as soon as possible. That is excellent for those families who want that, but we need to provide genuine choice, so providing more support for parents who want to spend more time at home should be a Government priority.

[Amanda Martin]

From the work that I have been doing, it is evident that 90% of parental leave is taken by the top 50% of earners in this country. That means that this is part of the class system; we are not allowing those lower-paid workers to take time with their babies. It is not that they do not want to be a good dad; they are literally priced out of being able to be a good dad.

[Munira Wilson]

I could not agree more. Statutory paternity leave, statutory maternity leave and shared parental leave pay is less than half the minimum wage. That is not affordable for parents who want to stay at home, whether they are a mum or a dad, and we as a society really need to look at this seriously. If we believe in investing in our children, we have to start here.

There have been a number of attacks on the coalition today, which I am happy to take on the chin, but in government it was the Liberal Democrats who fought hard to introduce shared parental leave. It still pains me to this day that take-up is so low because it is not affordable. Big employers that want to be competitive in the marketplace are providing really good and enhanced benefits in the form of shared parental leave, which attracts people—particularly dads—who want to spend more time with their family. The businesses realise that it is good for them, because they get more women coming back to the workplace sooner so that dads can then spend more time at home. They also get more engaged and more productive employees. I really hope that the Government’s review of parental leave arrangements will result in a better offer on the table for parents in all sorts of families—not only those with birth children, but kinship carers, too.

This Bill is excellent. It is quite high level, but finally putting a legal duty on the Secretary of State to report annually on the provision of infant support services and their contribution to securing positive outcomes puts the wellbeing of babies and their parents firmly on the agenda. It should also keep them on the agenda and protect babies and parents, whoever is in Government, although I note that some Members who think they ought to be in Government are off at their conference.

The measure of a nation is how it treats its weakest citizens. If we truly care about the future of our country, we must start by caring and investing in babies and children. I am delighted to support this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin]

I thank my hon. Friend for referring to the Labour Government’s initiation of Sure Start. Our Prime Minister, who was shadow Education Secretary, actually kept Sure Start going in Manchester while he was mayor. Even before coming to this place as Prime Minister, he continued to see the value of Sure Start in our early years education.

[Mrs Hodgson]

That is a really good point, which gives us great hope that the Prime Minister will help to rebuild that, and protect what we are discussing, going forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

For complete transparency, let me say that I am the national maternity adviser to the Government; I wanted to make that clear before I begin my remarks. I wish to place on the record my sincere gratitude and thanks to the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) for bringing this Bill to the House. I am genuinely delighted to speak in support of it, because its subject matter goes right to the heart of why I entered public service in the first place.

There is one principle that has guided me throughout my working life: where someone is born should not determine their future. The postcode where someone is born, their parents’ income, and whether they are born in an affluent community or a former mining community, should never determine how healthy they are, how well they do at school or the opportunities they will have throughout their life. If we genuinely believe that, then we have to begin at the beginning—not at secondary school or primary school, but during pregnancy, at birth and in those first precious moments and years when so much of a child’s future is being shaped. That is why the Bill matters so much. It asks us to look seriously at the support available to babies and families, and at whether the provision we have actually meets their needs.

This debate takes me back to the beginning of my career, in the heyday. Before coming to the House, I spent years working with children, young people and families, first for the YMCA in America, then back in Nottinghamshire, and then developing Sure Start services across Nottinghamshire and Derby. I worked on the frontline, directly with parents and children, and then I moved into management, helping to develop, plan and co-ordinate services for families—all based on the principles of early intervention, support and prevention.

I was fortunate to work at a time when there was a real belief that children and families should sit at the centre of public policy. We not only talked about early intervention and prevention; we developed services to deliver it, bringing services together, including things like the common assessment framework. Crucially, we talked to parents, families and communities. I believed in Sure Start then and I believe in the principles behind it every bit as strongly today.

Sure Start was never simply a building with a sign on it; it was an idea—a philosophy—not only about how we should treat families, but about how we give every child, no matter their background, the best possible start in life. It said that families should not have to be in crisis before somebody helps them, and that becoming a parent should not mean being handed a list of telephone numbers and then being expected to navigate half a dozen public services on your own. It recognised that a child’s life does not fit neatly into departmental boxes. There was early education and childcare, health visitors, breastfeeding support, parenting programmes, speech and language support, stay and play sessions, and family support and outreach. There was advice about benefits, employment and training. There was support for parents as well as for their children.

And sometimes the most important intervention was not a formal programme at all—sometimes it was a cup of tea. In Nottinghamshire, we understand the power of a brew, because what it really means is to stop: for someone to listen, for someone to care and for someone to help. While I am not advocating for tea to necessarily be a national policy or an amendment to the Bill—nor will I ever advocate for how the Prime Minister makes a cuppa—I will always advocate for those working on the frontline having time to care, time to stop and time to listen, whether they are a support worker in a family hub, a health visitor or a midwife.

Sometimes Sure Start was about a mum walking into a children’s centre, sitting down beside someone she had begun to trust and quietly saying, “Can I talk to you?” That conversation could be the beginning of getting help—that mattered. Relationships mattered and we worked with parents; I feel incredibly strongly about that. Good family policy cannot simply be designed in Whitehall and done to people. Parents know their children and their communities. They know what works and what is missing. When I worked with parents, we listened to them, we involved them, we asked them what they needed and we learned from them. We understood that the mother who did not attend a group was not necessarily hard to reach—perhaps we were hard to reach. Perhaps there was no bus, or the sessions were at the wrong time. Perhaps she was frightened of being judged. Perhaps she was exhausted.

[Amanda Martin]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. Those places were a place for a cuppa, as we would say—somewhere to go along to without judgment. As someone who had been a teacher but had not had my own children, when I had my second child and did not know that I had post-natal depression, it was in the Sure Start centre that it was picked up, because somebody knew I was not being me; they were able to pick up on that. It was a really good working relationship with our midwives and local GPs, but also with the network of friends that you came to trust, whether you were talking about baby’s poo or about the fact that you did not feel yourself.

[Michelle Welsh]

That is exactly what it was all about. When that approach began to change—and it did change—I did not want to sit on the sidelines and complain about it; I wanted to do something. That journey eventually brought me to this place.

I believe the principles behind Sure Start should never be consigned to history. We should learn from them and build on them, and whatever name we put above the door today, the fundamental principle must remain services built around the child and the family. That begins before a baby is born; it begins with maternity, and through my campaign on maternity safety, and—most importantly—through listening to families, those on the frontline, charities and organisations, I have become absolutely convinced that maternity policy cannot sit in a silo, separate from children’s policy. Safe maternity care, maternal physical health and mental health, supporting fathers and parents, and making sure that women are listened to are all early years policy. We cannot talk seriously about giving every baby the best start in life without talking about the care their mothers receive.

I believe we need fundamental reform. That is why one of the most central proposals I have argued for is an independent maternity commissioner—someone whose sole focus is women, babies and families, with the independence and authority to change and challenge the system. When something goes catastrophically wrong, families should not have to become investigators, they should not have to understand every layer of the NHS, and they should not have to fight organisation after organisation simply to get the truth about what happened to the woman or the baby they love. We also need better national data, proper national standards and a culture where staff can speak up. Good midwives, obstetricians, maternity support workers and other staff who raise concerns should be listened to and protected, because a safe culture is one where people can say something is wrong before another family is harmed.

There is another part of maternity reform that I believe is fundamental, which is continuity of care. I want us to be much more ambitious about what we mean by continuity. I do not believe that continuity should mean a good handover from one professional to another—I believe the same person should stay. A woman should be able to build a relationship with someone throughout their maternity journey. That relationship should not simply end because her baby has been born; every woman should leave hospital following birth with a full debrief, not simple discharge paperwork. That is part of prevention.

Continuity also gives us an opportunity to address the appalling inequalities we see in maternity care. The latest MBRRACE-UK data shows that black women still face nearly three times the maternal mortality risk of white women, and women living in the most deprived areas have around twice the maternal mortality rate of women in the least deprived communities. These inequalities are unacceptable, and we cannot simply publish those statistics year after year and call it action; we have to design services that actively confront inequality and discrimination. Continuity can be part of that. If somebody actually knows the woman—knows her history and her circumstances—and is responsible for staying with her, it becomes much harder for her concerns to disappear between appointments, or for her to be forced to tell her story over and over again.

All of this connects directly to the wider health and development of the baby. After maternity comes health visiting, then perhaps a family hub, early years provision, nursery and eventually school. Governments see these as separate services, separate budgets, and sometimes separate Departments; a parent sees none of that. They see their child—one child, one family, one continuous journey. That is how Governments should see them, too. A health visitor may identify a developmental concern, a mother may need breastfeeding or feeding support, or parents may notice speech and language difficulties. There may be early indications of SEND, housing conditions affecting a child’s health, financial pressure or difficulty in the parents’ relationship. A mother may be experiencing depression. None of those things exists neatly on its own.

The worst possible system is one that waits until a family has deteriorated sufficiently to meet a threshold for help. We should not wait for a crisis; early intervention works. If we can support the mother earlier, we should. If we can help a family earlier, we should. If we can identify a child’s need earlier, we should. If we can prevent someone from reaching crisis, we should. That is not wasteful public spending; it is intelligent public spending, and it brings us directly to education.

Education can transform a person’s life. I know that personally, as I was the first person in my family to go to university. I defeated the odds, but it does not and should not have to be that way. If we are serious about closing the achievement gap, we have to be honest about when it begins. It does not suddenly appear when a child starts secondary school. For some children, inequality begins to take hold before they ever walk through the school gates. Children arrive in reception having had very different starts in life.

Every child deserves the opportunity to fulfil their potential. That should be not an aspiration reserved for the lucky few; it should be a promise that we make to every child born in this country. I know the Opposition do not think that we should talk about the 1980s, but I do, because I know what happens when hope is taken away. Growing up on a council estate in Notts in the 1980s, I lived and breathed it, and now I serve those very communities, which are still up against it.

I came into public service and eventually into politics because I believe that government can put hope back. That is what Sure Start represented to me. That is what safe maternity care should represent. That is what good health services, early years support and education should represent—not charity or a favour, but opportunity: the opportunity for a mother to be safe and heard, the opportunity for a family to be supported before they reach crisis, the opportunity for a baby to be given the very best start in life, and the opportunity for every child, whatever street they are born in and whatever their parents earn, to look at their future and believe it belongs to them. Ultimately, that is the test of everything we do here—not whether we can write another strategy or create another pathway, but whether the child born tonight in the poorest household in the country has the same right to dream, to thrive and to succeed as the child born into the richest. Where someone is born should never determine their future, but what we choose to do in this House can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because it brings me nicely to my next point. In these scenarios we have to avoid any judgment or lecturing parents who are unable to do that, because there are many reasons why parents differ. It is not just about time or money; there is good research about the links between life outcomes and values and ideas in someone’s upbringing.

There are all sorts of factors. It is difficult and things have changed so much. Several decades ago, most people were raising their children within walking distance of their wider kinship network. Most people saw their own parents at least every other day, and a wider network of people were involved in raising a child. That is much more physically difficult to achieve these days. We have had all the focus on social media and the challenges it presents. I will go on to thank the 1001 Critical Days Foundation later, but it has commissioned research into screen time for babies, showing the impact of excessive screen time even on babies, while our focus has been on older children.

If we get this wrong, the consequences are for everyone to see. I am a shadow Justice Minister. Crime costs us between £170 billion and £250 billion a year. We know that if a child experiences four or more adverse childhood events, they are more than 20 times more likely to end up in custody at some point as an adult. All these things are interconnected.

The question is: how do we help? I had the privilege of visiting Sidley family hub in my constituency relatively recently, and I spoke to the professionals there who meet and work with parents every day. I asked them, “What is the most important thing that you do?” The most important thing they say, consistently, to people from all backgrounds, was that it was okay to ask for help and to say, “I need help.” The most important thing they say, consistently, to people from all backgrounds, was that it was okay to ask for help and to say, “I need help.” It is about challenging the stigma, so that everyone feels it is all right to ask for help. We do not think we can necessarily do the plumbing, the gas or the electrics in our houses without help, and parenting is 10 times more complicated and difficult than any of those jobs. It is normal for people to think they might need some help at various points along the way.

Returning to the Bill, there are a few reasons why I support it. The first is its focus on babies, because anything else we do further down the chain will not be as good as anything we do at the start. The sooner we do anything we can to help a parent be more effective, to help them understand the role and to support them, the more we get back from that investment. Our funding pyramid in this area is completely the wrong way round. Money builds up as we go further along the journey, but if that money was spent on day one and from conception onwards, we would get much more from it.

The second reason I support the Bill is clause 1(2)(b), which talks specifically about supporting the relationship between a parent or carer and an infant. This is about relationships as much as it is about anything else, and it is great that the Bill states that so clearly.

The third reason I support the Bill is the provision to report regularly. We all know that reporting does not necessarily create the impacts and change that we want, but it is a powerful tool for parliamentarians across parties to make it difficult for Governments to move an issue out of the spotlight, so I welcome that provision.

I will also touch on the Bill’s terminology, and the fact that it talks about carers. I recently met a kinship carer in my constituency who was looking after her own grandchildren. Such people provide an enormous service to our society in so many different ways. I am talking not just about kinship carers, but adoptive parents and others. From a purely financial perspective, the money that would be spent on those children if they were in care of one form or another is astronomical. These people take that burden on, and it is natural and human to want to do that. I do not think we should be thinking about them doing it for money or paying them—people should want to look after their wider family network—but at the very least we should be spending money on making sure that it is as easy as possible for them to do that, so that if anybody ever said to them, “How was it being a kinship carer?” we would know that every single kinship carer would be a cheerleader and a champion for it. We want them to be able to say, “It was difficult, but I felt fantastically supported.” I do not think I have ever met anyone who says that about their experience of being a kinship carer.

[Amanda Martin]

The hon. Member rightly highlights the fantastic work of kinship carers. One area that often goes unrecognised is siblings who take on their younger brothers and sisters. They may have experienced care themselves, and we have to make sure, when they hit adulthood, that the service wraps around them and provides them the opportunity to be successful in their life while caring for their brothers and sisters.

[Dr Mullan]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that point, because people stepping up in those circumstances is incredibly important. Those who have siblings will know the importance of siblings in helping each other out and supporting each other through life—I have experienced that. All these wider family networks do so much. If they were not doing it, the state would end up picking up the bill, and that would not be good for anybody, so I pay tribute to how this Bill recognises the wider set of people who are involved in raising children.

I conclude by again thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West and the 1001 Critical Days Foundation. I also pay tribute, as many others have done, to the right hon. Dame Andrea Leadsom for her work over many years. Like the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis), I am an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on babies (pregnancy to age two), and I thank the Parent-Infant Foundation for the work it does as the APPG’s secretariat. This Bill is a great opportunity to channel so much of the work that we want to do as part of that APPG. I welcome this debate and the attention it has given to the most important task ahead of any society, which is to raise the next generation successfully.

NHS Corridor Care

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Allin-Khan]

I am heartbroken to hear about the hon. Member’s relative. This is the point: anyone who works in a hospital understands that, just by being in an emergency department waiting room and accessing people who are unwell, it is possible to catch other illnesses.

One thing we try to do is prevent unnecessary admission, because we know that a vulnerable elderly person who comes to hospital and is admitted to a ward with people who are unwell is more at risk of catching illnesses. As in the case of the relative of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance), people can be vulnerable and not in an appropriate bed. There may not be enough staff able to check on them appropriately. Without tackling social care, we will never get on top of that issue. I am truly sorry to hear about the hon. Member’s relative. Simply put, we cannot dither or delay; we need answers to the social care crisis, and we need them quickly.

Another group of people who are very often overlooked are mental health patients. They continue to spend extraordinary amounts of time waiting in A&E. People experiencing a mental health crisis are two-and-a-half times more likely to face long delays in A&E. Just for a moment, let me paint a picture of what that looks like. The patient could be somebody with auditory or visual hallucinations who feels extremely scared and vulnerable. They may need security to ensure that they do not leave their room. They may be wondering what they have done to deserve this. They may not have staff there who know about their usual medication. Very often, they are shouting very loudly, and other patients will be concerned, not understanding that they have a mental health issue.

As doctors and nurses, we are not allowed to talk about somebody else in the hospital, so we can have a very loud A&E department, with someone who is very vulnerable—screaming and shouting and really suffering—being completely in the wrong place for so long and with everyone confused about why they are there. That is not appropriate, safe or dignified for mental health patients.

We are as far away as ever from parity between mental and physical health in the NHS. As I have just outlined, we witness that daily in emergency departments across the country. We need to create more partnerships between our emergency departments and mental health trusts, where mental health patients can be triaged and seen by a mental health team in a more dignified and appropriate manner.

St George’s hospital, where all hon. Members will know by now that I work my A&E shifts, is exploring a partnership with South West London and St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust, which would set up an assessment unit to triage mental health patients outside the emergency department. That would be safer, more appropriate and more dignified, and a calmer and more pleasant environment in which those patients could be assessed by mental health professionals.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that often this is compounded when somebody has been arrested and police officers are sitting for hours? I was recently in A&E, and there were two police officers there for the duration that a member of the public was there. They may also need somewhere else to deal with that situation.

[Dr Allin-Khan]

I think my hon. Friend has been on most of my last A&E shifts with me. [Laughter.] That is absolutely a common occurrence, and that is not the best, safest or most efficient place for any of our incredible teams of police officers and mental health nurses, who are trying to get on with their job. It is incredibly distressing. In parts of hospitals, colleagues tell me that they are waiting in relatives’ rooms with police officers and mentally unwell patients next to the resus area of an A&E department with bereaved families. None of that should be happening for anyone involved.

I am sure the Minister will agree that the best solution to this crisis will involve a holistic, multi-agency approach involving councils, social care providers and NHS trusts. As I have just outlined, this unacceptable and dangerous situation is shared not just by patients, but by their families and NHS staff, who are trying to do their best in a difficult situation.

Moving on to the professional bodies, corridor care has rightly been condemned by the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Emergency Medicine—my royal college—the British Medical Association, and other professional bodies and trade unions. Some 65% of respondents to the Royal College of Emergency Medicine’s violence and aggression survey, which is due to be published later this year, said that care in inappropriate and non-clinical spaces contributes to the increase in violence and aggression towards staff and other patients. The impact of corridor care is clearly much more wide-reaching than we realise. It results in violence against our own NHS heroes—the very best of humanity—who, in a fractured and dangerous world, exemplify compassion, decency and selfless care for strangers. I can tell the House beyond a shadow of a doubt that staff in emergency settings are upset, traumatised and driven to tears of rage, and we know that NHS staff have to take a disproportionately large number of days off for the sake of their mental health.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) for her service and for securing this debate.

There is no clearer sign of the failure of the NHS under the Conservatives than the fact that corridor care was allowed to become normal. Only a few weeks ago, I was in the Queen Alexandra hospital in my constituency watching my dad being cared for in a corridor. It brought home just how far standards have fallen and no family should have to experience that. Corridor care has real consequences. As we have heard, the Royal College of Emergency Medicine estimates that in 2025 alone there were more than 15,000 excess deaths associated with long waits in emergency departments. It is not just the physical impact on patients that is damaging, but the emotional impact on patients, loved ones and the NHS staff who come to work every day wanting to provide the care that their patients deserve, yet are too often forced to do so in impossible conditions. It is degrading, undignified and should never have become an acceptable norm.

Before I go further, I want to thank the incredible staff across Portsmouth’s NHS and care services. From those working at the Queen Alexandra hospital, to our ambulance crews, GPs, pharmacists, community teams and carers, they continue to deliver outstanding care despite extraordinary pressures. Last winter, it was an absolute privilege to spend a night shift with Nigel and Sam from our local ambulance service. Seeing at first hand their professionalism, compassion and resilience only strengthened my admiration for everything they do, often in incredibly difficult circumstances.

I recognise the work already being done across Portsmouth to help people access the right care. Strengthening general practice and supporting people who arrive at A&E with non-emergency conditions to receive care elsewhere helps to ensure our emergency department is there for those who need it most. That work matters and deserves recognition, so I thank Linda Stead and her team at the Portsmouth Primary Care Alliance Ltd, and the team at the Southern Hampshire Primary Care Alliance.

I welcome the decision of the previous Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), to ensure NHS England has finally introduced a clear definition of corridor care and begun publishing trust-level data. We cannot solve a problem if we refuse to see it and measure it. Sadly, the first set of figures makes difficult reading for Portsmouth. In May this year, Portsmouth hospitals university NHS trust ranked eighth worst for corridor care on hospital wards and ninth worst in emergency departments. That is simply not good enough.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to shift more care into communities. Preventing unnecessary admissions is essential if we are to reduce pressure on our hospitals, because corridor care starts with a lack of community services. However, I remain deeply concerned by my integrated care board’s approach and its failure to engage meaningfully with me. The initial discussions on health hubs focused on potential sites, yet astonishingly, although not surprisingly, the proposed locations were all in Portsmouth South. That is simply unacceptable. If we are serious about reducing health inequalities and improving access to care, these services must be available across the whole city. Yet, as with so many decisions affecting Portsmouth, residents in Portsmouth North are neglected and overlooked. To help me change that, will the Minister outline what expectations have been placed on integrated care boards to work constructively with local MPs?

Of course, reducing admissions is only one part of the answer. We must also improve patient flow through our hospitals, so I welcome today’s announcement about a 10-year capital plan for health and social care. Buildings and modern facilities are important if we are to move people from corridors to beds and from A&E to GPs, but too many people remain in hospital because the social care support they need is simply not available or because the pharmaceutical system is not fit for purpose. Will the Minister update the House on what further action is being taken to improve hospital discharge and tackle the pressures in social care and pharmaceutical services?

I am proud that this Government have already begun to turn our NHS around. We have seen the fastest ambulance response times in five years, the shortest A&E wait for four years, and the biggest fall in dissatisfaction in the NHS since 1998, but none of us should be satisfied while patients are still receiving treatment in corridors. People in Portsmouth deserve dignity when they need care, NHS staff deserve the resources and conditions to do their jobs, and together we must ensure that corridor care becomes not the accepted reality of our NHS, but a thing of the past.

NHS Breast Screening

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing this debate. I also thank all those who signed the petition and who have campaigned to raise awareness of this issue.

Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers in women in the UK. While there may be a lot of talk of statistics today, the impact of breast cancer is not a number on a chart or in a table; it is real life, and it is heartbreaking. It is a mother, daughter, sister, friend or colleague—almost every one of us knows someone whose life has been touched by this terrible disease. We know that the earlier breast cancer is detected, the greater the chance of successful treatment, and screening remains the route most likely to find breast cancer early. As we have heard, the 2012 Marmot review found that our screening programmes prevent 1,300 deaths from breast cancer every year, so I understand where the petitioners are coming from. Even one misdiagnosis feels like one too many. That concern is real, and it deserves to be taken seriously.

The stories of my friends Laura Turnbull, mum of Louis, Josh, Alfie and Zac and wife of Richard, and Anne Wise, mum of Louis and Lauren, have brought this home to me all too painfully. Both were under 50 and had reached remission at least once, but both sadly saw their cancer return in different forms, tragically cutting their lives short. I send love to their families—especially to Anne’s, because it is her funeral on Saturday. Sadly, Laura and Anne are not alone. More than a decade ago, I lost another friend, Fiona Bennett. Her breast cancer also reached her before she was 50. These stories are powerful reminders that breast cancer does not only affect older women, and explain why so many people are asking what more can be done.

That is why we should follow the science. As new evidence emerges, technology improves and we learn more about detecting breast cancer earlier and more accurately, our screening programme should continue to evolve to ensure that it delivers the very best benefits to our patients. Alongside that, we must not lose sight of the opportunity we already have. In 2025, only 70% of Portsmouth women aged 53 to 70 had attended a breast screening in the last 36 months. That is more than 4% behind the average of local authority districts in the south-east, and the gap has been widening in recent years. Whatever changes may come in the future, we must also make sure that every woman who is currently eligible takes up the opportunity to be screened.

Improving the uptake of screening among those already eligible must be an absolute priority, so I would like to ask the Minister how we are identifying barriers and what we are doing to break them down. Sadly, we know that levels of deprivation directly affect screening attendance. That is why I welcome the Government’s new cancer plan, which will include targeted campaigns to improve screening uptake in deprived and underserved communities, helping to ensure that where people live or what they earn does not determine their chance of cancer diagnosis. Can the Minister say more about that?

Unfortunately, after 14 years of Conservative mismanagement, the NHS has not met its cancer target since 2014. England’s cancer survival rates have slipped behind those of many comparable countries. That is not good enough. It is so important that, as we discuss expanding access to breast screening, we also recognise that the quickest way to undermine that principle would be to move towards an insurance-based healthcare system, as advocated by Reform UK, which could alienate even more people and stop them taking up that screening opportunity for fear of what it would cost.

Labour has set out ambitious reforms to cancer diagnosis and treatment, which are expected to save more 320,000 lives over the plan’s lifetime. More scanners and advances in diagnostic technology mean that we will have a real opportunity to diagnose cancers early and improve outcomes by shifting more healthcare into our communities and neighbourhoods. We can make screening more accessible and less daunting so that Portsmouth women will attend, whether through health hubs on the high street or having opening hours at weekends, in the early morning or evening, which would widen access. I would welcome working with the Minister on how we can get these diagnosis centres open in Portsmouth North, so that we can raise attendance from 70% to 100%.

This debate is not about choosing between improving today’s screening programme and preparing for tomorrow —we must do both. We should continue to listen to clinicians, researchers and campaigners, and be prepared to strengthen and adapt programmes as the evidence develops. At the same time, we must ensure that every woman entitled to screening because of age, family history or symptoms is encouraged and supported to attend. The screening programme works only if people use it. Every invitation accepted is another chance to detect cancer early, another opportunity for less invasive treatment, and another family spared devastating news.

If we continue to improve the science, widen access where the evidence supports it and ensure that more eligible women come forward, we will save more lives and spare many more families the heartbreak of Laura’s, Anne’s and Fiona’s.

Nottingham Maternity and Neonatal Services

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and for telling us what happened to his constituent. He asked about some of the wider changes that we are making in the NHS modernisation Bill. The aim is to bring the patient experience across the NHS into the heart of the new organisation that will arise from the merging of NHS England into the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that the patient experience drives the decisions being taken about how NHS care is delivered, and is at the heart of what we do as a Department and a national health service.

However, as the report makes clear, the level of failure in maternity and neonatal services is truly devastating. It demands a specific response, which is why the work of the taskforce will begin and it will report by the end of the year. As my hon. Friend has said, this is not just a case of individual cases going wrong or individual members of staff making the wrong decision. It is endemic, and shows the incuriosity of leaders in maternity services about what is going on and what is going wrong in their services. It is a failure of regulators, it is systemic, and the response to it must step up accordingly.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to those families, whistleblowers and campaigners who simply kept going, and to Donna Ockenden for her report and her approach. The report is damning, and my heart goes out to all the families who are having to relive their awful experiences as they see, in black and white, that their suffering and that of their loved ones was not only horrific and harrowing, but entirely avoidable, if only the leaders had been responsible and accountable, and had just listened. As we heard from my brave hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh), this is a national disgrace that must not be repeated.

I welcome Martha’s rule, which gives patients the right to an independent second opinion. I also welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to using the Hillsborough law to ensure that those who avoid scrutiny are compelled to give evidence and are held accountable in the future, but may I ask him two questions? First, can he confirm that he is working across Government to ensure swift implementation of this law, with clear and transparent timelines, so that these families, who have already waited far too long, can finally see justice? Secondly, what will happen to those who shockingly avoided giving evidence and avoided accountability in respect of this review?

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is right to emphasise quite how shocking it is that people in senior leadership positions refused to take part in Donna Ockenden’s review. I cannot understand how they could make that decision and think it acceptable. That is exactly why the law needs to change. It shows why the Hillsborough law is so important and why it was important to put it on the statute book, and also why it was important for us to decide now to apply that duty of candour to future reviews of the failures of maternity services so that never again can NHS staff, current or past, decide not to take part in the search for justice and accountability that it is so crucial for us to deliver.

Spinal Muscular Atrophy: Newborn Screening Test

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lewis Atkinson]

The hon. Lady is entirely right and I have heard a number of those heart-wrenching stories; she does well to speak so movingly on behalf of her constituent. That is a testament to the key intervention of getting a diagnosis as soon after birth as possible. Today, a baby with type 1 SMA is typically not diagnosed until around six months of age. By then, for many the window when treatment would have had the most impact has closed.

There is an alternative; screening at birth through the existing NHS heel-prick test, which is routinely done on day five of a baby’s life. That already screens for 10 different serious conditions.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Mundell, for your chairmanship. I, too, pay tribute to the determination of Jesy Nelson and all the parents and young people who have been campaigning for this. I was alarmed to discover from parents this weekend that Portsmouth will not be included in the roll-out of the SMA screening this October. That means that babies born in my city will miss that early diagnosis and will face potentially devastating conditions that early treatment might well have saved them from. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) and I have written to our integrated care board to find out why Portsmouth is not included and whether it will change its mind.

[Lewis Atkinson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I will come on to talk about the potential postcode lottery. I do not believe it is a decision for individual ICBs to make, but a national decision that includes the UK National Screening Committee, which I will come on to.

The screening that I have described is already in place in dozens of countries. Across Europe, 75% of children are screened at birth and since 2024, every newborn in the United States and Canada has been screened. Ukraine managed to begin newborn screening for SMA in the midst of a full-scale Russian invasion. Given that, the petitioners simply ask, “Why is this screening not in place universally here too?”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Atkinson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a matter of pace and of asking, “When?” not “If?” or “How?” because both those questions have already been answered.

I turn to the Government’s response. The previous Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), met Jesy Nelson, the petitioner, in January. The Government accepted the case for an in-service evaluation and brought the date for that live NHS trial forward from January 2027 to October this year, when screening will begin to be rolled out. I, the petitioners and others welcome that, though there is a sadness that it has taken so long to get to that point.

We must, however, be honest about where that decision leaves us. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) alludes to, the real argument now is about pace and fairness. The evaluation is funded. It will run at seven of England’s 13 screening laboratories, covering around 72% of births. The remaining six sites, which include the site that covers the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), and which account for the remaining 28% of babies born in the UK every year, are not at present in the plan. That does not seem to be an accident but the design.

Put in human terms, of the 48 babies born with SMA in England each year around 35 would be diagnosed by the introduction of SMA screening in this evaluation but 13 would not: there would be 13 babies a year born with the same condition but on the wrong side of an arbitrary line that they did not choose who will go undiagnosed until damage is done. A baby born in one postcode will be screened, treated early and may walk, but a baby born in another postcode in the same week will not, and by the time anyone knows it may be too late. That is the postcode lottery that Jesy told me about, and which deeply concerns her, in its starkest form.

It is not about a difference in waiting times but about whether a child walks, breathes unaided or feeds normally for life. That is why Professor Muntoni’s assessment needs to be heard. He asked me specifically to put this on the record: he described a trial that deliberately leaves some babies unscreened to serve as a comparison group as—his word—“unethical”. We are withholding from some children a diagnosis that we are fully capable of making and that we know will help to shape their lives in order to gather data on something that Professor Muntoni considers already internationally proven. That is the view of not just one eminent clinician, I am told, but the wider SMA clinical community.

[Amanda Martin]

rose—

[Munira Wilson]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Twist]

I certainly do agree. The test should be made available to everyone to prevent people from living with the effects of SMA that could have been diagnosed and treated.

As I was saying, it is important that we now have testing, but we must expand it to the whole of the UK very quickly.

[Amanda Martin]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to ask the Government why babies born in Portsmouth matter less than babies born in other parts of the country? If we are one of the six areas that will not have testing or screening, the babies born in my city have less chance and are therefore less valued.

[Liz Twist]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend’s point, which was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central. All babies should have access to treatment. We know the clinical consensus is absolute.

In February 2025, leading clinicians published a letter in The Lancet contrasting the UK with countries that have screening programmes. In Belgium, babies born with SMA are ambulant. In the UK, babies with the exact same condition are still dying or remaining permanently reliant on ventilatory support and tube feeding. On the wider issue of newborn screening, a range of conditions could be the subject of testing, but we are behind the world on testing. Genetic Alliance UK and the APPG on rare, genetic and undiagnosed conditions are asking for a clear timeline for a systematic review of the NHS newborn screening programme from each of the four Governments across the UK to ensure that we do not miss the opportunity to give more children a better and a healthier life.

Returning to the issue of SMA screening, the UK National Screening Committee’s updated model from August 2025 confirms that introducing screening would prevent three early deaths and stop two babies from requiring permanent ventilation every single year. Crucially, it would also prevent about 30 babies from being confined to sitting and enable 37 babies annually to live largely normal lives.

There is a rigorous financial case for acting now. Treating SMA pre-symptomatically reduces the need for lifelong mechanical ventilation and round-the-clock care. Introducing newborn screening would result in lifetime savings to the public purse of over £62 million and 529 quality-adjusted life years for each annual cohort of newborns diagnosed.

I was relieved by the Government’s announcement last month that the in-service evaluation for SMA screening will finally begin in England this October. However, the Government confirmed on 16 June that the evaluation will cover only part of the country. Specifically, it will launch in only the seven newborn screening laboratories that already have the required equipment. There must be a way of getting around that problem so that all our babies can be tested and receive appropriate treatment if necessary. The Scottish Government began a national screening pilot for all newborns earlier this year, and Ireland announced the introduction of its own screening programme in April.

We cannot accept a health system in which a baby’s chance of typical neuromuscular development depends entirely on the hospital in which they happen to be born. Will the Minister confirm whether the evaluation will be extended immediately to cover all of England, as well as Wales and Northern Ireland, for the sake of those children? We have the treatment, economic case and diagnostic tools; we must stop denying babies the chance of a healthier future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Hodgson]

I was going to come to the point about labs, but let me address it now. My hon. Friends the Members for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) and for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin); the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore); the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew); and others have made that very point. The trials will be rolled out to seven of the 13 labs, which leaves six labs outside the trial. I am told that the reason is that, as it is such a rare condition, the trial has to be broad enough to ensure a robust evidence base. The six not included do not currently have the requisite equipment. If that changes, more labs could be included.

[Amanda Martin]

I thank the Minister, who I respect her massively, for her comments. Portsmouth hospital is part of the generation study, so it is already able to test for the condition and could have rolled out the evaluation had it been included in the trials. It seems very strange that we are able to test babies in the generation study but not across the board.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central also mentioned the generation study. There are lots of questions around this, and, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North is aware, in preparing for this debate, I have been asking lots of those questions. I will take that point away and get back to her.

As we have heard, spinal muscular atrophy affects every part of daily life for the children and families involved: their routines, milestones, plans and the hopes that families hold for their children. Any progress against it matters deeply. At the same time, NICE has been clear that important questions remain, including around longevity and how long the benefits of these relatively new treatments may last. Those questions, alongside important issues of feasibility, must be answered before a national screening decision can be made.

That is why my Department has worked with the National Institute for Health and Care Research and NHS England to establish an in-service evaluation. That evaluation will run within the routine newborn blood spot screening programme to gather the evidence that we need, help answer difficult questions and fill the gaps that stand between us and a confident national decision. Crucially, the Department has worked alongside patient advocate groups, including the SMA NBS Alliance and SMA UK. I commend both groups for their excellent support and advocacy. They help to ensure that families’ voices are not an afterthought but are at the heart of decisions.

I acknowledge that, as we have heard, many have been frustrated by the pace of planning for this large-scale scientific evaluation. I hear that frustration—I really do—but we must get this right, because only a strong evaluation will give us the answers that families deserve and the evidence that a national programme requires.

Isle of Wight Dementia Patients: Discharge to Mainland Care Homes

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

I am grateful to have secured my first Adjournment debate as an MP on an issue that has resonated so deeply with many residents across the Isle of Wight, whether they are directly touched by dementia or not. I put on record my thanks to those across the island who have contacted me and are passionately fighting for their family member or friend during their time of need. It really shows the best of our island, and it makes me even more proud to represent Isle of Wight West in this place.

I also thank the Minister for her engagement to date with me and my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), on the wider issue of patient discharges off the island. I will continue to do all that I can to work across the island and with Government to help find a solution.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for securing this debate, and I strongly support him on this issue. People living with dementia and their families deserve care close to home, and should not have to cross oceans or seas and get trains to get the support that they need. I want to recognise the dedicated workers across Portsmouth North who support those people’s families. In my constituency, cuts to dementia nursing have led to some of my constituents—and my team—visiting the Isle of Wight, where we saw the Parklands Dementia Resource Centre, which is an excellent example of what can be done. Will my hon. Friend expand on Parklands’ work, and join me in urging the Minister to consider more dementia hubs in under-served communities?

[Richard Quigley]

I thank my hon. Friend for that timely intervention. Before I get into the deeply troubling accounts that have been brought to me, I pay tribute to Maggie Bennett and her team who run the Parklands Alzheimer’s café. While the café cannot offer overnight accommodation, it offers vital respite for carers. Loved ones can spend a great day at the café, doing activities, chatting over tea and cake and even getting their hair cut. However, for island dementia sufferers, that is where the happy story ends.

The issue of mainland discharges has struck a chord across the island because it goes to the heart of many of the other inequalities my constituents have been expected simply to accept as part island life. We are the only English island where the sole means of transport on and off is entirely privately operated. Coupled with that, we have only a small specialist dementia in-patient ward, and no dedicated long-term NHS dementia provision. There is a very real fear that when someone is at their most vulnerable, where they live will determine how they are treated and whether they are afforded the dignity they deserve: the dignity of being close to family, of continuity in care, and of remaining in the place they call home.

For those unfamiliar with the situation, the recent closure of three care homes on the Isle of Wight, including one in Freshwater in my constituency, has led to 44 residents being displaced, with 10 already placed in care homes on the mainland. The niece of one resident living with dementia contacted my office to say that she is terrified that her uncle will die in his proposed placement in Horsham, 70 miles away,

“alone, confused and feeling that no one cares.”

Worse still, his family have been told that if they do not accept the placement, they will be liable to pay £500 a day for the hospital bed he will need to occupy.

Other than a few brief periods away, the Isle of Wight is the only home that Phyllis, Adam and Rob Snow’s 87-year-old island-born mother, has ever known. Phyllis now requires round-the-clock care due to a brutal combination of dementia and Parkinson’s, and her family are absolutely terrified by reports of patients like her being relocated to the mainland. With Phyllis already having been stuck on a hospital ward for months, her family are in a lose-lose situation: they either watch her become more vulnerable to infection the longer she spends in hospital, or push for a care home release only for her to be relocated miles away from the only home she has ever known.

It is important to understand how dementia care is currently funded on the Isle of Wight. Much of our provision relies on a limited number of block-booked beds commissioned by the local authority, layered on to an adult social care budget that is already under severe strain.

Health Bill

Amanda Martin Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 1st June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I do not think there is a single person who thinks the current recording system is working. Navigating this system, whether as a patient, a family member or indeed an MP on behalf of constituents, is a nightmare. When it comes to safety and accountability, it is not transparent, and the experience is made harder for people who regularly move, so I would like to speak about the single patient record and what it will mean for the tens of thousands of people in my city who serve or have served in the armed forces.

Thousands of serving personnel, veterans and their families call Portsmouth home, and many more pass through it at various points in their careers, because one of the defining features of military life is mobility. Serving men and women move regularly at short notice, sometimes across the country and sometimes overseas and back again, and often their families move too. Every new posting means a new GP practice—starting from scratch with a folder of letters and a bag of medication boxes, hoping that the new surgery can piece together a medical history from scraps of paper or that the patient themselves can remember every diagnosis, allergy and procedure. For young families, those expecting a baby or those waiting for a diagnosis or tests, it is stressful, but for someone managing complex or chronic conditions, it is dangerous.

Veterans in Portsmouth have also described to me the exhaustion of having to re-explain their medical history every time they register with a practice, including mental health histories that are deeply personal and difficult to revisit. That is not good enough, and this Bill will help to put it right. The single patient record will mean that when a family moves from Norfolk or Plymouth to somewhere near Portsmouth, their medical records will move too. However, it will not work for those who move from Scotland to Portsmouth, so I urge the Government to work cross-border to rectify that situation.

I also want to acknowledge what the single patient record means for mental health. The mental health needs of veterans are well documented and often unmet. Continuity of care is critical for those managing post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and other service-related conditions. Losing that thread every time a file fails to transfer or a referral gets lost between trusts could cost lives, and the single patient record can hold that thread together.

Military personnel already sacrifice an enormous amount in service to this country. The least we can do is ensure that their health service keeps pace with their demands and those of their families. I am proud to say that this Labour Government are delivering a Bill for our armed forces, and I am proud to say to those people: we see you and we see your family, and your health matters to us.

Domestic Abuse-related Deaths: NHS Prevention

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the role of the NHS in preventing domestic homicides and domestic abuse-related deaths.

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Sir John. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for giving me the opportunity to open a debate on the role of the NHS in preventing domestic abuse and dealing with it when it presents to the NHS. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato), who, since we secured this debate, has been appointed as the violence against women and girls adviser to the Department of Health and Social Care. I think we shall hear from her later. I also place on the record my thanks to Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse, IRISi, Respect and, from my own constituency, Stroud Women’s Refuge, which have really helped me with this speech. I declare an interest: I am a working GP and sometimes need to deal with these issues.

On average, five people a week die as a result of domestic abuse in this country. Now, there are actually more suicides related to domestic abuse than homicides. Behind each of those statistics is a life lost and a family devastated. In far too many cases, there has been repeated contact with health services and there have been moments when the health service could have intervened. The NHS is the most consistent point of contact for people living with abuse. Each year, about half a million people seek support from the NHS in relation to domestic abuse and 85% of them ask at least five times before they receive effective support. That is not because clinicians do not care. It is really about recognition of domestic abuse and getting referral services that are easy to understand and well known in practice. If we are serious about preventing domestic abuse, we must be serious about the role of the NHS—not just in primary care, but across all mental health services, across maternity services, through emergency departments and through community care. It has to go right across the NHS and not just primary care. This is really a debate about making sure that we do not miss chances and that we provide meaningful intervention when people present with signs of domestic abuse.

The Government have committed to delivering on our promise to halve violence against women and girls by 2029, and I welcome the comprehensive strategy to tackle that. For too long, support services have been unable to support victims and survivors effectively. They have been without sufficient resources and, in too many cases, women and girls have not been able to access the support they need. Therefore I welcome the Government’s supporting victims through the largest ever investment of £550 million in victim support over the next three years and an additional £5 million each year from the Department of Health and Social Care.

I would like to say a few things about how GPs specifically are often the first port of call, and how presentation to GPs is incredibly important for recognition of this issue. I shall quote from Killed Women, an organisation for bereaved families of women who have been killed by men in the UK. It says about one woman:

“She had gone to the GP a few days before her death as she couldn’t take any more. She was only offered antidepressants. On the day of her murder when I spoke to her, she said they are not helping and she had had enough. She said the GP knew her situation but yet again she was failed there.”

That shows that simply giving out antidepressants is not the right strategy. We need to build support around women subjected to domestic abuse. Often, they present with mental health issues and will not give any details of their abuse. One thing that I teach GPs in training is that there is something called a hidden agenda. Women particularly will present to the GP but they will not say that they are being abused; they will have other symptoms. We must recognise that presentation straightaway, and there are ways we can recognise it. Sometimes the woman in question will present with a partner and not feel comfortable talking about the situation. I often ask the partner to leave the consultation and I speak to the woman individually, which can be an effective way to find out exactly what is happening. We need to be aware that women in this situation are often nervous and walking on eggshells. We also have to recognise that often there are physical injuries, often of different ages. We sometimes see women presenting in sunglasses to cover up a black eye, for example. The health profession must recognise all those symptoms.

As I have said before, there are very high rates of mental health problems. Women who are being abused often present with symptoms of depression caused by domestic abuse, so we need to ask those women whether anything is going on at home. Female survivors of domestic abuse are three times more likely to develop mental illness. There are also other high risk periods, such as when women are pregnant and they often have poor outcomes in those situations. We must also be aware, across the health service, that women might disclose domestic abuse. Health visitors are in an ideal situation to hear about that type of thing and must be aware of that potentiality.

In A&E, women often present with overdose, and underneath that there is domestic abuse. Midwives are often presented with this, as are mental health workers, and even gynaecology services as well as social services. Often women present to the health service with different symptoms, but that is a cry for help, which we must recognise.

What do we need to do to support those women? One thing I am delighted about is the concept of steps to safety. The Department of Health and Social Care will roll out a domestic abuse and sexual violence referral service across integrated care boards, giving GPs the tools and ability to identify and refer victim-survivors to support. What is important is that it is a simple service with one number. If it is not simple, it will not be used by health services, and that is incredibly important. It is also important that we make use of existing resources. I visited the sexual abuse centre at Gloucestershire Royal hospital recently. It is a fantastic resource with really well-trained staff who are available 24/7.

It is really important, particularly in practices, to have a safeguarding or domestic abuse lead who is totally up to date with what is available, because quite often services change and GPs themselves are not on top of that. So that is important as well. Can I also stress the importance of women’s refuges? In Stroud we have a fantastic refuge. It does not advertise itself, for obvious reasons, and the people working there are simply amazing, supporting women who have difficulties, and often their children as well. It is inspiring to see the work they do, and it is important that those services are available immediately if women feel in danger.

Can I also make a plea for support for the perpetrators of abuse? It is usually men that perpetrate abuse and they often abuse at least five times, so it is important to catch them the first time and institute really good treatment and management for them. There are often drugs, alcohol or mental health issues behind their problems, so we must deal with that before they continue to abuse. Although that is controversial, I think that is incredibly important as well.

What do we need for the whole of our health strategy? We need things to be co-ordinated. There is a suggestion that we have domestic abuse co-ordinators for a group of GP practices. As I said, I think we need to have leads in general practice, with one person leading who can keep up to date and keep reminding the other members of staff that that is really important. When we are training in primary care, it is important to train everyone. For example, the receptionists in primary care are often aware of the people coming in. They need training to detect domestic abuse so that they can inform the doctors. It is a whole team approach, with pharmacists, nurses and physiotherapists also needing to be trained and aware of the signs and symptoms of domestic abuse.

That training should be essential for everyone, but I want to step back from mandatory training. Many people in the health service find that irksome and a tick-box exercise. I do not want domestic abuse training to simply be a tick box where someone goes on an hour-long course every year and that is it. We need a more integrated approach and it needs to be part of an appraisal process so that every doctor, nurse and healthcare worker is aware and trained in domestic abuse—but without it being made mandatory so that it does not simply become a course that people must go on, but is instead properly integrated into the service.

Last of all—and this seems incredible in this day and age—we need to share data between all of the health services, for example, A&E, GPs and mental health. We often do not get any information from mental health. It is important that we get that data sharing up to speed because domestic abuse can present in many different situations in the NHS and it is important that everyone is aware of the risks. In terms of funding, the £5 million a year from the Department of Health and Social Care is a good first step, but we need quite a lot more than that to bring this service to the fore.

In conclusion, if we are serious about preventing domestic abuse and the deaths that so often follow it, then the NHS must be properly equipped to play its full role. There are three points that I would like to make. The first is on funding, and around training and investing in services that will really help in domestic abuse. Those steps to safety are key because it must be simple for women to access those services. It is also important that wherever a woman presents to the NHS, that the person they present to is trained to detect domestic abuse and aware of what is available for that woman. Finally, we must have a comprehensive whole-health plan for the NHS and tackling domestic abuse and violence against women and girls. That must cover primary care, mental health, maternity and accident and emergency services—and I would like it to be published by 2027 at the latest.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. At the beginning of this debate my hon. Friend mentioned suicide. As we are talking about NHS services, and when we have women trying to take their own lives, I wanted to highlight the devastating impact of the deaths of two people from Portsmouth who took their own lives because of coercive control. Does my hon. Friend agree that all of the agencies across the NHS, our wider health service and our police need to be joined up to stop the loss of lives and that that is a public health issue?

[Dr Opher]

I know that my hon. Friend is invested in trying to help women subject to domestic abuse. Coercive control is very important as it often stops women presenting to healthcare workers. As I have said before, one key thing as a clinician is that we have to be brave and ask the man to step out so that it is possible to have a proper conversation. They can often resist that and can get violent as well. It is important that we take a brave view on this to protect women in general.

To conclude, if we get those three things right—funding, recognition, and a comprehensive and integrated care service—we can move forward to a service that repeatedly sees and recognises abuse and immediately steps in to stop it. That is the shift I am calling for in this debate, and it is one that could save many lives.