Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Freddie van Mierlo]

The hon. Lady makes a point about local NHS bodies working together with central Government. Where is the accountability? No one is taking responsibility for patients, and they are suffering as a result. In what world is the NHS running on its founding principles when it comes to ADHD? The alternative to non-existent ADHD services in Oxfordshire and across the country is fully private care. This is a two-tier system baked into how we do health.

I am not naive. The healthcare professionals I have spoken to tell me that they are overwhelmed by a sudden large rise in ADHD cases.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the recent review conducted by King’s College London that looked at evidence from 40 studies in 17 countries? It found no clear evidence of an increase in the prevalence of ADHD; rather, there was greater awareness and acceptance, which was likely to cause more people to seek help and diagnosis.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that increased awareness of a condition naturally leads to an increase in the number of people seeking diagnosis. I believe the same was true of left-handedness when that became less of a taboo.

I am told that seeing every person who is on a waiting list could cost as much as £3 billion to £4 billion. We must therefore find a way to target urgent, psychiatrist-led care where it is most needed, and to triage early so that the most severe cases get support, along with those who are already taking powerful medication. To that end, I welcome and commend the Government on the launch of the taskforce in March 2024. From the discussions that I have had, however, I know that the communication with ICBs has not been good enough.

The initial data from the taskforce shows that an estimated 2.5 million people in England have ADHD, with more than half a million on waiting lists. To end this farce, we need a system that is adapted to manage the new volume of patients with appropriate levels of care. It does not help to say that there is an overdiagnosis of mental health conditions, as the Health Secretary has said; rather, we need to look at models that will diagnose and treat all patients using the most appropriate tool for their level of need. A good start would be to include ADHD in the 18-week pledge on first appointments. Currently, ADHD treatment is not considered a consultant-led area, even though GPs cannot diagnose. Waiting times should be defined by ICBs, with NICE guidance.

The consequences of getting it wrong are clear. ADHD is a leading cause of school exclusions, lower academic achievement and increased drop-out rates, and 25% of the UK prison population has ADHD, with untreated symptoms often driving impulsivity and crime. Untreated ADHD is also strongly linked to substance misuse, family breakdowns and severe mental health issues.

Mental Health Bill [Lords]

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

It has been an absolute privilege to listen to contributions from Members with real expertise and experience. I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s Mental Health Bill, and I am proud that this vital and, as we have heard, long-overdue Bill will modernise the woefully out-of-date Mental Health Act, which we know is linked to racial inequalities, poor care for people with learning disabilities and neurodivergence and which fails to give patients a proper voice.

By modernising the Mental Health Act and making it fit for the 21st century, the Government are demonstrating that they have the ambition, compassion and determination to ensure that patients have greater choice, autonomy, rights and support, and that all patients are treated with dignity and respect throughout their treatment.

There are many welcome measures in the Bill, from strengthening patient rights to reforming the use of involuntary detention and limiting the extent to which people with a learning disability can be detained, but to ensure that we tackle the crisis in—and transform the future of—mental health care as a whole, we must go further and build on these reforms. Nowhere is that need more urgent than in children’s mental health services where, alongside profound societal change, the damage to the capacity of the state made by the previous Government is most painfully visible, and where the cost of inaction is overwhelming.

The relationship between unhealthy online habits among adolescents and poor mental health is well documented. The World Health Organisation reported last year that

“potentially damaging social media use…has been shown to lead to depression, bullying, anxiety and poor academic performance”.

But those changes have occurred at the same time as huge reductions in the availability of youth services and other early intervention, the closure of safe community spaces, which provide access to trusted role models, and stark increases in relative child poverty and homelessness.

Earlier this month, I launched a constituency survey to hear directly from children and their families to better understand the state of local children’s mental health services. Some of the responses paint a bleak and harrowing picture of parents desperately trying to get their children the support they need. The initial results of the survey demonstrate that we must focus on two connected areas of reform, which I believe must be part of our wider plans to tackle the mental health crisis.

First, we must begin with early intervention as a system-wide principle, not an afterthought. Under the previous Government, the mental health system often failed to intervene in a timely, consistent and adequate manner. It is widely understood that early mental health challenges can significantly impact a child’s development, yet services for young children remain insufficient and poorly co-ordinated. For children in their early years and pre-school stages, support is often fragmented or entirely lacking. To address the gap, we need a cohesive early intervention strategy that does more to integrate early years health and education.

Additionally, we must go further by giving children access to mental health professionals in every primary and secondary school, making support not just accessible but familiar and trustworthy. Schools are often where issues are first identified, and they must also be where the support starts. It was brilliant to hear the announcement on Friday that that will begin to be rolled out, but it does need to be accelerated.

Secondly, we must overhaul how children access specialist care and tackle the systemic barriers created by high thresholds and long waits. Early intervention works only if there is a functioning system to refer into, but that system is broken. Over the last 14 years, services have been hollowed out, waiting lists have spiralled and thresholds for access have been pushed so high that even children in a clear crisis are being turned away. I have heard countless stories of children who are self-harming, experiencing suicidal thoughts or in deep emotional distress being told they do not meet the criteria for treatment. Families are left to watch their children deteriorate, terrified, helpless and too often unheard. That is not care; that is the cost of failure.

That is no reflection on the professionals delivering the care. My survey showed good levels of satisfaction, but there simply is not enough of it to meet demand. Unless we expand the service capacity and rethink how thresholds are applied, the most vulnerable children will continue to fall through the cracks, no matter how early their needs are identified. Early help must lead somewhere. That means ensuring that timely and specialist care is available for those who need it.

These two reforms are not stand-alone; they are interdependent. We cannot have meaningful early intervention without timely access to specialist care, and for as long as we do not address the root causes of poor mental health—child poverty, hollowed out youth services and weak online safety—the problem will continue to get worse. The Bill, along with a wider plan to tackle the mental health crisis, presents the opportunity not only to fix what is broken but to create something better: a mental health system that is accessible, equitable and fit for the future. I am proud to support the Bill.

Hospitals

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the earlier speech of my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith). I hope Members will forgive me, but they are about to be treated to more information about the hospitals of Mid Cheshire and south Cheshire.

We on the Labour Benches are incredibly proud of our NHS. It is one of our country’s greatest achievements, and is founded on the principle that everyone, no matter their background or circumstances, should have access to high-quality healthcare that is free at the point of use. That simple idea has saved millions of lives, and offered comfort, healing and hope to generations. However, after 14 years of Conservative failure, the NHS was left on life support, with record waiting lists, surgeries and appointments cancelled or delayed, a workforce worn down and undervalued, and hospitals crumbling. That is the legacy of the previous Conservative Government— a legacy of neglect, underfunding and broken promises. Nowhere is that clearer than in the new hospital programme that they introduced in 2020. This was meant to be their flagship plan to modernise the NHS estate—to replace crumbling buildings and ensure that patients and staff had the safe, modern environments that they deserve—but the scheme was built on shaky foundations.

From the start, the scheme was plagued by delays, confusion and a complete lack of proper funding. The reality behind the headlines was that very few hospitals saw any real progress. In many cases, the money simply was not there. Let me take the case of Leighton hospital, which serves my constituents in Northwich, Winsford and Middlewich, and four other hospitals across the country. All are known to be riddled with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. Experts warned of a “catastrophic” risk to patient safety. Structural engineers said an incident was “likely”. In simple terms, these buildings were falling down, but what did the previous Government do? When the programme was first published, the plans to rebuild those five hospitals were blocked. The previous Government chose to ignore the warnings, ignore the patients and ignore NHS staff working every day in buildings that had been declared unsafe.

It was not until 2023 that the previous Government finally amended the new hospital programme to include Leighton and the other RAAC-affected hospitals. By then, years had already been wasted—time that we did not have—and even that decision came without a real plan, without a timeline and, crucially, without the funding needed to do the job.

What was offered to my local community was not a solution; it was false hope dressed up as progress. The promises crumbled faster than the hospitals that the previous Government failed to rebuild. In contrast, this Government are delivering. We are not just talking about change; we are making it happen. We are rebuilding the NHS from the foundations up and, just as importantly, rebuilding trust that the Government will deliver on their promises on the NHS. At Leighton hospital, we are proving it: the funding has been confirmed to the trust; the ground investigations are under way; and the project is moving forward. This is not just talk, but action. But let us be clear: rebuilding Leighton is not just a matter of replacing concrete; this is our opportunity to do something bigger. We have a chance to build a healthcare neighbourhood that reflects the future—a modern, resilient facility that will serve communities for generations to come and will meet the challenges of 21st century healthcare. This is not just about bricks and mortar; it is about people, it is about care and it is about building a system that reflects our values.

We are tackling the root causes of the crisis that the Conservatives have left behind. We are reducing waiting lists through more appointments, better use of technology, and support for our overstretched staff. We are training and recruiting the doctors, nurses, and carers of the future. We are ending the sticking plaster politics of the last decade and a half and building an NHS that is fit for the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I am well aware of the challenges at Stepping Hill hospital and the need for support and investment in services in Stockport, not least thanks to the representations of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra). We are looking carefully at this situation and are committed to working with leaders locally to try to improve the quality of and access to services to give local people what they deserve.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

A new state-of-the-art surgical centre is set to open at the Victoria infirmary in Northwich in the next few weeks. The new facility will be a centre of excellence and a regional hub for outstanding cataract care, and it is an excellent example of how we can reduce pressure on our major hospitals, while making the best use of facilities in the heart of our communities. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the Mid Cheshire hospitals trust on completing this project? Can I invite him to join me on a visit to the centre in the coming months?

[Wes Streeting]

I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the local trust on the work it is doing and the impact it is having, and I would be delighted to pay a visit as soon as my diary allows.

Down’s Syndrome

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I declare an interest as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Down syndrome. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) on his comprehensive speech and on securing this debate, which holds immense significance for individuals with Down syndrome and their families, especially as we approach World Down Syndrome Day on Friday. That day was chosen because the 21st day of the third month represents the triplication of the 21st chromosome, which is the cause of Down syndrome. I will focus my comments today on the Down Syndrome Act, a landmark piece of legislation that recognises the unique needs of people with Down syndrome, and the ongoing work to update and implement the guidance that will help bring it to life.

As we have already heard, there are an estimated 47,000 people with Down syndrome people in the UK, yet, despite its being the most common chromosomal condition, people with Down syndrome continue to face barriers to achieving their full potential. That is where the Down Syndrome Act comes in. For the first time ever, we have legislation focused specifically on this community, taking into account the distinct health, developmental and educational needs unique to people with Down syndrome. With the right interventions, many people with Down syndrome can lead full, independent lives, attending mainstream schools, gaining employment and participating fully in society. To achieve that and to improve life outcomes for people with Down syndrome, we need more than just general disability support: we need Down syndrome-specific strategies.

This is where the long-overdue guidance will play its part. The guidance will determine the success of the Act and be a practical road map that provides clarity on how the principles of the Act should be implemented. Without it, the Act will just remain words on the page. The preparation and implementation of the guidance, however, has faced challenges. We know that there have been significant delays in updating the guidance. More importantly, there are concerns that the current draft of the guidance does not reflect the original intent of the Act and lacks the Down syndrome-specific focus in line with the Government’s statutory duty.

I thank the Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), for writing to me yesterday to assure me that he has listened to those concerns, and that he is engaging with stakeholders and working with all relevant Departments to produce a second draft of the guidance, with a view to putting it out for consultation by the summer. My ask of the Minister is to ensure that the second draft of the guidance reflects the feedback raised by the National Down Syndrome Policy Group, the Down’s Syndrome Association and others. I am sure he will agree that we need guidance that is robust, inclusive, and reflective of the needs of the community it is intended to support.

Importantly, an accountability mechanism must be included to ensure that individuals and organisations responsible for the implementation are held to their obligations. Additional direction and training should be considered for external bodies to help them to understand fully their roles in effectively implementing the guidance in the first place. I hope the Minister will give due consideration to these points as the second draft is prepared.

The Down Syndrome Act and its guidance offer an incredible opportunity to improve outcomes for people with Down syndrome, but we must ensure that the guidance reflects the specific needs of the community it aims to serve. To ensure that that is the case, I hope the Minister will agree, on behalf of the Minister for Care, to meet with representatives of the APPG on Down syndrome and the National Down Syndrome Policy Group to discuss and address our key concerns. By working together, we can create a future where people with Down syndrome are not only included, but truly empowered to reach their full potential.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

I am not familiar with the detail of the case that the right hon. Gentleman mentions, but it sounds like a positive and interesting development, and I would be happy to consider it further. The Government are committed to delivering the cross-sector suicide prevention strategy for England, published in 2023. The 8,500 new mental health workers who we will recruit will be specially trained to support people at risk.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

I am regularly contacted by constituents who are concerned that their children are not receiving the mental health care they need. Having met GPs in Winsford, I know that there are clear concerns that access to child and adolescent mental health services is being rationed to the point that it has become almost inaccessible to all but the most severe cases. Will my hon. Friend tell me what progress has been made towards our commitment to provide specialist mental health professionals in schools, ensuring that there is early intervention that prevents issues from escalating?

[Stephen Kinnock]

After the disastrous 14 years that we have had, we are facing a very serious situation in terms of mental health provision. It will take some time to get the workforce in place, but we have a clear commitment to having a specialist in every school. The appointment and training of those specialists will take some time. We are also rolling out open-access Young Futures hubs in every community. I am confident that the combination of those two interventions will get us back to having mental health services that this country can be truly proud of.

Obesity: Food and Diet

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for his persistence in securing this debate. The right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) talked in his captivating speech about the difference between adult obesity and childhood obesity. My Cheshire colleague the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) talked about choice, but of course children do not always have a choice. They are the ones I hope to speak for tonight.

In Mid Cheshire, the levels of children measuring as overweight are worryingly high. The statistics broadly track the England average, but there are some notable significant peaks and troughs, with over 38% of children in year 6 measuring as overweight in six wards out of 12. Children from the most deprived areas of England are twice as likely to be living with obesity as those from the least deprived areas, which demonstrates that persistent inequalities exist in childhood obesity. That tracks with the pattern in my constituency. Worryingly, more than half of children living with obesity go on to be obese adolescents and more than three quarters of obese adolescents become obese adults. This is certainly reflected in the levels of adult obesity locally and nationally. In my area, over 68% of adults are classed as living with overweight or with obesity, which is more than the England average of 64%.

It is sometimes too easy to reduce the issue to cold statistics. Doing so not only fails to recognise the real consequences of obesity both on individuals and on society, but overlooks its causes. We certainly cannot ignore the impact of food and diet on obesity, particularly in the context of health inequalities and the current cost of living crisis. The food choices we make are heavily influenced by our environment and socioeconomic status.

It is crucial to understand that the availability and accessibility of healthy food options are not the same for everyone. Health inequalities persist in our society, with many individuals and families facing barriers that hinder their ability to make nutritious food choices. These disparities are further exacerbated by the cost of living crisis, in which rising prices of essential goods have forced many people to prioritise affordability over nutritional value. In that environment, unhealthy processed foods often become the most accessible option, leading to a rise in obesity rates among vulnerable communities.

The consequences of obesity are profound, particularly for our children. Studies show that children struggling with obesity are at higher risk of myriad health issues including diabetes, heart disease, asthma and mental health challenges. Beyond the physical ramifications, obesity can limit their life chances. This cycle of disadvantage not only impacts their present but shapes their future, creating a lasting legacy of inequality that follows them into adulthood. The evidence could not be clearer that inequality and obesity are intrinsically linked. The repercussions from both constitute a notable source of morbidity and impaired quality of life, and their complications can have a major bearing on life expectancy.

The toll on individual health is staggering, but it is only part of the story. Beyond individual health, we must consider the wider economic and societal consequences of obesity. The costs associated with treating obesity-related illnesses strain our NHS and divert resources from other essential services. As obesity rates continue to rise, so too does the burden on our healthcare system. The annual £6.5 billion cost of obesity is projected to increase to £9.7 billion by 2050. The total cost to the UK economy, including NHS treatment costs and lost productivity, is estimated to be a staggering £98 billion per year.

We bear a collective responsibility to address the root causes of food and diet on obesity, to tackle not only the individual health implications but the implications to our wider society. To do so, we must advocate policies that promote healthier food environments, ensure equitable access to nutritious food and support families in making healthier choices, regardless of their financial situation. Education and awareness must also play a critical role in this effort. By empowering individuals with knowledge about nutrition and healthy lifestyles, we can help to break the cycle of obesity.

I am proud that this Labour Government are committed to leading on a bold food strategy. Similarly, I welcome the introduction of school breakfast clubs through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and the updates to the national planning policy framework on the siting of hot food takeaways, the promotion of increased access to green spaces and sustainable transport. Both policies will help in the fight to tackle childhood obesity, address systemic health inequalities and promote positive health outcomes. However, given the clear statistical link between poverty, inequality and childhood obesity, we must bear down on child poverty in this Parliament if we are to tackle the issue. I look forward to hearing more from the child poverty taskforce when it reports this year.

Addressing obesity is not just a moral imperative. It is critical to supporting this Government’s efforts to ensure the long-term sustainability of the NHS, to break down barriers to opportunity and to increase economic productivity. As we have heard today, the impact of food and diet on obesity is a multifaceted issue that requires our immediate attention. By implementing effective policies and working towards a healthier future, we can create a society in which everyone can thrive, free from the burdens of obesity and its associated health challenges.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 26th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

This piece of legislation carries immense significance for the health of our nation, and I welcome the steps being taken to protect people from the harms of tobacco, to create a smokefree generation and to tackle youth vaping. We are all too aware that smoking remains the biggest cause of preventable illness and death in our country, with decades of evidence in support of that. One in four cancers is driven by smoking. Around 160 people every day are diagnosed with a smoking-related cancer. Smoking causes asthma, stillbirths and dementia. The evidence around second-hand smoke is overwhelming; it causes increased rates of cancer, heart disease, stroke and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease—the list goes on.

Tobacco consumption is a primary driver of health inequalities right across the country. In the most deprived areas, the mortality rate ascribed to smoking is more than double that in the least deprived areas, as we have heard. This Bill is about not just health but alleviating the economic burden on our healthcare system. According to Action on Smoking and Health, smoking-related illnesses cost the NHS £1.9 billion each year in England alone. In Mid Cheshire, the cost of smoking exceeds £52 million annually, and more than £2 million in direct healthcare costs alone. By curbing tobacco use, we can alleviate some of that financial strain and redirect those resources towards more urgent health needs. Investing in prevention is far more cost-effective than treating diseases caused by tobacco.

In the time that I have, I want to focus on the regulation of vaping in the Bill. It is important to strike the right balance between reducing harm from tobacco and protecting young people. Vaping has a role to play in helping adults to quit smoking, and there are estimates that as many as an extra 70,000 people in England quit smoking by using vapes as an aid. However, youth vaping has more than doubled in the last five years, while almost six times more 11 to 17-year-olds vape now than did a decade ago. Many vaping products have very clearly been targeted at children through their packaging, flavours and marketing. While vaping is less harmful than tobacco, the vast majority of vaping liquids still contain nicotine, which is highly addictive and more impactful on children’s brains when they are trying to quit. Many of the long-term health effects of inhaled ingredients such as colourings and flavourings are unknown.

It is our responsibility to safeguard the health of our communities, particularly our children, who are vulnerable to the allure of smoking and vaping. I certainly welcome the Bill’s emphasis on more responsible regulation of vaping products. The power for the Secretary of State to require producers to produce studies on the ingredients of their products will be a vital tool in demonstrating the long-term effects of what is being put into vaping liquids.

The Tobacco and Vapes Bill is a crucial piece of legislation that aims to tackle a critical public health challenge. It will promote informed choices and alleviate economic burdens, and ultimately help us achieve our ambition of creating a smokefree UK. That is why I am proud to support this important Bill.

World Stroke Day

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Dyke]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention and for all the work she has done in this area. I will come to the issue of ambulance response times a little later in my speech.

Delays in urgent care are currently leading to high mortality rates, and post-stroke services that provide crucial emotional, practical and social support are often treated as optional, rather than essential.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. She rightly talks about the need for stroke patients to receive urgent medical treatment. Last month, I attended a thrombectomy awareness event at which my constituent, Mark Paterson, was speaking as a stroke survivor. Mark’s remarkable recovery was thanks to the emergency thrombectomy procedure he received. Sadly, many others are not so lucky, with too many people dying or suffering disability due to the previous Government’s postcode lottery in care. About this time last year, the Stroke Association said that about 9.8% of patients receive that treatment in London, compared with 0.4% in the east of England. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need to see an increase in the proportion of patients receiving thrombectomies across the country?

[Sarah Dyke]

I thank the hon. Member for the intervention. He makes a strong point.

Our health and social care services are likely failing the 14,159 registered stroke survivors in Somerset at some stage in the system, but there is reason to be optimistic. If the Government put stroke at the heart of our health and social care system, each and every part of the system will be stronger and deliver better outcomes for everyone—not just stroke survivors.

Leaving aside the human cost, there is also an economic cost, as strokes lead to an avoidable £1.6 billion annual loss of productivity. I recently spoke to Garry, who works in Somerset and had a stroke in his 30s. He told me that he could have been back to work after nine months if he had had access to life-after-stroke care. Instead, he spent five years recovering, during which time he had to rely on the benefits system. At the start of the debate, I said that stroke is preventable, treatable and recoverable. If that is true—I know that it is—why are people like Garry forced to waste years in the prime of their life learning how to recover from strokes themselves?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the hon. Lady for that telling intervention. She is absolutely right: so much of the challenge and the opportunity before us is about how we use traditional media, social media, all forms of communication and awareness-raising campaigns and techniques. By definition, we are dealing with a situation in which speed is of the essence. It is truly a public health challenge, because it is only the public who can do what Will did in that circumstance. I certainly pay tribute to Will for acting so quickly and to the Act FAST campaign. I am sure Members will welcome that we are looking to build on the success of Act FAST and to replicate and renew it.

That campaign will run in England across TV, radio, social media, national press and ethnic minority TV and radio stations. The campaign includes specific communications for multicultural and disabled audiences. A higher reduction in mortality rates over the next 10 years will require a focus on NHS England stroke priorities, including rapid diagnosis and increasing access to time-dependent specialist acute stroke care. We know that so many deadly diseases can be avoided if we seek help in enough time. That is why we are working to improve access to treatments. Current targets include increasing thrombectomy rates to 10% and thrombolysis rates to 20% through facilitating ambulance service use of pre-hospital video triage and use of AI decision support tools for brain imaging in comprehensive stroke centres. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) has a keen interest in that issue.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

Building on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), does the Minister agree that stroke patients should have the highest priority for ambulance call-outs—as high as cardiac arrest, for example?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I am a little wary of generalising too much, because I know that so many decisions have to be made in real time by our skilled ambulance drivers and paramedics and the many others involved, but my hon. Friend makes a valid point. In a general sense, he is absolutely right that stroke needs to take priority. The red thread going through this entire debate is the need for speed. It is all about prioritising and acting quickly; he is absolutely right about that.

In the past year, we have seen a 30% increase in the number of thrombectomies delivered in England. Alongside that, our 20 integrated stroke delivery networks are looking to optimise care pathways. The General Medical Council is addressing critical workforce gaps through its thrombectomy credentialling programme, and our national optimal stroke imaging pathway is improving information sharing.

I am aware of the reconfiguration in the constituency of the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton. NHS Somerset integrated care board has decided to close the hyper-acute stroke unit at Yeovil hospital and to establish a single hyper-acute stroke unit at Musgrove Park hospital in Taunton to provide 24/7 emergency treatment. All service changes should be based on clear evidence that they will deliver better outcomes for patients. A high bar is set out in guidance for intervening in contested reconfiguration cases, and the reconfiguration of services should be a matter for the local NHS. I would expect all avenues of local resolution to have been exhausted before a call-in request is made. The Department has received a formal request to call in NHS Somerset ICB’s decision, and Ministers will make a decision on whether to use their call-in powers in due course.

Unfortunately, there is still significant variation across the country in access and outcomes in relation to stroke. For example, the percentage of suspected stroke patients who received the necessary brain scan within an hour of arrival at hospital varies from 80% in Kent to only around 40% in Shropshire. That variation needs to change, and we need to bring the best of the NHS to the rest of the NHS. That will be one of the central challenges for the Government going forward.

The Government have a profound ambition to improve the lives and health outcomes of people who survive a stroke. At this point, I would like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) and to the man in the Public Gallery for what they have been through and for their fortitude. It was certainly not easy for my hon. Friend to come to this place and to have to go through the extremely difficult situation that she did. I also pay tribute to all the key partners and stakeholders who worked with her and her family to get through it. That really is a tribute to the immensely important work they do.