Health Bill

Anna Dixon Excerpts

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

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I am speaking today in support of new clauses 113 and 114, which stand in the name of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and to which I have added my name.

I say at the outset that I am in full support of this Government’s ambitions on cancer. I welcome the recent investment in radiotherapy equipment, and I sincerely want the national cancer plan, which was published in February, to succeed. But I speak as someone who worked in the health service, who is a cancer survivor and who has taken a particular interest in this issue, not least as vice chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on radiotherapy. It is in that capacity, and as a supporter of what the Government are trying to achieve, that I respectfully ask Ministers to accept one or both of these new clauses.

By way of brief explanation, new clause 113 requires the Secretary of State to publish and maintain a national framework of agreed metrics for radiotherapy, requires integrated care boards to report annually against those targets and requires a report to this House once a year. New clause 114 asks very straightforwardly for a single review of access to radiotherapy and radiotherapy waiting times to be laid before Parliament within six months.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the ethnic inequalities we see in cancer outcomes and access to cancer treatment such as radiotherapy should also be included in the suggested review?

[Grahame Morris]

This is a huge issue that should concern everyone. I believe there is cross-party consensus on the issue of health inequalities and huge variation in access depending on which part of the country people live in. That is an absolutely valid point.

We know the international consensus is that around half of all cancer patients have an evidence-based indication for radiotherapy at some point in their treatment. We should be aware that here in the United Kingdom in 2021, the last date for which figures were available, only 35% of cancer patients received it as part of their primary treatment.

Health Bill

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Danny Beales]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. Having worked in neonatal care services and areas of specialised services in the NHS for 10 years, I understand that one of the benefits of NHS England was that it brought together highly specialised services, ensured consistent service specifications and uplifted the quality and availability of care across the country. I hope that when we make decisions about which specialised services will be devolved to ICBs, consideration will be given to that point. Equally, we have heard from national population health programmes such as the Diabetes Prevention Programme, which has been a huge success. As we make the final decisions about the level at which decisions are made, we cannot lose the benefits of public health initiatives at scale, such as vaccinations and prevention programmes. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts and reflections on that.

Integrated working is also important—as I say, we have to blend budgets and bring together decision makers across current silo divides. In that spirit, I very much welcome the change made by Government amendment 60 to give local authorities a seat back at the table. We need a bigger voice for public health and social care in health decision making, not less, so I thank the Minister and the Government for listening to the Health and Social Care Committee and moving on that. In the view of the NHS Alliance, this is not enough; it would like to see a reciprocal duty to collaborate, which is an interesting suggestion. However, the Government’s amendment is an important start.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend and others on the Select Committee who did the work on strengthening local authority representation on integrated care boards. Does he agree with the sentiments of my new clause 106, which says that we need a stronger duty to co-operate, both within the NHS and between the NHS and local authorities?

[Danny Beales]

My hon. Friend might have read my speech, because I was about to turn to her amendment’s proposal of a report on integrating health and social care. It is an interesting idea that has a great deal of merit, and I hope that the Minister, in her response, will outline the Government’s approach to enabling more progress on integrating health and social care, particularly with the ongoing Casey review.

Inequalities have already been mentioned in the debate. Obviously, one of the Government’s key ambitions is growth in every postcode; another is good health in every postcode. Time and again we see disproportionality and inequalities that are seemingly hardwired into our health system. To change that, we are going to have to do something differently, and I welcome new clauses 90 and 91, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner). Unfortunately, those amendments have not been selected for debate, but they definitely reinforce the Government’s 10-year plan commitment to halve the gap in healthy life expectancy between the richest regions and the poorest, and to raise the healthiest generation of children ever. Unfortunately, we have moved away from those goals over the past 10 years, and we will have to do something differently if we are to bridge that gap. In my own constituency, from north to south, there is a huge divide in the quality of health and outcomes based on postcode. That must change.

Although the Government are not minded to accept those amendments, I know that the Minister is passionate about inequalities and that the Bill requires neighbourhood health plans to be developed. That will be an important new measure when responding to neighbourhood health needs, and in preparing those plans,

“the responsible local authority and…partner integrated care boards must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”

I hope that the Minister will explore using this guidance to ensure that as they are developed, neighbourhood health plans specifically address inequalities between neighbourhoods.

Finally, I turn to the SEND system, which is another major challenge with which the Government are rightly grappling. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft), a fellow member of the Health and Social Care Committee, for new clause 85, which would address the chasm between the education system and the health system. While this is fundamentally a health Bill, it is right to ask what more the health system could and should be doing. As the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), has rightly said already, the “H” is far from present in EHCPs. Decision makers are not required to come round the table, and the specialists are not provided. I have been to specialist schools in my constituency where there is no nursing provision, so people miss school days, and where there is no specialist transport, so people cannot even get to school, because bus drivers do not have the proper health knowledge. We need to have an education and health response. I therefore hope that the Minister will address in her closing remarks how, if this Bill is not the right mechanism, future SEND reforms may pick this issue up and how the Department of Health and Social Care will contribute.

There is a great deal to support in this Bill. It is a major step forward, particularly for digital healthcare, giving people control of their records and joined-up care. I hope that the Government will continue to drive forward reform of our health system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Gordon]

I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to see that, and I tabled new clause 93 to get the answers to some of those questions that not just constituents in my patch but those in hers are asking us as Members of Parliament. It is particularly frustrating that we are in the third year of this Labour Government, and although talk of dental contract reform kept cropping up at the outset, we have seen little progress since, so I would press the Minister on what more can be done to make sure those gaps are filled.

On new clause 121, I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for diabetes, and we have some fantastic care and world-leading practice for diabetes, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales). This new clause would maintain existing national diabetes prevention, treatment and audit programmes, and would mean we see an explanation from the Government with regular reports in Parliament about how those are being continued.

Overall, Members across the House have tabled a fantastic number of amendments. I hope the Minister will pay attention to them and can provide us with some responses.

[Anna Dixon]

I worked as a civil servant for the coalition Government, and I saw at first hand some of the duplication and confusion caused when NHS England was set up, so I welcome this Bill and the decision to abolish NHS England. However, reversing the fragmentation caused by the Tories’ failed reforms of the NHS will not on its own create a more integrated and joined-up service for patients and carers. That is why I have tabled new clause 106, which would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament within six months of the Act passing on how well NHS bodies and local authorities are working together to integrate health and social care in England.

Having worked in the health and care sector, I know how vital it is to have integrated services, and I know as an MP, as I am sure do others, and from personal experience how devastating unco-ordinated care can be for patients, their families and our NHS. One of my constituents, Ellerie Carroll, was diagnosed with diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma, an inoperable brain tumour, in September 2024. Very sadly, she died in May this year, aged just nine. Ellerie and her parents, Freya and Christian, suffered in ways that are unimaginable, but it was a lack of co-operation between services that added to their suffering. To give just one example, after going for a MRI scan at Great Ormond Street hospital, Ellerie had to endure a repeated scan at Leeds General Infirmary in Leeds due to an inability to share results between hospitals. I hope that the single patient record, which the Bill also creates, will help to join up systems and reduce such problems.

We see disjointed care within the NHS between hospital and community services, but also between health and social care. Another constituent, Roger, in his 90s, had a fall and serious head injury last year. After the acute hospital treatment in Leeds, there was a failure in the NHS to join up his care with Bradford social services, resulting in delays to his discharge. He developed infections and delirium. After nine months of being moved from one hospital to another, and despite his wife fighting to get him home with support, he died in hospital. These are the consequences when our health and care systems are not integrated. It is also expensive. Around one in 10 hospital beds in England are occupied by someone who does not need to be there, often because community care or social care are not available.

Any reform of the NHS will ultimately fail unless we simultaneously reform adult social care. That is why I welcome the priority given to this issue by the Prime Minister and the commitment he made to bring forward the conclusion of the Casey commission. But even if we build a national care service, which we must, there is a risk if it does not work in sync with our national health service. It is essential that we place very clear obligations on all parts of the NHS to co-operate and integrate with social care.

I ask the Minister to set out in her closing remarks how she and the Secretary of State will monitor the Bill’s impact on integration, and how they will ensure co-operation remains a critical priority for the NHS—not just on paper, not just in law, but in the way that we all experience health and care in a joined-up way.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I rise to speak to clause 1 on the abolition of NHS England and clause 6 on promoting innovation.

What characterises the first of those is an announcement without any clear plan. That is what has driven the cost and confusion that a number of Members across the House have spoken about. Those in any doubt about that can just look at NHS England’s own 2025-26 annual accounts, which show that the costs are already more than £100 million higher than forecast and now sit at above half a billion pounds. I do not recall seeing that on election leaflets. Indeed, just six directors at NHS England are being paid over £800,000, and that points to the cost.

Sometimes such big figures are hard for constituents to get their heads around. Just to localise it to my own constituency, the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICB alone paid out £14 million in redundancies last year. It merged with a number of other ICBs to form the Central East ICB, yet we know hear from the Government that it should align with metro mayors, which means going back to exactly what it was before: the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICB.

That is just one of many confusions around the announcement. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) spoke about confusion over the timetable and what was described to the media as now an impossible timetable. We also saw reports in the media this weekend about the destination of staff in NHS England. Can they actually go into the Department, or will another body be set up because of the pay disparity between the two? All this is around 18 months on from the actual announcement.

The confusion seems to extend to the Government themselves, because they seem unable to answer pretty straightforward written parliamentary questions. Given the time limit, I will give just a few examples. I asked how many people have been hired to NHS England since the announcement of its abolition, not least given the huge cost—over half a billion pounds—of voluntary redundancies. Despite the deadline passing, the Minister has not answered the question. We know from another written parliamentary question that more than 1,000 jobs have been advertised. It is relevant to know, in an organisation that is paying people to leave, how many people it is hiring. I also asked how many people had accepted voluntary redundancy, another written parliamentary question that has passed the deadline without answer. The process is characterised by a lack of transparency.

NHS Corridor Care

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Allin-Khan]

That is absolutely right—the hon. Member makes a valid point. People can be enduring a heart attack; they can be losing a baby; they can have had a road traffic accident and be lying on a trolley, blocked and collared, or lying on a board and looking up at the ceiling, wondering when they might make it into the scanner. People will definitely be having a time in hospital that will be etched on their memory, and sadly for many patients, and many loved ones, that is the last day they will ever see—the A&E will be the last place they know.

In the NHS we want that experience to be as comfortable and reassuring as possible. We want the best possible care, delivered in the fastest possible time, to patients who are treated fairly, efficiently, and with compassion and dignity. Frankly, that is impossible in a corridor, even with the greatest will in the world. In my A&E at St George’s hospital we have patients in corridors, as we do across the country, but we have nurses who are there and dedicated to check their observations, ask if they need pain relief, and try to deliver—and they do—the best possible gold-standard care. But there is no privacy in a corridor, or in a cupboard, or anywhere where there should be, and that simply is not right. In emergency departments across the country, regardless of data that some trusts try to put forward to show that it is in only a certain number of places, we know from our inboxes that corridor care is everywhere.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. She has spoken about some of the impacts of this issue. My 80-odd-year-old mum was recently admitted to Airedale hospital with acute respiratory issues. She had to wait in a chair for over 12 hours, alongside my dad, in a very undignified way. Does my hon. Friend agree that ideally we should be preventing admissions for older and frail patients, and does she believe that the stronger proactive primary and community care services proposed by the Government with neighbourhood health teams could help to prevent some admissions for older and frail elderly people like my mum?

[Dr Allin-Khan]

I hope my hon. Friend’s mum is making a swift and healthy recovery, and I am sorry to hear that that was her family’s experience. I agree that prioritising care for the frailer, elder population can often be dealt with more effectively before someone comes to hospital. I also know that my hospital of St George’s in Tooting has a special dedicated frailty unit that goes a long way in speeding things up for people. Good pilots are going on across the country, where care can be taken to our elderly community before people come in. Tackling social care is something I am coming to in my speech, because we could not have a speech on corridor care without a huge nod—or an entire body bend—to social care and the need to fix it.

While this situation is extremely hard for patients and their families, the toll it takes on healthcare staff is huge. By healthcare staff I do not just mean doctors such as myself, but nurses, porters, healthcare assistants and cleaners—we are one big family in the NHS, and no one job is more important than any other. We are unable to do any of our roles without all the others, and for that we are truly grateful. Knowing that they might be caring for a patient in their mid-80s, who is trying to hold back tears because they do not want to upset anybody very publicly in a corridor, is absolutely heartbreaking and takes a toll on their mental health. Our nurses, doctors and all the staff I have mentioned are going home absolutely burnt out—this is not what they trained and studied for, and not what they go to work to deliver. They go to work to deliver the best possible gold-standard care for the community that they care about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naushabah Khan]

The hon. Member makes a very powerful point. I will come to adult social care in a moment.

We simply cannot end corridor care at the front door of the hospital when the back door remains jammed shut. I welcome the steps taken to reform adult social care—a £3.7 billion funding boost for local authorities—but it is clear that we must go further. I eagerly await Baroness Casey’s independent commission on adult social care. However, I am concerned that the review’s terms of reference call for recommendations to be implemented in a phased way over a decade. That is simply not fast enough. Social care reform must work in lockstep with NHS reform. A commission reporting in 2026 and 2028, with implementation stretched over a decade and beyond, will not be able to enact the scale of change needed to meet our targets. I urge the Government to move at pace.

[Anna Dixon]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Naushabah Khan]

No, I will not take any further interventions, thank you.

Lastly, I would like to pay tribute to the nurses, doctors and staff who keep Medway hospital in my constituency of Gillingham and Rainham running. In this House, we all receive correspondence from frustrated members of the public regarding the state of our NHS. However, it is the staff who carry the moral injury of apologising, shift after shift, for conditions that they did not create.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Let us be clear from the beginning: corridor care is unacceptable. No patient should be treated in a corridor. No family should watch a loved one receive care without the privacy and dignity that they deserve. No member of our brilliant NHS staff should be put in the impossible position of delivering care in an environment that they know is not right. I know how deeply my constituents feel about this, and hardly a week goes by without someone contacting me about their experience of Warrington hospital. They tell me about the kindness of the staff despite incredibly difficult circumstances; others tell me about the length of time that their loved ones have waited to be seen, and those experiences are reflected in the figures.

In May this year, Warrington hospital recorded the second-worst 12-hour A&E performance in the entire country. Those figures are deeply concerning, and it would be wrong of me to pretend otherwise, but if we only talk about A&E waiting times, we miss the bigger picture. Corridor care does not begin in a corridor: it begins when patients are medically fit to leave hospital but the care or support that they need at home is not yet in place. It begins when patient flow slows down, leaving emergency departments carrying pressures that they were never designed to absorb. It begins when a town like Warrington grows significantly without its infrastructure keeping up.

[Anna Dixon]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that it is not about fixing the problem at the front door; it is about fixing the problem at the back door. Does she agree that closer integration of health and social care is part of the answer to enable that flow through hospitals out into the community? During the summing up, I hope the Minister might carefully consider my amendment to the Health Bill on health and care integration—my hon. Friend might also look at that.

[Sarah Hall]

I absolutely agree; the NHS system as a whole is very fragmented, and the lack of connectivity is a big issue. Social care is a core component and it needs to be a priority going forward.

Patient Safety Review

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I thank the hon. Gentleman.

Recommendation 1 in the Dash review says that the new National Quality Board should

“avoid unfunded mandates being imposed on the system without due consideration”.

Public inquiries have certainly made well meaning but unaffordable recommendations—I think of the Francis inquiry recommendation on blanket standards for minimum staffing—but it is wrong to see safety as a cost in opposition to other benefits. The cost of safety failures is astronomic, with NHS clinical negligence costing £3.6 billion a year, despite all the public inquiries. Effective safety management is about the cost-effective management of risk, not risk elimination at any cost. If the air accidents investigation branch did not balance costs with effective risk management, aeroplanes would not fly. Can the Minister therefore point out which of HSSIB’s recommendations have been too expensive to implement? If not, where is the justification for abolishing HSSIB?

Neither the NQB nor the CQC should control investigations. The AAIB cannot be prevented from making independent recommendations by the Civil Aviation Authority, the Transport Secretary or airlines themselves. Why should the NQB, which will be subject to political direction, be allowed to decide what safety recommendations should be made and what should be investigated, as Dash recommends?

On page 31, Dash incorrectly states:

“HSSIB was not able to retain the maternity programme because the Health and Care Act 2022 does not make provision for maternity investigations under HSSIB.”

Why have the Government accepted that assertion as true? It is wrong in fact and law. The new statutory HSSIB did not take on maternity and newborn safety investigations, because they were commenced without the safe space protections, so their evidence is available for legal proceedings. That is not how HSSIB operates. Since 2023, HSSIB has been conducting its own maternity investigations. Indeed, when the Amos review was established, it took on the relevant investigations from HSSIB and then relied on HSSIB for assistance with them.

With sufficient resources, HSSIB could conduct all maternity investigations much more effectively than the maternity and newborn safety investigations programme. Amos reported that MNSI investigations are not trusted by families, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) was saying, and are not consistent or effective in identifying learning or providing accountability. Amos also says that families should have access to an independent investigation if they lose confidence in the local investigations. Without HSSIB, who will provide those independent investigations?

Finding 6 accuses HSSIB of having “expanded” its

“scope of work beyond the original remit…For example, HSSIB was originally established, along the lines of safety investigatory bodies in other industries, to look at specific cases or incidents of severe harm, but it has since broadened its work into making more systemic recommendations.”

That is what Dash says. It is complete nonsense. HSSIB is exactly equivalent to the AAIB, the marine accident investigation branch and RAIB, and was, like them, set up to conduct systemic investigations. That is why they are such effective bodies. The Health and Care Act 2022 does not limit HSSIB investigations to individual incidents. There is no reference whatsoever to “severe harm”, as Dash puts it, in the 2022 Act. It was always intended by Parliament that HSSIB should make systemic recommendations arising from the investigation of specific incidents or groups of incidents. I can say that with authority because it was my Select Committee that recommended HSSIB in the first place, and I also chaired the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee on the draft legislation, so how can Ministers give any authority to the Dash review, which claimed that HSSIB has expanded its remit, when it has done no such thing?

Recommendation 3 proposes:

“Most investigations into safety incidents should continue to be managed within provider organisations”.

This really is the fundamental flaw in Dash. Recent maternity investigations conducted by trusts have highlighted the deficiency of provider-led investigations, as Ockenden and Amos have pointed out. Do the Government accept that investigations by provider organisations are inherently conflicted? Just ask the clinicians, patients, families and patient safety organisations what they think about trusts marking their own homework. None of them has confidence, because providers are keen to protect themselves from litigation and reputational damage. How can Ministers accept the Dash recommendation that we should rely on investigations conducted by provider organisations?

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for speaking so clearly about why having an independent HSSIB—independent of those providers—to investigate is so important. Time and again, we hear about devastating failings in the NHS. He alludes to maternity services, but we could add to the list infected blood and pelvic mesh. Does he agree that professionals and those working inside the NHS must be able to speak freely when things go wrong in order to learn lessons, and that that is only possible with an independent investigating organisation?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. Only an independent investigator can find the causes of the incident that may be part of the culture or practice of that provider, or of the system as a whole. It is like suggesting that airlines or aircraft manufacturers can protect passenger safety without the independent accountability provided by the AAIB. Of course, providers should have the capacity and capability of conducting patient safety investigations, but they must know that HSSIB can and will look at that work and will hold them to account.

Recommendation 3 also says that HSSIB should continue as what it calls

“a centre of excellence for investigations”

in the CQC, but I am afraid that this is just a sop. The CQC, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash, is a regulator and compliance enforcer, not an investigator. How can the CQC also be an independent investigator? Dash also says that the CQC internal successor should collaborate through the NQB to agree the scope of any investigations it carries out and agree the recommendations. Dash is effectively saying that CQC investigations will be overseen by the NQB. That is a direct attack on the independence of investigations.

Can the Minister explain who in future will conduct independent and unconflicted investigations into safety incidents in the NHS? For example, how would an investigation under the CQC be free to find that the CQC inspections themselves were causing unintended harm to patients, or is it back to the misery of litigation through the courts and more public inquiries?

The recommendation also makes no reference to the statutory safe space raised by the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) that provides for protected disclosure by patients and their families, clinicians and others in safety investigation bodies. It is a crucial safeguard, allowing people to speak. It allows for the duty of candour. I would just point out that the duty of candour does not work if it is just imposed on people. People cannot be forced to incriminate themselves. If placed under the CQC, confidence in the safe space investigations will collapse—and back we go to public inquiries.

The Health Bill does attempt to address this by replicating the 2022 Act’s safe space provisions, but that Act also provided for disclosure in certain circumstances, which is allowed on the basis that the benefits for the safety of patients outweighs any impact on current and future investigations. But under this Bill, who will decide what protected information can be disclosed? How will the CQC give the same confidence that the safe space is not being compromised as HSSIB?

Finally, Dash fails to look at the comparative cost of HSSIB investigations versus the cost of public inquiries. HSSIB at the moment only costs £6.3 million per year. To save money, the Secretary of State should request that HSSIB conducts far more investigations into matters which he thinks are important, provided that he also provides the funding for the necessary capacity. HSSIB, for example, has conducted eight investigations into mental health suicides since 2023. Each was completed in a few weeks or months, costing a total of £850,000. In comparison, the Lampard inquiry into the Essex partnership university trust in my constituency—investigating the same problem—is expected to cost more than £5 million. Ockenden cost £14 million. This is very far from the best use of resources for conducting investigations.

So I ask the Minister, why have Dash and the Government ignored the whole question of HSSIB’s value for money? Even if HSSIB only saves a fraction of the £3.6 billion in costs of clinical negligence, it will pay for itself many fold. I do hope that Ministers will reconsider the whole issue, reflecting on the fact that none of the Royal colleges, nor any of the patient safety organisations, nor the all-party group on patient safety support this unjustifiable policy.

Youth Mental Health Support

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

I will call Anna Dixon to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. Other Members can participate only if they have had prior permission from both the Member in charge and the Minister. I know one or two other Members have indicated that they wish to speak. Interventions, if they are taken, are permitted, but speeches are not, unless they have been cleared in advance.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered youth mental health support.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. There is no doubt that we have a mental health crisis among our children and young people. The statistics are shocking. At the turn of the century, just over 2% of 14 to 24-year-olds had presented to primary care with a mental health problem; by 2023, that figure had risen to around 8%. Similarly, referrals to children and adolescent mental health services have trebled since 2016. Sadly, that is part of a wider decline in children’s happiness. The Children’s Society estimates that five children in a class of 30 are likely to have a mental health problem.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

This is a very important subject. I have disability issues, and I tried to take my life when I was at school. My youth club saved my life. We really need more youth clubs, but in Somerset we now have none. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need better youth provision in our rural communities?

[Anna Dixon]

I am very sorry to hear about the hon. Gentleman’s experience as a young person. I am very glad that he is with us, and that that support made a life-changing difference. I will come on to say more about the importance of youth services.

Behind the statistics are children and young people who are struggling, families who are stressed and teachers and doctors who are overwhelmed. Many of us will have a personal story of someone we know. My niece suffered with anxiety as a teenager and struggled with the transition to secondary school. She refused to go to school, and her absence was treated as truancy. After years of trying to get support from CAMHS, it was only when she was at a crisis point that she was seen. It took a further two years and several therapists before she was assessed and diagnosed with autism. That was a turning point, and the understanding it gave to both her and the family enabled her to recover and manage her mental health, but those lost years while she was waiting for support are impossible to get back.

Although neurodiversity is not a mental health issue, it can cause mental health issues if undiagnosed and unsupported. One of the top issues raised with me across the Shipley constituency is concern about children and young people’s mental health and the lack of support. As an MP, I am frequently contacted by desperate parents looking for help, particularly parents of children with special educational needs and disabilities.

Poor mental health impacts not just the lives of children and their families but wider society. I was shocked by the recent interim report by Alan Milburn on young people and work. It found that nearly 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training—equivalent to one in eight. Long-term sickness was the primary driver of the increase in youth economic inactivity, and mental health conditions were the most common cause.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

Amber Valley has been selected for one of the new youth hubs that will be rolled out soon, and I am delighted about that. The hub will not only help people in my constituency into work, but provide them with access to mental health services. Does my hon. Friend agree that a holistic approach such as that is essential to ensuring that our young people, who have it harder at this time than ever, have the opportunity of a bright and fulfilling future?

[Anna Dixon]

I agree that youth hubs bringing everything together for young people are key to tackling these issues. Poor mental health harms young people’s life chances, and the long-term scarring effects are a major issue. That is why we owe it to our children to stop the harm and heal the wounds.

I am not a psychologist or a psychiatrist, but a number of factors seem to be at play: covid causing children to miss out on school and play, more intense pressure at school with testing and exams, living in a more insecure global environment, levels of abuse, discrimination and bullying, exposure to trauma due to family breakdown, insecure housing and homelessness, poverty and, of course, the role of social media and the online world—a very topical issue that I will return to. While the Government cannot address all those factors directly, we can shape a healthier environment for our children to grow up in and ensure that the support is there when they need it.

The previous Government’s crippling austerity hit our schools and the NHS. They failed to address the crisis in SEND, narrowly focused school performance on academic achievement and refused to fund the covid recovery recommended by Sir Kevan Collins. Their actions did nothing to help the mental health of our young people. In fact, they did the opposite, and it is noticeable that nobody from the Conservative party is here for this debate.

This Labour Government are already doing so much more—an ambitious and comprehensive set of reforms to SEND, an inclusive curriculum, additional funding for youth services, tackling homelessness and ending the use of B&Bs as temporary accommodation for families and children—but there is more to do.

[Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)]

On youth provision, does my hon. Friend agree that it is incredibly important that we have sport provision and mentorship, which can play a key role in tackling the youth mental health crisis? Will she join me in thanking my local charity, BEST, for the work that it does?

[Anna Dixon]

I would love to join my hon. Friend in thanking his local organisation, and I thank him for being such a great champion for sport in this place.

I will focus specifically on three areas: the NHS and access to CAMHS—to which I hope the Minister will reply—and youth services and action to tackle online harm. As of late 2025, more than 550,000 children and young people were on NHS mental health waiting lists in England, and more than half had waited for over a year. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has warned about how harmful that is, recently declaring that a lack of prioritisation to treat children with mental illness in England is turning treatable conditions into lifelong recurring illnesses, and that as many as 75% of children and young people who experience mental health problems are not getting the help they need.

[Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an important speech about the state of child and adolescent mental health support in England. I will just make the point about what is happening in Scotland, which is also very poor. In January to March this year, almost 40% of referrals to CAMHS support were rejected by the NHS in Scotland. I think that is ultimately a way of managing waiting lists so that they seem like they are meeting their target, even though young people are being failed. Does my hon. Friend agree that supporting young people in Scotland is critical, and will she join me in calling on the Scottish Government to get a grip of that?

[Anna Dixon]

I happily join my hon. Friend in calling on the Scottish Government to address this issue. I believe that waiting lists are too long UK-wide, and that too much rationing is happening. My constituent Joseph, a young man due to start secondary school in September, is an example of that. He has been unable to get assessments for ADHD and autism for 18 months, and his mum is incredibly worried about his ability to cope if he does not have the assessments and appropriate support. I will speak some of her words:

“This delay is already having a significant impact on Joseph”,

his emotional wellbeing has deteriorated,

“he has started to pull out his hair and eyelashes, his ability to sleep, educational functioning, peer relationships, and ability to…interface with healthcare providers has been extremely challenging and traumatic to the point where he has refused treatment.”

It is not just about the waiting list to get an assessment; after a diagnosis has been received, children may still need to wait for long periods to get medication and other support. GPs are severely overstretched. One of the GPs at Grange Park surgery in Burley in Wharfedale in my constituency shared their concerns with me about the pressures they face. Again, I will read a short extract from her letter to me:

“The mental health services are not working. They are massively under capacity. It’s easy to say we can’t afford more staff but these children are waiting throughout most of their secondary education to be assessed and then helped. It is not acceptable.

I no longer can make a difference. I write to everyone I can think of. I complain. I personally find it distressing. I have decided that the only people who can institute a change is the government. There needs to be urgent money put into children’s mental health services. A wait of 2 years for a teenager to see someone is just unacceptable. Think about the effect on the family and on the whole life outcome of the child themselves. We cannot give up on these children.”

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

In Greater Manchester, we have the BeeWell programme, which tracks young people’s wellbeing and is critical in helping local areas identify needs, and designs more targeted, preventive approaches. More young people are now reporting good levels of wellbeing through this programme, so does my hon. Friend agree that we need to invest in locally driven, data-informed approaches to prevention, working in partnership with integrated care systems and local authorities?

[Anna Dixon]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising such a great example of wellbeing and prevention. It is vital that, alongside the specialist services that are needed, we do more on prevention and early intervention.

Before I move on to youth services and prevention, I want to make a final point about the health service. In West Yorkshire, the integrated care boards introduced a cap on appointments for ADHD and autism spectrum disorder assessments. When they reached the cap, they simply stopped seeing patients, which meant that more patients had to wait longer. I urge the Minister to look into this ICB practice and implement funding and workforce plans to tackle the waiting times in mental health with the same gusto with which Ministers have successfully addressed elective waiting times for surgery and cancer diagnostics.

I will briefly move on to youth services, which has already been mentioned by my hon. Friends and colleagues. Early intervention and prevention are key. Schools and families play a role, but for many young people the opportunity to play, be physically active and participate in activities with other young people can boost their mental health. That is why youth services in our community and voluntary sector are so vital.

The previous Government crippled our youth services, funding for which declined by 73% in England between 2010 and 2023. Despite that, the previously Labour-led Bradford council fought to protect our local youth services. Reform is now in charge in Bradford, and I hope it follow the leadership shown by Labour and ensure that youth services remain available for young people across my constituency.

I have had the pleasure of visiting some of the fantastic provision for young people in my constituency. I would like to shout out Bingley Youth Café, Bolton Woods Community Centre, Denholme Youth Café and Health Action Local Engagement in Bradford, which all provide a safe space for young people to meet; outdoor facilities such as the skate park in Myrtle park and the fantastic new pump track in Burley in Wharfedale, which opened at the weekend—I thank Bradford Community Trust and parish council for all their work to support that project.

I want to shout out the brilliant sports clubs, such as Harden cricket club and Crossflatts cricket club, which both have very popular youth sections, as well as many football, rugby and running clubs. Many uniformed organisations, including Scouts, Guides and Cadets meeting across the villages and towns of my Shipley constituency, provide young people with a huge variety of opportunities to learn skills and develop; and finally, churches and mosques also provide vital support to children and families.

I am excited to soon visit the Slice of Life project run by the Methodist church in Burley in Wharfedale, which runs a pizza van to engage young people on the street. These amazing organisations rely on volunteers giving up time to work with young people. I would like to give a huge thank you to everyone involved. However, they also need money, which is why funding and grants for grassroot sport and youth organisations is so vital.

It is also essential that we have professional youth workers, police and other formal services available to support these voluntary community groups. That is why this Friday I am bringing together youth organisations, community groups, and other key local stakeholders to see how we can strengthen the youth offer in Shipley. I would be grateful if the Minister could work with colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure funding for this sort of provision is prioritised, given the positive contribution it makes to supporting young people’s mental health.

As I mentioned, before I finish, I want to talk about social media, which is clearly a crucial factor in the rise of young people’s mental health problems. As part of Mental Health Awareness Week this year, I asked constituents to share their personal experiences with me. I would like to thank the almost 700 constituents who have been in touch. My constituent Michael is a parent of three. He wrote about the nightly battle with his children when they were between the ages of 14 and 16, over their desperation to have their phones in their rooms with them overnight so that they could check social media and not miss out on contact with friends.

Despite the exhaustion of the continued struggle and the resulting strain on family life, Michael persisted, because he knew how damaging social media can be to sleep health. By the age of 16, his children had given up the fight. Michael had protected their sleep through crucial years of development and study. This is a battle that parents should not be fighting alone, and they are in desperate need of stronger regulation of social media access and function.

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share the concern I have from conversations in Plymouth about the deep harm caused to mental health by some social media? Is she aware that the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges has warned of an epidemic of harm to children

“continuously exposed to hateful, addictive and grossly distressing content”?

[Anna Dixon]

I have great respect for the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and my hon. Friend’s work to highlight the harms of social media and its addictive nature. I agree with him, and we must do all we can to protect children from these impacts and to hold tech companies to account when they continue to exploit young people through addictive algorithms and expose them to harm and abuse. I therefore fully support the measures in the Online Safety Act 2023 and the Government’s consultation to go further to protect our children from online harms.

I urge the Minister to call this out as a public health emergency, and to work closely with colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and urge them to act boldly and decisively to put the wellbeing of children and young people above the financial interests of tech companies.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a great speech. I would like to raise awareness of paediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome and paediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with streptococcus, conditions caused by an abnormal immune response that results in brain inflammation and leads to obsessive compulsive disorder, anxiety, children feeling pressures that they have never felt before and unbelievable overnight behaviour changes.

There is little awareness about these conditions, but they lead to poor mental health. Some of the children from the PANS PANDAS UK board came to Westminster not too long ago. They talked to us about the conditions, and one of those young lads made a heartfelt plea for us to get behind him, as he had considered taking his life because of PANS/PANDAS, and the conditions are not recognised or diagnosed. Would my hon. Friend join me in encouraging the Minister to think about PANS/PANDAS in any conversations she has around mental health?

[Anna Dixon]

I am sure that the Minister will have heard my hon. Friend’s remarks and will take on board the information and testimony that he has provided.

Our young people deserve to be given the best chance to grow up healthy and happy. Sadly, too many are not given that chance. That requires action across Government to ensure timely access to NHS services, a thriving youth sector in every community and a safer online environment so that kids can spend more time enjoying life in the real world rather than the virtual one. The Tories tore down the social infrastructure that supported young people in dealing with mental health issues. The safety net was cut and our children fell through the gaps. It falls to Labour to repair it and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Preet Kaur Gill)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) for securing this important debate. This is an issue I care deeply about, and I thank her for sharing such a personal story about her niece and the lost years that she faced.

I also thank hon. Members for their contributions, including the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance), who shared how his youth club saved him at a time of very clear mental health distress, my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth), who talked about celebrating youth hubs in her area, my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon North (Will Stone), who talked about the powerful example of sports provision to support mental health, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee), who talked about the issues with CAMHS in Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas), who talked about his concerns about the impact of social media, and my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), who talked about PANS/PANDAS.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley mentioned Joseph and the delays in the SEND assessment. I am keen to work with the Minister for School Standards on the Health response to SEND reforms. The ICB is responsible for ADHD assessment and treatment services, and I hope that the NHS’s medium-term planning framework is clear that a system should use existing and new guidance to reduce long waits and improve the quality of assessments.

The message I want to give today is clear: the country is right to expect a children and young people’s mental health system that is simple, faster and stronger at every stage, from early support in the community through to specialist CAMHS support where needs are most severe. We have to be honest about the pressure on that system, which includes long waits and uneven access, but equally clear in our determination, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said, to improve it and build a system that delivers for every child and young person. For parents, as my hon. Friend shared, that means knowing where to turn when they are worried about their child. For young people, it means getting help through schools, their GP, community services—many Members mentioned them and the power they have to engage young people today—mental health support hubs or specialist NHS care, depending on the level of need. For families, it means a clear local offer, more joined-up care and fewer children becoming more unwell before help arrives.

To improve services, we have to be honest about how families experience them, and my hon. Friend shared some really powerful examples. Needs may first be identified at school, then raised with a GP and addressed through a community service, or they may come to attention only when there is a crisis, as my hon. Friend says. Support should become more intensive as need grows, but families too often do not experience a clear pathway and instead describe a search for help that is confusing, fragmented and exhausting.

The pressure points are well understood: confusing local offers, different referral thresholds and delays that allow problems to escalate until a child presents in crisis. More children and young people are starting treatment, but too many are still waiting. At the end of March 2026, nearly 40,000 children and young people had already been waiting more than 1,000 days for a first contact.

The pressures are visible nationally and matter locally too, including in Shipley. In Bradford district and Craven, young people can access support through schools and colleges, primary care, specialist CAMHS across Bradford and Keighley, and innovative community provision such as the Shipley Wellbeing Hub on Westgate, which offers walk-in support and links to wider services. Those are strong foundations, but we also know that in West Yorkshire ICB, where Shipley sits, almost 23,000 children and young people are still waiting for support, with median waiting times longer on average for England.

Let me be clear about CAMHS, because a number of Members have raised it. CAMHS is central to our current system of support and treatment. It is not one service, but a specialist pathway that covers community teams, crisis support and in-patient care. It is where children and young people are assessed and treated when needs are more serious and complex. However, CAMHS is under sustained pressure: referral volumes have risen, waiting times vary too much between areas and too many children are waiting too long for an assessment or treatment. Delay is not neutral; anxiety can become absence from school and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley described, low mood can deepen into self-harm and eating difficulties can become much more entrenched.

At the earliest stage, support should be available where young people already are, through mental health support teams in schools and colleges, open-access hubs, GPs and primary care, and community and voluntary services. For emerging needs, that should mean advice, brief intervention and practical help before problems escalate. For more severe or complex needs, it should mean timely referral into specialist CAMHS. For those in acute distress, it should mean a responsive crisis pathway. What good looks like is clear: visible local entry points, no wrong front door, support while families are waiting, stronger links between schools, GPs and community services, and better outcomes for children.

[Anna Dixon]

I thank the Minister for describing what good looks like. Does she agree that we are very far from that in most parts of the country, and that it is now a matter of great urgency that the Government act to ensure that the good she describes is available to all children in all places?

[Preet Kaur Gill]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why I will now set out what the Government are going to do to address the fragmented system that we all find. We will strengthen the whole pathway, not just one part of it—I think that is really important, from listening to my hon. Friend today. I also want to thank her for raising the subject of the NEET population—those not in education, employment or training—because none of this can be done in isolation; we have to work across Government if we want to truly address the fragmented system.

First, we are expanding earlier intervention. We are accelerating access to NHS-funded mental health support teams in schools and colleges so that, by 2029, all pupils and learners will have access to that early support. Alongside that, the Government have provided more than £20 million of funding to early support hubs over the last three years. That will deliver more than 30,000 additional mental health interventions for children and young people. These hubs offer open-access, community-based help without requiring a clinical referral. I think that is very important.

This year, the Government have also launched young futures hubs. The first eight early adopter hubs are now operating in Birmingham, Brighton and Hove, Bristol, County Durham, Leeds, Manchester, Nottingham and Tower Hamlets, with a further 42 hubs to follow across England over the coming years. Together, they will help young people get to the right support sooner.

Secondly, we are improving consistency in navigation. A modern service framework for children and young people up to the age of 18—up to 25 for those with mental health and neurodevelopmental conditions—will set clear expectations about what services should provide and for whom, and how those services should work together across the pathway to improve outcomes.

Thirdly, we are increasing capacity in specialist services. We have already delivered on our commitment to recruit an additional 8,500 mental health workers for children and adults, three years ahead of schedule. Almost one in five are working directly in children and young people’s services, including within mental health support teams in schools and colleges—more than 10,000, actually—and in community CAMHS teams. Those staff are helping children and young people access support more quickly and closer to home.

Fourthly, we are acting on the drivers of the crisis as well as the consequences. Children’s mental health is shaped by what happens at home, in school, and—as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley powerfully said—online and in their communities, which is why this cannot sit in the NHS alone. We are working across Government to tackle root causes, including taking action on social media and screen use, expanding perinatal mental health support and tackling inequalities and child poverty.

As my hon. Friend has already stated, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has undertaken a consultation on children’s online safety, which received more than 70,000 responses. That is a national conversation we need to have. Guidance has been issued for nought to five, and I think it is important that we have a statutory footing on phones in schools. The measures are all there to assist parents and professionals in navigating what I know, with the Online Safety Act, lots of young people are evidencing: the impact of online harms on mental health.

To bring this all together, we are developing a new cross-Government mental health strategy for England. The call for evidence is now live until 10 July. I urge hon. Members to please feed in and share that with their constituents, so that frontline services, experts and people with lived experience can help shape the next phase of reform. Alongside that, we have commissioned an independent review into mental health conditions, ADHD and autism to inform the longer-term changes needed for a more coherent and effective offer. Again, that report is due to be published at the end of July.

The message to the country is this: we understand where the system is under pressure; we are being honest about the challenge; and we are acting where it matters most, which is on earlier help, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley has raised, clearer routes into CAMHS, more capacity in specialist care, and better support in the community. Every child deserves the chance to be well, stay in school, build relationships and look to the future with confidence. That is what this Government want for children, young people and families in Shipley and across the country, and that is the system we are determined to build.

Question put and agreed to.

Health Bill

Anna Dixon Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 1st June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I worked in the Department of Health at the time that NHS England was created. I have always been sceptical about the Lansley fantasy that somehow the NHS could be made separate from the Department of Health and Social Care. I saw at first hand man-marking and duplication of function. This Bill finally puts the nail in the coffin of the complex arrangement of masses of arm’s length bodies that was created by Andrew Lansley. Will the right hon. Gentleman please agree that this is the time to restore stronger democratic accountability for our NHS?

[Stuart Andrew]

I gently remind the hon. Lady that it was the former Secretary of State who said that he did not want to go through another reorganisation, because it would be very costly. We still cannot get a clear answer from the Government about how much this is all going to cost the taxpayer, and there are estimates of £1 billion. There are still serious questions to be answered. The hon. Lady talks about democratic responsibility and accountability, and she is right to do that. She is fortunate—depending on one’s point of view—to have a mayor, but my constituency and county do not. Will my constituents get less of a voice in their NHS than her constituents in Shipley? That does not seem fair to me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s plan to make it easier for doctors and clinicians to share critical information in a single patient record, but I would like the Minister to confirm whether access to patient records could be extended to carers, giving them the ability to access information concerning the person they care for. The NHS often fails to look after our amazing carers, so I am keen for ICBs to have a duty to identify and support the health and wellbeing of our fantastic unpaid family carers, and give them the right to a break.

Our health service needs to do a better job of identifying the next of kin of people who die in its care. There are currently 4,000 public health funerals each year for people whose loved ones cannot be reached, including Ken Bower, a friend of my constituents Cathy and Richard. In his memory, they launched the “Next of Ken” campaign. I invite the Minister to meet me and my constituents to see how this could be embedded in the patient record.

Ministers should promote integration between local authorities and the NHS, and I urge Ministers to implement a stronger duty to integrate health and care services. I welcome the duty to reduce inequalities in access to care, but the Bill needs to go further. I echo calls from colleagues for a cross-Government duty to have due regard to health inequalities.

Finally, as an officer of the APPG on patient safety, I know that the relevant Minister has received many representation on the issue of patient safety, not least from the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin). I hope the Minister will provide reassurances that when harm occurs, there will continue to be fully impartial investigation by HSSIB and clinicians will be able to speak openly about safety incidents.

The Health Bill is a comprehensive and ambitious piece of legislation, but I hope that, on the matters I have mentioned, changes will be considered in Committee. Our ambitions must be bold, our delivery must be rapid, and our NHS must be renewed.

Maternity Commissioner

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I echo the thanks given by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) to all the petitioners who signed the petition, including 262 of my Shipley constituents.

My interest in maternity safety goes back to the time, over a decade ago, when I was director of policy at the King’s Fund. We set up an inquiry into the safety of maternity services, which was chaired by Baroness Professor Onora O’Neill. Despite the fact that that work was done more than a decade ago, the failures that we hear about today are sadly all too familiar. What struck us at that time was that there had been many reports in the preceding decade, including confidential inquiries into maternal and infant deaths, and that the recommendations had not been implemented. It makes me angry that there has been another decade of more inquiries and reviews, with the recommendations going unheeded.

That is why I am pleased to be an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on patient safety, and why I have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) to make maternity safety one of our priorities on the APPG. It has been fantastic to join colleagues, including my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) and for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae), across all-party parliamentary groups to share our insights and to contribute to the Amos investigation. There are still some of the same issues we heard about in the King’s Fund inquiry a decade ago: poor teamwork, weak accountability, defensive cultures and a failure to translate learning into sustained action.

Like many Members, I hear a range of stories as a constituency MP. Those are mainly centred on Bradford Royal infirmary, and I want to share the story of a constituent whose son was born with complications from the umbilical cord being wrapped around his neck. A late crash call was made after he had been delivered, but sadly he suffered catastrophic brain injury and was in a minimally conscious vegetative state. The women and her son were sent home with no diagnosis, and the child has grown up with epilepsy and other problems due to his brain injury. Sadly, it seems that midwives falsified the Apgar scores on the record and the time of the crash call. We have heard about defensive practice. We need a culture that changes it.

My constituent wrote to me:

“I have encountered significant barriers in navigating the NHS complaints system, particularly for marginalized communities. Language barriers further complicate the process, often leading to the dismissal of legitimate concerns.”

I am pleased to say that Bradford Royal infirmary has recently received good and outstanding ratings from the Care Quality Commission, for maternity and neonatal care respectively. I know that staff are not complacent about the care they give.

Others have mentioned the clinical negligence complaints system. I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and we have looked at how issues with that system have not only a human but a financial cost. One of our conclusions was that patients often pursue legal action because the complaints system itself is so confusing and unresponsive, which echoes the thoughts of my constituent. It is therefore vital that there are timely apologies from clinical staff and that we put in place effective, compassionate local resolutions. That will reduce claims, but is also ethically the right thing to do.

I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on the progress of the David Lock KC review, which we heard a lot about at the Public Accounts Committee. Alongside a better complaints system, we also talked about reform of litigation and potentially a no-fault compensation scheme, which would certainly go some way to creating a better environment. At the moment, families often experience long legal battles following harm, which leads to clinicians and organisations becoming defensive.

I want to finish with a brief example of what happens when people are failed but want to share any learnings with the NHS. My friend Martha’s second child died. It was a homebirth with complications. She started labour at 2.30 am. At 5.30 am she called the delivery suite, and staff told her to call back in a few hours. When she did, they sent out a midwife team who did not reach her until 9.40 am. A few moments later, her waters broke and she gave birth to her second daughter, but there was meconium in her discharge. As Members who are clinical will know, that is a sign of baby distress. The midwives called an ambulance immediately. It was another 19 minutes after the 999 call until the ambulance arrived and oxygen was given. Those minutes after birth were crucial, and that length of time without oxygen would have caused global brain damage and severe disability had their daughter survived. Sadly, she died in the care of Great Ormond Street hospital just a couple of days later.

The point of telling that story is that there are many missed opportunities to provide safer care. If the midwives had carried birthing equipment when they were attending, they could have provided immediate care. If the ambulance had prioritised the call from the midwife, it could have prevented the deterioration.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Anna Dixon]

I am sorry but, respectfully, I am not going to give way.

If the ambulance had routinely carried a neonatal meconium aspirator, that could have prevented the death of my friend’s daughter. My friend said:

“I was not told who we could complain to following these experiences, or when we should do so.”

Whether it is through a maternity commissioner or another way, we need to learn systemically from women’s experiences so that safety recommendations can be implemented. When we hear from Baroness Amos’s investigation, I hope that Ministers will finally act swiftly to implement her recommendations and back them up with investment, so that families can have confidence that when tragedies like those of my friend and those of my constituent occur, the system will genuinely learn, improve and take action.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for responding so ably on behalf of the petitioners. That thousands of people wanted us to talk about this subject, many of whom will be watching—many are in the Public Gallery—demonstrates how important the issue is and how it touches so many of our constituents. I am grateful to my own constituents for signing the petition.

I place on record my thanks to Theo Clarke, who is also in the Gallery, who did a lot of work in this area when she was an MP, based on her own experiences. I agree with the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) that, by detailing injuries and raising some of the taboos, she did a great service to other women. I also thank Louise Thompson, also in the Gallery, for the time and effort that she has put into campaigning for improvements in maternity care following her own experiences. All the organisations that work on behalf of women, bringing forward their stories to national attention, do a great service—it is not an easy thing to do, and we thank them for it.

The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), and my hon. Friends the Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) and for Shipley (Anna Dixon) all highlighted their constituents’ experiences. To be clear, the Secretary of State leads on this work directly, and a meeting has been set with Louise and Theo to discuss the issue of a maternity commissioner more thoroughly. I encourage both Theo and Louise to continue to engage with the national investigation chaired by Baroness Amos. Their campaigning, along with that of so many others, has led the Secretary of State to directly provide the leadership himself, ensuring that the issue gets attention. We look forward to Baroness Amos’s recommendations.

As many Members have said, the vast majority of births are safe, and there are some outstanding examples of care in the NHS. But where things do go wrong, it can have a devastating impact on women and their families, who are at their most vulnerable when giving birth. We are fighting systemic issues, entrenched inequalities in maternity care, a failure to learn from mistakes, and culture and leadership issues.

It is appalling, as we have heard again in this debate, how in the 21st century in Britain there could be such a difference in outcomes for mothers from different ethnicities and for those from deprived backgrounds, not least in constituencies such as mine. That was a point ably made, as ever, by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), who, in leading the APPG, does an amazing amount of work to highlight the issue. I confirm to her that we remain committed to setting a target to close that mortality gap, and will be informed by Baroness Amos’s recommendation. The issue of deprivation and ethnicity differences was also raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) and for Worthing West (Dr Cooper). That issue is why the Secretary of State has launched the national investigation into NHS maternity and neonatal care, chaired by Baroness Amos. She is bringing together the findings from past reviews and local rapid reviews, and new evidence from families and staff, into one clear national set of recommendations.

As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe said, previous issues and scandals have produced many recommendations, including, as we have heard, well over 700 recommendations on maternity care since 2015. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley reminded us, some of the information from those investigations has been available for well over a decade.

We know what needs fixing, but changes to processes and procedures here and there are not enough. There is a risk that some recommendations might fix the symptoms, but not the underlying causes. Many colleagues have talked about culture. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae): we cannot keep going round in the same cycle. There is an underlying cultural issue, and systemic change needs to happen. I commend my hon. Friend for the work that he does on the APPG and for sharing the loss that he and his family suffered. That loss is informing that work.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) also talked about that culture and the need for deeper questions. Other Members talked about the need to speak up. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale, who highlighted the importance of that culture of encouraging people to speak up.

[Anna Dixon]

Does the Minister agree that training obstetricians and midwives together as a team is an important part of creating that unified culture that we know is so important to underpin safety for mothers and babies?

Oral Answers to Questions

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ahmed]

The case that the hon. Gentleman highlights is indicative of the fact that much work has been done and much more needs to be done. We are providing early intervention for children’s mental health and wellbeing by rolling out mental health support teams, which will happen in every school by 2029. We are investing £13 million to pilot enhanced training for staff, so that they can offer more support to young people with complex needs. We are ensuring that, as we are digitally transforming, children and adults can access talking therapies where required. A lot has been done and there is a lot more to do, and we will carry on doing it.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

5. What steps he is taking to improve access to NHS dental services.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

6. How many urgent dental appointments have been provided since 1 April 2025.

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

Since July 2024, we have been rebuilding a broken NHS dentistry system. We have delivered 1.8 million more treatments and reduced the underspend from £392 million to just £36 million, maximising the treatment provided for taxpayers’ money. Last year, we asked integrated care boards to commission additional urgent appointments, and the data will be published in August. Following advice from the chief dental officer, we broadened the scope of those appointments so that more patients could benefit.

[Anna Dixon]

I recently asked Shipley residents about their access to NHS dental services over the past two years. Over 1,100 respondents said that they could not see an NHS dentist when they needed to. I have heard from constituents who have had to go private, travel for hours to access NHS dentistry or resort to DIY dentistry. What progress is the Minister making to fix the rotten dentistry that we inherited from the previous Government?

GP Contract

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

I think the first part of the hon. Member’s question is connected to the second part, because, as he correctly points out, thanks to the 14 years of neglect and incompetence that we saw, the Carr-Hill formula became a very anachronistic way of sharing funding. It should be based on need, but it was based on very outdated statistics and data. We are fixing that, and the changes that we are making will be felt by his constituents. It is disappointing to hear that he has had that feedback, because it does not reflect the nationwide polling from the Office for National Statistics, which shows that satisfaction with access, which was languishing at 60% in July 2024, now stands at 76%.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I hugely welcome the investment into general practice, particularly the flexibility to employ often under-employed GPs who want additional hours and shifts. I also welcome the Minister’s comments about innovation and AI. Sadly, I have had representations from Grange Park surgery in Burley-in-Wharfedale in my constituency, which finds that it is unable to deliver high-quality care because of unreliable and outdated IT systems that are provided across the Bradford area. Frequent outages directly impact access and patient care, so will the Minister set out what investment is available to ICBs to ensure that shift from analogue to digital?

[Stephen Kinnock]

Thanks to the decisions that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made, significant additional funding has been made available for capital investment in our NHS, and a big part of that is about driving the shift from analogue to digital. The other shifts—hospital to community, sickness to prevention—are not going to work otherwise; they all rely on this pivotal shift from the analogue age to the digital age. It is disappointing to hear the specific feedback that my hon. Friend has heard from the practices in her constituency. If she would like to write to me, or grab me in the Division Lobby, we can talk about the specifics of those cases. But overall the capital budget has been significantly boosted by the decisions that our Chancellor of the Exchequer has made.

National Cancer Plan

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ashley Dalton]

As my hon. Friend knows—I do not need to tell him this—brain tumours, leukaemia and other less stageable cancers cannot be assessed in the usual way, so we need different measures to understand how early they are being caught. That is why this plan commits to the regular publication of data on emergency cancer diagnoses as a key indicator, exposing where these cancers are picked up too late so that we can drive earlier detection and focus attention where it is most urgently needed.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Minister saw yesterday at first hand the amazing care and support that Maggie’s centres provide to not only patients and survivors but their families. What role will charities and voluntary organisations such as Maggie’s play alongside the NHS in delivering improved care for cancer patients and their families?

[Ashley Dalton]

Organisations such as Maggie’s play a crucial role. That is why we chose to launch our national cancer plan at a Maggie’s centre yesterday. We cannot do this alone. Charities, support organisations, family groups, and the tiny little charities run from a back bedroom by the family of somebody who suffered a very rare cancer, all have a role to play in how we bring forward the cancer plan. I am most proud of the fact that this is not the Government’s cancer plan but the country’s cancer plan. Every voluntary-sector community organisation and charity has a role to play, and I look forward to working further with them all.