Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s concern on behalf of her constituents. We are moving the system governing hospitals such as Blackpool away from deficit funding so that it becomes well governed and managed, in line with fair shares allocation, and I shall be happy to discuss that further with my hon. Friend.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Torbay hospital, which serves my constituency, is one of the oldest parts of the NHS estate, and the Devon and Cornwall fire services recently ruled that its tower block would now be unsafe in the event of a fire. A quarter of the beds in the hospital are in that tower block, so patients are now being moved. Staff are extremely worried about what will come next, and this is making the hospital much less viable. Will the Minister meet me, and other Devon Members, to discuss its future funding, and the need to make it safe and secure and ensure that it continues to operate?

[Karin Smyth]

I have met the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) to discuss this matter. Obviously, money has been allocated. We are well aware of the hospital’s position, and it is also part of the programme. I shall be happy to provide further information if the hon. Lady is not clear about the allocations that have been made.

Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) on securing this important debate.

Tackling underperforming NHS trusts is essential if we are serious about taking the necessary strides forward for patient safety and experience—as well as for the wellbeing of NHS workers, who are suffering anxiety and burnout at an unprecedented and frankly unacceptable scale. The Liberal Democrats have put forward our robust plan to end corridor care and transform patient safety, with essential measures needed to fix our NHS and relieve the pressure at both the front door and the back door of the service.

Years of Conservative mismanagement and neglect of the NHS have left many trusts on their knees, with huge challenges from which to recover. The onus is now on the new Labour Government, with their intensive recovery programme, to finally create the right conditions for failing trusts to succeed where their predecessors have failed.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

My hon. Friend talks about the challenges that NHS trusts face. My local hospital, Torbay hospital, has an ageing tower block that has now received a fire enforcement notice, which could affect up to a quarter of the beds in the hospital. Panic is spreading today in the local community about what this means for future treatment. Does she agree that when things become as urgent as that, with a quarter of the beds in the hospital potentially having to be closed by the fire brigade, the Government desperately need to bring forward the new hospital programme funding, so that repair and remedial work can begin immediately to restore this part of the hospital?

[Helen Morgan]

I do agree, and I echo my hon. Friend’s call. The estate that people work in is part of the fundamental problem that we are trying to tackle across the NHS.

I hope all the Members here who have made excellent speeches highlighting shocking failures in their own trusts can take heart from the fact that it is possible to tackle the issues in underperforming trusts. In my time as the MP for North Shropshire, I have seen meaningful changes for my constituents. From 2018 to 2023, Shrewsbury and Telford hospital trust was obviously underperforming, with CQC inspections consistently rating it as inadequate. That included inadequate levels of safety and services—reflected in the horrifying stories received at the time in my inbox and those of the other Shropshire MPs, and on doorsteps—and a churn in the management team that led to constant uncertainty about what was going to happen there. The human consequence of those stories was devastating.

When I was first elected, the overwhelming issue was the abysmal ambulance waiting times, related to poor handover times, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) highlighted. I will never forget the letter I received from a headteacher: after a pupil dislocated his knee playing football, he and the teachers waited so long for an ambulance in the dark and cold on a winter night that he was at risk of developing hypothermia by the time the ambulance arrived. We heard countless devastating stories, including ones where the ambulance had taken so long to arrive that it was too late, and the outcome was fatal.

Following a targeted campaign, which included me joining the West Midlands ambulance service team for an eye-opening shift, wait times have significantly improved, and we see far fewer of these cases in our inboxes. But challenges remain, not least in corridor care in the accident and emergency department, which has at times been rated one of the worst in the country.

A constituent told me of the shocking experience of her aunt Cath during this period, who was admitted to Royal Shrewsbury hospital following a serious stroke. One night, Cath fell out of her hospital bed and broke her hip after staff had failed to put up the necessary guardrails. She spent nearly half an hour trying to attract the attention of staff on the ward with the alert bell, but they were so overworked that they did not respond, and in the end she was forced to dial 999 from the floor of the ward. She was left in the ridiculous position of explaining to the call centre staff that she was actually on the floor of a ward in Royal Shrewsbury hospital before the staff reached her. That cannot be right. We heard of many heartbreaking situations where cancer patients’ scans could not take place because waiting lists had meant that they were booked in the wrong order and of fatally long waits for diagnosis in some cases, with the trust failing to hit key targets across the board.

Finally, the 2022 Ockenden report shook my community with its devastating finding of over 200 preventable deaths of babies and unimaginable harm done to families. Campaigning and voicing justified anger, which everyone has done today, and working with Ministers on the failings can bring about change. That was essential in Shropshire, and though things are not perfect, it is encouraging to see the improvements that have been made so far. It has been a really difficult environment for staff to work in. I pay tribute to them and the new leadership team for all the hard work that they have put into turning this extremely difficult situation around. The trust’s CQC rating has recently been upgraded, although it still requires improvement, with emergency department waiting times and understaffing as key focuses. However, there is much to be pleased with. Reviews have noted a positive culture, and the trust has recently been shortlisted for several awards for its performance improvements.

We must celebrate the many trusts in the UK that provide high levels of care and innovation, and support those making significant improvements. For underperforming trusts, it is our duty to our patients and constituents to ensure that we campaign to bring them up to good standards, and I congratulate everyone here today on doing just that. However, if conditions for care are stretched and staff are expected to deliver the impossible with limited time and resources, it is patients who suffer. How can we transform patient safety? To start, we need to hold failing leaders to account, as I have discussed. Reports have pointed to a culture of unaccountability among NHS leaders, which has accompanied recent scandals and undermines public confidence. Failing trusts need to be held to account, and our amendments to the Health Bill would help do that by retaining the necessary structures for accountability.

First, we must retain the independent patient voice, Healthwatch, which was established in the wake of the Mid Staffordshire scandal. Although still in its infancy, HSSIB, the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, should also be retained because it promises to improve the patient safety environment. Our amendments would also introduce duties and a standardised framework for the reporting of suspected health system failings and medical malpractice by coroners, medical examiners and members of ICB and NHS trust boards.

Whistleblowing routes to the CQC, the Department of Health and Social Care, HSSIB and the police would be accompanied by statutory protections. We would also place a corresponding duty on senior leadership to escalate any concerns they have about safety or malpractice to the relevant boards. My colleagues in the other place will be re-tabling those amendments at the next stage of the Health Bill, and I urge the Government to accept them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Preet Kaur Gill]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important question, and I pay tribute to Emma. In the renewed women’s health strategy, we have committed to improving mental health support for women and girls. We must help women and girls to access mental health support in ways that work for them. We are promoting collaboration to improve women’s knowledge and healthcare professionals’ understanding of many women’s relationships and the barriers they face. There is much more to do, and I would be keen to work with my hon. Friend and to hear from Emma about what more we can do in this space.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

In rural areas such as South Devon, agricultural workers and isolated young people often face distinct acute mental health crises, yet local mental health provision is stretched to breaking point. What specific targeted support is the Department providing to rural health boards to ensure that suicide intervention services reach isolated rural workers who cannot easily access standard workplace mental health schemes?

[Preet Kaur Gill]

The hon. Lady raises some important challenges, and the women’s mental health strategy will deal with some of them. Work is under way to develop a more comprehensive offer to address the critical issues that many young people transitioning to adult services face, including bespoke guidance in the revised Mental Health Act code of practice. The Government are also funding early support hubs, which provide free, open access to mental health support for young people up to the age of 25. Under the new developmental service specification, children and young people’s services will no longer be required to transfer or discharge a young person on their 18th birthday, where clinically appropriate.

NHS Capital Spending

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Medical devices and equipment are increasingly becoming pressure points as trusts rely on ageing, life-expired kit. Torbay and South Devon NHS foundation trust has had fantastic results in bowel surgery from a free trial of a robotic surgery system that it was offered, but it cannot afford to buy the system because it has to replace other equipment that is on its last legs. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister should set out how the Government will ensure that NHS capital policy supports not just buildings and maintenance backlogs, but clinical equipment and the technology needed to deliver safe, high-quality, innovative care for patients?

[Bobby Dean]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point: this is about not just buildings, but equipment and digital and technical infrastructure, all of which are crucial to getting the NHS to operate in the way it should. She also highlights how we need to upgrade ageing equipment to a very basic level, let alone take advantage of all the opportunities that the latest innovations in new equipment could provide us with, if we were able to purchase those.

I mentioned that maintenance backlogs are soaring. They have doubled from around £6 billion in 2015 to over £13 billion in 2024. The critical thing to stress is that it did not have to be this way. The UK invested around a third less in health capital during the 2010s than other comparable nations. According to OECD data, the UK has 10 CT scanners per 1,000 people compared with an average of nearly 20 per 1,000 across Europe. We have 8.5 MRI scanners per 1,000, compared with an average of 12 per 1,000 across other EU nations, and our bed capacity is pitiful. We operate at around 2.4 per 1,000 people, compared with an OECD average of 4.4. The issue has not only been a lack of money; it has also been a lack of certainty and flexibility.

The approvals process for capital bids is slow and cumbersome. Even when capital is available, trusts often receive final sign-off so late in the year that they physically cannot begin procurement, get survey work done and start construction in time. The money therefore goes unspent not because of poor planning locally, but because the system itself creates delay.

Hughes Report: Second Anniversary

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Thank you, Dr Allin-Khan. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing this important debate.

Last Saturday marked two years since the publication of the Hughes report—two years since Patient Safety Commissioner Dr Henrietta Hughes set out clear and compassionate recommendations for redress for those affected by sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. Yet two years on, families are still waiting, women are still suffering, children are still living with devastating disabilities, and the Government are still silent.

Like many other speakers this morning, I salute the courage of all those who have campaigned so hard on this issue for so long, many of them doing so while living with devastating injury. I would like to share the human cost of this scandal by giving an example of a life destroyed by a medical procedure that was badly performed and that went horrifically wrong. That has been the experience of my constituent, Susan. In 2009, Susan underwent a transvaginal tape procedure for mild stress urinary incontinence. The mesh was catastrophically misplaced, causing immediate and lasting harm. Within months, her health had deteriorated so badly that she was forced to close her Care Quality Commission-registered medical clinic, and to abandon a professional career that she had built up over three decades.

Believing the mesh to be the cause of her poor health, Susan sought help and was referred to a surgeon presented to her as an expert in mesh removal. She gave clear written consent for the removal of all remaining mesh. Instead—unbelievably—an additional reconstructive procedure was carried out without her knowledge or consent. It was never discussed beforehand and never explained afterwards. It was not even disclosed to her GP. Susan was then told that the mesh was “probably all removed”. It was not. Years later, specialist MRI imaging confirmed that substantial mesh remained embedded in her pelvis and abdominal wall. However, by the time the truth became clear, she was out of time to pursue a legal claim.

Recently, when Susan tried to pursue her case again, the legal system demanded over £10,000 for a barrister’s opinion. Given the loss of her high-end professional career, she no longer had the financial means to proceed. The financial ruin caused by the mesh injuries effectively barred her from accessing the courts and seeking the compensation that she so rightly deserves. Today, she lives with constant pain, severe incontinence, chronic infection and profound psychological trauma. Her financial losses run into the hundreds of thousands of pounds, and she is still waiting for a Government response that should have come two years ago.

I will share another constituent’s experience. In 2016, Caroline underwent mesh insertion. Within just three weeks, serious complications began, but what followed was not prompt medical care; it was six years of being repeatedly dismissed and gaslighted by multiple healthcare professionals, including the very surgeon who had implanted the mesh. When Caroline expressed concerns during an internal examination, the surgeon’s demeanour changed significantly for the worse. Her symptoms continued to be disregarded and for 12 months she had to self-advocate persistently before finally being referred to a specialist mesh complications service.

The specialists identified that the mesh had twisted, leaving Caroline with no option but full mesh removal surgery. That surgery took place in July 2023, more than seven years after the original procedure. The impact on her life has been devastating. She has endured years of significant physical pain and declining health. She has been forced to become financially dependent on her personal savings, as her ability to work has been severely limited. Universal credit and NHS travel support are means-tested, leaving her out of pocket for essential medical travel and other related expenses.

Susan’s story is not just one person’s story, and neither is Caroline’s. Across the country, thousands of women are living with that reality every single day. Women are living with chronic pain, infections and life-altering complications from pelvic mesh implants. That mesh was supposed to help them, but instead it eroded into their organs, caused urinary problems and bleeding, and left them unable to work, exercise or have intimate relationships with the people they love—in short, unable to live normal lives.

As well as that, children are living with devastating neurodevelopmental disorders and birth defects caused by sodium valproate exposure in the womb. Parents are at breaking point, struggling with the emotional, practical and financial burden of caring for children whose conditions were entirely preventable. As Janet Williams and Emma Murphy, two mothers of children with foetal valproate syndrome, wrote to the Prime Minister and Chancellor:

“Families affected by sodium valproate exposure do not have the luxury of time. The children are growing, their care needs are increasing, and their families are at breaking point.”

Let me remind the House of the timeline of this shameful delay. In July 2020, the Cumberlege review recommended urgent redress. The Government refused. Two and a half years later, they finally tasked the Patient Safety Commissioner to look at the issue again. On 7 February 2024, two years ago last Saturday, Dr Henrietta Hughes published her report. It was unequivocal in calling for an independent redress scheme, including £100,000 interim payments for valproate victims, and comprehensive medical and financial support for mesh survivors.

Those were not radical demands; they were the minimum response required to address preventable tragedies that have devastated thousands of lives, yet the response remains a hollow promise of careful consideration. There was no published response from the previous Government, and 18 months into this one, we are still told that action will come in due course. The delay is not just a bureaucratic failure, but part of a disturbing pattern seen in the Primodos and infected blood scandals. It is a pattern where women and vulnerable patients are ignored, evidence is dismissed and recommendations are left to gather dust. Running through it all, as Susan and Caroline’s cases demonstrate so starkly, is a persistent culture of cover-up and denial. Compensation alone is not enough. We must ensure that such harm is never inflicted again.

The Liberal Democrats are calling for a policy response that protects patients from the horrors of mesh implant side effects in absolute terms, with a full and continuing moratorium. Far too often, the recommendations from inquiries into medical scandals are neglected. There should be annual reporting to Parliament on progress, including on how the Government are addressing every issue highlighted by the Hughes report.

Central to preventing future scandals is ending the culture of cover-up that has been exposed time and again by medical scandal inquiries—the culture that allowed Susan to be told her mesh had been removed when it had not, and Caroline to be gaslighted for six years by the very professionals who should have helped her—and the doubtful legal procedures outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham.

That is why we support the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—the Hillsborough law—which will enshrine a statutory duty of candour on all public authorities and provide bereaved families with equal legal representation at inquests. The collapse of the Bill at the eleventh hour was deeply disappointing. Ministers now need to listen to the Hillsborough families and urgently bring forward a solution that ensures that everyone, including the security services, is covered by this law.

However, a duty of candour must go hand in hand with protection for brave individuals who speak up when they see harm being done. We strongly oppose the Government’s decision to scrap key patient safety organisations, including whistleblowing and speak-up programmes such as the National Guardian’s Office. We also oppose moves to remove patient voice, including the proposed abolition of local Healthwatch organisations.

The sodium valproate and pelvic mesh scandals represent fundamental failures of our healthcare system to protect vulnerable women and children. It was a major failure of the previous Conservative Government not to deliver compensation, which was recommended by not only the Patient Safety Commissioner, but the Cumberlege review that preceded it. The Liberal Democrats have consistently called for every recommendation from the Cumberlege review to be accepted and for a full response to the Hughes report setting out how the Government will provide redress for these terrible injustices.

Two years since the Hughes report is long enough to wait. Four years since Cumberlege is far too long. For women like Susan, who have been waiting since 2009 for justice, 16 years is unconscionable. Families deserve answers. Women deserve compensation and corrective surgery where appropriate. Children deserve the support and care they need. They all deserve justice. Everyone affected by the valproate and vaginal mesh scandals should have an apology, compensation, corrective surgery where needed, and psychological support.

I ask the Minister again: what active conversations are currently being held with the Treasury about redress payments? I urge the Government to commit today to publishing a full response to the Hughes report, implementing its recommendations in full and ensuring that no family or individual affected by medical negligence ever has to fight this hard or this long for basic recognition of the harm that was done to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House following the second anniversary of the report by the Patient Safety Commissioner, Dr Henrietta Hughes. I pay tribute to her work and, as others have, to Baroness Cumberlege for her work in the lead-up to that report. I also thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing this important debate. It has been a thoughtful and constructive debate on an issue that is highly sensitive for Members across the House, for campaigners and people who are here today, and for people watching online.

To answer the question from the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), I am responding to this debate on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed). He is the lead Minister for this area, but unfortunately cannot be here today—as Members will understand, that is often an issue, but I am happy to stand in. This is a matter of great interest to him personally. As colleagues know, he is a clinician, so has valuable insight into patient safety and how it works from a clinical perspective.

My hon. Friend wanted me to be clear that he is very happy to meet campaigners, as the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham asked, to discuss our work in more detail. He met the Patient Safety Commissioner in December to discuss the Department’s ongoing work in relation to her report. Since then, he has continued his engagement with the commissioner on how we can do more to address the immediate needs of those affected by sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. As we have heard, and as many of us know from constituents—I know that many other Members have affected constituents but were not able to attend the debate—some of these women’s lives, as well as those of their families, have been changed forever because they were misled about the effects of sodium valproate and surgical mesh.

Many examples have been given in the debate, and constituents of mine have shared the most intimate details of the impact of sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. It has been truly harrowing for me and many other Members to listen to those details, as I am sure it was for those women who bravely shared them with a stranger, their Member of Parliament. That point was made well by many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish), the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), who spoke on behalf of her constituents.

We owe honesty, transparency and contrition to all the women affected, and we are determined to make sure that the lessons are learned and to keep patient safety at the heart of the reform. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) rightly highlighted the issue of trust in the system, which is so important as we go forwards. Our focus remains on building a system that listens and that acts with speed, compassion and proportionality. Everybody who has suffered complications from sodium valproate and pelvic mesh implants has my deepest sympathies. I express my gratitude to Dr Hughes and her team for the report that was published two years ago, and I am grateful, too, for her continued engagement with the Department as Patient Safety Commissioner.

[Caroline Voaden]

Will the Minister give way?

[Karin Smyth]

I will, but I do want to respond to Members’ comments.

[Caroline Voaden]

The Minister said that she supports a system that acts with speed. Could she give us an idea of when there might be a response to the report?

[Karin Smyth]

I want to address the main concerns and, as I said, the Under-Secretary of State is very keen to talk with Members and campaigners.

We remain committed to working alongside Dr Hughes and her team to better support patients and ensure that steps are taken to prevent similar harm in the future, both in this area and across the wider patient safety landscape. That is obviously crucial. Many Members mentioned the importance of women’s voices being heard in this area, and many of us were involved in the campaign in the previous Parliament. We must make sure that women’s voices are better heard in the health system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) said, the campaigners are doing that, and I pay tribute, as she did, to In-FACT, as well as Sling the Mesh and the very many other patient groups that have raised this on behalf of women. They should not have to, but I commend their work.

I assure Members and people listening to the debate that we remain committed to advancing this work across Government and to looking at lessons from any cases in which patient safety has been affected. I fully understand why colleagues are asking for an official response to the Hughes report here and now. It is important that we get it right, and we need to carefully consider all options and the associated costs before coming to a decision on the report’s specific recommendations. I am sure that many Members have seen the letter that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State wrote to the Patient Safety Commissioner in November, and I reconfirm, as he wrote, that that work includes looking at the costs.

We must take forward the lessons learned from this work—including, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) highlighted, work on similar areas—and the Government are doing that. We must ensure that our approach provides meaningful, often ongoing support to those who have been so profoundly affected.

The Government have to consider options for financial redress collectively, with input from a number of Departments, and we started that work immediately. As was mentioned, the previous Government did not respond to the report when it was published, but we have picked up that work. Initially, Baroness Merron was the lead Minister, and it is now the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West.

I assure the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) that my hon. Friend recently met the devolved Government Health Ministers to discuss their respective positions further. He will continue to do so across all devolved Government areas; as Members have said, patients there are affected too. We have to proceed with care to ensure the correct approach. We are committed to providing updates at the earliest opportunity, once all relevant advice and implications are considered.

NHS 10-Year Plan

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that Chris Whitty’s work as chief medical officer had a big bearing on our thinking about how we meet the needs of rural and coastal communities and tackle health inequalities. His analysis is clear: we need people not just living longer, but living well for longer. We need to push illness much later into old age so that people can live life to the full until the very end. That must apply to everyone, not just the privileged few. My hon. Friend’s constituents will really benefit from this plan as well as the new facilities coming later this year.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I really welcome this 10-year plan, especially the shift from hospital to community. I am excited by the digital transformation, and I hope it works in the broadband blackspots of South Devon. I will ask the Secretary of State about the shift from sickness to prevention. Will he tell the House what conversations he has had with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Treasury about ringfenced funding for leisure centres, swimming pools, outdoor education centres, safe cycle routes and footpaths? We can do so much more to promote and embed healthy lifestyles, particularly in our children and young people, but it will take investment. We need to spend to save. Is that part of the 10-year plan?

[Wes Streeting]

I really welcome that support, and that is an absolutely great question. On the point about connectivity, I will ensure that the Science Secretary receives those representations and dons his skinny jeans and flip-flops and comes down to improve connectivity for her community—he is committed to doing that for people right across the country. The hon. Lady is absolutely right: we have to ensure that people in every part of the country have access to all those things that make life worth living, such as grassroots sport, culture, leisure, recreation, clean air, parks and open spaces. She has my assurance that, working with the Deputy Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, we will bring those opportunities to everyone, not just the wealthiest areas or big cities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) are leading in partnership with the trust and Westminster city council to ensure that the people of his constituency have the hospital they deserve. As he knows, this will be the most complicated scheme in the new hospital programme, but that is no excuse for the years of delay that the scheme has faced. The trust now boasts the biggest high-risk repair backlog in the country, so my hon. Friend is right to ensure that this is not allowed to be put in the “too difficult” pile again. We look forward to engaging constructively and doing everything that we can to expedite the progress that is desperately needed for his community and our city.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

2. What steps he is taking to support rural pharmacies.

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

10. What steps his Department is taking to support community pharmacies.

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

After years of underfunding, the Government agreed a record uplift of £3.1 billion for ’25-26 for the pharmacy sector. The pharmacy access scheme provides £19 million to support pharmacies in areas with fewer pharmacies, including in rural areas, but funding must always come with reform. Our hub and spoke legislation, if it is passed in the other place today, will allow pharmacies to streamline their dispensing processes, and it is a major step in the right direction in marrying reform with investment.

[Caroline Voaden]

I recently visited Modbury pharmacy, where owner Phil Dawes highlighted the challenges facing small rural pharmacies. He explained how the current funding model does not take into account the lower footfall and limited referral rates that are common in rural areas. We know that if a pharmacy in a small market town closes, it can cause extreme difficulties for people to access advice and medicines, particularly where there is little or no public transport and they have to go a long way. Will the Government consider introducing rural exceptions or adjusted funding thresholds so that we can keep community pharmacies open?

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 13th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gregory Stafford]

I will make a little progress before taking another intervention.

No safeguards can prevent complications from taking medicines. As I am sure the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) knows, there can always be complications. In this case, those could include regurgitation of the drugs, regaining consciousness and seizures.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gregory Stafford]

Can I just finish this point? During the 27 years that the law in Oregon has been in place, data is available for only about 36% of cases. However, within that, 59 incidents of regurgitation are known to have occurred and nine people are known to have regained consciousness. Different drug protocols have been used in those 27 years but the efficacy and safety of the drugs are unknown, with a time range between ingesting the drugs and death ranging from one minute to nearly six days.

The lack of defined protocols for the regulation, supply and administration of life-ending substances is precisely why I have tabled my amendment (c) to new clause 13, tabled by the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater).

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Ben Spencer]

Before I come to the substantive part of my speech, I would like to pick up on the comments of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor). I have signed the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen). I support them because I think the panel needs strengthening. It is not the case that courts have to be adversarial. Tribunals are set up to be inquisitive. In fact, the mental health tribunal is set up to be inquisitive. That is why, in Committee, I tabled amendments to use a tribunal panel as the mechanism for scrutinising decision making.

It has been a real pleasure to listen to the debate, particularly in relation to the prohibition of advertising, because the debate started to move to focus on the issue of suicide promotion and prevention. I have been quite concerned from the beginning that that has not been part of what we have been talking about. Duties to prevent suicide—whether they be doctors’ duties under article 2 of the European convention on human rights, the NHS’s clinical duties around suicide prevention, or duties relating to the Mental Health Act 1983—are a blind spot in the Bill.

The reason why the issue has not been focused on until now is that the Bill has been framed as the assisted dying Bill, as opposed to the assisted suicide Bill. I blame myself in part for that, because I started by called it physician-assisted suicide, but then I started using the term “assisted dying” because it was in common parlance and it was what everyone was using. The problem is that it frames it as something else. It frames it as reducing the dying process as opposed to what it is, which is an act to end somebody’s life. That is why the Bill amends the Suicide Act, and it is why I have tabled similar amendments on how it is conceptualised.

[Caroline Voaden]

I take issue with some of the language being used. We have heard the words “murder”, “killing” and “suicide”. Twenty-three years ago next week, my husband died of terminal cancer. He was in extreme pain and was given morphine to relieve it. As the pain got worse, he was given more morphine so that he could die gently and not in complete agony. This is about helping people die in a civilised way, and helping their families to not go through the horrendous experience of watching a loved one die in agony. To call it murder and killing is so wrong, and we have a duty to mind our language with this Bill. It is about helping people die quickly and with dignity. It is assisted dying.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before Dr Spencer resumes, I note that this has been a well-tempered debate. Let us keep it so. We know our constituents are watching.

Spending Review: Health and Social Care

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), I welcome the increased investment, and the attention that the new Government are giving to the NHS. I would like to turn our attention to dentistry. My constituency of South Devon is a dental desert. I welcome the announcement of 700,000 extra dental appointments, but we have lost three dental surgeries since the election last year, and more are on the brink. The Government have been in office for a year now, and have talked about reforming the dental contract with the NHS. If that contract is not reformed, we will lose so many dentists that we will never be able to catch up. How long will it take the Government to announce a newly reformed contract with NHS dentistry, so that we can start increasing the number of appointments, and saving the dentist surgeries that we have left?

[Karin Smyth]

The hon. Lady is right to highlight the shocking state that dentistry was left in by the last Government. They could have reformed that contract at any time over the past 14 years. We were ready to do that in 2010, but things worked out differently; we left office, and the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives between them did not reform the contract. The Minister for Care is working at pace to ensure that happens, and we will update the House as soon as possible.

NHS Funding: South-west

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) for bringing forward this important debate.

We have been reminded by hon. Members that the Conservative legacy is pensioners left in agony, waiting for hours for an ambulance that may not come in time; women forced to give birth in unsafe, overstretched conditions; and people having to pull out their own teeth—in the 21st century—because they cannot find an NHS dentist. We have heard from hon. Members that the south-west has some of the longest ambulance waits in the country, some of the worst repair backlogs, and waiting times for GPs and dentists that are simply unacceptable. That is not just a strain on our health services but a daily struggle for families, carers and patients across our region.

The Liberal Democrats believe that people deserve better, and that they should be in control of their own lives and health. That means people getting the care that they need, when they need it and where they need it, without them having to fight every step of the way. Instead of lurching from one crisis to the next, as previous Governments have done, we have a plan. It starts with early investment in community health—in GPs, pharmacists and dentists—so that fewer people end up in hospital to begin with. We will finally fix the crisis in social care, so that people are not left stuck in hospital beds with nowhere to go.

If we expect to rely on our NHS in future, we simply must invest in it. We need not just big grand schemes but investment in the simplest yet most important things. For example, in my own patch in Mid Sussex, the Princess Royal hospital recently had only one of its four lifts working over a weekend.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is much more expensive to provide services in rural areas than in urban areas? An example is the pharmacy funding model, which relies on footfall. On a recent visit to Modbury pharmacy, staff told me that they are really struggling to stay afloat because they do not have enough footfall, and they cannot reach the national payment threshold that would enable them to survive. Does she agree that we need to look at rural exceptions for critical services such as community pharmacies?

[Alison Bennett]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about rurality, which is obviously a big issue in the south-west. It is also a serious issue in Sussex where we have things in common with the south-west, such as having an older than average population and all the challenges that come with that, as hon. Members have mentioned.

Hospitals want to be able to sort those issues out, but they are left juggling priorities, barely scraping by with the current levels of funding. Things do not work if we do not look after them, and if we do not look after our health system, it will not be able to look after us or our loved ones. Although I am sure that the Minister will make the point about capital investment in the NHS, which is welcome, the future looks very uncertain and precarious for our ICBs, as a number of hon. Members have said.

Soon after ICBs were first created, they had to cut their budgets by 30%. They have now been asked to cut their budgets by 50% on average. Indeed, for Sussex, the cut is more than 50%—it is 53%. It is no surprise that Sussex and Surrey have formally proposed merging their ICBs, which, by running at the same time as local government reorganisation and the creation of a mayoralty, means we will end up with an ICB that does not have the same footprint as the new incoming mayor.