Maternity Commissioner

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

The hon. and learned Gentleman is making an important point about the disparity in the guidance. If there is someone at the top of an NHS trust who is passionate about maternity care, that is more likely to trickle down, but that is not the same in every trust, and therefore we can end up with a postcode lottery. In Chichester, mothers going to give birth would have a totally different experience if they went to Chichester, Guildford or Portsmouth because they are three totally different trusts with totally different guidance and rules about when mothers should present or the sort of treatment they should get at hospital. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that introducing a maternity commissioner would give us strategic oversight across the country of the experiences that mothers should expect to have?

[Tony Vaughan]

Certainly, the petition is clear that without expert, national-level oversight, there is no way of turning that thicket of different guidance and frameworks into a coherent, enforceable standard of care. Whatever structural change the Government put forward has to do that job. I spoke to my constituent Jo Page earlier, and she told me that there are people in Folkestone and Hythe who are going to Tunbridge Wells to access maternity services because of their concerns about the local standards of care. Obviously, that has to be fundamentally addressed.

The powerful evidence from the various maternity investigations that we have seen show that when everyone is responsible, nobody is accountable. Appointing a maternity commissioner could well mean that there is somebody with whom the buck stops—a dedicated expert responsible for turning the 750 recommendations, or the 87 guidance documents, into a single national maternity strategy and ensuring that it is implemented. That is not the only way that that could be done; Baroness Amos will shortly publish her report on the national maternity and neonatal investigations in NHS services. The petitioners strongly believe that her report should commit to a maternity commissioner and a maternity strategy. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government currently view that proposal. I also ask her to commit to providing an update on which of the previous recommendations committed to may be taken forward.

In conclusion, the Government’s recent decision to introduce a women’s health strategy is hugely welcome and is an important acceptance that women’s health has been neglected for far too long. The petitioners strongly believe that it would make a real difference to women giving birth if that strategy encompassed a maternity commissioner with the authority, expertise and focus to end the postcode lottery in maternity care and break the cycle of avoidable harm once and for all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for introducing this important debate.

It is hard to fathom but, over the course of this speech, at least four babies will be born in England—they will come into the world, their tiny hands stretching out and a whole future beginning for them with their first breath. The births of my children were among the most significant moments of my life, as is the case for most parents, but alongside the joy comes something that I think every birthing parent will recognise: just how vulnerable you are in that situation and how frightening childbirth can be. You are placing your life and your baby’s life in the hands of others, in the hands of chance and in the hands of the brutal reality of natural processes.

I first became involved in maternity advocacy after the frankly quite awful birth of my first child in 2014. Only when that happened did I realise how much harm had been done to someone close to me when she gave birth in 2011. I remember apologising to her with a newborn in my arms: “I’m so sorry; I had no idea how bad it is.” This has happened to women up and down the country. Today, I represent Morecambe Bay, where both those births took place, and where baby Ida Lock was born and died in 2019. Ida and her parents are always on my mind when we talk about issues such as this.

I feel obliged to say that the vast majority of maternity care is safe. We talk about all the failings and all the horrors that women have seen, but I do not want that to frighten families. We have to accept that the worst tragedies are exceptions, but the experience of parents who have seen avoidable harm to themselves and their babies is the reason we are here today debating the pros and cons of a maternity commissioner.

I will be honest: I do not necessarily have fixed views on this. It has been really interesting to hear colleagues speak, and I look forward to hearing more. I am also very interested in the outcome of Baroness Amos’s investigation. But we cannot just keep trying to learn lessons; we need to take action right now. We have had review after review and inquiry after inquiry, and yet here we are.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

The hon. Member is making a powerful speech, and she is absolutely right. We had the Bill Kirkup review, which made multiple recommendations; across all parties, the House said, “Now we need to implement those recommendations,” but that never happened. Then we had the Donna Ockenden review, which contained immediate and essential actions; we need to implement those, but the Government have not come forward and said that they will make them mandatory. Now we have Baroness Amos’s review. Does the hon. Lady agree that this must be the last review, for the sake of every single mother who has come and every single mother who is to come, so that they know that they are being well supported when they go into hospital settings?

[Lizzi Collinge]

I absolutely agree. There is work to do to prioritise the actions that have come out of all those inquiries, because trying to do too much will lead to it all being done badly. There must be a real focus on what will make the difference to women’s safety and experience.

Countless national and local maternity reports have revealed persistent issues with care, a failure to listen to expectant mothers, staffing pressures, a lack of transparency and institutional cultures that have encouraged cover-up. That is against the background of increased medical complexity in pregnancy and birth, wider aspects of public health having worsened, and the racism and misogyny that still permeates our society.

These failures are a long time in the making. Failed regulation contributed to the historic problems at Morecambe Bay—and that was under a Labour Government. Structural changes to our care system and wider society under successive Conservative Governments have impacted care. Due to austerity, we had a £37 billion capital investment shortfall in the 2020s compared with our peer countries. We know that increased poverty affects maternal and neonatal mortality, and as a nation we have become more poorly over the past 15 years. It is now on us and the Government to fix the problem.

As a member of the patient safety all-party parliamentary group, as well as through my own work as a constituency MP, I have seen that tragedies are often partly or completely avoidable, whether through effective diagnostics, timely or better treatment, or simply listening to women when they say that something is wrong. The consequences of these failures are devastating. A study by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists showed that up to 75% of pre-term babies who died could potentially have been saved with different care. Even when the worst is avoided, bad experiences can leave lasting damage. They can erode trust in services and make families more anxious about seeking care in the future.

I want to touch on a couple of aspects of this issue that have not had the concerted operational effort put into them that they ought to have had. The first is the conditions that midwifery and obstetric staff work in, including the wider picture of the health of the nation. Most midwives, doctors and support staff are doing their absolute best in challenging circumstances, and most people go into maternity care because they want to deliver babies safely into this world and support families. They often go above and beyond, but they are being stretched too thin by the demands of their jobs. They are looking after ever more complex cases on every shift, and in 2023 alone, midwives and support workers put in over 100,000 hours of overtime. Even hospitals that are rated highly for maternity care feel the strain, with staffing gaps leading to interrupted handovers, missed checks and limited time for training. Over time, that pressure leads to burnout, staff leaving, and the loss of the experience that the system depends on. When the system is stretched like that, it is staff and patients who feel the consequences. I hope that the Minister will ensure that while we drive down waiting lists in elective care, we support maternity staff, improve their work environment and do not lose sight of the wider improvements to public health that we need to make to reduce complexity and comorbidities.

The second thing I want to talk about is culture, particularly the ability of staff to speak up, the need for brave and open leadership, and the need for lessons truly to be learned. I am not saying that is easy to do—it is quite tricky, and it takes concerted effort and skilful leadership—but culture simply means, “The way we do things around here.” It can be a tangible thing that we can affect. Unfortunately, long-term failures and the spotlight that comes with them can cause staff to feel under attack, defensive and unsupported. Even where they have not been part of any particular case, staff groups can become entrenched. During the problems at Morecambe Bay and since, we have found that people working in opposition to each other in entrenched staff groups has caused huge amounts of harm.

Poor leadership compounds the effect. I have spoken many times about the harm caused by cultures of silence, where staff do not feel able to come forward to raise concerns, problems are not addressed head on, and families are left without proper answers when things go wrong. We need to create environments where people are able to speak up, raise concerns early and be open when mistakes happen, because if staff do not feel safe to tell the truth and fear being blamed or punished, problems are hidden instead of being fixed. More than that, staff need to be supported when they raise a concern or even when they cause harm, because staff do not listen to what the leadership say; they see what they do, look at their actions and behave accordingly.

To be clear, human beings will make mistakes, and patients will be harmed by those mistakes. That is inevitable. Not all cases of harm can be prevented, but they can always be learned from. In any organisation, culture is set from the top. The leadership have to show through actions that concerns are taken seriously and that no one will be penalised for speaking honestly. Working as a maternity advocate, I was shocked that organisations that are meant to be care organisations would respond to a bereaved family not by reaching out, caring for them and holding them, but by keep them at arm’s length, lying to them and even, when it came to coroner’s inquests, being adversarial. It beggars belief.

Linked to that is the fact that families often feel the need to take legal action simply to get answers. That costs huge amounts of money, still sometimes does not get them answers, and sets up an adversarial approach that can cause further harm to families. I hope that the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, also known as the Hillsborough law, will shift the legal risk for organisations. The current legal risk to many hospital trusts appears to be telling the truth—that seems to be how they see it. I hope that the new law will shift the legal risk so that it is far riskier to obfuscate than to be candid.

There are so many different aspects of maternity safety that I could talk about all day, such as the way that “normal” birth culture still permeates the education of our midwives and some practice, despite having been shown to be harmful. The wider culture around birth seems to say that it must be a joyful, wonderful experience at all times, when in reality it is messy, brutal and quite often unpleasant, even when it all goes well.

We should be learning from other countries. For example, Japan has no-fault compensation for profound cerebral palsy. That separates the process of giving compensation from the process of investigating what happened and what went wrong. It appears to have lowered the legal costs associated with maternity care, but more importantly, it seems to have reduced the number of babies born with profound cerebral palsy.

We all know that maternity care needs to be improved in this country, whether through the appointment of a maternity commissioner or actions such as implementation of recommendations in the Amos review. I thank my colleagues for their contributions, and their constituents for sharing their stories. To make maternity care safe, we need to ensure that services are properly staffed, creating the conditions for safe care, where handovers can be done properly and staff have time to do their jobs well and are supported to rest and recover. That also means making sure that women are listened to, that concerns are taken seriously and that, when things go wrong, they are handled with honesty and care. It means accountability for leaders as well as frontline staff. I urge the Minister to consider whether the leadership of a maternity commissioner can give us the change that our constituents deserve.

Endometriosis Services

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. She has been a doughty campaigner not only for children’s health but for women’s health over many years. I am pleased to see her in her place. I thank the hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) for securing this important debate. We share a common goal because I have been applying for a Westminster Hall debate on endometriosis since I arrived in this place. I am delighted to see it finally happen.

Endometriosis was a word that I grew up with in my house, because my mum suffered with it and ended up having a full hysterectomy in her mid-30s. As a woman in her mid-30s, I am watching the cycle repeat, but with my friends. I have seen two of my closest friends being gaslit and for over a decade being told, “Maybe it’s IBS; maybe you are a bit of a hypochondriac; have you considered gluten intolerance? Could it be stress? How is your lifestyle?” Only now, after both of them, I am sad to say, suffered ectopic pregnancies, are they being taken seriously and endometriosis is being explored for both of them, which will explain the pain they have both been in for a decade—for one of them, two decades.

Of the constituents who have got in touch with me since I was elected, there was one mother who got in touch who had suffered from endometriosis. It took nine years to get her diagnosis and she said, “My daughter is now starting her periods and I am seeing the same thing repeat itself. She is showing the same symptoms that I had as a teenage girl. We go to doctors and I try to advocate and fight for her, but we are told, ‘Maybe she just has a low pain threshold. Have you considered putting her on birth control to ease the symptoms of her periods?’” That is heartbreaking for that mother. She is not fighting for herself any more; she is fighting for the next generation of young women, who need to get support as early as possible so that their diagnosis can be made and their treatment options explored as early as possible.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Does my hon. Friend agree that for a lot of these conditions it is vital to have more research? For example, there could be a genetic link that is not explained yet, and it would make it so much easier for daughters of women who had endometriosis to get much faster treatment and diagnosis. Research is a vital part of the picture.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend about research into gynaecological conditions. If we invested as much into women’s health as we have done over many decades into men’s health, maybe we would not have so many different types of Viagra and we might have a response to women’s health.

Clinicians, importantly, do not have to have specialist training in gynaecological conditions when they go through their training. It is not mandatory, so it is vital to ensure that such training is available and mandated for all clinicians, especially those in general practice, because the most important thing we can do as MPs is break down the barriers that our constituents face daily. Fixing the way we perceive endometriosis as a country is one of the things that we can do, so that we can look back on our time here and think about how we made a difference for women up and down the country.

I know the Minister shares my ambition to do better for all women, so I ask her: what are the Government doing to break down the barriers to earlier diagnosis for women suffering with gynaecological issues, especially endometriosis? Does she believe that there are benefits to having dedicated gynaecological wards in hospitals? In my local hospital, St Richard’s in Chichester, there is no specialist gynaecological ward; patients are put in different wards depending on which procedure they have had, which means that they are potentially not receiving the specialist aftercare they could be. Finally, does the Minister believe that all medical professionals should have mandated gynaecological training so that they can give support as early as possible to those who so desperately need it?

Healthcare in Rural Areas

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Blake Stephenson]

I know Lyneham quite well; it is a beautiful part of the world—although of course, Mid Bedfordshire is far more beautiful. I have to agree with the hon. Lady. The situation is deeply concerning for those in rural communities who are struggling to access GPs, and, given the growth and development in our communities, access is becoming much more difficult as the years roll on.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a valid point about development. In the rural village of Bosham in my constituency, a resident was recently told that they would have to wait four months for a GP appointment. Meanwhile, they have seen plans come online for the development of 300 homes behind the GP surgery, and the surgery is now expecting 600 new patients. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to have an infrastructure-first principle, because the reason that residents get so frustrated with development is that they cannot see those extra GP appointments coming online once those homes have been built?

[Blake Stephenson]

The hon. Lady front-runs entirely a point I will make later, and I thank her for doing so.

Unfortunately, that early optimism about neighbourhood healthcare was somewhat tempered by a response I received to a written question, indicating that the Government expect neighbourhoods to have a geography of around 50,000 people. I am afraid that that will do nothing for people in Mid Bedfordshire. It will mean either that rural communities on the edge of urban catchments will be split up and served by “neighbourhood” health hubs in nearby major settlements, which will likely be Hitchin, Bedford, Luton or Milton Keynes, or that one rural “neighbourhood” will cover the vast majority of rural communities, meaning that constituents will have to travel to a central location to access the services that they need. In either case, that is what already happens now.

People in rural communities can only get to healthcare services in big towns that are often a distance away. They deserve better than to be viewed as the hinterland of larger urban areas. They deserve a neighbourhood health service designed not as a one-size-fits-all solution, but as genuinely local to their needs. I appreciate that funding is not unlimited and that tough choices need to be made, but those tough choices always seem to result in rural communities losing out when it comes to access to healthcare.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ahmed]

Absolutely; it is unacceptable that there is still a disparity between mental and physical health when it comes to investigation, diagnosis and treatment. That is why this Government are proud to put record amounts of funding for mental health into the NHS. We are also making available £473 million of capital funding for encouraging and establishing 24/7 mental health centres, alongside other capital priorities, so that people can get the right support at the right time, closer to home.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

After my young constituent was left in limbo between child and adolescent mental health services, health services and neurodevelopment pathways, with nobody claiming responsibility for her healthcare needs, her mum called 111 to get some advice. The advice she was given was, “If you’re not happy with the service, contact your MP.” With all mental health and emergency services stretched to breaking point, what tangible action are this Government taking to address the mental health crisis in our neurodiverse population, so that nobody else in my constituency is failed like this young lady?

[Dr Ahmed]

I think we are all distressed to hear stories like that. It is what motivates us to keep going and ensure that the NHS becomes a match-fit service for the 21st century. To reassure the hon. Lady, in addition to the investments I have already highlighted, we are also investing £13 million to pilot enhanced training for staff, so that they can offer more support to young people with complex needs, such as those she has described.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I am sure that I will be able to swing by on my rounds. It is so important, especially against the backdrop of the crisis that the NHS has been through over many years, that as well as celebrating the best performance, we celebrate when there is real improvement. My hon. Friend knows as well as I do that there is of course more to do, but it is to the credit of leaders and staff that there has been improvement—lots done, and a lot more to do.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

Last summer, Sussex ICB cut its IVF provision from three cycles to one due to budget pressures. There is currently a postcode lottery for IVF, and going through fertility treatment can be harrowing for those families. Given that additional cycles improve success rates, will the Secretary of State commit to a nationally consistent standard for IVF?

[Wes Streeting]

This is an issue that the Government are looking at. As with all treatments, we should be following National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, but I recognise that in this area there is a degree of regional variation in provision in a way that, frankly, I find difficult to justify. We are looking at this and, as we make decisions, we will of course report on progress to the House.

NHS: Winter Preparedness

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of disruption. Although we have carefully laid plans to manage industrial action this week, the thing I am really worried about as we look towards the end of this week is the long tail that takes us into next week, the following week and the new year. That is for a few reasons. First, in our experience, there is always a need to recover the service following such disruption; ironically, sometimes the worst disruption is seen in the weeks that follow and not just during strike days. Secondly, this is normally the busiest time of the year, and we normally get through it because we have experienced consultants who are willing to put in extra shifts over the Christmas and new year period, recognising those pressures. Those same people are now going to be absolutely knackered because of the toil of covering for their resident doctor colleagues over the five-day period. I really think that, in choosing the timing of these strikes, the BMA has been highly inconsiderate of colleagues, and I do not think it has even thought about patients.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

My constituent Fred is eligible for a flu vaccination, but has had his appointment cancelled three times due to a lack of vaccines in the local area. Pharmacies and GPs are asked to guess what their need will be, sometimes a year in advance and without sight of the JCVI’s eligibility criteria, and this naturally results in conservative estimates, so that they do not have waste. What emergency measures are the Government taking to get additional vaccines to rural and coastal areas like mine, in order to slow down the crisis in our A&E?

[Wes Streeting]

There is no shortage of the vaccine, which makes things even more frustrating for our constituents, and for the hon. Member; they know that there are flu vaccines available, but they are not in the right place at the right time. I am extremely sorry that her constituent has suffered that inconvenience and setback three times. She has placed her concerns on record, and we will look at what has happened in her constituency. We will look at the supplies, and I will make sure that my Department works with her to resolve that situation. More generally, where we have seen reports of shortages, or of suppliers being caught short, we have acted rapidly to remedy the situation.

Baby Loss

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

I pay tribute to all the moving speeches we have heard so far tonight.

There are few losses in life more devastating than that of a child—it is every parent’s greatest fear—but when a baby dies just as life is beginning, at the very moment when joy and expectation are at their highest, the pain is all the harder to bear. Chloe and Toby from my constituency of Horsham, along with nine other Sussex families, have gone through this unimaginable experience. Their babies died in the care of the University Hospitals Sussex NHS trust between 2021 and 2023. Chloe and Toby are not natural campaigners; it is not something they ever expected or wanted to do. They are simply grieving parents looking for truth, accountability and, above all, change.

University Hospitals Sussex, like public services in general, is under immense pressure. Staff are working in a system stretched beyond capacity. I want to acknowledge the efforts of the countless clinicians, midwives and support staff who show up day in, day out. They, too, have been let down by the system; it is not just the families. Nevertheless, the fact remains that something has gone seriously wrong. Nine babies have died in circumstances that the families believe were avoidable, and thus far they have not had satisfactory answers.

Fundamentally, this is about trust. Trust needs to be restored. For that to happen, we first need to fully understand what went wrong. I understand that things can go wrong in any profession—and my own father was an obstetrician—but, unfortunately, in obstetrics the consequences can be devastating. I very much support the words of the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), who said that this is not about launching some kind of witch hunt, which could actually get in the way of preventing further tragedies in the future, because the key thing, and what we need to focus on, is avoiding blame and openly sharing and fixing problems. However, we must shine a light on past mistakes.

In Sussex, Members of Parliament from across the House are working together on this issue, and I look forward to continuing those conversations with my colleagues locally later this week. However, the trust itself acknowledges that improvements are needed, and I welcome the work already under way to make maternity care safer. However, if this review is to succeed and to carry the confidence of the very people it is meant to serve, it must be guided by the right person. The Government have appointed Baroness Amos to lead the review. She commands great respect, and I have no question about her personal abilities or integrity. However, as I have said, the key issue here is trust, and in that respect she is not the right choice for Sussex. I ask the Secretary of State for Health to listen to what the families are saying in Sussex, which is that Donna Ockenden be appointed to oversee the review at University Hospitals Sussex.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the trust that Donna Ockenden has built through the work she has done, with those Sussex families, and indeed families in Nottingham, Shrewsbury and Telford. Her report in 2022 laid out immediate and essential actions. She deliberately did not call them recommendations; they were actions that needed to be taken. They must be delivered in full, so does my hon. Friend agree with me that we cannot lose any more time and that those actions need to happen alongside the inquiry that is now taking place? We cannot afford to delay, and these families deserve to see those actions implemented now.

[John Milne]

I thank my hon. Friend and fellow Sussex MP for her intervention, and I very much agree with her. Donna is a midwife herself, and she has been personally involved with the families in Sussex.

Defibrillators

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for securing this vital debate on such an important topic.

The impact of heart conditions is felt acutely by so many across the country and, as we have heard, there are Members here today for whom this debate holds particular resonance. Cardiovascular disease affects 7 million people in the UK and is responsible for one in four premature deaths. It is also one of the starkest drivers of health inequality: those in the most deprived communities are twice as likely to die as those in the wealthiest, and for people living with severe mental illness the risk of death rises by 85%.

The figures on heart attacks, many of which are caused by heart disease, are grim. Every year, around 80,000 people suffer an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Emergency services attempt to resuscitate roughly 30,000 of them, yet fewer than 10% survive, as we have heard from many hon. Members. Half those incidents are witnessed by somebody else, and survival depends heavily on immediate action: starting CPR, calling for help without delay and, if possible, getting access to a defibrillator.

I recently spent time in my constituency at our first Emergency Services Day. I pay tribute to the tireless efforts of the paramedics and ambulance staff, and also the voluntary organisations, which play such a crucial role in saving thousands of lives. Public campaigns that explain the steps to take when someone collapses are crucial to improving survival rates. These must continue across the country, but the most decisive factor is timely access to a defibrillator. Defibrillation within three to five minutes of collapse can increase survival rates by 50% to 70%. Literally every second counts. Defibrillators have already saved thousands of lives, but access is patchy, and often, where need is greatest, the provision is weakest. Poorer areas often have fewer defibrillators than wealthier ones, with huge disparities between different parts of the country.

The British Heart Foundation recommends that every postcode should be within a three to five-minute walk of a defibrillator. Currently, that is achieved in only 50% of postcodes. Access to lifesaving equipment must never depend on postcode or privilege. Too often, defibrillators are procured only after a tragedy has already struck, as I have seen at first hand. A good friend of mine, Andrew Chiverton, suffered a cardiac arrest as he left his front door. He survived thanks to the quick action of another friend of mine, Jeanette Sutton, who saw him collapse and performed CPR until the ambulance could arrive. That incident prompted a local campaign to fund a community defibrillator and train local people, myself included, in what to do when someone suffers a cardiac arrest.

We must immediately take proactive steps to reduce the barriers preventing communities from having these lifesaving devices. The first of those barriers is cost. Community organisations, sports clubs, schools and businesses may have to pay up to £2,500 for a defibrillator. That is prohibitive for many, when they have so many other costs to consider. The Liberal Democrats therefore support the removal of VAT on community defibrillators, to make the devices more affordable across the nation. Maintenance and upkeep are equally important, as without them, the risk of a device malfunctioning when called upon increases—we have heard a perfect example of that today—but that requires local training and sustainable funding, for example through the community defibrillator fund.

Investment in the technology is also vital. Defibrillators have already been transformative, but the development of smaller, more portable models suitable for households and workplaces could be revolutionary. May I press the Minister on what steps the Government are taking to encourage innovation and economies of scale in the production of small-scale defibrillators, so that they can become a regular part of households and workplaces, making access far more universal?

Another priority must be better data. Ambulance services and 999 call handlers can only direct people to the nearest defibrillator if the location has been recorded. If nobody knows where it is, it is effectively useless. The Circuit has made excellent progress in mapping defibrillators and sharing that information with local ambulance services, helping to highlight the so-called defibrillator deserts, but it needs greater support. What steps are the Government taking to improve identification, registration and visibility of defibrillators, so that they can always be used when they are needed most?

Beyond defibrillator access, we must address the root causes of cardiovascular health issues. Britain should be one of the healthiest countries in the world, but after years of Conservative government, the nation has become sicker and now lags behind its international peers. The Health Secretary promised to deliver the healthiest generation ever, but promises are not policies. The Government should start by reversing cuts to public health grants, enabling local authorities to take preventive steps against cardiovascular disease. These grants fund programmes such as smoking cessation, drug and alcohol services, children’s health initiatives and, vitally, the provision of free blood pressure tests. A portion should also be ringfenced for tackling health inequalities, which are so clearly reflected in rates of cardiovascular disease. Alongside that, national action is needed: investment in active travel, wider use of social prescribing and the implementation of a coherent food strategy. Taken together, these measures will lead to people living healthier, more active lifestyles, which, alongside steps to improve access to defibrillation, will save thousands of lives.

Will the Minister look into the feasibility of removing VAT on defibrillators? How are the Government supporting staff in the maintenance of these devices and in understanding processes and procedures? What supervision is offered to staff tasked with being guardians or custodians of defibrillators in the public sector and what support is available after a defibrillator has been used in a community setting? Will the Government commit to reversing the cuts to public health grants to allow communities to begin tackling the causes of cardiovascular disease? This debate has shown both the urgency of the challenge and the solutions that are within our reach, but without Government action, progress will remain piecemeal.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

Over the weekend, The Guardian reported that the number of women dying in the perinatal period had risen sharply since 2015. Families that have been failed, and health professionals feel that whether it is perinatal depression or unsafe births, lessons are not being learned and the same errors are repeated in review after review. Alongside the inquiry that the Secretary of State has launched, will the Government immediately implement every action from the Ockenden review and put an end to this national scandal in maternity service?

[Karin Smyth]

The hon. Lady has raised a really important issue. She highlights the work that the Secretary of State is putting in place to address these issues and finally bring all that together to produce a plan that will assure people, and we are working at pace to ensure that those recommendations are implemented.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

Carers across the country have launched a protest from home today, with the Carers Trust. Their faces are projected on screens around Parliament Square because they are unable to leave their loved ones to protest in person. The Government’s pledge for the carer’s allowance review to report by early summer looks set to be broken. Can the Secretary of State today commit to ending the cliff edge for carer’s allowance and to introducing a statutory guarantee for respite care so that carers know that he is listening?

[Wes Streeting]

I thank the hon. Member for her question, and for making everyone aware of the powerful protest taking place today, which so visibly reminds us that lots of people’s voices may not be heard if they cannot participate in person. It is a reminder of the challenges that people face. I will undertake to raise her concerns with my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary, and I give carers across the country the assurance that we are working as fast as we can. Having delivered the biggest expansion of carer’s allowance since the 1970s, we want to ensure we deliver for this extremely important group of people, whom we are lucky to have in our society.

NHS Pensions: Frontline Patient Care

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for coming to the House to answer this urgent question. These administrative delays are deeply worrying. They make financial planning for those affected very difficult and, more importantly, stop doctors taking on additional work for the NHS as they could face large and unknown tax penalties. That was highlighted at the start of the year, when 4,000 NHS staff missed out on pension tax compensation after administrative failings.

This is having a direct impact on patient care, so how will the Minister reassure NHS staff regarding their pension entitlements, and when can they expect to see the compensation the Minister mentioned to encourage them back into the workforce? Can she assure the House that the Government are taking steps to prevent doctors with missing pension records from being unfairly penalised? Can she tell us how the Government will address the 156,000 years of missing pension data for GPs? Finally, will the major reorganisation of the NHS—especially the 50% cut to the organisations that oversee local health services—potentially compound this problem?

[Karin Smyth]

I thank the hon. Lady for those questions. She highlights a number of important issues regarding the complexity for the NHS Business Services Authority of dealing with this. There is a large number of high earners in this scheme. With regard to tax liabilities, that makes the system complex, as does the movement of doctors throughout the system in their career.

One issue I discussed with the independent reviewer yesterday is the need to ensure there is a technical look at solutions to issues such as missing years. The hon. Lady is right to highlight that changes make a difference to following people’s careers through the system. There are wider lessons, which I have already started to discuss with the reviewer, about how we make the best use of technology so that we can track people through their careers and give confidence to the current workforce that we are addressing this not just for the cohort who have immediate issues but for the future. That is the sort of action this Government are taking. We do not do sticking plasters. We are looking at this very seriously.