Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Josh Newbury]

I am not a legal expert and do not intend to insert myself into that particular legal debate, but my perspective is that if arrangements are made beforehand and a birth mother changes her mind, there should be a route back to the court and that should be built into the system. We have the six-week window that allows time for reflection, but I believe there is a way in the vast majority of cases where everybody will be happy for the arrangements to go forward and for the intended family to move on with their lives, without having to go to court, unless there is a change of heart.

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

It is worth putting on record that the Law Commission report in 2023 suggested that, if everything was decided before the birth, the legal parents could have the rights from day one, but the biological, or surrogate, mother would have a chance to go against that in the first six weeks of the baby’s life. Does the hon. Member agree with the Law Commission report, which still has that fundamental safeguard, but which also recognises that the intended parents are the parents from day one?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. However good the intentions of those bringing forward this petition for affected parents are, and I do not question them, any loosening of the surrogacy laws would be a serious mistake. The text of the petition says that the current law is “outdated” because the woman giving birth to the child is recognised as the legal mother

“even with no biological connection or intention to parent the child.”

Just think about how cold and clinical those words are: “no biological connection”, when that woman carried that child in their body and brought that child into this world. That is the commodification of women’s bodies. To carry a child for nine months, share your body, feel new life kicking inside you and endure the trauma and joy of childbirth—those are experiences that create a profound, undeniable biological connection.

What of intention? The principle behind the petition is that the matter of parenthood would be settled in favour of the commissioning parents according to an intention formed before the child was born. But we all know that an emotional bond, and indeed a physical one, grows as the pregnancy develops. New mothers say that they feel a bond with their newborn that they have never felt before. They often do not want to spend a moment away from their baby when it is born.

The petition asks the law to privilege an arrangement made before pregnancy and birth over the women who actually give birth, many of whom go on to deeply regret their role as a surrogate mother.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

The hon. Member says “many” go on to deeply regret the decision to be a surrogate. What does the data show? How many end up regretting their decision, in terms of a percentage of the surrogates in the UK?

[Jonathan Hinder]

I cannot answer that specific question, but I will reference a case later on, and I have personally met such mothers here in Parliament.

Pregnant women are not factories, and babies are not goods to be ordered. I believe this is crossing an ethical line, where human life is treated as a business transaction. The child must have the right to know where it has come from and how it came to be in this world. When a newborn is handed over not because of a tragedy, but because that separation was arranged before the child was even conceived, that child has become a commodity, which it should never be. These children are removed from their birth mothers, and it is simply wrong to treat children in this way.

Implementing the demands of the petition would seal the commodification of mothers and babies through surrogacy, and we need only look at the global surrogacy industry to see where that leads: wealthy couples exploiting desperate women; international human trafficking rings; and exportation and erasure. That is the end destination when we start from the principles implied in the petition.

Even in Britain, where commercial surrogacy is banned, women suffer the consequences. Marie Anne, a surrogate mother, told her story at a conference in Brighton. Recalling the chilling moment after she gave birth, she said:

“They had the baby. They were happy. They didn’t need me anymore so they told me to go home.”

She describes doing a handover in a hospital car park. She also describes the impact on her life, saying:

“I have been diagnosed with complex PTSD…I have a deep fear of hospitals, children and babies…The damage done to me will never be repaired.”

France, Germany, Spain and Italy have all banned surrogacy outright. As President Emmanuel Macron said, surrogacy is

“not compatible with the dignity of women”.

I therefore conclude by urging colleagues to reject both the commodification of babies and mothers implied by the petition and the loosening of surrogacy laws in Britain.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for opening the debate and for so thoughtfully laying out both sides, which have been well exercised today.

Being able to start a family is one of life’s greatest privileges. However, for those in many families, whether they are struggling with infertility, are in same-sex relationships or have health issues that would prevent them from having a safe pregnancy, surrogacy has become an option that would allow them to start a family.

The landscape of surrogacy has changed in the years since the first known surrogate baby was born in 1984. Surrogacy is now being widely recognised as a pathway to parenthood, with 67 parental order applications received by the family courts in 2008, rising to 514 in 2025, although I recognise that many different numbers have been suggested today.

[Tracy Gilbert]

I want to pick up on the hon. Lady’s point about healthcare and situations in which women cannot carry a pregnancy. Is she aware of the health risks posed by women carrying embryos that are not their own, and the additional risks to surrogate mothers from being a surrogate?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I do not think any woman enters into any pregnancy lightly, whether it is their own pregnancy or a surrogate pregnancy. I would assume that any surrogate mother is well informed of the risks they are taking in growing a life over nine months, which is no mean feat.

Since 2018, there have been 350 parental order applications from couples in a same-sex relationship, according to Brilliant Beginnings. Adam and Jamie, who brought this petition to the House today, chose to go abroad to the US because they would be recognised as Leven’s parents from day one. I am sure it would have come as a shock to them to discover, before Leven was born, that their home—the UK—does not recognise them as Leven’s legal parents under UK law until the parental order is completed, which can take anywhere between six and 12 months.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

Ian and Stuart, who are constituents of mine in Horsham, welcomed their daughter through surrogacy last October. Although Ian is the biological father, at birth it was the surrogate mother and, remarkably, her partner who were named as the child’s parents, not Ian. As my hon. Friend said, it typically takes up to 12 months to correct the record in such cases. Ian understands why surrogates need legal protection, but there must be a better way to do this. The Law Commission’s 2023 report set out a simple, proportionate fix: a new pathway to recognising that at least one parent, where genetically related to the child, is a legal parent from birth. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should now respond to that report?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

My hon. Friend pre-empts what I will go on to say, but he also makes an important point. If I chose to be a surrogate for a friend or a family member, I think my husband would be pretty shocked at being named as the father on a birth certificate, when it was my decision to be a surrogate. Regardless of where we sit in this argument, I think we can all agree that that does not make any sense.

I commend Adam and Jamie for their bravery in sharing their journey to parenthood and the additional challenges that they have faced in securing their rights, which they are already recognised as having in the US, as their daughter’s parents. The journey they took is more common today. Around 500 babies are born through surrogacy to UK parents every year, and nearly three quarters are now born through international surrogacy. The most popular destination is the USA, with the other quarter spread over countries including Canada, Colombia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Nigeria and Ukraine.

It is legitimate to raise concerns about surrogacy practices in other countries, especially ones where it is not regulated and there is a risk of trafficking and exploitation. That is why the subject needs to be handled with such sensitivity. We must ensure that the rights of the surrogate, the baby and the intended parents are at the heart of everything we do, and that legislation reflects that.

The recommendations of the Law Commission’s report into surrogacy law, published in 2023, attempted to address many of those issues. The report, requested by the UK Government of the day, sought to create a new pathway to parenthood for UK surrogacy, with intended parents recorded on their child’s birth certificate provided the surrogate does not change her mind. It also called for regulation of non-profit UK surrogacy organisations to oversee the new pathway, including requirements for a written surrogacy agreement, screening, legal advice and counselling, as well as tighter categorisation of permitted payments to UK surrogates. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted that there should be no doubt between payments and legitimate expenses, and I agree with him.

The Law Commission’s report found a lack of clarity about what payments can be made by the intended parents to the surrogate, which makes the law difficult to apply in practice. We need a law that can be clearly and fairly applied, to ensure that families and surrogates alike understand their rights and responsibilities. However, the report has not had a formal response from Government, even though it was published three years ago, nor has any time been given for the House to debate the wider conversation around surrogacy so that we can reflect the changing environment—a call made by hon. Members from across the House. That is why this needs to be looked at as a matter of urgency.

I ask the Minister today to explain what work is being done to improve clarity on the issue and whether we can expect legislation to address it. As the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) said, there is a Bill ready to go. The Liberal Democrats recognise that the current system can create long delays as intended parents apply for a parental order after birth, and we recognise the distress that delays can cause to those involved. It is clear that delays can also cause practical issues for parents who have caring responsibilities but lack legal security, which creates problems around registering.

[Rebecca Smith]

There have been a couple of mentions of the time it takes to get an order, but parents in the UK adoption system have equally long—often much longer—waits to take on parental rights over a child. We are in danger of creating two separate systems, so that putting in an order for a child through a surrogate is a quick option to become a parent, but we are making it harder for people who have gone through the care system to foster or adopt, or who have gone through a long adoption process. I wonder whether we are inadvertently suggesting that there should be a two-tier system. I wonder what the hon. Lady’s thoughts are on that, because I know that she, like me, is a big advocate of fostering and adoption.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I am in no way suggesting that we create a two-tier system. Talking about how long the adoption process can take, especially for those who have had fostering responsibilities and are transitioning into adopting those children, and talking about how arduous that process can be, including when making sure that children have up-to-date health records and so on, would be a separate debate. We are clearly talking about health services as well. If a child is born with a health concern, the intended parents who are providing their day-to-day care should have the facility to act on behalf of that child to make sure they are well looked after.

It is also worth pointing out at this stage that, if a heterosexual couple presented in a hospital with a child who is poorly, it is very unlikely that a health professional would ask, “Can you please prove that you are the legal parents?”, but for same-sex couples it is more likely that someone would ask that question. We are creating a two-tier system between heterosexual couples who choose surrogacy and homosexual or same-sex couples who choose surrogacy, and I am not in favour of a two-tier system at all.

The Liberal Democrats also believe that, as with all the issues raised in this debate, any decisions regarding the legal parenthood of a new baby must ensure that the rights and wellbeing of all those involved are balanced and respected. I ask the Minister when the Government intend to respond to the report in full and whether they intend to bring forward any legislation on this issue for Parliament to consider—because, although this is Adam and Jamie’s debate, they represent a much wider group of people.

I will finish by saying that so few people have touchpoints with our Parliament and our political system, and passing the threshold to have an issue debated in Parliament is no mean feat; but it should not be the end of the story. It would be helpful if the Minister could set out what the next steps are, to ensure that the conversation about this issue continues.

Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 4th September 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on infant feeding and inequalities, and I also sit on the advisory board for the 1001 Critical Days Foundation. I thank the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) for bringing the Bill to the House and giving us all an opportunity to wax lyrical about babies. We get fewer emails from babies than other constituents we represent, which is why it is so important that the Members who have chosen to be here are taking the opportunity to speak up for the voiceless.

Let me take this opportunity to welcome a new baby into my family. I have a new nephew—my first nephew. His name is Raven and he was born eight days ago; he was born with a thick shock of jet black hair, so he clearly knew what his name was going to be. He is wonderful and we all love him dearly already, including my two children, who are delighted to have a cousin to steer down the wrong path.

As the 1001 Critical Days Foundation has made clear through its campaigning and work on the Bill, a baby’s development until the age of two is vital. Failing to provide adequate support for parents and babies at this time can leave individuals and families chasing their tails in the future, trying to make up for issues that occurred during this crucial period. Investment in infants’ health and care pays dividends for society, improving health and educational outcomes, and reducing inequality. It is for that reason that I absolutely support what the Bill is trying to achieve: putting support in the early years on a statutory footing and ensuring a health check of early years support by the Secretary of State at regular intervals.

As the Chair of the Education Committee said, there is an old adage: “It takes a village.” But if a new parent cannot access services in their local area, how are they meant to find their village? I was lucky when I had my children—the first one nearly 12 years ago—to find my village. I attended a weekly breastfeeding support group called Milk, where we could talk freely and openly about the challenges, understand why our babies’ poo was a funny colour, and get advice about combination feeding, introducing solids or returning to work.

At that group, we also learnt about developmental leaps, which I do not remember a midwife or a health visitor ever telling me about when my child was born. I could not understand why I put to bed a lovely calm child, and then a demon woke up and was so hard to soothe for three or four days. When I went to that group, the parents who were a month or two ahead of me said, “Are you sure they are not having a developmental leap? It could be that they are learning new things, and that is why they are struggling to sleep, or they are unregulated, or their pattern has moved around.” It was so helpful.

There was an area for the older children to play. We all enjoyed a cup of tea, something that was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh). We weighed our babies, and we talked about the various methods we all adopted to remember what side we last fed our baby on. The women I met at that group are still my friends today, and they have made my life as a mother better, more supported and brighter. We also went to a baby movers group every Friday morning, where we shook our beanbags, threw scarves over our children and sang songs that still randomly appear in my head when I cannot sleep at 11 o’clock at night.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

The hon. Lady had a fantastic Adjournment debate nearly a year ago on breastfeeding support. My wife and I are now 384 days into having our first child. We have an organisation in Exmouth called Bosom Buddies, which is run by a fantastic lady called Jodie Wilkerson. She pretty much does it for free, and is constantly trying to get funding. I remember a point that the hon. Lady raised in that debate about breastfeeding support being a postcode lottery. Does she agree that as the Bill goes through the House, the Government need to look at supporting those organisations, which have given so much support to my wife, the hon. Lady and so many women around the country?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and for supporting that Adjournment debate. Every community should have a Jodie; mine was a Julie, and she was constantly chasing funding to keep Milk alive. When my daughter was born, five years after my son, that Milk group, which I had relied on so heavily, was now being run out of a broom cupboard. It was by appointment only, and parents could not take their older children along. The whole thing had just crumbled, so I feared for those coming after me who would not be able to find their village.

Six months after my daughter was born, the pandemic hit. Her 12-month health visitor review was done on Zoom, and my daughter was not even in the room with me. The baby movers classes that I had loved so much with my son ceased to exist, so I ended up running them on Facebook Live—I would message everybody at 10 o’clock and say, “I’m going to go live in half an hour, and we’re all going to shake our beanbag together in our own lounges.” The local children and family centre in Chichester never reopened in the same way after the pandemic, and the children and family centre in Selsey—a coastal community in my constituency—is now permanently closed.

The clearest example of the effectiveness of early support and intervention, as cited by many hon. Members across the House today, was Sure Start. Last May, that service was described in a study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies as having had an “overwhelmingly positive” effect, with the benefit estimated to be over £2 in societal value for every £1 spent. However, when budgets were tightened during austerity, it was services such as Sure Start that were cut to the bone. The provisions in this Bill are so important because they add statutory foundations, assessments and accountability to protect infant support services for the future.

This Bill should allow Parliament to recognise the importance of services such as feeding support, to ensure that provision is maintained and services are improved. The impact is stark, especially when it comes to infant feeding. Through the work of the APPG for infant feeding and inequalities, I had the privilege of hosting the World Breastfeeding Trends Initiative in Parliament last year for the launch of its 2024 report, which was looking at breastfeeding in the UK against metrics measuring other countries. The key takeaway from that report is that the UK has some of the lowest breastfeeding rates in the world. Importantly, however, the data also shows that the majority of mothers do set out to breastfeed; despite this, by six to eight weeks, around 70% of babies in the UK receive some formula, and by six months, only 1% of babies are exclusively breastfed. The majority of mothers who stopped breastfeeding early wanted to breastfeed for longer, but did not receive the help they needed to resolve the problems they were facing.

In my constituency of Chichester, most of the support—as cited by the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed)—is run on a voluntary basis. There is now a brilliant support group that runs out of the Graylingwell chapel, and it is run by retired midwives who give up their time and run the group for free. I know what a lifeline that has been for so many mothers, but at the point when those midwives choose not to do that any more, the service will disappear, because it is not on a statutory footing. Many of the midwives in my local maternity unit at St Richard’s run support groups in their spare time on their days off.

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

Breastfeeding is one of the reasons that this Bill is so important, because breastfeeding is about what happens before birth as well as in the first two years. When we look at the data, the trigger point for people not taking breastfeeding forward is about 16 hours after birth, so if they are given support before they have their baby, and they know where they can go straightaway, that will give them the confidence to breastfeed for longer. Does the hon. Lady agree that we have to make sure that this Bill covers both pre and post labour?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. It is very much my opinion that mothers should all have the right to choose how we want to feed our babies, and that choice should be based on information. If parents are not given the information they need before making those choices, they do not have a choice—it has been taken away from them.

[Natasha Irons]

Anyone who has been a new mother will understand that for some women breastfeeding is very easy, and for some women it is not. Does the hon. Member agree that research into the difference between an easy breastfeeding experience and a harder one is not particularly good? If all a struggling mother wants to do is feed her baby, because she has been told that she needs to feed her baby and that if she goes below a point on a chart, she is not doing a good job, perhaps we need more investment and research into how we can make it easier for mothers to breastfeed, so that they can make informed and supported choices as they go forward.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

The hon. Lady is right. Just as every pregnancy is different, every breastfeeding journey is also different. We do not want to put mothers in a position where all they have is Google at their fingertips at 2 o’clock in the morning, when the baby is devastated and will not feed, and they are worried that they are dehydrated. The National Breastfeeding Helpline, a 24/7 service funded by the Department of Health and Social Care, is an important resource and a lifeline for so many mothers—33,000 mothers call every month. It is also helpful to have peer support. If someone is in a room with other mothers who are saying, “I experience mastitis,” or “I experience thrush, and this is what I did to get past it. Keep going and come back next week and see if things are better,” that support can mean so much to a mother who feels like they are on their own in that journey.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is being incredibly generous with her time. I was delighted to contribute to her debate on infant feeding, and I thank her for her leadership on that. When we talk about the information and advice that is available to people, does she agree that one thing that can make a difference is the right person at the right time? I will not make this too much of a speech—I will include this when I get to speak—but the difference made by a midwife who arrives just at the moment when someone is prepared to give up can sometimes result in someone’s daughter acquiring the middle name of that midwife, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) said.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. She raises an important point, namely that infant feeding is not taught generically across medical professions. For example, a lot of mothers may present at their GP surgery if they are having challenges, but their GP is probably not the best placed person to inform them on how they can best be supported on their infant feeding journey, whatever that looks like. Advice from specialists, such as midwives and most health visitors, means that people are being supported, asking the right questions and getting the right answers.

Breastfeeding strengthens babies’ immune systems and significantly reduces the risk of infections, obesity, asthma and long-term conditions such as type-2 diabetes. I pay tribute to Her Grace the Duchess of Richmond for convening a Goodwood health summit to specifically look at the infant gut microbiome, and at how important it is in those formative days of pregnancy and the first few critical weeks of life, and for her continued advocacy in that space. For mothers, breastfeeding lowers the risk of breast and ovarian cancers, cardiovascular disease, and supports post-natal mental health. Providing support for breastfeeding mothers can pay for itself further down the line by improving the health of babies and mothers.

Currently the UK has no national infant feeding strategy, timebound action plan, multisectoral infant feeding committee, or overall national co-ordinator. There is little-to-no mention of infant feeding in health professional training, and no co-ordinated strategy for infant feeding in emergency situations. I hope that the Bill will provide the foundation for such support to return to levels that we have seen in the past, and address gaps that have always existed. Babies and their parents deserve better, and I look forward to supporting the Bill through its passage through the House, including in Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

The House will agree that we believe that all children should be born equal. However, we are here today because we also know that in the fifth or sixth richest country in the world, not all children here are born equal. I am delighted to be able to speak in support of the Bill, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) on bringing it before the House. Some would say that he has been very lucky to be drawn first in the ballot, but as a person of faith, I believe that it is divine intervention, and that almighty God has bestowed a responsibility on this House to support children, parents and carers in our country in the way they have the right to be supported and deserve.

The central idea behind this legislation is simple yet radical: every child deserves the best start in life, regardless of their postcode, family income or ethnicity. As we have heard in eloquent speeches from right hon. and hon. Members from across the House, the first 1,001 days are among the most important in all human development. They shape physical health, emotional wellbeing, educational attainment and life chances for decades to come, yet support during those crucial early years is too often fragmented, inconsistent, and dependent on a family’s individual circumstances or where they live.

The Bill rightfully seeks to address that injustice by ensuring that needs are assessed and timely support is provided. It recognises that giving children the best start in life cannot be the responsibility of any single Department. Improving outcomes for babies and families requires health, education and local services to work together. I welcome the Bill’s emphasis on greater co-ordination and accountability.

Before I talk about my constituency and some of the challenges that it faces, let me pick up the point about breastfeeding. It is absolutely the right of the mother to choose, and sometimes it may not be possible for that mother to breastfeed. However, it is important that substitute breast milk is not commercialised and sold for immense profit in this country or elsewhere. Parents, especially those in low-income households, struggle to make ends meet as it is. The children of mothers who, for whatever reason—medical or other—are unable to breastfeed depend on substitute breast milk. That must not become the cost that suddenly unravels the household—not just for the child, but for everybody living in it.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising an important point: the formula industry is a commercial industry. Breast milk, by its very nature, is free and therefore does not have the backing of large-scale corporations that advertise it widely. Does he agree, then, that the Government should heed the Competition and Markets Authority’s report into the formula milk industry and take on its recommendations, including price controls for formula milk?

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Lady. It is important for parents, mothers and families to know that Government policy is free from commercial influence, not just in this space but in all the spaces that impact our citizens.

As an engineer and a regulatory compliance expert in the pharmaceutical industry, I believe that the marketing of breast milk and the formulation of breast milk need to be better regulated. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency should have responsibility to regulate the nutritional content of substitute breast milk and the marketing claims of substitute breast milk producers. That is an important measure that the Government could introduce to ensure the consistent quality and nutritiousness of substitute breast milk.

As the Member for Dewsbury and Batley, I will focus my contribution on health inequality. In my constituency, we are proud of our diverse communities, but we cannot ignore the fact that outcomes for mothers and babies are not experienced equally. A recent Healthwatch report highlights the reality facing many children and families across West Yorkshire. Families repeatedly identified poverty, poor housing, long waiting times, barriers to healthcare access and the cost of staying healthy as factors that profoundly affect young children’s health and wellbeing. Poverty and its attendant effects mean that families struggle to maintain healthy living environments for their children through no fault of their own, whether because of mouldy housing or the lack of a nutritious diet. Health outcomes depend on income and place. The result is that infant mortality rates in Yorkshire and Humber are 5.1 per 1,000 live births, against a national average of 3.9 per 1,000 live births. This is a postcode lottery and we must do all we can to eradicate it.

Yet those inequalities are also compounded by ethnic disparities. Nationally, babies of black ethnicity continue to be more than twice as likely to be stillborn as babies of white ethnicity. In 2026, that is a scandal and precisely why legislation focused on the early years matters. The research conducted and the reports published over decades have not led to a meaningful positive intervention to reduce infant mortality for ethnic minorities and black families. The Bill is a real opportunity to address that inequality. We know, too, that children from ethnic minority backgrounds in deprived communities often face additional barriers in accessing healthcare and support. The Healthwatch report I previously cited found that cultural and language barriers can make it harder for some families to navigate services, while stigma around receiving support in some communities can prevent parents from getting help when they most urgently need it.

Those statistics and findings should remind us that improving services is not simply an administrative exercise; it is fundamentally a matter of fairness. That is why I believe one of the strengths of the Bill is its potential to shine a light on where support is working and where it is falling short. The annual report to be presented to Parliament on the state of services, outcomes and changes to outcomes since the previous year is extremely important, but it must be a catalyst to continuing to address the inequalities that remain at the end of each year. As the Bill progresses, I hope it will focus not only on the availability of services, but on whether outcomes are actually improving for children from disadvantaged and ethnic minority backgrounds. When support is available early, far greater cost to children, public services and society can be avoided later.

Before I conclude, I would like to take this opportunity to celebrate the 150th anniversary of Dewsbury and District hospital and recognise not only the institution but the generations of dedicated staff who have served our communities with skill, compassion, dedication and commitment. I pay tribute and extend my deepest gratitude to the doctors, nurses, midwives, porters, healthcare assistants, cleaners, administrators, technicians, volunteers and countless others who have cared for patients through times of joy, crisis and profound change.

I want to end by recognising the incredible work of health visitors, midwives and family support workers, and all health professionals across West Yorkshire and the whole country. They often provide the early intervention that transforms the course of a child’s life. Just a few months ago in my constituency I visited the reopened Brontë Birth Centre at Dewsbury hospital, which was closed for two years because of staff shortages. It is doing absolutely fantastic work and the facility is world class. I pay tribute to the Government who helped to implement and fund the facility, and to the staff who run it day to day.

Access to Dental Services: West Sussex

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered access to dental services in West Sussex.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, to have secured this debate—on Sussex Day, no less; I am confident that the Minister will have some excellent responses on behalf of all constituents in Sussex—and to have the opportunity to lay out the impact of the historic failings within the dental contract before the Minister.

The state of access to NHS dental services across the country is utterly disgraceful. In Sussex, 63% of adults had not seen a dentist in the two years prior to June 2025. Similarly, four in 10 children had not seen a dentist during that time. Fourteen million people were unable to access NHS dental care in early 2025 across the UK. The result of people locked out of NHS dental services has been a rise in cases of DIY dentistry, with a survey earlier this year suggesting that 7% of UK adults had attempted some form of DIY dentistry.

All that contributes to an alarming increase in hospital admissions for tooth-related issues. Tooth decay is now the most common reason for hospital admission among children aged between six and 10, with more than 100,000 children admitted to hospital with rotting teeth between 2018 and 2024. Those figures outline a dire situation that is only getting worse. Improvements in oral health are being wiped out, and tooth decay rates are at levels not seen since the 1990s.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady on bringing this forward. She is absolutely right that there is a dental crisis not just in West Sussex, but across the whole United Kingdom. Some 14 million people cannot get an NHS dentist. Whenever I look back—and I am old enough to look back, at my age—I think that perhaps we should move back to the situation I can well remember in the past, when there were full-time NHS dental surgeries in community hospitals. They never let us down. Those positions must pay enough for dentists to be comfortable. Is that perhaps where we are going?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his passionate advocacy for NHS dentistry in West Sussex. I am grateful to him for caring about access to NHS dentistry across the whole country. He is a fierce advocate for Strangford and makes the important point that the situation we are in is a damning indictment of the failure of the previous Government—a failure that the Prime Minister himself referred to regularly in the run-up to the general election. It was a stick that he used to beat the Conservative Government with in every televised debate, when he spoke about rotting teeth falling out of children’s mouths.

We are still going backwards, dealing with problems on a scale not seen for generations, all at a time when the British Dental Association has warned that NHS dentistry is facing an existential threat. Parliament often hears the term “postcode lottery”, but I cannot think of a more applicable example than NHS dental services for residents in Chichester and West Sussex.

Last week I had the opportunity to conduct a little bit of research with a staff member who has recently moved to London and needs to register with an NHS dentist. Within two miles of his new postcode in London, 10 surgeries were accepting NHS patients. Entering the postcode of my constituency office in Chichester into the NHS search tool produced a very different result: zero surgeries accepting new adult NHS patients within a 12-mile radius. There were none within the city itself, and only one surgery was accepting new patients under the age of 17. That means that residents not registered locally have to travel to other towns and cities. At the time of looking, the closest surgery was in Littlehampton in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths). That is not close to the city of Chichester.

I ask the Minister what his solution would be for people attempting to register locally, people living in the area already and people moving to it after years of increased mandated development in my constituency. I would like to share with the Minister a few examples of what this means for my constituents in Chichester, who very kindly got in touch with me to share their stories. Kathryn moved with her family to the area four years ago. She still travels to Three Bridges for dental care. Christine still returns to the Isle of Wight for treatment. Marina and Denise moved to Bracklesham in 2011—15 years ago—and have never been able to register for an NHS dentist locally. Jim contacted me to say that he undertakes a 140-mile round trip just to receive routine dental care.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I commend my hon. Friend on an excellent speech. Some of my residents still travel to their NHS dentist clinic in Nottinghamshire, which is a more than 500-mile round trip from Cornwall. Does my hon. Friend agree that Cornwall integrated care board needs to sort out its underspend? This year, there was a £1.2 million underspend that could have been invested in vital NHS dental services. I understand that West Sussex is a good example: it has managed to reinvest any underspend money on the services that my hon. Friend is talking about, which are so desperately needed in West Sussex and in Cornwall.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about his local ICB. The underspend issue has plagued the dentistry contract over many years. The ICB for Sussex did manage to commission more urgent dental care using its underspend, meaning that it had very little to give back to the Treasury. That was absolutely the right thing to do; I commend my hon. Friend for recognising that that is an opportunity that Cornwall ICB could take. However, the Sussex ICB invested in urgent dental care while not addressing the problem that we have in routine dental care.

Residents in Chichester cannot access routine dental care in their own city and are forced to travel considerable distances. That takes time out of people’s lives, costs money, and creates additional risks. Imagine someone making that 140-mile round trip for a routine appointment, only to discover that they require an emergency procedure. They would be miles away from their home and family, and might not be capable of driving themselves home afterwards. That is completely unacceptable in today’s society.

To make matters worse, a number of individuals told me that they had been removed from their surgery’s patient list, particularly during the pandemic when they did not want to be in close contact with others. They had no notification that that was happening. Others were informed out of the blue that their surgery was switching to private care and that, unless they paid, they would need to seek treatment elsewhere. Given the costs involved, as reflected in the national figures, many simply choose to go without care altogether.

On top of that, individuals who have been lucky enough to secure an NHS place often face enormous waiting times for treatment. Jade shared her experience of being placed on a waiting list for routine root canal treatment and then being ignored for months. At 28-weeks pregnant, she suddenly found herself in excruciating pain and required emergency surgery. As we know, that costs the taxpayer a lot more than if the issue is addressed before it becomes an emergency. Another mother contacted me to say that three years ago her son developed an abscess over Christmas. They were unable to secure emergency treatment so they joined a waiting list at three separate practices. They still have not secured an appointment.

Those examples all point to a broken system in Chichester and across the country—one that is failing my constituents and worsening health outcomes. In the long run, it is also making the country poorer: the failure to invest in preventive care means that individuals require more serious and expensive treatment further down the line. This has to end. That view is shared by the dentists I spoke to ahead of today’s debate. A key issue raised by them and many across the profession is the state of the NHS dental contract. The British Dental Association identified it as a major factor driving NHS dentists into the private sector. The current settlement has been widely criticised since its inception back in 2006. The Health and Social Care Committee published a report in 2023 calling for an urgent overhaul of the system, and the Labour party promised to renegotiate the contract in its manifesto.

One former dental nurse who contacted me described the contracts as being like

“tying dentists’ hands behind their backs.”

That is hardly practical if they are trying to perform a root canal procedure. The contracts are failing patients because the number of patients a dentist can see on the NHS is limited according to the units of dental activity that they have been commissioned to deliver. The nurse I spoke to suggested patients are being referred to hospitals for routine procedures because contractual arrangements prevent practices from carrying them out themselves and being renumerated.

The Government promised to reform the contracts, but they have been slow to address problems that are widely recognised across the sector. The consultation that the Government announced in April must lead to a contract that is genuinely patient-focused, with greater flexibility in commissioning. When it was announced, the Government committed to bringing out the consultation before the summer, but the official line has changed slightly to “in due course”. I share the concern raised by campaigners that any further delay will mean that a new system will not be implemented before the end of this Parliament. Will the Minister commit to bringing out the consultation before the summer and to a firm deadline for when formal contract renegotiations will begin? Frankly, we cannot afford any further delays.

Another issue is costs. Lab costs went up 9% last year, but NHS contract holders got just a 3.55% uplift—add to that the hikes in national insurance contributions, which have exacerbated an already dismal situation. The British Dental Association believes that an average NHS dentist is losing £25 per routine dental check. Without support and changes to the contracts, many practices will continue to be pushed into the private sector, as we have already seen happen to many. In West Sussex, the number of dentists with NHS activity has dropped by 13% since 2019. I imagine that that figure is actually an underestimation, because a practice can offer just one NHS appointment a year and still feature on the list of NHS providers.

Local dentists are also concerned that the merger of the Surrey and Sussex ICBs, alongside a 50% reduction in ICB running costs, could undermine the local commissioning expertise and local relationships with providers. Can the Minister today provide any reassurance that, at a time of significant change within our ICBs, they will be given the resource to maintain and improve relationships with contract providers?

The Government talk a good game on dentistry, but they are tinkering around the edges and leaving major issues such as the contracts so far unresolved. They quietly dropped their manifesto pledge of delivering 700,000 more dental appointments, under the guise of broadening the definition of urgent dental appointments for clinical reasons. That is a sticking plaster that addresses the requirement for more urgent dental appointments, but does not address those who cannot get routine care, which in many cases would prevent them from needing the emergency care.

The Liberal Democrats have long called for reforms that will address the root of the crisis. Our £750 million plan would begin to undo years of underfunding, guarantee urgent and emergency dental care for everyone who needed it, and hopefully bring an end to DIY dentistry. That would be needed to address the backlogs in emergency care. I have heard of wait times of up to 18 months at St Richard’s in Chichester for complex dental treatment such as difficult extractions.

It is clear that the system is broken. Nobody is naive enough to believe that it can be addressed overnight, but the Government have had two years. All the while, residents in Chichester continue to have a lack of access to basic dental services. Dentists want to help patients, but it is not currently financially viable for many to stay in the NHS. That has to change, and I urge the Government to listen carefully to contributions from all Members in today’s debate, and take the steps that they promised in their manifesto.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

We will be publishing the data on the golden hellos in August, along with all the other data. There is a time lag from the end of the financial year to when we have collated all the data—it takes a few months—so there will be data in August on a number of issues we have discussed today. The challenge of golden hellos is that we run into problems around the contract, incentivising people to do NHS dentistry, and getting people to live and work in certain parts of the country when they might be more attracted to a big city. We are aware of the challenges for coastal areas.

On the Portsmouth announcement, I have never driven from Portsmouth to Chichester, but I understand it is about a 20-minute drive, depending on the traffic—

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Stephen Kinnock]

Yes, but before the hon. Lady intervenes, I will say that I am fully aware that Portsmouth is in Hampshire, so I ask her not to give me a deluge of letters from her constituents.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I promise that I will not give the Minister a lesson in geography, although what he said suggests that he may not have frequented the A27. If somebody can get to a dentist in Portsmouth in 20 minutes, they are setting off at 3 am to do so, because that is the only time it can be done in about 20 minutes.

[Stephen Kinnock]

We clearly need to check our GPS on that one. I understand that there are challenges, but the point is that, for the first time in decades, Chichester has a school in its vicinity that is training dentists who will be within striking distance. Who knows where all the dentists will end up living when they have done the training? But our data suggests a strong correlation and causation between where somebody goes to dental school and where they end up putting down roots and working, living and settling. That is very much our hope for the 25 places that are, for the first time in 20 years, going to the University of Portsmouth, which I was pleased to visit just a few weeks ago.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I am sure the Minister will join me in congratulating Chichester college, which is creating a programme to train up the next generation of dental assistants and nurses. Staff there are excited to be able to contribute to addressing the recruitment issues in the Chichester area.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I strongly echo the hon. Lady’s congratulations to Chichester college. Of course, technicians, nurses and therapists play a crucial role; dentists’ practices function not just because of the dentist but because of the whole team.

It was, frankly, a travesty that the hon. Lady’s local area did not have a dental school, and it was a problem that Governments ignored for far too long. I am delighted that we have put that right, and hope she will recognise what a game changer it is. Whereas before, people had to train elsewhere and make an active decision to move to Chichester to practice dentistry, we hope that local people can now train up in the area and stay there if they wish to. That is a real incentive for people in Chichester to choose a career in dentistry, and to stay and serve in Sussex among the people they grew up with. It will also attract young people from across the country, who may choose to continue their careers, make their homes and put down roots in the area.

Similarly, the most important thing we can do for the long-term dental health of the hon. Lady’s constituents is to make the shift from treatment to prevention. In 2024, more than one in 10 children aged five years old in Sussex ICB had experience of tooth decay, despite it being largely preventable. We are backing supervised toothbrushing through a national programme that will reach up to 600,000 children in the most deprived areas of England, backed by £21.5 million. Over £290,000 has been invested across West Sussex, East Sussex and Brighton and Hove, and over 45,000 free toothbrushes and toothpastes have been delivered through our innovative partnership with Colgate-Palmolive. We are beefing up the soft drinks industry levy to remove more sugar from children’s diets and updating standards so that there is healthier food and drink in schools.

This year, we are undertaking vital reforms in dentistry. Two months ago, we embedded urgent dental care into NHS practices, making it easier for patients to get support where they need it most. The problem we heard time and again from the sector was that dentists were not incentivised to undertake NHS work, so we brought forward a package of reforms, from which I will highlight two measures. First, dentists are set to receive higher payments for treating patients who need urgent care, taking the payment for a unit of dental activity from approximately £42 to approximately £75. Dentists now have the extra incentive to provide urgent care for issues such as severe pain, infections or dental trauma on the NHS.

Secondly, from this month, those receiving complex care, such as treatments for severe gum disease or decay in multiple teeth, will be able to schedule a single planned package of treatment and pay one patient charge for it, rather than having several courses of treatment and paying a patient charge for each. That could save people more than £200 per year—money going straight back into the pockets of working people. We are also paying dentists more fairly for this work, to incentivise them. The appointments also mean that we are easing some of the pressures on St Richard’s hospital in the hon. Lady’s constituency, because we are preventing more painful conditions from spiralling into avoidable hospital admissions.

In a nutshell, our 2026 reforms are putting patients first and supporting those with the greatest need while backing our NHS dentists, making the contract more attractive and effective, and giving them the resources to deliver more.

The Government remain committed to rebuilding NHS dentistry after years of neglect. We have made a start with reforms to the dental contract that prioritise patients with the greatest need, support better access to urgent care and deliver a better deal for dentists. Alongside that, we are taking targeted steps to support areas where access is most challenging, including through workforce incentives, new school places and reforms to the exams process for overseas-qualified dentists, which will deliver an additional 2,000 dentists per year by 2028. And we are just getting started: as I have said previously at the Dispatch Box, I remain firmly committed to delivering fundamental reform of the dental contract before the end of this Parliament.

However, meaningful reform requires careful consideration. The challenges facing NHS dentistry are complex, and there is no single universally agreed solution or perfect payment model. That is why it is important that we take the time necessary to develop reforms that are effective and sustainable, and that work for patients and the profession. I will continue to engage closely with dentists, representative bodies and patients to ensure that the reforms we bring forward address long-standing concerns and support the long-term future of NHS dentistry.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I thank all the Members who took part in the debate. This will not be something the Minister has not heard before, but I ask him to take this away: when constituents write to me saying that they are unable to register with an NHS dentist, if I send an email back to them saying, “But the Minister told me there were 67,000 more NHS dentist appointments in Sussex,” I am not getting an email back saying, “Bloody brilliant—I’ll forget it then. Don’t worry.” People are still frustrated and waiting. I am really glad that the Minister has committed to reforming the system, because it desperately needs it, and I look forward to holding his feet to the fire as he does so.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered access to dental services in West Sussex.

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.