Heart Disease and Stroke: Premature Deaths

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster) for setting the scene incredibly well on a subject that affects all of us. As always, I will give some stats for Northern Ireland, where unfortunately we seem to have a particular problem when it comes to premature deaths from heart disease and stroke. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on vascular and venous disease, which has looked at the subject in some detail.

It is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I wish her well; she seems to be in Westminster Hall almost as much as I am, but with much more authority, I have to say. She and I have been friends for many years. I always start looking forward to her contributions the day before I hear them, because I know she will work incredibly hard to give us the answers we wish for; I thank her for that in advance.

It is also nice to see the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) in his place. He was a busy man when he was in Government and is now a busy man as a shadow Minister. He is always approachable, always dedicated and always dependable. We thank him for his commitment to the subject.

We cannot shy away from what the British Heart Foundation has rightly called a “ticking timebomb” on heart health. Across the United Kingdom, cardiovascular disease claims a life every three minutes. This debate will last for about an hour and a half, so the mathematics are quite clear: 20 people will have passed away between the start and the end.

I must do what I always do in this Chamber, which is to bring a specific perspective from Northern Ireland, where the crisis is acutely felt. It replicates the rest of the United Kingdom, in a way, but unfortunately the stats tell us that it is probably worse for us. The stats for Northern Ireland are indeed scary: an estimated 225,000 people are living with heart and circulatory diseases. To put that into context, because it is important that we do so in this Chamber, our total population is 1.95 million, so one in 10 of our citizens are fighting these conditions. When I walk up the high street in Newtownards in my constituency of Strangford, every 10th person I see will potentially be affected by heart disease, stroke or circulatory disease. That concerns me greatly.

The statistics from the British Heart Foundation’s Northern Ireland analysis are also deeply alarming. Cardiovascular conditions are responsible for 24%—nearly a quarter—of all deaths across Northern Ireland. That concerns me greatly, too. Even more heartbreaking is the fact that one in four of those deaths are premature, which means that the person could have been saved if they had had their checks or if help had come earlier. Because of my age, I can remember many occasions when someone has had a stroke or a heart attack and has died instantly. That includes some friends whom I have known over the years and who are not here any more.

It is also heartbreaking that those premature deaths are stealing the lives of people under 75. In a single year, we saw some 4,227 deaths due to cardiovascular disease. That means that every single month, 350 families in Northern Ireland are losing a loved one to a heart attack or a stroke. To put that into perspective, that is 350 empty chairs at the dinner table and 350 families left grieving. Sometimes, when we look at the stats, we think of the people who have passed away, but we must also think of the families on whom there is a significant impact.

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

The hon. Gentleman is, as always, generous with his time. We all fully appreciate the slant that he brings from Northern Ireland. Would he agree that there is also the issue of regional inequalities within England? We see in Yorkshire and the north of England some of the worst rates of survival when it comes to cardiovascular disease. Does he agree that we need to do more to close the gap when it comes to people from more deprived backgrounds and the poorer health outcomes that they face as a result of heart disease, stroke and other CVD?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman always sums up the thrust of the debate in his interventions; he has outlined that there is sometimes a postcode lottery. He is also right to underline that in areas with deprivation where the emphasis on health is probably less, the issues and the number of those with heart disease rise as well.

I must also declare an interest: I have lived with type 2 diabetes for over 20 years. To put that into perspective, I could call myself a big fat pudding—I was 17 stone at one time. I am now 13 and a quarter stone. I have done that through a bit of willpower, but also by trying to cut out the sweet stuff. I am not always successful, but I do try very hard. My diabetes is controlled by medication, and I thank God every day that we are able to control it that way. I know first hand how closely linked diabetes and high blood pressure are. I take a tablet for blood pressure; I cannot speak for anybody else here, but when hon. Members come to a certain age, they probably will as well. Along with high cholesterol, those two things increase the risk of a catastrophic stroke or heart attack.

I was recently at the diabetes event in the Churchill Room. The lady in charge told me that people with diabetes must always get a check at least once a year—have their heart checked and ensure that their blood pressure is under control.

[Tom Gordon]

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for diabetes, I should say that we have been pushing to make sure that, when people with diabetes have those diabetic care processes, those are better linked with other comorbidities and ancillary services. Does he agree that we need to see more of that to get better outcomes for people with those comorbidities?

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly do; the hon. Gentleman and I most definitely agree about that.

The tragedy is that so much of this premature loss of life is entirely preventable; if it can be prevented, then we should be doing more. The British Heart Foundation reports that half of all strokes and heart attacks are linked directly to high blood pressure. In his intervention, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) has again underlined that, as I have likewise tried to.

Right now in Northern Ireland, over 42,000 diagnosed hypertension patients are not being treated to clinical guidelines. That is unfortunate. Furthermore, 66,000 high-risk individuals are missing out on statins to control their cholesterol. There are things that can be done and prevention strategies that we should focus on. My hope would be that those will improve. If we optimise care, we can save hundreds of lives almost immediately. Surely if we can do that, we should be doing it. If we can treat blood pressure properly over the next three years, we can prevent 380 strokes and 260 heart attacks in Northern Ireland alone—the place I am bringing the stats from.

The issue is not just about statistics, of course. It is about early detection, standardising care and addressing health inequalities. I look to the Minister to outline what direct, co-ordinated action the Government are taking with their devolved counterparts: the hon. Member for South Ribble referred to that in his speech—I thank him for referring to the devolved Administrations, because this issue is about us all.

I know the Minister is always very responsive; has she had a chance to talk with the Health Minister in Northern Ireland, Mike Nesbitt, to ensure that the good things done here are exchanged with him? What can be done with devolved counterparts to tackle the missing patients? They are missing patients, but if they are missing then it is time to put them on the list, to ramp up the diagnostic screenings and, please, to defuse this ticking time bomb before it claims any more of us in this Chamber, or our constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Hodgson]

Right, the hon. Lady said 2015. I am being too clever for my own boots. I wrote down 2010, but of course, as I said in correcting myself, the big cut was in 2015. I am pleased that the hon. Lady has corrected the record for us all.

As I say, we have set an ambitious goal to reduce premature mortality from heart disease and stroke in the under-75s by a quarter in the next 10 years. As part of the first wave of the new generation of modern service frameworks, we will publish a cardiovascular disease modern service framework soon.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble asked me about that, and I shall move on to answer his questions. He asked when; the answer is soon. The Department and NHS England have engaged widely to consider a range of conditions that are most likely to drive progress on the Government’s ambition and the CVD MSF—if Members do not mind me using the acronym to save words—will set out 12 high impact priority action areas, descriptions of how unwarranted variation should be addressed and a road map for the next 10 years. The framework will be backed by clear accountability and routine monitoring of progress using existing NHS performance and oversight arrangements.

To support the delivery of the framework across the system, we will launch a series of ambitious strategic partnerships between Government, the NHS, industry and the voluntary sector. We thank the British Heart Foundation for its support and participation as a task and finish group member for the CVD MSF.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble asked about type 2 diabetes. I pay tribute to and thank his friend Jared, who is with us today, and who I am aware is a type 1 diabetic. Type 2 diabetes is very prevalent in cardiovascular disease. We are taking steps to reduce overall prevalence of type 2 diabetes by supporting programmes such as the NHS health check and the highly effective “Healthier You” NHS diabetes prevention programme. I will talk more about obesity prevention and the obesogenic environment if I have time.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble asked me about cholesterol. We know that addressing raised cholesterol is key to preventing CVD. Statins cut CVD risk in just four to six weeks, and are readily available and quite cheap, as interventions go. As of December 2025, 85% of people with CVD were being treated with cholesterol-lowering therapy, including statins, across England. He also asked me about arterial fibrillation. The Government recognise the importance of optimising arterial fibrillation treatment. As of December 2025, 92% of those with high-risk arterial fibrillation were being treated with anticoagulants, which was an increase from 87% in March 2020.

[Jim Shannon]

There are indications that the weight loss injections and tablets available on the NHS are very effective, but there is some concern about the side effects of weight reduction programmes. Has the Department ever looked at addressing side effects for those who want to lose weight but face other problems because of it?

[Mrs Hodgson]

As with all medication, it is obviously up to GPs to consider side effects when prescribing. Some side effects might be apparent sooner rather than later, but they are definitely conversations that patients need to have closely and quickly with prescribers and GPs. I encourage all constituents to be cognisant of side effects and not just hope that they will go away or that they do not matter. They should always be raised with their GP.

The modern service framework, which is coming soon, will identify and set standards for the best-evidenced interventions to support consistent, high-quality and equitable care across the cardiovascular disease pathway. It will set out an ambitious vision for the future, identifying areas where further progress is needed to build the evidence base or to accelerate innovations to deliver best outcomes for patients. We know that there are unacceptable inequalities across CVD prevention, diagnosis, treatment and care. That is why the CVD MSF will set out strategic priorities and a clear direction on what health and care systems should focus on to drive improvement and outcomes and to tackle unwarranted variation.

A number of hon. Members have highlighted prevention issues and I will address their questions at this point. We know that around 70% of the CVD burden is preventable and due to risk factors that can be modified by behaviour changes, early identification and management, so the early detection of risk factors is key. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee), who is no longer in his place, made a short but colourful point about access to fresh food and food deserts. He mentioned that in some parts of the country, it is easier to get vodka than a banana. I have used a similar analogy with regard to blueberry vapes versus blueberries. We all know of places like that across our constituencies.

The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex, also mentioned access to healthy food for young people living in poverty and free school meals being extended to those children. The Government are extending free school meals to all children of families on universal credit from September, and that is very welcome. We are already extending breakfast clubs so that they are universal. That will be reaching all children; not all children take advantage of them, but there will eventually be access to them for all children in our primary schools.

A lot of the work that I have been doing in the Department since taking up this post has been around my passion. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) mentioned the work that we have done together in the all-party parliamentary group on school food. That group was set up in 2010—I know the date, and I am not going to get it wrong, because I set it up. Healthy food is so crucial. As we are rolling out breakfast clubs and rolling out free school meals to all children of families on universal credit, we want that food to be as healthy as can be.

That is why we had the consultation on new school food standards, which closed in June. They will be in force from September 2027. They will be a lot better, a lot more stringent, than the current standards. I hope that, when they are made public, all hon. Members will be able to buy into them and therefore encourage the perception to change. I think my hon. Friend also said that the perception of school food needs to change, and I totally agree. Come next year, school food will be so much better—it already is in so many of our schools.

As a local MP, I am a bit obsessive about going into my local schools, or whatever school I happen to be in, so much so that it got a bit embarrassing—I will tell this quick anecdote, if I have time. I was visiting a school, and it said that it would get me some sandwiches from a well-known store—I will not advertise the store, but this was pre-packed sandwiches from a nice, upmarket supermarket—because my secretary had said, “Oh, make sure Sharon gets some lunch.” I had to point out to the headteacher that I did not want the nice sandwiches from Marks & Spencer, and that I actually wanted to stay for lunch with the children in the canteen.

I was there to visit and talk about whatever, or to meet the school council, but I would always do those things either side of the lunch break in order that, with my school food APPG chair hat on, I could stay for lunch. My lovely secretary at the time had not explained that bit, so the headteacher, on her way into work that day, had rushed to a well-known supermarket to buy me a selection of sandwiches. I was mortified, so I say to hon. Members that, if they want to eat on their school visits, they should please ensure that they are clear that they do not just want any old sandwiches bought, and that actually they want to sit and eat with the children.

School food is important. I have seen the good, the bad and the ugly. There is more good, and I hope that it will continue to improve, because good habits need to start early. I am talking about the prevention that we all want to see and the healthier lifestyles that we want for the next generation. It is a manifesto commitment of this Government to have the healthiest generation of children ever. That starts in our health service, but it also starts with prevention, and the move from sickness to prevention.

I think the hon. Member for Mid Sussex mentioned junk food advertising, and the other thing that I have been working on is the new nutrient profiling model. The consultation on that has just closed. We are going to be using the new NPM when it is agreed and announced. It will be applied to the junk food ad ban, which is already in place, and we will set out next steps with regard to that in due course. We are also planning work on monitoring and reporting on the healthy food standards. All that is in train, and I am very keen on continuing to do that work, but who knows what might come?

I will now turn to points from other hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport mentioned walking and that he had lost 4 lbs during the recent by-election; it seems to me that maybe what we all need is more by-elections—or perhaps not. The serious point is that we all need to be walking more. If we are walking more, that is good, but we need to be walking briskly. We are supposed to get out of breath and a bit hot and bothered. It is also important that we are trying to eat healthier food.

Department of Health and Social Care

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Layla Moran]

I believe that by the end of my speech, the hon. Gentleman and I will be in violent agreement, if we are not already. There is one more aspect of this, incidentally: the supply chains deal, which I understand is being crafted. We do not have time to go into that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady on the speech she is making. It is really important that we talk about the disadvantages of this deal, and there is a clear disadvantage to Northern Ireland. Access to everyday medicines in rural communities in Strangford and across Northern Ireland will be inhibited, so does the hon. Lady agree that the Northern Ireland Assembly in particular should receive the resources necessary to deliver vital frontline service improvements? At this moment, it is not receiving those resources.

[Layla Moran]

That is a really good point. I will come back to generics, which make up nine in 10 of the medicines that the NHS uses. There is also an issue of devolution here, which I am sure other Members will cover. At the moment it is very complex, and it is not at all clear how the deal will apply in Scotland and Northern Ireland in particular.

We cannot divorce this deal from the geopolitics. It is only happening because Trump decided that he wanted to slap tariffs on every country in the world and on a number of different sectors. The reason why the US came after the NHS is that historically, we get an incredibly good deal, but we have to admit—this is why this debate is so important—that we are using the NHS and NICE in geopolitical negotiations to appease the current President of the United States. Although Trump probably wants to be President for much longer than he will be, his term will come to an end, but the effects of this deal will last much longer than the period of time he might be in office, and the amounts of money involved are eye-watering. I wish we had more information in the estimates, but everyone knows the pressure the NHS is under.

NHS Breast Screening

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 742179 relating to NHS breast screening.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I would like to start by thanking the petitioner, Gemma Reeves, for all the hard work she has put into starting the petition and gathering over 106,000 signatures from across the UK. The petition is titled “Lower the age for invites to regular mammograms to 40 & perform annually”, and says:

“Lower the age for when you are first called to 40 and provide funding to carry out Mammograms Annually instead of every Three Years.

Early detection is key and the prevalence of Breast Cancer in young patients is rising.

I am a Chemotherapy Nurse and working in this Clinical Setting for 8 Years and I have seen a rise in Breast Cancer in Patients under the Age of 40 increase.

Early detection is key in identifying those Aggressive forms of Breast Cancer”.

This is an issue that many people here and outside the Chamber care deeply about. Breast cancer still affects too many women, and far too many women die from it every year. I had the privilege of meeting with Gemma, who is here today. She told me about her experience of being a nurse for 15 years, eight of which have been in oncology, and about her concerns from having seen a rise in breast cancer cases in younger women, especially since covid.

Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer for women in the UK—one in seven women may get it. As Gemma wrote in her petition, “Early detection is key”, and has led to improved recovery and survival rates. Over half of breast cancer cases occur in women outside the national screening age, and one in six occur in women under 50. Men, too, get breast cancer; however, they make up approximately 1% of all cases. Currently, the NHS invites women to come to their first breast screening between the ages of 50 and 53, and this goes on until they are 71. They are invited every three years, after which a woman can choose to continue going for mammograms, but will not be automatically invited. Although everyone is at risk of breast cancer, women are at a higher risk if they are over 50, have dense breast tissue, have a family history of breast or ovarian cancer, or have particular breast conditions, for example benign breast disease.

There is a breast screening pathway for those identified as NHS-targeted very high risk. It is also important to note that NICE guidelines recommend annual mammography scans for women aged between 40 and 49 at moderate risk, as well as annual mammography or MRI surveillance for some high-risk groups.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. Unfortunately, many women are diagnosed with this cancer each year. Invasive lobular breast cancer accounts for some 15% of all breast cancer cases, yet it is routinely missed until it reaches an advanced stage. Hundreds of members of this House have backed the call for a dedicated £20 million five-year research investment into the fundamental biology of lobular cancers. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Minister—I believe she is sympathetic to this—must undertake to incorporate advanced screening technologies, such as contrast-enhanced mammography or MRI, into the NHS pathway for women with dense breast tissue or a suspected lobular profile? The Government must grasp the issue and do something now.

[Irene Campbell]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I, too, look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on that issue.

Some 1.94 million women between the ages of 50 and 70 were screened in 2024-25, and almost 20,000 cancers were detected. Cancers were detected in nine in every 1,000 women, which is a 16% increase on the previous year. Attendance to screening reached the highest level in a decade and has been championed by charities such as Breast Cancer Now, which shares public figures, stories and personal messages.

Diethylstilbestrol: Intergenerational Impact

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

I am grateful to have secured this important debate.

I begin by asking the House to imagine a young woman in Britain in the 1950s. She is pregnant, she may have struggled to conceive and she may already have experienced the heartbreak of miscarriage, so she is desperate to do everything that she can to protect her baby. She goes to the doctor, as many of us would. She is prescribed a drug and told that it may help to prevent miscarriage, help her carry that baby to term and even give her the healthy child she so desperately wants. Of course she takes it—why would she not? She trusts her doctor, she trusts the health system and above all she wants to do the best she can for her child. But then imagine her finding out, decades later, that the very medicine that she took to protect her child had in fact harmed her, harmed that child and may even have harmed her grandchildren as well. That is the reality of diethylstilbestrol or DES.

DES was widely prescribed as an anti-miscarriage drug between the 1930s and the 1970s. It was used to treat pregnancy complications and to supress breast milk, and it was prescribed to women who were looking to the medical profession for help. But DES was not the miracle drug they were told it was. Evidence emerged in the 1950s that not only was it ineffective, but that it was also dangerous. It has since been linked to breast cancer, cervical and vaginal cancers, infertility and a range of other serious reproductive and gynaecological issues. Yet despite the warning signs, the evidence of harm and the fact that other countries moved to withdraw or restrict its use, DES continued to be prescribed in Britain for decades. Around 300,000 women are estimated to have been given DES in the UK between 1939 and the 1970s.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) for securing the debate. I spoke to her beforehand to obtain her permission to intervene. As she rightly says, over 300,000 women in the UK were prescribed DES in one of the worst medical disasters in NHS history. Repercussions of the use of the drug, as the hon. Lady says, are intergenerational, as evidence shows negative effects on third generations. Does she agree that further research is needed to study the long-term effects of DES exposure to better understand the extent of its impact and ensure effective medical treatment for those affected by the drug? I commend her again and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.

[Jessica Toale]

Yes, I agree that research is needed and that is one of the things that DES campaigners are calling for.

One of those 300,000 women was Rita, the mother of my constituent, Jan Hall. Rita was prescribed DES when she was pregnant with Jan, but when Jan was just a toddler, Rita died of breast cancer. She was only 32. Jan herself later developed cervical cancer in her twenties. Because of the surgeries she had to undergo, she was told she may never be able to have children. She lived not only with that physical consequence, but with decades of uncertainty, fear, grief and anger. Her daughters have experienced significant gynaecological health problems, and now Jan worries about her grandchildren as well.

Jan is not alone. Across the country, men, women and their families have come forward to share their stories and their experiences as victims of this scandal. Some of them are in the Gallery with us today and have allowed me to share some of their painful testimonies.

National Lung Cancer Screening Programme

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. We will be together all afternoon if you are here for the next debate as well. I welcome this debate on the national lung cancer screening programme. I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing it, and for his dedication to anything to do with cancer. The hon. Gentleman has made a name for himself in this House for putting forward these topics. I thank him for his knowledge and for his interest.

The lung cancer screening programme was set up to find lung cancer early, before symptoms appear, especially in people with a history of smoking, who are the group with the highest risk. The UK’s biggest ever early diagnosis initiative for lung cancer, the programme is delivered through targeted lung health checks. The hon. Gentleman referred to how the scheme delivers checks. They take place in local hospitals and in the community, and in vans in settings such as supermarket car parks, so nobody can say they have not had the opportunity to have the check done.

The checks are designed to target those aged 55 to 74 who are current or former smokers, as identified from their GP records, who are registered with a GP and who live in an area where the programme has been rolled out. I understand that the programme is expanding rapidly, region by region and is expected to be fully rolled out across England by 2030. That is welcome. Indeed it is, I would say, almost there.

We do not know how many people have attended the checks, but the United Kingdom National Screening Committee noted that more than 1.9 million have been invited to the programme, which is operating across 25% of England. NHS England has stated that, to date, some 5,037 lung cancers have been detected early since 2019; 76% of those were found at stage 1 or 2. Early-stage diagnosis improves five-year survival nearly twentyfold compared with late-stage diagnosis, so again that is a success of the programme.

The screening programme has been an outstanding success, and I commend the Minister and all those involved in the Department and NHS England on such an extraordinary achievement—they deserve every accolade for it. It has fitted perfectly with the 10-year health plan. We should give credit to the Minister and the Government for the plan and for all they have done to improve health; there are many things they can point to as being successful. It is also nice to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), in his place; it would not be a health debate if he and I were not here together—and here we are again.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for respiratory health, I warmly welcome the three shifts arising from the 10-year health plan. The screening programme is an excellent example of how well they have worked in practice. The first shift was from analogue to digital: most of the reminders for eligible patients are by text message—that is the new way of doing it; I may not be entirely geared into it, but I understand the process. The second shift was from hospital to community: running the tests in mobile units means they are less intimidating and closer to home. In fact, around 70% of initial screening was delivered via mobile units, improving access in deprived areas where smoking rates are highest. If we want to address the issue, we must go to the coal quay, as we would say, and meet and speak to the people.

The third shift was from treatment to prevention. Early-stage detection dramatically improves survival. The lung checks programme has crucially identified over 100,000 incidental findings of emphysema, one of the key conditions of COPD. However, those incidental findings are not generally followed up, nor do they lead to referrals for further investigation or treatment. Will the Minister ask his Department to consider a follow-up? If incidental findings are identified and there is a chance of curing or addressing the issue, that is the time to strike. The men’s health strategy called for better incidental outcomes, and it contains the ambition of

“ensuring incidental findings from the NHS Lung Cancer Screening programme, including respiratory illnesses such as COPD, are followed up according to the NHS Lung Cancer Screening programme incidental findings protocol and relevant NICE guidance”.

Can the Minister update us on how that is progressing within the men’s health strategy?

We have discussed the outstanding FRONTIER Hull trial with Professor Mike Crooks from Hull, who is piloting an integrated pathway that links screening findings to respiratory assessment and treatment in partnership with the NHS. I commend the work he is undertaking. So far, 383 of the 819 people—47%—recalled to the clinic have received a new diagnosis of COPD and started treatment through a streamlined one-stop clinic, meaning that those patients could begin treatment immediately rather than waiting while their symptoms progressed and their condition deteriorated.

I underline again that it has been shown that a one-stop diagnostic clinic is feasible, can be achieved and fits well with the three shifts. The approach can be tailored to meet local needs, helping integrated care systems to reduce hospital demand and improve patient outcomes. It has been estimated by Chiesi that integrating COPD case finding into lung cancer screening could save the NHS some £33 million over 10 years. That saving cannot be ignored, especially at a time when every pound counts. If it is possible to save some £33 million, it should be in part because of the screening programme.

I urge the Minister to look closely at the outcomes of the trial. This topic deserves a full debate; but more than that, it deserves an outcome. Screening saves lives, ultimately saves money and, importantly, saves needless heartbreak and pain. Let us invest in ourselves and in the process that we are discussing today.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) on securing this important debate and on his continued and relentless advocacy for people affected by lung cancer. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover); and to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), for their comprehensive and constructive contributions. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), the lead Minister on this policy area.

There is a great deal of consensus across the House on this issue. We all want to see more lung cancers diagnosed earlier, more lives saved and fewer families affected by the devastating consequences of a late diagnosis. Lung cancer remains one of the greatest cancer challenges that we face. More than 42,000 people were diagnosed with lung cancer in England in 2023, and about 35,000 people lose their life to the disease across the United Kingdom each year.

Lung cancer is also one of the cancers most strongly associated with deprivation. People living in the most deprived communities experience higher rates of smoking, a higher incidence of lung cancer and poorer health outcomes. That is why tackling lung cancer is about not only improving cancer survival, but reducing some of the most persistent health inequalities in our society. For too long, outcomes for lung cancer have lagged behind those for many other cancers. The reason for that is well understood: too many people are diagnosed when their cancer is already at an advanced stage, limiting treatment options and reducing the likelihood of successful outcomes.

That is why early diagnosis is absolutely critical. When lung cancer is diagnosed at stage 1, five-year survival is over 60%. By stage 4, it falls to just over 4%. Those figures alone demonstrate why finding lung cancer earlier remains one of the most effective ways of improving survival. The Government fully recognise the importance of this challenge. Improving outcomes for lung cancer and other less survivable cancers will be critical to achieving the Government’s ambitious objective that 75% of people diagnosed with cancer should survive for at least five years. That is why the national cancer plan places a strong focus on earlier diagnosis, reducing inequalities and ensuring that people with less survivable cancers receive the attention and support that they deserve.

[Jim Shannon]

This debate is about lung cancer, but I noticed a story in the paper today about an increase of between 5% and 10% in the number of people who now have breast cancer. Does the Minister agree that that underlines the issue that while there are many advances in cancer, and we welcome all of them, there is still a long way to go?

[Stephen Kinnock]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is a lot more work to be done, and it is a priority for the Government: it is right up there in the 10-year plan and the priorities. As he said in his excellent speech, we need to mobilise every one of the shifts—from analogue to digital, from hospital to community and from sickness to prevention—in the battle against cancer, because it is a formidable enemy and we need every single weapon we can deploy to defeat it.

We are determined to break the historical pattern of slow progress and finally give people with less survivable cancers the focus, urgency and outcomes that they deserve. That commitment is already being translated into action through the NHS lung cancer screening programme. The programme is designed to identify cancers at an earlier stage among those at highest risk, particularly people aged 55 to 74 with a history of smoking. Smoking remains responsible for about 72% of lung cancers, which is why a targeted approach is both clinically effective and evidence-based.

The results so far have been extremely encouraging: more than 1.8 million people have attended a lung health check through the programme, and more than 11,000 people have been diagnosed with lung cancer. Most importantly, 77% of cancers detected through the programme have been diagnosed at stage 1 or stage 2; outside the programme, the equivalent figure is about 30%. That means that thousands of people are receiving a diagnosis earlier, accessing treatment sooner and benefiting from significantly improved prospects for survival.

The programme is already demonstrating how earlier diagnosis can transform outcomes. Recent NHS England data shows a significant improvement in early-stage diagnosis in areas participating in the programme. That means more people are being diagnosed when treatment is most effective and when there is the greatest opportunity for curative intervention.

The hon. Member for Wokingham and others have spoken about the importance of a truly national programme. I agree that every eligible person should have the opportunity to benefit from lung cancer screening. That is why the Government are committing more than £650 million to complete the roll-out of lung cancer screening across England by 2030. Through the national cancer plan, we have committed to ensuring that every eligible person in England receives their first invitation for a check by 2030, helping thousands more people to benefit from earlier diagnosis and improved outcomes.

This investment reflects the Government’s confidence in the programme and the evidence supporting it. By 2035, lung cancer screening is expected to diagnose up to 50,000 cancers and identify at least 23,000 cancers at an earlier stage, helping thousands more people to receive potentially lifesaving treatment. This represents one of the most ambitious cancer screening programmes anywhere in the world.

Puberty Blockers

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman is exactly right, and he expresses my point succinctly. Why is the Secretary of State going ahead with a trial—experimenting on more children unnecessarily—when he has the data to analyse already? Why has he chosen to fund this trial? Is he worried about the children who will be put on a medical pathway that may lead to cross-sex hormones and a lifetime of medicalisation when they would have got better by themselves anyway?

I want to talk about the age of these young people. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency warned in February that the youngest patients are at the greatest risk, and may end up on puberty blockers for a much longer period. They have a higher risk to fertility because sperm and eggs have not yet fully developed at Tanner stage 2, but this Government have chosen to include children of 11 or 12. Some will wonder why it is 11 for girls and 12 for boys—indeed, I was asked that question yesterday—but as a paediatrician I am aware that puberty starts earlier in girls than in boys. It is somewhat ironic that a trial based on the premise that girls could be boys recognises this biology, but I am glad that in this respect it does. However, that means some of the participants will be primary school-aged children with the merest form of puberty. How can they possibly meet the eligibility criteria, which includes

“sufficient understanding of the treatment advantages and disadvantages, including discussion of fertility preservation”?

How can a child of 11 understand what it means to lose sexual function, to be unable to have children when they are older, to have difficulties in thinking and to have weak bones? Remember that this Government think that 14-year-olds are not old enough to watch social media, but they think 11-year-olds are capable of understanding this.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I just say this to the hon. Lady and, perhaps more importantly, to the Secretary of State, who is very genuine, personable and easy to speak to. In Northern Ireland, the Assembly and the Minister there have taken a decision not to pursue this. Would the hon. Lady agree that, when the Government pursue something here that may set a precedent for somewhere that has not agreed to it at the time, there could be an influence, with an adverse impact on the regional Administrations—the Northern Ireland Assembly where we are, and elsewhere—and it is important that the Government here do not take a decision that could influence areas they do not control?

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention on devolution, and I am sure the Secretary of State was listening and considering what he has said.

To go back to the age of the young people, I am reminded of the judgment in Bell v. Tavistock, which says:

“We do not think that the answer to this case is simply to give the child more, and more detailed, information. The issue in our view is that in many cases, however much information the child is given as to long-term consequences, s/he will not be able to weigh up the implications of the treatment to a sufficient degree.”

I draw right hon. and hon. Members’ attention to the next part of the quote:

“There is no age appropriate way to explain to many of these children what losing their fertility or full sexual function may mean to them in later years.”

Yet, as Secretary of State confirmed yesterday, the children must consent or assent to being in this trial. Another question that he did not answer yesterday is why the Government did not heed the MHRA recommendation for a minimum of 14 years. Having established that the Government are going to put a group of physically healthy children with a self-resolving condition at a risk they may not fully understand, the remaining question is why they would they want to do this.

The trial itself has an interesting design. We are told that it is a randomised controlled trial—as a doctor, I am familiar with that term—but in this case it is a bit of a fudge. Yes, this Government-sponsored trial will randomise which children get the drugs now and which get them in a year’s time, but the comparison group that does not receive puberty blockers—300 children from the Horizon Intensive trial, with whom the trial will seek to compare—may not be considered a reliable comparison, because the group is a different group with different eligibility criteria. When the results of this trial are published, this fact is bound to be used by people who dispute or disagree with the findings. The Secretary of State said this trial will resolve the dispute over the issue, but that is one of the reasons why I think it will not.

I want to discuss sexual function, because yesterday the Secretary of State said that the trial would involve the completion of a number of questionnaires, and one of my hon. Friends raised the question about what happens to children’s sexual function in the long term. What is sexual function? It is desire, arousal and orgasm. The trial organisers are clearly concerned about this, because they put into the trial the ALSPAC—Avon longitudinal study of parents and children—romantic relationships questionnaire. I read the questionnaire on the Health Research Authority website, and children from the age of 12 and over will be asked these questions, one of which is:

“In the last year have you had oral sex with another person? (This is when they put their mouth or tongue on your penis/vagina or you put your mouth or tongue on their penis/vagina)”.

Let us be clear: if that is happening to a 12-year-old, that is sexual abuse and the police should be called. Is the Secretary of State content for the Government to be asking these questions of such young children? Can he believe that they will be paid £20 for completing their questionnaires, alongside £30 for completing the assessment of cognitive ability and £15 for completing physical and height assessments, in addition to travel expenses?

There will be lots of talk this week about the Prime Minister’s legacy. Putting children as young as 11 on puberty blockers, with irreversible life-changing consequences, would be the most disturbing final chapter in what has been a troubled book of leadership. Today, right hon. and hon. Members will be asked to vote to consider their approval or disapproval of the trial. I urge them to look at their conscience, read the trial protocol—it is online—and remember that these are vulnerable children who deserve the best care. One day, the children caught in the middle of this debate will be adults. It is our responsibility to ensure that when they look back on their one childhood, their one adolescence and their one chance to enjoy growing up, they must know that every decision was made with the utmost care, caution and respect for their future. The power to make that happen is in our hands today. I urge hon. Members to protect children’s futures.

Spinal Muscular Atrophy: Newborn Screening Test

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 755980 relating to spinal muscular atrophy and the newborn screening test.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Mundell, and a privilege to open the debate as a member of the Petitions Committee. I want to begin with two little girls. In May last year, twin daughters were born prematurely to the petitioner, Jesy Nelson, who is a constituent of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking). Several months later, they were diagnosed with spinal muscular atrophy type 1, which is the most severe form. Their mother was told that they would, in her words, “probably never walk”.

In January of this year, Jesy chose to share that diagnosis publicly, saying that it would be

“selfish to keep this to myself and not potentially save a child’s life.”

This petition is the result, and I pay tribute to her for the way that she has courageously told her story, using her own unique reach. As a result, the petition was signed by 149,692 people, including 225 of my constituents in Sunderland Central. I was grateful to meet Jesy earlier in Westminster Hall, and I thank her and every family who has turned the hardest experience imaginable into a campaign for other people’s children.

In preparing for this debate, I also met Giles Lomax of SMA UK, Muscular Dystrophy UK, and Professor Francesco Muntoni of the Neuromuscular Centre at Great Ormond Street. I thank all of them for their time, and I also thank the Petitions Committee staff for their help as I prepared for this debate.

SMA is a rare genetic condition that attacks the motor neurones, causing progressive muscle weakness. Around 1,500 people in the UK live with it and about 48 babies are born with it each year—roughly one a week. With type 1 SMA, symptoms appear within the first six months and the effects are profound. Children cannot hold up their heads or sit unsupported; they may be tube-fed and need help to breathe. Until recently, up to 90% of untreated babies either died before the age of two or required permanent ventilation.

I used the past tense there deliberately and happily, because the important fact in this debate is that SMA is no longer untreatable. There are now three disease-modifying therapies in this country, including a one-time gene therapy that did not exist a decade ago. They are approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and funded by the NHS. A condition that was too often a death sentence for babies is now one that we can treat.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for, as he often does, leading this debate on a petition that has generated a lot of interest. I understand that the one of the life-altering gene therapies for SMA, Zolgensma—I hope that I have pronounced it correctly—is available on the NHS, but such gene therapies only work if they are administered before irreversible nerve damage and muscle wasting occur. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) has been at the forefront on this issue. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that perhaps what we really need is a UK-wide purchasing power for these heel-prick testing kits to be fully extended to all local health trusts without delay? That would make sure that those who have SMA are caught in time.

[Lewis Atkinson]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and I will come on to talk about screening in just a minute.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Atkinson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I will come on to talk about the potential postcode lottery. I do not believe it is a decision for individual ICBs to make, but a national decision that includes the UK National Screening Committee, which I will come on to.

The screening that I have described is already in place in dozens of countries. Across Europe, 75% of children are screened at birth and since 2024, every newborn in the United States and Canada has been screened. Ukraine managed to begin newborn screening for SMA in the midst of a full-scale Russian invasion. Given that, the petitioners simply ask, “Why is this screening not in place universally here too?”

[Jim Shannon]

On 23 March, Scotland rightly introduced routine screening. In October, babies born in England will benefit from the in-service evaluation framework. Yet families in Northern Ireland do not qualify whatsoever. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government must commit to working across jurisdictions with the Northern Ireland Department of Health to ensure that the evaluation framework is immediately extended to Northern Ireland so that a child’s chances of walking, breathing and surviving are not dictated by the part of the United Kingdom that they are from?

[Lewis Atkinson]

I thank the hon. Member for making one of his excellent interventions. Clearly health is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland and Wales, where screening is also not available, but the hon. Member is absolutely right. It would be difficult to explain to parents anywhere in the UK why this screening is increasingly standard practice internationally but is not available in every nation of the United Kingdom.

The petitioners are clear that all the conditions necessary to begin screening have been met. The test exists, the treatments exist and the evidence tells us that screening would save both lives and money. In the UK, screening is overseen by the independent UK National Screening Committee, which gives recommendations to Ministers. I was unable to meet with the committee in preparation for the debate, but I am sure that the Minister has had the benefit of its advice.

I recognise, as we all must, that the committee’s independence matters. However, its decision making and the way in which it balances risk, evidence and benefit must be subject to ministerial oversight. In this case in particular, there are questions about how those three elements have been balanced, and specifically about how far the committee seemingly required NHS-specific evidence when significant international evidence already exists.

When the National Screening Committee reviewed SMA for potential inclusion in the screening programme in 2018, the committee did not recommend screening, but campaigners like SMA UK did not walk away; they kept on doing the work. New cost-effectiveness modelling commissioned by the screening committee and published last year finds that screening for SMA is likely to be lifesaving and cost-effective.

Mental Health: Parity of Esteem

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Liz Twist]

The hon. Member might be reading my mind, because I will come on to that issue. I am sorry to hear of the death of his constituent—it is tragic.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate, and she is absolutely right to address this issue. In Northern Ireland, we have extreme mental health issues; indeed, the figure is 25% higher than it is here on the mainland. The Government have made a commitment to address the nation’s physical health. Does the hon. Lady agree that they must now treat the nation’s mental health equally? In doing so, they will address the emotional issues among the people we represent here.

[Liz Twist]

I do agree, and I will expand more on that theme.

Parity of esteem means tackling mental health with exactly the same respect, funding and clinical focus as physical conditions.

Access to Dental Services: West Sussex

Jim Shannon 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.

Community Hospitals

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Savage]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Not everybody can time their minor injuries to fall conveniently within the unit’s opening hours, so I absolutely sympathise with the challenge facing her local hospital.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. I apologise to her and to you, Sir Jeremy, for not being able to stay; unfortunately, I have to be somewhere at 10 o’clock that is about 10 miles away. Like the hon. Lady, I wish to shine a light on the quiet heroes of our health service: our community hospitals. Places like Ards community hospital in my constituency are not just buildings but the bedrock of local care. They are the vital bridge between the high-tech intensity of a major acute hospital and the sanctuary of a patient’s own home. I support the hon. Lady in making the case for community hospitals, because my community hospital does all the things she wants community hospitals to do across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[Dr Savage]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his perceptive intervention. Community hospitals often do feel more like a home from home. They are more accessible for a patient’s friends and family to visit, and they deliver better outcomes for patients and clinicians alike.

In the south-west, ambulance handovers at acute hospitals took more than 30 minutes in more than half of cases in January 2025—nearly 30% above the England average. A few months ago, I had the privilege to ride in an ambulance for a day. In what ended up being a 13-hour shift we attended only three call-outs. Maybe it was a quiet day—I am definitely not saying I wish there had been more grief out there—but we spent much of the day on the road and/or waiting outside hospitals, which did not seem the best use of a highly qualified ambulance crew and an expensive resource.

It will not be news to anybody in this room that our NHS is under pressure, yet, against the odds, community hospitals continue to perform. The Care Quality Commission reports that between 75% and 92% of community hospitals are rated good or outstanding, which is remarkable given that the number of district nurses working in them fell by around 55% between 2009 and 2024, with underinvestment and the loss of EU staff after Brexit cited as key causes.