Resident Doctors: Industrial Action

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It will be patients who suffer the most. I also urge the BMA to consider the impact on its whole membership, because it is other staff who are left picking up the pieces, and other staff who are tired—literally tired—of working in an NHS that is far from its best. To resident doctors in particular, I say that the cost of this will also be borne by them. There are choices and trade-offs in politics, especially when resources are tight. We can and we will act to deal with specialty bottlenecks. We can and we will act to tackle doctor unemployment, but our ability to do so is undermined, if not diminished, if we are instead paying the cost of this unnecessary, unreasonable and unfair strike action.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement today and fully support the line of action that he has taken. Indications that the majority of doctors in the BMA did not vote to strike makes this strike action even more difficult to understand. The Secretary of State is clearly trying to find a way forward. The way to do that is through finding solutions. Reviewing conditions of work, such as those that see junior doctors working 84 hours within the space of a week, would be helpful. Perhaps this action is not only about pay, but about the expectations of these young people who have life and death in their hands for 13 hours for six out of seven days a week.

[Wes Streeting]

The hon. Gentleman makes an entirely reasonable point. Pay is important—people have to be able to pay their bills and lead a good life—but so too are their working conditions. I am absolutely determined to work with resident doctors to make progress not just on pay, which we have already done, but on the conditions in which they are working. Given where we are with both of those things—the improvement on pay and the willingness to work together to improve conditions—they are not grounds for strike action.

Glaucoma Awareness

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the second time today, Mr Pritchard—I am getting a liking for it. I thank the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) for securing the debate. As my party’s health spokesperson, issues such as glaucoma are of great importance to me—the statistics show its prevalence. I would not have thought there would ever be a case in which the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) would be lost for words, no matter what might happen; that is meant as a compliment, by the way.

As it is Glaucoma Awareness Week, there is no greater time to consider this issue. I will start by describing the scale of the issue in Northern Ireland specifically, because that is what I want to highlight. Queen’s University undertook a study that found a 2.83% prevalence of glaucoma in 3,221 people aged 50-plus—I understand that rate is normal, compared with the rest of the United Kingdom—and that around two-thirds of those were undiagnosed. There is an issue to address: those who are undiagnosed. Northern Ireland currently has some 18,000 confirmed glaucoma cases. As I have said to the hon. Member for Leicester South—he knows this story—although my dad is dead and gone, when he was alive he lost his eyesight to glaucoma. Unfortunately—they were probably just not as good at managing it in times past—it crept up on him, and he lost his eyesight. My dad was very fortunate to have my mother to look after him, in every sense of the word. They loved each other greatly. It was never a burden to my mum to look after my dad. That was really important.

I was fortunate to secure a debate on glaucoma and community optometry just last year. The hon. Member for Leicester South made a fantastic contribution to that debate. I greatly admire his knowledge of optometry, and the job he did before he was elected. When he comes to these debates he brings that fount of knowledge, experience and examples, which we all appreciate. There is such an important link between our opticians and healthcare specialists who treat eye conditions such as glaucoma. Data from Specsavers highlighted that in 2023, some 30,000 referrals for glaucoma were made for people aged 40 to 60. Not all those people were diagnosed as such, but the fact was that there were some concerns, and the treatment for them was able to start.

I have some stats for Northern Ireland that I want to quote for the record. Regarding the adoption of innovative glaucoma technologies, such as iStent inject, two of the biggest eye surgery hospitals in the country—Altnagelvin area hospital and Belfast city hospital—now routinely offer such combined procedures to comorbid glaucoma and cataract patients. The focus is now on making sure that no glaucoma patients miss out on the opportunity to intervene in glaucoma at the time of routine elective cataract surgery. The advances are incredible at this moment in time.

As of March 2025—which has just passed—almost 50,000 people were waiting for ophthalmology outpatient appointments in Northern Ireland. That is a massive number, and the Minister in the Assembly back home really needs to take that on. In Northern Ireland, the prevalence of glaucoma in people aged over 50 is, as I said, comparable to other parts of the United Kingdom, and indeed other parts of Europe. The figures that we have seem to be relevant wherever we are in the United Kingdom, but also across the whole of Europe. Interestingly, around two thirds of people with glaucoma were not aware of their glaucoma, as the hon. Member for Leicester South said in his introduction. If that is generalisable from the study sample to the whole population, that rate is higher than in other comparable populations.

Glaucoma is the second most common reason for certification as sight impaired, or severely sight impaired, in Northern Ireland. On average, 13.1% of certifications are caused by glaucoma, although that varies a lot year on year. I want to tell the Minister what we are doing itenn Northern Ireland in relation to the iStent inject surgery. That is a massive, technological, medical, modern way forward. It is good to be able to report it in this debate.

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

Under the 10-year plan, the Government want to invest in the NHS and bring services into the community. There are examples of that around our country, and maybe in Northern Ireland. There are trusts in London with diagnostic hubs that better manage glaucoma. There are regions with community glaucoma services that have reported halving hospital referrals, improving access and saving millions. There are also pilots, such as in the Royal Devon’s Nightingale model, that reduce appointments from two hours to 30 minutes. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that investing, reorganising and having a joined-up service with advanced detection will save money for the Government and save people’s sight?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. To be fair, the hon. Member for Leicester South was clear that there is an opportunity to advance greatly under the 10-year NHS plan to solve the problems. There are better ways of doing things and reducing waiting times.

We are fortunate to have two hospitals in Northern Ireland, the Altnagelvin area hospital and Belfast city hospital, where new treatment is starting and also where cataract operations can take place. Cataract operations also take place in Downe hospital, just outside my constituency. Optometrists have a key role to play because they can spot the early signs of glaucoma during routine tests. For patients with stable glaucoma, optometrists have a role in monitoring eye health and helping them manage their condition.

Ahead of this debate I was in touch with Glaukos on the steps that can be taken both nationally and within the devolved Administrations to improve the outcomes for those diagnosed with glaucoma. In his intervention, the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) made it clear that there could be great advances in glaucoma and for eye care and doing things better. Glaukos has educated me on the iStent injects that are implanted during cataract surgery or in a stand-alone procedure—the very things that the hon. Member for Leicester South referred to. These little stents unblock drainage and lower eye pressure with minimal risk or cost. Perhaps that is something the Minister could commit to looking at and engaging with as a means of treatment for those with glaucoma.

The Minister is always well versed on the technologies and advances. I know that when he replies to this debate he will give us some encouragement. I should say I am pleased to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), in his place. I love doing debates with him. He and I share a passion for the subject matter. He brings a wealth of knowledge to these debates and I thank him for that.

To conclude, there are thousands and thousands of people living with the condition, but there will be thousands more to come. That is what we want to try to address. Ensuring affordable and accessible treatment is imperative. As I previously stated, and as the hon. Member for Leicester South who introduced the debate has stated, we must not underestimate the impact that our local opticians have in detecting these kinds of issues early on. I therefore urge people out there to prioritise their eye health while they can.

Alcohol and Cancer

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) for setting the scene expertly with all the detailed information we need. Before we started, she told me that this is our first debate together in Westminster Hall for some time, and it was a real pleasure to see her in full flow again.

This issue affects so many people in every constituency. The debate is an opportunity to explore the issue further and see how we, and ultimately the Minister, can inform and aid people to make good choices about nutrition and health. I am not in the business of telling people what to do. I do not think that is the way to do it; we should try to coax. If we raise awareness of the issues, as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre has done incredibly well, we will have a better way of persuading people to be careful and not excessive. I welcome the Government’s excellent 10-year NHS plan, which was announced last Thursday. All of us in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should be encouraged by the Government and Minister’s commitment to it.

It is estimated that nearly 40% of cancer cases in the United Kingdom are currently preventable, caused by known, modifiable risk factors such as the food we eat and what we drink. I am a diabetic, and that is because of my own circumstances—I would not recommend Chinese and two bottles of Coke five nights a week, and lots of stress. It does not work. Unfortunately, I did not have the wherewithal to understand that it was the wrong thing to do. It caught up with me when I was 17 stone and heading for type 2 diabetes, as a doctor told me. The point is that I did not know, but I should have known, because the symptoms were there.

It is the same for the symptoms of cancer. There is convincing evidence that being overweight, obesity, processed meat consumption and drinking alcohol are associated with increased cancer risk. Suggestions have been made that being overweight and obesity—this is really worrying—could overtake smoking as the greatest cause of preventable cancers in women in the United Kingdom by 2043. Some of the stats are incredibly shocking.

Cancer research has highlighted that there are many ways that alcohol can cause cancer, such as through damage to cells and changes to hormones. Alcohol can increase the levels of some hormones in our bodies such as oestrogen and insulin. All alcohol has an effect, even a small amount. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre is right that it is better if we do not drink it. By the way, I am not telling anybody what to do, to make that clear, but it is about advice.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

My hon. Friend is talking about an educational approach and trying to advise rather than force people; does he agree that the younger we start doing that, the better? Although they are not exclusively the target audience, we need to focus on teenagers and those in their early 20s, because lifestyle choices are made when we are very young.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those are, by and large, the factors that will indicate where someone goes in adult life and further afield. It is important to do that at an early stage, whether at school or in young adulthood.

Hormones are chemical messengers, and high levels of oestrogen and insulin can make cells divide more often. That increases the chance that cancer will develop. Alcohol can make it easier for cells in the mouth and throat to absorb harmful chemicals that cause damage. There are signs that alcohol can exacerbate the chances of different types of cancer such as breast cancer and bowel cancer—two of the most common types—and mouth cancer. It can also increase the chance of some types of throat cancer, including cancer of the oesophagus, or the food pipe; cancer of the larynx, or the voice box; cancer of the pharynx, or the upper throat; and liver cancer. All those are potential issues.

Cancer Focus Northern Ireland has highlighted on its website the fact that the consumption of any amount of alcohol increases the risk of developing cancer, as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre said. Cancer Focus Northern Ireland also says that the more alcohol a person drinks, the higher the risk of their developing cancer. Reducing consumption or, even better, avoiding alcohol completely will help to reduce the risk. Cancer Focus Northern Ireland also highlights the fact that drinking and smoking together multiplies the risk of developing certain cancers.

It is essential that we get the message across that just as we need to modulate our eating habits, we need to consider alcohol not simply from an addiction point of view but knowing that the links to cancer are clear. As with all things, it is important to educate young people, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) said. We need to give them the understanding that alcohol intake is linked to overall health. This is a cross-departmental undertaking, with the Department for Education having a role to play alongside the Department of Health and Social Care. Perhaps the Minister could give us some ideas about how those two Departments could work better together to ensure that young people have a healthy approach to alcohol and less of a binge mentality.

British women are the biggest female binge drinkers in the world. That is what the stats say. More than a quarter of British women consume more than six drinks at least once a month, according to a 2023 report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which compared alcohol consumption across 33 countries. Although the proportion is much higher for men, at 45%, the proportion for British women is still unmatched among female populations anywhere else in Europe. So we have a big job to do in encouraging a healthy attitude to alcohol. We must ensure that the messaging shows that it is an issue of long-term health, as well as one of short-term sobriety.

To conclude, people must be free to enjoy their lives and have a taste of things in moderation, but the health of the nation depends on a healthier approach to alcohol. The statistics outlined in this debate, by others before me and by those who will follow, show that this is a matter of urgency. As always, I very much look forward to the Minister outlining how the Government can—with us MPs, on behalf of our constituents—change the approach to the health of this great nation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Down’s Syndrome Regression Disorder

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for raising the issue, and for how she participates in all debates—with obvious knowledge, compassion and understanding. We thank her for that. Having this debate enables us to contribute.

I am going to give an example of a constituent in Newtownards who went through Down’s syndrome regression and describe the impact that that is having on mum, dad and child. The condition is not always understood—it is only understood by those it directly affects. Down’s syndrome regression disorder is a condition in which individuals with Down’s syndrome experience a sudden loss of previously acquired skills and abilities. I am going to explain that in relation to the couple in Newtownards and their child—she is a young lady now, to be fair. The condition may involve a change in eating patterns, such as not wanting to eat, and extreme slowness and low energy, which may or may not be associated with weight loss. These are things that their child never had before, but all of a sudden they do. There can be enhanced insomnia, obsessive-compulsive behaviours, a loss of independence in activities or a need for significant assistance with activities. Problematically, the person may also be aggressive, not because they are aggressive, but because their frustration sometimes leads to that. They may display anger or frustration, with or without behavioural outbursts. Those are all things that happened.

When I think about this condition, I think of a family I helped last year with their daughter’s disability living allowance renewal. They are in their late 70s and care for their daughter, who has Down’s syndrome. She walks the floors, night and day, in pain. She is in her 50s, and her joints are reacting to the continued walking. Because she is in pain, she has begun to lash out, not because that is her nature—that was never her nature. Her mum and dad have lovingly cared for her for more than 50 years, but their age and the regression mean that they cannot do so in the way that they did. They find it more difficult.

This week, I had the awful news that the father has been diagnosed with cancer. The question for the family is this: how will they cope without their dad? I helped them with the DLA renewal—I understood the issues and tried to put them across as best I could—but I often wonder why someone has to have a DLA or personal independence payment renewal for Down’s syndrome. It is almost inconceivable to me that it happens. But the question is not just about that. What happens while the dad, nearing 80, is battling cancer? What happens if he passes on from this world? Those are questions not simply for that family in Newtownards, but for families throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland who are ageing and wondering what the next step will be for their adult vulnerable child—an adult in so many ways, but also a child in others.

The underlying need for that family, and for so many others like theirs, is support. They do not know how to handle their child who has stopped responding to them, and feel alone with the changes. As a society, we have rightly moved away from institutionalising Down’s syndrome children. But, with great respect, I believe we have also abdicated our responsibility towards adults with Down’s syndrome and their families—and that needs to change.

In Northern Ireland, the incidence of Down’s syndrome is one in 770 births. That shows the level of support needed for families, and for us back home. My gut feeling is that the numbers are probably the same over here on the mainland. It is not acceptable to throw PIP at a family and walk away. They need respite care for weeks, maybe longer, and day support classes to give their child routine and something to live for.

I am involved with an organisation called East Coast Day Opportunities. It is run by two ladies, Janine Patton and Llewellyn McClurg, in Portavogie in the Ards peninsula where I live. They worked for 20 years at the Tor Bank special school and were touched by the fact that after their education ended at the age of 18, vulnerable adults were left at home all day, so they fought for a form of funding. I know it is not the Minister’s responsibility—it is not about that—but they are still fighting to ensure that individual young people receive their funding. There should be no battle. Dedicated support should be available to enable families to keep their child at home with them. I think in particular of that family in Newtownards who are under such pressure.

In conclusion, support and succour are needed, and that is what we look to the Minister to provide. Regression must not necessarily mean the end of home care. The only way around this is to acknowledge that we have a hard obligation that we must do better in fulfilling.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

NHS 10-Year Plan

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

As soon as my hon. Friend got to his feet, I knew exactly where the question was going. I was delighted to spend time campaigning for him in his constituency, and I know that the focus on neighbourhood health will be particularly welcome to people living in rural communities just like his. I would be delighted to meet with him to discuss his proposal, not least because he will hound me relentlessly if I say anything other than yes.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In a week that has been quite difficult, it is a real joy to have some good news in the Chamber in the 10-year plan. I thank the Secretary of State very much for that statement and for the positive fashion in which it was delivered. He says that it will deliver a health plan for all, but I have a quick question in relation to care in the community. Patients are taking up beds in hospitals who cannot get home, because the care in the community is not there. There are those who want to go to their homes, but the staff are not there to look after them. As the Secretary of State will know, I always try to do things in a positive fashion. When it comes to finding and training people, will he consider training through schools and colleges for specific roles in care in the community and encourage pupils from a young age to see those as careers that they wish to be part of? I know the Secretary of State will do this, but will he share all that good news with the Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly?

[Wes Streeting]

I can absolutely give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We will ensure that we are delivering that intermediate care in the community through not just the NHS, but our partners in social care. I have a really good relationship with Mike Nesbitt, my counterpart in Northern Ireland, so I am happy to share our learnings there. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to emphasise the importance of ensuring that it is not just the sons and daughters of doctors, but more working-class people from backgrounds such as mine who get to go into medicine. That is exactly what this plan will deliver.

Infant Feeding

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. I was so pleased to hear the statement in the House earlier today. I know that she has been a tireless advocate for making sure that parental leave for all parents is improved dramatically. I thank her for her advocacy in that area.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady; I spoke to her before the debate. In the last Parliament, one of the Scots Nats MPs was chair of the APPG. I was supportive of that as a man, as I thought that was important. My wife was an example of where breastfeeding is so important. Is the hon. Lady aware that Northern Ireland had the top score—69.5 out of 100—among UK nations? That may be because Northern Ireland has already put policies in place and is the only nation to have completed updated resources on infant feeding and HIV. Will she join me in urging the Northern Ireland health trust to share best practice with the other devolved nations and with the Minister to help encourage breastfeeding among those mothers who are able to do so?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. He is right that Northern Ireland scored the highest in the report card format on the World Breastfeeding Trends Initiative, which I will come to. In comparison, England scored a paltry less than 50, which was very much due to scoring zero on infant feeding and HIV.

Rare Cancers Bill (Money)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Money resolution
Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)]

I beg to move,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Rare Cancers Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:

(1) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and

(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for bringing forward this important Bill. The Government support it, and are committed to making a real difference for patients with rare cancers.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Just a quick one—I had hoped to speak to the Minister before she came to the Dispatch Box. In Northern Ireland, rare cancers account for a quarter of all cancer cases in both men and women. Will there be extra money set aside for Northern Ireland, where health is devolved, to deal with rare cancers? It is not just those who have rare cancers who have to deal with them; their families do, too. I ask that question of the Minister genuinely and respectfully.

[Ashley Dalton]

As the hon. Gentleman said, health is devolved. I am happy to write to him with the details of how we expect this private Member’s Bill to be implemented by the devolved Governments.

Question put and agreed to.

IVF Egg Donation: Young Women

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [R]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered IVF egg donation in young women.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate on adverts targeting young women for their eggs and attendant consequences. I know that another debate was supposed to be happening here, but unfortunately for the hon. Member who secured that debate, it was not able to take place. That was fortunate for myself and others who have come along today, so I thank the Committee for having offered this slot to us on Tuesday.

It is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. She always seems to come along to answer questions on health issues, and I thank her for that. It is also a pleasure to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), as well as others who have come along to participate.

The issue of adverts for IVF egg donation has been brought to my attention, and we have some people in the Gallery today who have enabled me to prepare this speech—as well as the questions I wish to ask the Minister —in order to highlight this issue and raise awareness. I thank hon. Members for participating in this debate, which could not be more timely, and the Minister for joining us today. I look forward to her response.

This issue is not as widely understood in this House as perhaps it ought to be. When I made representations to the Backbench Business Committee, I was asked what I was trying to achieve. I explained that, and the Committee very kindly offered me the opportunity to have this debate. This issue must be debated. Adverts in public places asking women to donate their eggs for use by others have hugely increased in recent years. They are seen at bus stops, at stalls in university student unions, in shopping centres and on social media sites. It needs to be regularised and there needs to be departmental input into how it happens. There needs to be rules on how it takes place. I hope that my speech will illustrate the clear issues and why they are so important.

All my contributions in this House start in my constituency of Strangford. My constituents have asked me to bring forward this issue, and it has been very kindly supported by others across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Adverts are not legally required to state the health risks up front, but they should be. This is despite the process for retrieving eggs from a young woman requiring her to be put through the early stages of IVF and an invasive and often painful surgical procedure to remove them. IVF is so important. I read in the paper today about the number of IVF successes, and I welcome that. This is not about stopping IVF treatment. It is not about ensuring that people cannot have babies. Nothing makes our relationships strong like having children. I always think of those who perhaps cannot and who wish they could. IVF gives them an opportunity to do that.

In 2011, the amount a young woman could be compensated for her eggs rose to £750 per cycle. Thirteen years later, in October 2024, following advice from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, it rose again, this time to £985, with additional expenses payments able to be made in some cases. That shows that there is a cost factor, and payments should be along the lines of cost.

Women as young as 18 can donate their eggs for use by others—either for IVF for older people or for surrogacy —and demand is soaring. According to the HFEA, women can undergo as many as 10 donation rounds—a huge toll on any lady’s body. Later, I will give the price at which fertility clinics sell the eggs on, so hon. Members will see the difference between that and the figure that ladies are given for a cycle of eggs.

In 2024, the Department of Health and Social Care confirmed to me in a letter that it did not undertake an impact assessment before allowing the payments to women for their eggs to rise, nor has it undertaken a long-term study on the effects of egg retrieval on women’s bodies, but I believe it must do so. Clinics do not undertake long-term follow-up checks on donors’ health. Again, I would have thought that that happens, and I am really surprised that it does not. There seems to be no accountability in the process.

Concerningly, between 2021 and 2023, the Scottish Government also targeted women with open adverts for their eggs, and four NHS health boards in Scotland continue to do so as a result of surging demand.

[Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. Is he aware that the adverts that the Scottish Government and NHS fertility centres put out do not convey the associated risks, and that some have used disingenuous language? Does he share my concern about those advertising campaigns, and does he believe that they should be immediately stopped?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady very much for that point. That is the central thrust of this important debate. There do not seem to be any controls, and donation is almost glamourised, so for those in financial need—I will talk about them shortly—it may look too good to be true. It certainly does need regulating, and I thank the hon. Lady for coming along and making that pertinent point. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response on how the Government can regulate things in a constructive, helpful and safe way.

I do not know of any other Government in the world who ask women to donate their eggs for use by others, so why are we doing it here in a way that can undermine women’s health? It does not seem to be regulated in any way, and there do not seem to be any rules. That needs to be changed.

Research from Surrogacy Concern cited HFEA data showing that between 1991 and 2000, there were 736 egg donors aged between 18 and 25. Further research has shown that between 2000 and 2022, there were at least 78 women across the UK aged just 18 who registered to donate their eggs, 283 aged 19, and 468 aged just 20. That gives an indication of the age that this starts, and I will outline some of the reasons why this can have an impact later down the line.

Between 2000 and 2022, the HFEA registered 5,158 new donors across the UK aged 18 to 25 for egg donation. I say all those things because I believe that this is such an important issue, and that we are on the cusp of uncovering a major public scandal in the way egg donation is advertised.

The issue gets worse when we look at the socioeconomic background of the donors. In 2024, the Government confirmed to me that between 2011 and 2020, 4,147 donors came from the three most deprived deciles of the index of multiple deprivation. In stark contrast, there were 3,007 donors from the least deprived deciles. Again, as I will explain, those who may feel pressurised may see donation as a method of income without understanding all the potential side effects. Between 1991 and 2022, 23,522 new British egg donors were registered across the UK by the HFEA—21,020 from England, 1,315 from Scotland, 954 from Wales and 245 from Northern Ireland. In 2022 alone, 1,645 new British donors were registered in the UK.

Campaigners are concerned about the developing societal entitlement to women’s eggs, and that eggs are becoming a tradable commodity. They should not be, but that is the perception—indeed, that is the reality. Eggs for donation need to be of high quality, so only women aged 18 to 35 are targeted by fertility clinics. I believe that a power imbalance is developing between young and old, between poor and rich, and, in many cases, between female and male. The majority of egg donors are also not mothers, raising concerns about the psychological impact of a woman’s own genetic offspring being raised by others, which may only be realised years after donation. There is also a concerning development whereby young women’s bodies seem to be commodified resources to be assessed for the benefit of others. That concerns me greatly.

One London egg centre has an online catalogue—my goodness me—where donors can be searched for by their ethnic background, their hair colour, the colour of their eyes, their height, their skin tone and their educational attainment, raising further concerns about the development of designer babies. In other words, people think, “We’ll pick through this catalogue, and we’ll see which one we’d like to have.” It should never be that way.

Despite women supposedly not being paid for their eggs, donors have reported receiving payment, which the industry terms “compensation”. Originally £750 but now £985, it is paid into their bank accounts directly after egg retrieval, with no expenses claims or receipts needed to be submitted to the clinic. There are no rules. There are no guidelines. There is nothing to follow. Meanwhile, campaigners have seen plenty of examples of payments quoted up front and adverts directly incentivising young women to undergo the procedure for money, raising the likelihood of exploitation; the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) made that point very clearly. There is a significant risk to low-income, working-class women and to students. It also stands in stark contrast to expenses payments for British kidney donors, which must be strictly itemised with receipts provided. If that is the way to do it for kidney donors, it is the way to do it for egg donors.

The HFEA claims that egg donors largely state they are undergoing the procedure for altruistic reasons, but we must acknowledge the risk that some young women’s desire to help others, often at a cost to themselves, is being used against them. Eggs are sold in packages for thousands of pounds by egg banks and fertility clinics. The London Egg Bank offers six frozen eggs for sale at £5,500, and the Manchester Fertility clinic offers a package of eight frozen eggs starting from £11,000. That £985 against those prices gives an indication of where the real money is. The majority of British fertility clinics are now owned by private equity firms—again, there is little or no regulation, no rules and no safety measures. Something needs to be in place.

The process of egg donation is gruelling, which is sometimes overlooked. Women must inject hormones in a process known as downregulation, which switches off the pituitary gland in order to stop the ovaries working temporarily and allow the lady’s cycle, in its totality, to be controlled by the clinic. In cases of fresh egg donation to another woman, the donor’s cycle is synchronised with that of the recipient.

The donor then takes follicle-stimulating hormones to overstimulate the ovaries into producing an artificially high number of eggs at the same time. The clinic wants extra eggs, wants the donation to be larger than the lady would normally produce, and the woman then injects human chorionic gonadotropin, or HCG, which helps eggs to mature, ready for retrieval. This maturation mimics the natural process that normally triggers ovulation.

Finally, eggs are collected from the woman using a needle that punctures the vaginal wall and perforates the ovary, gathering fluid from each follicle—the fluid containing the eggs. Donors in the UK have reported that dozens of eggs, and often even more, have been retrieved in just one donation round. One British donor reported 42 eggs being retrieved in one cycle; another reported 46 eggs being retrieved in the next cycle. That stands in stark contrast to the one egg a month that the female body naturally ovulates. I hope that those who are here today will understand that if a lady’s natural ovulation rate is one egg a month, but 42 or 46 eggs are produced and farmed, that is very much going against what the body does naturally, which has a detrimental effect on some people.

Nobody fails to have sympathy for those who struggle to have a child and who therefore embark on fertility treatment. I know quite a number of ladies who have embarked on such treatment, and their joy at having their wee baby is something that words cannot describe. The look of happiness on the faces of the mum and dad is great, as is the fact that the wee child has been born. However, the use of donor eggs has real societal consequences and potentially there can be a very negative long-term physical and psychological impact on young women who donate their eggs.

We must rebalance this conversation to take into account the impact on the young women who undergo these procedures. We need to have regulation; we need to have rules in place. The process needs to be controlled, rather than the matter just being seen from the point of view of those who want access to donor eggs.

We know from the experience of women who underwent forced adoption in mother and baby homes in the 20th century that often it takes years for women to come forward and report harm done to them in the past. Some donors have reported needing hysterectomies as a result of the damage they sustained during egg retrieval. Other donors have said that when they discovered they had genetic diseases, the clinics refused to take further action and put the onus back on the donor themselves to report to the HFEA. Those checks should have been done before donation, not afterwards.

Similarly, donors are not required to undergo enhanced carrier screening, leading to a risk that some genetic diseases might be unknowingly passed on in the donor eggs and ultimately on to the wee baby who will be born. Another donor has reported donating eggs in her early 20s, only to find when she tried to start her own family in her early 30s that she was unable to do so. Other donors report endometriosis and adenomyosis developing after donation. Quite simply, the long-term risks to women’s health from egg donation are unknown and largely unstudied. Today, I am hopefully outlining where the problems are, why regulation is needed and why I believe that the Government need to step in.

Women who have undergone egg retrieval for their own IVF have reported complications and side effects, including sepsis, abscesses, perforated bowels, severe pain during or after retrieval, and even slipping into a coma as a result of developing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.

All this risk is borne by young people so that older people can purchase eggs from fertility clinics and egg banks. According to the HFEA, between 1991 and 2022 —some 31 years—44,760 IVF cycles involving donor eggs were made for people aged 40 or over.

Young donors are at higher risk of ovarian hyper- stimulation syndrome because of the higher number of eggs that they have compared with older women. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has said that as many as 30% of women aged under 30 who undergo egg retrieval may develop ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Complications arising from OHSS can kill. That is why there needs to be regulation and consideration of safety as part of the process.

Two women died in England from such complications in 2005-06. In 2023 there were 53 severe or critical cases of OHSS reported to the HFEA. Yet nowhere in the adverts, online or anywhere else are the risks stated, and they should be. Those donating eggs should be aware of the risks. Donors have reported that clinics mention the risks and likely side effects only briefly and not in depth. They should be stated in depth, but they are not. Counselling for donors is offered, but is not mandatory.

We must look at international comparators. I always like to see what has been happening elsewhere. In Germany there is no egg donation at all. German legislation specifically prohibits the “splintering”—that is the word used—of motherhood that egg donation and surrogacy create. In Italy, donors cannot be compensated at all so that women are not incentivised to undergo the procedure because of financial need.

We must also consider the donor-conceived child. Egg and sperm donations are not meant to create more than 10 families. How many times have I read in the press about men who have fathered, through their sperm, perhaps as many as 100-plus children in the United Kingdom and across the world? One day a young boy and girl could meet, marry, and actually be brother and sister. There needs to be a limit, which is 10, but it is clear that some clinics do not have the control that perhaps they should have.

As gamete donation and use rapidly increases, the likelihood of genetic half-siblings across multiple households, often in close geographical proximity to one another, increases. That is what I fear no controls means. Although British clinics must ensure that donor identities can be revealed to children at 18 years of age, many people resident in the UK still travel abroad for IVF, including to jurisdictions where anonymous gametes and sex selection of embryos are legal. That means hundreds, if not thousands, of children are growing up in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland unable ever to trace their genetic parents.

The evidence is strong enough to call on the Government to raise the minimum age for egg donors to 25, because of the effect it has on those under that age who donate eggs. Secondly, we should ban adverts asking for women to donate eggs—the very thing that the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith referred to and which we are all very aware of. Advertising for surrogate mothers is already banned, so why not ban adverts asking for women to donate eggs? Thirdly, we should end payments to donors to ensure they are not donating because of financial need. In other words, their financial circumstances could put them in a quandary when it comes to doing what they are doing. At a minimum, adverts must state the health risks up front and the minimum donor age must rise. I sincerely hope that the Minister will take the issue back to the Department and that the Government will act quickly to protect and prioritise young women and their health.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate on egg donation in young women. He raises a number of important points, which the Government take seriously. I absolutely assure him that there are rules and regulations around egg donation in this country. Hon. Members in this debate have talked about the potential concerns of the long-term impact of egg retrieval, and the potential incentive of the compensation offered for egg donation, particularly for young women on low incomes. I hope to address those points in my remarks.

For people who are struggling to conceive, which may be for a variety of reasons, receiving donor eggs can be life-changing—as we have heard in this debate—and enable them to start a family of their own. Donating eggs should be a purely altruistic act, and choosing to become a donor is a complex decision. In the UK, the average egg donor is between 31 and 32 years of age. That average has remained stable since records began in 1991. Egg donors are typically UK-based, with around 3% of donor eggs imported from abroad. There were around 3,800 IVF cycles using donor eggs in 2023, which is an increase from around 3,600 in 2019. Those donors support around 2,000 to 3,000 people a year who would otherwise not be able to have a baby. I recognise their generosity, although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon) said, we also recognise that egg donation procedures come with risks, and they should not be undertaken lightly.

The HFEA ensures that licensed fertility clinics are following law and guidance in relation to egg donation. The Government agree with the point made in this debate that young women should be fully informed of any risks when making the decision to donate their eggs, and that clinics must ensure that women are fully informed and supported throughout the egg donation process. It is mandatory for clinics to provide counselling to women before egg donation to ensure that they understand all the potential risks, and legal and social implications, of donation. Donating eggs is generally very safe, and most women do not experience any health problems beyond discomfort during the stimulation of the ovaries and the egg collection procedure.

I do not want to minimise that experience of discomfort, but where women wish to donate eggs, the HFEA and the Government are committed to making it as safe and accessible as possible. In the short term, there is a potential risk of having a reaction to the fertility drugs used for the donation procedure. If that happens, the effects are normally mild, and can include headaches, nausea or feeling bloated. Donors are advised to let their clinic know if they experience any of those side effects.

In some very rare cases, as we have heard, women develop OHSS. It is a serious and potentially fatal reaction to fertility drugs, which happens about a week after eggs have been collected. Fortunately, it is rare, occurring in less than 0.1% of cycles. Because of the serious nature of OHSS, all severe or critical cases must be reported to the HFEA within 24 hours by the patient’s clinic. They are categorised by the HFEA as grade B incidents. A grade B incident involves serious harm to one person, or moderate harm to many. The HFEA’s latest “State of the fertility sector” report found that fewer OHSS incidents were reported in 2023-24, with 53 severe and critical cases reported by UK clinics.

In recent years, there has been widespread interest in donation, and figures show that the number of egg donors is rising. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend and the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), about the importance of having conversations and asking questions about the long-term impact on women’s health, which is generally an under-researched area. The Government recognise that and would welcome studies in this area. If there is anything I can add to that following this debate, I will follow up with hon. Members on the opportunities for understanding the wider long-term implications for women’s health in this area.

At the public board meeting last year, the HFEA discussed the rates of compensation offered to egg and sperm donors. Since 1 October 2024, egg donors have received £985, which is up from £750. That increase in donor compensation was the first since 2011, and reflects the rise in inflation. The compensation offered to them is intended to reflect their time and the nature of the procedure, rather than being an attempt to monetise donation in the UK.

I want to address some of the points raised by Members to do with the variability of access to fertility services more broadly. Infertility affects one in six women of reproductive age worldwide. It is a serious condition that impacts wider family, relationships and mental health, as we heard from the Liberal Democrat spokes- person, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller). I congratulate her friends, Lottie and Marvin, on the arrival of their child.

This Government expect integrated care boards to commission fertility services in line with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. NICE is currently reviewing the fertility guidelines, and will consider whether the current recommendations for access to NHS-funded treatment are still appropriate. I look forward to the guidelines being published; we will work with integrated care boards to determine how best to improve their local offer and ensure equity of access for affected couples.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for her very comprehensive review. I have three quick questions. First, will the Government commit to undertaking a long-term study into the long-term health outcomes of women? That is one of the things I hope to see happen when it comes to egg retrieval. Secondly, will the Government review the safety of offering £985 per donation, which is sometimes said to be compensation? Thirdly—I hope I am not pressing the Minister too hard; I am quite happy for her to come back to us on this—everyone who has participated in the debate has expressed concern about the adverts, so we are keen to hear her thoughts on banning those.

[Karin Smyth]

I have addressed the issue of compensation. It rose in response to inflation, for the first time since 2011. We have no further plans to start a study specifically on health. As I said in my remarks to others, we understand that broader outcomes in women’s health is an under-researched area. Bringing forward trials is the usual response. If we need to add anything else to that, I will make sure we do so, but there are no other plans currently.

Advertising is governed in this country by the Advertising Standards Authority, which issued a joint enforcement notice in 2021 with the HFEA to ensure that fertility clinics and others were aware of the advertising rules and treating customers fairly. I am afraid I cannot comment on Scotland, where I understand there has been a large advertising campaign. That is not in my ken, although it is covered by the HFEA, which is a UK-wide body, so that is a bit of a complication. If there is anything to report back on with regard to Scotland, without me stepping on devolved issues, I will make sure we do so.

I again thank hon. Members for securing the debate and acknowledging the altruism of the women who choose to donate their eggs and help to give others a much longed-for baby. I assure Members that this Government will monitor the issues raised this afternoon. Women’s health and tackling inequalities are central to the priorities that we will take forward in the 10-year plan.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank all Members for their contributions to the debate. The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) referred in an intervention to the advertising issue, which is really important. She talked about Scotland, as I did, but there is also advertising elsewhere that needs to be controlled.

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon) and I had a discussion at some length before the debate today, and the very things that she wants to see, we all wish to see. We all recognise that IVF gives potential mothers the opportunity to have a child; the joy that can bring can never be emphasised enough. However, we must ensure that all the risks involved are known beforehand. She referred in particular to ovarian cancer and egg donation.

The hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) referred to the issue of compensation. When ladies give eggs as a donation, their reasons for doing so are above board. Whenever eggs are donated for compensation, which is the word that is used, unfortunately it can lead to other things as well.

I also thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for her contribution and for the example she gave, which showed the joy that having a child can bring. She referred to those who donate eggs willingly, without any financial obligations. She also talked about surrogacy, which is a different issue.

I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), for her contribution. She brings a wealth of knowledge, through her doctorship. I also thank her for outlining all the cases that she did. She gave the example of one of her constituents, which perhaps highlighted what the issues are.

As always, I thank the Minister for taking the time to come along. My request to her is this: whenever we have a chance to look over this debate and check the Hansard report, we might have further questions, so would she be agreeable to coming back to us if we do?

It is very obvious to me that the Government recognise that there are issues that are outstanding and that must be resolved. With that in mind, I again thank all hon. Members, particularly the Minister, for their contributions, and I also thank those in the Public Gallery, who have come along to listen to our contributions today.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered IVF egg donation in young women.

Haemochromatosis Screening

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

I ought to begin with an explanation of what is a very long word. Put simply, haemochromatosis is too much iron in the blood—haemo, blood; chroma, iron; and tosis, too much of it. To save time and the good offices of Hansard, I will refer to it occasionally as HCT in this debate. It is an inherited genetic condition, a disorder often known as the Celtic curse, because it is particularly prevalent in Celtic bloodlines and is common in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I think it is more probably a Viking phenomenon—an old genetic response to times of famine that we carry into modern times.

Untreated haemochromatosis can lead to several common conditions that we might describe as Scottish diseases of ill health: cirrhosis of the liver, heart disease, arthritis and so on. Once spotted, HCT is easily treated by venesection—another long word—which simply means bloodletting. About 450 ml of blood is taken off the patient at each session to chase down the iron levels in the body to normal levels. Generally haemochromatosis is asymptomatic, and without a test to measure for ferritin levels, it can be easily missed.

I have a bit of knowledge of the bloodletting side of the business, because for the past 17 years, I have been attending the Knutsford ward at the Royal London hospital on a regular basis for venesection. I am grateful to the staff there for the incredible treatment they have given me, including consultants such as Richard Marley. I am also grateful to my younger brother, Donald, who was tested and found he carried the gene in 2008.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman—I am not going to pronounce his constituency, as I would get that all wrong with my Ulster-Scots—for bringing this debate forward. He and I spoke last night about HCT and its prevalence. He is right that it is called the Celtic curse. Some might say that maybe I am a curse on some people. I am sure nobody would come to that conclusion. However, one in 10 people have this disorder, which features strongly among the Northern Irish, the Scots, the Welsh and even Cornish communities —all the Gaelic cousins and people. However, even with that prevalence, screening does not naturally take place and quality of life is impacted for years before someone even goes to their GP. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is unnecessary to live with something that can be easily treated?

[Torcuil Crichton]

The hon. Gentleman’s interventions are always a blessing, never a curse. I have some information of particular interest to his part of the world later in my speech.

I have declared my interest, as I have haemochromatosis, but it is not just my experience, but that of my constituents and the make-up of my constituency in Na h-Eileanan an Iar that have spurred me to secure this debate. It is not all about me.

A groundbreaking DNA study headed by Professor Jim Flett Wilson of Edinburgh University discovered that the Western Isles are a hotspot for haemochromatosis, this genetic mutation that the body at some stage adopted for survival. People are at risk of developing the condition if both their parents have the faulty gene and they inherit one copy from each of them. They will not get haemochromatosis if only one of their parents carries the gene and they only get one copy, but there is a chance they could pass the gene on to their children. If people inherit two copies—that is, both their parents are carriers—they will not necessarily get haemochromatosis. About half of people with two copies of the faulty gene develop the condition, and it is not known exactly why.

What is known is that the Viking genes DNA study by Professor Jim Flett Wilson took DNA samples from islanders in Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles, and it threw up some amazing discoveries. People wanted to find out if they had Viking heritage, and many sent in swab samples and filled in the questionnaires in sufficient numbers for the scientists to crunch the numbers. I did not do that myself. Feeling Viking by name and by nature, I did not think it necessary.

Analysis of the data, and cross-examination with other gene studies, showed that in Orkney and Shetland, participants in the study had rare and unique cancer genes, which led to them being alerted to their condition. The study saved lives and is credited with doing so. The good news for the Western Isles—for Na h-Eileanan an Iar—is that no rare cancer genes were found. While the results are still being finalised, it is clear that the Western Isles are a hotspot for haemochromatosis and inherited high cholesterol, which can lead to heart disease.

According to Professor Flett Wilson, the numbers in the Western Isles are sufficiently high to justify population-wide screening. For instance, one in 212 people in the south and east of England carry two copies of the faulty gene, as opposed to one in 62 in the Outer Hebrides.

[Torcuil Crichton]

I do indeed agree. Haemochromatosis, although widespread, was not widely known about until very recently, but genetic testing, as well as simple ferritin level tests, will inform many more people. Early intervention is vital to preventing people from developing crippling illnesses which might otherwise be wrongly ascribed to a condition other than haemochromatosis.

It is not just people such as my hon. Friend’s constituent who are affected. In Northern Ireland—or the north of Ireland, depending on how we view our maps—the situation is even more stark than it is in the Western Isles. Among the population of “Ulster Scots”, if I can call them that, there is a one in 123 occurrence of two faulty copies of the gene, which is similar to the incidence in mainland Scotland. The Catholic community in the north-west of Ireland have the highest concentration in the British Isles: one in 54 carry two faulty copies. On the basis of Professor Flett Wilson’s work, we can predict that one in 94 men in the Western Isles will develop HCT, and one in 80 men of north-west Irish ancestry—and the Irish diaspora is present in constituencies in Scotland, in London and across the United Kingdom—may have the condition, perhaps undetected and perhaps mis-diagnosed, and are possibly suffering from the long list of illnesses associated with an iron overload.

In Orkney and Shetland, analysis of the Viking genes study uncovered rare cancers and lives were saved. In my constituency, people who were found to have the HCT gene have been alerted by letter. The figures for the Western Isles do not include people who did not take part in the study, but they constitute a timely warning about the advisability of screening, a procedure that is not expensive. In the Hebrides, it looks as though we should act on the spike in iron overload. Professor Flett Wilson has recommended islands-wide screening for this common blood condition, but I want to go further: I think that everyone in the Western Isles, or Na h-Eileanan an Iar, should be screened for too much iron in their blood, but I think they should also be offered DNA tests across the board to show what other inherited conditions they might have.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Torcuil Crichton]

I will.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Briefly, Mr Shannon.

[Jim Shannon]

I will be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am descended from the Stewarts of the lowlands of Scotland, and I am probably the hon. Gentleman’s Gaelic cousin. This screening needs to be carried out in Northern Ireland as well as Scotland.

[Torcuil Crichton]

I do not disagree with that. Screening would be revolutionary. It would save money for the NHS in the short term and the long term, and, more important, it would save lives and put us two decades ahead of the rest of the world in preventive medicine. It would be transformative for my constituency. It would be radical, but only as radical as plans to offer every baby in the UK whole genome sequencing within a decade, a plan backed by the Health Secretary. Genomics, like these tests, would put us on the front foot in preventive medicine, as the Minister well knows. Of course it would cost money—£650 million is earmarked for the boost to genomics by the Department of Health and Social Care—but a smaller and more defined pilot scheme to lead the way in preventive medicine is to hand with the samples of high levels of HCT in the Western Isles. Given the given the cost per head of screening, it is logical that starting in the places with the highest rate of faulty genes would be the most cost-effective option.

Initially at least, the Bill ought not to go to the national health service. The bill for gene testing in the Western Isles should be part of the community payback for the large-scale wind farm developments that are planned for the islands. There are already negotiations for community benefits, community funds and community shares in the many planned wind farm developments in rural Scotland. The renewables revolution is about saving the planet, but right now the consumer offer is simply to reduce bills. By properly harnessing the wealth of wind, we can not only make communities better off but transform the life chances and health chances of people and their children.

The Viking genes results are not limited to haemochromatosis; they also showed high levels of hypercholesterolaemia in the Western Isles. That is simply inherited high cholesterol —a gene fault—that leaves many islanders, and many of my constituents, with high cholesterol and many with heart conditions, which again could be avoided with predictive medicine and early lifestyle and diet changes.

GP Funding: South-west England

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Martin Wrigley]

Practice managers tell me that that has already happened and they are less funded now than they were last year.

On the changing numbers, each GP was supporting 1,800 patients in 2019 and is supporting 2,400 today, but safe care is often estimated to be closer to 1,400 per GP. So we are overloading GPs with patients. Practices make heroic use of pharmacists, physios and nurse practitioners, but the arithmetic does not add up. Meanwhile, the other part of their funding, the quality and outcomes framework scheme, has faced changes that have negatively impacted primary care. This meant that, nationally, £298 million was redistributed from the QOF into the global sum—we can see how bizarre this funding set-up gets; the names are just weird—and into cardiovascular disease prevention funding. Another £100 million of funding was repurposed but does not put extra capacity into the system. Rather than providing new money to support GPs, this felt to practice managers that the Government had been rearranging the deckchairs.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He is right to address this issue—I spoke to him just before his introduction. We have great difficulty across all this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland when it comes to securing GPs for practices. In recent years, I have been trying to ensure, with the health service, that action can be taken regarding the student loans of young medical students, if they give a commitment to remain in a GP practice for a set period of, say, five years. That would enable more GPs to stay in the system. Does he feel that that is something the Minister and the Government should take on board?

[Martin Wrigley]

All those things help, along with things like bringing back nurses’ bursaries. On rearranging the deckchairs, it is no wonder that practice managers described this year’s settlement as unfunded, unsustainable and unsafe.