Major Trauma Centres: Helipads

Debate between Jim Shannon and Tessa Munt

Thursday 29th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is right to underline that issue. I understand that he has a very dispersed community, and an air ambulance in that location can shorten journey times—I will mention this in my speech in relation to an issue back home. A journey that maybe takes an hour and a half by road can be done in 15 minutes in an air ambulance. That 15 minutes can save lives. An hour and a half in an ambulance fighting to save the person in the back sometimes just does not work.

I thank the Members who are here to support this debate. I also thank the all-party parliamentary group for air ambulances for bringing this important issue to Parliament in the past, and I am happy we can have this debate today for them. I acknowledge the work of Air Ambulances UK, which provides the APPG’s secretariat, the HELP Appeal and the University of Liverpool’s flight science and technology group in developing the evidence underpinning this work, alongside the UK’s 21 air ambulance charities and the wider group of stakeholders who have contributed their expertise and support. I also thank Air Ambulance Northern Ireland for what it does. I can vouch for the air ambulances and the lives that they have saved. As I will explain later, I know people who live today because of AANI and the quick response of staff.

When someone is critically ill or seriously injured and needs specialist hospital care, can we be confident that the receiving hospital has the facilities they need that will be available when required? The same question applies during a major incident, as we have seen on several occasions this summer in my constituency and across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, when hospitals needed to respond to a sudden surge in demand. For too many hospitals, that cannot be taken for granted.

Air ambulances across the UK play a vital role alongside the NHS in bringing specialist clinical teams to patients and helping transport them to the hospitals that are best equipped to treat them. That relates to an ask I have of the Minster, and I have shared that ask with other Members of the same mind. Across the United Kingdom, air ambulance charities attend an average 137 missions each day. For 365 days of the year, that is what they do. An estimated 23,248 helicopter missions take place annually, at an average cost of £4,748 per mission. That gives us an idea of the work they do, but there is also a cost factor, which is an important part of the debate. Those 137 missions, 365 days a year, represent around £110 million in annual costs.

Behind those figures are patients, families, clinicians and crews working in extremely difficult circumstances, but it is also important to recognise how these services are funded, and that is part of this debate. The UK’s 21 air ambulance charities operate independently of the NHS and receive no day-to-day Government funding, but the people of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are incredibly generous. The charities rely on some £200 million in public donations each year to provide lifesaving pre-hospital care.

Despite that fact, public understanding of the independence of air ambulance charities remains limited. Research done in 2025 by Air Ambulances UK found that 53% of the public did not know that these charities operate independently of the NHS. However, they still depend on reliable NHS infrastructure, including hospital helipads, to transfer patients to the care they need. Their ability to deliver a consistent service is therefore affected by NHS infrastructure and operational arrangements beyond their direct control.

This is the thrust of the debate: when a helipad is unavailable, has restricted operating hours or cannot operate safely, additional challenges can arise in getting patients to the right place at the right time for treatment to save their lives. In some cases, staffing arrangements or restrictions outside normal operating hours can limit access even when a helipad already exists. This is an urgent and emergency care issue that requires co-ordinated leadership from the Government and the NHS.

I want to be clear that this is not a call for every hospital to have a 24/7 on-site helipad. I recognise that in Northern Ireland. I was asked by one of the officials whether we want a helipad in every hospital. No, we do not, but we want one at the Royal Victoria hospital in Belfast because that is the No.1 accident and emergency hospital. It has the surgeons, doctors and care available, and from a regional point of view, that is what I am after. Decisions must reflect clinical evidence and operational requirements. We need national leadership and a consistent policy framework to support safe, reliable, 24/7 on-site hospital helipad access whenever there is a clear clinical and operational need, which must be informed by evidence.

I will focus on three practical areas: a national policy and implementation framework, or road map, to address inconsistent provision and establish a data-led approach to safe, reliable, 24/7 on-site access; clearer NHS standards and stronger planning safeguards; and a national emergency hospital helipad infrastructure contingency fund to support urgent infrastructure needs that cannot be met through charitable funding alone.

The APPG for air ambulances has launched a report, and I have no doubt that the Minister has had a chance to look at its recommendations. I commend the APPG members, some of whom are present, for what they have done in outlining the case for safeguarded, 24/7 on-site hospital helipads at major trauma centres and specialist hospitals.

Some hospitals need infrastructure improvements, and hon. Members will speak to that. Others face restrictions in operating hours, while some require further assessment of their clinical and operational needs. Although solutions may differ for the helipads in each hospital, they should be considered within a consistent national framework. One thing we hope to come from this debate is a national framework within the NHS 10-year plan, which I very much welcome—indeed, everyone in the Chamber does. Although the report provides an initial assessment of major trauma centres and specialist hospitals, the need for a national approach extends well beyond those sites.

Air Ambulances UK’s assessment of 47 major hospital sites, updated on 10 September 2026—about six weeks ago —illustrates the scale of the issue. Six sites, or 13%, require priority action, while 16 sites, or 34%, require further action or monitoring, and 25 sites, or 53%, were assessed as being in a good position. That means that 22 of the 47 sites assessed were identified as requiring priority action, further action or monitoring. That is the target that we hope to achieve. The wider picture should be considered as the national policy develops. Air Ambulances UK’s 2026 public survey found that 83% of respondents supported a national policy to ensure that major hospitals can receive air ambulance patients at any time via an on-site helipad.

I will tell the story about my introduction to Air Ambulance NI and the wonderful people who work there. I live in a village called Portaferry at the bottom of the Ards peninsula, where the AANI service is the thin line between life and death. If a child in Portaferry suffers a critical trauma or a sudden, life-threatening medical emergency, a blue-light ambulance land journey to the Royal Belfast hospital for sick children takes well over an hour, done safely and in the best road conditions, with no cars in front or behind. In a paediatric emergency, when every single second dictates a child’s survival and long-term recovery, a 60-minute delay on a winding rural road is a luxury that those families simply do not have. I know some of the families in the Ards peninsula whose children’s lives have been saved by the presence and response of Air Ambulance NI. When it comes to transferring a vulnerable child to the regional trauma centre in less than 15 minutes, they can do it—an ambulance on the road cannot.

We cannot allow this lifeline to be taken for granted. Securing robust, long-term funding for the air ambulance service is not a bureaucratic policy debate or something that will divide us in this Chamber. It is a moral imperative to protect the lives of our children in the most rural corners of Strangford. It is not just somebody being injured on a farm or having a road traffic accident; that can happen, but it could be a boating accident where the air ambulance comes to the rescue. Some of the air ambulance team are in the Gallery, and I thank them for all their information and comments.

I will refer next to Bristol. Given Bristol royal infirmary’s role as a regional paediatric major trauma centre and a specialist children’s hospital, the case for operating its helipad 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, should be properly assessed against clinical and operational need. That is important for all of us in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Any policy must recognise the particular needs of major trauma centres and specialist hospitals while taking a broader view of the hospital helipad network across the United Kingdom.

Many other hospitals have helipads that support emergency transfers and wider patient pathways. A national policy must recognise their contribution and ensure that their operational requirements are not overlooked. The framework should provide a consistent way to assess clinical and operational need, taking account of each hospital’s role, local circumstances and the consequences of restricted access. That means identifying where clinical and operational need justifies 24/7 access and understanding the barriers that prevent it, whether that relates to infrastructure, restricted operating hours, staffing or out-of-hours arrangements. Sometimes, it can be about planning issues relating to the safety of the helicopter coming to the helipad in the hospital. That may impact on the situation.

Decisions should be based on robust data. That would allow the Government and NHS partners to prioritise action proportionately, rather than adopting a blanket requirement for every hospital. The policy should identify where new infrastructure is required, where existing facilities need improvements, where operating arrangements create barriers, and where facilities need stronger protection from surrounding development, as I was saying. In England, the NHS 10-year health plan and the medium-term planning framework of 2026-27 to 2028-29 set out ambitions to improve care, reduce delays, strengthen productivity and support more integrated services. I welcome that—it is good news, and how could anybody not welcome it? That is the sort of programme and strategy that we want, but the new hospital programme and the UK’s 10-year infrastructure strategy also provide a wider context for modernising and planning resilient infrastructure.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

Thank you for chairing this debate, Sir Alec. I benefit from Dorset and Somerset Air Ambulance and the Great Western Air Ambulance. They are both fantastic, but they have raised concerns with me about existing helipads that they may not be able to use in future. Will the Minister—I ask him through the hon. Member for Strangford— consider whether there needs to be some protection and development of the town and country planning direction 2002 so that flight paths are protected from development and infrastructure? It is not just the new hospitals that we need to be concerned about; we need to make absolutely certain that existing helipads can be accessed by the air ambulances.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady is right; that is the thrust of my contribution. I know that others will make contributions on that issue, including my colleague on my left, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire).

Helipad provision should be considered as part of delivering on wider ambitions. Reliable access could support more direct transfers to appropriate special care, help to avoid unnecessary additional road journeys and ensure that hospital infrastructure reflects clinical and operational needs. As the hon. Lady mentioned, being operational means that helicopters need a free and safe path to where the helipads are. That is particularly relevant for major trauma networks, but also for the wider network of hospitals that receive air ambulance patients and contribute to emergency care.

I am conscious that other Members want to speak, and I want to ensure they have ample time to do so. I have three asks of the Minister. Will the Government commit to working with NHS partners and Air Ambulances UK to develop a national policy and implementation roadmap for hospital helipads, using clinical and operational evidence to identify where safe, reliable, 24/7 on-site access is needed, and address the inconsistencies in provision that we unfortunately have across the United Kingdom? We all know that the purpose of this debate is to come up with solutions, so we look to the Minister to help us to achieve our collective goals.

The Bristol example demonstrates that having a helipad does not necessarily mean that patients can access it at all times. Improvement is needed. Operational arrangements must be considered alongside the physical infrastructure. Where 24/7 on-site access is clinically and operationally necessary, we should expect the practical arrangements required to deliver it, including staffing, safe operating procedures and out-of-hours availability. That would help to ensure that the presence of a helipad translates into reliable access where patients need it.

There is also a need to protect existing and planned helipads from surrounding developments that could compromise safe operations. The planning around helipads and the flight paths for helicopters is an integral part of that. The Government should work with NHS England and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to review whether current planning arrangements provide sufficient protection and whether stronger safeguards are needed. That should include considerations to change the town and country planning direction 2002. That is not the Minister’s responsibility; as so often happens, other Departments need to feed into this issue.

This is not about preventing development; it is about making sure that development can proceed in a way that does not impact unfavourably on air ambulances and helipads. It is about ensuring that planning decisions properly consider the operational requirements of hospital helipads and their role in supporting emergency care. Planning authorities and Departments should help to protect those facilities and provide greater certainty for hospitals that are planning for the future.

My second ask is: will the Government work with the NHS and MHCLG to establish clear expectations for hospital helipad provision and availability in the NHS estates standards and commissioning arrangements? That includes addressing staffing, restricted operating hours and out-of-hours barriers where 24/7 on-site access is clinically and operationally necessary, and strengthening planning safeguards to protect existing and planned helipads.

The Helicopter Emergency Landing Pads Appeal provides charitable funding for the vast majority of local hospital helipad projects and has made a vital contribution to developing and improving infrastructure. However, charitable funding cannot be expected to meet every urgent or emerging requirement. Charities should not be left to address every infrastructure gap through fundraising alone. The Government must—hopefully they will—consider establishing a national emergency hospital helipad infrastructure contingency fund, which would enable air ambulances to make the health delivered in the NHS even better. The funding could help projects that address barriers to safe, reliable, 24/7 on-site access where that access is clinically and operationally necessary. The fund should complement the HELP Appeal’s work, not replace charitable investment.

Thirdly, will the Government consider establishing a national emergency hospital helipad infrastructure contingency fund to support urgent, evidence-based infrastructure requirements, including essential upgrades or new facilities, where safe and reliable 24/7 on-site access is clinically and operationally necessary, but where charitable funding cannot meet the need? The Government do not need to start this work from scratch; the APPG has done much of the hard work already. Its report and recommendations have established an initial national picture of provision at major trauma centres and specialist hospitals, and have identified areas requiring further action. The Government’s next stage can build on that evidence and help to form a broader national approach that also considers other hospitals with helipads.

Lots of the spade work has been done. Air Ambulances UK represents and supports the UK’s 21 air ambulance charities. The HELP Appeal also brings considerable experience of supporting hospital helipad projects and understanding infrastructure funding requirements. Both should be involved alongside NHS organisations. They all want to do the same thing and have the same objective, so we should bring them all together—they are all singing from the same hymn sheet. I believe that there is an opportunity to do this collectively. They should be involved alongside the relevant Government Departments to ensure that the resulting policy is evidence-led, proportionate and capable of being implemented and monitored. The objective should be a practical framework that recognises the difference between hospitals, identifies where action is needed and ensures that the contribution of the wider hospital helipad network is not overlooked.

While major trauma centres and specialist hospitals are a clear priority, the wider network of hospitals with helipads must not be overlooked either. The UK’s 21 air ambulance charities provided lifesaving care through public donations, but their ability to transfer patients depends on NHS infrastructure, which they do not control. There is a wider emergency care issue that requires Government and NHS leadership, and we need a data-led national policy to identify where safe, reliable, 24/7 on-site access is clinically and operationally necessary. It needs to address the gaps in provision, strengthen the NHS standards and planning safeguards, and support urgent infrastructure needs where charitable funding cannot meet the need.

In conclusion, this sector has provided substantial evidence and stands ready to help. I thank the Minister for all that she does for health and the campaigns that she has led over the years, which I have been honoured to support. I urge her to work with the NHS, Air Ambulances UK and the HELP Appeal to turn this debate into a practical, sustainable policy and implementation roadmap. I look forward to hearing other Members’ speeches and the Minister’s response.

National Planning Policy Framework

Debate between Jim Shannon and Tessa Munt

Thursday 16th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tessa Munt]

I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point. I will suggest to the Minister that, if he wishes to pursue a policy of building on land that will almost certainly flood, we need to put those buildings on stilts. That is not impossible, and there is certainly one very beautiful house on the levels that sits on stilts.

Yatton, the village subject to the decision, sits within the North Somerset levels, barely 2 km from the Bristol channel. On Friday 12 June, the High Court handed down its judgment permitting the development of 190 homes in this flood-prone area, on a site that failed the flood risk sequential test. The judgment follows the NPPF exactly, as the judge had to, and prioritised building homes over protection from flooding. It imperils not only the new homes—I should explain that the judge said that homeowners threatened by flooding had sufficient time to vacate their houses before the floodwater reached them—but the homes and businesses in and around the Yatton site. The impact of flooding does not disappear just because people can get away safely. This is about property as well as people. The damage to wellbeing and mental health takes its toll on those affected, as does the damage to property, which can take months and sometimes years to remedy and replace.

I would not want the Minister to think that this is a case of nimbyism and anti-development sentiment by those in rural areas. My Lib Dem colleagues and I agree with the Government’s desire to meet the huge need for housing across the country. There are 12,800 people on the Homefinder list in Somerset, which covers 66% of my patch, and a similar proportion on the North Somerset list.

I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on flooding and flooded communities. Many of our discussions centre on the Flood Re scheme, which was a great initiative that meant insurers could cover flooding claims and the premiums for home insurance in high flood risk areas were not astronomical. The scheme comes to an end in 2039, and the Government have been very clear that it will not be extended. As set out in legislation, homes built after 2009 are not covered by the scheme. As we get closer to that 2039 date, more and more homes built in high flood risk areas are not covered by the scheme and so risk becoming uninsurable and consequently unmortgageable. The consequences for developers and those who have already bought the homes will be awful. And the Yatton decision compounds the problems with the NPPF in allowing the need for home building to override common sense.

To press the point, it is very likely that residents of new homes built on floodplains, such as those in Yatton, will face flooding damage in the coming years. Not only will they not be able to make an insurance claim, but any new buyers will likely struggle to access a mortgage. Residents may well end up trapped, unable to sell a home that might cost them thousands of pounds in repairs every winter. The Minister knows the weather experts say that what we are experiencing now is the most stable weather that we are ever going to see.

I mentioned that the current neighbours would also be affected due to the simple fact that the floodwater must go somewhere. If developers choose to build up the land on which they wish to develop, the floodwater may well not hit those homes precisely, but will cause the existing homes and businesses in the area to be flooded more greatly. I have a lovely set of photographs of the land I am speaking about, which I will send to the Minister, showing exactly how it floods every year.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for the ambition she has put forward. Does she not agree that there is a risk of severe regulatory divergence? If the English planning system undergoes massive deregulation and introduces a faster, rules-based yes by default to major projects, capital will do what it always does and flow through the path of least resistance. The Government and the Minister need to ensure that the possibility she outlines for her constituents does not happen elsewhere.

[Tessa Munt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The point I would like to make to the Minister is that, if developers choose to raise the level of the land on which they wish to build, we make a complete mockery of the Environment Agency’s work in relation to the LiDAR data that it uses to measure flood risk. There will be little pockets that are no longer in flood zone 3a, for example, but everybody else is then in a more problematic area for flooding. The current neighbours would be affected, because floodwater has to go somewhere. In the event of flooding, if the properties are lifted above sea level by raising the land, the displaced water goes straight into existing homes and businesses.

The Association of British Insurers has been clear that, while it supports the Government’s ambition to deliver 1.5 million homes, it has serious concerns about allowing developers to bypass the flood risk sequential test in areas at high risk of surface water flooding, which is precisely the kind of decision we have seen play out in Yatton. The scale of the risk to which it points is sobering.

The Environment Agency’s national assessment of flood and coastal erosion risk shows that 6.3 million homes in England are already at risk of flooding, 4.6 million of them from surface water alone. In just the first quarter of this year, insurers paid out £846 million in property claims, with the average weather-related claim reaching £6,040—the highest first quarter figure on record. Subsidence claims, often linked to the same extreme weather, rose 9% year on year to £17,820. Research commissioned by Aviva suggests that 11% of new homes built between 2022 and 2024 are already at risk of flooding, and that figure is projected to rise to one in seven by 2050, once climate change is factored in.

That is why I believe the Association of British Insurers, together with UK Finance and flood campaigners, has written directly to the Secretaries of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for Housing, Communities and Local Government to raise the alarm. The message is simple: rather than weakening the sequential test, the Government should mandate sustainable drainage systems, finally implementing schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. That legislation has been in the ether, unimplemented, for nearly 16 years. It is telling that 66% of the public already say that they do not believe the country or their local area is prepared for future flooding. Ignoring the industry that pays out when floods happen is really not the way to change people’s minds.

I put it to the Minister that Somerset council is required to deliver 75,000 new homes in the next 20 years, and I believe that North Somerset has to produce nearly 25,000 new homes in the next 15 years. To repeat something that one of my colleagues on Somerset council says, it has taken since the dawn of time for the population of the Somerset council area—not including the North Somerset council area—to reach 560,000. I am keen to know why the Minister and his Government believe that the population will grow by more than 75,000 people in the next 20 years. That is a 13% increase, when it has taken centuries to get to 560,000. It is a ridiculous population increase, and it is not realistic in the slightest. For context, the Office for National Statistics projects that the entire population of the United Kingdom will grow from around 70 million to around 72 million over the same period—a rise of just 2.8%.

I am the first to recognise that Wells and Mendip Hills is a lovely place to live—actually the best—but, even allowing for that huge appeal, I struggle to understand why the Government believe that such a disproportionately rural area will see growth at almost five times the national rate. The NPPF changes will affect much more than just flood risk—our area and its green spaces will be under pressure.

It seems especially disproportionate when I look at Bristol, my local city, which I love dearly. Its population is projected to grow by about 10%, which is again above the national average. It seems that those in Somerset and North Somerset will be asked to take a huge number of new residents. I do not know where they are coming from, and I cannot quite see how the Government have come to those figures. I would be grateful if the Minister could write to me on how his team has come to that assumption.

The last matter I would like to raise is that farmers run factories. Those factories are the agricultural land—it is just that we do not have roofs on them. That is no different from any other part of the country that has some sort of manufacturing. Farmers use fields, and they do not have roofs, so it is quite hard for people to spot the fact that they are food factories. In the interests of an honest debate, I acknowledge that many in the farming community welcome what is set out in the new NPPF, but that comes with real caveats. It is worth the House hearing what they are.

A lot of our greenhouses are more than 40 years old and in urgent need of modernisation, yet large glasshouse developments are still routinely treated as major infrastructure projects, which triggers huge delays that again undermine our domestic food production. My colleagues will need no second invitation on this point: food security is national security. I am really glad that the Government recognised that in February. Ensuring that our farmers can produce the food this country needs is of critical importance in what is a very unstable world.

Will the Minister consider the points that I have made and write to me about the population figures? I want to make absolutely certain that he does not misunderstand me; this is not a sentimental case for nature and green spaces. It is very realistic damage that is happening to Somerset.

Regulation of the Marmalade Market

Debate between Jim Shannon and Tessa Munt

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate, and I spoke to her this morning to ascertain her thoughts on this matter. We were brought up on marmalade back in Ballywalter. My mum made marmalade. She is now 94 and not making marmalade any more, but although I am no Paddington Bear, I love nothing more than a good round of marmalade and toast. When I say that I enjoy it, I mean marmalade and not citrus jam. Does the hon. Lady agree that my constituents in Strangford and across Northern Ireland, with EU labelling interfering with our produce, deserve the same consideration as her constituents, and that labelling must reflect the hard-won distinction of marmalade, and not fruit jam or jam, just for the ease of the EU?

[Tessa Munt]

I partially agree with the hon. Gentleman, although if we were part of the EU, we might find ourselves in the position of being able to influence that a little more. He is right to recognise that our jams, spreads and marmalades have a distinctive characteristic. Indeed, they are one of our largest exports to countries such as Japan and Australia, because of the quality of our jams and marmalades.

While the 60% requirement remains in law, the Breakfast Foods (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026 removed the requirement to display total sugar content as a percentage on labels. Instead, producers will have to display

“energy value amounts of fat, carbohydrates, sugars, protein and salt.”

Unfortunately, that does nothing to encourage marmalade to be made with 60% sugar content, although I understand the driver behind the regulations.

This matters, because the rules governing marmalade are not arbitrary, but grounded in just over a century of scientific research and culinary practice. The requirement for 60% sugar content was not dreamed up by bureaucrats; it was developed through rigorous experimentation in the early 1920s at the University of Bristol’s Long Ashton research station. That facility is not in my patch, but I am proud to consider Bristol University one of my local universities. Long Ashton research station—now closed—is but 15 minutes’ drive from the boundary of my constituency, and I believe it is also famous for being where Ribena was developed.

The scientists were interested not merely in taste but in consistency, preservation and reliability. Before their work, recipes varied wildly, yields were unpredictable and the shelf life of marmalade was uncertain. They established a standard that ensured that marmalade would set properly, taste balanced and keep for extended periods. That west country connection is not incidental; it is foundational. The work carried out in Long Ashton helped to define what we now recognise as traditional British marmalade. It brought together food science and domestic practice, producing recipes that became a benchmark for generations of home cooks and commercial producers. To depart from those standards is not to innovate; it is to move away from a carefully developed and distinctly British product.

The 60% sugar threshold is critical. At that level, marmalade achieves the correct gelled consistency, a bright and appealing appearance, and a balanced flavour that is neither overly bitter nor cloyingly sweet. It also ensures a shelf life of up to a year when properly sealed. Drop below that threshold, and the product becomes fundamentally different: looser, duller, less stable and far more perishable. In my debate back in 2013, I described such products as “gloopy sludge”. I then had to apologise to the Americans and the French for describing their efforts as such, but I am not doing that this time, of course. These are not minor variations, but material differences that consumers have a right to understand.

Under the new labelling rules, that understanding becomes hard to access. While full nutritional information will still be provided, the removal of a clear, single sugar percentage risks obscuring whether a product meets the long-established British standards. An obvious response might be that the reduction in sugar is a good thing, as we are rightly encouraged to reduce our sugar intake. However, lower-sugar marmalades tend to be boiled for longer, which lowers the water content and ultimately results in a higher sugar content following the boiling process. The right response for those who wish to reduce their sugar intake is to moderate the amount of marmalade we put on our toast in the morning.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I confess to the House that I prefer English strawberry jam to marmalade, but my wife is an assiduous and loyal orange marmalade fan—

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis

Debate between Jim Shannon and Tessa Munt

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tessa Munt]

I accept my hon. Friend’s point. Most people I speak to say that ME has nothing to do with psychiatry. We now have evidence from Edinburgh, which I will go on to in a moment, to explain exactly why that is the case.

Our counterparts in Germany have grasped the importance and scale of the challenge. Just last week, the German Government announced a national decade against post-infectious diseases, with a particular focus on ME and long covid. In Germany, an estimated 1.5 million people are living with ME or long covid. The German Government have rightly recognised post-infectious diseases such as ME as one of the greatest public health challenges of the 21st century. Last week, they committed €500 million—around £440 million—over the next decade into research to understand the causes of post-infectious diseases and to develop treatments.

Will the Minister confirm whether Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care have discussed that recent funding announcement and the logic behind it? I would love nothing more than to see the UK Government come up with a comparable level of commitment—or will the Government wait a decade for the German Government’s conclusions before taking action?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady on bringing this debate forward. In Northern Ireland, the figures for ME have unfortunately risen from 7,500 to 12,500 in the past few years. We have no clinical lead, no specialist services and no commission care pathways. We need research. Queen’s University Belfast is really good with research partnerships. Does the hon. Lady agree we should spend the money on research and find the cure? It has been said that the cure for cancer will come in 10 years’ time. The cure for ME could come too if research money were put into it.

[Tessa Munt]

I absolutely agree, and I thank the hon. Gentleman. The second area where I would urge the Government to go further is support for people with severe and very severe ME. It is estimated that around one in four people with ME are severely affected. ME is perhaps the only condition where the sicker someone becomes, the less care they receive from the NHS. The recent prevention of future deaths report focused on the tragic case of Maeve Boothby O’Neill, describing NHS care for severe ME as “non-existent”.

In my work on this issue, I have collaborated closely with #ThereForME, a campaign founded by two women, Karen and Emma, who are carers to partners with very severe ME. It can be difficult to comprehend the depth of suffering that ME can bring in its most extreme forms. With his permission, Karen has shared details with me about of her husband James’s day-to-day life.

Before developing ME, James, in his 30s, lived a full life and was a civil servant. Today he is completely bed-bound and spends 99% of his day alone in a dark room, unable to tolerate any noise, light or stimulation. He is hardly able to communicate and is so sensitive to touch that, despite his suffering, his wife Karen is unable to give him a hug or hold his hand. Despite an acute level of need, James is receiving next to no care from the NHS. Karen tells me that her biggest fear is that he deteriorates to the point of needing lifesaving care. She cannot feel confident that the NHS will provide it.

ADHD: Impact on Prison Rehabilitation and Reoffending

Debate between Jim Shannon and Tessa Munt

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tessa Munt]

I could not agree more; that might help us to understand the interaction between behaviour and authority.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate, and she is right to raise this issue, which is very prevalent in Northern Ireland. There is a lack of specialist staff and training in adult ADHD, which is becoming a bigger part of the conversation. More needs to be done to rehabilitate in a certain way to ensure that prisoners are in a position to learn. Does the hon. Lady agree that, specifically for adult ADHD, the Government need to allocate more to training to ensure that prison staff are equipped to support people in prison settings who have ADHD?

[Tessa Munt]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and will come to that in a moment.

The impact of ADHD on rehabilitation and reoffending sits at the junction of many different interests. It seems likely that supporting people with ADHD could be a critical part of delivering the Government’s aim of rebuilding confidence in the criminal justice system. There is a clear link between ADHD and contact with the criminal justice system, and ADHD is significantly over-represented in prisons. While just 3% to 4% of people in the general population are currently identified as living with ADHD, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence estimates that the proportion is up to 25% in the prison population. Up to a quarter of people in prison are living with ADHD, but studies show that 41% of women in UK prisons meet the criteria for an ADHD diagnosis.

Recycling of Tyres

Debate between Jim Shannon and Tessa Munt

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tessa Munt]

Yes, indeed; I shall come to that shortly.

The previous Government talked a great deal about the circular economy, had their own circular economy strategy and brought forward consultations on a number of measures to close certain loopholes that created an opening for waste crime. Sadly, despite multiple commitments to taking action, not enough was actually implemented. This Minister knows that it is not sufficient to talk about the circular economy; she and her team need to take action to deliver the changes that have been talked about for far too long.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this debate. We in Northern Ireland had a problem with tyres and bonfires—it is in the nature of what happens—but over the last number of years, councils have had a distinct policy to make sure that that does not happen, and it has not happened. Does the hon. Lady agree that local businesses must not simply take the easy option of sending their tyres to be recycled overseas, which seems to end in fires, and that they should be encouraged to send them to recognised recycling groups in the United Kingdom, where there are guarantees that the tyres will be completely recycled and the rubber, fibre and steel will all be reused?

Government Support for the RSPCA

Debate between Jim Shannon and Tessa Munt

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for leading this debate and for setting out the detail and information so well. She obviously has a passion for animals, which I share.

The RSPCA is celebrating its 200th birthday this year. It is the first animal welfare charity to be founded in the world, so the impact of what it has done over 200 years is incredible. With its network of agencies and branches, it paved the way in tackling animal cruelty and neglect and worked closely alongside Government to change laws and create a better place for all kinds of animals, so it is great to be here to celebrate and support it.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

In my area, the Brent Knoll animal centre, a wonderful part of the RSPCA, rehomes dogs, cats, rabbits, ferrets and other small animals, and it is always full, but a lot of people do not understand that such centres are not part of the RSPCA’s main structure and are not funded centrally. Would the hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that they are locally funded through donations and the time and money of volunteers?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. Yes, I am well aware of the volunteers and the fundraising. We attend many events in our constituencies for giving to the RSPCA. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) said that we are often called a nation of animal lovers, and of course we are. In all my life—and it is a pretty long one—I cannot remember not having a dog. I am from Ballywalter, and we had Pekinese, collies, terriers and latterly springer spaniels. It has almost been an evolution from house dogs to dogs that we use for hunting.

The RSPCA has the equivalent of 361 full-time frontline officers, 233 inspectors and 128 animal rescue officers. Many of us have been touched by the advertisements on TV about cruelty against animals; it really breaks our hearts. The hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn is right that the cruelty is inconceivable. We cannot understand why anyone would want to harm or carry out cruelty against animals.

Crown Currency Exchange

Debate between Jim Shannon and Tessa Munt

Tuesday 7th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Tessa Munt]

Absolutely. Alarmingly, the FSA website states:

“We keep an up-to-date record of all FSA-regulated firms, bodies and individuals doing business in the UK. Our register is available to the public, so you can search for more information on all of our authorised firms.”

The problem is that the FSA seems to use “registered”, “regulated” and “authorised” almost conversationally, but in legal terms those definitions should not be bandied around on its website in such a way.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Throughout the whole United Kingdom, not just on the UK mainland, but in Northern Ireland, those who can least afford it have invested money in that system. I understand that a police investigation started today. Does the hon. Lady agree that, on the back of that investigation, a Government investigation should follow?