Eating Disorder Awareness

Debate between John McDonnell and Stephen Kinnock

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Kinnock]

National funding has increased over the years, as the hon. Lady will know. The question is whether that funding channels through to ICBs. The Government’s view is that ICBs are best placed to make decisions as close as possible to the communities that they serve and to target and, if necessary, reallocate funding accordingly. As a Government, we are constantly trying to get the balance right between setting frameworks and targets and ensuring that those are being met, while also ensuring that ICBs are not being micromanaged from the centre. We do not think it is right that people sitting in Whitehall or Westminster micromanage what is going on at a local level. We are absolutely clear that every ICB must meet its targets, while also being clear that it is up to the ICB to take decisions as close as possible to the communities that they serve.

Sadly, we have seen the prevalence of eating disorders in children and young people sharply increase since 2017. In 2023, NHS England published follow-up results to its survey on the mental health of children and young people. The report found that the prevalence of eating disorders in 17 to 19-year-olds rose from 0.8% in 2017 to 12.5% in 2023. Unfortunately, we are also seeing the prevalence of eating disorders rising among adults. The 2019 health survey for England showed that 16% of adults over 16 screened positive for a possible eating disorder. The figures do not mean that the individual had a confirmed eating disorder, but they present a worrying situation that we must address by continuing to promote both awareness and early intervention.

The surge in demand has inevitably made meeting our waiting time targets more challenging. However, our services and clinicians, backed by new funding, are supporting more people than ever before. These services are changing and saving lives. As hon. Members will know, we have kept in place the access and waiting time standard for children and young people who are referred with eating disorder issues. This sets a 95% target for children with urgent cases to begin treatment within one week, and for children with routine cases to start treatment within four weeks.

Figures released last month show that although the number of referrals and demand for services has begun to stabilise during the past year, the number of children entering treatment reached a record high of 2,954 last quarter. This shows that the extra funding is enabling services to begin to meet the extra pressures caused by the pandemic. Similarly, the number of children entering treatment within the target time has reached a record high. Of the 2,954 children entering treatment last quarter, 2,414 were able to access that treatment within the one-week urgent target or the four-week routine target—a rate 81.7%. That is the highest figure recorded since NHS England began collecting that data in 2021.

However, we recognise that there is still far more to be done to ensure that patients with eating disorders can access treatment at the right time. The hon. Member for Bath rightly focused the debate on the importance of awareness. Raising awareness of eating disorders is the first step towards early intervention to prevent the devastating impacts that eating disorders can have on people’s lives. To support this, NHS England is currently refreshing guidance on children and young people’s eating disorders.

The refreshed guidance will highlight the importance of awareness and early recognition of eating disorders in schools, colleges, primary care and broader children and young people’s mental health services. A number of colleagues asked when that guidance will be published; my officials are working hard with specialists on that, and it will be published later this year.

The existing mental health support teams, supplemented by the specialist mental health professionals that we will be providing access to in every school in England, will support school staff to raise awareness and identify children and young people showing potential early signs of an eating disorder. Through these interventions, children and young people can be given early support and help to address problems before they escalate.

Community-based early support hubs for children and young people aged 11 to 25 also play a key role in providing early support for young people’s mental health and wellbeing. Early support hubs provide open-access drop-in mental health services that assist children and young people with a range of issues, such as eating disorders, at an early stage without the need for a referral or doctor’s appointment.

I am pleased to say that this year, thousands more young people will receive support with their mental health, thanks to £7 million of new funding for 24 existing community-based early support hubs to expand their current offer. That funding will deliver 10,000 more interventions such as group sessions, counselling therapies and specialist support over the next 12 months. Looking forward, we are also committed to rolling out open-access young futures hubs in communities. This national network is expected to bring local services together and deliver support for young people facing mental health challenges, including support for those with eating disorders.

We should also be concerned about the widespread availability of harmful online material that promotes eating disorders, suicide and self-harm, which can easily be accessed by people who may be vulnerable. We have been clear that the Government’s priority is the effective implementation of the Online Safety Act, so that those who use social media, especially children, can benefit from its wide-reaching protections as soon as possible. Our focus is on keeping young people safe while they benefit from the latest technology. By the summer, robust new protections for children will be enforced through the Act to protect them from harmful content and ensure that they have an age-appropriate experience online.

It is right to focus on awareness and early intervention, but we know that some people simply need access to high-quality treatment in order to get better. A key priority of this Government is therefore to expand community-based services to treat eating disorders, so that people can be treated earlier and closer to home. NHS England is working to increase the capacity of community-based eating disorder services. By improving care in the community, the NHS can improve outcomes and recovery, reduce rates of relapse, prevent children’s eating disorders continuing into adulthood and, if admission is required as a last resort, reduce the length of time that people have to stay in hospital.

I am pleased to say that funding for children and young people’s eating disorder services has increased, rising from £46.7 million in 2017-18 to a planned £101 million in 2024-25. With this extra funding, we can focus on enhancing the capacity of community eating disorder teams across the country. We are also committed to providing an extra 8,500 new mental health workers across child and adult mental health services to cut waiting times and ensure that people can access treatment and support earlier. Through the 10-year health plan, this Government will overhaul the NHS and ensure that those with mental health needs, including those living with eating disorders, are given the support that they need.

I share the concern of the hon. Member for Bath about accurate recording of deaths to understand the extent to which eating disorders and other factors have caused or contributed to deaths. This matter is being explored with the national medical examiner for England and Wales, the Office for National Statistics and the Coroners’ Society of England and Wales.

Hon. Members also raised concerns about BMI. It is not right that any individual is being refused treatment based on their weight or BMI alone. National guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is clear that single measures such as BMI or duration of illness should not be used to determine whether to offer treatment for an eating disorder. I am ready to receive any representations from colleagues who have evidence that that is happening, and I would be happy to raise that with the appropriate channels.

[John McDonnell]

I raised with the Minister the reform of disability benefits, which will have implications for sufferers and their carers. My understanding is that the universal credit health element is to be denied to those under the age of 22. In addition, it will be halved and then frozen, and the PIP criteria are changing. As I said, I simply want the Minister to check with his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions what the implications are for sufferers of these conditions and their carers. We need specific action to protect them in the consultation; otherwise, people who are already suffering financially as a result of such conditions—particularly when the whole family supports the sufferer—will be further harmed.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I will follow up on those points and write to the right hon. Gentleman. As he knows, the Green Paper is out for consultation. Although the Government have made decisions about some measures, we are consulting and engaging on a number of others. It is very important that we see all the issues that he raises in the round, and I will follow them up with colleagues, particularly in the DWP, and write to him.

I again thank the hon. Member for Bath for raising this important issue and for her tireless efforts in this House to raise awareness of eating disorders. I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful and moving contributions on behalf of their constituents and, in some cases, their loved ones. One person afflicted by an eating disorder is one too many, so the Government will strain every sinew to combat this profoundly debilitating condition.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between John McDonnell and Stephen Kinnock

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 18th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The scope of Lords amendment 10 is specifically for those who served shoulder to shoulder with our armed forces and in our diplomatic and development efforts in Afghanistan. These are people to whom the United Kingdom owes a debt of honour and a debt of gratitude. I am not sure whether honour is a word that we can apply very easily to those on the Conservative Benches, but that is what this is about.

Lords amendment 9, in the name of the noble Baroness Butler-Sloss, is also based on a moral imperative, as it would prevent the removal of potential victims of modern slavery to Rwanda until they receive a decision from the Government on whether there is credible evidence that the person is a modern slavery victim. It really should go without saying that modern slavery victims should not be sent to Rwanda but, sadly, with this Government, basic moral decency is a scarce commodity.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Let me speak to Lords amendments 9 and 10. Those of us who have dealt with trafficked victims and those who served us in Afghanistan feel that there is some loss of moral compass somewhere. Those who served us in Afghanistan, in a whole range of different functions, have only just survived getting out of the country. They have been chased by the Taliban and their families have been harassed. Some of them got to Pakistan and were then threatened with force back over the border again. They have got to us traumatised, and we are going to traumatise them again by sending them to Rwanda. That cannot be right. I cannot believe that any hon. Member who has dealt with such cases could not support these amendments, because it is human suffering in the extreme, and for those who have served us, it is human suffering brought about by their loyalty to us.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He makes the case with passion and conviction. I know that he has a number of asylum seekers and refugees in his constituency and he does a huge amount of work on their behalf. He is absolutely right: there are some issues that should really transcend the day-to-day political considerations that we have in this place, because they are issues that are based on moral imperatives. It is deeply disappointing that, in Lords amendments 9 and 10, the Government have refused even to use them as the basis for negotiation or some kind of compromise. We find that deeply disappointing.

Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between John McDonnell and Stephen Kinnock

Report stage
Wednesday 26th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We know from our long period of being in the European Union that, in order to get a deal with the EU, there has to be a quid pro quo. There has to be a negotiation based on a grown-up conversation about how to tackle the challenge we face, and an all-encompassing security agreement could be a very good way of opening that door, because of course the EU knows that the United Kingdom is a very important security partner for all sorts of reasons. I agree with my hon. Friend entirely on the very strategic point he has made. Although we support the Government’s new clause 8 on safe and legal routes, we believe it should be linked to securing a returns deal with the European Union. As I said, our approach is based on hard graft, common sense and quiet diplomacy, and we urge the Government to start thinking and acting in the same vein.

Our third commitment is that Labour will fix the problems with current resettlement programmes. This includes the broken Afghan schemes, and our new clause 21 instructs the Government to report every three months on progress—or lack thereof—in meeting their own targets in supporting those loyal-to-Britain Afghans who sacrificed so much to protect our servicepeople and to stand up for our liberal values in Afghanistan. All resettlement routes need to be properly controlled and managed, of course, and they therefore cannot be unlimited, but they do also need to work.

Fourthly, Labour’s long-term international development strategy will include tackling the root causes of migration upstream through increased humanitarian assistance and greater emphasis on conflict prevention and resolution programmes. This is slightly beyond the focus of the Bill, but an important aspect of migration policy—and a lesson that needs to be learned from Afghanistan in relation to Sudan, of course, which was mentioned earlier—is that if we cut aid and cut the right kind of aid, we will end up increasing the challenges around the dangerous channel crossings and hurt British values and interests.

Our comprehensive plan will also fix what is perhaps the Conservatives’ most astonishing failure of basic governance: the failure to clear the backlog. It is truly staggering that just 13% of small boat asylum claims are being processed within five years, and it is deeply troubling that, while around half of the huge 166,000 backlog is down to small boat crossings, another 80,000 has built up organically under the Conservatives since 2010.

This is no coincidence. Home Office decision making has collapsed. In 2013 the Conservatives downgraded asylum decision makers to junior staff, hired by literally going from a Saturday job one minute to making life or death decisions the next. No wonder this resulted in worse decisions, often overturned on appeal, and it is deeply troubling that the staff attrition rate in 2022 in these teams stood at an astonishing 46%. There is little prospect of improvement, given that Home Office statistics published on Monday show that this year the number of decision makers has decreased.

So let us be clear: the incompetence and indifference of consecutive Home Secretaries since 2010 have brought the basic functions of government to a grinding halt, and during this cost of living crisis the British taxpayer is paying the price. Our new clause 10 therefore sets out how the Government should get on with expediting asylum processing for the countries listed in the schedule to this Bill. If an applicant has no right to asylum in the UK, they should be removed, safely and swiftly, to the safe country from which they have come, such as Albania.

Further to new clause 10, our new clause 13 instructs the Home Secretary to publish a report every three months on the progress she is making on clearing the backlog.

[John McDonnell]

I am sorry to interrupt the shadow Minister’s flow, and I wholeheartedly support him, as we have time and again, with regard to the criticisms of the Government’s lack of processing of cases, including the lack of staffing resources. On new clause 10 and the proposal for an expedited asylum process, can my hon. Friend reassure me that there will be no lessening of the legal rights of asylum seekers, of access to legal representation and of the application of international human rights treaties and conventions?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. Absolutely, the proposal is that there are a number of countries with very low grant rates and that must therefore be where we triage, and put them into a category where the processing can be expedited. However, all the processing must be done on an individual, case-by-case basis, in line with our treaty obligations; we cannot have block definitions of any particular category of asylum seeker, which of course is one of the main issues concerning the legality of the Bill, and that includes access to legal aid. So I can absolutely reassure my right hon. Friend on that point. We have to get the balance right: we must focus on the efficiency and effectiveness of dealing with the backlog—which must be based on triaging, giving much more support and upgrading the staff in the Home Office—but that must be underpinned by the provisions to which my right hon. Friend refers. Of course, the return on investment for improving the quality of decision making would be rapid and substantial, because quicker processing means fewer asylum seekers in hotels.