Sepsis Awareness Month
Debate between Julie Minns and Sureena Brackenridge(1Â week, 6Â days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this very important debate during Sepsis Awareness Month; I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) and for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) for securing it.
The danger posed by sepsis cannot be overestimated. As we have heard, five people lose their lives to sepsis every single hour, and my mother was one of those it claimed last year. Deaths from sepsis rise sharply in the over-65s. Older people are more vulnerable to sepsis because ageing weakens the immune system, increases the likelihood of chronic illness and infection, and reduces the body’s ability to recover from severe infection, making sepsis more likely to become life-threatening.
I am acutely aware at my age that one of my significant organs is visually fading and failing, and that is my skin. The serious point is that, as our skin fails, the increased risk of cuts, tears and the formation of ulcers becomes ever more prevalent, all bringing with them the attendant risk of infection. That, sadly, was the case for my mother. That sepsis is the second biggest killer after cardiovascular disease is evidence of why awareness is so important. The earlier sepsis is recognised and appropriate help sought, the better the chance of preventing a devastating outcome.
I want to use this debate to share the experience of one of my Carlisle constituents, Kelly Pattison. Kelly developed biliary sepsis in December last year. She describes how she did not know she had it until she woke up on a ward, having spent three days in intensive care. Kelly’s story is an important reminder of just how unpredictable and unexpected sepsis can be. What she particularly wanted me to emphasise today is that there is no one single experience of sepsis; it can affect people in very different ways, and the seriousness of what is happening may not always be immediately obvious.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
There is really good practice across other countries, including Australia, which has a national sepsis standard, standardised clinical pathways and a public awareness campaign, similar to ours, which is aligned with the simple question: “Could it be sepsis?” Work that has reduced sepsis mortality has been happening around the globe, so does my hon. Friend agree that it is worth looking beyond our borders?
Ms Minns
My hon. Friend raises an important point, and I agree that the more best practice available elsewhere that we can bring to our country, the better.
Awareness cannot stop at the point of diagnosis. Surviving sepsis can be a major event in someone’s life, and the effects can continue well beyond the immediate illness. Patients and their families may need information, support and help as they recover. That is why I welcome the Government’s sepsis modern service framework. It represents an important step forward in how we approach this condition, setting out a long-term plan to improve sepsis care across prevention, recognition, diagnosis, treatment and recovery, with the ambition of reducing deaths, life-threatening complications and the long-term effects of sepsis by at least 25% by 2035. That ambition is significant. The success of the framework will be measured in earlier recognition, prompt treatment and ongoing support for survivors who need it.
The framework’s focus on better data, research and innovation is particularly welcome. Improving how we identify sepsis, developing faster and more accurate diagnosis and learning from patients’ experiences can all help clinicians to intervene earlier and improve outcomes. I hope that through the sepsis modern service framework we can ensure that when people do seek help, they are heard, sepsis is recognised as early as possible, and they receive the care and support that they need.
Disadvantaged Communities
Debate between Julie Minns and Sureena Brackenridge(1Â year, 3Â months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs Brackenridge
Investment has to go where it is most needed. Hon. Members feel strongly about that, which is why we see such representation in this debate.
Child poverty in Wolverhampton North East tells a clear story. In 2014-15, 22% of children were living in absolute poverty. That figure now stands at 31%, which should shame us. More than that, however, it must galvanise us. Nationally, the situation is no better. In 2023-24, 18% of people in the UK were in absolute poverty after housing costs. According to the Resolution Foundation, another 1.5 million people, including 400,000 children, will fall into poverty by 2030 unless bold action is taken. Those are not just statistics on a spreadsheet; they are real lives. They are children going to school tired and hungry. They are young people who are poorer now than their parents’ generation, with less hope of buying their own house. They are families stuck in insecure housing or waiting years for mental health support. They are opportunities lost and represent an injustice at the heart of our society.
That is why the work of the Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods—ICON—has been so vital. Under the leadership of Baroness Armstrong, ICON has helped to shine a light on what is really happening in the most disadvantaged areas of our country: mission-critical neighbourhoods. It reveals what people are facing, how they feel about Government and what can be done differently. Its recent polling in partnership with Public First is a wake-up call. Just 5% of adults in England believe that the Government care about “neighbourhoods like mine”: a damning verdict on decades of decisions made too far from the people they affect.
It is not just a question of neglect; it is a fact of inequality. Nearly seven in 10 people believe that the Government care about some neighbourhoods more than others: the wealthier ones, the connected ones, the places where voices carry weight. They have lower crime, higher economic activity, higher intergenerational wealth and higher life expectancy.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
On life expectancy, in my constituency, the lives of men and women in the most deprived neighbourhoods are nine years shorter than in the more affluent ones. Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the strategy has to be around narrowing those health inequalities?
Mrs Brackenridge
I absolutely agree. If I drive 10 minutes in my constituency, the life expectancy increases by more than seven years, which is shocking. This is not the politics of envy; it is the reality after the politics of inequality. This is about restoring people’s chances to participate in Government, making it something that is done with them rather than to them.
There is cause for hope. In January, I had the pleasure of welcoming Baroness Armstrong to the Scotlands Estate in the Fallings Park ward of my constituency. We visited the Big Venture Centre, an anchoring institution in the neighbourhood. It is an inspiring community-focused project that is changing people’s lives every single day. From the pink ladies—and men—who volunteer there to the WV10 community chefs who support healthy eating education, to the community shop helping with the cost of living, that is what every neighbourhood deserves. It was a chance to see how the findings and principles behind ICON’s work can be implemented in practice and, with the right support, that those places can thrive.
We have the insight and the evidence; action is what we now need. What we have had has clearly not worked. Let us look at education. In 2024, only 46% of disadvantaged pupils met the expected standard at key stage 2, compared with 67% of their peers. A growing divide that has set in by year 6 continues to widen in year 11 at GCSE.
After school, it gets worse. Disadvantaged young people are 65% more likely to be NEET—not in education, employment or training. If they leave school with fewer than five GCSEs they are 131% more likely to be NEET. Meanwhile, nearly three quarters of people in destitution are in receipt of social security. That tells us everything we need to know about how broken the safety net has become.