Women’s Health Strategy

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

Yes, of course. The retirement age is a constant issue that we need to look at across a number of professions, and I am happy to come back to my hon. Friend on that. As part of our workforce plan, we are looking in particular at retaining the expertise that we have, as well as at recruiting people into new roles.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

On behalf of the newly established APPG on urinary tract infections, which I am proud to co-chair alongside the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement and this strategy. The APPG welcomes the acknowledgement that women’s health has been neglected for far too long, and we cautiously welcome the commitments to redesign urogynaecology pathways and fund a specialist centre in each region.

On behalf of the many women and, heartbreakingly, children who suffer from chronic urinary tract infections, can the Minister confirm whether those commitments cover the treatment of acute, recurrent and chronic UTIs? Will she consider our requests for support to establish agreed clinical definitions for the different types of UTIs so that we can inform long-overdue updates to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines and finally end the scandal of sufferers being ignored and gaslit by medical professionals, which has happened for far too long?

[Karin Smyth]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), who I know cannot be here today. She has used her expertise to drive forward recognition of UTIs and incontinence—another taboo subject. We have previously had a very good debate in this Chamber on that issue, and that has all informed what we are saying.

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to move into some clinical definitions and clinical pathways. I am not going to do that, but I am very keen to hear about the work that the APPG is doing and its expertise. We will continue to hear from it and about the work that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South are leading to ensure that we make this work in reality. That is absolutely central to the strategy.

NHS Federated Data Platform

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. A nation, like a person, is judged by the company it keeps, and in this case, the companies to which it keeps handing taxpayers’ money. I tend to count my worth by the list of my enemies, and if I make one of Palantir today, I can count it as a good day’s work.

To be clear, the Government’s engagement with Palantir is shameful. Peter Thiel, the founder of Palantir, is a dangerous extremist who has called the Nazi Carl Schmitt a major influence on his thinking. He has allowed Palantir to provide sensitive data to Donald Trump’s far-right thugs in ICE to add power to their cruel elbow as they come crashing down on communities. Peter Thiel hates our values and hates the very principle of our NHS. He once told the Oxford student union that our love for the NHS is a form of Stockholm syndrome. Palantir and Peter Thiel must have their hands ripped off of our NHS before it is too late. We cannot stand idly by and let the NHS be rescued from years of Conservative neglect just to have critical functions and funding handed to a far-right US tech billionaire. The interweaving of Palantir’s opaque software with the framework of the NHS would make us dangerously dependent on and vulnerable to the whims of his strange organisation.

This Labour Government have had two years to signal their intention to end their partnership with Palantir, but they have failed to do so. I have some questions for the Minister. First, are the Government investigating ongoing reports of unethical lobbying efforts within the NHS and shady public relations by Palantir? For instance, we have seen allegations that the joint chair of north-west London’s four major hospital trusts was privately urging colleagues to add more patient data to the platform at the same time as advising Palantir through Global Counsel.

Secondly, have the Government taken any steps to make sure that the security and integrity of NHS data systems are iron-clad in the event of any rogue actions not just by Palantir, but by any third-party contractor? At that point, simple litigation for breach of contract would be moot; the damage will have been done. The Government should not need to do this—they should just wind down the contract. At the very least, they should tell my constituents who have written to me on this topic whether their concerns, which have been raised in this debate, are falling on deaf ears.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Ahmed]

If the hon. Gentleman had read the details of any contract that the Government have negotiated, whether it is this one or the previous one, he would know that the break clause is there for a reason. Of course we evaluate value for money at those times. He used the word “cheap”, but let me tell him something: it is not cheap to have to wait over two years for NHS treatment in Scotland, which is 30 times more likely to happen than in England. That is why on 7 May the NHS in Scotland can get an upgrade with Anas Sarwar as First Minister and Jackie Baillie as Health Secretary.

The FDP is helping people get the care they need more quickly and more efficiently. As a programme, it is a success. The FDP has exceeded every single target since its go-live date in March 2024, and 137 NHS trusts are actively utilising the platform and have reported benefits. The programme is significantly exceeding its benefits forecast, with external independent experts validating these results.

NHS England publishes data on how the FDP has benefited patients and the NHS. The data collected up to the end of March will be published in May. I can share the figures with Members now. Since the go-live date in March 2024, more than 100,000 additional patients have been supported to undergo procedures in theatres, partly due to increasing theatre utilisation. Nearly 94,000 people have been supported on their cancer journey, with 7% seeing a reduction in the time taken to diagnose their cancer. There has also been a 14% decrease in delays to discharging patients staying in hospital for more than seven days, freeing up hospital beds for those who need them most.

The last Government awarded the Palantir contract on the basis of a successful bid that was deemed to be significantly better, and by a significant order of magnitude, than those of its competitors. It was judged the most economically advantageous and likely to deliver the best-quality outcome for patients. The contract was awarded with an overall value of up to £330 million over a maximum of the seven-year term. So far, £210 million has been invested, as we scale up. The benefits of the FDP are exceeding those we forecast, as I have already outlined, but—

[Luke Taylor]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Dr Ahmed]

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I think I will answer his point shortly; in the interests of time, we have to be careful about interventions.

We live in a fast-paced technological world, and that means that we always look to the next possible provider to provide value for money, so it is right that there are break clauses in the contract to allow evaluations to take place. I can reassure all hon. Members that, as a clinician and a Minister, my north star is always patient safety and quality, and of course value for money. If, at the point of the break clause, we evaluate and find that there are other providers that can do the job better, then of course that needs to be looked at and reflected upon. More generally, as the Minister for Health Innovation, Patient Safety and Life Sciences, I would not be doing my job properly if I did not try to champion British business at every opportunity or to champion British small and medium-sized enterprises to become British plcs. I hope hon. Members will take that as read.

The contract has extension provisions and will be reviewed in line with standard contract management processes. We will decide later this year whether to extend it. NHS England will be transparent about the process and the evidence used, as we have been throughout our regular performance reviews for this contract and the FDP.

On digital sovereignty, our priority is to give patients the care they need. As Members will no doubt understand, for some essential IT services, it is simply not possible to develop in-house solutions, as we seek the best from the market. I reflect on my own practice in Glasgow, in the Queen Elizabeth university hospital, which the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East seems to think has found a panacea of publicly delivered technology. I can tell him that when I walk into that hospital, I login through Microsoft Windows. Then I open a programme built by a North American tech company to order test results. Then I open another programme built by a North American tech company to look at the results of those tests. Finally, if I want to check X-rays, I open a fourth programme built by a North American technology company to evaluate CT scans, MRI scans and X-rays.

NHS Capital Spending

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Western. An MP Josh Taylor—that would be a beast, would it not? It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I thank my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) for introducing this incredibly important debate. He and I have written op-ed articles for our shared local newspaper in recent weeks, describing our constituents’ despair at the state of emergency care and facilities at St Helier hospital.

When I posted my article on Facebook for local residents to read, somebody commented on my post to say that they were fed up of the endless discussions on the topic, and they rightly pointed out that St Helier has been a totemic issue in Sutton for decades. They angrily demanded action, not words, from us all to get something done about it. The truth is, I could not remotely fault my constituent for their outrage at the imbalance of words and action that they, and everybody in Sutton, have had to live with for far too long. This is what happens when Governments fail to act; people lose faith that the system and their politicians can deliver results. When people hear grand words but see no action, it is no wonder that politicians are the least trusted profession in the UK.

Before I was elected I was an engineer, which is one of the most trusted professions. Then, with the support of more than 16,000 of my constituents, I instantly became a member of one of the least trusted—it is a funny old world, is it not? When the policy area at hand is something so visceral as whether people and their families can go to their local hospital safe in the knowledge that it is equipped to care for them properly, that loss of faith is absolutely corrosive to all faith in politics.

[James Naish]

The Minister will know the health centre I am about to mention. It is in East Leake in my constituency of Rushcliffe, and it has been talked about for over 20 years. It has clinical rooms that are out of action because there has not been the appropriate investment. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) represents a relatively affluent part of the country, but does he agree that there is something called building deprivation? The reality is that health centres are not in a good enough condition for our constituents and, irrespective of the relative affluence of an area, we still need to invest in our infrastructure.

[Luke Taylor]

I could not agree more with the hon. Member’s point. When the condition of an asset does not attract staff, particularly in more deprived areas, the challenges will be greater. Those compounding challenges are borne out visibly through the physical asset, and everything becomes much more difficult.

I should not have to be here making points about political faith and delivery—or the economic arguments that have been made by other Members—but I will make the important humane case, based on the experiences of my constituents. I recently did a health survey where residents wrote in and told me their stories. One of them was a woman whose husband spent 54 hours in A&E with sepsis, lying on a trolley in a room so small it could have been a broom cupboard. Another, who is in her late 80s, sat waiting on a chair for 10 hours after a suspected heart attack, while another woman, who was unable to sit on a chair because of her pain, had to lie on the floor crying and wait for several hours.

Almost half of those who responded to the survey said that they had waited for more than four hours in A&E at St Helier hospital. We have the NHS numbers, too: across the Epsom and St Helier trust, 18,600 people waited for more than 12 hours in 2025. That is sickening; it is an example of a system that is not working. “Sickening” is the right word: like thousands of people across Sutton, I am sick to the back teeth with the endless delays that have got us here.

There is another important angle. In almost every one of the stories I was told, there was nothing but deep appreciation for the dedicated staff on the estate, many of whom the respondents credit with saving their lives in spite of—not because of—the conditions that they find themselves in. How can we keep recruiting into the NHS or uphold its public image if these are the conditions that we are expecting staff to work in? This is normally the part of the speech where I talk about the Government’s awful inheritance from the Conservatives, but I do not feel like making that point any more, because the people of Sutton have had enough context-setting and this Government is almost two years old now.

I thank the Minister for her discussions of this topic with me and other colleagues. I feel that we are engaging openly and positively, and I want to make that very clear for the record, but I ask the Government to listen to the pleas of our constituents, and to please provide the money to expand our emergency department. At risk of returning to my point about trust, if we do not fix this, we risk a catastrophe in Sutton that might undermine the faith of my residents and the broader public in the entire model of the NHS.

My speech has been about expanding, refurbishing and fixing St Helier hospital, but there is the separate issue of the real and urgent need for the specialist emergency care hospital that our NHS and residents were promised by the previous Government. We need that too, and we need it quickly. The expansion of our A&E would complement the provision in Sutton, and it needs to be brought forward.

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

I now call Josh Babarinde.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

I, too, associate myself with the comments about the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) on her stepping down as a Minister. She was a formidable opponent and will be sorely missed. I am sad to see her step back, but she has made the right decision for her, as in this place we should all do.

I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) for securing this debate. He was absolutely spot on when he said we do not scrutinise the process of NHS capital spending nearly enough. I was taken by what he said on that point, but less surprised that not many solutions came forward, although that is key to having this debate, because it is hugely technical.

I will use an example from my constituency for both the pros and the cons, the good and bad stories about capital investment. I was elected in 2019 and Hinckley is my biggest town. Healthcare is an important priority for my constituents and talk of improved hospital services there has been ongoing for 30 years now. On the good side, we were lucky enough to be picked to have a community diagnostic centre, a £24 million investment, and I was lucky enough to open it last year. That shows what good can come of capital investment. Under the previous Government, at August 2024, there were 165 similar good news stories of community diagnostic centres being opened across the country, not to mention the 108 surgical hubs that have not been talked about, but that are increasing patients’ ability to be seen and treated quickly, helping to deal with the waiting lists.

I also come with a negative story related to the same hospital. We were looking for a second project, a £10 million day case investment, but unfortunately, despite funding having been secured, delays in the system and difficulties with changing need have meant that that has been cancelled. The NHS papers specifically on that case state:

“The STP Capital business case for the Hinckley Day Case Unit received national approval in March 2024”—

but then struggled. The papers go on to say:

“However, since business case approval there have been further key changes… Changing financial context nationally and local financial challenges… Increased capital costs of the scheme circa £2m compared to that approved by the board… Programme delays resulting in a significantly reduced capital resource”.

They go on to explain that further delays to the programme occurred due to

“Cost pressures that exceeded the STP capital allocation…Since the approval of the STP Capital Business case in 2024, delays can be attributed to…The planning application phasing (considering the contention surrounding the demolition of the Hinckley District Hospital…The delay in submitting the planning application to allow the development of a robust design to address the Local Planning Authority’s concerns”.

We can already see the difficulties in how need is being allocated across Leicestershire and how planning and inflation interfere. That is the process issue at the heart of making these capital decisions.

That leads us to the bigger picture that confronts the Government today. As has been mentioned, funding is important, so what is the best document we can look at to see what the Government are trying to do? The 10-year plan is clear:

“We will continue to use private providers to improve access and reduce waiting times, to return the NHS to its constitutional standards. As we outlined in our Plan for Change, we will not let spare capacity go to waste on ideological grounds. We will continue to make use of private sector capacity to treat NHS patients where it is available, and we will enter discussions with private providers to expand NHS provision in the most disadvantaged areas.”

The Opposition agree with that, but I am not sure that all Government Members will, so I am interested to know whether all the Minister’s hon. Friends are aligned with it. I agree with the concern that the previous Government’s private finance initiatives, which brought in £13 billion of investment for new hospitals, cost the taxpayer more than £80 billion in repayments. We are still paying for that now.

Turning back to the NHS 10-year plan, a section called “Harnessing new investment” states that

“we will learn from previous experience with the Private Finance Initiative…In other cases, however, PFI was a costly mistake which represented poor value for money. Contracts were too complex and lacked proper transparency.

As the government considers new sources and models of private investment, we do so with this experience in mind.”

How do we know that? Where is it set out that the Government have learned this time? In the same section, the Government tell us they will “evolve” their

“infrastructure finance models and…consider the use of Public Private Partnerships…where there is a revenue stream, appropriate risk-transfer can be achieved, and value for money for taxpayers can be secured.”

Those are not small tests; they are the fundamental ones that we must ensure are in place, so my simple question is this: what is different this time? How will we assure value for money, and who will make that decision? How will we see genuine risk transfer being assessed, rather than simply pricing it into decades of payments? How will that work?

The 10-year plan also states:

“We will codevelop this with the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA), building on the successful NHS Local Improvement Finance Trust programme, and will look to drive competition in the market to incentivise others, including third party developers, to improve their offer to deliver better services at lower cost to the taxpayer.”

That is great—but LIFT is used only for small practices, so what model will come forward for everything else? The plan states:

“We will engage with the market on this programme and support NISTA in its wider market testing of a new PPP model.”

What is that model? Can we see it? What does it look like?

I note from the Minister’s answers to written questions that 120 neighbourhood health centres will be operated by 2030; 70 will be new buildings, 50 will come from refurbishment and, of those, 80% will be funded through PPPs. However, there are no plans to publish the business case. That raises legitimate questions. Why are the Government hiding this? We have been here before, and the country is nervous about this, so why can we not see what is being brought forward? If a new model is genuinely different, transparency should not be a threat; it should be a strength. Why will Parliament and the public not see it?

[Luke Taylor]

It would be remiss of me not to ask at this point, while the hon. Gentleman is speaking about transparency and funding for hospital projects, about the previous Government’s imagined 40 new hospitals. I invite him to give some transparency as to where the money to fund that hospital programme was supposed to come from and where it ultimately disappeared to. My residents are still suffering from the impact of his Government’s not providing that money. Can he expand on what happened to that money, which never arrived?

[Dr Evans]

I am grateful for the chance to put this on the record. The health infrastructure plan 2019 had the £3.7 billion, which was the seed funding to look into the projects to bring things forward. That also dealt with the first wave—the three hospitals that were brought forward to allow the second and third waves to come on. The hon. Gentleman will also know that, as the Government and the Opposition have stated, all big national infrastructure is done through a series of spending reviews. The money—£20 billion—was committed through those stages on the basis of that plan. The Government throw the same argument back at us when it is convenient for them to say, “We are not increasing defence spending because it needs to come in a spending review.” Both sides are playing politics, but there was money allocated in that plan. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was not in Parliament at that time, but he can ask the House of Commons Library to look at it so that he understands it, and he can then pass that on to his constituents to answer that question.

If we have a new model, we in this House need to be able to scrutinise it. GPs’ rents and rates are reimbursed, but there is concern that if we have further PPPs, similar to the previous PFIs, GPs may be on the hook for ongoing premises costs. We must have crystal clear guarantees, so they understand what they are and are not accountable for.

The 10-year plan states:

“We will also work with NISTA to consider the opportunities for health that could be achieved through private financing of revenue-raising assets (such as key worker accommodation and car parks)”.

That will set alarm bells ringing, as it looks like the Government will use key workers, or staff and patients coming into car parks, to generate funds. I would be grateful for clarity about what the Government actually mean by that statement, because this is a contentious issue. People know that we need to have funding coming into the health services, but where will those streams come from and what will they look like? If the 10-year plan is looking at revenue-raising assets, I am keen to understand exactly what that looks like.

Overall, there is a desire in the 10-year plan, which is shared across the House, to improve healthcare. Nobody disagrees with that, but the criticism of the 10-year plan is that there is no delivery chapter. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington for securing this debate so that the Opposition can ask questions about what delivery will actually look like when it comes to improving the health of the nation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point about how important DEXA scans are for osteoporosis, particularly for women. We have already expanded DEXA scans across the country this year; we have also allocated more capital funding for such capital investment, and we will announce the allocations in due course.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

T10. Children’s cancer services are due to move from the Royal Marsden to the Evelina hospital next year. Concerns have been raised with me about the provision of a teaching space for children undergoing cancer treatment and its provision in the new plans. Will the Minister meet with me to discuss that transition and confirm that the Department of Health and Social Care is working with the Department for Education to ensure that a high-quality hospital school is provided at both sites during the transition?

[Ashley Dalton]

As the hon. Gentleman is probably aware, this Government’s cancer plan, which I launched just over a week ago, is the first ever cancer plan to have a section on children and young people with cancer and to commit to supporting children holistically throughout their cancer journey. I am more than happy to have a conversation with him about the issues that he has raised.

Defibrillators

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer.

We have heard the terrifying statistics on the number of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests that occur each year, and about the terrifying survival rates. The outcomes for cardiac arrests remain stubbornly poor in London—which should be one of the easiest places in the country to provide good access to defibrillators—primarily because the equipment is still out of reach. That is why the work of charities such as the Paul Alan Project is so important. The charity was founded by Sutton resident Clare Parish in memory of her late father, Paul Alan Parish. She was standing beside her father when, in January 2022, he died of a cardiac arrest without warning while they cheered on Fulham at Craven Cottage.

I have heard Clare talk movingly about her father, and her resolve that CPR and defibrillator training should be widely accessible to everyone. She told me that losing her father in a crowd full of people, none of whom had had proper CPR training, was a tragedy that inspired her into action. The Paul Alan Project provides that training—which I have taken myself—free of charge, raises awareness of accessible emergency equipment, and fundraises for and installs bleed kits and defibs across the community. Clare is tireless in making sure that barriers to accessing not just training, but the defibs themselves, becomes a thing of the past. She partners with local businesses to get defibs—

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order.

Rare Cancers Bill

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 11th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for his work on the Bill, and all those who have supported its progress.

I rise briefly for two reasons. First, to speak for a constituent, Kate, who is only 40 years old and has an inoperable brain cancer. Kate contacted me this week to tell me about her case and to encourage me to support the Bill. She is under the care of 10 consultants and specialists as her condition worsens. Research on brain cancers and glioblastomas has hardly progressed in 50 years, yet it is the biggest cancer killer in children and adults under the age of 40. The Bill should improve the rate of cancer patients who are offered trials; currently, 82% are not and that is not good enough. The Bill should improve those chances.

I also rise to join the tributes to Dr Susan Michaelis, who passed away on Wednesday, for her campaigning for the better treatment of lobular breast cancer. I met Dr Michaelis in October last year, and was moved by her advocacy for improvements in treatment, and subsequently, by her support for the Bill.

For Kate, Susan and many others, it is important that the Bill passes today. Please do support it.

Chronic Urinary Tract Infections

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered chronic urinary tract infections.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I rise to speak about a horrific condition that has been ignored for much too long. For thousands of Britons chronic urinary tract infections turn ordinary lives into living nightmares. The pain and permanence of the illness has left thousands suffering on a daily basis. Having heard many of their stories it is clear to me that what they are living through is nothing short of torture. This speech is not just about a medical condition; it is about a scandal that highlights the systemic failure to take women’s pain seriously in this country.

Over the last few months a brave community of patients have shared their stories with me—stories of trauma, suffering and desperation. I have been utterly heartbroken by what I have been told. The cruelty of the condition is matched only by the cold indifference that its sufferers have faced from our healthcare system. It is a national disgrace that thousands of chronic UTI sufferers have been so profoundly let down by modern medicine.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. As a physiotherapist I meet patients with chronic UTIs who tell me about the increasing urgency leading to incontinence. The stigma behind incontinence is disgraceful. Does he agree that we need a wider strategy? When it comes to UTIs we need to look at the other effects, such as people falling and the number of fractures that happen because people are rushing to go to the toilet. It is important to look at a wider strategy instead of just thinking of this as a single issue.

[Luke Taylor]

Absolutely. I thank the hon. Member for raising those related issues, which are so important to consider. I will come on to talk about the wider challenge of women’s health being treated without the importance that it requires. I understand that she is attempting to secure a debate on a similar subject, so I wish her the best of luck in that endeavour.

Many of us have already heard of this illness and have heard people’s stories. I first learned about it from my constituent Phoebe, who has lived with a chronic UTI since she was three years old. Now in her mid-20s, she has become a tireless advocate for others suffering in silence. She shows remarkable perseverance and strength, even when the pain she lives with is beyond anything I can describe. Phoebe is here with us today, along with a number of other sufferers. It is my absolute privilege to stand in this place and speak for them and every other individual enduring such an awful condition. Will the Minister meet me, Phoebe and representatives of other campaign groups to hear how they have been let down by the system?

A chronic UTI is not just a diagnosis; it is at present a life sentence of torture that eats away at every part of a person’s existence. The condition first develops when bacteria from an acute UTI become permanently embedded in the lining of the bladder. Left untreated, the infection becomes entrenched, wreaking long-term havoc on the rest of the body.

I want to be absolutely clear: a chronic UTI should not be confused with the recurrent version of the condition. A patient diagnosed with a recurrent UTI might experience one or two infections over a six-month period. Although it is still serious, patients suffering from a recurrent UTI experience distinct intervals of relief from their symptoms. Chronic UTI sufferers live in constant and excruciating pain, with the infection never relenting. They are in agony every single day and every single night. Many sufferers have lived with the condition for decades, with the illness at present incurable.

Chronic urinary tract infections can affect anyone at any age, but they disproportionately affect women. At the UK’s only NHS specialist clinic, which I will come on to later, 95% of patients are women; only 5% are men. Individuals living with a chronic UTI are often forced to urinate more than 20 times an hour. I have been told that each time they use the toilet, it feels like they are passing razor blades through their urethra. Their urine is bloody. Their bladders are so tender they struggle to walk, and their bodies are consumed by fever. In many cases, the prolonged infection spreads from the bladder to the kidneys and the bloodstream, causing sepsis, with complications for other organs.

I have been told harrowing accounts of the agony caused by this illness. The pain has been likened to corrosive acid burning through the abdomen, glass shards lodged in the bladder and the feeling of mice eating away at the sufferer’s insides. Some liken it to scorching knives slashing forever at their stomach, or a hot cauldron constantly bubbling in their groin. The most common comparison I hear is that people’s bodies are perpetually on fire. To reiterate, the torment never stops—for the majority of patients, it is 24/7.

These symptoms destroy lives overnight. The illness renders individuals severely disabled, often forced to live a life of bedbound isolation. The pain is so overwhelming that patients can lose their ability to sleep and become trapped in a cycle of exhaustion. Household chores become impossible, and individuals can lose the ability to care for their children. Sufferers often lose their dream careers, as they cannot function with their symptoms in the workplace. They are unable to work or afford costly bills for private medicine.

Young adults living with the condition often have to forgo university studies, with the severity of their agony making their education unbearable. Romantic relationships break down, with at least one case of a marriage of over 40 years ending due to the illness. Sexual intercourse is virtually impossible due to the immense pain. Many people with the condition fear they will never be able to start a family. Patients face an utter loss of independence and, unsurprisingly, depression and suicidal ideation are daily struggles for the chronic UTI patient community.

This brings me on to my second ask for the Minister: every healthcare professional in the UK must be properly briefed to recognise and treat a chronic UTI. Since 2022, the NHS website has formally recognised the existence of chronic UTIs, yet I have heard that many GPs and urologists still deny the existence of the illness. Patients suffering from chronic UTIs are left to fight for recognition and are misdiagnosed with conditions such as internal cystitis or recurrent UTIs.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Does the hon. Member agree that part of the issue is the use of antibiotics, to which UTIs are becoming immune? The medical profession cannot keep up with treatments, and there is a case for better education of the general public in terms of sanitisation. I know it is possible to get UTIs in different ways, but it would be helpful to educate and remind the population about sanitation.

[Luke Taylor]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. Many of our modern medicine practices are designed around avoiding the build-up of antibiotic resistance. The intention is to allow high-dose, effective antibiotics to be available when required, yet so many sufferers tell us that when they go to the doctor because they require those antibiotics, they are denied them. If this is not a case where those effective antibiotics must be used, even though resistance must be avoided, there cannot be a better example of the mismatch between intention and practice. I will come on to that in more detail, but I thank the hon. Member for making that point.

The misdiagnosis of chronic UTIs does not lead to effective treatment and compounds sufferers’ agonising pain with awful frustration. At their most vulnerable and weak, they are being forced to prove that what is happening to them is real. That is Kafkaesque, and it is totally wrong. The key problem appears to be that specific National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines do not exist for chronic UTIs in England, and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network guidelines do not exist for the condition in Scotland. NICE guidelines for acute and recurrent UTIs exist, but as I have outlined, they are not fit for purpose for this chronic condition. How can GPs and urologists provide and recommend proper care, as the first point of contact with the patient, when there are no clear clinical guidelines?

Without guidelines, many medical professionals are practically blind to the condition. They cannot prescribe the right antibiotics to relive patients’ pain because chronic UTIs are not even on their radar. Chronic UTI specialists do exist, and they recognise the condition and can help treat symptoms, but without proper guidance GPs and urologists, unintentionally or not, block patients from reaching them and refuse their requests for referral. Many chronic UTI sufferers have post-traumatic stress disorder from their interactions with medical professionals, never mind the suffering from the condition itself. I have heard stories of patients being essentially gaslit by medical professionals, told that the concern is all in their heads, denied antibiotics and given antidepressants instead. It seems that some GPs and urologists have dismissed the illness as a women’s problem and have told patients just to deal with the pain. That is not medicine; it is misogyny.

I urge the Minister to push for the creation by NICE and SIGN of guidelines on chronic UTIs that are distinct from those on recurrent UTIs. That is long overdue and will hopefully bring to an end those kinds of interactions between suffering patients and GPs, but that alone will not be enough. There have to be better treatment offers for chronic UTI patients further down the pipeline. Right now, there is just one NHS specialist clinic in the entire country: the lower urinary tract symptoms clinic at Whittington hospital in London—one clinic for a nationwide illness. It offers fantastic support for patients, but waiting times are too long. We all know that waiting lists are far too high across the NHS— I commend the Government for their approach to bringing waiting lists down generally—but for chronic UTI sufferers forced to compete for the time of a solitary clinic, the effect is even more pronounced. Sufferers wait months, even years, for help if they are lucky enough to secure a referral in the first place.

Even once patients get to the clinic, relief is still not guaranteed. The LUTS clinic offers long-term, high-dose antibiotics that can treat the symptoms, but they bring only partial relief, leaving many dragging themselves through life exhausted, drowsy and still in pain. That is not really living; it is enduring. Worse, the antibiotics do not work for everyone: about 30% of patients cannot tolerate them at all. Imagine the despair of being in that 30%.

The situation would be scandalous enough if it were simply the case that, in desperation, many chronic UTI patients turned to private healthcare, spending thousands of pounds that they do not have just to access the bare minimum of care, but it is more awful than that. Some are forced to go to even more extreme lengths and choose risky, experimental procedures just to lessen their suffering. They fly abroad and pay unlicensed doctors more than £30,000 to have their bladders surgically removed. Let me say that again: people are choosing to have their organs ripped out in foreign countries because mainstream healthcare in the UK offers them nothing.

For some, those risky surgeries offer relief, but for many the infection is already in their kidneys, and they return from the operation bladderless and with multiple complications. Some suffers, with few options left, make a choice that should haunt us in this House. Rather than live another day like that, they take the most extreme choice of all: to take their own life. That is not how people should be living in modern Britian, and that is why we should spare no expense in researching better treatments and, of course—as so many dream—a cure.

I argue that the Government have an obligation, no matter the prevailing economic circumstances, to expedite the day that that becomes a reality. Promising medical trials already under way in the UK show real potential to transform how we treat chronic UTIs. Those treatments are ready to progress to human trials; the only thing standing in the way is funding. I urge the Minister to look into the roadblocks to getting more funding to the trials, and to come forward at the earliest opportunity with a plan to put conditions that are under-diagnosed and under-prioritised, such as chronic UTIs, at the front of their research agenda for this country’s biomedical research industry. I would be happy to put the Minister in touch with some of those working at the cutting edge of treatment in this field.

I have told the story of chronic UTI sufferers and their longing for relief—a relief the Government can help them seek if they back their cause—but I remind the House that the condition exists in a much wider context: health issues that mainly impact women are consistently neglected and routinely dismissed. We know that women wait longer in accident and emergency departments. We also know that just 5% of global health research goes towards conditions that exclusively or disproportionately affect women. Even though 15% to 20% consult doctors for chronic pain, it was only this year that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists introduced an optional training module on chronic pain for trainee doctors.

Inquiries such as Paterson and Cumberlege laid bare the systemic failures in how women’s health is treated in this country, but implementation and cultural change have lagged far behind the words. I have wondered many things since I first heard stories of chronic UTI sufferers, but nothing has unsettled me more than the lingering thought that if more men were affected by the disease, we would have had better treatments decades ago. That is an oft-used cliché but it comes up time and again.

The Minister has heard today about the scale of unimaginable pain that those with chronic UTIs experience. She has heard about the broken diagnostic system that stops too many sufferers getting the help they need. She has heard about the roadblocks to developing better treatments that are standing in the way of relief. I simply reiterate my asks. Will she and her officials meet me and these brave sufferers to hear more about the specific actions that the Government need to take to clear the roadblocks? Will they commit to pushing for the NICE guidelines to be brought up to date to reflect the latest understanding of this disease? Will they outline what steps they are taking to combat the wider problem of the neglect of women’s health issues? Chronic UTI sufferers deserve so much more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Taylor]

I start by thanking the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for her contribution to the debate on the broader health inequalities for women, and I wish her the best of luck in securing the debate that she seeks.

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). He talked particularly about the strain on NHS resources that is caused by the lack of attention on this condition, which further compounds the challenges and backlogs in the system.

I thank the hon. Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine) for his account of the impact of this condition on his constituent, who had to give up her job; that shows the terrible impact it has on people’s lives.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for talking about the challenges around the antibiotic regime, including antibiotic resistance, and the complexity of that issue.

I thank the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) for her contribution. Her focus on the treatment of children was particularly instructive, because, as we have heard, the challenge is stopping a UTI becoming a recurrent UTI, which then becomes a chronic UTI. That is a real focus on that in the treatment of children. There is also a focus on Pharmacy First to help by stopping UTIs in children from becoming an issue in the first place. That was a particularly insightful point. I also thank her for bringing her knowledge as a doctor to the debate.

I thank the Minister for confirming that she will meet me and campaigners to further discuss the issues. However, I do not think that she gave a specific answer on how NICE and SIGN guidance would be updated to incorporate guidance on UTIs, but we can discuss that later, and I apologise if I missed it.

However, I will really focus on the contribution from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner). She spoke heartbreakingly about her experience of this condition and about how it has driven her into politics. I look forward to working with her to try and raise awareness of this issue and keep it current, and to try to understand how we can help her and the incredibly brave campaigners who brought the condition to my attention, so that we can really see some action on all the various streams of work that we can propose in this place.

Once again, I thank the Minister for being here to listen to the stories of sufferers and for responding to my points. I thank all hon. Members who took part in this debate, particularly pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South for her bravery. I also thank campaigners, including Phoebe, who is in the Public Gallery today. Their strength and resilience have given us a chance in this place to try to take clear action to give them their hope back.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered chronic urinary tract infections.

Hospitals

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

I am grateful for the chance to speak in today’s debate and to be able to give voice to so many of my constituents’ frustrations about how their right to access quality healthcare has been deprioritised by this Labour Government.

Many of my constituents, especially those in the north of my constituency, are served by the Epsom and St Helier university hospitals NHS trust. To be blunt, the situation at the trust today is simply not sustainable—clinically, financially or structurally. The trust currently operates two acute hospitals, in Epsom and St Helier, with duplicate services spread across both sites. The arrangement, while a product of historical necessity, today places considerable pressure on clinical teams. Allocation of staff members between sites is challenging and service delivery is stretched. No matter how committed the staff—their dedication is beyond question—they are constantly being asked to do more with less, in buildings that are often quite literally falling apart around them.

To give just one brief example, earlier this year St Helier was forced to cancel scheduled blood tests because of widespread flooding in the phlebotomy section. We simply cannot go on like this. Indeed, time is not a luxury we have, with the estate now deteriorating faster than it can be fixed. The trust is spending millions every year simply to keep the most urgent problems at bay: patching leaks, coping with flooding, and addressing the worst outbreaks of damp and mould. I think we all agree that these are not the conditions in which 21st-century healthcare should be delivered.

That is why it was so disappointing to learn earlier this year that the planned specialist emergency care hospital in Sutton—a long-standing scheme under the new hospital programme that was carefully conceived to address the very issues I have mentioned—has been delayed to the point that work will now not even begin until 2030 to 2035, with opening coming in 2037 at the earliest.

The new hospital will consolidate emergency care into one state-of-the-art facility, delivering world-class treatment, faster access to care, and safer outcomes. At the same time, it will allow for major investment at Epsom and St Helier hospitals, helping to modernise crumbling buildings, improve planned care pathways and ensure that most services remain close to home. Under the trust’s plans, 85% of services would remain on the Epsom and St Helier sites, including out-patient care and diagnostic appointments. Local people would continue to receive the vast majority of their care where they always have done, but would benefit from shorter waiting times and access to better facilities, particularly for surgery. I passionately believe that the new hospital at Sutton is a once- in-a-generation chance to overhaul healthcare provision and ensure that my constituents receive the high-quality care they deserve in a timely fashion.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

The new Sutton hospital will sit in my constituency. In 2020, we were promised by the former Member for Sutton and Cheam that the hospital would open in 2025; indeed, he continues to have that claim on his website. Does the hon. Lady agree that the failure to deliver any new hospital in Sutton borough, whether at Belmont or St Helier, is entirely down to the failure of the previous Government to fund and bring forward these projects while they were in power?

[Rebecca Paul]

I can confirm to the hon. Member that if the Conservatives were in power, we would be delivering that hospital.

I want to be clear: the trust is ready to move forward, and clinical consensus has been secured; what is now urgently needed is commitment from the Government to drive the programme forward. After all, patients and staff alike deserve better than to spend another decade or more in facilities that are not fit for modern healthcare delivery. They deserve to know that promises made through the new hospital programme will be honoured, not quietly shelved or endlessly deferred by this Government.

I urge Ministers in the strongest possible terms to look again at the decision to delay Sutton emergency care hospital and to provide the long-term certainty the trust needs to proceed—not in 2035, but now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

This has been an interesting and enlightening debate in some ways. Of all the subjects on which the Liberal Democrats might have brought a motion to this House, it is fascinating that we are talking about new hospitals, as I think everybody would agree that the Labour party has invested both historically and under this Government in the national health service. In fact in the last Budget back in the autumn, £13.6 billion extra was allocated to NHS capital expenditure—a record amount. I know that Opposition Members have not particularly enjoyed repeated references to the coalition years. I do not think anybody in this House particularly enjoys remembering the 2010 to 2015 period. The Conservatives certainly do not, and apparently the Liberal Democrats—

[Luke Taylor]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mark Ferguson]

I am barely getting going but would be delighted to add an extra minute to my speech.

[Luke Taylor]

It is amazing how short memories are on the Labour side of the Chamber. The note from the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) which said “I am afraid there is no money” led to decisions that were apparently “ideological”, yet difficult decisions now being made by the Labour Government are “mature and realistic”. It is amazing how short the memories are to make those two things different. A lot of time and patience are being given to this Government for the delays to our hospitals; if their tone were more constructive, more patience would be given.

[Mark Ferguson]

If we want the tone to be constructive, we should be constructive about the fact that Labour is going to be building hospitals, when no hospitals were constructed over the last five years. The reality is very clear: hospitals do not simply appear; we cannot wish a hospital into existence. They require two things: money and time. If we wish that there were more new hospitals in this country, we should go back in time to 10 to 15 years ago. That would have been a fantastic time, when borrowing was much cheaper than it is today, to have invested in hospitals in all our communities. Unfortunately, the cancellation of the building schools for the future project was basically the first act of the coalition Government, and there was a lack of investment in schools and hospitals. As the shadow spokesperson the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) has said today, we are cleaning up the mess that has been left. That was the characterisation of the early 2010s, but it is very much more realistic today. The shadow spokesperson accused the Government of a lack of imagination. Well, there has been no lack of imagination here; there has been magical thinking from the Liberal Democrats, who apparently believe that a taskforce will generate the billions of pounds necessary to build hospitals immediately.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

The crisis in our NHS and the scandal of crumbling hospitals are a daily reality for my constituents and all communities served by the Epsom and St Helier university hospitals NHS trust. We have allowed our healthcare infrastructure to decay to a point where it hinders the delivery of care. These are not minor cosmetic issues; many of our hospital buildings predate the NHS and are riddled with damp, mould and leaking roofs. Yet we expect our dedicated doctors, nurses and support staff to deliver world-class treatment under those appalling conditions. The consequences run far deeper than peeling paint: patient safety is jeopardised, staff morale is crushed, and the basic functioning of our hospitals is compromised. Staff are stretched to their limits, struggling to provide the care that our communities deserve in facilities that are simply not fit for purpose. They deal with the consequences of decades of under-investment, where patching up failing infrastructure has become the norm—a short-sighted and ultimately more costly approach.

The impact of the ageing estate on elective recovery has meant that since April 2024, more than 600 operations have had to be cancelled. The lifts break down and cannot be fixed simply because they do not make the parts any more. Over the past five years, over £60 million has been spent on improving the Epsom and St Helier estate just to keep it operational. At St Helier, 46% of repairs are identified as high risk.

The human cost of this crumbling infrastructure is evident. Patients are forced to endure unacceptable waiting times, often in undignified conditions. A&E waiting times at the Epsom and St Helier trust are among the worst in London, with over a third of patients waiting more than 12 hours for a bed.

[Luke Taylor]

My hon. Friend mentions corridor care. That is a recurring theme in Members’ inboxes. A constituent recently told me that her husband, who is immunosuppressed because of his chemotherapy, had to wait 54 hours in A&E at St Helier with sepsis, exposing him to more infections on top of his existing conditions. Does she agree that without a proper rescue package for crumbling hospitals like St Helier, immunosuppressed patients will continue to be put at unnecessary risk?

[Helen Maguire]

I am sorry to hear that story. It is just one among a catalogue of incidents that we hear of on a regular basis.

This past winter, more than 2,000 patients waited over half a day just to be seen. The delays not only cause distress and anxiety but can have serious and long-term consequences for patient outcomes. The Epsom and St Helier university hospitals NHS trust has worked diligently, developing detailed plans for a new specialist emergency care hospital alongside the modernisation of Epsom and St Helier hospitals. This state-of-the-art facility would be a beacon of hope, improving outcomes for our sickest patients and consolidating acute services in a way that strengthens staffing and keeps care local. But that promise has been left to wither. The Health Secretary’s latest announcement pushes the start of construction of the new specialist emergency care hospital to 2032 at the earliest, adding to decades of false promises that have let my constituents down time and again.

That is why, this Friday, I will be abseiling 125 feet down St Helier hospital to raise funds for the Epsom and St Helier Hospitals charity and shine a spotlight on the urgent need for investment in our hospitals. The funds raised will provide extra support to our hospitals, over and above what the NHS can currently deliver.

Charity can only fill so many gaps; it cannot substitute for the Government action that our hospitals desperately require. The Government should reverse the delay to the new hospital programme and urgently deliver the new hospitals that patients have long been promised. They must prioritise the construction of the specialist emergency care hospital and fund the long-overdue repairs at St Helier. My constituents deserve nothing less than modern, safe and high-quality healthcare.

Hospice and Palliative Care

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kohler]

I agree with the hon. Member. We need more palliative care specialists and we need more training, and there is a real danger of burnout.

It is not just hospices that provide palliative care. When talking to specialists within and beyond the hospice sector, I have been struck by their commitment to giving patients a good death and their frustration that so many do not receive one. A palliative care doctor recently told The Guardian:

“I sometimes see patients…who come into hospital in unspeakable agony and want their lives to end. It is not because their pain cannot be prevented, but because they are not getting the care they need.”

A local oncologist told me:

“Demand for services is simply outstripping supply. The majority of patients are not getting their end of life care wishes met. The specialist palliative care teams are very good but there are not enough of them and they do not have adequate resources.”

Huge regional inequalities exist in the provision and quality of services due to the vagaries of the current funding model. The Health and Care Act 2022 included for the first time a statutory duty for ICBs to provide palliative care. However, it did not include a minimum standard of core provision, leaving it to what each ICB considers appropriate.

Freedom of information requests submitted by Hospice UK in 2023 found that adult hospice funding consequently ranged from just 23p to £10.33 per head of population across different ICBs. For children’s hospices, the variations were even starker. Research from the amazing charity Together for Short Lives found that spending per child with a life-limiting condition varied from an average of £531 in Norfolk and Waveney to just £28 in South Yorkshire.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

On the point about the postcode lottery—an oft-used cliché by politicians—I have heard from Hospice UK that, on one occasion, a single gift from a legacy covered the running costs for a hospice in the UK for five years. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is one of the starkest and most extreme illustrations of how the current system is so unbalanced and, from one street to the next, leaves people with such disparities of access to such an important element of healthcare?

[Mr Kohler]

I agree, and I will come to some solutions that might address this issue. We must increase the core responsibilities of ICBs in this area.

Inevitably, much palliative care is provided not by specialists but by generalists, such as GPs, trainee doctors and community nurses for whom care of the dying is not their primary focus. Many lack the training, time and resources needed to provide what is possible, not through their fault but due to a system that does not regard palliative care as a core function. That is all too evident at the outset of their careers, with one medical student telling me:

“I only received 2 mandatory days training on palliative care in my entire degree. This is simply not enough and we need to increase training across the board to ensure patients are given equal access to high-quality care.”

Since the Shipman case there is unacceptable legal uncertainty, particularly among non-palliative care specialists, about the extent to which analgesics can be given in a sufficient quantity to alleviate pain, even where that might hasten death. The system requires a complete overhaul. We need more palliative care specialists and better training for non-specialists, including robust advice on the legality of giving sufficient pain relief to alleviate suffering, buttressed if necessary and appropriate by more explicit guidance in the Director of Public Prosecutions’ code for Crown prosecutors and the Lord Chief Justice’s criminal practice directions.

ICBs should be required to provide a minimum level of palliative care as a core function. This would have a transformative effect on how palliative care is funded both within and beyond the hospice sector, rather than leaving it to the generosity of particular ICBs such as South West London and Surrey Heartlands, both of which do all they can to fund local hospices, but within the constraints of a funding model that limits their ability to do so.

In concluding, I want to return to where I began. The debate is a matter of life and death. Ensuring a good death is important not just for the individual at the end of their life, but for those they leave behind. Knowing that someone passed away peacefully can bring real comfort to those mourning their loss. I would like to end with the words of Fleur, whose son received end of life care at the wonderful Shooting Star hospice. She said:

“Hospices are not just places where life comes to a close…they are places where those left behind learn how to keep on living. When my son Toby died, our hospice didn’t just care for him—it cared for all of us, to give us a future not defined by trauma, but by love, resilience, and hope. Months later, when my daughter had to step back into a hospital—the place where we had first been told we would lose Toby—she froze, overwhelmed by fear and grief. When she returned to the hospice, the very place where Toby had taken his last breath, she ran inside, kicked off her shoes, and threw herself into the arms of a nurse.”

That is what it is possible to achieve. I hope the Government are listening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for bringing forward this incredibly important debate. Anyone who has been paying attention to my contributions in this place will not be surprised that I am once again expressing my deepest possible concerns about St Raphael’s hospice in my constituency. Its case is emblematic of the problems across this undervalued and dramatically important sector.

One of my first visits after being elected as the MP in July was to St Raph’s hospice, where I saw the incredible care that it offers to residents in my constituency and beyond. I have met people from the hospice several times since then, including just this morning, and it is clear that while the Secretary of State’s £100 million announcement is welcome, it simply does not go far enough. The funding is restricted to capital expenditure fractions, such as refurbishments and digital services. While undoubtedly important to modernise and update the capability of our hospices, the funding does not address their immediate financial hardship, especially in the context of the Chancellor’s Budget.

St Raph’s is set to face an estimated £140,000 increase in staff costs this coming year due to the rise in employer national insurance contributions. This burden only adds to the significant strain on the hospice, which is currently funded by the NHS for just 28% of its budget. It is therefore reliant on the generosity of charitable donations for the remainder. If the Government fail to see sense and exempt hospices from this hike, structural deficits will only continue to grow in the sector, pushing many over the cliff edge altogether and forcing those who remain open to cut their services to the bone.

While the announcement of additional funding is appreciated, it does not address the root of the problem. The Government’s approach is dangerously akin to tackling a leaking roof with a mop and bucket. The Secretary of State spoke last week about the need to shift the focus of healthcare from the hospital to the community, yet I fear their treatment of the hospice sector has done exactly the opposite. Due to the limited funding that St Raph’s receives, it has been forced to cut its hospice at home scheme, a vital service where staff directly attend to patients in their own homes in the local community. Those on the Government Front Bench say they want community-based palliative care like that under the hospice at home scheme, but the scheme has been cut further due to their actions.

These issues show why they must bring forward a long-term funding arrangement for hospices, if the Government intend to keep their promise. My Hospices and Health Care (Report on Funding) Bill, presented last year and due for Second Reading in July, sets out ways for the Government to consider those options to deliver a long-term funding deal. However, I sincerely hope that by July the Government will have listened and the Bill will not need to be debated at all. I urge them to please make my Bill completely redundant.

NHS Backlog

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this debate. The backlog in the NHS is a national crisis, and it is acutely felt in my constituency. Patients, families and staff are bearing the brunt of an overstretched and under-resourced healthcare system. This morning I was delighted to see the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary at Epsom hospital in my constituency—part of the Epsom and St Helier trust—to announce this Government’s plans to tackle the backlog of tests, checks and treatments. I welcome many aspects of today’s announcement. Direct access to checks will cut unnecessary waiting times and, if implemented well, will result in better patient outcomes as health issues are found earlier.

The location of this announcement at a hospital connected to St Helier hospital was particularly potent. Over the Christmas period, St Helier hospital, which has been at the heart of healthcare in the community for generations, made the news again. Its sinking floors and leaky ceilings illustrate the failings of our NHS. The facility is failing. Some of the buildings are older than the NHS itself and are plagued by damp, mould and structural issues that impede patient care. The hard-working staff at St Helier hospital are doing their best in impossible circumstances, but the reality is that the current infrastructure hampers their ability to provide the level of service and the quality of care that my constituents deserve.

Epsom hospital, too, is struggling to cope with demand. Over the winter recess I heard harrowing stories from constituents who faced unacceptable A&E waiting times. One mother brought her child to Epsom hospital with a suspected broken wrist and endured a seven-hour wait for an X-ray, finally leaving in the early hours of the morning. While there, she encountered another mother with a nine-month-old baby who had a bump on its head. They left after six hours without being seen because they simply could not wait any longer. One constituent’s 86-year-old mother was told by the 111 service to go to A&E at Epsom hospital after an injury, only to be informed that there would be a 10-hour wait, meaning she would have to stay up until 2 am after a potentially serious injury. These are not isolated incidents, but rather the lived reality for many families. These delays stem from a combination of rising demand, staff shortages and an ageing infrastructure that cannot keep pace.

While I welcome the fact that elective care capacity will increase, hopefully reducing the waiting times for care for many patients, this must also come with a focus on improving emergency care. Ring-fencing elective beds while people waiting for emergency care are dying in corridors or leaving without being checked is nonsensical. We must increase the number of staffed hospital beds to end degrading corridor care. Further, there must be a qualified clinician in every waiting room to ensure that any deteriorating conditions are picked up on.

Locally, it is vital that the Epsom and St Helier hospitals are at the front of the queue for necessary repairs and that the new specialist emergency care hospital in Sutton is at the top of the priority list for this new hospital programme.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

The Epsom and St Helier hospitals trust covers my constituency as well, and many of our residents rely on those hospitals for their care. Does my hon. Friend agree that it was previous Conservative Government’s absolute failure to deliver one of the 40 new hospitals promised in 2019 that led to the degradation in care for residents across both our constituencies? In addition, does she agree that the Government must come forward with the funding that residents in both constituencies need, to reassure them that their healthcare needs will be met into the future?

[Helen Maguire]

I absolutely agree that it is partly a failure of the previous Conservative Government that the hospitals have not been built. It is vital that the Epsom and St Helier hospitals trust is put at the top of the list as a priority for a new hospital. A new hospital will improve outcomes by consolidating critical services under one roof, easing the strain on staff who are currently stretched across two sites. Moreover, it will enable the Epsom and St Helier hospitals to focus on elective care, diagnostics and out-patient services, which will help them to tackle the backlog more efficiently. Crucially, the new hospital will expand the overall number of beds. Centralising major acute services will address estate challenges, strengthen staffing levels and improve patient outcomes, which will reduce the intolerable waiting times experienced at Epsom and St Helier hospitals.

I turn to the distressing delay in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder assessments. In September 2024, the Darzi report highlighted the stark reality that demand for ADHD assessments has grown so significantly that it risks overwhelming available resources. Nationally, it could take an average of eight years to clear the backlog at the current rate.

My constituent Sophie has been facing the brunt of this backlog. She has been waiting since June 2020 for an adult ADHD assessment, and she will wait quite a bit longer, as Surrey and Borders partnership NHS foundation trust has informed me that it is addressing referrals from as far back as March 2019. The root cause is a mismatch between demand and funding. The service was commissioned to support 400 assessments annually, but it receives 400 referrals every two months. Sophie, like many others, has been advised to seek private assessment, an option that is financially out of reach, as she has been unemployed due to her symptoms. This inefficient system should be reconsidered to help reduce the enormous backlog. The situation is wholly unacceptable.