(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberI congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser) on securing this debate, so that we can learn from the covid years. I first pay tribute to the amazing health workers, volunteers and key workers who supported us through that turbulent time, and I will focus my brief contribution on the often overlooked impact that covid had on maternity services and pregnancy, and on the lived experiences of women. We know that women were shut out of the highest levels of decision making during the pandemic, and their voices were sidelined. Research from the London School of Economics and Political Science found that the Conservative Government consistently failed to consider gender in their response to covid-19.
During covid, the Maternal Mental Health Alliance reported a sharp rise in maternal anxiety, and the already concerning gaps in perinatal mental health services widened further. Informed support networks, which are so vital to new mothers, were decimated by lockdowns and restrictions. The withdrawal of home birth services and the closure of midwife-led units during the pandemic curtailed women’s autonomy over how and where to give birth. That shift saw many women forced to deliver in hospitals where covid-19 was actively being treated, heightening the health risk for mothers and newborns. Post-natal services also suffered immensely. A coalition of 13 pregnancy and baby charities gave evidence about covid-19, and they spoke about the way that the needs of mothers and new parents were consistently overlooked in critical healthcare decisions. For instance, one-year assessments were done by video call; there was a lack of replacement for in-person baby classes; and there were no health visitors or community practitioners.
We are running short of time, so in conclusion, I remind the House that roughly 1.85 million babies were born during the UK pandemic years, and all those children have mothers who had to face that time alone, confused and forgotten. We owe it to every parent, midwife and newborn to ensure that never happens again. Let that be our legacy—not just remembrance, but the resolve to build a health system that is resilient, compassionate and prepared. The next generation deserves to be welcomed into a world that has learned from its past and strives for better.
(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberThe important thing for us to consider here is that with only 1,100 or 1,200 lads and young men in the country living with the disease, and only 500 boys eligible for the treatment, we could at least expect some consistency in approach across the whole of the United Kingdom.
To build on that point, I recently met the parents of a young man in his 20s who absolutely reinforced the need to get givinostat funded properly across the country. I was also struck by how the lives of both parents—they are teachers—and their other child were deeply affected by having to support their son and brother. Does my hon. Friend support my plea to the Minister to reassure my constituents that adult social care services will continue to support people like them, so that their lives can be enriched?
It is really important that we remember the parents, families and carers—the big support network around these boys. It seems to be such a small thing that we need to do from the point of view of the NHS.
There are some very good examples: Leicester royal infirmary is leading the way as the first hospital to dose a patient. However, as we have heard, some large specialist children’s hospitals in many areas have been slow to commit, and only a few have actually started dosing patients, although some are still working to make givinostat available. The barriers that we hear about are a lack of capacity and resource constraints. Clinics say that they need small amounts of additional consultant time for pharmacy support and extra blood tests, but really, in the context of the number of blood tests that are carried out in the NHS on a daily basis, this number is really quite small. However, some trusts still insist on telling families that they cannot deliver the treatment because of that. Given that some trusts can and some cannot, I would like to hear from the Minister what we might do to even out the service across the country.
Some trusts have expressed concern that after starting patients on givinostat, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence might subsequently not approve it at its upcoming meeting in July, and trusts would have to withdraw the treatment. Well, they would not need to do so: Italfarmaco, the previously mentioned pharmacy company, has made it clear that in the event of a negative decision from NICE, it will continue to provide givinostat for those already enrolled on the early-access programme for as long as it is deemed clinically beneficial to the patient. Continuity of supply letters have been signed between hospitals taking part in the early-access programme and the company to ensure that this is in line with NHS England guidance.
There are two reasons now to accelerate the roll-out before NICE’s decision in July. The first is that every day and every week makes a difference to these young lads; the second is that every lad who gets on that programme before July will be guaranteed this treatment for the rest of their lives, if it is not approved by NICE.
When I met Benjamin, Jack and Eli, I had already disappointed Eli by not being able to introduce him to Sam Fender, so I thought I would try to redeem myself. I said to them, “Look, I’ve come to see you, but clearly, when you came to Parliament, you didn’t want to meet the Member for Stockton North. Who would you most like to meet?”. They all said they would like to meet the Secretary of State for Health, not primarily because he could help them with their disease, but apparently they like him—he is a very popular Member of Parliament. I said, “I’ll see if I can sort that out,” and I did manage to sort it out. The Secretary of State very generously gave a lot of his time—I think his private office thought he had vanished off the face of the earth, because he had a great time chatting to Benjamin, Jack and Eli. I know that his intervention really cheered them up, but it also gave them hope for their futures. I want sincerely to thank the Secretary of State for Health for his generosity in sharing his time on that day and for the difference that he made to those boys.
I turn to my requests of the Minister. In the short term, what these families need is for hospitals with specialist neuromuscular services across the whole of the United Kingdom—in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—to implement the early-access programme swiftly, and for it to be rolled out to non-ambulant patients, too. The free availability of the drug from the manufacturer means that cost alone is not the barrier here; the barrier is bureaucracy. My simple ask to the Minister is to act with the urgency needed to roll out the medicine across the country as quickly as possible. Every day and every week matters—the lads with Duchenne do not have time to wait.
(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallWestminster 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
I agree: mother and baby units are vital.
For women in the period from six weeks after giving birth to one year after giving birth, the leading cause of death is suicide. While I want to speak more widely today, I want us to be very conscious of that extreme end of the risks that women face. Despite the potential seriousness, the stigma around these problems is huge. Some 70% of women will hide or underplay maternal mental health difficulties, and in turn, they will never get the support they need.
I thank my hon. Friend for bravely sharing the devastating story of her friend. I also have a wonderful friend, Sarah, whose daughter was a month old when the covid lockdown hit. She was so worried about breaking lockdown rules that she did not lean on friends and family and ended up having a mental breakdown. Does my hon. Friend agree that maternal mental health should be a high priority in any future emergency planning?
I absolutely do, and I am sorry to hear of the experience of my hon. Friend’s friend.
What are the consequences of all this? The human suffering is immense, but maternal mental health has economic consequences and costs, too—an estimated £8.1 billion each year in the UK, according to research from the London School of Economics, and nearly three quarters of that cost relates to adverse impacts on the child rather than the mother.
I want to suggest four ways in which maternal mental health support can be improved, and I will be as brief as I can. The first is improving specialist perinatal mental health services. The second is better embedding mental health support in routine maternity care. The third is improving community support, and the fourth is education and awareness raising.
(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberA major argument in the debate on assisted dying has been about making it accessible to all, rather than only those who can afford to travel to access it. The argument is made about dignity in dying. I struggle to see the fairness, however, in pursuing spend to allow dignity in dying when we struggle to fund dignity in other areas of the NHS. I am sure that many midwives and those who have been through pregnancy and birth in recent years will agree that severely underfunded maternity services can lead to experiences completely lacking in dignity for mothers. The impact can last throughout the life of a family. In September 2024, the Care Quality Commission found that almost two thirds of inspected maternity units were unsafe to birth in.
We likewise know that the dignity offered to disabled people, those receiving palliative care and those in supported living is often far less than they deserve. One of the biggest flaws in the Bill, therefore, is the money resolution. I do not see how we can sign a blank cheque to guarantee dignity only in death when dignity in all parts of life is still so desperately in need of resources, and equally deserving.
I will not, if that is all right. Sorry.
At the other end of the spectrum, we need to be acutely aware that we are not today expanding overall budgets in the NHS, so what we agree to in this money resolution will put further strain on our already stretched NHS. That means that, for example, St Catherine’s hospice in my constituency, which already requires private fundraising for almost 80% of its income, will have further NHS funding pulled away to accommodate publicly funded assisted dying. It is prudent for us to make clear what we put at risk if we vote through the Bill, having agreed this money resolution. The resolution means that money for palliative care will likely be diminished. The House should consider that in the next stages of the Bill, given what it is supposedly designed to alleviate.
Finally, let us make it clear what we are agreeing to today. I have asked a few times, and never really got a clear answer, why making assisted dying legal has to go hand in hand with a commitment to funding assisted dying on the NHS. Most of us, including me, fiercely protect the idea of an NHS that is free at the point of use, but we risk maternity services encouraging women to pursue induced births rather than planned caesareans, partly because of resource limitations in the NHS. I caution against an agreement to spend money on guaranteeing dignity in dying when we lag so far behind on guaranteeing dignity in birth, and in many other areas.