Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

Maya Ellis Excerpts

Friday 4th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)]

I am delighted to wholeheartedly support the private Member’s Bill of the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), which pushes for vital provision to support infants and families, and would finally put into legislation the requirement for the Government to report to Parliament annually on how this country supports children and families from pregnancy to age two.

I am very proud to be the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on babies (pregnancy to age two). Over the past two years, I have seen through that role that the evidence on this subject is there a hundred times over. We know that there are 3.5 million children under the age of four, all of whom will grow into UK citizens whom we need to thrive. We know that some of the most significant brain development happens before the age of two. We know that Sure Start centres were directly linked to a reduction in special educational needs. We know that the Department of Health’s own research says that early intervention could save £45 billion a year.

As I always say, though, to many of the people in this sector and to my own constituents, even though the evidence is there a million times over, sometimes getting the political will is even harder. That is why I think we are in a really lucky position right now: 41% of MPs are women, and I am really glad that feminism has developed to a point where this is finally coming before the House. We also have the maternity taskforce, for which I am proud to be a member of the parliamentary expert advisory panel. I think we have a moment now where these things are coming together, and finally there is the political will and momentum.

Women particularly are finding their voice, alongside all the incredible dads, and parents and carers across households, who are really standing up, but we have to keep shouting about this. I am delighted that the Bill finally puts the first steps into legislation, but it is important that we build on it. One of the powerful arguments for the Bill is that no Government would now question the funding for free entitlement to schooling at age five. No Government would change that. I think this is about putting the same assumptions on to care from pregnancy and birth, and making sure that no future Government could change those basic principles, with which I think we all now agree, without a lot of difficulty.

I want to pay a few tributes to those who have got us to this point, because there are people who have been banging the drum on this issue for decades. Dame Tessa Jowell, who has already been mentioned, along with Lord David Blunkett and Naomi Eisenstadt, who was the civil servant who led on Sure Start, all put so much of the framework in place. Lord Frank Field, who went on to develop partnerships during the Cameron Government, was an incredible force in this space. Dame Andrea Leadsom has worked really hard to bring the Bill forward and made sure family hubs continued under previous Governments. And most recently, this Government, driven in particular by our hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), are bringing in Best Start family hubs to really start to rebuild the Sure Start legacy.

I also want to pay tribute to the wonderful Nicholas Peacey MBE, who passed away this summer after a lifetime of work with young people, which included leading the Foundation Years Information and Research charity, which I am honoured to chair. Nick was relentless in his positive support for early years and for stakeholders like myself, with a conviction that nothing was more important than babies. I believe he knew that the Bill was coming through Parliament, but there was so much more that he was excited to do and we will miss him.

The Bill is deliberately simple. Organisations have lobbied me, and I am sure others, about the fact that they wish it did more. I have been very grateful to Dame Andrea Leadsom and the wonderful Will Quince for educating me on how important it is to keep a Bill simple. It is important that the public know that this Bill is about creating a basis and making sure something gets through and on to the statute book, but it is absolutely only a start and we will all in this House, I am sure, be committed to building on it. The Bill will serve as a foundation. If it becomes law, there are a few things the Government could do to ensure a glowing first report.

Too often, mothers, babies and parents are treated as an afterthought in policymaking. The Bill recognises a simple truth: if we want healthier families, greater equality and better outcomes for children, we have to pay more attention to the early stages of life. Maternity care is one of those areas that currently gets shamefully low focus. Around 84% of women will become mothers, and maternity care is often the first time a healthy adult really interacts with a publicly funded institution. Her experience and the experience of her family around her of what her taxes have been paying for is currently woeful. The state of maternity care should concern every one of us. The Care Quality Commission found that 65% of inspected maternity units required improvement or were inadequate for safety. The fact that two thirds of maternity services have been rated unsafe should be treated as a national emergency.

The consequences are not felt equally either. Black women are nearly three times more likely to die during pregnancy or in the year after birth than white women. Babies born in the most deprived parts of our country are more than twice as likely to die around the time of birth than those born in the least-deprived areas. We have had more than 700 recommendations on maternity care over the past decade. We do not need another list of recommendations; we need investment in staff, workforce stability, continuity of care and time for professionals to build trusting relationships with women and families. How women experience pregnancy and birth is not a nice to have; it has profound consequences for mental health, family wellbeing and long-term outcomes. Women deserve to feel safe, listened to and empowered through pregnancy and childbirth, and as they take their first steps in feeding and caring for their baby.

The Bill is also about what happens after birth. We know that the first 1,001 days of a child’s life are among the most important in determining future outcomes, yet they receive remarkably little attention. Currently, only around 55% of infants develop secure attachments, despite overwhelming evidence that early relationships shape future health, wellbeing and life chances. Recent research has shown that expanding parent-infant relationship support in the most deprived communities could save the Government £1.2 billion annually.

The Bill also speaks to a challenge that sits at the heart of gender inequality. Becoming a parent remains one of the biggest drivers of inequality between men and women. Mothers still carry a disproportionate share of caring responsibilities and the result is the motherhood penalty: lower earnings, reduced career progression and less financial security for many women. Evidence shows that when fathers take meaningful leave in a child’s life, mothers are more likely to return to work, more likely to progress in their careers and more likely to share caring responsibilities on a lasting basis.

Many of us here are campaigning for the Government’s parental leave review, which concludes in December, to fund six weeks of paternity leave paid at 90% of pay. As a mother to two young children, I have seen at first hand among my peers, alongside all the overwhelming evidence, the life-changing difference it makes to a child’s early years, and to equality, when parents are enabled to take equal responsibility from the very start. For me, the Bill is a foundation not just for how we support babies, but for how we support families to support their babies, because it is families who are at the coal face, families who get up in the night, who do not get to clock-off, and families who get the criticism when things go less well with their children.

I would like to make a point in support of targeted universalism, as some of my colleagues have made, with early years support. It feels like it strays outside my political home in some ways, but not in others. The Labour movement was founded in working-class families and ensuring opportunity for all, but the movement has been upheld and sustained by other groups, particularly feminists—and feminists of all backgrounds. While we must ensure that financial disadvantage does not become a barrier—and I will always defend that as the first goal of a Labour Government—we cannot ignore the strain that women from all backgrounds are under with caring responsibilities, especially at the earliest stages of a child’s life.

I wanted to be a politician because I have felt for the last 20 years how relentlessly hard it is for women, even from a more supported background, to do everything expected of them. We need earlier services for all women—for all families—because currently even wealthier women hold a hugely disproportionate amount of the responsibility for physical caring and the mental load of working out what is the right thing to do for their child. We need to support those women, because it is against our Labour values to still be enabling such inequality of care. We also need to support them because it is often those women—if they have the right support and balance, equality with their partner, and confidence in the balance they establish between work and family—who get to stand up in this place and fight for everyone else. Most women I know do not think they could be in this place because of the things they would have to juggle. The Bill does not just enable healthy babies; it enables the systems for women to thrive. I have been incredibly lucky to have a largely positive journey with my two gorgeous children, but it should not be luck that made that happen, and it should not be luck that enabled me to stand in this place because of that equality.

The Bill recognises something that every parent knows: raising children is not a private issue to be solved behind closed doors; it is a public good. When we support parents, we support children’s development, strengthen families, improve health outcomes and reduce inequalities. Unlike what most economic theory would have us believe, human capital does not just appear like magic at age 18; endless unseen effort goes into creating those productive, mentally healthy members of society. The Infants, Parents and Carers Bill asks us to take those realities seriously. It asks us to invest earlier, think longer term and put parents, babies and carers at the centre of policy rather than taking them for granted. For those reasons, I am frankly emotional that this Bill might actually become legislation, and I am beyond delighted to support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I thank the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) for bringing the Bill to the House—at first perhaps reluctantly, but I think now enthusiastically.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you may be forgiven for thinking that we are from slightly different backgrounds, but I am here to make the case that we are from exactly the same background: we both started out life in nappies, weeing and crying out for our mothers. We both started out with approximately the same level of potential, with a hundred billion neurons in our brain waiting to be fused together as they tried to understand the world. This is what I think the Bill is about: maximising the potential of every single baby.

I am arguably—I am not sure; people might want to intervene—Parliament’s newest parent. I am 141 days into the life of my first child, so I have had a front row seat for this amazing show. Getting to see the development of my baby over the summer has been phenomenal: her first smile, her first belly laugh, working out how to roll over from her back on to her front, and initially completely ignoring the dog and now wanting to tug its ears every time it goes past. It has been amazing watching every single one of those interactions and how her brain is developing and building an understanding of the world.

I would be lying if I did not say that it was also a bit of worry. It is a worry because we are now hyper-aware of how critical these moments are; how each one of these interactions are setting out a pathway for the rest of her life. The first 1,001 days movement has been explaining to us how critical these early moments are for children’s long-run physical and emotional development—how, in each one of those early moments, we are shaping the development of their brains and directing the potential of the rest of their lives.

Knowing that, of course, makes it unforgivable that so much provision for children and babies has been cut back over the past decade or so—as if it was some sort of luxury that is unaffordable now that we have other priorities, such as cutting the grass verges in our local areas. The Bill seeks to draw a line in the sand and say, “Never again.” It speaks up for babies, and will make it a statutory requirement for the state to demonstrate how it is meeting babies’ needs. It is a critical step forward in society’s recognition of how our brains develop and how we create opportunity for the next generation.

As others have said, the Bill sets the floor, not the ceiling. We therefore look to the Government to build on the foundations that the Bill sets, and ensure that the principles, on which we all agree today, are built into a practical reality. The healthy babies programme is currently available in only 75 local authority areas, and it excludes places such as mine. The Government made a commitment in their 10-year plan to ensure that it is universal, and I urge them to accelerate that and deliver it as quickly as possible. There is not much specificity about what services are required, and it would be great if the Government came forward as soon as possible to bring clarity.

I have my own request for a service that it will be essential to deliver to babies and parents in the coming years. Health visitors already talk to mothers about nutrition, safe sleep, and bonding between babies and parents, but we need to add another dimension: screentime. It is already Government advice that under-twos should not have solo screentime, but that is extremely poorly understood. Routine screen use is now normal for babies under two, and one in 10 are exposed to more than four hours of screentime per day. Instead of learning through social interaction, they are being induced into dopamine dazes, which affect their sleep, meal times and emotional regulation. The damage being done is so great that it should be an essential requirement to educate parents about this from day one.

[Maya Ellis]

As much as we know the damage that screentime can do, a good majority of parents use screens not because they think that that is the best thing for their child; they are often used as childcare or as a way to get the tea made. Does the hon. Member agree that it will be critical for this Government to research why parents rely so much on screentime, and how we can support parents not to have to do so?

[Bobby Dean]

I wholeheartedly agree. As I just said, I am experiencing parenthood myself, and I know how difficult it is to keep a baby calm. I completely understand why parents use devices as a means of regulating their child, but I do not think that the damage being done is well understood. I want that to be formalised. It is not about zero screentime; the Government advice is about not having solo screentime for extended periods. It is fine to share a FaceTime call with grandparents, and educational interactions are okay. It is about building the education, so that every parent understands the impact of extended screentime for under-twos.

Maternity Commissioner

Maya Ellis Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for introducing this debate. A huge thank you to Louise Thompson, Theo Clarke and the 150,000 people who signed this petition, for keeping maternity services on the agenda.

The petition before us is motivated by a very real and deeply painful issue: the loss of trust in maternity services following preventable harm and trauma. I welcome the passion behind this petition. However, I fear that maternity care may be too complex, too nuanced and too diverse to be well served by a single national maternity commissioner, and that focusing our energy on that risks allowing the Government to tick a box, when what would make the greatest difference is sustained, courageous investment in maternity services themselves, as many of my colleagues have highlighted.

Much of the current maternity debate understandably centres on trauma, risk and dissatisfaction. Those things matter, and I know others today have focused, and will focus, on how we reduce that. But when those become the only things we measure, we distort the entire system. I will therefore focus my comments today on women themselves, because how women experience birth is not a “nice to have”; it has profound consequences for mental health, family wellbeing and long-term outcomes. Around one in four women experiences perinatal mental health problems, costing the UK £8.1 billion annually when left untreated. That is true no matter what a birth is like.

I would like to put my hand up today and say that I am a bit fed up with people rolling their eyes at the concept of a birth plan, for example. Of course women know that things might not happen exactly as they had hoped; a woman’s birth plan is about being prepared for all eventualities, expressing her wishes and being empowered. Anyone who suggests otherwise is undermining the right of women to feel in control and prepared for this huge change in their lives.

I have had some beautifully powerful discussions with my colleagues over the past few months on the topic of giving birth. Some of them have felt looked down on for having a C-section, and some, like myself, have felt looked down on for wanting a home birth. The fact is that all those choices are completely valid. The problem is not someone’s birth choice; it is anyone judging them for it.

On that point, I want to gently address an elephant in the room. The concept that midwives have sought “the pursuit of normal birth at any cost” entered public policy following the Morecambe Bay investigation in 2015. It was never intended as a literal description of all midwifery practice, yet it became a powerful and damaging shorthand. The report described a “seriously dysfunctional” service, which was

“influenced by a small number of dominant individuals”,

where poor leadership, weak clinical skills and failures in basic risk assessment created a “lethal mix”. The problem was not support for physiological birth; it was unsafe practice and toxic culture.

However, over time, that nuance has been lost. Supporting physiological birth became conflated with recklessness. Midwifery philosophy was portrayed as being in opposition to safety, rather than working in partnership with it, as professional standards make very clear. The result has been a false binary in policy-thinking—safety versus choice, intervention versus physiology, or risk management versus women’s autonomy. That false binary still shapes decision making today, and it contributes to women feeling that birth is something done to them, rather than by them. If we continue talking in this way, I fear that we are making women’s bodies a political football. I believe that we and this Government are capable of better.

I have heard directly from senior clinicians that rising intervention rates are linked to older mothers or decreasing health standards, yet the data does not back that up. The average age of a birthing mother has risen by less than a year since 2014, and the percentage of women giving birth over 35 went up from 23% to just 25%. That small increase cannot explain a 45% increase in interventions over the same period. We have to move away from anecdote and ensure that we are using the data. If this debate becomes another iteration of that same binary, we risk repeating the very mistakes that brought us here. While I welcome the clear passion behind the ask for a maternity commissioner, I worry that it would not capture the nuance of opinion and experience in the birthing space.

There is so much more that I would love to say about how brilliant and resilient midwives are; about how brave every person who experiences and supports someone through childbirth is, even when we are expected to just crack on and deal with it; and about how great it is that our new women’s health strategy focuses on the importance of women being listened to. However, in the interest of time, I will finally focus on what we need from this Government.

If we are serious about improving outcomes, we already know where to look. Continuity of midwifery care is recommended by both the World Health Organisation and NICE, and it is associated with fewer pre-term births, lower rates of loss and significantly higher satisfaction from families. Randomised control trials show that those benefits apply to women at both lower and higher risk. Despite a national commitment to rolling out a continuity of carer model, progress stalled because there were not enough staff to deliver it safely. In 2022, NHS England formally removed the target date, citing “insufficient staffing”. Many qualified midwives have left the profession, but evidence suggests that a significant number would return if they were able to provide relationship-based, compassionate care, with time to do their jobs properly.

Let me conclude by speaking directly to Ministers. The question before us is not whether the Government recognise that maternity services are under strain—that has already been well established. The question is whether Ministers are prepared to act at the scale required. A maternity commissioner may feel tangible and responsive, but it does not avoid the hard truth: women’s experiences will not change without investment, workforce stability and systematic redesign.

As other colleagues have said, there are over 700 recommendations on maternity safety already in existence. If the Government are serious about restoring confidence in maternity services, I ask Ministers: will they publish a fully funded workforce plan for maternity, including midwifery, retention and return to practice? Will they commit to resourcing continuity of carer models, rather than quietly shelving them when staffing pressures bite? Will they address the £27 billion maternity negligence bill not through litigation management, but through prevention?

This Government must decide whether they want to preside over a system that simply manages failure, or whether they are willing to take the brave step of long-term investment to make the UK a place where women’s choices and bodily autonomy are respected, where safety is paramount, where joy and empowerment are not incidental but expected, and where professionals are supported to deliver humane, relationship-based care. We do not need another review, and I am not sure that we really need another title. We need staff, time, continuity, trust and investment. If we get that right, outcomes will improve, costs will fall, trust will return, and maternity care in this country can once again be something that we are all proud of.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maya Ellis Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

The hon. Gentleman is an assiduous campaigner on behalf of Royal Berkshire hospital and now of Frimley Park hospital. I met with Members of Parliament last week who are involved in the RAAC schemes, which are progressing to plan. We are absolutely on target with progressing that plan, and we look forward to the proposals coming through from the local integrated care board.

[Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)]

My constituents in Ribble Valley have been directly impacted by the delays to the new hospital programme, with the rebuilding of Royal Preston hospital being put back by almost a decade. Just last week, I received the disappointing news that Longridge community hospital, which is much loved and valued by local residents, will be closed for safety upgrades for the next six months. This Government’s impressive 10-year health plan rightly notes that they expect a shift from hospital to community. With that in mind, can the Minister confirm that she expects integrated care boards, such as Lancashire and South Cumbria ICB, to keep community hospitals open? That is opposed to centralising, which not only takes services away from communities but, in our case, transfers them to vastly inferior hospital buildings. Will she join with me and Longridge residents and say that she hopes the essential repairs are completed quickly at the community hospital?

[Karin Smyth]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting a lot of estates questions into that one point. The point is that local people value the local facilities that they have known for a very long time. That is why we are committed to reversing the decline in capital investment under the last Government—Lord Darzi outlined the shocking £40 billion black hole on capital. Part of our move towards neighbourhood health services is exactly about getting services closer to people’s homes, and we look forward to having further conversations with my hon. Friend and her constituents.

International Men’s Day

Maya Ellis Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)]

I gave my handyman a to-do list the other day, but he only finished items 1, 3, and 5. Turns out he only does odd jobs.

I know, that is a terrible joke, but as the Dad Shift and my colleagues across the Chamber are highlighting, paternity leave in this country is also a terrible joke, and it is letting our brilliant men down. We must do better.

Before I was a socialist, I was a feminist—and a precocious one at that. I was about 17 when I read a book called “Shattered: Modern Motherhood and the Illusion of Equality”. Quite apart from all its valid analysis of equality going to the wall after women have babies, the fact that most horrified me was that husbands could not stay in hospital with their wives after their baby was born. What was this medieval treatment that the writer was telling me still happened in the UK? Of course 20 years later, it still often happens.

It was at that moment that all my illusions about equality having been largely achieved were shattered. I had grown up on the girl bosses of the ’80s, such as the glorious late Diane Keaton in “Baby Boom”, but how could there be equality if it was only in the workplace and not in the home? How can we have equality in the home if men are shut out the very moment they become parents

On this International Men’s Day, my plea to the Government is that they take this once-in-a-generation chance to lock in six weeks’ paternity leave at full pay, paid by the Government. Many studies have shown that the earlier men get involved in caring for their children, the more equal the distribution of work in the home becomes—and the amount of conflict reduces, too. No man goes into a marriage or becomes a dad wanting conflict. I fundamentally believe that the key to unlocking true equality is ensuring that men have as much of an appreciation as women of what it takes to care for a family and a home.

I could spend all day reading Members a love letter to fatherhood. I have said before in this place that I would not be here if my husband had not chosen to be a brilliant father holding down the fort at home—while still running his own successful business. I see my friends’ husbands trying so hard to be the dad that they often did not have themselves. We are letting men down by not giving them the money, structures and role models to help them embrace this huge experience in life, from which men in generations past have been excluded.

Only last week, I spoke with firefighters at Fulwood fire station in my Ribble Valley constituency. They said that when the funding for a post within a shift team is cut, the flexibility of the rest of the team, most of whom have families, is the first thing that is affected. Those men—and women—want to be present parents, and we should enable them to be great public servants and great dads.

I am a huge fan of how the internet and social media can connect people, so I cannot celebrate fatherhood without giving shout-outs to some of the brilliant creators on Instagram and elsewhere who make dads feel less alone. Dean Walker—AKA Fun Dad Dean—and comedian George Lewis give dads role models for modern parenting. They give light relief and offer a reminder that being a dad is hard for everyone and that dads are doing their best. In the depth of parenting exhaustion, I know that many of us communicate by sending their videos back and forth, and I am sure they have prevented a few explosive arguments—I may or may not be speaking from personal experience.

As the incomparable Emmeline Pankhurst said,

“We have to free half of the human race, the women, so that they can help free the other half.”

I am glad to be here today, and in this Government, to do my bit to help free the other half, as they have helped to free me. I look forward to this Government taking the single biggest next step they could make towards equality, by introducing six weeks’ paternity leave at full pay, paid by the Government.

Infant Feeding

Maya Ellis Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to bring this Adjournment debate to the Chamber on a topic close to my heart. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as the Chair of the all-party parliamentary group for infant feeding. I am pleased as always to see the Minister in her place. I look forward to her response on behalf of the Government just days before the long awaited 10-year plan for the NHS.

When the Secretary of State for Health promised to create the “healthiest generation ever”, it was a bold and admirable ambition, and certainly one that I share with him. Every child deserves the opportunity to thrive regardless of their wealth or their postcode. When the Government talk of building a better future for children, their policies and schemes often start with school—with free school meals and breakfast clubs—or providing Government support for nurseries and early years settings, but there is little substance in the critical years from birth to three, and even less when it comes to policy around infant feeding, whether that is breastfeeding, formula feeding or a combination of the two.

I had my son nearly 11 years ago, and I remember with fondness the lactation consultant coming on to the ward in the maternity unit and showing me how best to hold my son to feed him and what to expect in the first few weeks after taking him home. I did not have an easy journey with breastfeeding: I suffered with pain when he latched, I had multiple bouts of mastitis and swelling—the list went on. My husband and I ran our own restaurant at the time, so he took approximately three hours of paternity leave before returning to work.

[Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for the work we are doing together on the all-party parliamentary group for infant feeding and for her passion in this space. Breastfeeding is a full-time job. Only last week, Carrie Johnson, the wife of one of our former Prime Ministers, highlighted how easy it is to neglect your own needs as a mother while breastfeeding. Does the hon. Member agree that it is essential that the Government establish six weeks of paid paternity leave, so that breastfeeding mothers can focus on feeding their baby and partners can focus on looking after mum?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. I was so pleased to hear the statement in the House earlier today. I know that she has been a tireless advocate for making sure that parental leave for all parents is improved dramatically. I thank her for her advocacy in that area.

Covid: Fifth Anniversary

Maya Ellis Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)]

I 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.

Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy

Maya Ellis Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

The 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.

[Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)]

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?

[Chris McDonald]

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.

Maternal Mental Health

Maya Ellis Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Laura Kyrke-Smith]

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.

[Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)]

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?

[Laura Kyrke-Smith]

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.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Money)

Maya Ellis Excerpts

Money resolution
Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)]

A 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.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Maya Ellis]

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.