Rare Cancers Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Friday 11th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 5, leave out “and”.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, page 1, line 6, at end insert

“and

(c) set out a timetable for implementing any changes in the law recommended by the review.”

Amendment 3, page 1, line 7, leave out “in particular”.

Amendment 4, page 1, line 9, leave out “three” and insert “two”.

Amendment 5, page 2, line 3, leave out “in the opinion of the Secretary of State”.

Amendment 6, in clause 2, page 2, line 7, leave out from “are” to end of line 8 and insert “arrangements in place to”.

Amendment 7, page 2, line 12, after “appointed” insert

“within the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed”.

Amendment 8, in clause 3, page 2, line 33, leave out

“in the opinion of NHS England”.

Amendment 9, page 2, line 40, leave out subsection (4).

[Sir Christopher Chope]

This is certainly not a trivial Bill; it is a really important piece of legislation, which I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) on introducing and pioneering. It was not a Government handout; it was an idea that he thought needed to be the subject of legislation and he has pursued it. We had a fantastic Second Reading debate. There is tremendous interest in the Bill. May I therefore make it clear at the outset that my amendments are designed to try to strengthen the Bill rather than anything else?

I explained my position to the hon. Gentleman yesterday. He said, understandably, that to a large extent he was constrained, because he was trying to negotiate with the Government and with the Department of Health and Social Care, and unless he showed himself to be reasonably compliant, he would not have got the Bill to a state where it could be accepted by the Government.

I note the different positions on this, and I fully understand and respect the hon. Gentleman’s position. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) basically said that if she had introduced such a Bill, she would have got so steamed up about it that she would have included a lot more strength and safeguards, and as a consequence it probably would not have got anywhere near being considered on Report. Those are two different approaches. I am, relatively speaking, neutral on the matter—I am a sympathetic supporter of the Bill—but I have a lot of background experience of how Governments always try to give themselves wriggle room, in effect to maintain control over everything, and in my view the Bill could be improved by being amended, with the will of the House, on Report.

We could talk about taking some of my amendments to the other place, but the trouble is that the Government machine may say that there will not be any more sitting Fridays in this House, so if the Bill were to be amended in the other place it might fall completely, because it would need to be brought back here. That is why it is important that the House should consider these amendments now rather than leave them to the other place.

Amendment 1, which is to be read with amendment 2, is a prime example of the point I made earlier. We have a commitment from the Government that:

“The Secretary of State must…carry out a review of the law relating to marketing authorisations for orphan medicinal products that are for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of cancer”—

great—

“and…prepare and publish a report setting out the conclusions of the review.”

But what is the timescale for that, and what will happen after those conclusions are produced? There is no obligation on the Government to do anything else. The review and its conclusions could be just left on one side. We in the House are in a position to tighten those provisions up and say, “This is not good enough. There should be a timetable for implementing the changes in the law recommended by the review.” That is the essence of the two amendments.

To look at another gap that could be exploited by the Government, the Bill says that the report must be

“published before the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which the Act is passed”.

I have tabled amendment 4 to say that the period should be two years.

In respect of both those points, I have had a helpful email from Diana Jupp from Pancreatic Cancer UK, who writes on behalf of more than 30 charities representing patients affected by rare and less common cancers. She comments on my amendments. On amendment 2, she says,

“We are keen to push for this change with the Department once we reach implementation stage of the Bill.”

With the greatest of respect to Diana Jupp, we can do this now. Instead of leaving it to her and her colleagues to try to pressurise the Department later, we in this House have the power to change the legislation in the way that I have suggested, so that there would be a timetable set out for implementing the changes in the law recommended by the review.

In response to amendment 4, Diana Jupp says that

“this timeline has been agreed with the Department and in our opinion would tie into the timelines of other developing cancer policy implementation, including the cancer plan.”

Obviously, the most important part of her comment is that the timeline has been agreed with the Department, because if it had not been, the Department and the Minister would not have taken the Bill forward in this way and agreed to it.

On the timeline, I draw the House’s attention to the evidence base set out in the impact assessment. It says that the whole process will take one year. The Department reckons that it will cost £130,000 and sets out how many full-time equivalent civil servants will be involved in it. If it will only take one year, why are we saying that it needs to have three years? That is an example of why we need to tighten up the Bill, because if this is a review that needs to and will be carried out, why do we not get on with it? To suggest that it will take longer than a year is to go against the Department’s own evidence set out in the impact assessment.

The impact assessment says on page 6, under the heading “Mandating a Government review of the orphan drug regulations”:

“This will place a duty on the Government to publish a review which will be a comparison of orphan drug Regulations (specifically Part 5 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012) and international regulatory approaches to supporting the research and development of orphan medicinal products that are for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of cancers. Since the review is concerned with orphan drug regulations it is by default covering rare cancers. The findings should be published within 3 years.” On page 7, paragraph 19 on financial costs says,

“It is difficult to estimate the resourcing costs required for the orphan drug review, since the exact scope remains to be agreed. However, we estimate the cost to the Department of Health and Social Care to produce and publish a report on orphan drug Regulations to incur costs of approximately £0.14m in relation to staff resource. This reflects the cost of 0.3 x SCS staff, 1 x FTE Grade 6 or Grade 7 staff, 0.3 x Grade 7 staff and 0.5 x SEO staff for one year.”

That is what the Government say: only one year will be necessary.

In that case, why is my generous amendment, which would restrict the period from three years to two years, unacceptable to the Government? There is a history of dragging of feet at the Department of Health and Social Care, I am afraid; we certainly heard about that on Second Reading. I give the House that specific example of why, on the Government’s own evidence, they should accept the change from three years to two.

Amendment 3 would leave out “in particular” from line 7, which reads:

“In carrying out the review the Secretary of State must, in particular, consider regulatory approaches in other countries.”

The amendment is intended to probe rather than anything else. Why do the words “in particular” need to be incorporated? Surely it would be simpler to say that the Secretary of State “must consider regulatory approaches in other countries”—full stop, period. But that is not how it is at the moment.

Amendment 5 would leave out the reference to the Secretary of State. This is to do with the definition of a rare cancer. Currently, clause 2 would add this wording to the National Health Service Act 2006:

“The research that the Secretary must facilitate or otherwise promote under subsection (1)(a) includes research into cancers that in the opinion of the Secretary of State are rare cancers.”

Why cannot it not just say “that are rare cancers”? Indeed, clause 2 would also add this wording to the 2006 Act:

“In this section ‘rare cancer’ means a cancer that affects not more than 1 in 2000 people in the United Kingdom.”

That is an issue of fact. The Secretary of State should not be able to basically have a veto over the interpretation of what is or is not a rare cancer.

This is just another example of the control freakery within the Department. I am sorry that so far the Minister does not seem to have stood up to officials who have persuaded him, no doubt, that we need the expression

“in the opinion of the Secretary of State”.

Again, the argument is quite straightforward and the people from Pancreatic Cancer UK are on my side, but they are obviously very keen for the Bill to get on to the statute book. We all have to recognise that it is within the Government’s power to prevent it from making any further progress. That is why it will be quite difficult, I suppose, to persuade the Minister to accept amendment 5.

Amendment 6 would leave out from “are” to the end of the line and insert “arrangements in place to” in this statement in clause 2:

“In discharging the duty under subsection (1)(a) in relation to those cancers, the Secretary of State must, in particular, ensure that there are such arrangements in place as the Secretary of State considers appropriate to”.

Why can we not just say “arrangements in place to enable potential participants in clinical trials”, and so on? Why do we need to give the Secretary of State discretion —a veto, essentially—over whether he considers those arrangements to be appropriate? It seems to me completely redundant, unnecessary and, indeed, oppressive. It is counter to the expressed wishes of this House on Second Reading, when there was impatience over the delay, because of the need to get on with this, and suspicion over the failure of the Department of Health and Social Care—under not just this Government but previous Governments, which I would be the first to accept—to actually deal with the crisis involving people who are subject to rare cancers. That is amendment 6. I am trying to beetle through these amendments quite quickly, Madam Deputy Speaker, so that other people can participate in this important debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

To your delight, I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the delight of the whole House—especially that of the Government Whips—I am not going to speak for very long on Report, although I am not promising not to speak for some time on Third Reading. I wish to briefly speak to amendments 5 and 8 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope). Before that, though, I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) on the Bill. I am generally supportive of it and think it is entirely necessary.

Turning to the amendments, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is right. It does concern me that the words

“the opinion of the Secretary of State”

are included proposed new subsection (2) of section 1E of the National Health Service Act 2006. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, proposed new subsection (4) of section 1E and proposed new subsection (5A) of section 261 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 set out the definition of a rare cancer, and if the Bill passes, that definition will become law. I therefore think there is a contradiction within this piece of legislation: it contains an absolute definition of a rare cancer, but adds some ambiguity by referring to the “opinion” of the Secretary of State. I ask the Minister to explain how both those things can be true. If the Secretary of State decides that there is some other definition of a rare cancer, how can that possibly be in line with the definition that is written into the law?

As the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West has said, the definition that has been included in the Bill—that a rare cancer is

“a cancer that affects not more than 1 in 2000 people in the United Kingdom”—

aligns it with the UK rare diseases framework, which was published by Lord Bethell in the other place in 2021. It seems to me that that is an effective and suitable definition, so again, I ask the Minister whether he expects there to be some other definition. If he does not expect that, why is it necessary to include the words

“the opinion of the Secretary of State”?

The Bill is not even consistent. Proposed new subsection (2) of section 1E of the National Health Service Act 2006 refers to the opinion of the Secretary of State, but proposed new subsection (5A) of section 261 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 talks about

“the opinion of NHS England”.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has pointed out, NHS England is fortunately going to be abolished very soon. When that happens, will we have to pass either primary legislation or secondary legislation to delete those words from the Bill? Would it not be better if we deleted the words “the opinion of NHS England” now? Why will the Minister not consider removing them? If there is some reason why he thinks the Secretary of State might have to change the definition, why are those two clauses of the Bill not consistent?

I hope hon. Members will see that what the hon. Member for Christchurch and I are trying to achieve—certainly through amendments 5 and 8—is to establish a clear definition of a rare cancer. We are aiming to ensure that there is no ambiguity in that definition, and if there is to be ambiguity, we want to at least ensure that the body or authority that is going to make any changes is consistent in the legislation.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

I rise to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition in support of the Rare Cancers Bill, and to welcome its thoughtful and necessary intervention on behalf of a group of patients who have been under-researched, under-represented, and under-acknowledged for too long. I commend the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) on bringing this Bill forward, and on his ongoing dedication to the issue.

The case for the Bill is clear: rare cancers—defined, in line with the UK rare diseases framework, as conditions affecting fewer than one in 2,000 people—are individually uncommon but collectively account for more than 20% of all cancer diagnoses. However, as we know, patients with rare cancers routinely face delayed diagnosis, limited treatment options and far fewer opportunities to participate in clinical research.

The Bill does not claim to be a silver bullet, but it does mark a significant step forward in how we think about and legislate for research, regulation and data access in rare cancer care. It is focused, proportionate and strategically aligned with the existing NHS and National Institute for Health and Care Research frameworks.

Clause 1 places a duty on the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the law relating to marketing authorisations for orphan medicinal products that are for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of cancer. It also rightly requires that the review includes comparisons with regulatory approaches in other countries. This is vital. The explanatory notes rightly observe that research into rare cancers is often commercially unattractive because of small patient populations and high developmental costs. If our regulatory environment creates further barriers to entry, patients suffer—not because the science does not exist but because the system does not support it.

The UK’s current approach to orphan designation lacks the pre-authorisation incentives found in systems such as the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration. The review required under the Bill is the opportunity to ask whether we are doing enough to attract the research and development that rare cancer patients deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for bringing this Bill before the House, and I congratulate him on getting it to Report. Amendment 1 allows amendment 2 to be inserted into the Bill. Amendment 2 would require the Secretary of State, having carried out the review described in clause 1, to set out a timetable for implementing changes to the law recommended by the review. However, it would not be appropriate to presume the outcome of the review of orphan drug regulations that is outlined in clause 1. Amendment 2 presupposes that the review will recommend changing the law, and that there are changes the Secretary of State would be willing to support, following a legal consultation. That is not considered appropriate at this stage.

Amendment 3 is unnecessarily restrictive, introducing wording that confines the review unnecessarily. We want to ensure that a thorough review is conducted, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Secondary Care will be working with her officials to ensure that that happens. For amendment 4, the three-year timeframe to prepare and publish the review and the necessary resourcing requirements have been discussed with officials in my Department and at the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. I remind Members that the text in the Bill reflects the statutory deadline, but we will endeavour to publish a report ahead of the three-year timeframe, which has been put forward to be consistent with the MHRA’s overall workplan.

On amendment 5, there are different definitions of a rare cancer, and we worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West to agree the definition in the Bill as a cancer that affects not more than one in 2,000 people in the UK. However, a level of discretion for the Secretary of State is required over what falls within that definition, since the facts underlying and the data on diagnoses are constantly changing. The amendment would make it difficult to implement the clause in practical and operational terms.

Amendment 6 would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to exercise discretion as to how their duty would be discharged. This is not considered appropriate, since it makes the operation of clause 2 less workable in practice, and would lack the Government’s assessment of what in all the circumstances would be the most appropriate manner of implementation. Amendment 7 would introduce a specific timeframe—just six months—to allow the appointment of the specialty lead. Although I agree that we will need to appoint the specialty lead promptly, introducing a statutory timeframe is not considered workable for practical reasons. There could be unforeseen delays; for example, recruitment processes might delay the appointment beyond six months.

On amendment 8, as mentioned previously there are different definitions for a rare cancer. That is because the data on cancer diagnoses is constantly changing, and decisions on whether the criteria for a rare cancer are met will inevitably involve an element of judgment. The amendment would make it difficult to implement the clause in practical and operational terms.

I turn finally to amendment 9. It is essential that information relating to people’s health and care is shared appropriately, lawfully, and in line with their reasonable expectations. Amendment 9 would remove the provision confirming that any sharing of information pursuant to the powers created by the Bill, and under NHS England’s existing powers, must be in accordance with data protection legislation. That includes compliance with key principles such as lawfulness and fairness. That layer of assurance is essential for the protection of patients, and clause 3 is a standard provision that makes that explicit.

For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) to withdraw all nine of his amendments.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Sir Christopher, is it your pleasure that amendment 1 be withdrawn?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Is it possible to respond, Madam Deputy Speaker?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Very briefly. I was asking whether amendment 1 would be pushed to a vote or withdrawn, so if you could alert me to that it would be very useful.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I will respond briefly to the debate. In so doing, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) and for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for their contributions.

I listened for what the Minister would say in response to my point about NHS England, but I did not hear the expression “NHS England” come from between his lips, and I wonder whether that was an oversight or whether it was left out of his brief deliberately by officials from NHS England. Amendment 8 specifically deals with NHS England, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth referred to it. Does the Minister’s reluctance to intervene at this stage show that he is in denial about the policy in relation to NHS England? I presume that he is in such denial.

We have had a classic example from the Minister of why the civil service is ruling okay, because it can come forward with a valid objection to every possible suggested alternative and amendment. I do not think that this attitude will be very helpful to the people we are trying to help through the Bill—namely, those who are suffering from rare cancers and who want us to make progress in this area. I will not press any of these amendments to a vote, but I hope that when the Bill gets to the other place there will be more persistent probing, particularly on the issues around NHS England and the definitions.

To give credit where it is due, I was pleased with what the Minister said about the specialty lead. As discussed, we do not need legislation for this anyway. He said he wants to have that dealt with promptly but is fearful of accepting an amendment that requires it to be done within six months because of the possibility of unforeseen delays. I take it from that that he is going to get on with that aspect, and let us hope that that goes faster rather than slower. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Third Reading

Children’s Health

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. To ensure everyone gets to contribute, we will have to have a three-minute speaking limit. I call Sarah Hall.

--- Later in debate ---

[Leigh Ingham]

I am already on record as criticising Staffordshire county council today, so I will hold off in this debate—although it could be better at everything.

My commitment to play is why I co-sponsored the amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), that seeks to provide in law for sufficient play opportunities, especially inclusive play opportunities. I call on the Government to invest in potential, and to give every child the opportunity to grow up healthy, confident and, importantly, resilient—ready not just for school, but for life.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I would like to begin by paying tribute to a wonderful charity based in Mid Sussex called Group B Strep Support. Ever since its founder, Jane, lost her own baby, Theo, 30 years ago, Jane and the team have been campaigning for better outcomes for pregnant women who contract group B strep, because the impact on their babies can be profound; it is the most common cause of life-threatening infection for newborn babies. I open by asking the Minister whether she will meet the team from Group B Strep Support so she can better understand the potential of better screening of pregnant mothers.

As a mother myself, I do not take for granted the health of my children. All of us who are parents know that the health of our children can turn on a sixpence. We also know that the system that surrounds children and families and keeps children healthy has been allowed to crumble. As hon. Members have said, we are in the middle of a children’s health crisis in this country. This week, the Children’s Commissioner produced a damning report on the health of children across the country. The review told us that children in England are facing “Dickensian levels” of poverty, and are going without basic needs like heating, a place to wash, somewhere to eat breakfast or safe transport to school. Hon. Members use the word “unacceptable” a lot in this place and it may be overused, but in this case it is very true. We should be ashamed that children are facing this reality in 2025.

Our young people, who should expect to grow up to be part of a prosperous, happy and successful nation in the coming years, are being let down. Under the Conservatives, things got worse and worse. On their watch, in the period from 2022 to 2024 alone, the number of children waiting for over 52 weeks for an appointment increased by 60% for elective paediatric services and by 94% for community health services. However, this situation is not inevitable. The UK has world-leading researchers, passionate healthcare workers and a proud tradition of protecting public health. Britain’s children should be among the healthiest in the world. We are a wealthy country with a welfare state and universal healthcare.

However, we lag behind our peers. One in 11 children lives with asthma, and our country has one of the highest emergency admission rates for school-age asthma in Europe; it is avoidable, yet it is still happening. The number of children living with life-limiting conditions has risen by 250% in less than two decades. Some 2.5 million children in England are living with obesity, as other hon. Members have mentioned this afternoon, and over 1 million of them already have health complications. Almost one in five children now struggle with their mental health, which is a 50% increase in just five years.

However, children are waiting longer than ever to be seen. Since 2020, paediatric waiting lists have grown by over 166,000 children, but the number of consultants has barely budged, with over 50,000 children now waiting for more than a year to be seen. The Conservatives let those problems pile up; now the Labour Government cannot afford inaction.

The Liberal Democrats believe that every child deserves the best start in life, no matter their background, postcode or parents’ income. We also think that it benefits us all to have happy and healthy children growing up across the country. We would start by fixing the NHS from top to bottom, which means ensuring that everyone can see a GP within seven days, or 24 hours if it is urgent. I welcome the announcement in the NHS 10-year plan that same-day appointments will become available where necessary. My colleagues and I will push the Government to ensure that that pledge becomes a reality.

Fixing the NHS also means ending the scandal of children turning up to hospital with a mouth full of rotting teeth because there is no dentistry nearby. It means rebuilding the primary care and community services that have been starved of funding for over a decade. I know from conversations with my constituents in Mid Sussex that those problems are very real, and with them happening in what is a relatively well-off part of the country, it is clear that they are systemic.

However, it is not just about treating illness; we have to be determined to prevent it. That is why we would reverse the Conservative cuts to public health and invest in programmes that get children moving, eating well and thriving. We would tackle the poverty that drives so many health issues by ending the cruel two-child limit and reversing the benefits cap. We would expand free school meals to all children in poverty and work towards universal free meals in primary schools. We were glad to see the Government listen to Liberal Democrat calls for an expansion of free school meals, and are campaigning for that to go even further, because no child should go hungry at school—ever.

When it comes to mental health, we would transform the system from the ground up. That means having mental health hubs for young people in every community, regular check-ups at key points in life, a dedicated mental health professional in every school and a proper cross-Government strategy to understand and tackle the root causes, from bereavement to bullying and social media pressure. Children’s mental health is not just a health issue; it is an education issue, a family issue and a justice issue. It needs more than one Department and more than one Minister.

My Liberal Democrat colleagues have led the fight for early intervention, for holistic support and for real accountability. We have championed ideas such as a register of bereaved children, because how can we help if we do not even know who needs support? I ask the Minister to therefore commit to implementing such a register.

We face a real challenge, but we have the ideas, the evidence and the plan. Now someone has to get on and deliver the change that children across the UK so desperately need, so I urge the Government to take action. Let us build a country where no child is left behind and where every child and parent has, at the very least, the opportunity to be healthy and to look to the future with confidence.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Before I start, I should declare my interest as a consultant paediatrician and a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) mentioned earlier. I congratulate him on securing this important debate.

Getting the right start in life is one of the most important factors in adult health and wellbeing. We must ensure that the NHS is providing the best treatments and preventive care available for children, while prioritising safety and convenience for patients and cost-effectiveness for taxpayers. I have seen significant improvements in paediatric care in my career. We must look broadly at the social and environmental factors that affect children’s health and ask what more we can do to help protect and prevent illness in children. Prevention is better than cure, which is one of the Government’s three shifts, with which I agree and on which I wish to focus today.

Often children brought to hospital to see consultant paediatricians have conditions that have been caused, or further complicated, by social and environmental factors. These are things that medics cannot treat on their own, and, as every professional knows, we must work with parents, families and children to achieve the very best outcomes. One very clear example is the childhood obesity crisis, which many right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned already this afternoon. Research shows that 36% of children in year 6—these are 10 and 11-year-olds—are now overweight or obese. I have seen some extreme cases in my practice—for example, a nine-year-old who weighed over 80 kg—of young patients who have suffered serious illness because of their weight. These are the tip of the iceberg, but they are undoubtedly part of a much broader shift.

We know what causes obesity: lack of exercise and a diet too high in calories. But this is more complicated than that. There are complex problems with roots in broader issues such as poverty and family work patterns. The Government cannot determine what each child eats, but there are things that they can and should do to help support parents and their children. What is the Minister doing to encourage exercise, participation in sport and active travel to school? What is she doing to improve the quality and availability of food for parents and families? What is she doing to improve the quality of school food, to build nutrition education into the curriculum and to help children learn about managing their own health and how to cook healthy food?

I know the 10-year plan includes reference to the reformulation of some products, but there is a risk that manufacturers encouraged to remove sugar from products will simply replace it with sweeteners and other chemicals. What is the Minister doing to ensure that they do not solve one problem and then walk unwittingly into another?

The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) mentioned tooth brushing. We often hear that tooth extractions are the leading cause of hospital admissions among young children. Can the Minister provide details on the steps that she is taking to improve youth dental outcomes, such as broadening access to NHS dentists, pursuing fluoridisation schemes and encouraging the use of fluoride varnish?

Parents have a responsibility here too. According to the chief dental officer, who I spoke to the other day, children who brush their teeth twice a day with a fluoride toothpaste, reduce the amount of high-sugar drinks they consume and reduce the sugar in their diet can significantly reduce the risk of needing fillings and having dental decay.

Another area raised today is mental health. Young people face mental health pressures from home and school worries, friendship concerns and many other factors. In particular, we know that the covid lockdown had a serious impact on children’s development and socialisation. We also know that social media is causing increasing harm to children—whether by contributing to anxiety about body image or personal achievements, or by exposing children to harmful material and ideas. The previous Government’s Online Safety Act 2023 was a welcome step in addressing some of these issues, but the Government rejected a Conservative amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to help reduce the use of phones in schools. What more does the Minister plan to do to encourage children away from their screens and back towards a healthier existence with their friends and families?

I also want to discuss neglect. A total of 25,350 children are currently on a child protection plan for reasons of neglect—a marked increase from 20,970 in 2014. Organisations such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children have highlighted the fact that numbers are typically underestimated in neglect cases, but we should not underestimate the harm caused to health and development by neglect. What steps are the Department and the Government in general taking to get a more accurate picture of neglect and to intervene on behalf of the children who are suffering?

One area of improvement is the balance of acute and community care, and, again, the Government have talked about this in their three shifts. We know the Government are keen to move acute care into the community, but does the Minister agree that we should ensure that core community care is available more widely and more quickly in the community first before giving them extra work to do? Too often in my practice I see children with paediatric problems who have been referred to hospitals because of long waits and capacity problems in the community. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that there is enough supply in the community sector to deal with the problems that children face?

In summary, children’s health is a large and complex policy area. We know that we can make good progress when we treat these complex conditions with new research and novel treatments. We know that most children will get better—in fact, one reason that I enjoy paediatrics is that almost all the patients get better, because they are robust, resilient and great fun. We must help parents do things that help protect children’s health today and prepare those children to manage their own health tomorrow.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I now call the Minister, who has up to 5 pm, although we do need a few minutes at the end for the lead Member to wind up.

NHS 10-Year Plan

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall make a statement to the House on “Fit for the Future”, the Government’s 10-year health plan for England.

There are moments in our national story when our choices define who we are. In 1948, the Attlee Government made a choice founded on fairness: that everyone in our country deserves to receive the care they need, not just the care they can afford. It enshrined in law, and in the service itself, our collective conviction that healthcare is not a privilege to be bought and sold, but a right to be cherished and protected.

Now it falls to our generation to make the same choice: to rebuild our national health service, and to protect in this century what Attlee’s Government built for the last. That is the driving mission of our 10-year plan.

In September, Lord Darzi provided the diagnosis: the NHS was broken by 14 years of Conservative under-investment, and by their catastrophic top-down reorganisation. In the past year, Labour has put the NHS on the road to recovery. We promised 2 million extra appointments; we have delivered more than 4 million. We promised 1,000 new GPs on the frontline; we have recruited 1,900. We have taken almost a quarter of a million people off waiting lists, cutting them to their lowest level in two years. And we have launched an independent commission, chaired by Baroness Casey, to build a national consensus around a new national care service to meet the needs of older and disabled people into the 21st century.

Today, the Prime Minister has set out our prescription to get the NHS back on its feet and make it fit for the future. Our plan will deliver three big shifts. The first is from hospital to community. We will turn our national health service into a neighbourhood health service. The principle is simple: care should happen as locally as it can—digitally by default, in a patient’s home if possible, in a neighbourhood health centre when needed, and in a hospital where necessary.

We will put neighbourhood health centres in every community, so people can see a GP, nurse, physio, care worker, and therapist, and they can get a test, scan or treatment for minor injuries, all under one roof. The NHS will be organised around patients, rather than patients having to organise their lives around the NHS. It will be easier and faster to see a GP. We will train thousands more, end the 8 am scramble, provide same-day consultations, and bring back the family doctor. If you are someone with multiple conditions and complex needs, the NHS will co-create a personal care plan, so your care is done with you, not to you.

Pharmacies will play an expanded role in the neighbourhood health service. They will manage long-term conditions, treat conditions such as obesity and high blood pressure, screen for disease and vaccinate against it. We will also reform the dental contract, to get more dentists doing NHS work, rebuilding NHS dentistry.

Over the course of this plan, the majority of the 135 million out-patient appointments done each year will be moved out of hospitals. The funding will follow, so a greater share of NHS investment is spent in primary and community care.

The second shift is from analogue to digital. No longer will NHS staff have to enter seven passwords to login to their computers, or spend hours writing notes and entering data. Our plan will liberate frontline staff from the parts of the job that they hate, so they can focus on the job that they love—caring for patients. For the first time ever, patients will be given real control over a single, secure and authoritative account of their data. The single patient record will mean that NHS staff can see medical records and know a patient’s medical history, so they can provide them with the best possible care.

Wearable technology will feed in real-time health data, so patients’ health can be monitored while they stay in the comfort of their own home, with clinicians reaching out at the first signs of deterioration. The NHS app will become the front door to the health service, delivering power to the patient. You will be able to: book and rearrange appointments for you, your children or a loved one you care for; get instant advice from an AI doctor in your pocket; leave feedback on your care and see what feedback other patients have left; choose where you are treated; book appointments in urgent care so you do not wait for hours; and refer yourself to a specialist where clinically appropriate. Of course, patients can already do all that, but only if they can afford private healthcare. With Labour’s plan, every patient will receive a first-class service—whatever their background and whatever they earn.

The third shift is from sickness to prevention. Working with the food industry, we will make the healthy choice the easy choice to cut calories. We will roll out obesity jabs on the NHS. We will get Britain moving with our new NHS points scheme, and we will update school foods standards so that kids are fed healthy, nutritious meals. We will tackle the mental health crisis with support in every school to catch problems early, 24/7 support with virtual therapists for those with moderate need, and dedicated emergency departments for patients for when they reach crisis point.

The science is on our side. The revolution in artificial intelligence, machine learning and big data offers a golden opportunity to deliver better care at better value. New innovator passports and reform of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency will see medicines and technology rapidly adopted. Robotic surgery will become the norm in certain procedures, so patients recover from surgery at home rather than in hospital beds. The NHS will usher in a new age of medicine, leapfrogging disease so that we are predicting and preventing, rather than just diagnosing and treating. It is therefore the ambition of the plan to provide a genomic test for every newborn baby by 2035. Thanks to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, this plan is backed by an extra £29 billion a year by the end of the spending review period, as well as the biggest capital investment in the history of the NHS.

Alongside investment comes reform. This plan slashes unnecessary bureaucracy and devolves power and resource to the frontline. It abolishes more than 200 bodies, because listening to patients, guaranteeing safety and protecting whistleblowers is core business for the NHS and should never have been outsourced. The plan commits to publishing league tables to rank providers. We will intervene to turn around failing providers, and we will reinvent the foundation trust model in a new system of earned autonomy. Pay will be tied to performance, so that excellence is recognised and failure has consequences. Tariffs will be reduced to boost productivity. Block contracts will end, with funding tied to outcomes. The plan gives power to the patient, so hospitals are financially rewarded for better service. It closes health inequalities by investing more in working-class communities, and it establishes a national investigation into maternity and neonatal services to deliver the truth, justice and improvement that bereaved families deserve.

I am sometimes told that NHS staff are resistant to change. On the contrary, they are crying out for it. They suffer the moral injury of seeing their patients treated in unfit conditions. They are ones driving innovation on the frontline, so their fingerprints are all over this plan. The public are desperate for change too. Each of us has our own story about the NHS and the difference it made to our lives. We also know the consequences of failure. To succeed, we need to defeat the cynicism that says that nothing ever changes.

We know that the change in our plan is possible because it is already happening. We have toured the length and breadth of the country and scouted the world for the best examples of reform. If Australia can effectively serve communities living in the outback, we can surely meet the needs of rural England. If community health teams can go door to door to prevent illness in Brazil, we can certainly do the same in Bradford. We know that we can build the neighbourhood health service, because teams in Cornwall, Camden, Northumbria, and Stratford—where I was with the Prime Minister and Chancellor this morning—are already showing us how to do it. We will take the best of the NHS to the rest of the NHS. We will apply to best examples of innovation from around the world to benefit people here at home. Above all else, we will give power to the patient. This plan fulfils Nye Bevan’s commitment in 1948 to put a megaphone to the mouth of every patient. It will restore the founding promise of the NHS to be there for us when we need it.

Of course, we know that there are those on the right who are willing us to fail. They will exploit the crisis in the NHS in order to dismantle it. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and his cronies argue that universal healthcare could be afforded in the 20th century but not in the 21st. Labour rejects their declinist pessimism and so do the public. But that is the choice—it is change or bust, and we choose change.

We know that the British people are counting on us. It falls to us to ensure that the NHS not only survives but thrives, and we will not let our country down. Of course, if we succeed, we will be able to say with pride that will echo down the decades of the 21st century that we were the generation who built an NHS fit for the future and a fairer Britain where everyone lives well for longer. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Infant Feeding

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for bringing this important issue to the Chamber. My wife and I are expecting our first in the coming weeks, so as hon. Members will expect, this is an important subject in which I am quickly upskilling myself. In my constituency, I have a similar group called Exmouth Bosom Buddies, which does a fantastic job that we know relieves pressure on the NHS. What more does the hon. Member think can be done to allow such groups to grow, thrive and flourish so that they can continue their vital work?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before the hon. Member gets to her feet, I am just reminded of the midwifery-led Crowborough birthing unit, which helps the lovely mums in my constituency.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

The hon. Gentleman highlights how important it is to have that community-based support in an area. Unfortunately, not every mother across the UK can say the same. There are areas where they have to travel up to an hour by car to attend that sort of group, and I will come on to that point.

When I had my daughter, five years after my son, the support that I had relied on had all but vanished. The Milk group was now being run out of, in effect, a broom cupboard at my local leisure centre, with no opportunity to socialise with other mums. Only six months later, the pandemic hit and my daughter’s health visitor reviews were done via Zoom, often without my daughter even on the screen. The local children and family centre in my constituency never reopened in the same way after the pandemic.

I was one of the lucky ones because I had already built my village around me five years earlier and I had a network of friends and family that I could call on. However, for those who have become new mothers in the last decade, that support has been all but vaporised, with community support groups patchy and often delivered by volunteers or those wonderful midwives in their time off.

It is essential to acknowledge and support those parents who cannot or choose not to breastfeed, to ensure that they feel empowered and confident in the decisions they make for their children’s nutrition and wellbeing. I am a proud advocate of every parent having choice, but that choice should be an informed one. Currently, it is not a level playing field, with formula companies preying on the vulnerability of parents.

The Competition and Markets Authority launched a market study into the formula industry in February 2024 and published its results earlier this year. The study provided a comprehensive, in-depth and up-to-date exploration of the infant formula market in the UK through a consultative process that has offered unique insights into the industry. A short extract from the CMA’s overview of its findings states:

“parents are often in vulnerable circumstances when they first make choices about whether and which infant formula to use, their brand choice is often based on incomplete or unclear information, and they are typically then reluctant to switch brands. Against this backdrop, manufacturers place significant emphasis on building their brands—including through their willingness to supply the NHS below cost—and differentiating their products to attract parents, rather than competing strongly on price. And price competition between retailers has typically been weak…Our analysis indicates that these features, in combination, are leading to poor outcomes for parents in terms of the choices they make and prices they pay for infant formula.”

In short, a vulnerable, extremely tired new parent is making choices on which formula to buy, but the claims on boxes of commercial infant formula are often unfounded. Parents have to choose between a £7 tin of formula and a £14 tin of formula, even though they are nutritionally equivalent. At a recent event, we heard the testimony of parents who had purchased the more expensive brand with the bold claims on its packaging, believing that they were doing the best for their child, only to then use fewer scoops when making a bottle to make the tin last longer. We have only to look at our supermarket shelves and see the formula milk locked in glass cabinets to understand that we have a crisis in families being able to feed their babies.

The cost of living challenges have spiralled into a food insecurity crisis, yet formula manufacturers increased prices by 24% in one year in 2023 and prices continue to rise well beyond inflation. Research shows that parents rarely switch brands once they have introduced a formula milk. This gives formula companies a clear incentive to offer their products to maternity wards at reduced prices, knowing that parents are likely to continue using the same brand when they go home. To address this, the CMA recommends standardised infant formula labelling in healthcare settings, which would eliminate this form of exploitative marketing.

Formula companies are also restricted from advertising newborn formula, but they get round this by advertising their follow-on, or stage 2, milk and making the packaging look exactly the same. The CMA recommendations ask for the Government to assess whether infant formula and follow-on milks are “clearly distinct”, then communicate that assessment to the manufacturers and enforcers. A Mintel report from 2016 reported that in 2015, for every baby born in the UK, companies spent a staggering £21 just on marketing follow-on formula. The CMA has made 11 recommendations to the Government, all of which aim to improve outcomes for parents. I am calling on the Government today to implement all 11 recommendations and finally to level the playing field for those parents who rely on formula to feed their babies.

This debate is timely, as last week I was delighted to host the World Breastfeeding Trends Initiative’s launch of its 2024 report here in Parliament. I would be delighted to give the Minister a copy if she does not already have one. The key takeaway from the report is that the UK has one of the lowest breastfeeding rates in the world. The report not only highlights the gaps in policy but creates a report card system for each of the four nations. I want to highlight a few things that were mentioned in the report.

Importantly, data—though its collection is uneven across the four nations—shows that the majority of mothers do set out to breastfeed. Despite this, by six to eight weeks, around 70% of babies in the UK receive some formula, and by six months only 1% of babies are exclusively breastfed.

Department of Health and Social Care

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Smith]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. Indeed, St Luke’s hospice in my constituency will be facing exactly the same issues.

At risk of closure is Tubb pharmacy in Newton Ferrers in my constituency, which I have raised in this place before. Pharmacist Esi has been helped massively by an incredibly active community. The pharmacy supported a petition I delivered here in Parliament, and it provides essential services to the two rural villages of Newton Ferrers and Noss Mayo, but it is seeking Government action in order to secure its future.

While the estimates may highlight a commitment to delivering care closer to home, according to Community Pharmacy England there is still no clear path to the sustainable funding and operational model that is required by community pharmacy. It is needed by community pharmacies such as Tubb in Newton Ferrers, and it is needed by community pharmacists such as Esi. It is needed by the whole country to be able to deliver community pharmacy, Pharmacy First and, ultimately, to relieve pressure on primary care. I urge the Minister to provide this substantial funding for community pharmacy. I know that the Minister agrees that this work is incredibly important, and I urge her to ensure that we bring it to the fore as quickly as possible so that there can be a future for community pharmacy across the country.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Due to time constraints, I must now call the Front Benchers, starting with Helen Morgan.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 13th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder if you can assist me as I am at a loss as to what amendment we are discussing.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I have no doubt that if the right hon. Member gives the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) a moment, she will address it quickly, because even Members who are contributing do not have long.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am addressing new clause 13, which provides the strict regulation of life-ending substances and self-administering devices. That means there will be transparency about what substances are used and how they are stored, prescribed and delivered. We owe it to patients, clinicians and the public to ensure that every part of the process is governed by clinical standards and ethical safeguards. For those physically unable to swallow or self-ingest, the new clause ensures that devices to support self-administration can be safely used. Without that, we risk creating a system that excludes some of the very people it is meant to support.

While we must regulate the system properly, we must also reject amendments that would undermine or stall the Bill’s delivery. Amendment 19 proposes adding suicide prevention, the Mental Health Act and deprivation of liberty safeguards to the code of practice. As the Minister who put much of that legislation through, those are really important topics for me, but this is not the legislation to address them. Let us keep the code focused on the Bill’s core function of ensuring a safe, consistent and compassionate assisted dying process.

Amendment 20 would allow non-adherence to the code to be used in civil or criminal proceedings. That is not appropriate. Guidance is meant to help professionals navigate difficult decisions, not become a legal trap. If clinicians act negligently, existing law already applies. We should not be creating new liabilities for those acting in good faith in very difficult conditions.

I also oppose amendments 97 and 27, which would require the MHRA to license drugs specifically for assisted dying and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to recommend them. That would make the Bill unworkable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

As Mr Speaker has already mentioned, in order for everybody to get in—well, in order for most to get in—we need speeches to be shy of six minutes, and interventions to be short. I call Gregory Stafford.

[Gregory Stafford]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am conscious of those comments and will try to limit my remarks to new clause 13 and some of the amendments to it.

The Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Pathologists, the Association for Palliative Medicine and the British Geriatrics Society have all said that there are problems with this Bill, and I have heard nothing from its sponsor, the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater)—despite trying to intervene on her a number of times—about what she has done to ensure that their concerns have been addressed. This brings us directly to a fundamental concern: namely, the means by which assisted death would be carried out under new clause 13. The impact assessment for the Bill recognises that

“The safety and efficacy of those substances used for assisted dying is currently difficult to assess”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Voaden]

I take issue with some of the language being used. We have heard the words “murder”, “killing” and “suicide”. Twenty-three years ago next week, my husband died of terminal cancer. He was in extreme pain and was given morphine to relieve it. As the pain got worse, he was given more morphine so that he could die gently and not in complete agony. This is about helping people die in a civilised way, and helping their families to not go through the horrendous experience of watching a loved one die in agony. To call it murder and killing is so wrong, and we have a duty to mind our language with this Bill. It is about helping people die quickly and with dignity. It is assisted dying.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before Dr Spencer resumes, I note that this has been a well-tempered debate. Let us keep it so. We know our constituents are watching.

[Dr Spencer]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. Of course there are situations in which a decision to end one’s life is perfectly understandable—indeed, rational. I spent my career looking after people, many of whom presented to me and to medical services with thoughts about wanting to end their life. Many of them had mental illness. Some had terminal illness. The fundamental problem with the Bill is that it has a complete blind spot for those people who are highly vulnerable. It is scandalous that we have got to this point and are still having a debate about the core concepts. The Bill should have been dealt with properly from the start with a royal commission or a review so that we did not get to the point where we are still debating core principles on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The hon. Lady has made it clear that she is not taking interventions at this time.

[Ellie Chowns]

The evidence shows that it is dying people themselves, facing the end of life, who wish to have the choice. Only small numbers of them will take up that choice, but it is crucial, humane and compassionate for us to offer them the choice. Assisted dying is complementary to palliative care, not contradictory, and this Bill has been through a huge amount of scrutiny—far more than any other Bill in this Session. Therefore, I deeply hope that the House will pass this compassionate, humane, clearly drafted and tightly structured Bill, to offer a dignified death to those who are facing death.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before an intervention is taken, may I put it on the record that Members should not be wandering into the Chamber and then very quickly making an intervention? Lots of Members are waiting to speak and to make interventions. Is that the case? Have you been in the Chamber for a while?

[Andrew Pakes]

indicated assent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Okay, go on.

[Andrew Pakes]

I did use the facilities, Madam Deputy Speaker; I apologise for that. I am a gentleman of an age. [Laughter.]

I thank my hon. Friend for taking an intervention. We are about to reach the 80th anniversary of the landslide 1945 Labour Government, which set the NHS in train, and the 77th anniversary of the NHS. Fundamental to that is her point about the NHS being free at the point of need and being about care, compassion and life. What assessment has she made of how the Bill, if it goes through unamended, will fundamentally challenge that great victory and legacy that Labour Members cherish?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huq]

Will I get more time? [Laughter.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

indicated assent.

[Jess Asato]

I thank my hon. Friend and I recognise the time constraints. On the issue of vulnerable groups, she may know that a letter has been sent about eating disorders but the spokesperson for the Bill’s sponsor dismissed it, saying that the concerns raised were old news. Does she agree that there is a problem with the way the Bill is being run, as so often the concerns and evidence presented by groups have been dismissed out of hand?

Covid: Fifth Anniversary

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Colleagues can see how many Members wish to contribute. There will be a speaking limit of three minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. We will not get everybody in unless I drop the time limit again down to two minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I think the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) needs to respond to the first intervention. I appreciate what is happening, though, and he may wish to take the second intervention shortly afterwards.

[John McDonnell]

I have never seen an intervention on an intervention. I will follow on from that point. The clinicians are trying to get across to me that, as others have said, covid doubles the risk of a heart attack. We have seen heart attacks, strokes, pulmonary embolisms and deep-vein thrombosis. In addition, the team is trying to get across the message that long covid is not simply fatigue. It is an umbrella term for a range of chronic, multi-system pathologies that have an effect.

There is one issue that affects children in particular. The work of Dr Danielle Beckman has shown that covid breaches the blood-brain barrier. As a result, it infects the neurons and causes persistent brain inflammation, thereby imposing cognitive impediments.

[John McDonnell]

The intervention on an intervention was definitely worth it.

I will briefly raise another issue. One of the messages the clinicians wanted me to get across was exactly that: children have not been spared. Some of the research they have done, for example, indicates that covid doubles the risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes in children as well. A recent study in America indicates that up to 20% of children at the moment are endangered and experiencing long covid symptoms.

One of the other issues that came out of my discussions with the clinicians is that repeat infections are cumulative and dangerous, resulting in long covid that increases the risk of cardiovascular, neurological, gastrointestinal and endocrine diseases. These clinicians are trying to get across how challenging the situation is. The problem we have at the moment is that the Office for National Statistics’ covid infection survey has been shut down. I can understand the argument for doing so at the time, but the figure coming out of the recent GPs’ survey is that 3.2 million people are experiencing long covid at the moment—again, a staggering figure.

A number of recommendations have been made, one of which is to restore national infection surveillance as quickly as possible. Exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West has said, we should fund research and clinical services for long covid. We should implement public health mitigations to reduce infection, particularly in places such as hospitals, classrooms and so on. We benefit from air circulation in this building; others should as well. Finally, as my hon. Friend said, we should protect vulnerable populations—including children—from the chronic disability that covid can impose.

I will circulate the briefing paper to all Members, and we can have another discussion at another time. I was hoping no one would turn up today and I would have longer for my speech.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

Today, we mark five years since the start of the covid-19 pandemic. Just under 227,000 people in the UK died with covid-19 listed as a cause on their death certificate. Every one of those statistics is a mother, a father, a brother, a sister, a child, a neighbour or a friend. Thousands were separated from their loved ones, and that loss and grief may never fully heal.

Yet in the darkest of times, the British people shone with immense compassion and courage, and a sense of community spirit. Doctors, nurses and carers worked punishing hours, often risking their own lives; teachers, council workers and others worked in the toughest of conditions; and volunteers came forward in droves to collect and deliver prescriptions, shop for the frail and elderly, staff temporary centres to administer vaccines, and check in on neighbours. That resilience and solidarity showed the very best of who we are.

Sadly, that same spirit of public service was not reflected in the highest offices of Government. The findings of the first covid inquiry, led by Baroness Hallett, laid bare the truth that the UK was ill-prepared for dealing with a catastrophic emergency, let alone the coronavirus pandemic. We had planned for the wrong pandemic, one based on flu; we ignored the risks associated with other potential pathogens; we ignored warnings; and then we failed to act on lessons from past civil emergency exercises and outbreaks of disease. These were systemic and political failings that worsened people’s suffering. Let us be frank: the most vulnerable paid the highest price. There was cruelty in the rigidity of restrictions, with families kept apart even in their loved ones’ final moments. All of this was made more painful by the bitter hypocrisy of partygate, a betrayal of trust that mocked the sacrifices of millions.

The Lib Dems called for an inquiry in 2020, and we continue to demand answers. The full facts must be known about every aspect of the Government’s poor response. This is not born out of a desire for vengeance; the British people deserve to know the truth, and they deserve far better in future. We now have a moral responsibility to act, and this Government must commit to implementing the inquiry’s recommendations in full and without delay. Patients and care home residents must have a legal right to maintain contact with their loved ones; a comprehensive civil emergency strategy is essential; and the new UK Resilience Academy must train 4,000 people in resilience and emergency roles, as promised. Can the Minister give us confidence that this will be delivered?

The voices of frail and older people must be heard at the heart of Government planning. We call for a commissioner for ageing and older people, to ensure that their needs are never neglected again. Public officials must be held to a duty of candour—the Government’s promise of a Hillsborough law remains unfulfilled. Can the Minister say when survivors and families will see the legislation for which they have waited so long?

We must also confront a hard truth: our nation was less resilient because health inequality has left our population quite simply less healthy. Years of cuts to public health services under the Conservatives left us more vulnerable. The Lib Dems are calling for urgent action to increase the public health grant and allow communities to co-produce plans; establish a health creation unit to lead cross-Government efforts to improve health and wellbeing and tackle inequality; improve access to blood pressure checks in community spaces and expand social prescribing; introduce a new kitemark for health apps and digital health tools, ensuring that they are clinically sound; create a new levy on tobacco company profits to fund healthcare and smoking cessation services; and pass a clean air Act to tackle pollution and improve air quality.

Lastly, we must not forget those living with the consequences of the virus, as Members have mentioned. We call for a long covid register. As we remember those whom we lost, we owe it to them and to future generations to ensure that these lessons are not buried in reports and left on shelves, but lead to real changes that make improvements in our constituents’ lives. The British people were courageous, generous and selfless; they deserve a Government who act to match that spirit.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Asser]

In the few seconds I have, I just want to say that I thought it was important to have this debate so that the fifth anniversary did not pass without being marked. It is clear that we have merely touched the surface of what could be said, but I thank hon. Members across the House who have contributed. Much has been said, and there is clearly much more to say. I put on record my thanks to my constituents for all they have done. I hope that all the families and all those affected who have been watching will feel that this debate has been important in recognising the past five years, acknowledging that there is more to be said and that we will talk further about it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the fifth anniversary of the covid-19 pandemic.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I thank all Members, and I especially thank the Minister for being so swift at the Dispatch Box.

Dementia Care

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Over 20 Members wish to speak, so there will be a speaking limit of six minutes.

Access to NHS Dentistry

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Because so many Members wish to contribute and we have to conclude by 5 pm, we will have a time limit of three minutes starting from now. I call Sir Julian Lewis, who I think can manage that—I think you can do it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Ben Maguire. [Interruption.] I call Dr Andrew Murrison.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Prinsley]

That is certainly a suggestion that should be investigated.

We must increase the number of dentists, as we have only 24 dentists for every 100,000 people in the east of England. We also need to increase the number of training providers and training places, but even with the opening of a dental school it will take ages for there to be new dentists.

One suggestion is that we sort out the dental accreditation system. Hon. Members may not know that there are only 600 opportunities to take the accreditation exam each year, but there are 6,000 people planning to take the exam—that will take 10 years. We must get the General Dental Council to increase the number of exam opportunities.

We have begun to address this political emergency, but we must go further with a clear and fair offer focusing on what the Minister described as the triangle of patients, practitioners and the public purse, providing a service that ensures that we give excellent, affordable care for all, including prevention, especially for the most vulnerable, and in a way that means we can pay for it. NHS dentistry can be saved. Let us have a sign on the door saying, “Urgent NHS dental appointments available here.” Would that not that be great?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chambers]

I absolutely welcome that fantastic initiative.

I visited two dental practices in Winchester, and both told me exactly the same thing: they want to do more NHS work, and they want to be there for their communities, but because of the current NHS dental contract they simply cannot make it financially viable. They are effectively subsidising their NHS patients with income from private work. The British Dental Association estimates that private dentistry in England cross-subsidises NHS care to the tune of £332 million a year, which is due to rise to £425 million if NHS practices are not offered any help with the tens of thousands in additional staff costs brought in by the increase in national insurance. With the NHS work they do perform, they do not have time for the education—the proactive, holistic healthcare— that they want to do. Instead, they have to get people through in a quick turnaround. I say this clearly: dentists are not the problem. They are doing their best within a contract that is outdated and damaging.

I also want to speak to something that is often overlooked in this conversation: oral health is not just about teeth. I know that my dentist colleagues, as in veterinary practice, routinely identify serious conditions such as oral cancers and squamous cell carcinomas during routine dental checks. Those cancers are often aggressive but spotted early, they can be treated. We also know that infections in the mouth can lead to things such as endocarditis, which is not a trivial condition, and there is good evidence that periodontitis can contribute to the onset of dementia. How many cancers are we missing? How many heart problems are we not avoiding by not having routine dental checks?

I will sum up now as I know that we are pushed for time. The Liberal Democrats will continue to fight tooth and nail for an NHS that includes dentistry. I managed to avoid making any jokes about equine dentistry, and Members will be glad to hear that straight from the horse’s mouth. We do not want NHS dentistry to be an afterthought; it has to be a core part of a truly universal, holistic health service. Everyone deserves access to routine dental care. Many Members have said that they live in areas that are dental deserts, where NHS dentists are rarer than hen’s teeth. It is clear that we have cross-party consensus. Let us get the dental contract reformed and let us make this Parliament the last one during which anyone has to extract their own teeth.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Mental Health Bill [Lords]

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

I add my thanks to the Secretary of State and his whole ministerial team for bringing forward this crucial legislation so early in this Government, alongside other positive measures to fix our NHS. It was Labour that built the NHS and saved it in 1997, and here he is with his team, fixing our crucial NHS.

I serve a community, in Bermondsey and Old Southwark, with a higher prevalence of mental health conditions and psychoses. We are fortunate to have South London and Maudsley NHS foundation trust on our doorstep. This legislation will be crucial for the service professionals working on the frontline, as well as all those who need support. My borough of Southwark has additional help, funded by Southwark’s Labour council and our integrated care board, including direct access to help through online systems, and a drop-in hub for young people—a means of support that allows them to avoid GP wait times and delays in accessing help. I am glad that this legislation adopts a similar principle of ensuring early access to help, but despite the additional support in Southwark, as the local MP, I see the impact that poor mental health has on people’s lives, which are blighted by ill health and discrimination. I am acutely aware that just 5% of people with schizophrenia are in employment, for example. This Bill offers a chance to tackle some of the issues, but it is overdue.

I look forward to working with local organisations and people with direct experience, including trade unions in mental health services, carers, Blackfriars Settlement, food banks, and the drop-in clubs that support people with mental health conditions throughout Southwark, which are doing fantastic work, often on a shoe-string budget. As the constituency MP, I also see the impact on whole neighbourhoods if someone’s ill health causes them to behave erratically, and sometimes antisocially—noise and drugs are often interrelated issues. There can also be police involvement, following cuckooing by criminals who take advantage of vulnerable people. I hope that the Bill will challenge that growing phenomenon. It would be good to hear from the Minister whether communities—including landlords and neighbours, where appropriate—can trigger interventions to support people in crisis.

Just two weeks ago, I joined a ride-along with the police 999 response team. Some might say that it was not the first time I had helped the police with their inquiries. On that ride-along, which was my third with the local police, I saw again the consistent and sad overlap between what they were dealing with and mental health crises. I ended my shift with those police officers at King’s College hospital, trying to seek support for one ill man. I hope that the Government will retain the extension of section 135 and 136 powers, delivered in a Lords amendment. That would ensure that there was trained and qualified support, which would reduce the time that police lose. The amendment would save thousands of hours a week of officers’ time in London alone, and police could be redirected to areas where they are more needed.

Going back further, in the run-up to the introduction of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, I was working at the Disability Rights Commission, and I recall that mental health organisations were almost envious of that legislation, given the need to reform the Mental Health Act. They wondered when access to advocacy and patient-centred treatment would be delivered for people with mental health conditions. It is sad that there have been missed decades in between, but I am glad that this Bill is before us today.

The advance choice documents are a step towards a return to the greater choice and control lost in recent years, as services declined under the last Government. The use of nominated persons, as outlined by the Secretary of State, also offers a great step forward, as does access to extended use of independent mental health advocates for those in hospital. That should be automatic, as Mind has advocated. It is great that the legislation is based on the Wessely independent review and the principles underpinning it.

On a more personal level, and going back even further, the reason I became more aware of politics was my mum’s diagnosis of schizophrenia in the early ’80s—at roughly the time when the Secretary of State was born. Then, Rethink was still called the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. Mum has been through the mill in the decades in between. I will not suggest that she has been detained more times than I have had hot dinners—hon. Members can see by my waistline that that is not true—but the fact that the Mental Health Act has not been updated since then is appalling. When I joined the Labour party in the early ’90s, I never dreamed that I could play a part in improving legislation as an MP. I want to flag a couple of concerns, based on family experiences.

Recently, Mum told us that she believed she worked at a bank. That was news to us in the family—no doubt, it was news to the bank—as she is 75 and has not had to work for some time. I can laugh about it, but it is upsetting that she is unwell; it is frustrating that the system is mad; and trying to access support for her is maddening for us as a family. Her GP denies that she is unwell and refuses to see her. The last time this happened, she was sectioned for six weeks until she was back in rude health—and believe me, she was very rude when she came out.

South London and Maudsley NHS foundation trust estimates that it costs £3,000 a week to keep someone in hospital until they recover. NHS England has put a figure of £20,000 on detaining someone with schizophrenia until they are well. Those costs are avoidable if GPs act faster. Will the Bill result in better trigger points? This is not about artificial intelligence; it is about using known data in the system, so that there is access to supportive interventions that help individuals who have a mental health condition; help their family avoid the pain and suffering that they share when an individual is unwell; save a community the misery of associated antisocial behaviour or other problems; potentially save the police a fortune, as a result of their no longer having to accompany people to hospital for treatment, where that can be avoided; and, of course, save the NHS thousands in avoidable hospitalisation and in-patient treatment.

GPs can be part of the solution, but too often, they pass the buck and avoid the issue, as the Gardenia surgery in Luton does, pretending that everything is okay, despite prescriptions being uncollected, which leads to the inevitability of mental ill health rising fast. I hope that the Bill will lead to better community care, as the Secretary of State has outlined, but I also hope that GPs and pharmacists will be supported in triggering outreach work from mental health trusts when someone does not collect their repeat prescription, for example. I hope that it will be confirmed clearly that this will be in the legislation, or that the Government will indicate a willingness to accept an amendment along those lines.

My final, linked point is that the Bill should come with Government targets for reduced readmissions and sectioning. If the Bill is successful, people will not be discharged and readmitted in quick succession, and patients known to the system will not require routine, cyclical readmission. With the right support, the dysfunctional system can be replaced. That will have huge benefits for people’s mental health, and will mean huge savings for the NHS. There were, I think, 52,000 detentions last year. I hope that the Government will set out how that figure will fall.

I really look forward to supporting the Bill’s progression. The Bill will be transformative for the people I serve in my community, and the people I love in my family. It will be transformative for millions of people across the country—people with mental health conditions, their families, carers and service professionals—and, if it is done right, it will save the NHS a fortune, too.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

Eight months ago, in my maiden speech to Parliament, I said that Fiona Laskaris would succeed in changing the law that prevented her from saving her autistic son, Christopher, from murder. I am here today to honour that commitment. We are on the cusp of changing the law. We have got this far thanks to the National Autistic Society; MPs from across the Chamber working together to overcome injustice, including the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey); steadfast support from my party, the Liberal Democrats, and support from the Prime Minister and the Government, in a way that represents Parliament at its best; and Elisa Menendez and Romilly Weeks from ITV, who ran the story. Above all, we got this far because of the courage and determination of Fiona Laskaris to save others from the fate that befell her son, Christopher. Fiona and Cara, Christopher’s sister, are in the Gallery.

Christopher was not unlike many autistic children. He was a sensitive, intelligent, loving and compassionate boy, who once asked his mum to stop on the way to school to rescue a lamb that was stuck in a fence. I first met Fiona when I was eight. I stayed in my bedroom and ignored her, perhaps because I was angry that she was buying my home off my dad; my mum had died when I was a few months old, and I was a sensitive boy. Well, they moved in; Christopher grew up in my old bedroom, and he loved the house as much as I did, but as a young man living alone in Leeds, he struggled. Despite Fiona pleading for help for years, she was never able to attain for him the mental capacity assessment that he needed to determine his support requirements. Horrifically, he was exploited and murdered by a man who had just been released from jail. Christopher was 24. We are working with the Government on an amendment to the Bill to ensure that the views of family members are considered when determining an adult’s requirements for a mental capacity assessment.

Christopher’s story is not unique. King’s College London found that in 2022 alone, there were 95 preventable deaths of people with autism and learning disabilities in cases in which the Mental Capacity Act 2005 had not been correctly followed. It can be hard to grasp the scale of the special educational needs and disabilities crisis in this country, but tens of thousands of SEND children are out of school, including 1,800 in Surrey alone. We are losing autistic children, including my constituent Jennifer Chalkley, to avoidable suicide, and, at worst, we are abandoning autistic people in their 20s to murderers; we are failing a generation. How we answer their call for justice will serve as a measure of who we are, and I believe the answer is less a matter of money than of leadership. We know from Nobel laureate James Heckman that early intervention is exponentially more effective and economical in today’s brutalised system, which has cost the lives of Christopher, Jennifer and too many others.

Although this amendment is only a small part of the answer, it can save lives. If one grieving mother can change the law, perhaps we can change the other things, too. If we succeed, it will be above all because of the voices of broken but unbeaten parents, like Fiona, demanding change. Although Christopher had a difficult life, he had the most precious thing that any man can have: a loving and devoted mum. It is up to us to ensure that Fiona is a witness that in our country, it is possible for the vulnerable to be heard, for injustice to be overcome, and to find, beyond grief, hope.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

That was a very moving speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jen Craft]

I will come to that point a little later, but that confinement is detrimental to their mental health. It can sometimes be hard to pick apart a co-existing or co-occurring mental health condition from the behaviour exhibited within that environment. This is part of the reason that it is all but impossible for some detained individuals, in the circumstances they are in, to demonstrate the behaviour change they need to prove they have become sufficiently well to be released.

My attention was drawn last year to the case of a young woman called Bethany, who was detained for the best part of half a decade under the Mental Health Act. She is an autistic young woman whose parents believed that her entering a secure unit was the best choice. However, she ended up being locked up for days, weeks and then months on end in a room with only a mattress on the floor. She was unable to see her family or her support network, and her parents were absolutely devastated at being unable to get her out of that environment and seeing her continually deteriorate. It is hard to imagine the anguish of people seeing someone that they love go through this. When this happens to someone or their family, how on earth can they ever again trust the system that put them there? Learning disabled people and autistic people who have been through that have their confidence in accessing support taken away. In turn, that can create a vicious cycle.

I strongly welcome the moves that this Bill makes towards removing learning disability and autism as a reason alone for detention. However, similar to my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna), I note that the Government have said that these changes to detention criteria will only be switched on when systems can demonstrate a sufficient level of community support. That is a source of real concern. As the NHS Confederation has warned, the

“success of the reforms will be dependent on the wider infrastructure to support”

the Bill. As others have said, there is no clarity on what a sufficient level of support means in practice. We do not know where we are heading or when we will have got there.

The most successful support for learning disabled and autistic people to live independently in their communities is integrated care that encompasses health, housing, occupation and much more besides. I would welcome the Minister’s assurances on how that will be delivered in the timescales set out and how we get from where we are now to where good is. The continual detention of people in this way should shame us all, and an end to that cannot come fast enough.

I sound a note of caution—I think this is fairly similar to that of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge—that the legislation continues to allow for the co-occurrence of mental health conditions to be a reason to detain someone with a learning disability and autism. That in and of itself could lead to this continual cycle where people are detained for longer than is necessary for their treatment while in an environment that is entirely counterproductive to them becoming well. We also need those with a specialism in learning disability and autism to be present in assessing whether an individual also has a co-occurring mental health condition.

Finally, I put a plea in to the Minister that there is a real need for those who live with a learning disability or autism to be properly consulted. A number of disabled people’s charities that are run by people with a learning disability, such as the “Bring People Home from Hospital” campaign, which is operating under the auspices of Inclusion London, do not feel that they have had sufficient opportunity to input. A very minor point is that some relevant documents related to this legislation have not been printed in easy read. If they have, it has taken a while for them to arrive. People who have a lived experience of these conditions are unable to contribute in a meaningful way.

More broadly, I welcome the legislation’s attempt to make progress in putting patient voice at the heart of care, particularly through advance choice documents, but there is scope to go further. The Royal College of Psychiatrists is advocating for a statutory right to an advance choice document, which the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee also recommended. That would ensure that all patients who would benefit from one would get one, with the aim of reducing detentions and involuntary treatment. While I recognise the importance of this step and this legislation alongside the Government’s investment in mental health crisis centres, a pledge to recruit 8,500 mental health staff and the Secretary of State’s commitment to the mental health investment standard, there is a desperate need to transform community mental health services to put patient voice and experience at its heart and avoid the need for detention orders in the first place.

As a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, I have had the privilege of hearing from some extraordinarily courageous individuals who shared their experience of living with a serious mental illness. It is in that same spirit that I will share my own experience now. I hope that it offers an insight into the limitations of our current system.

I was diagnosed with obsessive compulsive disorder as a teenager, and with bipolar disorder in my 20s. In two and half decades with these conditions I have received good care, but sadly that is the exception and not the rule. I have never been asked what it is that I want from treatment, what it is that I want for my life, and how I can be helped to get there. I have received care that is patronising, reductive, inconsistent and non-existent. During mental health crises I have had to tread a fine line between proving that I am ill, and sometimes extremely ill, and proving that I am not so ill that I need to lose my liberty, because I know that more often than not, treatment is based not on therapeutic care but on risk management. Like thousands of others, I have had to create my own care package and my own route to treatment, because I made the decision that I deserved to live, and I deserved to live well—and also that my children deserved their mum. However, I am very aware that my ability to do this is based on a number of privileges, in no small part a very supportive family, which so many do not have.

While I welcome the Bill for its advances in reducing the amount of detention and increasing the agency of those who are detained, I must call for a significant overhaul of community mental health services to prevent crises from occurring in the first place. We know that we can and must do better. I ask all Members to note that when we discuss people’s serious mental illnesses, we often talk as though they were “others”, which they are not. Let me say this: “There is someone standing here among you, a Member of Parliament, who has a serious mental illness. It does not prevent me from doing my job or from living my life; in some ways, it makes me better at it.” While the Bill continues its passage through Parliament, can we please bear in mind that we are talking about individuals, and individuals who will be affected by it, and that what we seek to do—and what I hope we will accomplish—is give people who live with serious mental illnesses the ability and the right to live the best lives that they possibly can, with all the support that we can make available?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The hon. Lady’s family must be very proud.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I want to retain the tone of this debate, but to get everybody in, we will have a speaking limit of seven minutes, which is still quite a long time.