Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy
Olly Glover Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
In the United Kingdom, more than 600,000 people—one in a 100—live with epilepsy and every day around 80 people are diagnosed. Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy, abbreviated as SUDEP, is the term used when a person with epilepsy dies suddenly and unexpectedly. At least 21 people die every week in the UK from SUDEP, and even that is an underestimate, with epilepsy deaths believed to be under recorded. I will raise two key themes in this debate: first, the SUDEP and epilepsy risk communication and understanding gap, and secondly, the inherent systemic failure to prevent deaths following prevention of future deaths reports. I will conclude by outlining my key asks, which are needed for lasting and meaningful change.
The causes of epilepsy-related deaths range from prolonged seizures and accidents to drownings and suicide; however, SUDEP is a devastating worst outcome, accounting for half of all epilepsy fatalities. According to the charity SUDEP Action and the Epilepsy Research Institute UK, the highest rates of death are in areas of deprivation and among vulnerable groups, such as those with worsening mental health, people with learning disabilities or autism, pregnant women and children. SUDEP affects all ages, but we know that it disproportionately affects the young, with a peak in people’s 20s and 30s.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate to the House tonight. I have been asked to come along on behalf of my constituent, James Nichols, who lost a dear friend in just that age group to SUDEP and has been a tireless campaigner on the issue ever since. He explained to me that the really tragic thing about SUDEP is that it can often come somewhat out of the blue through breakthrough seizures after an individual has not had seizures for many years, which can make it a particularly traumatic experience for loved ones and family members. Will the hon. Gentleman perhaps touch a bit more on what we can do to support family members?
Olly Glover
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and pay tribute to his constituent and their family. I am going to be talking quite a lot about what we can do to prevent such occurrences in the future.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. I spoke to him beforehand and, like the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), I am here to represent my constituents and those who are affected by this issue in Northern Ireland. SUDEP affects one in 1,000 people with epilepsy annually, which includes many cases in Northern Ireland, yet many families say that they are unaware of the dangers of these night-time tonic-clonic seizures. Does the hon. Member not agree, as he to what the Government need to do, that more must be done to educate patients and family members to ensure that the information is known and that precautions can thereby be taken?
Olly Glover
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct to say that awareness raising and increasing understanding are key priorities in dealing with SUDEP and epilepsy in general.
Patients with epilepsy carry a risk of premature death that is, on average, two to three times higher than in the general population, as has been outlined by Frontiers in Epidemiology. What is most devastating is the knowledge that 60% of epilepsy-related deaths each year are believed to be preventable, according to the European Journal of Neurology, with SUDEP accounting for many of these deaths.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this really essential debate to the House. My constituent Emma Taylor tragically lost her daughter at the age of 19 and she now campaigns tirelessly for SUDEP Action as a policy champion. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with her on the need for the Government to promote proper first aid seizure training?
Olly Glover
I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. I thank her for her tireless campaigning and offer my condolences for her loss.
My Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage is the home to SUDEP Action, a charity that is local, national and international in its impact. In 1995, five bereaved women came together around a kitchen table to found the charity in tribute to Alan, aged 27; Matthew, 21; Natalie, 22; and William, 22—all of whom had died, with the condition unrecognised beforehand. Jane Hanna, Sheila Pring, Catherine Brookes, Sue Kelk and Jennifer Preston faced despair together and chose to build hope. Since 2020, SUDEP Action has worked alongside the Epilepsy Research Institute to identify tackling epilepsy deaths as a No. 1 research priority.
The key challenge that SUDEP Action faces is that research insight does not reliably or quickly reach neurology consultations, primary care or social care. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines exist, but services are inadequately supported to implement them. Jane Hanna from SUDEP Action told me that my own constituents face nine-month waits for a first seizure clinic and waits of nine to 12 months for follow-ups. She told me that waits of this magnitude, such as we are experiencing in my constituency, are unsafe. Her partner Alan waited for four months and died suddenly five months later. Waits such as these are not confined to my constituency; they are reflective of a structural problem across the country.
Free safety tools exist to tackle the lack of knowledge and the complacency around seizures and SUDEP, but systemic issues are difficult to shift because of poor access, poor medicine management, failure to communicate risk and poor recording of deaths. An independent review was named after Clive Treacey. Clive died at 47 in 2017 in a hospital setting where he had lived for 10 years. The report on his life is shocking for this country in the 21st century. The Minister might be aware of the debate secured last year by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), who I am pleased to see in his place tonight, and of the response from the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), who supported the Clive Treacey checklist.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for bringing to light the Clive Treacey checklist, because it is a really fitting way to remember Clive. It is important to remember, however, that although it is named after Clive, he is not defined by his epilepsy; he was not defined by his learning disability and he does not need to be defined by his death. Clive loved to paint and was a really talented gardener, and his family are eager that he be remembered for those memories that they carry of him. I want to make sure that I take the opportunity to put that on the record.
It is also very clear from the Clive Treacey checklist that SUDEP risk for people with learning disabilities and epilepsy is three times higher—300%—but the actual risk of SUDEP can be cut by 84% if people have an annual check-up. That is part of what the Clive Treacey checklist advises NHS trusts to follow. I again thank the hon. Gentleman and invite him to do all he can alongside me—and, I am sure, many other Members—to make sure that every single NHS trust introduces and follows the Clive Treacey checklist to protect some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
Olly Glover
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and his tribute to his constituent, and I look forward to working with him and others on this issue.
The checklist, commissioned by NHS Midlands and developed by SUDEP Action, is designed for commissioners and providers of care. There is hope that it will be red-flagged in annual health checks for people with learning disabilities, as the hon. Gentleman has said. Despite the existence of this high-risk cohort, most families were, like Clive’s, unaware of SUDEP and epilepsy risk despite learnings from earlier deaths. They were never given the information they needed, and the mistakes of the past continue to be repeated. Recent research by the European Journal of Neurology surveying neurologists found that only one fifth discussed SUDEP with all patients. That speaks to an unacceptable systemic failure. More than 20 years after national guidance was introduced, young people and their families are still being left in the dark.
So what needs to be done? SUDEP Action has developed practical safety tools to empower neighbourhoods: the SUDEP and seizure safety checklist; the EpSMon app, which helps people understand their personal epilepsy risks; and the Charlie card to support risk reduction and communication across care settings. We know that where the adult checklist is used, the rate of SUDEP conversations has risen from 20% to 80% and risks have fallen. But the challenges are vast. Progress is fragmented, it is far too slow, and at a time of rising inequalities all too often the risks are getting worse. The series of prevention of future deaths reports into epilepsy reflects broader patterns: missed opportunities; a SUDEP and epilepsy risk communication gap; a failure to act; and a culture that too often fails to listen to families.
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
Five years ago, my constituent Nadine tragically lost her brother Trevor to epilepsy. An inquest into Trevor’s death ruled that his healthcare team and prison staff at the prison that he was in had not carried out their duties, which led directly to his death. Trevor’s death, sadly, is one of many that highlight a clear unresolved gap in epilepsy care in custodial settings. Does hon. Gentleman agree that the best way to prevent epilepsy deaths in prison is through education and training, to ensure that no life is lost to epilepsy due to lack of awareness or understanding?
Olly Glover
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and he is absolutely right to raise prison as another setting where people are often vulnerable and where more needs to be done in relation to SUDEP.
Sepsis, which has a similar history of systemic failure, will shortly benefit from a modern service framework co-produced with the UK Sepsis Trust. Meanwhile, neither epilepsy nor neurology is explicitly mentioned in the NHS 10-year plan. There is a mandatory national framework to protect unborn children from anti-seizure medication risks, but there is no mandatory national framework to protect people living with epilepsy from SUDEP and epilepsy deaths, despite 30 years of evidence and repeated calls for action.
SUDEP Action provides intensive assistance on 60 to 70 investigations of deaths each year and sees the toll of long, drawn-out processes and, far too often, a defensive culture by default. It also sees a painful accountability gap where inquests are not even held and families feel silenced. The complacency around SUDEP, seizures and epilepsy, which was first called out by Liam Donaldson as chief medical officer in his annual report in 2021, carries wider harms for communities and persists in too many places.
Moving towards my conclusion, I wish to outline some key asks for the Minister. There are hundreds more stories from families that I wish I could have shared today, but I always endeavour to be as brief and concise as possible in this setting. My thoughts are with all in the bereaved community, whom I stand by and will continue to campaign for. In order to effectively support the wonderful charities that are doing so much to prevent SUDEP and support families through this, I have four questions for the Minister.
First, will the Minister commit to developing a modern framework for SUDEP? This would require policymakers working on epilepsy to work with those with lived experience via SUDEP Action and to spread good practice. In addition to mandatory information on side effects from anti-seizure medicines, there must be a framework for person-centred information about SUDEP and seizure risk, as well as national training initiatives that support whole-system learning.
Epilepsy and SUDEP must be included in neighbourhood healthcare, integrated with acute hospitals, social care and community health settings, as well as in prisons as the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) said, to maximise the opportunity for prevention. There must be safe levels of epilepsy specialist doctors and nurses in local areas. Improving the quality of the annual check for learning disabilities by including a SUDEP check for people with epilepsy would be a significant step forward in upskilling primary care.
Secondly, will the Minister commit today to arranging a meeting with SUDEP Action? Ministerial colleagues have offered engagement on prevention of future deaths reports with SUDEP Action, promising meetings in letters sent in January and February, but such meetings have yet to take place.
Thirdly, will the Minister support a national oversight mechanism in the Hillsborough Bill? Families have been campaigning for an amendment to the Hillsborough law so that there can be a single, permanent oversight body to prevent the same mistakes that have happened across different tragedies, such as Grenfell, the Post Office, Horizon and infected blood. It would track progress across Departments and public authorities, publicly report on failures, delays or resistance to reform, and prevent the repeated cycles of injustice that are seen after major disasters and scandals.
Finally, will the Minister accept an invitation to visit my constituency to see the work of SUDEP Action, a charity built by families and clinical champions from grief, sustained by courage and determined to stop deaths? I am grateful for the Minister’s time in this Adjournment debate and look forward to her response.
Maternity Commissioner
Olly Glover Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for introducing this important and sensitive debate with his customary eloquence.
I thank the 464 of my constituents who signed the e-petition, placing my constituency in the top 25 nationally for signatories. I also want to thank the many constituents who have been in touch with me and my team—many of whom I have met at constituency surgeries—about their maternity experiences.
This debate is important because of the familial and societal importance of safe, reassuring and comfortable pregnancy and childbirth, and all the anxiety and exhilaration that comes with that. I know that not from my own experience, but from that of friends and constituents. I have never seen people cry so much or so intensely as at the funeral of my friend Steve and Yue’s daughter. They, along with my friend Joel, who also lost a baby, have been superbly supported by Sands, the stillbirth and neonatal charity. They have all now experience successful births.
I want to emphasise what this debate should be about. It is definitely not about criticising hard-working and dedicated individual midwives and health workers, who so often do an amazing job in very challenging circumstances. It is about improving the top-level leadership, culture, staffing levels and processes that affect maternity units.
In my constituency, we have local maternity units in community hospitals in Wantage and Wallingford. These are welcomed by many constituents who would otherwise have to make what is often a long journey to Oxford. Otherwise, births happen in the maternity unit at Oxford’s John Radcliffe hospital. I visited the department in September 2025 and was given a comprehensive tour, including the new bereavement ward. I thank all the staff I met, who were committed to improving the care there. The department-level leadership was receptive to feedback and acknowledged that care at the John Radcliffe hospital has at times gone wrong. That is important, given the many constituents who have contacted me about their experiences at the John Radcliffe hospital.
I have met a number of constituents who have been affected by the traumatic and deeply tragic circumstances of stillbirth, complicated births that have resulted in lifelong and serious disabilities for children, post-traumatic stress disorder for mothers or a lack of support. I will tell some of those constituents’ stories; I am grateful for their consent that I do so.
I met Julie Ray at a constituency surgery some months ago. Her granddaughter Harper Rose was stillborn at the John Radcliffe hospital in May 2023. Julie believes that her death could have been avoided. The mother had a high body mass index. Although it was highlighted early on in her pregnancy, the midwife-led care she received did not always appreciate the potential for serious complications at birth. She was supposed to receive consultant-led care, but that did not happen and important decisions were left to midwives.
Despite the plethora of maternity guidelines provided by bodies such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the website perinatal.org.uk, Julie was surprised that there were no more specific and binding rules that hospitals had to follow. Julie wants to see a maternity system in place, designed to prevent avoidable death and injury. She also wants coroners’ offices to be used for the post mortems of babies. Harper’s post mortem was carried out by the John Radcliffe hospital’s own pathology laboratory, which creates concerns about a lack of independence and the potential for unconscious bias.
My constituent Anna lost her granddaughter Wyllow-Raine. Anna has met the noble Baroness Amos more than once and is actively engaged in the Amos review, for which all my constituents have expressed their gratitude. They have high expectations of the review. Anna’s daughter, the mother of Wyllow-Raine, wants to see real accountability being taken for mistakes. She believes that a blood sugar test should have been done on her baby, as per NICE guidelines, and if it had been, Wyllow-Raine would still be here. They question the value of guidelines if hospitals are not following them. Anna would like to see a national inquiry into the Oxford university hospitals trust and the John Radcliffe hospital specifically.
My constituent Joanna was left to give birth without a midwife or pain relief, so the safe arrival of her children was essentially down to luck rather than to proper maternity care. She has raised concerns around issues of consent, as well as long waiting times after requesting her notes from the hospital.
A constituent who wishes to remain anonymous had birth complications during the delivery of her son in 2019 that left him with extremely severe lifelong disabilities. He requires round-the-clock care and cannot meet any of his own needs. Engagement from the Oxford university hospitals trust has been lacking to date.
Finally, Natasha and her partner tragically lost their first-born son, Arlo Huxley Harewood. After experiencing a tremendously difficult pregnancy, she was left alone in a room with the news of her loss. She felt that she was “fearmongered” when she was informed that if things turned, she would need to go for an emergency C-section under general anaesthetic with a tube down her throat:
“I was being prodded and poked for blood samples, a catheter fitted, induced vaginally, given a blood transfusion, asked to sign away and deliver my passed baby boy, thankfully naturally.”
Aggravatingly, a few days after the birth of her stillborn child, there was mention of HELLP syndrome when she was in the bereavement ward. She has been left with feelings of self-blame, which no grieving mother should ever have to go through.
As we have heard, the petition is part of a wider campaign led by the former Conservative MP for Stafford East, Theo Clarke, and by reality TV star Louise Thompson. I join my constituents in thanking them for their work. This year, they launched this petition to appoint a maternity commissioner to improve maternity care for mums and babies. A 2024 inquiry, led by the birth trauma all-party parliamentary group and by Theo Clarke, recommended that a maternity commissioner be appointed alongside a national maternity strategy to ensure mums and babies are safe and looked after with professionalism and compassion. A maternity commissioner would oversee and introduce past recommendations. Advocates have emphasised that a maternity commissioner is necessary to restore public confidence in NHS maternity services and ensure accountability.
On average, a woman gives birth every 56 seconds in the UK, yet one in three women describe their childbirth experience as traumatic. Sadly, post-traumatic stress disorder affects one in 20 mothers after giving birth. The rate of women dying during or soon after pregnancy in the UK has increased by 20% over the past decade, a trend that I am sure we are all concerned about. A 2024 Care Quality Commission report based on an inspection of 131 maternity units found that 65% of them were not safe for women to give birth in. It also found that 47% of trusts require improvement in safety and a further 18% were rated inadequate. It stated that
“we are concerned about the potential normalising of serious harm in maternity.”
I am pleased that the Liberal Democrats have launched a maternity rescue package to make Britain the safest country in the world to have a baby, with high-quality care wherever we live. Our package has much in common with what the petitioners are calling for, and we hope that they will be encouraged that many of us in Westminster are listening.
A national maternity commissioner would oversee improved standards of care nationally, and a director of midwifery would be appointed in every maternity service alongside an extra 300 consultant midwives to drive clinical excellence. It would also see specialist doctors present on every maternity unit 24/7 and provide one-to-one midwifery care to every woman during labour. That would ensure that it is no more dangerous to give birth at night or at the weekend than at any other time. Previous research found that 73% of maternity units in England do not have a consultant present at night, despite most births taking place outside working hours. Many negligence claims for poor maternity care are linked to failings in care outside regular working hours.
Too many families have been affected by birth trauma, and reform is desperately needed. Since 2015, there have been many national reviews into the safety of maternity services, as well as high-profile investigations into care at individual maternity trusts, with calls for a national inquiry into maternity care. That is why I welcome Baroness Amos’s review, which will be valuable as a centralising piece of work, but it is the latest in a string of national and local reviews or inquiries, which together have produced over 700 recommendations. I hope the Minister will enlighten us as to why this latest review will be different.
The reviews show so many similar themes: failure to listen to women, lack of time for training and strengthening teamwork between staff, inadequate staffing and high levels of burnout, lack of proper assessment, poor management of risk, unsuitable estates and failure to learn when things go wrong. After so many reviews, it is clear that we need improved standards of care nationally.
The recommendation for a maternity commissioner is widely supported across the parties. My constituents want to see a clear timeline for the appointment of a commissioner, if that is something the Government decide to support, so that learning and change happen this time.
NHS Federated Data Platform
Olly Glover Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I commend the determined and forensic work on this topic by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley). The key reason I am attending and speaking today is because we love our national health service. For all its challenges and flaws, it is a key part of British society and identity, and we all want it to succeed. There is no question that improved stewardship and use of data are important, but they have to be done with public consent and trust. Palantir’s involvement in some of the critical change processes in the NHS places that at risk.
My first concern is the process and governance around appointing Palantir to its UK contracts. The process by which that was done has not been clear and, as others have said, it is essential that this Government seize the opportunity to do the right thing and come clean on exactly how that contract was awarded to a company mired in controversy and with no previous healthcare specialist expertise.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the key issue, as raised by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), is accountability to this House for these contracts? Big contracts can be signed replete with assurances about protecting the public and protecting patients’ data only to morph into an entirely different kind of contract, relationship and company in the future.
Olly Glover
I very much agree with my hon. Friend that accountability to this House is always a critical consideration.
The second concern is Palantir’s track record and motivations. I shall not repeat too much of what others have said, but its close ties with the US Government and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, as well as its background in security and surveillance more widely, are a key concern, as well as its role supporting the Israel Defence Forces in the Gaza war.
My biggest concern and that of the dozens of my constituents who have written in are the geopolitical sovereignty and data protection implications. Dozens of constituents have contacted me about Palantir’s work, business practices and leadership, which raise ethical and civil liberty concerns that are not compatible with UK values around privacy, democratic accountability and the responsible use of public data. Indeed, a YouGov poll in partnership with Foxglove, a tech justice campaign group, before the contract was awarded found that almost half of adults would opt out of sharing health data with the NHS if Palantir was granted the FDP contract, and under half of NHS trusts have started using the technology due to patient and doctor opposition.
There is a strong case for sovereignty over the UK’s data given that many allies in Europe also do not feel comfortable using American companies like Palantir. There are many suitable UK companies or those from trusted and reliable allies. For example, Kahootz based in my constituency provides a lot of software to Government agencies. The House has been clear in this debate about the concerns, and we all await the Minister’s response as to what will happen next.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Women’s Health Strategy: Endometriosis and Fibroids
Olly Glover Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
Endometriosis, fibroids and related gynaecological conditions ruin the lives of millions of women, yet these conditions remain undiagnosed, misdiagnosed, dismissed or mistreated within the health system. Women are told to shut up and stop complaining. We are fobbed off. We experience shameful delays. We are left in pain. My argument today is simple. We need the forthcoming women’s health strategy to address these conditions head-on, listen to women, tackle the taboos, and create timely and effective treatment.
One in 10 women suffer from endometriosis. It is a painful, debilitating condition, found in every community, workplace and family. That statistic means that at least 20 women Members in this current Parliament could be suffering from endometriosis. Despite being widespread, it remains misunderstood and dismissed, yet it ruins women’s ability to learn, earn, have sex, have children and live a normal, healthy life. It destroys mental health. In recent years, there has been greater awareness and a wider discussion of the impact of the condition, led by public figures such as the BBC’s Emma Barnett, and sparked by this year’s BAFTA-winning short film, “This Is Endometriosis”, which I hope to host a screening of in Parliament soon. In this House, I commend the great work of the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis, my hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan), and the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen).
Millions of women, however, are still being failed by the NHS and wider society. There is still a lack of appreciation of the true nature of the disease, a lack of suitable support throughout the worlds of education and work, and stigma associated with the symptoms, which include heavy bleeding and intense, blinding pain. The average wait for diagnosis is nine years and four months, according to the latest report, launched this week, by the charity Endometriosis UK. The report highlights that diagnosis times are getting worse, not better. March is Endometriosis Action Month. It is vital that we use this opportunity to act now for the benefit of those suffering today, and those who will suffer long into the future. Sadly, even with a diagnosis, there is no cure—just pain management.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for taking time for this intervention on her passionate speech about the huge number of women who suffer from endometriosis. Given the challenges with diagnosis, and the enormous pain and suffering that she has outlined, does she agree that far more money and Government support need to go into research, so that we can better understand this condition and how to diagnose and treat it?
Ms Oppong-Asare
It is nice to have a male ally in the Chamber—in fact, a few male allies. I think the issue is even wider than that. The Government are looking to publish the women’s health strategy quite soon. I will talk about this in more detail, but the data on the delays is already out there. We need to recognise the signs and make sure that people get the help they need. I will talk in detail about some of the work I have done, particularly in my constituency, to highlight the issue.
It has been often said, though it is worth repeating, that if these conditions were suffered by one in 10 men, there would be research into a cure, fast diagnosis, effective treatment, time off work, and a sympathetic, understanding reaction from all other men. If only women got the same reaction at work, or in the health system. Endometriosis UK found that 39% of its respondents had to visit the GP 10 or more times before endometriosis was suspected, and 46% were sent home from hospital without treatment. That is simply outrageous. To respond to what the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) said, people are visiting GPs repeatedly before the condition is recognised.
When I surveyed my constituents, one told me:
“I had to go to my GP three times and leave an utterly desperate comment begging for help until they took me seriously.”
Another said:
“It was a condition I had never even heard of until it started to affect me.”
And another said the
“pain was so excruciating that it felt worse than birth pain”.
That is just so common. That is the experience of millions of women down the decades. Women of colour suffer the double whammy of facing misogyny in the NHS, as well as the racism that tells us that we have a higher pain threshold, or that “black women can handle it.” The recent interim report on maternity services by Baroness Amos last week highlighted the structural racism in the NHS, which leads to worse health outcomes for women of colour. The Endometriosis UK report says that for women of colour, the average wait for diagnosis is now 11 years. That is a grave injustice. This is not just a question of equitable health provision, but a question of social justice for women.
It of course makes no sense for the NHS, with stretched resources and overworked staff, to have millions of women who repeatedly present with their symptoms being sent away, returning in pain, and making complaints for years on end. Getting it right first time matters. I welcome the new NHS Online, a virtual hospital in England due to launch in 2027. Menstrual health conditions, including endometriosis, will be one of the priority areas. The NHS Online hospital will use the NHS app to triage patients and provide fast access to specialist clinicians online. Where needed, specialists will be able to arrange local testing for women. I invite the Minister to comment further on how NHS Online will help women with these conditions.
The forthcoming women’s health strategy affords us a huge opportunity to move forward. I know the Minister will not be divulging its contents to the House today, and that we have to wait to read the strategy in full, but both the Minister and her ministerial colleague in the other place, who is responsible for women’s health, get it. She knows that a range of conditions affecting so many millions must be front and centre in the strategy. The strategy must address early diagnosis and faster, effective treatment. It must tackle the stigma and taboos. Most of all, it must address the way that doctors are trained, so that endometriosis, fibroids and similar conditions are identified fast. We have made great progress in the early identification of sepsis, for example. We must do the same for endometriosis and fibroids.
Will the Minister give us an assurance that training for doctors will form a key part of the strategy? Will she work with the Royal College of GPs and NHS training providers to ensure that these conditions are central to the syllabus, and that every newly qualified doctor has the knowledge to identify endometriosis when a woman presents with the symptoms? Early diagnosis means early treatment, and that saves a huge amount of pain, dismay and taxpayers’ cash down the line. It really is a common-sense approach, given the huge number of women involved.
I long for the day when we have a cure. With proper medical research, which the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage alluded to, I am sure that day will come. In the meantime, does the Minister agree that women should not be waiting for years in unnecessary pain, and that the women’s health strategy can and must offer women in pain a real sense of hope?
Eating Disorders Awareness Week
Olly Glover Excerpts(2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for introducing the debate and for her enormous dedication and hard work on this vital issue over many years.
I would like to talk about the themes that have arisen from constituency cases that my team and I have encountered and supported. The key concern is not the clinical aspects of care but the delay and fragmentation of the ownership of care. Life-threatening conditions can drift. Gaining access to care, support and treatment often involves a Kafkaesque labyrinth of dysfunctional process and procedure, and referrals and re-referrals between a range of teams in the complicated organisation that the NHS is. We need independent specialist assessments, safe interim arrangements, and timely and accountable co-ordination of care.
Some people wait more than eight months for an answer either way regarding whether they are eligible for treatment under the current criteria. That can further compromise their confidence in coming forward and asking for support. It can have a huge personal cost, impacting people’s ability to drive or work, reducing life expectancy and creating long-term medical complications, which add to wider pressures on the NHS. As in other debates that we have about healthcare in this country, this issue highlights an area where, if we get the start of the process right with early, preventive interventions, we will be able to help individuals and alleviate some of the pressure on critical care services.
Wera Hobhouse
It is worth mentioning again that if a person with an eating disorder does not get treatment, it takes them three times as long as they have been suffering to recover. If they have suffered from an eating disorder for three years, it takes them nine years to fully recover. We know from other health services that early intervention is key, but it is particularly important for eating disorders because the longer they are left, the much longer the recovery process is. Some people never recover and it is a life sentence.
Olly Glover
My hon. Friend again shows her wealth of knowledge and experience of this topic. Some of the cases that my team and I have supported have involved people who have been living with eating disorders for decades. I have also seen cases where the transition from support services for children and young people into those for adults has been managed badly. That is not unique to eating disorders; it is a wider issue in mental health provision.
As we have heard, eating disorders can have a devastating impact. They rob people of years of life, wipe out adolescence, remove educational and social opportunities, and leave many isolated and unable to cope. Eating disorders are one of the deadliest mental health conditions and constitute a significant health crisis. Cases of eating disorders have surged, with hospital admissions doubling in a decade. It is a huge concern, in the face of that crisis, that eating disorder services are being cut in much of the country. Over half of the country’s integrated care boards have cut real-terms spending on children’s eating disorder services in the last financial year.
I am proud of the leadership that parliamentarians such as my hon. Friend the Member for Bath and Baroness Parminter in the other place have shown on this issue, including working with campaign groups such as Dump the Scales. The scandal of people being told that they are “not thin enough” for medical help must end. Far too many people cannot access the services they need.
I welcome recent guidance from NHS England on how to design eating disorder services to support children and young people better, but we need to do more than tinker around the edges with updated guidance. We need a meaningful national strategy to transform these services, with more specialist support, and we need to build a culture across the health service and beyond that recognises the complexities of eating disorders and the terrible dangers they pose.
Lending urgency to that is the fact that the target of 95% of urgent cases receiving treatment within a week, and routine cases receiving it within four weeks, is routinely being missed. From September to November last year, only 78% of urgent referrals and 82% of routine referrals started treatment within the target timeframe. That is why I am very happy to support a wider Liberal Democrat campaign for investment in community health services and prevention, including better specialist support for people with eating disorders. As we heard from my hon. Friend, early intervention can greatly reduce the number of people who are suffering.
We are also campaigning for regular mental health check-ups—the concept of a mental health MOT—at key points in people’s lives when they are most vulnerable to mental ill health. Like others who have spoken, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. So many people are suffering, and lots of people are trying to help—that is not the issue. We need to make the overall system work much better, with all its different component parts working towards the goal of supporting people.
Budget Resolutions
Olly Glover Excerpts(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I think everybody in this Chamber and in this House can agree that we need economic growth, but many question whether the Budget will really help with that. It prolongs Conservative underhand tactics, such as tax threshold freezes, which will have a comparable impact to more honest and up-front tax rises.
Small businesses in my constituency, including Love Beer Brewery in Milton, Ridgeway Cycles and the Vaults in Wantage, the Crown in Chilton and the George at Upton, are extremely worried, in some cases existentially so, about the impact of poorly thought-through business rate changes, which come on top of growing energy costs. As a result, the Liberal Democrats’ proposed 5% VAT cut for pubs and restaurants is badly needed.
The Budget is largely silent on some of the big picture strategic themes we need. A key one is change to the planning system. I know the Government agree, but we need far more real and meaningful changes that go beyond scapegoating newts and bats. Instead, we need a planning system that delivers social and genuinely affordable housing—not just blunt housing targets irrespective of how affordable those houses will be—primary healthcare that people can actually access and which will help more people to get jobs, and investment in transport to boost mobility and reduce congestion. It is not just me who says that about the need for genuinely affordable housing. Didcot B power station in my constituency cites the cost of housing as the biggest barrier it faces in retaining staff.
In my constituency, we have the tedious, multi-decade saga—it will not be a Netflix hit any time soon—of trying to get a GP surgery built in the new housing estate of Didcot Great Western Park. There is a comparable risk of a similar saga affecting a Wallingford GP surgery’s plans to expand. Didcot and Wallingford have both seen significant housing and population growth. Despite similar population growth in Wantage and Grove, there is as yet no clear Government support for a new railway station serving it on the nearby Great Western main line, and Cholsey station continues to lack accessibility improvements.
Constituents understandably clamour for more large-scale leisure facilities, such as swimming pools and leisure centres, which are very difficult to fund using section 106 contributions alone. The Government’s getting moving on social care reform, rather than yet another review, which will last the entire Parliament, would help with productivity.
My Oxfordshire constituency has a lot of potential to build on its strengths, particularly with so much exciting space, fusion, biotech, and many other science and technology contributions to the local and national economy, such as at Harwell campus, Milton Park and Culham. Many of those have already been slowed down by the consequences of Brexit, and businesses are concerned about some of the Government’s rhetoric on migration, which they feel could affect their ability to attract the vital international talent they need to succeed.
Overall, this Budget has injected despair rather than optimism. My constituents and their businesses need the Government to do better.
Oral Answers to Questions
Olly Glover Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
We strengthened the NHS front door with £1.2 billion for general practice, the biggest cash increase in over a decade. We promised to recruit an extra 1,000 GPs in our first year—we recruited 2,000. Patients are now able to request appointments online, which is a huge step towards delivering our manifesto commitment to end the 8 am scramble.
Olly Glover
Great Western Park has added 3,000 homes to Didcot, in my Oxfordshire constituency, and Valley Park, which is under construction, will add 4,000 more. However, the new GP surgery promised in 2008 remains a barren patch of land and existing facilities cannot cope. The integrated care board is supportive, but progress has stalled due to NHS England’s involvement. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that integrated care boards should have the authority to direct primary care funding, and will he meet me to help to unblock the new GP surgery my constituents desperately need?
Wes Streeting
Let me come back to the hon. Gentleman after I have found out what has gone wrong in this case. As he points out, ICBs are responsible for commissioning, planning, securing and monitoring GP services within their health system, through delegated responsibility from NHS England, and capital is allocated to ICBs on a basis that takes account of annual population growth. I can understand his frustration and that of his constituents, so let me find out what has gone wrong and come back to him.
NHS 10-Year Plan
Olly Glover Excerpts(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wes Streeting
I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. The great opportunity for technology is that we can design in accessibility; I had a great meeting here with some of my constituents who suffer from hearing loss. We have a great opportunity for the NHS to once again be the great social leveller, providing quality care to everyone, whatever their background, and personalised care that meets their needs. We need to have better digital connectivity and AI-enabled hospitals. My hon. Friend’s constituents will know how hard she bangs the drum here for investment in her local hospital, and that is very much on my mind.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and his previous answer on dentistry, but I will push him a little further. My constituency, along with all of Oxfordshire, is an NHS dental desert. Having met with dental providers, they say that the key to changing that is reforming the NHS dental contract. I note that the 10-year plan includes a commitment to doing that, but no timescales are provided. Can the Secretary of State enlighten the House?
Wes Streeting
Yes, I certainly can. The proposals we are consulting on represent an important step towards the fundamental reform to the dental contract that we committed to in our manifesto, and that will begin this year. There are no perfect payment models. Careful consideration needs to be given to any potential changes in a complex dental system so that we deliver genuine improvements for patients and the profession, but we are committed to working with the British Dental Association. The Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), is working hard to fix the mess left by the previous Government.
Access to Primary Healthcare
Olly Glover Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on introducing this debate. I echo her call on the Government to boost access to GPs, NHS dentists and community pharmacists. In my Oxfordshire constituency, the growing number of people moving into the area has not been matched by an increase in GP, dentist or pharmacy services. Indeed, frustration with the terrible Conservative track record on these health issues was a major factor in my election to this place in July.
In Great Western Park in Didcot, where more than 5,000 people now live, there lies a site ready to be developed into a GP surgery, and there is money from the developers to build it. However, the local NHS body responsible for building it and providing the doctors, nurses and other support staff sadly has struggled to marshal the resources to do so. I call on the Government to prioritise supporting NHS bodies and to provide the mechanisms for bringing forward primary healthcare.
Meanwhile, many people in my constituency, particularly in Didcot, often cannot see a GP without the early morning telephone rush that my colleagues have articulately summarised, hoping to get one of the precious slots. At the GP surgery in Didcot at which I am registered, it is even a challenge to get an online appointment, with a two-minute window granted once a week to try to fill in an e-consult form—a process that generally defeats me for non-urgent matters.
Like my colleagues, I hear from dentists in my constituency that the funding they receive for their NHS patients is barely enough to break even. It is no wonder that private dentistry dominates in my constituency, from Wallingford to Grove, Wantage and Didcot. As my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) articulated, mental health services—particularly child and adolescent services—are also under strain.
All of these services need better support, so I call on the Government to take action and recognise that, as Lord Darzi said in his report, improving access to primary healthcare will significantly relieve pressure on A&E and, indeed, the need for cancer treatment by enabling earlier diagnosis and therefore proactive intervention.
Oral Answers to Questions
Olly Glover Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend is right to raise the crisis of midwifery services. We have already had debates in Westminster Hall about this, and the issue affects the entire country. It is a priority for this Government, and I am of course happy to meet her to discuss her constituency issue.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Wes Streeting
I absolutely take the point the hon. Gentleman is making about the importance of place-based leadership. That is why one thing we will be looking to do, as part of the 10-year plan process, is to clarify roles and responsibilities in different parts of the system to ensure that we have better strategic place-based leadership.