Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

Pam Cox Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 4th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Hodgson]

The work on teenage pregnancy was a real blueprint, and the 10-year teenage pregnancy strategy fulfilled its ambition of reducing those numbers, following the great work of Graham Allen. I remember taking part in a Westminster Hall debate acknowledging 10 years of that strategy and its success. As for what the numbers are now, as we have been saying, when anything of that kind stops, there is backsliding, I am afraid. That shows that the job is never done. That is why it is so important that we get the Bill through Parliament and on the statute book.

While the initial roll-out of Sure Start targeted disadvantaged communities exclusively, the approach soon shifted to focus on the universal provision of children’s centres, as we heard in the excellent speech by the Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes). At Sure Start’s peak, almost 3,500 centres were operating across the country. However, in 2010 came the change in government and Tory austerity, as has been discussed; we all know what happened thereafter. Within months, Sure Start funding was slashed, with cuts of up to two thirds, and the ringfence was removed. Hundreds of centres closed so quickly. I was shadow children and families Minister at the time, and our now Prime Minister was shadow Education Secretary. Together, we fought the battle against those cuts day in, day out. I was keeping a tally of closures, and when it got to over 1,000 closures the coalition Government stopped publishing the numbers, which made it so much harder for us to keep track.

[Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)]

Shame!

[Mrs Hodgson]

It was; those were dark days. That is why I was so glad and grateful to hear the right hon. Member for New Forest West acknowledge how wrong it was that the coalition Government allowed that to happen. As we know, the former Prime Minister and then Member for Witney’s pre-election promise to protect Sure Start never held true—quite the opposite. Those savage cuts were truly a tragedy for children everywhere. I agree with the then Member for Sheffield Hallam and Deputy Prime Minister in the coalition Government, who said that Sure Start was

“one of the best things the last Government”

had done. It was a shame he was not able to protect it from cuts, even as Deputy Prime Minister. I am sure he tried; I acknowledge that I am sure the Lib Dems did try.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend for that good point, which I am particularly passionate about. I have spoken a lot this week about funding for rural services, particularly under local government reorganisation, and that will be really important in the future structure of unitary councils. How can we ensure that villages and smaller towns get access to family hubs and things like them—and whatever else comes about following the Bill—and that people are not reliant on infrequent public services or on having a car to get to them? I am glad he mentioned that, because it gives me even more reason to continue on my journey against local government reorganisation in my constituency.

My hon. Friend also highlights how we want every community to have a family hub. I am considered to be the MP for the slightly well-off bit of Plymouth, so I am incredibly grateful that the city set one up in my constituency, but there are whole communities in my constituency, such as Plymstock where I was a councillor for many years, that do not have a wellbeing hub or a family hub. If we are to do this, we must ensure that we do it properly.

I want to take the opportunity to remind the House that family hubs are a Conservative innovation, grounded in the principle that strong families make for a strong society. I am delighted that the Labour Government have committed to build on our success and roll out family hubs to all local authorities, not just those initial 75. I must also say that they are not merely Sure Start rebranded.

[Pam Cox]

On the historical point—forgive me; I could not stop myself—the Maternity and Child Welfare Act 1918 probably preceded some of the things the hon. Lady is about to say, as well as some of the measures mentioned by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean). There is a long history of efforts to introduce child welfare.

[Rebecca Smith]

I thank the hon. Lady. I mentioned to one of my colleagues the other day how this entire debate is catnip for Labour Members, because it is an opportunity for them to highlight that they have cared more about families and children than the Conservatives. I do not believe that; I believe that we have always cared about the vulnerable and ensuring that the right thing is done.

To bring the House back to the point and bring down the temperature in the Chamber, I want to talk about what is good about family hubs and why they are different. The key point is that they are not just Sure Start rebranded. Sure Start did good things, but we felt at the time that it was not necessarily targeted in the right way.

I pay significant tribute to Lord Farmer. If it were not for his work and his personal commitment in all sorts of ways—he effectively trailblazed the family hubs policy—we would not be here today. Family hubs have provided a model that we can replicate. That is not to say that Sure Start did not provide the opportunity to do something similar, but the distinctive thing about what Lord Farmer set up and that we put into practice in government—he is seeking to work with the Government to continue it—is that it is not just for the early years but for people right up to the age of 19. Regardless of what we think about what happened in the past, what family hubs are called and what they do, I think we all agree that we need to provide support right through to when a child is 19 and to give families that opportunity. We have heard many people speaking about the challenges in teenage life if we do not get it right at the beginning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to speak in support of the Bill today, and I commend the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) on introducing it. If he will permit me to say so, he did so with his characteristic flair and passion. While I am in no way able to match his flair, I share his passion for improving the support available to babies, parents and carers, particularly during those first two years of a child’s life. Those 1,001 days are a golden opportunity. If we get the support right, the benefits last a lifetime. If we get it wrong, so do the costs.

There are three points I want to make in support of the Bill. First, it sets us on the path to support every child and every parent, whoever they are and wherever they are. Secondly, and most importantly, when this level of support is not there, as is the case now, the vacuum it creates puts babies and their parents at serious risk. Thirdly, by building better support during those first 1,001 days, we are investing in the essential infrastructure needed to make this country a fairer, stronger and more prosperous place.

Like many, I approach this Bill from the perspective of being a parent, which is one of the greatest joys that life has given me. I remember the first year of my son’s life and the happiness those precious early moments brought me and my partner Catherine, but I also remember distinctly the less precious moments and the daily battle that every new parent has with their anxieties: “Why are they crying? Why are they not sleeping? Am I doing something wrong?” These questions swirl around our heads when we are sleep-deprived, emotionally drained and totally unsure of ourselves. It is a time when we are at our most vulnerable, when we need help and when, as the right hon. Member for New Forest West said, parents need to have somewhere to turn.

From perinatal to neonatal care, that help must be universal, it must be statutory and it must be something that the Government are held to account for delivering. This Bill sets us on the path to doing so. It is universal, in that it requires the Government to assess the needs of all babies, parents and carers; it is statutory, in that it gives a legal footing to the support provided; and it is something on which the Government can be rightly held to account, in that it requires Ministers to report annually on the support they are providing and the difference it is making.

Without universal, statutory and accountable support, a vacuum is created, and that vacuum is dangerous, because in the gaps caused by the dismantling of services like Sure Start and health visitors, opportunists who are not fit to care for children and provide advice have thrived. I am talking most prominently here about the infant sleep industry—the wild west, where literally anyone can pose as an expert and give parents advice that puts their child’s life at risk. Sometimes these people call themselves nannies, sometimes maternity nurses and sometimes sleep trainers. They can provide care in the home, or they can share their advice to vast audiences on social media, but in all cases, there is no requirement for them to have any medical training or qualifications. There is no legal accountability for the advice they give and no recognised standard for the support they provide.

The reason I believe this is so dangerous is, as many Members are aware, because of what happened in my constituency two years ago, when a four-month-old died after being placed in an unsafe sleeping position on the advice of a maternity nurse who had no medical qualifications. There was no criminal recourse for that. It was an unimaginable tragedy, but one that I fear is bound to repeat itself unless action is taken.

To further illustrate this point, in May the BBC used undercover filming to expose two prominent individuals in the infant sleep industry who were openly giving advice to parents on safe sleep that could have resulted in the death of their children. Those figures have sold popular books on raising children and have thousands of followers online. The reason that these cowboys have such reach cannot be separated from the dismantling of Sure Start over the last decade and the fact that the number of health visitors has halved in that time. In the absence of services that used to be provided by the state—we have heard a lot from Members on both sides of the House about the importance of in-person support—vulnerable parents have understandably looked elsewhere for that support.

This Bill is an important step towards rebuilding these services and giving them statutory protection both now and in the future. Backing this effort is not just a moral imperative; it is an economic and social one too, because the services that support babies and their parents are essential national infrastructure that is just as important as any other. Investing in babies and young people reaps long-term rewards. In setting solid foundations for lifelong health, brain development and emotional wellbeing, we create a better future for the individual and the society they live in. As the Royal Foundation has said, improved support for infants and the adults around them could add £45 billion to the UK economy each year.

[Pam Cox]

My hon. Friend mentioned infrastructure. Does he agree that there is a case for redefining that term to include early years provision when we are looking at new housing developments for families?

[Mr Rand]

Yes, I agree that we should be thinking about the support provided to babies and parents in that way as an important component of national infrastructure; indeed, it is just as important as any other.

The projected reduction in the huge costs associated with poor mental health, reliance on the care system and future criminal behaviour shows how our economy would benefit from increasing the support provided to parents and the adults around them and by creating the conditions that allow parents and carers to stay in work. However, for too long we have failed to grasp the opportunity of investing in babies and parents in those vital early years because it was treated as an afterthought and not a necessity. The Bill will set us on the path to changing that. It is a path where every baby, parent and carer has the help they need to be the best they can be. It is a path where the vacuum in support that exposes us to tragedy is filled by the services the state should always provide. It is a path where that support and those services pay for themselves by making us a stronger, fairer and more prosperous country. That is why I am proud to support the Bill.

National Cancer Plan

Pam Cox Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ashley Dalton]

Through the spending review, providers have been allocated £15 billion in operational capital for local priorities and £5 billion to support the return to constitutional standards on radiotherapy. Responsibility for purchasing new machines sits at local level, and we expect local systems to continue to invest in new machines to meet the ambitious targets and to meet their local needs.

[Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)]

I really welcome the national cancer plan and the Minister’s clear personal determination to bring it to fruition. Does she agree that local innovations are going to play a key part? Such an innovation is the prehabilitation service in Colchester, which gets patients ready for treatment before their treatment begins. Would she and her team like to visit that and other local services to see the impact for herself?

[Ashley Dalton]

Yes, I do agree. This plan is about ensuring that wraparound care is there from the very beginning, and I would be more than delighted, if my diary allows, to visit the service that my hon. Friend mentions.

Incontinence

Pam Cox Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for bringing this debate—I cannot quite believe it is the first time that the House has debated this issue. I also fully endorse her suggested recommendations to improve bladder and bowel care, and I hope that the Minister will also endorse them.

As we have heard today, incontinence affects people of all ages across all communities. It is still shrouded in stigma and embarrassment, and it disrupts so many people’s daily activities, such as going to school, going to work, going out for the day, going out for the night and going on holiday. It really needs to be tackled at so many levels.

To echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours), one way in which we need to address this issue is by ensuring that we have enough accessible toilets in public places, workplaces and schools with the necessary facilities, including sanitary bins for incontinence products for all users. In my constituency, we have just restored one of the sets of toilets in our main public park, Castle Park, after a justified outcry at their closure.

Adequate public toilet provision is just one response to this complex crisis but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley said, other measures are needed to tackle it. I again congratulate her on being the first person to bring this issue to public attention in the House, and I look forward to working with her on it.

Dental Healthcare: East Anglia

Pam Cox Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jerome Mayhew]

That is the kind of intervention that I find constructive and helpful, and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for making it. She is, of course, quite right. We disagree on many things, as I do with the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), but there are some things that bring us together, and the need for a dental training school at the University of East Anglia is one of them.

[Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)]

Down the road from Norwich is the University of Essex, which is based in Colchester and already offers degrees in oral science. I think a collaboration between the two universities is really important, and I would be very happy to facilitate it. The University of Essex degree is not a dentistry degree, but an oral health degree. The university also has a community dentistry clinic that is already operating in Colchester, which could provide some very interesting examples of good practice. I invite the Minister and his team to come and visit both the university and the clinic.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. This is not about one organisation over another; there has to be a collaborative approach. We have plenty of dental need to go round, I am sorry to say, in Suffolk, Essex and Norfolk. The more we can collaborate and provide a synthesis of offers—some in dental health qualifications, some in straightforward dentistry and others in dental hygiene, another key part of this jigsaw that we have to put together—the better.

Income Tax (Charge)

Pam Cox Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)]

I am proud to speak in this debate on a Budget that marks a turning point for our country and my constituency of Colchester. It is a Budget that fixes the country’s foundations and a Budget that works to repair and reform our NHS.

Our health service means a huge amount to those we represent and their families. Our health and social care staff do an amazing job, day in, day out. They and those for whom they care have long deserved better. Members of my own family have spent decades working in the NHS: my mother as a midwife, health visitor and then public health champion; and my sisters as nurses, one now a diabetes specialist, one supporting a parish nursing community programme. I have heard from them at first hand about the challenges they face. Those challenges are immense and will take a long time to address.

The Budget recognises that. It walks towards those difficulties, rather than kicking the can yet further down the road. The Chancellor faced a stark choice and she rightly chose the hard road. As a Government, we could have continued with the failed policies of the past 14 years, with the low growth and austerity that have left our public services on their knees. Instead, we opted for change and to invest in those services, in the workforce who make them possible, and in the technologies that must transform them.

I particularly welcome the extra £25 billion for the NHS across resource and capital budgets to cut waiting lists and invest in new equipment. That, combined with increases in the minimum wage, will help the frontline workers who struggle to make ends meet. That includes workers at Colchester hospital in my constituency who are fighting plans to outsource their jobs to the lowest bidder. On that matter, I am backing those staff who, like our wider workforce, deserve fair pay and conditions.

As the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said in his opening speech, new investment for the NHS must be combined with innovation and take full advantage of the potential of life sciences and new technology. Colchester is home to the Institute of Public Health and Wellbeing at the University of Essex, which is leading the charge. Together with local and global partners, it is developing new digital health, health informatics and health analytics that will help us to meet the challenges of the future. It is also working with our integrated care board to improve existing community and preventive services—something which my mother would have cheered to the rafters. She was rather old-school on that. She believed that we needed the high-tech stuff, but we also needed the low-tech stuff—basic things—to support people to live healthier lives through access to good food, green spaces, good housing and early years support. A Labour Government will bring all those things, and I am proud to support that and this Budget.