Thirlwall Inquiry Terms of Reference

Preet Kaur Gill Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Preet Kaur Gill)]

It is an honour to respond for the Government in the last debate until September. I extend my thanks to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as well as to the other Deputy Speakers and Mr Speaker, for your stewardship of this House, and to everyone who works here in Parliament and in our constituency offices. I also thank all our NHS staff, who are keeping the service going despite record demand over the summer.

The right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) has raised an extremely serious matter. I want to start by expressing my heartfelt sympathy to all the families who were affected by the terrible events at the Countess of Chester hospital—as a mother of two daughters, I cannot begin to imagine what they are going through. On top of their grief, they have been subject to a level of press scrutiny that would match anything we have faced as Members of this place. They have been left in limbo, waiting for answers. As someone who advocates for constituents at my own trust, I know that this will take an additional toll on their mental health, and all of us in this Chamber can agree that they deserve closure.

The previous Government established the Thirlwall inquiry in October 2023 to examine the events at the Countess of Chester hospital NHS foundation trust. Its terms of reference are available online. Lady Justice Thirlwall’s recommendations will help us to understand what went so wrong at the Countess of Chester. Her inquiry has now finished hearing evidence, and the final report will be published at the earliest practical date.

Lucy Letby was found guilty by her peers, following two criminal trials. She is currently serving 15 whole-life sentences for murder and attempted murder, and her convictions were upheld by the Court of Appeal. This is an independent judicial process, and it is not for the Government to comment on judicial decisions or appeals.

The right hon. Gentleman has called for the inquiry’s terms of reference to be amended or expanded to reflect the ongoing public debate around the safety of Miss Letby’s convictions, but the point of the inquiry is not to rehearse Lucy Letby’s trial; it is to focus on how people within the trust responded based on what they knew, or should have known, at the time of the events. The inquiry is now in the report-writing stage, and I have every confidence that the chair will consider all the evidence when drawing conclusions and writing her report and recommendations. I do not consider that there is a case to either amend or expand the terms of reference, based on the information currently available.

There is a separate process going through the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which received a full application in relation to Miss Letby’s case in April 2025. The merits of the application are solely for the CCRC to consider and, if appropriate, to refer the case for further consideration to the Court of Appeal. An application to the CCRC does not in itself indicate that the convictions are, or are likely to be, unsafe. Again, the right hon. Gentleman will understand that this is an independent process, and it is not for the Government to comment on, nor intervene in, individual applications.

I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman has also called for the inquiry to be paused or suspended while the CCRC is reviewing Miss Letby’s application. An application was made by legal teams for Miss Letby and former executives at the trust to the inquiry chair to consider exercising her powers to pause the inquiry under section 17 of the Inquiries Act 2005. An application was made in parallel by the same legal teams to the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), to suspend the inquiry under section 13 of that Act. The basis for both applications was that the inquiry should be halted until the CCRC had determined Letby’s application.

In March 2025, the chair refused the application and set out her reasons in detail. For transparency, that has been made available online. In her judgment, the chair considered, among other things, the question of fairness, and she was satisfied that the inquiry process had been fair and would not become unfair because there is a possibility that all the convictions were unsafe. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North agreed with that reasoning.

It would not be appropriate for the Government to speculate on the outcome of the CCRC’s determination, and we should take into account that the families have not supported any pause or suspension of the inquiry either. Even if, hypothetically, we did take that unprecedented step, I concur with my right hon. Friend that any suspension would create unnecessary delays and become a barrier to the families receiving the answers they deserve.

There has been no new information that would make us think twice about this decision, nor change the terms of reference, and there is a strong public interest in the inquiry being concluded as soon as possible. That is why this Government shall not suspend the inquiry pending the outcome of Miss Letby’s application to the CCRC to review her convictions.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

The Countess of Chester hospital is the local hospital for me and for many of my constituents. They will rightly want to know the outcome of the inquiry. On top of these historical matters, last year the CQC rated the Countess of Chester hospital’s urgent and emergency care services inadequate and found that the overall hospital requires improvement. While I recognise the work that the trust is doing to deliver against its improvement plan, and I thank it for its communication with me, there is still vital work to be done. Can the Minister set out what she is doing to ensure that it makes those improvements, so that my constituents can be reassured that they will be getting access to the best possible healthcare, as they deserve?

[Preet Kaur Gill]

The hon. Member makes some important, valid points. Of course, the Countess of Chester hospital will want to know the outcome of the inquiry. As she rightly says, the CQC has been in and has made lots of recommendations, especially because of the inadequate rating.

I have asked for a submission from the CQC to understand what progress has been made. I have been informed that there has been some progress, but equally there are lots of areas in which there has not been progress. I am making sure that I am receiving regular updates, because, as the hon. Lady rightly says, every parent wants to see change. In the end, this is about so many lives. Parents have had to go through such heartbreaking situations just to get to justice, and they do deserve disclosure. I therefore really do thank her for her intervention.

Where the inquiry identifies lessons on safeguarding vulnerable patients or on how management responds to patient safety concerns, the Government will examine them rigorously and take forward all recommendations that are deliverable, justified and in the public interest.

There is a huge amount of interest, inside and outside the Chamber, about the professional regulation of managers in the NHS. We all know that the NHS needs and deserves the best leaders. We are committed to supporting their development and professionalism, and to strengthening accountability where they fall short. Work is already under way to develop an NHS college of leadership and management to support and develop NHS leaders.

In addition, we will legislate in this Parliament to enable the Health and Care Professions Council to begin to operate a statutory barring system for senior managers. The mechanism will enable the Health and Care Professions Council to prevent senior NHS leaders whose conduct is unacceptable from working again in senior roles. The Government have also launched the maternity and neonatal taskforce, personally chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which will translate Baroness Amos’s recommendations into action.

The right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington has campaigned against Government overreach his entire career; I respect him for that. I know that he will agree with me that our democracy rests on a separation of powers, and I trust our independent judiciary to get on with the job. There are well-established criminal processes and procedures for how expert evidence is used at criminal trials. In our democracy, there are also routes for people to challenge convictions if they protest their innocence—even for Lucy Letby.

It is not for me or the Government to undermine those processes. Our attention should remain on the families and parents impacted by the case and on continuing to work towards providing answers and closure for them. That is what the Government are focused on, and we trust the Thirlwall inquiry to give us those answers.

Question put and agreed to.

Fuller Inquiry Phase 2 Report: Government Update on Progress

Preet Kaur Gill Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Preet Kaur Gill)]

I am today updating the House on the Government’s progress in responding to the recommendations of the independent inquiry into the serious issues arising from the appalling actions of David Fuller. The inquiry’s final report, published on 15 July 2025, made 75 recommendations to strengthen the security and dignity of people after death across a wide range of settings. As the House will recall, it found that arrangements for the care of the deceased were partial, piecemeal and not universally mandated.

To mark one year since publication, I am providing a further update on progress since the Government’s interim update of 16 December 2025. The Government have worked with NHS England, the Human Tissue Authority, the Local Government Association and other partners, through a dedicated cross-Government programme board, to consider each recommendation and determine the action required.

At this time, the Government have accepted in full the majority of Sir Jonathan Michael’s recommendations and are already taking forward a substantial programme of work to address the issues raised.

Significant progress has been made to address the recommendations for NHS Hospitals. NHS England has worked to agree actions at NHS board level to strengthen mortuary security across the NHS estate, alongside wider work to strengthen governance, accountability and safeguarding arrangements. NHS England has also issued a national system letter setting out the actions expected of each NHS trust and providers to ensure that improvements are delivered consistently.

There are a further group of recommendations where the Government agree with the intent and direction of travel, but where further consideration is needed before implementation can proceed as stated in the inquiry’s report. These recommendations affect a range of organisations and settings, each with different operational requirements and regulatory arrangements. We are therefore undertaking further work to understand the practical implications, costs and benefits, and to ensure that any changes are proportionate, effective and deliverable. This includes working with local authorities to support closer alignment with Human Tissue Authority standards on security, governance and audit.

Some of these recommendations relate to the wider regulation of sectors involved in caring for the deceased outside the NHS, including the funeral sector. These raise broader questions about the most appropriate regulatory framework and the potential impact on businesses, local authorities and others providing these important services. The Government are carefully considering these issues to ensure that any future changes improve standards and oversight while remaining proportionate and sustainable. We recognise the significance of these issues and will update the House as soon as practicably possible on how we intend to take these recommendations forward.

Throughout this work, the Government remain committed to improving standards and oversight of care for the deceased and ensuring that bereaved families can have confidence that their loved ones will be treated with dignity, respect and compassion, regardless of the setting in which care is provided. This work also sits alongside action being taken in response to the horrific, recent findings from the independent review of maternity services at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, which have further highlighted the importance of robust governance, oversight and respectful care for the deceased. Immediate action has been taken by the Human Tissue Authority who has instructed all mortuaries to review internal records over the last 10 years to ensure all incidents have been logged and reported. The findings of this exercise will be reported to Ministers by 16 October 2026.

The Government remain committed to providing a full response to Sir Jonathan Michael’s report once the leadership election period for Prime Minister has concluded. None the less, it is important that the House is updated on the progress made to date while further work continues across Government and with delivery partners.

Progress will continue to be monitored, where possible, through the Cabinet Office’s www.gov.uk record of recommendations made by public inquiries since 2024. The Public Inquiries: Recommendations and Government Response dashboard can be accessed at: https://finquiry.dac.grid.civilservice.gov.uk

I thank all those who contributed evidence to the inquiry, and in particular the families whose experiences informed this work. The Government remain committed to learning the lessons of these events and ensuring that care for the deceased is consistent across all settings.

[HCWS261]

Quality Strategy for NHS-funded Care in England

Preet Kaur Gill Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Preet Kaur Gill)]

I am pleased to inform the House of the publication of our new quality strategy for NHS-funded care in England, developed by the National Quality Board, which sets out a clear and ambitious approach to improving the quality of care across the NHS in England, and represents delivery of a key commitment from our 10-year health plan.

The strategy reaffirms that quality must, once again, be the organising principle of the NHS. It sets a clear national objective that high-quality care should be available to everyone, everywhere, regardless of who they are or where they live.

The strategy makes clear that quality is defined across three inseparable and equally important domains: patient safety, clinical effectiveness and patient experience. While patient safety rightly remains the foundation, the strategy marks a renewed and explicit focus on the other domains of quality, so that our efforts drive improvements in outcomes and ensure a consistently high standard of care and experience for all patients.

The need for this renewed focus is clear. Too many people still experience variation in outcomes, fragmented care, and unequal access to high-quality services. The strategy responds directly to these challenges, with a strong emphasis on reducing unwarranted variation and tackling health inequalities across all three domains of quality.

Rather than introducing a new set of policies, the strategy provides a coherent framework for delivery, bringing together existing commitments from the Government’s 10-year health plan. It aligns national priorities and clarifies how improvement will be led, overseen and delivered across the system. It is a call to action for leaders, clinicians and staff across the NHS to treat quality as their primary purpose, to use data transparently, and to adopt value-based approaches that direct resources to the interventions delivering the greatest benefit for patients and communities.

The strategy sets out how the NHS will focus its efforts on the areas where improvements will have the greatest impact on outcomes, experience and value, including major conditions such as cancer, cardiovascular disease and severe mental illness. It also reinforces the importance of improving maternity and neonatal care, patient safety, and the consistent delivery of evidence-based care. The National Maternity and Neonatal Taskforce will be taking forward work to improve the safety, effectiveness, and experiences of maternity and neonatal care.

We are also placing a renewed emphasis on transparency, accountability and leadership. Quality must be owned at every level of the system: providers are accountable for the care they deliver, integrated care boards must commission on the basis of quality and population need, and national bodies must provide clear leadership and oversight.

Importantly, the strategy also places the patient voice at its centre, recognising that listening to and working with people and communities is essential to improving services and ensuring care is responsive, person-centred, safe and effective.

Delivery will be supported by a clear set of system enablers, including improved accountability, better use of data, and the wider adoption of innovation and technology. At its heart, quality is underpinned by leadership, culture, and a shared commitment to deliver high standards. The strategy is a clear call to action to collectively create the conditions needed for sustained improvement across all parts of the NHS.

I am pleased to confirm that delivery of the strategy is already under way, with the modern service framework for sepsis also being published today, and the MSF for cardiovascular disease having been published on 7 July. MSFs are intended to support the NHS in providing consistent, high-quality, high-value and equitable care across key clinical pathways. Where appropriate, they will span both health and social care services, including the points where services join up. In addition to the two MSFs already delivered, development is well under way on further MSFs covering severe mental illness, palliative and end-of-life care, frailty and dementia, and children and young people—this is one of the ways we are ensuring that the principles set out in the new quality strategy are translated into practical improvements for patients across the NHS.

[HCWS239]

People with a Learning Disability and Autistic People: Report

Preet Kaur Gill Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Preet Kaur Gill)]

Today I acknowledge the publication of the ninth annual report on “Learning from Lives and Deaths: People with a Learning Disability and Autistic People”, which looks at deaths reviewed in 2024. A copy of the report has also been placed in the Library. LeDeR is a service improvement tool for integrated care boards to reduce health inequalities. This independent report, published by King’s College London, highlights continued inequalities, including that adults with a learning disability die on average 19 years younger than the general population—this remains unacceptable.

The Government are committed to improving outcomes for people with a learning disability and autistic people. Early intervention and ensuring people receive the right care at the right time are central to lasting change. We are taking significant action through the continued roll-out of the Oliver McGowan mandatory training on learning disability and autism across health and adult social care staff; improving identification of people with a learning disability on GP registers, and increasing uptake of annual health checks and health action plans; and the continued piloting of annual health checks for autistic people. NHS England is also rolling out a reasonable adjustment digital flag for all disabled people to ensure that adjustments are recorded and shared appropriately in care records.

I recognise that today’s findings are stark and I want to provide reassurance that we take them seriously. This includes the finding that 78.8% of adults with Down syndrome died before the age of 65. Through the implementation of the Down Syndrome Act 2022, we are striving to improve life outcomes for people with Down syndrome, to raise awareness and understanding of their needs, and to break down barriers to opportunity that they, and other disabled people, face.

The most common category of cause of death for autistic adults without a learning disability remains suicide, misadventure or accidental death. We recognise that autistic people can face barriers to getting the right mental health support at the right time. We are committed to delivering the suicide prevention strategy for England, which aims to reduce the number of lives lost to suicide and highlights the need to provide tailored, targeted support to priority groups including autistic people. The mental health needs of autistic people will also be reflected in the new mental health strategy, including consideration of how services can provide more equitable access to support and make appropriate adjustments.

Over the past year, NHS England has worked with clinicians, people with lived experience, charities and ICBs to improve the LeDeR review process. The revised approach seeks to strengthen a focus on service improvement, and better incorporates LeDeR into local processes. For example, for each death notified to LeDeR, a revised review format will prompt reviewers to reflect on modifiable factors, including barriers to the person living a long and healthy life, and any safeguarding or quality concerns.

As part of this transition, this LeDeR report is the final national academic report.

LeDeR data will be incorporated within a new patient level dataset, which will bring together data on health outcomes for autism, ADHD, and people with a learning disability, including Down syndrome, in England. Using the General Practice Extraction Service, it will aim to address limitations of current data sources and link with wider datasets such as hospital episodes and mental health activity. This marks a transformative opportunity to better understand disparities, and inform targeted local and national solutions. I am committing to the publication of this dataset and will share further details in due course.

This Government are committed to learning from good and poor practice, and to driving improvements at all levels to secure better outcomes for people with a learning disability and autistic people. The action we are taking will build a more complete picture of people’s lives and deaths, informed by what we have heard from people, families and carers.

We remain dedicated to tackling avoidable deaths and expect local areas to continue prioritising LeDeR as part of their actions to reduce health inequalities in their populations.

[HCWS224]

Software Medical Devices

Preet Kaur Gill Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Preet Kaur Gill)]

This Government are committed to ensuring the safe, reliable and effective operation of our critical national infrastructure and our national health service.

Under the Medical Devices Regulations 2002, NHS England is currently the legal manufacturer for software medical devices that underpin essential national services, including systems supporting urgent and emergency care such as NHS 111 and 999. These tools play a vital role in delivering care to patients and supporting the day-to-day functioning of our health system.

Following the planned abolition of NHS England, responsibility for these software medical devices would be transferred to the Department of Health and Social Care. These services will continue to be available to users without disruption.

As the legal manufacturer, NHS England currently undertakes responsibility for ensuring these devices meet required standards of safety and performance.

Following the transfer, the Department of Health and Social Care will continue to fulfil these responsibilities, maintaining the same focus on assurance, patient safety and regulatory compliance.

I am hereby confirming that the Department will ensure compliance of these devices with the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 and the Medical Devices Regulations 2002.

This approach reflects the Government’s commitment to upholding robust standards while ensuring continuity of these critical services.

Appropriate governance arrangements will be put in place with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency to support independence and accountability in the ongoing oversight of these devices.

[HCWS193]

Patient Safety Review

Preet Kaur Gill Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Preet Kaur Gill)]

I thank the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for securing this important debate. He has long taken a serious interest in patient safety, including in the importance of independent investigation. I recognise the strength and sincerity of the points that he has raised and will try to answer all of his questions.

At the heart of this debate is a simple question: when patients and families tell us something has gone wrong, does the system listen and learn, and, most importantly, does it change? Patients do not judge the system by the number of reports published, the number of organisations involved, or the number of recommendations written; they judge it by whether care becomes safer. For too long, across too many parts of the system, we have seen the same pattern: harm happens; a review follows; lessons are identified; but the change patients were promised does not always follow quickly enough. This Government are determined to change that.

Dr Penny Dash’s review was commissioned to consider whether the current landscape of organisations provides effective leadership, listening and regulation on patient safety and wider quality of care, and whether a different approach could deliver better outcomes for patients.

[James Naish]

I rise to intervene before the Minister goes down the HSSIB route, which I completely understand is the focus of the debate today. I want to put on record once more the concerns about Healthwatch and its abolition. I know there is a strong desire to see independent patient voice maintained outside the system; of course, Healthwatch was established due to issues within health structures, including, notably, the Mid Staffordshire scandal.

[Preet Kaur Gill]

I thank my hon. Friend for putting that on the record. He will know that we are in Committee stage of the Health Bill and there will later be the opportunity to debate this issue on the Floor of the House.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for outlining the case incredibly well. I have a request in relation to the vital lessons learned on data collection, streamlined complaints and patient safety culture. It is important for us all that those lessons are shared with the Northern Ireland Assembly Minister, Mike Nesbitt, as health is a devolved matter; we need to ensure that there is safety for all across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[Preet Kaur Gill]

Absolutely. I am very privileged to have patient safety in my brief. I know everybody across this House really cares about it, and I will make sure that officials do as the hon. Gentleman requests.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I want to concur with all of the remarks by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), who has made a crucial point. But there is a wider issue, which the Health Bill completely misses and which I urge Ministers to look at, around the accountability systems within the NHS. The reforms are not going to deliver accountability. They are going to weaken it, and as a result we will see more requests for investigations into patient safety. I want the Minister to take that point away, because I am really worried that we are going to see a system that is more unsafe as a result of these reforms.

[Preet Kaur Gill]

I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution—she is absolutely right. I take accountability very seriously and am going to talk about it in my remarks in this debate. Far too often, we see so many inquiries and so many recommendations but nobody taking responsibility for implementing the change. In the end, patients have to feel that things have changed, not that we are just having further reports and recommendations.

The Penny Dash review examined six organisations that are overseen by the Department: the Care Quality Commission; the National Guardian’s Office; Healthwatch England and the local Healthwatch network; the Patient Safety Commissioner; the Health Services Safety Investigations Body; and the patient safety learning functions of NHS Resolution. The review’s conclusion was clear. The problem is not that people working in patient safety lack commitment—we all know that there are dedicated people across the system doing important work every day—but that the system around them has become too cluttered, complex and difficult for patients, staff and leaders to navigate.

We inherited a landscape with more than 70 routes for patients and service users to raise concerns or provide feedback, and around 40 public bodies with a formal role in quality and safety. That complexity does not automatically make patients safer. It can make responsibility unclear, create duplication and make it harder to ensure that learning leads to improvement. A cluttered landscape, as we would all agree, is not an effective landscape.

The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex asked me about the expertise in HSSIB, the full-time job that it does and whether it could undertake investigations more cheaply and quickly than public inquiries. The investigation function within the CQC will be expert and full time, and it will be able to conduct investigations in the same cheap and quick way that HSSIB does now. In future, there will be the same opportunity to use the CQC investigation function instead of needing a public inquiry as there is currently with HSSIB.

The review also found that too many recommendations are generated through reviews, inquiries and investigations, as the hon. Member said, without enough clarity on ownership, prioritisation, implementation and impact. This is the fundamental point: recommendations alone do not make patients safer; change does. That is why the Government have accepted all nine recommendations of the Dash review.

The hon. Member asked how the CQC will provide the same confidence that the safe space is not being compromised. The criteria for disclosing protected information outside the investigative function are set out in the Bill. Those criteria set a high bar for any disclosure—as high as it is currently with HSSIB—and the CQC will publish further guidance setting out much more detail. As the Bill sets out, the CQC will appoint a responsible person who will decide whether the case matches the criteria and whether it warrants information sharing outside the safe space. That person is likely to be the CQC’s chief executive officer.

The hon. Member asked why the Dash review and the Government have ignored the whole question of HSSIB’s value for money. Let me be clear: the Dash reforms are not about saving money; they are about strengthening patient safety and patient voice across the system. The abolition of HSSIB and the transfer of its functions to the CQC play an important part in making the system of patient safety much more effective. Safety is the issue, not money.

Accepting recommendations is the beginning, not the end. Patients who have suffered harm, families who have campaigned for years and staff who have spoken up do not want another report sitting on a shelf. They want evidence that the system can listen, learn and prevent harm from happening again. I want to be absolutely clear: every organisation in the system has a responsibility to meet that challenge. Patient safety cannot be something we support in principle but resist when it requires us to change.

No organisation, however established or well-intentioned, should believe that learning and improvement only apply elsewhere. That is why we are streamlining and strengthening the patient safety landscape. The hon. Member mentioned the National Quality Board. We have revitalised the board by giving it a stronger role in providing a single, authoritative view of quality across the system. That will help reduce duplication, bring greater clarity to recommendations and ensure that effort is focused where it has the greatest impact. All hon. Members recognise that we need fewer recommendations because we know that they disappear into the system. More recommendations are needed that are owned, tracked and delivered.

I recognise the concerns raised by the hon. Member in respect of the Health Services Safety Investigations Body. We had a constructive conversation earlier today. On his point about the accusations that HSSIB had expanded the scope of its work beyond its remit, he explained to me in detail how HSSIB’s inception came about. The Government have accepted the Dash recommendation that HSSIB’s role as a centre of excellence for investigation should continue, and clarified the remit of any future investigations. I think that the investigation function with the CQC will perform the role of a centre of excellence for investigations.

HSSIB has developed important expertise in understanding why things go wrong and identifying system-wide learning, and I acknowledge that work. The question before us is not whether investigations matter —of course they do—but how we ensure that investigations lead to action, because learning without implementation does not improve patient safety. The Dash review recommended transferring HSSIB’s functions to the Care Quality Commission, while maintaining a dedicated investigation capability. I understand why colleagues will want reassurance on that, because, as the hon. Member said, independence, transparency and trust are essential in patient safety investigations, but so is impact. The purpose of these reforms is not to weaken investigation, but to strengthen the link between investigation, learning and improvement. We need a clearer route from identifying problems to making recommendations and ensuring that someone owns delivery and that patients see change.

The hon. Gentleman asked if I could explain who will conduct future investigations into safety in the NHS if the Dash review is implemented. The investigation function in the CQC will have autonomy to launch investigations into any part of the health system and will be able to make recommendations on any part of the system, just as HSSIB does now. There will be no barrier to an investigator finding out that CQC inspections are causing unintended harm. If they are, and if the investigator feels that a recommendation for change should be made, they will make it. There will be no need for litigation through the courts, and insights gained from investigations will continue to inform recommendations concerning the Care Quality Commission’s regulatory functions.

The Bill also allows for the investigation function to make recommendations to the CQC in its report, and the CQC would be legally required to respond to such recommendations. I hope that the hon. Member is assured that we will work carefully with colleagues, patients, staff and system leaders as these reforms are implemented.

The same principle applies to patient voice. Patients do not share their experiences simply for the system to record them; they do so because they want to see things change. Listening matters, but acting on what we hear is what makes patients safer. That is why we are ensuring that patient experience is closer to where decisions are made, with commissioners and providers responsible not only for delivering services, but for listening and responding. The Patient Safety Commissioner will continue to champion patient voice on medicines and medical devices and report directly to Parliament.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am listening very carefully to what the Minister is saying. She has engaged positively with the questions I have asked, but she has actually made the case for keeping HSSIB separate. Will she reflect on that? If the only thing she wants is for the CQC to own the recommendations, she should amend HSSIB and say, “The CQC must ensure that the recommendations are implemented.” In fact, the recommendations are directed at Ministers and bits of the health service that are answerable to her and to the Secretary of State. We should keep HSSIB separate, but by all means let us discuss how to ensure that the recommendations are implemented properly.

[Preet Kaur Gill]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his comments. I did recognise the reason for keeping the functions separate, but just because they are part of the CQC does not mean to say that they do not have their independence. I have pretty much set out the powers that they current have and what they will be able to do, but they do not prioritise investigating the situations that we spoke about, such as “never events”. It is not simply about the investigation; it is about how we get those “never events” to lead to learning and change in the system. How do we hold the system to account to ensure that the very thing that the regulator recommends is implemented? What that journey looks like for patients will be far more significant, as opposed to those bodies simply doing investigations that lead to further recommendations.

Human Genomic Data: Safeguarding

Preet Kaur Gill Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Preet Kaur Gill)]

This is a joint statement made with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.

Human genomic data drives medical and scientific breakthroughs that benefit people by helping to identify some of the underlying factors in who will develop diseases and how they progress, leading to the development of new treatments. It also contributes significantly to global scientific benefit and economic growth. The UK is a global leader in human genomic data, due to the scale, richness and diversity of its datasets.

However, we also know that human genomic data, if shared without due care, has the potential to present national, economic and biological security risks to the UK. The UK Government are committed to keeping human genomic data safe. Keeping human genomic data secure is also important in maintaining the trust of the public in how their health data is used, even more so when people have voluntarily shared their genomic data for research studies. While there are clear legislative requirements and regulatory frameworks that help protect people’s health data, there is no clear statement of the Government’s expectations regarding how human genomic data should be made available for research.

Therefore, over the last 12 months, we have been considering how to protect people’s privacy and security, while continuing to make human genomic data available for legitimate research. Today we are publishing new guidance for UK Government funded major holders of human genomic data that make data available to external users. This applies to Genomics England, Our Future Health, UK Biobank and NIHR BioResource. It sets out recommendations on how these bodies can make data available in a way that manages the benefits of global access and use of human genomic data, while managing security risks.

The guidance is in three parts:

The first part uses the Office for National Statistics’ “Five Safes” framework, which is widely regarded as best practice in protecting data when making it available to users.

The second part sets out a framework to support major holders of human genomic data when considering whether to make data available to users outside of the UK.

The third part sets out the expectations on protective security and the measures that holders should have in place to manage insider risk and protect their physical environment.

The guidance makes clear recommendations for how major holders of human genomic data should make data available using the Five Safes framework: safe settings, safe data, safe people, safe projects and safe outputs. It recommends that:



Human genomic data should be made available through one or more secure data environments, which have an appropriately robust “airlock” in place—the airlock places controls on the data and tools that are allowed into or out of an SDE.

Holders of human genomic data should have robust policies and processes in place to assess individuals who are potential users, and the organisation sponsoring the project to check access is justified before it is granted.

Careful consideration should be given where a user or their sponsoring organisation have a history of data breaches or misuse: the expectation is that a history means approval will not normally be given.

Access should be granted only for projects that are intended to benefit human health or deliver wider public benefit.

Access to data by users located outside the UK is considered an international data transfer. The guidance makes it clear that where a holder of human genomic data is considering access by a user located outside the UK, in a country or territory that is not covered by UK adequacy regulations, a transfer risk assessment must be completed before access is allowed. Adequate countries and territories are those that the UK Government have assessed as having a level of data protection that is “not materially lower” than that provided for by UK law. This allows personal data to be sent to those countries without the need for additional transfer mechanisms and safeguards.

As the guidance notes, the Information Commissioner Office’s TRA tool can help holders complete their transfer risk assessment. Given the potential significant personal impacts that could be associated with HGD, it is likely to be considered a “high harm risk” category of data transfer. GDPR requires supplementary measures to be put in place if, after risk assessment, relevant tests are not likely to be met. The guidance sets out some criteria that holders of human genomic data can use when assessing whether the data protection test is met.

The way in which human genomic data can be made available safely and securely for a range of research and other uses is rapidly developing as technology advances. We will, therefore, keep this guidance under review and will update it when required.

[HCWS177]

Department of Health and Social Care

Preet Kaur Gill Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Preet Kaur Gill)]

I will try to answer all the questions that have been put to me in the short time I have. First, I am grateful for the contributions made by hon. Members, and I thank the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), for securing this debate.

The UK-US pharmaceuticals arrangement is an important step forward for patient access to innovation and the future of our life sciences sector. This arrangement is fundamentally about patients by ensuring that they can benefit from life-changing medicines as they are developed, rather than see the UK being left behind. We have already seen the benefit from those changes, with NICE approving life-changing treatments such as vorasidenib, a brain cancer drug for patients as young as 12.

The UK’s life sciences sector is one of our greatest national strengths. It saves lives, supports jobs and underpins innovation across our economy. I am proud that thanks to this arrangement, the United Kingdom will be the only country in the world to have secured a commitment to tariff-free access for pharmaceutical exports into the United States.

The Chair of the Committee raised NICE and VPAG changes and rebates. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) also raised a number of issues, as did my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). I will address them now.

The joint Government and industry taskforce has been discussing the options for continuing to evolve our system to ensure that we maximise benefits to patients and the economy. It will make recommendations on pilot programmes as per the UK-US arrangement commitment, and I look forward to providing an update to the Committee on that in due course.

I know there has been concern that these changes undermine NICE’s independence, but that is not the case—let me just be clear about that. NICE will continue to make its recommendations based on evidence, clinical effectiveness and value for money, free from political interference. The change will allow Ministers to set the overall threshold within which NICE operates, not to determine individual decisions. This will preserve NICE’s core role as an independent evaluator, while ensuring that the framework that it uses reflects how we value innovation and patient benefit.

Concerns were also raised about the fact that the UK commitments are larger than the US commitments, but I do not agree. The UK has made policy changes to improve access for patients, while the US has committed to tariff protection for UK exports, which is significant given the scale of that market. The commitments deliver improved patient access in the UK and protection for UK exports.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Will the Minister give way?

[Preet Kaur Gill]

I am trying to get through all these questions as quickly as I can. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman shortly.

On the VPAG changes and rebates, alongside changes to NICE recommendations, the arrangement affects how pricing and repayment mechanisms operate through the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth. To ensure predictability for the industry going forwards, given the unexpectedly high payment percentage for newer medicines for 2025, the Government have committed to ensuring that future VPAG rates do not exceed 15%. This will support life sciences investment and patient access to medicines while ensuring that the scheme can continue to work for both industry and the NHS, keeping the medicines budget sustainable. I look forward to engaging with the sector on the future of the voluntary scheme, with negotiations due to begin next year informed by the outcomes or interim findings from pilot programmes that were launched as early as this September.

[Dr Evans]

The Minister would save a lot of time simply by publishing the impact assessment, which would answer every one of the questions that she is trying to find the answers to in her folder, so will she—yes or no?

[Preet Kaur Gill]

With respect, I am going to answer the questions that have been put to me by many hon. Members, and I am coming to the impact assessment.

We have been clear that the estimated short-term impact is around £1 billion in England over the spending review period. Costs will increase over time as NICE approves more medicines, but precise long-term costs cannot be modelled as a single figure; they depend on future medicines, NICE approvals, uptake and wider commercial developments.

Members mentioned a number of figures. I do not recognise the £9 billion and £14 billion figures for costs. Spending on innovative medicines increases year on year as new treatments become available, so underlining growth would be expected to continue regardless of this arrangement, and often the figures cited publicly do not take that into account. We are committed to increasing spending on medicines as a proportion of NHS spend, ending the recent decline in the proportion of health spend dedicated to medicines and increasing spending on innovative medicines to 0.6% of GDP.

The Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), and my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) raised a really important point. Life sciences is one of our most productive sectors. It underpins research and development, clinical trials and high-value manufacturing, and it supports jobs across the country. Over £1 billion in industry investment has already been secured since the announcement of this arrangement in December last year. That includes AstraZeneca’s recent announcement of a £300 million investment into R&D sites at Cambridge and Macclesfield. That demonstrates the confidence that this key sector has in the UK. Maintaining a strong commercial environment helps ensure continued investment and the development of new treatments. This is not separate from patient benefit. It enables the pipeline of the new medicines that NHS patients ultimately rely on.

[Layla Moran]

I am frustrated, because everything the Minister is saying is in the press release. Can she please answer the question? Will the Government release the impact assessment? If they will not, will they at least allow a Select Committee to see it confidentially?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. We are running out of time. Minister, please respond as briefly as you can.

[Preet Kaur Gill]

I recognise the Committee’s request for the impact assessment, but the analysis is scenario-based, contains commercially sensitive assumptions and remains linked to live policy development. Officials should be able to produce confidential advice for Ministers to inform trade and other negotiations, and we will not apologise for maintaining such confidentially where doing so is in the national interest.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Layla Moran to wind up the debate briefly, in under a minute.

Diethylstilbestrol: Intergenerational Impact

Preet Kaur Gill Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Preet Kaur Gill)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this important debate on the intergenerational impact of diethylstilbestrol on women. I begin by applauding the perseverance of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) and the courage of those affected by the impact of DES, including the campaigners, many of them women, and their families, who have worked for many years to ensure that their experiences are heard and understood. I was honoured to meet some of them earlier today, and I thank them for being here in the Gallery tonight—mothers and daughters, on behalf of their children and grandchildren.

On 5 November 2025, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, issued a formal apology on behalf of the Government to all those who have been affected by DES. I wish to reiterate that apology today. At this stage, the Government’s focus is on carefully considering the available evidence and determining the most appropriate next steps, rather than simply establishing a public inquiry. Our current work includes ensuring that appropriate clinical pathways, professional awareness and sources of support are in place for those who may have been affected by DES exposure.

We have taken action to raise awareness of DES among health professionals. On 12 December 2025, Professor Peter Johnson, the national clinical director for cancer, sent a letter to all cancer alliance leaders highlighting the effects of DES and asking them to cascade guidance through their clinical networks to help to reach appropriate health professionals, including GPs. We have also taken steps to improve our knowledge of the impacts of DES. The Department has formally commissioned the University of Exeter, through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, to undertake a systematic evidence review of those impacts, because, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the current research, while useful, does not yet paint a coherent picture. For instance, existing systematic reviews of the physical impacts across first, second and third generations are relatively dated, and have reached differing conclusions. There are also primary research studies that have not yet been incorporated in those reviews, and existing reviews have not fully considered psychosocial impacts. The newly commissioned review is intended to address those gaps.

My hon. Friend asked about screening. The research ensures that any future policy on local treatment pathways, clinical guidance and potential screening arrangements is informed by the latest available evidence. It will also be important in guiding decisions on whether a lifelong screening protocol should be developed for people affected by DES. The women affected by it should, of course, be involved in this work, which is why we ensured that the university will engage with members of DES Justice UK so that it can learn from women—and some men—with lived experience of the effects.

I recognise the importance of trying to understand the scale of DES exposure and the number of people who may have been affected. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has taken a number of steps to establish what regulatory action was taken by its predecessor in relation to the risk associated with DES. They include searches of agency archives, both digital and hard-copy, for documentation relating to regulatory activity associated with the use of DES; visits to the National Archives to attempt to locate records from the 1970s, including discussions of DES by the Committee on Safety of Medicines, a predecessor of the Commission on Human Medicines; and locating previous editions of the “British National Formulary” and Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry datasheets that may detail information on the use of DES. The MHRA also contacted the General Medical Council to establish whether any direct communications on DES had been sent by the GMC to healthcare professionals directly, but the GMC could find no records of communications. Finally, there have been searches of the Yellow Card database for any reports of the use of DES, although given the time that has passed, I am sure that the House will appreciate the significant challenges in relation to locating and retrieving records between the 1940s and the 1970s. In addition, my officials are working to explore what can be done through NHS digital processes in relation to missing or destroyed medical records.

Let me again thank Members for raising this important issue, and pay tribute to all those affected by DES who have continued to campaign for recognition, support and answers.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I am here because my constituent Helen, from Romiley, came to see me at my advice surgery on Saturday. I was waiting to raise this point until the Minister was close to ending her speech, because I want to understand what is being done and what more the Government can do to give information to people who think they may be DES daughters. Helen’s mum certainly took something during her pregnancy, but it is difficult to interpret the GP’s handwriting on the records that Helen has received. What can the Minister tell Helen and people like her who think their health conditions suggest that they are DES daughters, but who do not yet have the evidence to show that they are?

[Preet Kaur Gill]

I thank the hon. Member for her question, and pay tribute to Helen. My hon. Friend mentioned this important issue. While there may be 600 women out there, there are many, many more who just do not know—and, I am sure, grandchildren too. Not only should information be widely available on NHS websites, but women should be able to go to their GPs, and their GPs should be able to direct them to a screening service, while also taking seriously the issues that they raise. More needs to be more done in this regard, and I look forward to working with campaigners and with my hon. Friend to establish what more we can do when we identify gaps.

I pay tribute to the women I met earlier today, who are sitting in the Gallery. Hearing directly from them their powerful testimonies puts a lot of this into context for me. It is not just about reading people’s stories; it is about the lived experience of what that trauma has been like for many women, their grandchildren and so forth. I pay tribute to Clare Fletcher; Marion and Juliette; Heather and her two daughters; Liam, Charly, Anne-Marie and her daughter; and Julia. My apologies if I have missed someone’s name. Thank you so much for sharing your exposure to DES and the fact that the healthcare system did not adequately address the recognised and multigenerational adverse effects of the drug.

We have to continue to listen carefully to those affected, learn from their experiences and take every appropriate step to safeguard people, now and in the future. As someone said, this is not simply a historical medical issue; it is about women whose voices were dismissed, whose experiences were doubted and whose families continue to live with the consequences. It is just a reminder that when women say that something is wrong, we must listen. We cannot change the past, but we can ensure that their voices shape how we respond.

Question put and agreed to.

Mental Health: Parity of Esteem

Preet Kaur Gill Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Preet Kaur Gill)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for securing this important debate, for her long-standing commitment to improving mental health services, and for her phenomenal work in her role as chair of the APPG on suicide and self-harm prevention. I am also grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate and shared experiences from their constituencies. I am sorry to hear of John’s death. Men’s suicide is a huge concern; many of us, myself included, can share personal stories. We need to do much more in that space.

This debate speaks to the heart of what a modern health and care system should be. For too long, mental health has not been given the same attention, priority or esteem as physical health. That has had profound consequences for individuals, families and communities across the country. It also has significant economic impacts, as we heard from my hon. Friend, with an estimated 1.26 million 16 to 64-year-olds economically inactive due to mental health issues in 2024-25. The National Health Service Act 2006 states that health includes mental health. This Government are committed to giving mental health the same attention and focus as physical health, and ensuring that people can access timely, high-quality support, regardless of whether they are experiencing a mental or a physical health condition.

As my hon. Friend said, parity of esteem means recognising that mental and physical health are inseparable. Far too often, services have treated them as distinct issues, when in reality they are connected. Of course, many people experience mental and physical health conditions at the same time, with a cause and effect relationship that goes both ways. We know that poor mental health can increase the risk of developing physical health problems, while living with a long-term physical condition can have a significant impact on a person’s mental wellbeing. People living with severe mental illness experience some of the poorest physical health outcomes in our society, and on average die 15 to 20 years earlier than the general population. That is why we are committed to improving the ways that services respond to people with co-occurring mental and physical health needs.

Care must be co-ordinated around the individual rather than around organisational boundaries, ensuring that people receive holistic support that addresses all aspects of their health and wellbeing. NHS England has developed the mental health personalised care framework, which sets out how services should assess and manage people’s care in partnership with them and in collaboration with all relevant teams. That framework places particular emphasis on joined-up care, safety and risk management. It has been tested in local systems and will be published shortly. I know that will answer some of the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett, but not all of them, so I shall try to address those points in my speech.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

On wraparound care, we have a fantastic initiative in Winchester where Citizens Advice spends time with patients at Melbury Lodge, the in-patient unit, to help them deal with all their life admin, such as debt issues and money issues. It has been shown that those who receive that service have a shorter stay in hospital, are significantly less likely to be readmitted and are more likely to engage with social services once they have been discharged. Is the Minister willing to meet me and the team to discuss that initiative? For every £1 spent on it, £14.08 is saved in cost avoidance for the NHS.

[Preet Kaur Gill]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the wraparound care in Winchester citizens advice bureau. We need the local health ecosystem to partner with initiatives in the voluntary or charity sector such as that one, and acknowledge their impact, fund and support them. Some may think that things such as debt are basic, but their impact on mental health cannot be overestimated. I am sure that officials will want to meet the hon. Gentleman and others to look at the landscape across the country, because there are some fantastic initiatives that we need to recognise, partner with and support.

The Government are taking action to elevate the status of mental health. For 2026-27, NHS mental health spending is forecast to increase to a record £16.1 billion, representing a real-terms increase of around £140 million compared with the previous year. Alongside that, the mental health investment standard remains in place. Integrated care boards are required to protect mental health spending in real terms over the next three years, ensuring that mental health continues to receive the investment needed to improve services and outcomes.

Investment alone is not enough. We must transform how care is delivered. That is why the 10-year health plan sets out our vision for a neighbourhood health service, which my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett mentioned. That is about bringing care closer to people’s homes, communities creating genuinely patient-centred services, and moving away from a fragmented system that often leaves people navigating multiple services without the support they need. I hope the ICBs are engaging hon. Members in all parts of the House to feed into the design of the neighbourhood health centre model and asking about the unmet needs and service gaps in their constituencies and regions.

[Danny Beales]

The Minister is being kind with her time, as always. As part of our inquiry into mental health services, the Health and Social Care Committee visited the 24/7 neighbourhood mental health centre pilots and Trieste, where the model originated. They have clearly been hugely successful already. The Minister mentioned the broader neighbourhood healthcare changes; can she assure us that the learnings from those hubs will be spread across the country? Will there be a clear road map for rolling out these services to every area?

[Preet Kaur Gill]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; this is a great pilot, and there are some real, huge successes. The Government must learn from the impact that the hubs will have, and of course we want to roll them out. That is why we are piloting six community-based health centres across England in Tower Hamlets, Lewisham, Whitehaven, York, Sheffield and Birmingham. Those centres provide round-the-clock open access treatment and support for adults with severe mental health needs and work closely with primary care and community services to provide joined-up care.

All hon. Members across the House will recognise that it is not appropriate for someone who is facing crisis or poor mental health to be sat in A&E; that just exacerbates their condition and situation. The community-based health centre pilots show that a different model can work. In May, my noble Friend Baroness Merron visited the community-based mental health centre in east Birmingham, where she met staff and service users to hear directly about the service’s impact. The visit demonstrated the important role that community-based mental health support has in providing earlier intervention, improving experiences of care and helping people to access support before reaching crisis point.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett is particularly interested in how the reforms will benefit her constituents. Although her constituency is not home to one of the six core or the 16 associated community-based mental health pilot sites, a range of community-based support is already available locally. Gateshead Connects hubs provide accessible community drop-in spaces that offer mental health and wellbeing support alongside practical advice on issues such as housing and finances. Residents can access NHS talking therapies through services based at Blaydon primary care centre, and community mental health support networks operating across County Durham provide peer-led groups and safe spaces for people living in and around Consett. Those local services reflect the wider direction of travel in our 10-year health plan, which will bring support closer to people’s homes, strengthen community-based provision and ensure that people can access help earlier, before their needs escalate into crisis.

Significant progress has also been made in building a stronger crisis care pathway. That pathway includes the NHS 111 mental health option; the expansion of crisis cafés, about which we hear from so many hon. Members, as well as sanctuaries and crisis houses; and the roll-out of crisis tech services across England. We have completed delivery of the mental health response vehicle programme, with 88 vehicles now operating across local systems. There is now full national coverage of 24/7 mental health liaison teams in acute hospitals, and we are investing up to £120 million to increase the number of sites with mental health emergency departments to 85.

The Government have also delivered on our commitment to modernise the legal framework that underpins mental health care. The Mental Health Act 2025 brings mental health legislation into the 21st century and ensures that people receiving treatment have greater choice, autonomy and involvement in decisions about their care.

My hon. Friend says that parity of esteem must extend to children and young people, and she and many other hon. Members spoke about cases of children facing crisis. The children and young people’s modern service framework is being developed and remains on track for publication in autumn 2026. The framework will support a more integrated approach to physical and mental health.

Hon. Members rightly spoke about access to services and waiting times. It is unacceptable that some people are waiting far too long to receive the mental health care that they need, particularly children and young people and those experiencing a mental health crisis. ICBs must do more. No child should be left waiting. The Government have delivered three years ahead of schedule our commitment to recruit an additional 8,500 mental health workers across the NHS, in the hope of easing pressures on services and improving access to care. We are also expanding NHS talking therapies and continuing the roll-out of mental health support teams in schools and colleges to achieve full national coverage by 2029. We know that we need to go further.

[Adam Dance]

Some residents in rural Somerset have said to me that they are waiting 18 months to receive talking therapies. That is just not good enough.

[Preet Kaur Gill]

I absolutely agree. That is the responsibility of the ICBs, which have been informed that they must make sure that waiting lists come down.

We know that we need to go further. We are developing a new cross-Government mental health strategy for England covering all ages, which will be published later this year. The Department is keen to hear the views of hon. Members from across the House and I am happy to share with any hon. Member details of how they can feed into that work. The strategy seeks to transform mental health support by setting out a plan to respond earlier, reducing waiting times and helping people to remain active. Importantly, it will look beyond the NHS and recognise the critical role of schools, employers, local government and the voluntary and community sector, because achieving parity of esteem is not solely the responsibility of the NHS.

This debate has highlighted both the progress made and the challenges that remain. We are under no illusion about the scale of the task, but this Government are committed to building a health and care system where mental health is treated with the same seriousness, urgency and ambition as physical health. Parity of esteem is not an aspiration; it is a necessity. Through sustained investment, service reform and a renewed focus on prevention, particularly early prevention, we are determined to make it a reality. I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett; I have a huge amount of respect and regard for her, not only because she secured this debate but because of all the work she continues to do. I know that she will continue to hold us to account. I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions.

Question put and agreed to.