Puberty Suppressants Trial

Rachel Taylor Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

We are only at the start of this urgent question, so I ask Members to reduce the temperature in the Chamber.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the care and sensitivity he has taken to this subject all along. It has been an undeniably difficult year for transgender people in Britain. I have spoken to young trans people who have been pushed to the brink of suicide by what they hear—that they do not have a right to exist, that they do not deserve rights, that they are legitimate targets for ridicule. We all in this House have a responsibility to lower the temperature and focus on their welfare, health and dignity.

King’s College operates the highest standards of safety. Does the Secretary of State agree that its expertise and rigour will support the wellbeing of participants and ensure that we get the robust evidence we need and that vulnerable children are no longer treated as political punchbags?

[Wes Streeting]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we must engage with due care and sensitivity on this issue. I can share with the House that these exchanges, Government policy, what is said by me and others, are followed extremely closely by this group of children and young people, who are extremely online, and by the wider LGBT+ community. My hon. Friend is right that trans people are often at the wrong end of the statistics as victims of hate crime, discrimination and mental ill health. We must always tread carefully when talking about suicide in this context, and bear in mind the warnings of the Government’s adviser on suicide prevention, Professor Louis Appleby, and the way in which that issue has been deployed irresponsibly by critics of the ban on puberty blockers that was put in place—we bear all those things in mind. I do think we have a high-quality trial set up. I do have confidence in the clinicians. We have had a cross-party briefing from the clinical team. I am happy to repeat that exercise, to keep coming back to the House and to arrange briefings for MPs and peers on a cross-party basis so that we can follow this closely, as we should.

Transgender People: Provision of Healthcare

Rachel Taylor Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the provision of healthcare for transgender people.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. This debate is about healthcare for trans adults. I know that a lot has been said in this House in recent weeks about care for young people questioning their gender identity, and particularly about the recent announcement of a trial of puberty blockers. I do not wish to repeat that debate here, other than to say that I welcome the fact that the trial is going ahead to ensure we can get the evidence that we need.

I want to begin with the experience of one of my constituents, because this debate must be about real people, not headlines in The Times or the Daily Mail, not culture war soundbites, not the opinions of Donald Trump or J. K. Rowling, and certainly not whatever bile is being pushed out by transphobic trolls on social media. This is about real people’s lives.

Earlier this year, my constituent, a trans woman, came to my surgery to share her experience of accessing healthcare locally. At her GP practice, she was told that she could not use the women’s toilets and must use the men’s instead, and she was repeatedly misgendered by staff. She faced difficulties simply getting her preferred name recorded correctly. On one occasion she was even told that she could not wait in the waiting room because she “scared other patients.”

My constituent is also struggling to access the gender-affirming care that she needs. There are no adult gender services in Birmingham, let alone in my constituency of North Warwickshire and Bedworth, meaning that she would have to travel to Nottingham for treatment. She is stuck on a waiting list with no idea when she will finally receive care. Because she cannot get NHS support, she is taking hormone replacement therapy on a private prescription and is understandably anxious about dosage and the lack of monitoring or regulation. She is not alone.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech and bringing the debate back to people, which is where it needs to be. I want to highlight a case in my constituency of a young transgender person who spent two years on the under-18s waiting list for an initial appointment. They have now aged out of that waiting list and potentially have a six-year wait, meaning that when they are able to speak to a doctor or a health professional it will have been eight years. Their parents approached me to tell me how much that is damaging their young one.

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that interventions need to be very short. Lots of Members want to take part in this debate and long interventions eat into the time for speeches.

[Rachel Taylor]

I thank my hon. Friend for sharing that experience. It reflects the reality for many trans young people and adults in the UK: discrimination from healthcare professionals, waiting lists stretching over years, a complete lack of local provision and a reliance on less well-regulated private providers. That is the state of healthcare for trans people in Britain today. It is woeful and inadequate, and it is letting people down.

The consequences are serious. Almost one in four transgender people avoid going to the doctor altogether for fear of mistreatment. They delay cancer screenings and push aside chronic pain, and their health outcomes worsen as a result.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

The NHS has finally issued a call for evidence regarding a clinical pathway for adults who wish to detransition. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is a welcome and long-overdue first step, and that the NHS must continue making serious efforts to improve care for detransitioners?

[Rachel Taylor]

As I welcome services for trans people, I also welcome services for those people who do not feel happy in the gender that they have acquired. That is only right, but we have to get all those services right.

Trans people are now seeing their health outcomes worsen. Waiting times for gender-affirming healthcare are nothing short of a national scandal. Across the UK as of March 2025, more than 48,000 trans adults remained on waiting lists for that care. We rightly debate NHS waiting lists in this place: a year for a hip replacement; months for cancer screening. Nobody finds those waits acceptable, but freedom of information requests reveal that the average wait for gender services is 12 years in England, two years in Wales, 41 years in Northern Ireland and a staggering 58 years in Scotland. At one Scottish clinic, the wait was three times longer than the average British life expectancy.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the waits that transgender people face in Scotland, which are far too long. I recently met a group from the transgender community in Dunfermline who are concerned about their safety when they are out on the streets, whether going out on a Saturday night or doing anything else that they would like to. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must work with the police across the UK to make sure that transgender people feel safe on the streets?

[Rachel Taylor]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Trans people are fearing for their lives in my constituency, in his constituency and in many others up and down this country.

Let us imagine being told that the wait for a hip replacement or a cancer check was 224 years—it just would not happen. Some Members in this House might not want to hear it, but the reason that the NHS provides gender-affirming treatments—hormones, surgeries, and mental health and social support—is because they are proven to improve mental health, reduce gender dysphoria and significantly reduce depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts.

Doing nothing is not a neutral act—doing nothing allows suffering to grow. The Women and Equalities Committee heard that directly earlier this year. To echo the findings of the Trevor Project’s 2024 report, LGBTQ+ young people’s suicides are preventable. Prevention means tackling discrimination, hostility and unaccepting environments. Safe, supportive, affirming care saves lives. One trans adult told the LGBT Foundation:

“The only effective treatment for gender dysphoria is transition and leaving this untreated is killing people.”

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Rachel Taylor]

I will make some progress, if I may. I am part-way through something that a trans person said, so it is not an appropriate time to intervene. They went on to say:

“I have personally used alcohol, cannabis, cocaine and self-harm to survive the last year and a half since referral and I have now been told I will have to wait several more months because of the backlog.”

[Jim Shannon]

I am reminded of last year when a mother came to me back home. Her son wanted to transition. The mother was under real pressure, as was the young boy. We tried to help as much as we could through the health system back in Northern Ireland. Does the hon. Lady agree that there is a journey not only for the young person who wants to transition, but for their parents? Everyone needs support to get them through that difficult transition.

[Rachel Taylor]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful contribution. Of course, parents need help and support through this process.

In 2022, a coroner ruled that a 20-year-old trans woman had died in part because of delays in accessing gender-affirming care after two and a half years on a waiting list. Trans people also struggle disproportionately with general healthcare. A third of trans and non-binary people, rising to almost half among people of colour, received no NHS or private support during pregnancy, compared with just 2.4% of cis women. Nearly one in three trans and non-binary birthing parents said that they were not treated with dignity and respect in labour, compared with just 2% of cis women.

According to TransActual, 60% of trans people surveyed had been refused care because they were trans. Hundreds reported that their GP refused to prescribe hormones, even when they had been recommended by NHS gender clinics. Participation in cervical screening is also significantly lower, with trans and non-binary people estimated to be up to 37% less likely to be up to date with appointments. This Labour Government are the right Government at the right time to tackle these issues.

I congratulate the Minister and the Secretary of State on the HIV action plan that was announced this month. I remember vividly the stigma and shame of an HIV diagnosis in the ’80s and ’90s, which often led to suicide, as the alternative was a death sentence and a life spent facing discrimination and abuse. This HIV strategy is groundbreaking and sets us on the right path to end new HIV transmissions. I applaud its commitment to ensuring that all prevention efforts target underserved populations, including trans people.

The Government pledged in their manifesto to ensure that trans people receive the healthcare and support they need. I welcome the review being led by Dr David Levy into adult gender services, and I hope it will bring forward strong recommendations to cut waiting lists, expand access and deliver timely, appropriate and sensitive care. I know that trans people and LGBT organisations have been awaiting its publication, so I ask the Minister: when can we expect Dr Levy’s review to be published?

In April 2025, the Secretary of State also commissioned NHS England to undertake an LGBT+ health evidence review. That review seeks to identify the barriers to healthcare for all LGBT+ people, from examining the poor treatment of lesbian couples seeking IVF treatment to looking at insufficient mental health support for LGBT+ people. The review is highly anticipated by the whole community. Therefore, I ask the Minister: is Dr Brady’s review still due to conclude in January 2026, and when can the public and parliamentarians expect to see it?

Although I applaud the Government’s work to improve healthcare for transgender adults, I know that reviews alone will not fix the problem. We need to know that these reviews will be followed by action. I know that getting this right matters to the Government, so I ask the Minister: what steps will the Government take to reduce discrimination and transphobia in healthcare settings?

Will the Minister commit to mandatory training for clinicians on the respectful and appropriate treatment of trans patients? Will the Government commit to significant sustained investment in trans healthcare, with reducing waiting lists and expanding local provision as urgent priorities? We must build a healthcare system rooted in science, not stigma, and in compassion, not fear. We must decide whether we want to be a society that listens to people, supports them and gives them the tools to thrive.

There is one final point I would like to make. Those who know me will know that I first got involved in politics in the 1980s when Thatcher was introducing section 28. That policy was intended to make people like me feel shame about who we were, and to reverse the progress that previous generations had fought for. I got into politics to fight that cruel law and everything that it represented.

I am a gay woman who grew up in the ’80s, so I know what it feels like to be told, “It’s just a phase. Maybe you’ll grow out of it. Maybe it’s not really who you are. Maybe there’s just something wrong with you,” so believe me when I say that I have heard it all before. LGBT people have heard this all before. We know what bigotry is when we see it, and we know that bigotry is back. Let us make no mistake: the people who are organising against trans people now are no different from the people who campaigned for section 28. They want to present parts of our movement as a danger to society and push them to the margins. I will never let that happen.

To all those in this room and in this House who are totally convinced that trans people are not real, that they are making it up, that it is TikTok, Reddit or foreign TV that has turned them trans, that somehow this is some kind of new phenomenon, let me assure you all that I have had trans friends for as long as I have been out. Trans people have always and will always exist.

To all those in this room who used to say warm things about trans people back when it was popular to do so but who decided when the wind changed that they would blow in the other direction, and to the Conservatives who in 2018 introduced an LGBT action plan promising trans equality but who now are quite happy to laugh along with cruel mocking jokes about trans people in front of the mother of a murdered trans teenager, we see you, and much like history condemns section 28, history will condemn you too. Meet trans people, talk to them, understand what they are going through and believe them, then we can all stop fighting our toxic culture wars and get back to doing what we as lawmakers are elected to do: make things better for every single one of our constituents—not some of them, all of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Taylor]

I thank everyone who has spoken in this debate, and all my hon. Friends, for their passion, care, advocacy, understanding, kind words and leadership in this area. The tone of the debate has proved that we can, away from the glare of culture wars, have a sensitive and nuanced discussion about how to guarantee care for some of our most vulnerable citizens and how to support their families.

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), for her understanding and clarity of thought; she is a strong advocate. I also thank the spokesperson for the Green party, the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer).

I thank the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), for coming here divested of some of the toxic and inflammatory zeal, even though she seemed more concerned about the small number of people who are detransitioning rather than about all trans people and their healthcare.

Most of all, I thank the Minister for her remarks. I welcome her commitment to first-class healthcare for everyone. I welcome the Brady review reporting early in the new year, including the fact that there will be between seven and 12 healthcare centres for young trans people, with more clinics to come around the corner. I also very much welcome her Waiting Well pilot and hope that it can be rolled out across the country.

I want to finish by broadening out this discussion. This has not been an easy year for trans people. The Supreme Court judgment and the misguided, unnecessary interim guidance that followed from the Equality and Human Rights Commission have created genuine fear that rights long enjoyed are now at risk. We have heard today about the poor state of healthcare for trans people in this country, and flawed guidance risks making that situation worse.

I have heard from trans and non-binary people who have developed urinary tract infections because they feared going to the toilet. There is no doubt that the toxic culture wars have the potential—

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order.

Resident Doctors: Industrial Action

Rachel Taylor Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To be honest, the thing that causes me most anxiety is that, although I know that the NHS is on the road to recovery, we are surrounded by an enormous amount of jeopardy. We need, as much as we possibly can, to make sure that we are not inflicting avoidable damage or setbacks on our progress, and it feels like that is what this round of strike action represents. My hon. Friend is right to praise NHS leaders and managers. I know how emotionally invested they are in seeing their patients and their staff through this Christmas, and I urge resident doctors and the BMA to take up not only the deal but the opportunity to at least put off strike action to January.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for all his work on this matter so far, but I know that people in my constituency are going to be really worried about what might happen to them over the Christmas period. I thank all those hard-working NHS staff, be they nurses or doctors, who have continued to look after us and are facing a really difficult situation over this Christmas. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to urge the BMA to call off this strike and, in doing so, will he commit to continuing that dialogue with the profession so that it knows that he really understands the challenges it faces, the training opportunities it needs and the job opportunities it deserves?

[Wes Streeting]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. This is the point that I have impressed on the chair of the resident doctors committee. This deal is not the end of the conversation about jobs and career development in the NHS, because there are plenty of problems for us to solve. Although we cannot afford to go further on pay this year, what we have done so far—28.9%—is not the extent of what the Government can and are willing to do on pay. It just requires a bit of give and take, and I think we will make much more constructive and meaningful progress if we work together. I have my part to play in that, and from my point of view, we need to reset the relationship. It has hit the buffers somewhat in recent weeks. I am willing to do that. We have people we can work with on the resident doctors committee, but I think we are going to have to grasp the olive branch as it is presented today so that we can make more progress in the new year.

Postural Tachycardia Syndrome

Rachel Taylor Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Cat Smith]

I very much agree.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising awareness of this very important condition. It is, as always, an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I am here because, like everyone else, I have had several of my constituents raise the problem of diagnosis taking far too long, the crippling impact that this condition can have on their lives and the difficulty that they face in accessing healthcare. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for sport and physical activity, I particularly want to raise the impact that PoTS has on people’s ability to continue to play the sport that they love. It may be that, because they are not being diagnosed, they think it is something that will impact their ability to continue their ordinary, everyday life. It is not right that diagnosis takes on average seven years. We must put more effort into and more emphasis on diagnosis and treatment.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions should be shorter.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Taylor Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the discussions about any advanced works arising from the new hospital programme are ongoing. I am very happy for the Department to continue to discuss with the trust how future investment can best meet the needs of the future.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

University hospital Coventry and Warwickshire suffers from really poor car parking facilities. I have had to take both my parents there over recent years to use its specialist cardiology services. The poor quality of those car parking facilities causes additional stress for patients visiting those services, which they can ill afford when they have suffered strokes or heart attacks. It is becoming extremely vital that something is done, so will the Minister meet me and other local MPs to discuss the crisis in car parking at the hospital?

[Karin Smyth]

The provision of car parking remains an issue for trusts. I recognise the stress caused by trying to get patients to hospital, particularly if they have mobility problems. I commend the many hospitals across the country that have really good active travel plans and are working with their local communities to resolve some of these issues. We need to hear more from the trust about what provision it is putting in place to serve my hon. Friend’s constituents.

Women and Girls with Autism: Mental Health Support

Rachel Taylor Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jessica Toale]

Clearly, we need better training across many of our institutional settings. This is in part where Lindsey has put together the training course, which I hope she will be able to discuss with the Minister at some point. Lindsey is also backed by the Children and Young People’s Mental Health Coalition, Emotional Dysregulation Autism, the Abbey clinic and many other respected voices in this space.

Let me be frank. The current system is failing young people with autism. The number of people in long-term institutional care remains stubbornly high. It fails to distinguish between autism and other mental health illnesses. It overuses restraint and seclusion and separates children from their families, often for extended periods. It is a system that punishes difference rather than supports it. It is indefensible. Families are exhausted. Parents like Lindsey are forced into campaigning roles they never asked for, because they have been let down so completely by the very institutions meant to protect their children.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

One of the toughest challenges that autistic women and girls face is misdiagnosis and late diagnosis, so girls’ problems go unnoticed. Parents in my constituency frequently tell me how frustrating and exhausting it is for them and their families to try to get the support and diagnosis that their daughters need. Does my hon. Friend agree that too often young women get a late diagnosis and are left wondering how life could have been so much different if they had got that support earlier?

[Jessica Toale]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. There are far too many families across the country left fighting for their children and, like Lindsey, having to take up campaigning roles, which are clearly exhausting.

Will the Minister and the Government back Lolly’s law and commit to a formal review of autism diagnosis pathways for girls and women, with particular attention paid to those currently diagnosed with personality disorders? Will the Department of Health and Social Care mandate anti-ligature safety standards across all NHS and private health in-patient units, and develop specialist suicide and self-harm prevention teams in children’s in-patient care? If not, will the Minister consider piloting some of those schemes? Will she agree to meet Lindsey Bridges, hear her proposals directly and consider supporting the formal introduction of Lolly’s law as part of a broader strategy to transform in-patient care? Finally, will the Government review the current use of out-of-area placements and set targets for their reduction?

Lolly’s law is not radical; it is responsible. It is about safeguarding and justice for those families. It is about listening, learning and delivering reform, so that nobody is failed again like this and no more lives are lost. It is within our power to build a system where care means connection, not containment, and one that understands autism rather than punishes or isolates those living with it. It would be a system where families are partners in care, not visitors trying to navigate a maze of red tape, and where features such as anti-ligature doors are not considered nice to have but essential.

Lindsey’s courage in the face of unimaginable loss is truly moving. I am here to stand beside her in calls for change. Lauren should still be here and we owe it to her and every young person like her to build a system that sees, supports and safeguards every child, not just in words but in actions.

Children’s Health

Rachel Taylor Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered children’s health.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this incredibly important debate. This Government’s ambition is to raise the healthiest generation of children ever. There is so much about improving child health in the 10-year plan, “Fit for the Future”. I am genuinely quite excited about the 10-year plan—maybe I am sad, but that is the sort of thing that excites me. I have been a GP for 30 years, and I have a special interest in child health and child mental health. I will talk briefly about prevention, mental health and then paediatric services.

First, obesity is a massive problem in young people. At the age of five, 10% of children are obese. By the age of 11, 22% are obese—and that does not count the children who are overweight. This starts in pregnancy. We must ensure that pregnant women have really healthy diets, because that reduces obesity. When a baby is born, parents need to be aware that follow-on milks and “hungry baby” milks are basically just milk packed full of sugar. That will not do the child any good. If they are hungry, they need to change their diet and possibly go on to solids. Baby snacks often look healthy—they might have a nice, healthy carrot on them—but when we look at what is in them, they are packed full of sugar as well. Parents need to have a clear idea of what is healthy, so that they can choose the healthiest foods for their children.

The Government are going to bring in a watershed for junk food advertising—it was going to be in October, but it is now promised for January 2026. That is incredibly important, because young people are very sensitive to advertising. A recent report in The BMJ found more than 90 different sponsorship deals in football and six other sports with foods that are high in fat, salt and sugar. We need to look at that issue, because young people look up to sports stars and are very influenceable. They have to advertise healthy foods, because otherwise we will continue to have an obesity epidemic.

In the 10-year plan I was delighted to see measures in the national planning policy framework about fast-food outlets near schools. We must stop those. They are cynically placed close to schools, and they are particularly prevalent in more deprived areas. A couple of other things that I am delighted about include free school meals for children from households in receipt of universal credit. Free school meals have an obvious relationship to obesity and tend to bring it down. I am also delighted that in the autumn we will look at school food standards, and hopefully reduce the amount of processed meat that seems to be in a lot of school foods. The other part of the 10-year plan that excites me is the mandatory health food sales with supermarkets. That has been evidenced to reduce obesity, so I am delighted about that. Let me move on quickly to physical exercise—I am keen for other Members to get the opportunity to talk—because 50% of children are not sufficiently active, and two-thirds cannot swim 25 metres.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the previous Government’s lack of investment in vital leisure facilities, such as the swimming pool in Atherstone in my constituency, which is overdue for renovation, is causing many of these problems? The lack of PE in schools and the lack of safe places for children to play, be active and get involved in sport is causing some of the obesity problems.

[Dr Opher]

I totally agree—indeed, my hon. Friend pre-empts some of my remarks.

Another proposal in the 10-year plan involves the investment, through Sports England, of £250 million into such opportunities for children. The Starlight Children’s Foundation promotes play and exercise, and I am a particular fan of adventure playgrounds in urban areas, which allow children to cut loose, particularly after school, expend energy, and have fun in a safe setting.

I am also working with colleagues on access to nature. It is incredibly important that every child has access to nature, so that they can explore nature and have that type of exercise. I also stress that 50% of children have active travel—bike or walking—to get themselves to school. Let us increase that; let us try to get more children cycling and walking to school, as that will increase their fitness.

Dental care is also in the 10-year plan. I am delighted to see that supervised brushing is already there, and also that fluoride varnish will be applied by people to prevent dental caries from occurring. I will give a quick shout-out on asthma prevention, which is key and all about air quality. I know some young people who, since the ultra low emission zone scheme was introduced, have stopped using their inhalers because pollution has gone down. That is something we must emphasise.

Haemochromatosis Screening

Rachel Taylor Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torcuil Crichton]

The hon. Gentleman’s interventions are always a blessing, never a curse. I have some information of particular interest to his part of the world later in my speech.

I have declared my interest, as I have haemochromatosis, but it is not just my experience, but that of my constituents and the make-up of my constituency in Na h-Eileanan an Iar that have spurred me to secure this debate. It is not all about me.

A groundbreaking DNA study headed by Professor Jim Flett Wilson of Edinburgh University discovered that the Western Isles are a hotspot for haemochromatosis, this genetic mutation that the body at some stage adopted for survival. People are at risk of developing the condition if both their parents have the faulty gene and they inherit one copy from each of them. They will not get haemochromatosis if only one of their parents carries the gene and they only get one copy, but there is a chance they could pass the gene on to their children. If people inherit two copies—that is, both their parents are carriers—they will not necessarily get haemochromatosis. About half of people with two copies of the faulty gene develop the condition, and it is not known exactly why.

What is known is that the Viking genes DNA study by Professor Jim Flett Wilson took DNA samples from islanders in Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles, and it threw up some amazing discoveries. People wanted to find out if they had Viking heritage, and many sent in swab samples and filled in the questionnaires in sufficient numbers for the scientists to crunch the numbers. I did not do that myself. Feeling Viking by name and by nature, I did not think it necessary.

Analysis of the data, and cross-examination with other gene studies, showed that in Orkney and Shetland, participants in the study had rare and unique cancer genes, which led to them being alerted to their condition. The study saved lives and is credited with doing so. The good news for the Western Isles—for Na h-Eileanan an Iar—is that no rare cancer genes were found. While the results are still being finalised, it is clear that the Western Isles are a hotspot for haemochromatosis and inherited high cholesterol, which can lead to heart disease.

According to Professor Flett Wilson, the numbers in the Western Isles are sufficiently high to justify population-wide screening. For instance, one in 212 people in the south and east of England carry two copies of the faulty gene, as opposed to one in 62 in the Outer Hebrides.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on genetic haemochromatosis, and my constituent Lorraine asked me to attend the debate. She suffers from the disease, and has found a way to manage it by donating blood regularly. She is pleased that genetic testing enabled her to know about her condition so she did not suffer severe organ damage, which can affect many people with the disease. Does my hon. Friend agree that genetic testing for those who are more likely to be diagnosed is essential if we are to help people lead healthy lives without the need for medical intervention?

[Torcuil Crichton]

I do indeed agree. Haemochromatosis, although widespread, was not widely known about until very recently, but genetic testing, as well as simple ferritin level tests, will inform many more people. Early intervention is vital to preventing people from developing crippling illnesses which might otherwise be wrongly ascribed to a condition other than haemochromatosis.

It is not just people such as my hon. Friend’s constituent who are affected. In Northern Ireland—or the north of Ireland, depending on how we view our maps—the situation is even more stark than it is in the Western Isles. Among the population of “Ulster Scots”, if I can call them that, there is a one in 123 occurrence of two faulty copies of the gene, which is similar to the incidence in mainland Scotland. The Catholic community in the north-west of Ireland have the highest concentration in the British Isles: one in 54 carry two faulty copies. On the basis of Professor Flett Wilson’s work, we can predict that one in 94 men in the Western Isles will develop HCT, and one in 80 men of north-west Irish ancestry—and the Irish diaspora is present in constituencies in Scotland, in London and across the United Kingdom—may have the condition, perhaps undetected and perhaps mis-diagnosed, and are possibly suffering from the long list of illnesses associated with an iron overload.

In Orkney and Shetland, analysis of the Viking genes study uncovered rare cancers and lives were saved. In my constituency, people who were found to have the HCT gene have been alerted by letter. The figures for the Western Isles do not include people who did not take part in the study, but they constitute a timely warning about the advisability of screening, a procedure that is not expensive. In the Hebrides, it looks as though we should act on the spike in iron overload. Professor Flett Wilson has recommended islands-wide screening for this common blood condition, but I want to go further: I think that everyone in the Western Isles, or Na h-Eileanan an Iar, should be screened for too much iron in their blood, but I think they should also be offered DNA tests across the board to show what other inherited conditions they might have.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Rachel Taylor Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 13th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison Hume]

I will make some progress, thank you.

It is still a crime, even when the person is of sound mind and even when it is their deeply considered wish. Anthony wanted a good death—he wanted to die peacefully and with grace, without pain and without profound suffering. He got that in a foreign country, far from home and far from family, because our laws force people like him to make that desperate journey abroad. That is why I support this Bill and, in particular, new clause 15, as there is no need for coroners to investigate an assisted death.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

One of my constituents told me of her mother’s pain in her last few months of suffering. It was so painful that she could not bear to be touched by my constituent or her brother. Now, both my constituent and her brother are facing post-traumatic stress disorder because of the difficult situation they witnessed while their mum was dying. Does my hon. Friend agree that if they had helped her to die in the way that this Bill allows, they should not then be subject to a coroner’s investigation? It is not going to help them, and it is not going to help their mother.

[Alison Hume]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case on behalf of her constituent. New clause 15 is a compassionate and practical clause, ensuring that the Bill works not only for the individual making the choice, but for the families they leave behind. Let us not turn our backs on people like Anthony and Louise; let us not make criminals out of the compassionate. The death of a loved one is always difficult. When someone has gone through the legal and safeguarded process of assisted dying, it is not right that their family should face an unnecessary, potentially lengthy and distressing coroner’s investigation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kohler]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Giving people a choice when they look on the internet and see how awful their death might be because of the shocking state of palliative care is not a free choice.

This is an extraordinary Bill. It has 55 clauses and 38 regulation-making powers, of which five are Henry VIII powers—in other words, powers to modify primary legislation. As Ruth Fox of the non-partisan Hansard Society, which is absolutely neutral on assisted dying, made clear, there are lots of powers in the Bill conferred on Ministers. Why is that a problem? Lord Hermer KC, the Attorney General, in his Bingham lecture last year, puts the point as follows:

“Henry VIII clauses…upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive. This not only strikes at the rule of law…but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty.”

I am afraid the Bill is an example of such excessive reliance. That is a major problem because in large part the safeguards are left to be decided by regulations. What level of qualification and training will doctors need to have? How will mental capacity be assessed? Who can be a proxy? What happens if the self-administration of drugs goes wrong and a person suffers complications but does not die? When pressed on the key safeguards and key issues, supporters of the Bill say that they are problems that can be approved later.

The same goes for how the Bill will actually be delivered. Will it be delivered by the NHS, and if so, how? Will private providers be commissioned, and if so, how, by who and on what terms? Will for-profit providers be allowed? All those questions go unanswered by the Bill. I had hoped that they would be answered in Committee, but they were not, and instead we got even more reliance on delegated powers.

First, that means that MPs cannot make a judgment about assisted dying and how it will work in practice. On training, for example, MPs might assume that the training provided will be a robust two-week course on assessing coercive control, but there is no such requirement in the Bill. Indeed, the impact assessment suggests that it would be a short course. Secondly, regulations cannot override statute and are ultimately bound by it. While it might be reassuring that a code of practice must be issued to take into account how depression can impair a person’s decision making, as the Royal College of Psychiatrists recently reminded us, that does not change the fact that impaired judgment does not mean that someone lacks capacity. Thirdly, leaving all those matters to be considered by guidance and regulations places them outside the democratic control of MPs. With limited exceptions, we will not get a vote on those regulations, and will have no input, directly or indirectly, in formulating them.

The case for the defence might be that reliance on such guidance and regulations is inevitable with a Bill of this complexity, but the experience of other common law jurisdictions suggests that that is not the case. In Victoria, the first Australian state to legalise assisted dying, there are only 20 pages of regulations and much more has been included in the Act, which is necessarily longer than the Bill before us. That is a good thing, as it means more parliamentary scrutiny.

I wholly understand why it was not possible for the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) to draft a Bill as detailed as the Australian Act before Second Reading, but I had hoped that with the help of Government resources, those gaps would have been filled in Committee and on Report. Sadly, that is not the case. [Interruption.] I had much more to speak about, but heeding your cough, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me say clearly that I will vote against the Bill, but even if Members disagree with me, they should please vote for my amendments.

[Rachel Taylor]

I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) who has exemplified the integrity and transparency that we need in public service.

I will speak about amendments 82 to 86, which were introduced by the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) earlier, because as a former lawyer, they concern me. In Committee, the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman) was clear that the panel’s decisions will be subject to public law principles. That will include procedural propriety and an absence of bias, including the appearance of bias. My concern is that the panel is deliberately designed to be inquisitorial. It is intended to collect information; it is not meant to be adversarial like a court.

[Dr Ben Spencer]

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

[Rachel Taylor]

No, I will make some progress. Requiring a judicial oath would be inappropriate because the panel is not performing a judicial function. It is a specialist, administrative panel whose first priority must be focused on safeguarding and the review of evidence.

[Jess Asato]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Rachel Taylor]

No, I will make some progress and expand on my point. Disqualifying retired and deputy judges would only shrink the pool of experienced candidates, and I do not believe that those changes would make the process safer, more effective or better. Instead, they would make it more difficult to appoint experts to allow the panel to function as the necessary safeguard that it needs to be.

Finally, I turn to the most important aspect of the Bill, which is those who are affected directly. Opponents present hypotheticals, but I have heard real stories from my constituents who support the Bill. One constituent told me about her husband who died of metastatic prostate cancer. He wanted to die at home, and despite the efforts of a dedicated palliative care team, his final month was marked by excruciating pain. Our constituents deserve better. They deserve the choice to say goodbye in peace, surrounded by loved ones, without unbearable pain. For me, this debate is about whether the status quo is acceptable. After hearing these stories and listening to lawyers and doctors, I know that it is not. If we vote in favour of the Bill, our constituents must be able to expect that it will be brought into law quickly. I therefore oppose amendment 42.

The British public overwhelmingly support the Bill. They are looking to this House for courage and leadership. That is why I will vote for the Bill, with the amendments that strengthen it. Let us bring dignity, peace and choice to those facing the end of their lives in difficulty and pain.

[Dr Ben Spencer]

Before I come to the substantive part of my speech, I would like to pick up on the comments of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor). I have signed the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen). I support them because I think the panel needs strengthening. It is not the case that courts have to be adversarial. Tribunals are set up to be inquisitive. In fact, the mental health tribunal is set up to be inquisitive. That is why, in Committee, I tabled amendments to use a tribunal panel as the mechanism for scrutinising decision making.

It has been a real pleasure to listen to the debate, particularly in relation to the prohibition of advertising, because the debate started to move to focus on the issue of suicide promotion and prevention. I have been quite concerned from the beginning that that has not been part of what we have been talking about. Duties to prevent suicide—whether they be doctors’ duties under article 2 of the European convention on human rights, the NHS’s clinical duties around suicide prevention, or duties relating to the Mental Health Act 1983—are a blind spot in the Bill.

The reason why the issue has not been focused on until now is that the Bill has been framed as the assisted dying Bill, as opposed to the assisted suicide Bill. I blame myself in part for that, because I started by called it physician-assisted suicide, but then I started using the term “assisted dying” because it was in common parlance and it was what everyone was using. The problem is that it frames it as something else. It frames it as reducing the dying process as opposed to what it is, which is an act to end somebody’s life. That is why the Bill amends the Suicide Act, and it is why I have tabled similar amendments on how it is conceptualised.

National Cancer Plan

Rachel Taylor Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Gwynne]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being smoke-free. Hopefully, he is the first of many as we move towards a smoke-free UK by 2030. He makes a real and serious point about not just community care—one of the big shifts in the health mission is from hospital to community—but how we approach the hospice sector. Last weekend I was at my local hospice, Willow Wood in Ashton-under-Lyne, where staff made exactly the same point. That will be fed into the national cancer plan.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement, and particularly for his deep understanding of women’s health issues and the difficulty that many women face in getting their GP to understand what they are going through. The Women and Equalities Committee has spent some time looking at that this year.

The George Eliot hospital in my constituency serves many of my constituents, who often complain about the length of time it takes to get scan results. Between June 2023 and 2024, almost 12% of people waited more than 28 days to receive MRI results, compared with 6.5% nationally. I know that the team there are working very hard to bring the time down, but can the Minister reassure my constituents that the use of AI will speed up the time it takes for them to get their scan results and the treatment they need?

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend makes some really important points. The need to get people scanned more quickly, and to get results to consultants, is in part why we now have extra capacity through community diagnostic centres, where there are extra facilities for scans. She is absolutely right to raise the issue of where AI and emerging technologies may take us, which will almost certainly lead to faster identification of cancers.