Puberty Blockers

Richard Quigley Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

I must confess that Opposition days are beginning to feel a little bit like groundhog day. A party that largely sat on its hands during some of the most significant and difficult challenges is now returning to tell us where this Government are going wrong, and doing so with all the fervour of a party that has never held power, let alone governed for 14 years. Just to warn everyone, I will not be taking interventions.

This is a deeply emotional issue, and I recognise that it provokes strong and differing views across the House. I am not here to shout down or dismiss any perspective. I have never had to face this decision myself, either as a parent or as a young person. It is a decision that invites intense scrutiny and judgment, often unfairly casting those involved as villains for doing what they believe is right for a child. We would all do well to remember that we can never truly know what it is like to walk in someone else’s shoes.

Too often, this debate has been shaped by vilification and misinformation, much of it amplified by opposition voices and anonymous social media accounts, to the detriment of one of our most vulnerable communities. We hear the warped suggestion that people simply wake up one day and decide on a whim to embark on years of hormone treatment, to face discrimination and to fight for legal recognition, or, worse, that clinicians involved are reckless experimenters intent on subjecting vulnerable children to harm.

The Conservatives are, of course, entitled to their opposition, but what alternative are they actually proposing? As usual, they have found an apparent problem, but where is their suggested solution? Is it to return to a time when children experiencing gender incongruence were ignored or dismissed as an inconvenience? That approach belongs to the era of section 28, not to 2026. If their answer is an outright ban, they risk driving vulnerable young people into what Dr Hilary Cass has described as

“unregulated and dangerous routes.”

We are already seeing reports of children presenting at clinics having already accessed irreversible treatments at a very young age.

The outrage we hear today about so-called experimentation rings hollow when it is accompanied by no viable alternative, only a return to the same vacuum that previously existed. I do not suggest that this trial will provide all the answers, but it is undeniably better than turning our backs on a complex reality and leaving young people without safe, supported options.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Quigley]

I will not, I am afraid—I did warn you, although I do like the hon. Gentleman very much.

[Dr Arthur]

Not too much.

[Richard Quigley]

Not enough to give way.

If we cannot trust Dr Hilary Cass, the author of a report that the Conservative party itself has endorsed, when she says she is

“absolutely convinced that more children will be harmed if we don’t do the trial than if we do,”

who exactly are we prepared to trust? Do we follow the evidence, the clinicians and the science, or do we retreat into denial, burying our heads in the sand and pretending that trans people do not exist and have never existed? The process the Government have chosen to follow is not reckless; it is rigorous. The MHRA and King’s College London have undertaken detailed scientific scrutiny, and a revised protocol has been agreed that meets the highest regulatory and ethical standards. That is exactly what responsible, evidence-led policymaking looks like.

It is up to us to decide what kind of Parliament we want to be: one that confronts complex and sensitive issues with care, compassion and evidence, or one that turns away, leaving vulnerable young people to navigate these challenges alone and in the shadows. For me, the choice is clear: we owe it to those young people not to look away, not to inflame and not to exploit, but to act, guided by science, led by compassion and grounded in responsibility. I am once again proud to be part of a Government who are doing just that.

Isle of Wight Dementia Patients: Discharge to Mainland Care Homes

Richard Quigley Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

I am grateful to have secured my first Adjournment debate as an MP on an issue that has resonated so deeply with many residents across the Isle of Wight, whether they are directly touched by dementia or not. I put on record my thanks to those across the island who have contacted me and are passionately fighting for their family member or friend during their time of need. It really shows the best of our island, and it makes me even more proud to represent Isle of Wight West in this place.

I also thank the Minister for her engagement to date with me and my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), on the wider issue of patient discharges off the island. I will continue to do all that I can to work across the island and with Government to help find a solution.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for securing this debate, and I strongly support him on this issue. People living with dementia and their families deserve care close to home, and should not have to cross oceans or seas and get trains to get the support that they need. I want to recognise the dedicated workers across Portsmouth North who support those people’s families. In my constituency, cuts to dementia nursing have led to some of my constituents—and my team—visiting the Isle of Wight, where we saw the Parklands Dementia Resource Centre, which is an excellent example of what can be done. Will my hon. Friend expand on Parklands’ work, and join me in urging the Minister to consider more dementia hubs in under-served communities?

[Richard Quigley]

I thank my hon. Friend for that timely intervention. Before I get into the deeply troubling accounts that have been brought to me, I pay tribute to Maggie Bennett and her team who run the Parklands Alzheimer’s café. While the café cannot offer overnight accommodation, it offers vital respite for carers. Loved ones can spend a great day at the café, doing activities, chatting over tea and cake and even getting their hair cut. However, for island dementia sufferers, that is where the happy story ends.

The issue of mainland discharges has struck a chord across the island because it goes to the heart of many of the other inequalities my constituents have been expected simply to accept as part island life. We are the only English island where the sole means of transport on and off is entirely privately operated. Coupled with that, we have only a small specialist dementia in-patient ward, and no dedicated long-term NHS dementia provision. There is a very real fear that when someone is at their most vulnerable, where they live will determine how they are treated and whether they are afforded the dignity they deserve: the dignity of being close to family, of continuity in care, and of remaining in the place they call home.

For those unfamiliar with the situation, the recent closure of three care homes on the Isle of Wight, including one in Freshwater in my constituency, has led to 44 residents being displaced, with 10 already placed in care homes on the mainland. The niece of one resident living with dementia contacted my office to say that she is terrified that her uncle will die in his proposed placement in Horsham, 70 miles away,

“alone, confused and feeling that no one cares.”

Worse still, his family have been told that if they do not accept the placement, they will be liable to pay £500 a day for the hospital bed he will need to occupy.

Other than a few brief periods away, the Isle of Wight is the only home that Phyllis, Adam and Rob Snow’s 87-year-old island-born mother, has ever known. Phyllis now requires round-the-clock care due to a brutal combination of dementia and Parkinson’s, and her family are absolutely terrified by reports of patients like her being relocated to the mainland. With Phyllis already having been stuck on a hospital ward for months, her family are in a lose-lose situation: they either watch her become more vulnerable to infection the longer she spends in hospital, or push for a care home release only for her to be relocated miles away from the only home she has ever known.

It is important to understand how dementia care is currently funded on the Isle of Wight. Much of our provision relies on a limited number of block-booked beds commissioned by the local authority, layered on to an adult social care budget that is already under severe strain.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is giving a typically excellent and passionate speech. No person living with dementia should be removed from their family or support network. Does he agree that as the NHS is restructured, there needs to be a proper focus on outcomes for dementia sufferers right across the country?

[Richard Quigley]

I could not agree more; a national dementia strategy is of the utmost importance. As I will go on to say, we currently have a situation where people are being moved away from home or where the care they need just is not available.

Nationally, 87% of care services are now commissioned by councils or the NHS at rates below the true cost of care, and locally contracts are being let at around £24 an hour—only 84% of the Homecare Association’s minimum recommended rate. Within that model, smaller island providers are often subcontracted by larger mainland-based organisations at even lower rates. Despite demand continuing to rise, the island is one of the only authorities inadvertently forcing local care providers to make staff redundant or even consider closure, simply because the funding does not stack up and because price increases are not being passed on to those smaller providers by first-tier commissioning organisations. I strongly urge the Minister to press Isle of Wight council to ensure that any funding uplift reaches the frontline providers that are actually delivering care.

Once again, with no dedicated long-term NHS dementia ward on the island, as soon as those block contracts are full, as they increasingly are, there is simply nowhere else for people to go. At that point, decisions are no longer driven by what is best for the individual, but by whatever capacity happens to be available.

The closure of three care homes this year has not occurred in a vacuum. In 2022, the island lost six care homes. With one third of our population aged 65 and over, alongside staff turnover rates that are significantly higher than the national average, this is a system already under immense strain. While dementia care on the Isle of Wight is delivered across a mix of NHS, council and private provision, the reality is that the capacity and specialist care has not been enough for some time.

This is not just an island problem; it is a warning of what lies ahead for the country as our population ages. In making that point, I wish to strongly advocate for any measures the Government consider adopting to confront this national challenge being piloted on the Isle of Wight, where the need is greatest and where meaningful change can be delivered most urgently and, most importantly, measured in almost real time. What makes the Isle of Wight a particularly stark case is the added cruelty of our geography: the reality that families must cross the Solent, which some estimates have placed as the most expensive stretch of water in Europe, in order to visit a loved one who is sick and in need of care that simply cannot be provided closer to home.

Eighty-two-year-old Graham Martin, who is living with dementia, is yet another example of the impact of this reality. In mid-April, he was moved to Southampton against the wishes of his family because of his complex needs, separating him from his wife of 63 years, Carol, who is unable to travel to visit him due to her own health and the cost of ferry travel. Being moved away from home, across a stretch of water, is distressing enough; being effectively cut off from loved ones because they cannot afford or physically manage the journey, at the very moment that people need their family most, borders on forced isolation.

As the niece of another patient facing a mainland placement said to me, “Imagine a vulnerable elderly resident in Westminster being sent to a care home on the Isle of Wight. It simply would not happen.” It would not happen because in other parts of the country, the system would not tolerate separating vulnerable people from their families in this way, yet for the Isle of Wight, that basic standard is not applied.

MPs and Ministers all the way up to the Prime Minister have heard me talk relentlessly about how the island is a brilliant place to live, work and learn, and despite my intervention today I still believe that to be the case. But that comes despite the inequality and deprivation we face, which is hidden by neighbouring prosperity. Whether it is schools unable to take a trip across the Solent due to budgetary constraints, young workers having to look for jobs elsewhere due to lack of opportunity, or—as I have spoken about today—an elderly person ripped away from their home because of lack of capacity, the Isle of Wight has been functioning with one arm tied behind its back. The time has come to do something about it.

When capacity on the island runs out—and without the necessary action, it inevitably will—people are not just delayed but displaced. What should be an absolute last resort for the most vulnerable people is fast becoming a routine response, with elderly people being sent miles from their home simply because the system cannot cope. That is neither sustainable nor dignified, and it cannot be allowed to continue. I ask the Minister to take action for the benefit of my Isle of Wight residents.

Therapeutic Play and Children’s Healthcare

Richard Quigley Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the hon. Member for his powerful intervention. I hope that we hear from the Minister how such services can be sustained, given some of the shortfalls that have been described.

In reality, medicine and play are not in competition. When clinicians took playful approaches or when health play specialists were involved, Hari was far more willing to engage with difficult treatments, helping them to go much more smoothly. The culmination of that was an MRI scan that Hari did, fully awake, at four years old, avoiding the need for general anaesthetic. The health play specialist prepared Hari for this potentially scary and challenging ordeal by playing with a Lego scan machine, and playing the sound of an MRI while talking him through that process.

[Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate and for the important work that he and Starlight have done so far on this issue. Does he agree that ensuring there is effective play within children’s healthcare not only helps create happier, calmer patients but delivers real benefits for the NHS by enabling quicker, smoother procedures and reducing overall costs?

[Mr Bailey]

I know that my hon. Friend has been raising this subject on behalf of his local community and I agree with his sentiment.

Sadly, after Hari was discharged from hospital, that same quality of play-centred care was not always there for him. He needed 130 blood tests, and the lack of play contributed to these often being traumatic experiences where Hari had to be held down, violating the safe space of his own home.

Moles: Histological Testing

Richard Quigley Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered histological testing of excised moles.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine.

Many of those present may not yet be familiar with the name Zoe Panayi. If they are, it is likely to be because of my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), who spoke about Zoe at Prime Minister’s questions two weeks ago. For Zoe’s family, the five years since her tragic death have meant that their daughter, sister, mother and friend has come to represent something far greater—a legacy that continues to grow and touch lives beyond their own. I welcome Charlie, Zoe’s brother, to Westminster Hall today.

Zoe was like so many other 26-year-olds. She was a devoted mother to her two boys, a loyal friend to many across the island and a young woman full of promise. Despite her age, Zoe made a remarkable impact on our community. She volunteered as a carer, and later trained to become a radiologist at St Mary’s hospital. That is what makes Zoe’s story so heartbreaking. While she was dedicating herself to caring for others, her own health concerns were repeatedly dismissed.

On the morning of Zoe’s eventual diagnosis, she woke up in pain, but brushed off her concerns, telling her mum that she had been teaching her boys how to do roly-polies—which many Members will know is, as an adult, no mean feat—and must have hurt herself that way. But that evening Zoe was in such excruciating pain that she was taken to hospital where, upon being tested by her boss at St Mary’s, she was told that her liver was full of cancer.

Doctors asked Zoe whether any moles on her body had been causing her concern. She then realised that the small mole on her back was the root of her cancer. Zoe died just 55 days after that diagnosis, and in those 55 days she had to try to explain to a five-year-old and a seven-year-old that mummy would soon not be coming home, and would instead become an angel. I do not bring that up purely to cause upset, but to emphasise Zoe’s outstanding bravery at such a young age in ensuring her boys were prepared for the unthinkable.

Zoe had not ignored her symptoms; she did everything right. She visited her GP on three separate occasions asking that her mole be tested, yet she was told that her pain was caused by the mole rubbing against her jeans, and that she was too young for it to be clinically concerning. On her third visit, Zoe was told that if it bothered her that much, she should get her mole removed cosmetically. Zoe even paid for her mole to be tested after removal at the beauticians, yet it never was.

There is no doubt that Zoe was failed by her GP, who sent her a letter of apology after learning of her diagnosis, and that Zoe was failed deeply by her beautician, who failed to recognise her cancer or even to send her mole for testing. Zoe’s concerns should never have been dismissed, she should never have been referred out of the NHS, and the mole, which was actually a melanoma, should never have been removed. I welcome the fact that the Minister has enacted Jess’s rule, meaning that on the third time of asking, Zoe’s concerns may have brought about a different outcome.

We are not here today because Zoe’s family want to cast blame; we are here because Zoe’s family want to make sure that what happened to their daughter, their sister and their mother will never have to happen to anyone else again. The safeguard we are asking for is simple: that all healthcare providers must test the lesions they remove. This extra check—a “Zoe check”—would prevent tragedies like Zoe’s from occurring.

Over the past months I have spoken with a range of doctors across the NHS and in the private sector, and reassuringly—although it is not mandated—what we are asking for is already standard practice in the NHS for GPs and dermatologists. To avoid that one in a 1,000 case, removed skintags, moles or blemishes, however harmless they look, are almost always sent for testing. NHS doctors order these tests as a matter of routine, and many good private dermatologists insist on including a biopsy before agreeing to treatment in the first place. The tests are relatively cheap, with lab fees around £100. To put that into perspective, the cost of Zoe’s cancer treatment could have funded over 650 biopsies.

Using state-of-the-art technology, we could go further. Trials are under way for handheld equipment that can test for melanoma by using artificial intelligence systems to analyse high-definition photographs of skin lesions. If those trials prove successful, the cost of Zoe’s treatment could have funded thousands of pre-treatment checks. The checks are cheap, immediate and, with proper training, could easily be deployed in beauty clinics and other non-medical environments. If we combine them with specific melanoma training for all professionals who encounter skin lesions, and encourage GPs and others to take up that training, that approach could significantly improve early detection and reduce the need for costly and often unsuccessful late-stage cancer interventions.

Cancer is not a place to cut corners. Although they are not mandatory, histology tests are already routine practice for benign moles and other lesions in both NHS and private dermatology alike. Zoe’s law would ensure that a similar safeguard is applied across the board, from NHS hospitals to private dermatologists and beauty clinics. That would demand more from the clinics that are currently the least regulated. But we should demand more, because this is about protecting the NHS, which will ultimately pick up the bill when those clinics fail, and it is about protecting families like Zoe’s from the grief of a tragic and unnecessary death.

I thank the Minister for her engagement, and I am genuinely encouraged by the seriousness with which her Department has adopted the issue. Zoe’s family has said that they feel they have got further than ever before over the past weeks, and that they feel listened to. I thank the Minister very much for that, but this can only be the start, and whatever form Zoe’s law eventually takes, we must not stop until we get there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Quigley]

I thank the Minister for her remarks. I do not think anyone would question her passion and commitment to this cause. I thank her for previously sharing her own diagnosis. It is important that people understand that cancer can affect anybody. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse)—and it would not be a debate without the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) making some contribution.

Zoe Panayi did everything right. She sought help and she trusted the system, and yet the safeguards that should have protected her did not. That is why this debate matters. Zoe’s law is not about blame; it is about prevention. It is about making sure that every mole removed is tested. That is a small step with a profound impact—one that could save lives, reduce the burden on the NHS and spare families unimaginable grief. The cost is not preventable: the technology exists and the reason is clear —cancer is not a place to cut corners.

I know that all the contributions we have heard today mean such a lot to Zoe’s family, her brother Charlie, and mum Eileen watching at home. We must not forget the human tragedy behind this story: the children who have lost a mother, the family who have lost a sister and a daughter, and the community who have lost a friend. That is why Zoe’s law is so important. I urge the Department to continue working with Zoe’s family, with me and with my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), who has shared so much of his own journey, making such a difference. I thank him for his commitment to this cause, and for the support and extremely generous amount of time that he has given me. We need to make this safeguard a reality so that what happened to Zoe is never repeated.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered histological testing of excised moles.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Quigley Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

As I have pointed out, we are providing unprecedented levels of funding for hospices, but there is clearly a challenging fiscal position. I note that in their manifesto the Liberal Democrats proposed to spend only an extra £8 billion on health and care, whereas we have invested £26 billion. Before calling for more spending, they should tell us what they would cut.

[Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

T8. I welcome the changes in the GP booking system, but in many cases it is still very difficult to obtain a GP appointment on the Isle of Wight. A large factor in that is the difficulty of recruiting GPs to the island. Will the Minister assure me that he will investigate all options for improving GP recruitment to coastal, rural and island communities, like mine?

[Stephen Kinnock]

Through a £160 million investment in the additional roles reimbursement scheme, we have recruited more than 2,000 new GPs nationwide, but we recognise the inequities in funding that can exacerbate regional inequalities in access to services. I have launched a review of the GP funding formula to ensure that funding follows the needs of the population. The National Institute for Health and Care Research has begun a review of the Carr-Hill funding formula, which will conclude in six months’ time.

Mental Health Bill [Lords]

Richard Quigley Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Evans]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that that support needs to be there. Fortunately, it is not the budget that is reducing but the proportion of funding, and it shows the priorities of this Government when it comes to mental health.

I am concerned that without new clause 29, a child may be harmed or traumatised and placed in an adult ward without proper justification—and it will be little comfort for the family to hear that guidance was breached.

Amendment 41 stands up for the simple but vital principle that when a child is detained under the Mental Health Act, the person legally recognised to act for them—their nominated person—should hold parental responsibility. Only where there are legitimate safeguarding concerns should that be set aside. At first glance, this may seem technical, but it speaks to something profound about how the law views childhood, family and the balance between protection and autonomy.

The Government are right to use the Bill to modernise the old “nearest relative” system, which was too rigid, too bound by bloodline and at times blind to the complexities of family life. Under the Bill, however, a child under 16 deemed competent could nominate any adult—that could be a 19-year-old boyfriend or peer or someone exercising control—and once nominated, that person gets full control. It is a legal authority. We need to ensure that protection is there for the person if there is a breakdown on the family side. [Interruption.] I see that Madam Deputy Speaker is encouraging me to wind up, so I will solidify my comments into a more erudite approach.

The point is that in law this principle is already clear in the Children Act 1989, which defined it as the foundation stone of what families should look like. With this amendment, I believe we have solved the concerns the Minister had at Committee stage about the state of a family in the modern era. In any other walk of life the legal framework exists, so why would we weaken it when it comes to mental health?

We discussed the issues with A&E and the grey area there in Committee, and I was grateful to the Minister for meeting beforehand to discuss them. I know that he took on my comments about solving the practicalities, and I hope he will look at them seriously.

For this House, there is no greater moral burden than deciding for someone who cannot decide for themselves—where care ends and where control begins. That is exactly what the House is addressing with this Bill: how to protect without diminishing, how to act with compassion without surrendering precision, and how to empower without imposing. Involuntary care must never be the reflex of a system, be it under pressure or out of principle. The House agrees on this position; the challenge is delivery. Compassion demands more than good intentions. It demands delivery, discipline and detail. With this Bill, the Opposition lays the challenge of delivery. It must be not just a pledge but a plan. The public will judge us all not just on how kindly this House speaks, but on how faithfully it serves those who depend on us most.

[Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

I will speak to new clauses 28 and 36 and amendment 39, which I tabled not just as an MP but as a father. After what my family have been through, I believe that any parent would do the same.

Yesterday, alongside the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), I had the privilege of hearing Dr Kate Szymankiewicz speak about her daughter Ruth. She shared not only the tragic circumstances of Ruth’s death but the type of person Ruth was: her dream of becoming a vet, her kindness, and how friends described her as a character straight out of an Enid Blyton novel. That is the Ruth her family remember and cherish. As parents, we became part of a world we never wanted to know. I am privileged to have met Kate, but we agreed that we wished our paths had never crossed because of what that meant.

Ruth was admitted to an in-patient facility for treatment of an eating disorder, but instead of receiving the care she needed, her family were shut out and allowed only two two-hour visits per week. They spent more time travelling than they did with their daughter. Ruth was just 14 years old when she fatally self-harmed, just five months into her stay.

Three months from that date, my family were faced with the same hospital, Huntercombe, as the only choice of a bed for our daughter. At that same hospital, when a child asked if they could have an extra type of jam for breakfast in the morning, they were told it did not have the budget, and when asked why Minstrels were no longer part of snack time, they were told that they were eating too many. That is the problem with NHS-funded private provision: even at £900 a night, the operators plead poverty.

My wife and I have two vivid memories of our youngest being prised from us without any warning. We thought that was normal. Six months of nasogastric tube feeding—we thought that was normal. Illegal restraint so bad that it caused post-traumatic stress disorder—we thought that was normal. Forgetting to feed our daughter 11 times—we started to realise that that was normal, but not acceptable. Instead of wishing to improve its practice, the hospital has accused me of making this up.

If a child is facing any other physical illness such as cancer, or even something more short-term that requires a hospital stay, parental visits and involvement are quite rightly seen as a means of enhancing care. I genuinely struggle to understand why our clinical consensus around mental health continues to support a model where already vulnerable children are isolated from their parents—the very people who know and love them most. Children on these wards are treated as wilful—they are not; they are children—and without empathy or sympathy. Many consultants we encountered opted not to apply the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. Staff were poorly trained and in fear of psychiatrists, who ruled the roost and prevented people from speaking up. The private equity firms are focused not on long-term treatment but just on turning mental health into money.

My amendments do not seek to undermine the Bill’s strengths, nor the important work undertaken by the Department. In fact, the cross-party support I have received, including from the right hon. Member for Salisbury, reflects how uncontroversial they are.

The Minister and I have had robust and constructive discussions on the matter, but I ask him to confirm that he will do everything in his power to ensure the following. Parents must not be shut out of their child’s care, as evidence shows that regular parental contact enhances care outcomes. The placement of children on adult mental health wards under the Mental Health Act must be limited strictly to exceptional circumstances, and practitioners must be actively compelled where appropriate to involve themselves in the development and delivery of a child’s care and treatment plan.

We have a duty to ensure that the tragic circumstances surrounding Ruth’s death are never repeated. The Government were elected with a phenomenal majority, winning places we never thought possible—including my own constituency of Isle of Wight West—on a platform of meaningful change. If we do not use this moment to do the right thing and acknowledge that children in mental health services need their parents more often than not, I fear that we may never get another chance.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Eating Disorders: Prevention of Deaths

Richard Quigley Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of the prevention of deaths from eating disorders.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank all hon. Members for attending this debate on a topic extremely close to my heart. As hon. Members may know by now, I am the very proud Member for Isle of Wight West and do my utmost to champion the island in this place, but I have brought forward this debate not only as an MP, but as a father who for some years was genuinely fearful as to whether I would see my child reach their 18th birthday.

From the moment someone becomes a parent, their instinct is to protect and nurture their children—often, admittedly, much easier said than done—yet nothing can truly prepare anyone for the overwhelming sense of powerlessness that comes when their child develops an eating disorder. Eating disorders, in all their destructive forms, are one of the few types of illness where the person affected does not want to recover and they actively work against you. Watching your child struggle not only with the illness but with the very treatments meant to help them is truly something I would not wish on any parent, yet it is the reality faced by thousands of parents, families and friends up and down the country.

We all know by now that the pandemic has taken a wrecking ball to children and young people’s mental health, but we cannot pretend that these issues do not predate 2020. Since the mid-1990s, eating disorders have been found to carry the highest mortality rate of any psychiatric illness. However, in the UK, we are unable even to quantify the true havoc that eating disorders cause, because of the lack of a national register for eating disorder deaths. The most recent year with confirmed data from the Office for National Statistics is 2019, when 36 deaths were recorded. However, a US study suggests that the real figure in the UK could be closer to 1,860 deaths, which I am sure people in this room would more than agree with.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

A constituent got in touch with me because sadly his daughter did not see her 30th birthday owing to an eating disorder. The point that my constituent made was that that was in part because of a lack of adequate services for those affected by these life-threatening conditions. Does the hon. Member agree?

[Mr Quigley]

I agree entirely. We are fully aware of the political situation and the condition that the NHS was left in under the previous Government, but the point of today’s debate is not to make cheap political attacks; it is to focus on the matter in hand, which is eating disorders, so I thank the hon. Member for his intervention.

With widespread under-reporting, misclassification and inconsistencies across the country, many of these deaths are wrongly recorded as organ failure, masking the true role of eating disorders and preventing us from fully grasping the scale of the crisis, especially among otherwise healthy young people.

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, further to masking the scale of the crisis, excluding eating disorders as a contributing factor on death certificates also cruelly extends the pain that families feel, insinuating that otherwise healthy young people have died from organ failure?

[Mr Quigley]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important point—it does. The loss of a loved one is harrowing enough without the true cause not being recorded. That is why we are calling for a confidential inquiry into eating disorder deaths.

Given the concerns about under-reporting and inconsistencies in the data, it is even more alarming to read the findings from the Health Service Journal that revealed that between 2018 and 2023, 19 deaths related to eating disorders could have been entirely avoided. These tragic outcomes are attributed to severe failures in care, including missed or poorly managed safety risks, a lack of specialist knowledge among healthcare professionals and unacceptable delays in accessing appropriate treatment. If I were to ask for a show of hands in this room, I am sure many would be raised on that point.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

As the MP for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, I take a great interest in the progress of the Norfolk and Suffolk NHS foundation trust under the leadership of Caroline Donovan and Zoë Billingham, who I met recently in Parliament. Does my hon. Friend agree that early intervention is no more expensive and in many cases cheaper than delayed intervention, but is much more effective and saves lives?

[Mr Quigley]

I thank my hon. Friend for his extremely pertinent point. Early intervention saves not only lives but a huge amount in costs to the NHS.

I know the vast majority of NHS staff go above and beyond to support patients, often under immense pressure, and many of us here would like to put on record our thanks to them. However, these failures point to a systemic issue.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

One of the issues in geographically remote areas like Carlisle and Cumbria is that, sadly, the in-patient treatment for young people with eating disorders is delivered by an out-of-area NHS trust. Tragically, the inquest into the death of a young woman from my constituency earlier this year found that there had been a failure in collaboration between the two trusts, resulting, sadly, in her death. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just a question of resource, and that we also need a culture of collaboration and patient-centred care across all our trusts if we are going to prevent deaths?

[Mr Quigley]

It is true that a lack of understanding among professionals about the severity of the problem contributes to the situation. To have it put down to a lack of collaboration would be infuriating for that parent, as well as truly tragic.

We know well by now that early intervention is crucial for identifying and supporting recovery in patients with eating disorders. However, as a parent of someone affected, I must say that has not been my experience on the ground. Hospital admissions for eating disorders have surged, exceeding 30,000 for the first time in 2023-24, which is a 60% increase compared with pre-pandemic levels. While the NHS struggles to meet this growing demand, private equity firms are profiting from the crisis by owning many of the in-patient units the NHS depends on.

[John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that his point highlights the urgent need for the Department to examine the influence of private equity in NHS in-patient mental health services? It is vital that private sector involvement complements the NHS’s mission to deliver high-quality patient-centred care and does not serve as a vehicle for profit-making at the expense of vulnerable patients.

[Mr Quigley]

My hon. Friend is entirely correct. Our experience of private equity is that it is selective in terms of the patients accepted. It profits from misery. We were put in the awful position of having to choose to send our youngest child to a hospital that had just seen the tragic death of Ruth Szymankiewicz—I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Ruth’s parents. Our second trip to a private equity-run hospital led to them forgetting to feed my daughter 11 times. My hon. Friend’s point is, unfortunately, well made.

More concerning still is that I do not believe that our approach to treatment is changing year on year to confront the heightened demand. If these admission increases were associated with a disease such as cancer, the treatment would quite rightly adapt. Our approach to mental health treatment, especially eating disorders, remains stagnant, outdated and alarmingly resistant to progress.

Another deeply concerning issue is how we respond when patients with severe anorexia refuse treatment and are subsequently diagnosed as terminally anorexic, a classification that holds precedent in UK Court of Protection rulings. In such cases, treatment may be withdrawn entirely, resulting in preventable deaths, such as that of a young patient known as BG who tragically died aged 19 in 2022. For those who may argue that treatment will be withdrawn only when a patient is terminally ill, I point to the case of Patricia, previously deemed untreatable by the Court of Protection, only to have the judgment overturned last month—August 2025. That reversal highlights not only the fallibility of such decisions but the danger in labelling eating disorder patients as beyond help.

We cannot ignore the fact that eating disorder deaths are most likely to occur due to suicide. Following an evidence session of the eating disorders all-party parliamentary group, one expert stated that their research found that anorexia sufferers are 18 times more likely and bulimia sufferers seven times more likely to die from suicide than the average patient, due to a combination of pre-existing and untreated mental health conditions, early discharge and the physical effects of eating disorder recovery triggering suicidal ideation. I do not wish to pre-empt the response from the Minister, who I know is keen to make improvements in this area, but I believe that eating disorders must be included in the suicide prevention strategy if we are to meaningfully tackle this worrying trend and stop patients from falling between the gaps in the already patchy world of child and adolescent mental health service provision.

The eating disorders APPG and campaigners from Dump the Scales are urgently calling for a confidential inquiry into avoidable deaths of eating disorder patients. Eating disorders are treatable illnesses. They are dangerous and life-threatening when untreated, under-treated or poorly treated. The risk to life is entirely preventable; deaths from eating disorders are not inevitable. With integrated, well-resourced and evidence-based treatment, recovery is possible, even in the most severe cases and after many years of suffering. Despite that, coroners, families and communities continue to see too many lives needlessly lost. That should not happen, and it does not need to be that way.

Although the facts I have set out today are difficult and harrowing, they must be heard. I also believe, however, that there are reasons to remain hopeful. I know at first hand that the Department, right up to the Secretary of State, is committed to improving outcomes and getting this right. As a Back Bencher, and more importantly as a father, I see it as my responsibility to push for this change to go further and faster.

[Jade Botterill (Ossett and Denby Dale) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing such an important debate. I recently met a constituent who has been living with an eating disorder for years and who raised a number of important issues. She is fortunate to have a loving, supportive family but they often feel the system is impossible to navigate. Would my hon. Friend join me in encouraging the Minister to look at how the Government can support the families and loved ones of those living with an eating disorder, and to consider how care could be better structured to effectively treat the combined mental and physical effects of eating disorders in healthcare settings?

[Mr Quigley]

I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent intervention. I agree that this is a family-wide illness. We must reach the point where no one in the UK dies from an eating disorder, where every individual—man, woman, girl, boy—regardless of age, location or clinical classification has access to the support they need when they need it.

I want to finish with the story of a young woman called Zara. She was diagnosed with anorexia nervosa in May 2013 and was admitted to an eating disorder unit almost immediately. Instead of being good news for her recovery, that was when the nightmare began. From May 2013 to June 2021, Zara endured 13 in-patient admissions across seven different units, including three years as a continuous in-patient, nearly two of which she spent without leaving one of the units or going outside. With each admission, her eating disorder and mental health deteriorated further.

During that time Zara was restrained daily, often by a minimum of six people holding her down. She received very little therapy; instead there was a culture of patient blaming and shaming. In the last two years of her life, Zara was crying out for help but no one would listen. The eating disorder unit eventually discharged her completely, handing her over to the community mental health team. Her mum, who is with us today, spent nearly every day taking ligatures off her neck, lifting her down from a wardrobe when she was nearly unconscious, and performing CPR when she was found unresponsive in the shower.

Zara’s mum states there was little to no support from the community psychiatrist; her family were left to cope alone. No matter how much they pleaded for help, it was a constant battle and they never received the support Zara so desperately needed. Zara should never have died of this illness. There was a whole world out there for her and she had so much to give, but ultimately she felt everyone had given up on her. She was only 24 when she died, but she was exhausted and did not know any other way to keep going without support.

Unfortunately, Zara’s story is just one of many, and it is a story unfolding for countless others across the country. Behind these tragedies are systemic failures, often overlooked and hidden behind a lack of national data, questionable legal decision making and cost-saving agendas. In many parts of the UK, the treatments available to patients are not supported by evidence and can even be harmful, rather than providing integrated and evidence-based care. Underfunded services and poorly trained staff often leave high-risk patients institutionalised or without any meaningful or appropriate support. The system currently fails to listen to those who matter most—the patients, their families and supporters. Too often, it fosters a harmful culture of patient blaming rather than delivering compassionate, personalised care that supports recovery. We now know that eating disorders do not discriminate, and neither should our services.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Quigley]

I thank the Minister for his response and all hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions. It has been truly heartening. This is the main message I hope to leave today: one death from any eating disorder is one too many. These deaths are not inevitable; they are preventable, yet far too many lives have already been lost, and far too many people continue to suffer needlessly.

I am pleased that the Minister and the Department have committed forcefully to improving the area, and to working with members of the APPG and me. We look forward to launching our report, at the end of October, on preventing eating disorder deaths. I hope to see many of my colleagues there when we do.

Lastly, I pay tribute to Zara’s mum, to Debs and cousin Tricia, and to all the parents fighting for the wellbeing of their children.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of the prevention of deaths from eating disorders.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Quigley Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is not linked to the question. That is why I was really bothered when I called the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

5. What recent estimate his Department has made of the proportion of mental health research funding allocated to eating disorders.

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

Through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, the Department is committed to finding new ways of tackling eating disorders through research. We are supporting research projects, including the eating disorders genetics initiative—one of the largest studies of its kind—and have a £4.25 million collaboration with other UK research funders to build new partnerships in eating disorder research. We are also strengthening support for people with eating disorders by recruiting more mental health workers, expanding mental health support in schools and embedding it in young futures hubs.

[Mr Quigley]

Eating disorders cost the UK an estimated £9 billion each year, yet research into these serious conditions receives just 1% of all mental health research funding. That is despite eating disorders affecting around 9% of people with mental health conditions, the consequences of which are delayed diagnosis and treatment and often lengthy hospital admissions. Will the Minister agree to meet me and the eating disorder charity Beat to discuss how the Government can break this cycle and ensure that eating disorder research receives the attention and investment that it urgently needs?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I know that this subject is close to my hon. Friend’s heart, and I pay tribute to him for his work on it. We recognise the devastating impact that an eating disorder can have, and the earlier the treatment is provided, the greater the chance of recovery. The Department continues to work closely with NHS England, which is now refreshing guidance on children and young people’s eating disorders. I commend the work of Beat, and I would be happy to discuss this further with my hon. Friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ashley Dalton]

We are looking very carefully at the arguments for national screening. The hon. Member will be aware that there are concerns. We have to look at this very carefully to ensure that screening programmes do not cause unnecessary harm, but targeted and widespread screening for prostate cancer is something that the Department is looking at and will report on in due course.

[Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

T8. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am so delighted to have two questions on health this week that I am not even going to mention ferries!As my hon. Friend will know, the process for securing an education, health and care plan is complex and can lead to delays in accessing vital support. That can have a serious impact on the health and wellbeing of young people and children. What steps is the Minister taking to improve the health element of EHCPs for families navigating the process, including those in my constituency?

[Stephen Kinnock]

We have inherited a system that is utterly failing to meet the needs of children with special educational needs. This Government are reforming the SEND system, ensuring that there is joined-up support across education and healthcare. We are also supporting inclusive environments and earlier intervention for children through the early language support for every child programme, or ELSEC, and the partnership for inclusion of neurodiversity in schools programme, or PINS.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Quigley Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I was in the Chamber to hear the hon. Member’s question. Obviously we are led by clinical advice when it comes to decisions on screening programmes, but I understand the case she makes. I would be delighted to ensure that she gets a meeting with the relevant Minister.

[Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

T8. Earl Mountbatten hospice in my constituency delivers outstanding care across the community. Despite that, Hampshire and Isle of Wight integrated care board plans to cut its funding by £1.4 million, while other hospices in the region have their funding increased. I am deeply concerned that the cut will affect our local health services. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can restore that essential funding and protect hospice care for my constituents?

NHS and Care Volunteer Responders Service

Richard Quigley Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

I am afraid that I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman—it is not muddled. The analysis undertaken by NHS England indicates that the current system is not providing good value for money, and we are making sure that we produce something better for the future. This Government will continue to act in the best interests of volunteers, patients and taxpayers in setting up the NHS of the future.

[Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

I congratulate all the volunteers in my constituency, who do a great job. Does the Minister agree that the huge increase in volunteers over the past few years is because the Conservatives ran down the NHS? Now they are in opposition, they can no longer run down the NHS, so they talk it down instead.

[Karin Smyth]

Well, we could—[Interruption.] Sorry, the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) is chuntering from a sedentary position. I partly agree with my hon. Friend. Yes, the Conservatives did run down the NHS and we inherited a broken system, but volunteering has always been a really important part of the NHS and the care system, so I pay tribute to those people who come forward. It is both good for the system and the people they help, and for many individuals. We talked earlier about people feeling disconnected, perhaps as receivers of volunteering, but we know how valuable it is for individuals themselves to be giving and volunteering, and we want to see more of that.