Heart Disease and Stroke: Premature Deaths

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Dame Siobhain. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster) for securing this debate on such an important issue. I also commend him on sharing his own personal experience with his diagnosis of a congenital heart defect. I thought, as he was speaking, that it just goes to show that we should never judge solely based on how someone presents on the outside, because we never know what is going on inside; I know he served in the Royal Engineers, and he is also very fit and active. He rightly highlighted why this Government are determined to tackle cardiovascular disease head on through earlier prevention and diagnosis, because that is what is really going to make the difference.

I also thank all hon. Members for their valuable contributions this afternoon. It is clear that far too many lives are still being cut short by cardiovascular disease. In recent years, heart disease and stroke caused around 33,000 premature deaths per year, and it is the second leading cause of death in England after cancer.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) gave a powerful speech, bringing this issue into stark focus with regard to Northern Ireland. I have to say, I share his pleasure in spending so much time in these important debates in Westminster Hall; he and I are usually the common denominator. I want to refer to some of the things that he said, specifically about the ticking time bomb that cardiovascular disease can be. He mentioned that 225,000 people—one in 10—in Northern Ireland live with heart and circulatory conditions. That was very sobering; this is not a niche condition at all. He said that it accounted for 24% of deaths in Northern Ireland—one in four—and that most of those were premature. As always, I will commit to ensuring that key learnings and best practice are shared between both our health services and, indeed, with the other devolved Administrations. I always learn a lot from the hon. Member’s contributions, so I thank him for them. That is why, as part of our 10-year health plan for the NHS, we have committed to shifting from sickness to prevention and to ensuring that fewer lives are lost to the biggest killers, including cardiovascular disease.

I have made so many notes, but the trick is now whether I can find the right note for the right person and not just forget about them all; I am trying to be too clever for my own boots here. The hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) who speaks for the Lib Dems, spoke a lot about prevention and about the shift from treatment and sickness to prevention. She asked me whether the public health grant would go back to 2010 levels. I cannot commit to that. Obviously, something did happen in 2010 and, as much as I like and admire the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), there were big cuts to the public health grant—although I think the biggest cut was in 2015. However, we have provided the first three-year public health grant settlement in over a decade. That will give surety and confidence to the local authorities and public health directors in all our areas for the three years.

[Alison Bennett]

For the record, my request was that the public health grant be restored back to 2015 levels, not 2010 levels.

[Mrs Hodgson]

Right, the hon. Lady said 2015. I am being too clever for my own boots. I wrote down 2010, but of course, as I said in correcting myself, the big cut was in 2015. I am pleased that the hon. Lady has corrected the record for us all.

As I say, we have set an ambitious goal to reduce premature mortality from heart disease and stroke in the under-75s by a quarter in the next 10 years. As part of the first wave of the new generation of modern service frameworks, we will publish a cardiovascular disease modern service framework soon.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble asked me about that, and I shall move on to answer his questions. He asked when; the answer is soon. The Department and NHS England have engaged widely to consider a range of conditions that are most likely to drive progress on the Government’s ambition and the CVD MSF—if Members do not mind me using the acronym to save words—will set out 12 high impact priority action areas, descriptions of how unwarranted variation should be addressed and a road map for the next 10 years. The framework will be backed by clear accountability and routine monitoring of progress using existing NHS performance and oversight arrangements.

To support the delivery of the framework across the system, we will launch a series of ambitious strategic partnerships between Government, the NHS, industry and the voluntary sector. We thank the British Heart Foundation for its support and participation as a task and finish group member for the CVD MSF.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble asked about type 2 diabetes. I pay tribute to and thank his friend Jared, who is with us today, and who I am aware is a type 1 diabetic. Type 2 diabetes is very prevalent in cardiovascular disease. We are taking steps to reduce overall prevalence of type 2 diabetes by supporting programmes such as the NHS health check and the highly effective “Healthier You” NHS diabetes prevention programme. I will talk more about obesity prevention and the obesogenic environment if I have time.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble asked me about cholesterol. We know that addressing raised cholesterol is key to preventing CVD. Statins cut CVD risk in just four to six weeks, and are readily available and quite cheap, as interventions go. As of December 2025, 85% of people with CVD were being treated with cholesterol-lowering therapy, including statins, across England. He also asked me about arterial fibrillation. The Government recognise the importance of optimising arterial fibrillation treatment. As of December 2025, 92% of those with high-risk arterial fibrillation were being treated with anticoagulants, which was an increase from 87% in March 2020.

[Jim Shannon]

There are indications that the weight loss injections and tablets available on the NHS are very effective, but there is some concern about the side effects of weight reduction programmes. Has the Department ever looked at addressing side effects for those who want to lose weight but face other problems because of it?

[Mrs Hodgson]

As with all medication, it is obviously up to GPs to consider side effects when prescribing. Some side effects might be apparent sooner rather than later, but they are definitely conversations that patients need to have closely and quickly with prescribers and GPs. I encourage all constituents to be cognisant of side effects and not just hope that they will go away or that they do not matter. They should always be raised with their GP.

The modern service framework, which is coming soon, will identify and set standards for the best-evidenced interventions to support consistent, high-quality and equitable care across the cardiovascular disease pathway. It will set out an ambitious vision for the future, identifying areas where further progress is needed to build the evidence base or to accelerate innovations to deliver best outcomes for patients. We know that there are unacceptable inequalities across CVD prevention, diagnosis, treatment and care. That is why the CVD MSF will set out strategic priorities and a clear direction on what health and care systems should focus on to drive improvement and outcomes and to tackle unwarranted variation.

A number of hon. Members have highlighted prevention issues and I will address their questions at this point. We know that around 70% of the CVD burden is preventable and due to risk factors that can be modified by behaviour changes, early identification and management, so the early detection of risk factors is key. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee), who is no longer in his place, made a short but colourful point about access to fresh food and food deserts. He mentioned that in some parts of the country, it is easier to get vodka than a banana. I have used a similar analogy with regard to blueberry vapes versus blueberries. We all know of places like that across our constituencies.

The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex, also mentioned access to healthy food for young people living in poverty and free school meals being extended to those children. The Government are extending free school meals to all children of families on universal credit from September, and that is very welcome. We are already extending breakfast clubs so that they are universal. That will be reaching all children; not all children take advantage of them, but there will eventually be access to them for all children in our primary schools.

A lot of the work that I have been doing in the Department since taking up this post has been around my passion. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) mentioned the work that we have done together in the all-party parliamentary group on school food. That group was set up in 2010—I know the date, and I am not going to get it wrong, because I set it up. Healthy food is so crucial. As we are rolling out breakfast clubs and rolling out free school meals to all children of families on universal credit, we want that food to be as healthy as can be.

That is why we had the consultation on new school food standards, which closed in June. They will be in force from September 2027. They will be a lot better, a lot more stringent, than the current standards. I hope that, when they are made public, all hon. Members will be able to buy into them and therefore encourage the perception to change. I think my hon. Friend also said that the perception of school food needs to change, and I totally agree. Come next year, school food will be so much better—it already is in so many of our schools.

As a local MP, I am a bit obsessive about going into my local schools, or whatever school I happen to be in, so much so that it got a bit embarrassing—I will tell this quick anecdote, if I have time. I was visiting a school, and it said that it would get me some sandwiches from a well-known store—I will not advertise the store, but this was pre-packed sandwiches from a nice, upmarket supermarket—because my secretary had said, “Oh, make sure Sharon gets some lunch.” I had to point out to the headteacher that I did not want the nice sandwiches from Marks & Spencer, and that I actually wanted to stay for lunch with the children in the canteen.

I was there to visit and talk about whatever, or to meet the school council, but I would always do those things either side of the lunch break in order that, with my school food APPG chair hat on, I could stay for lunch. My lovely secretary at the time had not explained that bit, so the headteacher, on her way into work that day, had rushed to a well-known supermarket to buy me a selection of sandwiches. I was mortified, so I say to hon. Members that, if they want to eat on their school visits, they should please ensure that they are clear that they do not just want any old sandwiches bought, and that actually they want to sit and eat with the children.

School food is important. I have seen the good, the bad and the ugly. There is more good, and I hope that it will continue to improve, because good habits need to start early. I am talking about the prevention that we all want to see and the healthier lifestyles that we want for the next generation. It is a manifesto commitment of this Government to have the healthiest generation of children ever. That starts in our health service, but it also starts with prevention, and the move from sickness to prevention.

I think the hon. Member for Mid Sussex mentioned junk food advertising, and the other thing that I have been working on is the new nutrient profiling model. The consultation on that has just closed. We are going to be using the new NPM when it is agreed and announced. It will be applied to the junk food ad ban, which is already in place, and we will set out next steps with regard to that in due course. We are also planning work on monitoring and reporting on the healthy food standards. All that is in train, and I am very keen on continuing to do that work, but who knows what might come?

I will now turn to points from other hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport mentioned walking and that he had lost 4 lbs during the recent by-election; it seems to me that maybe what we all need is more by-elections—or perhaps not. The serious point is that we all need to be walking more. If we are walking more, that is good, but we need to be walking briskly. We are supposed to get out of breath and a bit hot and bothered. It is also important that we are trying to eat healthier food.

[Mr Francois]

I am sure that the potential new Prime Minister will have noted very carefully the commitment of the hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley), who mentioned that he lost 4 lbs during the by-election; I have a pound coin, and I am happy to make it up to a round fiver to help him get his money back, if that helps.

[Mrs Hodgson]

Very good. I must apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) for getting his constituency name wrong. I cannot read my own writing—I do know that Southport and Stockport are very different places.

Walking is important, but we must work hard to tackle the obesogenic environment, our propensity to eat ultra-processed food and the food deserts in our constituencies. Sadly, some of the most deprived areas are also the most health-unequal communities as well. That is not a coincidence; one leads to the other. That is an area of the Department’s work I am massively focused on.

The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) spoke about his wonderful wife of two decades, who is a lead neuroradiographer—

[Mr Francois]

Lead neurointerventional radiographer.

[Mrs Hodgson]

Very good. She works at Queen’s hospital in east London, and I was very interested to hear about the “bring your husband to work” day, although I am glad she did not keep the right hon. Gentleman there. What he described sounded fascinating, although not for the faint-hearted, as he said. On behalf of the NHS and the Government, I thank Olivia and her team for the outstanding work they do every day and for their service and skill. It is such important work. He asked me about the role of mechanical thrombectomy, which he said has been used for less than a decade. The NHS is working to increase thrombectomy rates as a key intervention to improve patient outcomes, so hopefully Olivia is going to be as busy as ever. He is rightly proud of her, as I am sure she is of him.

[Mr Francois]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Hodgson]

We are having a love-in here.

[Mr Francois]

Yes—don’t tell my wife! I thank the Minister very much for what she says about Olivia, her colleagues and all the others who work in the NHS in that field. I will chance my arm and say that they are based about an hour from London; if ever the Minister had time to pop along and see what they do in person, I think she would be both very welcome and incredibly impressed.

[Mrs Hodgson]

My private office will have made note of that. I would be happy to pay a visit to the hospital and am interested to look at that work.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire asked about ambulance wait times. NHS England is working with East Midlands ambulance service to support improvements in response times, which will increase frontline ambulance availability, improve productivity and strengthen performance. I can assure her that that work is under way.

In England, the NHS health check for individuals aged 40 to 74 is designed to assess the top risk factors for cardiovascular disease and refer people to further support where appropriate. The NHS health check is wide reaching it engages more than 1.4 million people a year and, through behavioural and clinical interventions, prevents around 500 heart attacks or strokes a year. We know that there is more to do to improve uptake of the health check. As part of our efforts to make the shift from analogue to digital, we are developing the NHS health check online and increasing the flexibility of the programme so that people can complete it at home at a time more convenient to them.

Finding and supporting people with undetected high blood pressure early is, as a number of colleagues mentioned, critical to preventing heart attacks and strokes. I think we can all remember the former shadow Health Secretary, Jonathan Ashworth. He had undiagnosed high blood pressure and recently had a heart attack. We cannot just assume, from what someone looks like on the outside, what is going on inside. It is so important that we all take up those health checks when we reach the grand old age of 40, which I have not yet reached myself—I see my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) laughing; he must think I am over 40.

We have invested heavily in blood pressure checks in community pharmacy so that we take up those opportunities for detection in the community. Over the last year in England, 82% of pharmacies were delivering the service, with more than 3 million blood pressure checks taking place.

We are also committed to tackling obesity, and have made significant progress by restricting junk food advertising targeted at children on TV and online, along with banning volume price reductions on less healthy products. NHS England has expanded access to the NHS digital weight management service, doubling the number of people supported. Some 1 million adults in England with established CVD who are overweight or living with obesity are also now eligible for semaglutide—Wegovy—to reduce major cardiovascular events.

We have taken firm action on smoking, including the landmark Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026, which will protect future generations from the harms of smoking. To help people quit smoking, we have also ringfenced funding for stop smoking services in the public health grant, protecting at least £150 million per year.

Our work does not stop there. I have mentioned the shift from treatment to prevention, incentivising earlier identification and better management of CVD risk. The elective reform plan committed to modernising cardiology pathways, and we are working closely with clinicians to implement reforms, ensuring that care is delivered in the right place and at the right time. We have an ambitious target to reduce premature mortality from heart disease and stroke by 25%, and the CVD MSF will provide the tools required to achieve this.

The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Daventry, raised the women’s health strategy. He is right to mention the disparity in women’s diagnosis and treatment. The renewed women’s health strategy sets out how we will redesign services, improve diagnosis and embed women’s voices so that care improves across all conditions. Priority examples where women are most poorly served are included, and progress will be judged against three overarching measures of success, the main one being to reduce the amount of time that women spend in poor health.

I will finish here so that there is time for my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble to make some closing remarks. I again thank him for bringing this important matter to the House.

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

I call Paul Foster to wind up, very quickly.

Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccination: At-risk Groups

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)]

I am today announcing that the year-round respiratory syncytial virus vaccination programme will be extended to include more adults at risk of severe illness. From 1 September 2026, individuals aged 65 to 74 years with specific chronic respiratory diseases—excluding well controlled asthma—or immunosuppression due to disease or treatment will become eligible for RSV vaccinations on the NHS.

RSV is a common respiratory virus that circulates each winter, but its impact is generally less well understood than other respiratory infections like covid-19 and flu. While many people who catch RSV only have mild, cold-like symptoms, it also causes more serious chest infections including pneumonia and bronchitis. RSV can cause major complications in infants and older adults, particularly those with certain underlying health conditions.

The decision to expand RSV vaccinations was based on the latest independent expert advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. In February 2026 the JCVI supported offering vaccination to people aged 65 to 74 who have chronic respiratory disease—excluding well controlled asthma—or who are immunosuppressed due to disease or treatment, as new evidence showed that these groups are at equivalent risk to older adults already eligible for vaccination.

His Majesty’s Government have accepted the JCVI’s advice, and work is underway to ensure that people in these groups can get vaccinated from 1 September 2026. This decision follows the Government introducing new RSV programmes for people aged 75 to 79 and pregnant women on 1 September 2024, and the expansion of the older adult programme on 1 April 2026 to also include adults aged 80 and older and all residents of care homes for older adults.

Individuals in these groups will be able to get vaccinated at their GP practice, or at a community pharmacy in some parts of England. The most recent analysis of the older adult programme by the four UK public health agencies, published in The Lancet’s European health journal, shows that a single dose of the vaccine cuts the risk of being admitted to hospital for RSV lung infection by 75%.

As with all programmes, the Department will consider any potential future advice provided by the JCVI, once it has reviewed new data on the impact and cost-effectiveness of vaccination in other specific groups with underlying health conditions.

[HCWS170]

NHS Breast Screening

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)]

How long do I have to speak? I have a lot to get through; let us see if I can make it.

I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), her constituent Gemma, Gemma’s son, Mason, and the other ladies in the Public Gallery today for their campaigning on this petition and for gathering so many signatures that we can debate it. I pay tribute to them and thank them for joining us. I was very pleased to meet them last month to discuss this important issue.

I pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton). I commend her constant courage in speaking so openly about her experience of breast cancer. I send my very best wishes to her throughout her ongoing treatment.

Behind all the figures we are discussing today, there are women, men, families and communities who have been affected by breast cancer in the most difficult and personal of ways. I pay tribute to NHS staff in breast screening services across the country, who work tirelessly to ensure that women and men are offered this important preventive measure.

Last year, our highly effective NHS breast screening programme screened nearly 2 million women. Each year, the programme is estimated to save 1,300 lives, but we must be honest about the scale of the challenge. Around 11,500 women still die from breast cancer each year. Many thousands more go through treatment, with all the fear, uncertainty and disruption that brings for them and the people who love them. That is why I am clear: we need to do more and will do more.

The national cancer plan published earlier this year sets out how we will improve outcomes for breast cancer patients. We will speed up diagnosis and treatment, ensure that patients can access the latest treatments and technology and, ultimately, drive up this country’s cancer survival rates. The plan commits to rolling out breast pain clinics nationally by the end of the year. It also builds on successful initiatives such as mobile breast screening units. Cancer alliances will receive funding to work proactively with local communities and providers so that more cancers are diagnosed earlier.

I will now speak to points that were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), my hon. Friends the Members for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) and for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire)—there might have been others, but those are the names I scribbled down. They raised issues about serving ethnic minority communities as well as underserved, deprived communities. Building on successful initiatives such as mobile breast screening, as I mentioned, cancer alliances will receive funding and work proactively with local communities and providers to improve early diagnosis rates. They will focus on increasing people’s awareness of symptoms, and support primary care to spot the signs of cancer early. The work will also include reducing the gap in screening uptake between the most and least deprived areas. There will be particular efforts to reach ethnic minority communities and underserved groups because no one should be left behind.

The NHS also runs its “Help Us, Help You” campaign in England, which helps to increase knowledge of breast cancer symptoms and address barriers to acting on them, as well as encouraging people to come forward to see their GP as soon as possible. I understand why many people ask whether screening should begin at a younger age. It is a deeply human question that is often asked by people who have seen the impact of breast cancer at first hand. We are looking carefully at the evidence, but the picture is complex. I will come on to everything about that that has been raised.

As we have heard, younger women tend to have denser breast tissue, which can make mammography less effective. Screening can save lives, but it can also cause harm through false positives, unnecessary tests, avoidable anxiety and overdiagnosis. That is why decisions must be made carefully and on the basis of robust evidence. My hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), for Broxtowe and for Edinburgh South West, as well as other colleagues, no doubt, raised that issue. As we know, some women will have denser breast tissue and unfortunately that makes mammography less effective because a potential cancer can be harder to spot. We are working to find the best solutions to that problem.

A study called BRAID—breast screening risk adaptive imaging for density—is looking into whether supplementary imaging techniques like MRI or ultrasound could be used for women with dense breast tissue. The independent UK National Screening Committee is in contact with the researchers and reviews the evidence as it becomes available. Ministers in the Department and across the Government will consider its recommendations as soon as they are made.

A number of colleagues asked about the AgeX breast screening trial, which is the biggest trial of its kind ever undertaken. It will provide robust evidence about the effectiveness of screening in age groups above and below the current screening age. The trial has been looking at the effectiveness of offering some women one extra screening between the ages of 47 and 49 and one between the ages of 71 and 73. AgeX is the biggest trial of its kind ever to be undertaken and will provide robust evidence about the effectiveness, benefits and harms of screening in those age groups. The UK NSC will review the publication of the AgeX extension trial when it reports. The trial began in 2009, and results are expected in 2027, something the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) asked about.

Screening trials require extended follow-up periods to generate robust evidence on whether screening reduces disease or death, while also assessing any potential long-term harms. The UK NSC continuously monitors emerging evidence through horizon scanning and maintains active engagement with international peers. Should robust evidence regarding the extension of breast screening age thresholds become available, the committee will look at it right away. In the meantime, NHS England has produced a suite of public-facing information resources, communicating that women, especially those aged 71 or over, can have screening every three years if they so wish.

The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley also asked why we do not screen annually. The three-year intervals of the national breast screening programme are based on a successful Swedish trial. The frequency of screening balances the risk of harm from over-diagnosis with the benefits of early detection, and women at high risk of breast cancer are often called more frequently.

[Robbie Moore]

I want a bit of clarity from the Minister, because the petitioners are calling on the Government to lower the age at which women are first called for breast cancer screening to 40 and to roll out screening on an annual basis rather than every three years. I know that they are not intending to do that, because we have seen the written response from them in advance of the debate, but what further evidence do the Government need to be able to achieve what the petitioners are asking?

[Mrs Hodgson]

As I said, the AgeX trial has been running since 2009 and has been researching the efficacy of providing breast cancer screening to people above and below the current screening age. It is due to report next year, so hopefully it will provide the further evidence that is necessary. It is already in train. These decisions are not taken lightly, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), asked me about AI. We are supporting the early detection using information technology in health, or EDITH, trial. It will test new AI technologies that could enable one specialist—rather than two, as is currently required—to complete a mammogram screening process, increasing capacity in the screening system while maintaining patient safety.

We are entering a new era in science and technology. Advances in data, genomics and predictive analytics will allow the NHS to deliver care that is more personalised, more proactive and better matched to each person’s individual risk. New tools, such as liquid biopsies and other non-invasive tests, may help us to detect cancer much earlier, and often before symptoms appear. The NHS is preparing to seize those breakthroughs so that patients can benefit from the full power of modern innovation.

The national cancer plan has identified priority areas to accelerate access to new technologies, including artificial intelligence-assisted interpretation of pathology images for suspected breast cancer diagnosis. We will continue to horizon-scan for better methods of screening and to build the evidence base for any future changes. Our ambition is clear—to save more lives, to diagnose cancer earlier and to do so in a way that brings more benefit than harm.

[Ms Billington]

I am interested in the possibilities of AI helping with detection and speeding up that process, freeing up resources to be directed into earlier detection by focusing on screening for younger women. If we are to harness the potential of AI, surely the first thing that we should do is to redirect the resources that are saved into ensuring that we can save more lives, potentially those of the young women who have campaigned so strongly on this petition.

[Mrs Hodgson]

Yes; saving more lives and freeing up resources is exactly what we should be doing. In relation to the AgeX trial evidence and other evidence that is being looked at, that will be happening within the next year. Hopefully for my hon. Friend and others here today and the campaigners, the evidence will be looked at and, if it is strong enough, things will change.

Colleagues raised a number of other issues that I want to touch on. The hon. Member for Wokingham, chair of the all-party parliamentary group on breast cancer, always reminds us that it is not just women who are affected. Sixty thousand people a year are diagnosed with breast cancer, and a small proportion of that number will be men. It is always important that we remember that, and he is doing an amazing job as chair of the all-party group. If I am here and the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), who speaks for the Opposition, is here, the hon. Gentleman is often here as well—we have become a regular trio in these debates on a Monday.

I must mention my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper), who gave a very emotional speech about his constituent Sarah and her husband David. What happened was so tragic. I thank my hon. Friend for sharing that, and I want him to know that all of us here having heard it already means that it was not in vain. He said that he wanted to make sure that their story had been heard—how tragic it was, its consequences, and how long-lasting the effect of this awful disease is, not just on those who suffer, but on the wider family.

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North asked me about cancer waiting times more broadly, and I cannot let this moment go without stressing that cancer patients are now getting diagnosed in the shortest time on record. I am pleased to report that.

The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham raised the very important issue of women with physical disabilities. We have spoken about this before. The NHS has an obligation to make appropriate accommodations for people with disabilities, as I know she is aware. Unfortunately, however, some mammography machines are not a good design for people in wheelchairs and those who cannot support their own torso. For women for whom mammography is not an option, a physical exam can still be offered; and where a GP is concerned about the findings following a physical exam, the woman can be referred for further diagnostic tests. The NHS is talking with manufacturers about amending the design of mammography machines, and NHS England is considering whether alternative testing tools could be used instead of a mammogram in those specific circumstances.

I can reassure the hon. Lady that the workforce plan is still imminent; I have nothing further to add on that. She mentioned lobular breast cancer and the Moon Shot project. As she is aware, in April Lord Vallance, the Minister for Science, Innovation, Research and Nuclear, and I, alongside NIHR and MRC representatives, met the Lobular Moon Shot Project team to discuss how best to progress research in this area.

Following that meeting, a scientific roundtable on lobular breast cancer was organised earlier this month. Lord Vallance hosted the roundtable, and Professor Patrick Chinnery, executive chair of the MRC, chaired a discussion considering the challenges and opportunities for progress in invasive lobular breast cancer research. The NIHR is actively encouraging high-quality, ambitious research proposals on lobular breast cancer, having launched a highlight notice in late 2025. We hope that the team will make an application for that.

I cannot finish my speech without stating one message as clearly as I can. If hon. Members or their constituents are, at any time, worried about breast cancer symptoms, such as a lump, an area of thickened tissue in the breast or any change in how their breasts look or feel, no matter what age they may be, I say this: “Please do not wait to be offered screening. Please contact your GP at any stage.” Coming forward early, as we know—and as Gemma and her friends know more than most—can make all the difference. I want to make sure that message goes out loud and clear.

Neuropsychiatric Conditions: PANS and PANDAS

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)]

I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) and the Backbench Business Committee for bringing forward today’s debate. I think we can all agree that, although the number of attendees has been small, it has been mighty in terms of the quality of contributions we have heard from hon. Members. I am also grateful for the opportunity to speak today on the subject of PANS/PANDAS.

As hon. Members have highlighted, these conditions cause significant distress to many children and young people and their families. It is therefore vital that we approach this issue with both scientific care and genuine compassion, recognising and responding to the lived experiences of those affected. We have heard from hon. Members today about some of those experiences, and I thank them all for their contributions.

As we have heard, PANS and PANDAS are closely related, but distinct, clinical syndromes in which an infection can trigger acute and often dramatic changes in both physical and mental health—often as quickly as overnight, as we heard from the hon. Member for North East Fife. They are areas of evolving clinical understanding, with diagnosis based on observed signs and symptoms rather than definitive tests. That means that it is typically a diagnosis of exclusion, requiring clinicians to rule out other causes. While this can make diagnosis complex, it underlines the importance of a holistic, joined-up, child-centred approach.

Treatment is similarly tailored and delivered through multidisciplinary teams, with psychological therapies such as cognitive behavioural therapy commonly used to manage symptoms, along with pharmacological interventions where appropriate. Alongside clinical interventions, supportive care is essential. This includes helping families to understand the condition, supporting school attendance where possible, and ensuring access to appropriate mental health services. Effective care requires co-ordination across services to provide consistent and holistic support.

We recognise the challenges that families face—I welcome the families who are in the Gallery today—particularly as these conditions can sit at the intersection of physical and mental health services. Good clinical practice emphasises the importance of a holistic and multidisciplinary approach, including close collaboration with parents, schools and other agencies. However, the absence of definitive biomarkers and fully understood mechanisms has contributed to a variation in how care is delivered. In response, NHS England began working in 2020 with the charity PANS PANDAS UK, which I commend on its work in this area to improve awareness, understanding and care. This led to the establishment of the PANS/PANDAS steering group, which brings together representatives from key royal colleges, specialist clinical bodies and the charity sector.

The steering group has since progressed several important initiatives. First, work is under way to develop the first UK clinical guidelines for PANS and PANDAS, led by a multidisciplinary group and supported by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) asked me about timelines for that guidance. I am happy to tell her today that those guidelines are expected to be published in autumn this year, and they will support more consistent care across the system. Until then, clinicians are advised to draw on existing international guidance, including the Nordic clinical guidelines, which were published in 2021.

Secondly, a dedicated research group is advancing efforts to strengthen the evidence base, including through a nationwide surveillance study. Thirdly, a cross-sector group is developing practical guidance for local authorities to improve support for children and young people living with PANS and PANDAS. That guidance is due to be published later this year, and it will ensure more consistent access to appropriate educational and social care services. As we have heard today, clear and consistent frameworks are essential to improving co-ordination across services and strengthening recognition of PANS and PANDAS.

NHS England’s forthcoming children and young people’s modern service framework will address health system challenges that affect all children and young people, improve access to specialist advice, promote more integrated working across physical and mental health services, and strengthen the strategic commissioning role of integrated care boards. More widely, NHS England is also supporting local systems to implement neighbourhood multidisciplinary teams, bringing together professionals across health and social care and wider services to deliver joined-up, community-based care, ensuring that all children and young people can access co-ordinated support and paediatric expertise closer to home.

The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray), asked me about discussions with the Scottish Government and devolved Administrations. I understand that there have been no direct discussions so far, so I commit that, following this debate, my officials will engage and raise this issue with devolved Government counterparts at the next opportunity.

Alongside these developments, there remains a clear need for high-quality research, and this includes improving understanding of the underlying causes of PANS and PANDAS, refining diagnostic criteria and building stronger evidence on the effectiveness of different treatments. The Department supports research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and we welcome applications across all areas of health, including for these conditions. Recent collaborations include the “PANS PANDAS Unveiled” project, which completed an evidence and gap map on the epidemiology, prevalence, treatment and experiences of PANS/PANDAS. In the meantime, integrated care systems are responsible for planning services for their populations and should continue to draw on emerging evidence and guidance to improve care and outcomes.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I detected that the Minister was moving towards her conclusion, so I thought I would intervene before she did. She has a fine record, before she became a Minister, of campaigning on mesh-damaged women. That was an occasion where something simple was done that led to very complicated problems. Here, we have a complicated condition, but it is thought that something simple could be done—namely, guidance should be given to all GPs that if this condition is even suspected, a simple course of antibiotics should be given. I have not yet heard anything in what she has said as to whether the research backs that up. If the research has not been done, will she undertake to make sure it gets done and that general practitioners are advised accordingly?

[Mrs Hodgson]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who I have worked closely with on a number of health matters over a number of years, and he mentions the work that we did together on mesh. I studied my speech after listening to your earlier intervention and the conversation about antibiotics—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. It was not my intervention, but that of the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis).

[Mrs Hodgson]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should know better after 21 years in this House; it just goes to show—you can always teach an old dog new tricks.

Following the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention on antibiotics, I noticed that there was nothing about that in my speech, so I have come to the conclusion that that will come forward in the guidance later this year. I will be looking for that closely, and I am sure that my officials heard the point mentioned in the debate. As the right hon. Gentleman says, if a simple course of antibiotics is going to make all the difference, we would want to ensure that it is provided.

In closing, I want to emphasise that the experiences of children and families affected by PANS/PANDAS are real and significant, and that we are taking action to strengthen the system and deliver meaningful change. Our responsibility is to respond with compassion, to listen carefully, and to ensure that support is accessible, timely and appropriate. By strengthening clinical awareness, improving integration across services and continuing to build the evidence base, we can move towards a system that delivers better recognition, more effective support, and improved outcomes for children and young people, and their families.

Spinal Muscular Atrophy: Newborn Screening Test

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. It is very heartening to see so many Members in the Chamber and so many families in the Public Gallery, all united by a shared concern for children and families affected by spinal muscular atrophy.

SMA is a cruel and devastating condition. It can steal from a family the carefree future they had imagined for their child. It can take away a child’s mobility and, far too often, it can take away a child’s life far too soon. I pay tribute to children living with SMA for their courage, to their families for their strength, and to campaigners for working tirelessly to ensure that their voices are heard. Their message to us is clear: where there is a chance to identify affected babies earlier, and where treatment may have its greatest effect, we must pursue that chance with urgency, care and resolve.

I particularly thank Jesy Nelson, who is in the Public Gallery and is very welcome. She is so brave to share her experience of the condition, which affects her twins, Ocean and Story. She has given a public voice to all those going through a similar experience. This petition has rightly gained significant support—150,000 signatures —in such a short space of time. I am so pleased that we can take the time to have this debate and raise awareness of SMA.

I assure everyone that this conversation will not stop today. I will continue to listen to the voices of those speaking for children with SMA. Tomorrow, for example, I am due to meet with members of Muscular Dystrophy UK to continue this very conversation. I know that many families and advocates feel that the Government have moved too slowly towards a decision on screening for SMA. I understand that frustration, but decisions about national screening programmes must be made with great care.

We must be confident that screening will do more good than harm, that it can be delivered safely and fairly, and that we are making the best possible use of NHS resources for the babies and families who depend on them. There remain many unanswered questions about the benefits and practical delivery of screening for SMA. That matters because the answer we seek must be robust enough to support a lasting national programme.

We were pleased that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence published final guidance earlier this year accepting both nusinersen and risdiplam as treatments that could be routinely offered to SMA patients for whom gene therapy has not worked. The finding that those treatments can improve survival rates and slow the progression of disease is welcome and significant. For families living with SMA, even slowing that progression can mean more time, more independence, more moments together and more hope.

[Ruth Jones]

The Minister says that screening must be safe and fair. We know the benefits of screening—the people in the Public Gallery have articulated it so clearly. The benefits are undeniable, so is it fair that the whole of Wales and a third of England does not have such screening?

[Mrs Hodgson]

I was going to come to the point about labs, but let me address it now. My hon. Friends the Members for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) and for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin); the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore); the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew); and others have made that very point. The trials will be rolled out to seven of the 13 labs, which leaves six labs outside the trial. I am told that the reason is that, as it is such a rare condition, the trial has to be broad enough to ensure a robust evidence base. The six not included do not currently have the requisite equipment. If that changes, more labs could be included.

[Amanda Martin]

I thank the Minister, who I respect her massively, for her comments. Portsmouth hospital is part of the generation study, so it is already able to test for the condition and could have rolled out the evaluation had it been included in the trials. It seems very strange that we are able to test babies in the generation study but not across the board.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central also mentioned the generation study. There are lots of questions around this, and, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North is aware, in preparing for this debate, I have been asking lots of those questions. I will take that point away and get back to her.

As we have heard, spinal muscular atrophy affects every part of daily life for the children and families involved: their routines, milestones, plans and the hopes that families hold for their children. Any progress against it matters deeply. At the same time, NICE has been clear that important questions remain, including around longevity and how long the benefits of these relatively new treatments may last. Those questions, alongside important issues of feasibility, must be answered before a national screening decision can be made.

That is why my Department has worked with the National Institute for Health and Care Research and NHS England to establish an in-service evaluation. That evaluation will run within the routine newborn blood spot screening programme to gather the evidence that we need, help answer difficult questions and fill the gaps that stand between us and a confident national decision. Crucially, the Department has worked alongside patient advocate groups, including the SMA NBS Alliance and SMA UK. I commend both groups for their excellent support and advocacy. They help to ensure that families’ voices are not an afterthought but are at the heart of decisions.

I acknowledge that, as we have heard, many have been frustrated by the pace of planning for this large-scale scientific evaluation. I hear that frustration—I really do—but we must get this right, because only a strong evaluation will give us the answers that families deserve and the evidence that a national programme requires.

[Ruth Jones]

I appreciate what the Minister says about getting evaluation right, but Ukraine can install such an evaluation across the whole country during a war, and Ireland is doing it, too, so why aren’t we?

[Mrs Hodgson]

Again, I have heard my hon. Friend’s remarks. They are not falling on deaf ears, as I am sure she is aware.

The previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), met Jesy Nelson, along with Giles Lomax from SMA UK, and I know that that had a massive impact on him. They spoke at length about what is needed; he listened and we acted. That is why I was very happy to announce just last month that the planned start date of January 2027 would be brought forward by three months. The new start date for the in-service evaluation will be October 2026. From that date, babies will begin to be screened for SMA, and we will begin collecting the essential information needed to help many more children in the years ahead.

[Robbie Moore]

I am pleased that that announcement was made, but, as I reiterated in my speech, that provision does not include West Yorkshire or my Keighley and Ilkley constituents. The Minister said that a broadbrush approach was needed to gain data, and that has been rolled out to the areas that the Government have already announced, but surely it is necessary to include all areas, as many Members said. Will the Minister meet me or write to me about what steps can be taken to include areas such as West Yorkshire, Leeds, and Keighley and Ilkley as part of the screening programme?

[Mrs Hodgson]

I have asked those very same questions. As it is such a broad trial, the small number that is not covered does lead me to ask those questions. I have not given up asking those questions, but for today, the answer is the same as the one I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn.

[Peter Dowd]

A group of SMA experts wrote an article in The Lancet in February 2025 entitled “The human toll of slow decisions”. They recommended that

“expert opinion and international evidence should be more thoroughly integrated into the decision-making process of NSCs”

and that

“the decision of independent bodies such as the NSC should be subject to scrutiny by the Ministry of Health, given the substantial effect of failing in the duty of care.”

The evidence and experience are there, but we are lagging behind. I hope the Minister agrees that we must stop taking a conservative approach to this. Children’s and families’ lives are at risk, and it has to stop.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his passionate intervention. I say again that it does not fall on deaf ears.

The right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar) asked what steps can be taken to speed up the process. We will be working at pace. Again, I will be paying very close personal attention to that.

Let me refer to a few other comments that I have not touched on yet. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central asked about the unscreened community being used as a control or comparison group. I want to be very clear that those not included in the trial are not being used as a control or comparison group. Labs taking part in the study start to screen newborns for SMA in phases, and the labs act as the control before they start to screen.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) asked when coverage will reach the whole of England. Again, this is about the six labs that are not covered. The Secretary of State is actively considering that, which is why I said that we are listening and working at pace.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Isl—[Laughter.] She asked whether we had spoken to Wales. It is a good job they do not send me to speak to Wales, because I cannot pronounce all the names! We work in close collaboration with the devolved Governments, who were all included in discussions about setting up the ISE.

The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Daventry, asked a number of detailed questions. I will endeavour to write to him on those points. We have chosen areas with labs with the equipment needed to do the analysis, which is why I will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North about the generation study.

We must move forward with compassion for families, rigour in the evidence and determination to give every child the best possible start in life, and that is what will do. I thank all hon. Members for their excellent speeches and for the challenge about the pace and coverage of the clinical trial. I hear them all and feel their pain deeply. The House should believe me when I say that I asked all those questions while preparing for the debate. I commit to them all that I will continue to ask those questions on their behalf. Where we can go further and faster safely, I will push for that to be the case. This debate has played a very important part in that push. I thank Jesy, all the petitioners and all hon. Members for ensuring that this debate took place today.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Mr Atkinson, you have one minute to wind up.

Community Hospitals

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on securing this important debate. I thank all hon. Members who have taken part: we have heard from 10 Back-Bench Members on the issue this morning. We have heard powerful accounts of the value of community hospitals and community health services more widely, and the difference that these services can make to patients and their families. That can be particularly true for rural communities, as we have heard.

I also want to acknowledge my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray). I think she said that she had worked for 22 years in community hospitals, and she spoke powerfully about being at work in her community hospital 10 years ago today when the news broke about our good friend Jo Cox. I join my hon. Friend in offering deepest condolences to Jo’s sister, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), to the wider family and to Brendan and their children. We can all recall where we were on that awful day when we heard the horrifying news.

This debate goes to the heart of a wider question: how we deliver more care closer to home, and the role of community hospitals in that future. That is why the Government’s ambition to shift more care out of hospitals and into communities matters so much. As we look to the future of the NHS, we want a stronger neighbourhood health service, better integration between health and social care and easier access to support, closer to where people live. To do this, we will deliver 250 neighbourhood health centres, with 120 of them opening by 2030. That will make it easier for people to access care closer to where they live, up and down the country. These centres will provide easier, more convenient access to a wide range of health and care services on people’s doorstep. We want to see a neighbourhood health centre in every community.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The Government have set out a great ambition, but the Minister is talking about neighbourhood health centres and we are talking about community hospitals. Where do they dovetail and how do they fit? What definition is she using to put this together?

[Mrs Hodgson]

Hopefully, I will answer those very points as I make progress in my speech.

We are already taking forward the neighbourhood health centres. The first wave of 27 neighbourhood health centres has been announced across England, backed by £50 million. Community health services are a vital part of our ambition on neighbourhood health and in moving care into communities. As we have heard, community health services deliver a wide range of services, from adult musculoskeletal services to community paediatric services and more.

Recognising the vital role that community health services play in neighbourhood health, and the wider health and care system, we have set clear ambitions through our medium-term planning framework. For the first time, we have set a target for systems to reduce long waits for community health services. By 2028-29, at least 80% of activity delivered by community health services should take place within 18 weeks, bringing those services in line with targets for elective care.

In 2025, we published “Standardising Community Health Services”, which describes the core components of NHS ICB-funded community health services for children, young people and adults. ICBs will need to adapt based on local needs and priorities. Further guidance was published in February 2026 with additional detail on the community health services that ICBs should commission. This is hugely important: we know that there is variation between the services available across the country and that there are long waits. That is why the Government are taking action to reduce unwarranted variation and cut those waits, so people can access high-quality community services wherever they live.

[Dr Evans]

I am sorry to hammer this home, but every single point that the Minister has made has been about community services. She is spot on, but the question is where community hospitals fit in. Are they the correct vehicle that the Government want to use to help deliver some of those services, or are the Government moving away from the community hospital model and into further hubs? Both would be reasonable approaches and could be defended or pulled apart. The question is what the Government are choosing, because it is not clear from the Minister’s answers which it is.

[Mrs Hodgson]

As the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, this is not actually my brief. As much as I can try to answer his questions, I think I might have to commit that the relevant Minister will write to him on that specific point.

For patients who still require hospital care, we are delivering millions of additional appointments and reducing waiting lists across elective care. The Government’s elective reform plan sets out commitments to reduce disparities across elective care access and waiting times, including by improving practical support for patients through better transport options. Virtual care models will offer patients in remote areas better access and more convenience by providing services that are more responsive to their needs. Expanding digital access is also crucial to improving the experience and health outcomes for rural communities. Digital services can improve access for many patients, but they must complement, not replace, high-quality, local face-to-face care.

[Helen Maguire]

I want to expand on that point because, as we have heard from Members, there are many elderly people in rural communities who may or may not have access to digital services. Will the Minister provide some assurances to me and my hon. Friends that elderly people will not be excluded because they cannot access services digitally?

[Mrs Hodgson]

Absolutely. Digital services will complement and not replace the face-to-face care, so we are developing the NHS app and expanding online consultations for those for whom it will be helpful. There will be digital triage and remote monitoring, allowing patients in rural areas to access more NHS services, but I take on board the hon. Lady’s point about ensuring that we do not exclude people.

It is important to recognise that decisions about individual services are made locally by NHS organisations, which are responsible for assessing the needs of their populations and planning services accordingly. As strategic commissioners, ICBs work closely with health and wellbeing boards, local authorities and other partners to identify the most impactful outcomes for their population. ICBs will choose the right delivery model for their local area to deliver these outcomes, enabling capable providers to lead local services designed to meet the needs of their patients. That means looking carefully at local need, rurality, the workforce, clinical evidence and the long-term sustainability of services, rather than applying a one-size-fits-all model. Those decisions must be accompanied by appropriate engagement with patients, staff and local communities.

The hon. Member for South Cotswolds highlighted an important challenge. Whether national ambitions are matched by what people say and experience on the ground is a question we must take seriously. If we are to successfully shift care closer to home, community-based services must be equipped to meet growing demand. In Cirencester, as we have heard, local provision remains very important. Existing services continue at the hon. Member’s local hospital, including in-patient and out-patient care, therapies and the minor injury and illness unit. Local NHS partners are also testing how services can better meet local need, including a specialist 15-bed frailty complex care unit alongside a 28-bed intermediate care ward. These changes are being tested locally and evaluated carefully; I am told that no permanent decisions have been made.

I have made a careful note of the hon. Member’s five questions, as I am sure my officials have. I will ensure that the relevant Minister writes to her with further details on her specific questions; I will also request that they meet her, as her fifth request was about when that could be arranged. On staffing in particular, I can update her: the NHS workforce plan is to be published imminently.

The pressures that hon. Members have described are familiar across much of the country. We have an ageing population, an increasing prevalence of long-term conditions, growing demand for rehabilitation and recovery services and, in some areas, significant population growth driven by new housing developments. These pressures make local community-based services more important, not less. Meeting those challenges will require strong, joined-up community services, with community nursing, therapies, rehabilitation, urgent community response, virtual wards, and primary care and social care working together across the needs of patients.

Ultimately, the future of community hospitals should not be considered in isolation. They form part of a broader community heath infrastructure that includes neighbourhood teams, community providers, primary care, mental health services, social care and the voluntary sector. The question is not simply how many community hospitals we have, but how we use our community assets and services to provide high-quality care closer to home.

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for South Cotswolds for bringing this important issue before the House. The debate has highlighted both the enduring value of community hospitals and the important role that they can play in supporting local populations, especially rural ones. As we continue our work to strengthen neighbourhood health services and shift care closer to home, the experiences and concerns raised by hon. Members today will make an important contribution to that discussion. I thank all hon. Members for their participation in this debate.

Secondary Breast Cancer

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for raising this important matter and securing the debate. They both spoke about their own breast cancer journeys very powerfully, and I thank them for sharing their personal experiences with us.

It is also personal to me, having gone through it not myself, but through my mother-in-law, who we lost to breast cancer almost 30 years ago. She was just 62, which is not much older than I am now. Thirty years ago, that age seemed a long way off, but now that I am 60, it does not seem very old at all. My father-in-law, who is in his nineties, is still with us, which made me realise how much life this terrible disease robbed her of. Her secondary breast cancer—like that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton)—was diagnosed 10 years after her primary breast cancer. That struck me and brought it back to mind. I was thinking how glad and happy I am that the treatment now is so much better than it was 30 years ago, and that my hon. Friend is very much still alive and kicking—and in great voice, as we have all heard today.

Losing my mother-in-law at such a young age spurred me on, as a new MP in 2005, to join the all-party parliamentary group on breast cancer. I went on to be an officer and then chair for a number of years. Now that I am in government, I feel an immense responsibility resting on my shoulders. I want to do the right thing not just in memory of my mother-in-law, but for all hon. Members who have shared their stories and those of constituents and campaigners, and for all those I have met since I was first elected to Parliament.

This has been a very moving and informative debate, with so many excellent speeches from hon. Members. I particularly commend my predecessor as Public Health and Prevention Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire, for her fantastic work on the national cancer plan. It was all the better for being led by someone not just with lived experience, but who was actually in the middle of her cancer treatment at the same time. How she was able to do that—there is a huge workload in this brief—on top of her treatment, while at the same time driving progress on the 10-year health plan, the HIV action plan and the men’s health plan, is testament to how focused, tough and brilliant she is. I am not afraid to admit that following in her footsteps is a challenge. I am thrilled that she is with us today, and we all witnessed her brilliance at first hand in her speech.

I want to come to the substance of the issues that hon. Members have raised. If I run out of time, or if there is anything that I miss, I and my officials will write to hon. Members, so they should not think that I have just ignored what they said. It will be responded to in due course.

I want to start with data. The more data we collect, the more we can empower patients to make informed choices about their care, but it is not just about giving patients a clearer picture, important though that is. The Government made data one of the five big bets of our 10-year health plan—I think that is the right terminology—because the NHS is a data superpower. Just as coal was the fuel of the first industrial revolution, data will power the life sciences revolution, and we can use datasets to help scientists make further breakthroughs in cancer research.

Better data is also important for researchers to understand the number of cohorts they have to work with. It is important for NHS commissioners, who will have a clearer idea of patient demand. We cannot improve something that we cannot measure. In the words of Jo Taylor, the late founder of METUPUK,

“We are only counted when we are dead”,

and that is just unacceptable. As part of Jo’s legacy, we now have a specific commitment in our national cancer plan to begin collecting data for recurrent cancers, starting with metastatic breast cancer. I pay tribute once again to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire for personally making sure that that commitment was there. Now that I have picked up her baton, as I said, I am determined to make sure we can make good on that promise.

The national disease registration service is working with NHS trusts to improve their reporting of non-primary cancers in the cancer outcomes and services dataset. I can update the House today that since the publication of the national cancer plan, the NDRS has made the collection and reporting of secondary breast cancer a key priority. It is co-ordinating with all partners, charities, teams of experts and trusts to properly collect data on secondary breast cancers at source. It is helping trusts to improve the way they collect data for things like disease progression, recurrence and metastatic spread.

In the meantime, the NDRS is teaming up with researchers at the University of Oxford to develop a new algorithm. This infers the numbers of metastatic disease by combining multiple routine datasets. In plain English, what it means is this: trusts routinely report all sorts of data to NHS England—imaging, chemo, radiotherapy. All that data comes into NHSE from different places across the country. It can then be linked to give us a good idea on numbers until we can get an even clearer picture through trust reporting.

We are already off to a good start because data was already starting to improve under this Government, even before the national cancer plan was published. Consecutive audits of metastatic breast cancer by the National Cancer Audit Collaborating Centre, or NATCAN, cover a greater number of people living with metastatic breast cancer. Data coverage of metastatic breast cancer is already improving, and the NDRS will also publish a baseline assessment of incidence and prevalence and the total number of people living with metastatic breast cancer by the end of this year. It will be the best assessment we have ever had.

Cancer patients deserve to have the finest minds in the country harnessing the data to make a difference. That is why we are also setting up a new health data research service by the end of this year. It will provide a secure single access point for researchers, including data relevant to cancer diagnosis, care and outcomes. That means that wherever they live in our country, whether Washington, Wokingham or Durham, scientists will be sitting on a treasure trove of data for their research. Our life sciences sector plan commits us to working with industry to accelerate growth in spending on innovative medicines. Just last year, a cutting edge oral targeted cancer therapy that helps to slow or stop cell growth was approved for treating advanced breast cancer on the NHS in England.

I turn to some specific points made by hon. Members. The hon. Members for Horsham (John Milne) and for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) spoke about lobular breast cancer and the Lobular Moon Shot Project. I assure the House that Government funders are committed to continuing to work with researchers to support the development of fundable research proposals to drive a stronger understanding of the biology behind lobular breast cancer, as well as to develop effective treatments. In April, Lord Vallance and I, alongside the National Institute for Health and Medical Research Council representatives, met representatives of the Lobular Moon Shot Project. It was a very interesting meeting, I must say. Lord Vallance will also host a scientific roundtable on lobular breast cancer this month—one of the commitments we made at that meeting.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire spoke about the cancer clinical trials accelerator. I assure her that the Department, NHS England and the NIHR are working hard to develop and set up the accelerator to the timeline set out in the national cancer plan.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked me once again about clinical trials at Queen’s University Belfast and what discussions Ministers had had with Northern Ireland Ministers. I commit to writing to him with further information on that matter. His plea at the end for more screening, more funding and more saving of lives did not fall on deaf ears for anyone in this Chamber, I am sure.

It has been a privilege to respond on behalf of the Government today. I have spent the best part of 20 to 30 years—21 years of them in this place—fighting alongside campaigners on this issue, along with many others. Now I am in government, they are all at the forefront of my mind. When it comes to cancer, colleagues are pushing at an open door with me. I will never forget my roots as chair of the all-party group and as a daughter-in-law of someone lost to secondary breast cancer at far too young an age. The hon. Member for Wokingham has a very personal connection to this campaign, and the all-party group could not be in better hands with him as its chair.

Let me end by thanking all hon. Members for keeping me on my toes. If I have not responded to any points made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), or by others, I commit to doing so in writing. I look forward to working with all Members in the months and years ahead as we take forward this important work.

Draft Food Supplements Purity Criteria (Magnesium L-threonate monohydrate) (England) Regulations 2026

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Food Supplements Purity Criteria (Magnesium L-threonate monohydrate) (England) Regulations 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Edward. Magnesium L-threonate monohydrate—just to say it again—has recently been authorised as a novel food following a public consultation and safety assessment by the Food Standards Agency, which concluded that it is safe under the proposed conditions of use. The instrument sets the purity criteria—that is, the required safety and quality standards—for this form of the mineral magnesium to permit its use and sale in food supplements in England.

This statutory instrument is a routine and technical measure that ensures that food supplement regulations continue to operate effectively following the authorisation of novel substances for use in food supplements. The regulatory approach taken here is well established: where new substances are authorised, it is necessary to update the relevant legislation so that they can be used in practice and to ensure that clear and enforceable quality standards are in place.

Hon. Members will be aware that, under our existing legal framework, vitamins and minerals may be used in food supplements only if they are both listed in legislation and meet appropriate safety and quality standards. Magnesium itself is already a permitted mineral listed in legislation. However, different chemical forms of that mineral must also be specifically listed before they can be used.

A related statutory instrument, the Nutrition (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, already laid under the negative procedure, adds this substance to the list of permitted forms of magnesium. However, for food supplements containing this substance to be lawfully sold, purity criteria must also be established, and an SI following the affirmative procedure is required to set the purity criteria for this substance in legislation. That is the sole purpose of the regulations before this Committee today. The criteria specified in this instrument reflect the scientific specification assessed by the Food Standards Agency and ensure that, where this substance is used, it is manufactured and marketed to a consistent and safe standard.

Food law is a devolved matter and this instrument applies in England only. Wales and Scotland have made equivalent amendments to their food supplement regulations, and Northern Ireland applies the existing European Union equivalent regulations, as required by the Windsor framework. It is important to emphasise that this measure is enabling, not mandatory; it does not require any business to use this ingredient or to change their products.

The use of this new optional substance initially affects only the applicant who requested this authorisation, who benefits first from a five-year exclusive use period. During this period, only the applicant may use and sell magnesium L-threonate monohydrate as a form of magnesium, unless another business obtains authorisation based on its own data or with the applicant’s permission. In the longer term, other businesses will benefit from the authorisation of this substance, supporting choice and product innovation while maintaining robust safety standards.

Food supplement legislation is in scope of the UK-EU sanitary and phytosanitary—or SPS—agreement, which will involve alignment with EU legislation in this area. In this case, this substance has already been authorised for use in the EU, so we expect no change in practice for businesses when alignment takes place. We therefore consider it appropriate to proceed now, following the Food Standards Agency’s safety assessment, to allow the substance to be used in Great Britain as soon as possible.

In summary, the regulations fulfil our requirements to update food supplement regulations where new substances have been authorised for use in food supplements and we continue to uphold high standards of safety and quality for consumers. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Hodgson]

I thank all Members for coming along and supporting the important measures before us today. I thank the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for her questions. I have made a note of them, and I am sure my official has as well. I have a huge binder full of information here, in which I could attempt to find the right answer for the hon. Lady—but, if she does not mind, I will commit to write to her on those very important points. I agree with her that it does sound like a possible wonder supplement; perhaps we should all rush out and buy some, especially if it helps with sleep. I know we could all do with a bit more of that. Specifically, the dosing plan, how often the purity will be tested and whether it does what it says on the tin are very important questions, so I will commit to write to her.

As I said in my opening remarks, this instrument is a routine technical measure to update food supplement regulations following the authorisation of magnesium L-threonate monohydrate as a novel ingredient to ensure the appropriate purity criteria are in place so that it can be used and sold lawfully in food supplements in England. It does not place new burdens on businesses, but ensures that any use of the substance meets clear and consistent safety and quality standards, which I think is what the hon. Lady was driving at in her questions. I invite the Committee to support these draft regulations, and I commend them to the Committee today.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

12. What steps his Department is taking to improve the provision of NHS health visitors.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)]

Health visitors play a vital role in supporting babies, children and families. Under the previous Government, the number of health visitors fell significantly, which is why this Government have taken action. The upcoming professional strategy for nursing and midwifery will set out a bold direction of travel to strengthen health visiting across England. We have already made improvements with all post-birth health and development reviews now completed for over 80% of children nationally, which is the highest level since recording began.

[Mr Charters]

I recently gave evidence to Baroness Amos’s national maternity inquiry, sharing the trauma that my wife and I endured. Even as she carried her own burden after the birth, she was my rock, but the NHS was not. I was invisible. No one asked about me and I was left to carry it alone for months. Will the Minister please ensure that health visitors recognise dads and other non-birthing partners, check in on their mental health, and help them to access support so that no more dads are forgotten when families need them the most?

[Mrs Hodgson]

I thank my hon. Friend for being so brave and willing to share his and his wife’s birth trauma, and to talk about the lack of support afterwards, not just with Baroness Amos and her review but with the House today. I know personally how hard it is to do that, but I also know the huge difference it can make to Government policy. I am happy to commit to him today that the Government will absolutely look closely at all the findings in Baroness Amos’s review, and work with the national maternity taskforce to translate the recommendations into action. I am also pleased to confirm that we have recently updated our national health visiting guidance to include a high impact area on family mental health, with a clear focus on supporting both mothers and fathers.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

It is not just the number of health visitors that needs to be improved. Women report to me that they have skipped appointments due to negative experiences with health visitors, especially around breastfeeding. Will the Minister commit to improving the training of health visitors, so that women receive the best quality care?

[Mrs Hodgson]

Yes, I will. We are busy working on the 10-year workforce plan. The training of all the NHS workforce, including health visitors, is a big part of that. In my new position as public health and prevention Minister, I am particularly interested in the work of health visitors, especially with regard to supporting rates of breastfeeding. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the results of the breastfeeding survey were released last week and they showed substantial improvement.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

13. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the dental recruitment incentive scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)]

T3. At the age of six, Ellis Lake was diagnosed with metachromatic leukodystrophy, which is treatable if diagnosed early. His parents Tracy and Luke are campaigning for newborn screening for the disease. The UK National Screening Committee did not recommend screening in its last review of the condition, but it did outline that it was gathering more evidence. Will the Minister look at how the process can be expedited?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that very important matter. My sympathy is with the Lake family, and I commend them for their advocacy on this issue. I am acutely aware of the matter, having met the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and her constituents about this issue last week, in a very moving meeting. I assure my hon. Friend that the Department is working with partners to see whether it is possible to set up a multi-condition evaluation, so that not only MLD but other rare conditions can be assessed alongside the existing screening programmes.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

T8. I recently held a health roundtable in Purbeck and heard volunteers from Parkinson’s UK make it clear that more needs to be done so that all those living with the illness receive the robust support they need. There was particular concern that a shift away from routine check-ups could mean that many will not regularly see an experienced practitioner. Will the Minister work with me to ensure that the voices of people living with Parkinson’s are listened to and their concerns acted upon when any changes are made to the care they receive?

[Mrs Hodgson]

People with Parkinson’s disease should receive support tailored to their individual needs, as symptoms and progression vary. The NHS provides specialist multidisciplinary NHS care informed by guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and improvement programmes such as Getting It Right First Time. People with Parkinson’s will benefit from our wider work to strengthen community services, reduce waiting times and improve co-ordinated, person-centred care closer to home. I assure my hon. Friend that the Department will continue to meet regularly with Parkinson’s UK to ensure that their voices are heard.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

T6. Byfleet, in my constituency, lost its doctor’s surgery in 2005, leaving residents having to struggle via the A245 to access basic health facilities, which are set to get busier due to a likely housing development. Will the Minister agree to meet me to ensure that we can bring health facilities back to Byfleet?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

Last year I had the opportunity to witness a transcatheter aortic valve implantation procedure, which is a groundbreaking procedure for people who require valve changes. What I saw was quite incredible, and I recommend that all hon. Members go and see the procedure in St Thomas’ hospital. The patient, who was 82, had been bedbound for weeks, but after that 20-minute surgery they were fit enough to be discharged later that day and to look after themselves. That has a massive impact, not just on the patient’s life but for our NHS and the wider economy, as illustrated by Heart Valve Voice’s optimal pathway report. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that NHS systems identify patients and treat them?

[Mrs Hodgson]

I am aware of my hon. Friend’s significant work in this policy area, and she is absolutely right about the huge potential of TAVIs. Rising national TAVI activity and improved “Getting it right first time” pathways are part of our approach to reduce health inequalities and support more timely, equitable care. Through that work, the Government are committed to strengthening consistency in the diagnosis and treatment of heart valve disease, building on progress already made.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

The relocation of Frimley Park hospital in my constituency is a £1.8 billion project, but none of the costs of the essential infrastructure to enable the new site to go ahead have been costed or budgeted for. The chief executives of the hospital simply have said that those costs will have to come from the new hospital programme contingency fund. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is no way to start a project of such size, scale and significance, and will he meet me to address those concerns?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

On Thursday I will chair the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis’s first evidence session of our inquiry into endometriosis in the workplace. We will look at the experiences of women living with the condition and at the lack of timely treatment for chronic symptoms and how this impacts them in the workplace. Will the Secretary of State commit to reviewing our recommendations, once they are published later this year?

[Mrs Hodgson]

I commend my hon. Friend for her great work and that of the APPG in highlighting the importance of endometriosis and the impact it can have. We would be delighted to continue our close engagement with her and the APPG on this topic. We will consider the APPG’s findings carefully when they are published, as part of our ongoing work to improve diagnosis, treatment and support for women with endometriosis.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Epsom and St Helier hospitals need urgent funding now, not just patchwork repairs. In 2024, 600 operations were cancelled due to ventilation issues and the situation is only going to get worse, so will the Minister address the backlog of hospital repairs now to ensure that patients and staff have safe and modern facilities in Epsom and Saint Helier hospitals?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

May I have a meeting to discuss my parents, carers and babies Bill, which affords support to the Best Start family hubs and healthy babies programme?

[Mrs Hodgson]

We know that the earliest stages of a child’s life are critical for their development, and the Government are committed to supporting families to give babies the best start in life. We are investing over £900 million in the Best Start family hubs and healthy babies programme to create an integrated, accessible system of support for families. I particularly look forward to considering the merits of the private Member’s Bill that the right hon. Gentleman will present to Parliament, and I do indeed look forward to meeting him to discuss that further.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

There are half a million coeliac sufferers in the UK, but there is little understanding of the condition, which is massively underdiagnosed. Can I invite everyone here—even you, Mr Speaker—to the drop-in session that I am doing on Tuesday 16 June with the campaign? In particular, can the campaign have a follow-up meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), as she has been a long-standing advocate for the campaign and gets it?

Prostate Cancer Screening

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)]

I would like to inform the House that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has accepted the recommendation of the UK National Screening Committee to introduce England’s first targeted prostate cancer screening programme. This decision has been taken after considering the evidence presented by both the UK NSC and patient advocate groups.

Men with a known BRCA2 gene variant and a relevant family history will be offered PSA (prostate-specific antigen) screening every two years between the ages of 45 and 61. The programme is expected to begin roll-out in 2027 and will use an IT call and recall system that will systematically invite eligible men for tests. Those who have previously been advised that they can get an annual PSA test will still be able to access them through their GP.

This is an important step forward, but we know that our accepting this recommendation means that there will be groups and individuals who will be disappointed that we are not going further. However, the evidence does not yet support a wider screening programme. Screening must do more good than harm, and given current tests and treatments, that threshold has not been met. Screening all men could lead to unnecessary treatment that does more harm than good—including incontinence and erectile dysfunction.

That is why, alongside introducing targeted screening, the Government are taking decisive action to strengthen the evidence base and improve outcomes for men at highest risk, and to improve effective diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer.

We are announcing a major package of investment of over £20 million to expand research and improve treatment. This includes an increased financial commitment of up to an additional £18 million to the TRANSFORM trial, which is working to address the evidence gaps identified by the UK NSC. As a result of this investment, and with the help of grant-funded investment at community level, all eligible black men—UK residents between 45 and 74 years who have not had a PSA test or prostate MRI scan in the last five years—will be invited to take part in stage 2 of the trial. This investment will help to address long-standing inequalities in risk and outcomes.

The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray), will soon be hosting a roundtable alongside the Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), with representatives of local community organisations, supported by Prostate Cancer UK and the National Institute of Health and Care Research, to hear directly from community organisations about how we should boost engagement and encourage black men to be a part of this vital research, which will find the best screening programme. Furthermore, we are investing up to £2.8 million in focal therapy, a minimally invasive prostate cancer treatment. This will strengthen existing national provision, and reduce potential harms from treatment and support delivery of the TRANSFORM trial.

The Government have also taken significant steps to improve access to the most effective treatments for men with prostate cancer. Earlier this year, the NHS expanded access to the drug abiraterone for earlier-stage prostate cancer, representing a substantial improvement in outcomes for thousands of families affected by prostate cancer.

We recognise that the change in policy will mean that the public may seek answers from their GP or health professionals. Men who are not eligible for the new screening programme but have concerns should continue to ask their GP for advice on the basis of their individual position and risk factors. In order to support this engagement, we are updating the guidance both to GPs and to the public in line with the new recommendation to make it clearer to follow.

It is important that GPs are supported to make more informed clinical judgements when approached for a PSA test by men who do not have symptoms, but who are concerned about suspected family history. My officials are working with Cancer Research UK to move work on this forwards.

We will keep the evidence under close review, and the UK NSC’s model maintained, resourced and regularly updated as new evidence becomes available, so that we are ready to go further as soon as the science supports it.

With this package of measures, we are expanding research, widening treatment options, and tackling inequalities in prostate cancer care. The Secretary of State and I would like to take this opportunity to thank the UK National Screening Committee for continuing to provide invaluable expert advice on screening programmes, and everyone who participated in the consultation, including charities and patient groups. Finally, we would like to pay tribute to all those who work to deliver high-quality screening across the country, saving lives every day.

[HCWS80]