Health Bill (Fourth sitting)

Sureena Brackenridge Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East highlighted extremely well the difficulties of accessing hospital services on an island, but it can be a problem anywhere, including in rural constituencies. Winchester is about 60% rural. Since I was elected, an issue that I have had a great deal of correspondence about—even protests and petitions—has been the cancellation by Hampshire county council of bus services, particularly from rural villages such as Colden Common. People need buses for a variety of reasons—obviously to get to work and school—but the No. 1 issue concerning people is that of mainly elderly people using the bus to access hospital and GP services. They are really worried. It is causing a huge amount of stress that they will not be able to access hospital and GP services and not be able to remain living independently in the village that they have lived in for years.

One of the new hospitals in Hampshire is due to be built in south Basingstoke. Extraordinarily, the consultation on the location of the new hospital did not include consultation with the South Central ambulance service. When moving an A&E department and maternity service to another location, it seems blindingly obvious that the ambulance service should be heavily involved in deciding where a new hospital may be located, given that it is primarily responsible for ensuring that people can get there in a timely manner. Although there is obviously a need for local councils to ensure their constituents can get to a local hospital, it is important that we have some kind of obligation. I assume it would have been an obligation that when setting up the location of new hospital services, the ambulance services must be consulted and engaged with to get their input.

[Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

On amendment 13, the shadow Minister asked why my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South felt the need to table amendment 13. One can only assume it is because health inequalities have continued to widen for far too long. In a 20 or 30-minute drive across my Wolverhampton North East constituency, life expectancy drops by seven years. I accept that tackling health inequalities is not just about health; it is about a wider web of societal issues, including educational, employment and housing inequalities. That very long list is beyond the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.

Amendment 13 will put the tackling of preventable ill health and health inequalities at the centre of national decision making by ensuring that the Secretary of State must consider not just NHS treatment but wider social and economic factors. Will the Minister assure the Committee that future Secretaries of State will not overlook the wider social and economic factors that drive ill health and unequal life expectancy, and that there will be a responsibility to work across Departments to tackle that wider and growing inequality?

[Karin Smyth]

I am grateful to all hon. Members who tabled amendments in this group, some of which have not been spoken to. I will address the central points that Members have rightly highlighted. I am grateful to the Chair and members of the Health and Social Care Committee for their report and recommendations for the Bill.

Before I turn to the detail of the amendments, I will set out what clause 4 does. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East highlighted, the wider determinants of health inequalities are important. On the point that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East made about the Labour party, they absolutely run through our DNA. Clause 4 restates and reaffirms our commitment to tackling health inequalities. It reformulates section 1C of the National Health Service Act 2006, aligning it with the duty imposed on NHS England by section 13G of that Act. It makes plain the need to achieve greater equality between the benefits that people receive and the provision of health services—for their ability to access those services and for the outcomes achieved. Importantly, “outcomes” includes the safety and effectiveness of health services and the quality of the experience undergone by patients. The clause will ensure that the Secretary of State must have regard to reducing inequalities in respect of all those benefits.

The wording of the revised duty more directly encapsulates the benefits that must be taken into consideration and obtained from the health service to support action that reduces or prevents inequalities. Fundamentally, the clause underpins our commitment to improving the health of the population and tackling the stark inequalities that blight the health of communities up and down the land, which have got worse over the past 14 years. That is central to this Government’s ambition, which is why we highlighted it in the 10-year health plan.

We also recognise that this is not a matter for the Department of Health and Social Care alone, which is why we are already working across Government to address the root causes of health inequalities and the barriers to accessing health and care services. We are ensuring that our action on health is embedded in policies that shape people’s daily lives, from the homes they live in to the air they breathe.

Health Bill (First sitting)

Sureena Brackenridge Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Q On that point, Dr Dash, what would you say to concerns that have been raised with me by Healthwatch Wolverhampton that patients and service users will be reluctant to raise concerns from within the system? How will your recommendations help with that?

Dr Dash: I think that we do need to recognise that. I hear that as well and experience it myself; lots of people are often reluctant to come forward, and they think, “If this is my GP, how is this information going to be treated?” That is why we need to really raise the calibre of our directors of patient experience. There are ways in which you can manage that and treat that data confidentially—in fact, you have to treat all data confidentially. There are ways in which you can support people and give them the confidence that their information will be taken seriously and treated confidentially. You can do that often through focus groups, one-to-one conversations and anonymous surveys. We are hoping to be able to do a lot more of that through the app, to link it directly to people’s care, and to give people prompts as soon as they have had an interaction: “Please feed back.” I think there are ways in which we can overcome that. Bringing this much closer to people’s care, linking it in much more to day-to-day practice and making sure that feedback goes straight back to our frontline clinicians in an anonymised way to encourage and support them to improve brings a significant benefit, and we can find a way around the concerns about confidentiality.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

Q I should declare that I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on patient safety. Apologies, Dr Dash, I have questioned you on this many times, but I am going to continue to do so. When the King’s Fund, the Nuffield Trust and the Health Foundation were in front of the Health and Social Care Committee and they talked about bringing HSSIB into the CQC, all three of them said very clearly: “Don’t do it.”. In fact, I can find almost nobody apart from you and the Department who thinks that moving HSSIB into the CQC is a good idea. Does that give you any pause for thought about whether you are recommending the right thing?

More specifically, if, as you said to the Health and Social Care Committee, the safe space element would be retained and HSSIB would operate as an independent organisation, how can you square the fact that it would remain independent and yet be part of the CQC? If it does remain independent, what is the need to bring it into the CQC?

Dr Dash: The point of bringing it into the CQC, as I said before, is that we are trying to simplify this landscape. There are so many different organisations continually commenting and doing reviews—often replicating the same reviews that other people have done. The concern is that it is distracting rather than enabling. The hope that I had when I made the recommendation, and still have now, is that by bringing HSSIB into the CQC, you can align the work of the two.

For example, if the CQC is going round the country and spotting a particular problem with the way in which anaesthesia is being given or with managing patients post-surgery, the CQC could then say to HSSIB—that team of people with specific expertise—“Can you go in and take a look at this? Can you do a detailed focus review of this particular area of care that we are spotting through our visits and which seems to be a particular challenge?” It is that bit about enabling the CQC to identify a problem and then asking HSSIB to review it in detail, and HSSIB bringing its expertise in investigations into the CQC to enable the CQC to go deeper and then come back to the NHS with particular areas, but also to supplement the work of the NHS.

I would like to point out that since HSSIB was established, the NHS has established its own much more rigorous, much more robust investigatory teams and processes. Of course, I am not saying that they are perfect—we can all see that—but I encourage all colleagues here today to look at the work they are doing, the specific areas they are reviewing, the outputs of those reviews and the ways in which those are leading to improving care. That feels to me to be a much more systematic way of addressing the concerns of patients, families and staff in the place where those concerns happen, having mechanisms to escalate those through the NHS so you can bring them to regions—some investigations get done at the NHS England level—and having the CQC as an independent body that can separately review and spot if there are problems but also ensure that those investigations within the NHS are happening well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

Q If responsibility for managing and safeguarding the single patient record is to sit with general practice, if that is what the Government want, can you tell us, Kay Keane, as chair of the Institute of General Practice Management, what the implication would be for workload, and particularly workforce, in practice management?

Kay Keane: I think it is impossible, really, for me to understand that. It is a large part of our job already. As Dr Dickson said, we act as a small business. We do all the things that any other small business does, so being able to manage that record on top of that would take a huge amount of investment into general practice.

I would argue that maybe the investment into general practice should not be on data, but should be in the wider workforce. We are really good at looking after our data now. We care about it, we hold it close to the care of the patient and we share it only when appropriate, but in our view to then be the data controller of other information is too much and is unmanageable for a general practice to do.

Equally, our data is very personal to us, and we want to keep hold of that. We do not want our patients worrying about the stories that they tell us, so a model where we feed into something else and have responsibility for the bit that it is fed into sits more comfortably with the Institute of General Practice Management.

Dr Dickson: I do not have much to add to that. The devil is in the detail of where it sits and how we reassure patients that we are trusted with their data—that we are sharing what they have given us appropriately for their health, but not for spurious reasons. I think people’s understanding is that we share an awful lot more than we do, so there is a gap. People perceive that we are going to overshare, whereas actually this will allow us to come up to the level that we should be at.

[Sureena Brackenridge]

Q My question is to Dr Dickson and is about education and training policy, responsibility for which will be transferred from NHS England to the Secretary of State. I know that you have a lot of interest in medical training and education, so what do you feel would be the impact?

Dr Dickson: I think the impact could be really positive. At the moment, we train nationally to high standards, so that the product of medical education can be deployed anywhere in the UK, and we are also all trained to develop, innovate, change the service and move forward. What we miss at the moment is parity of esteem for education as a productivity function of the NHS. There is the productivity function of elective care, waiting times, cancer treatment and all those things, but education must sit at that level of esteem for productivity for all professions in order for the service to continue—not to innovate, change and develop, but just to continue. Moving things to the Secretary of State gives us a chance to ensure that that pure parity is seen. The danger is that if you move the function in, it gets lost in the service productivity sphere. There is a huge opportunity to firmly embed the education and strategic development of different roles as a true productivity function of the NHS, which it needs to be.

[The Chair]

We have come in under time for a change. Thank you both very much indeed for joining us. Your contribution is invaluable.

Examination of Witness

Dr Rosie Benneyworth gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Morgan]

Q What could be changed in this legislation to ensure that HSSIB can retain trust and independence from the regulatory body?

Dr Benneyworth: There needs to be much more clarity about governance and how that will work in the legislation to protect independence. There are potential compromises that could happen, such as a Healthwatch-style model that has its own independent leadership within the CQC, its own governance arrangements and, importantly, its own identity. That would enable it to keep its independence, while being part of a larger organisation. In the legislation, it is vital that there is a legal duty for the CQC to protect safe space.

[Sureena Brackenridge]

Q I feel that my question may have just been answered, but you may wish to add something, Dr Benneyworth. Will patient safety accountability be improved when a patient’s care spans different organisations within an ICB?

Dr Benneyworth: One of the things that we see regularly in our investigations is that people fall down the gaps between organisations. We have the ability to look right across the system and understand a person’s journey. As a recent example, we looked at medication errors on discharge from hospital. There are a lot of medication errors, and we looked at the process of how information was being shared and what was happening. Those are the type of things where we see a lot of concerns about patient safety. There needs to be much more clarity about accountability for patient safety.

No one is accountable for the discharge of a patient. There is not one person—no single individual—who is accountable when someone is discharged from hospital to social care. You go through multiple layers of accountability. We are keen to learn from other industries that have effective safety management systems. Part of those safety management systems is having much more clarity about accountability, which is lacking across the NHS. I very much hope that, with the changes to ICBs, they really do think about accountability for patient safety.

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

Q In her evidence earlier, Dr Dash said that one of the reasons for her recommendations in her second review of changes to the regulatory and investigatory landscape is that it is a problem for the provider landscape that there are so many different organisations making so many recommendations. You have just said that HSSIB makes very few recommendations. Will the merging or folding—however you wish to characterise it—of HSSIB into the CQC lead to any meaningful reduction in the number of recommendations that organisations have to cope with?

Dr Benneyworth: No, we do not make recommendations to provider organisations at all. All our recommendations go to national organisations. I completely agree with Dr Dash that there are too many recommendations. In fact, HSSIB raised that concern through our work two years ago and flagged it to Dr Dash. We wrote a report called “Recommendations but no action”. We are very concerned about the plethora of recommendations going to providers, which create a huge amount of noise but, distressingly for the families involved, do not lead to the changes needed.

I completely agree that there are far too many recommendations. I am leading some work to address that—we are setting up a recommendations hub with the Department of Health and Social Care—but we are not that problem. We have made 39 recommendations since investigations launched and HSSIB started three years ago, and they are all to national bodies. We might reduce the burden on national bodies by taking that away, but it will not have any impact on providers.

Health Bill (Second sitting)

Sureena Brackenridge Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th June 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Let us see if either of your colleagues would like to be less cautious. Mr Cooper?

James Cooper: The key here is making sure that the independent patient voice is well-resourced, is held accountable for doing its job and works particularly for those the system finds it hardest to reach. Families of seriously ill children definitely fall into that bracket, so the interest of Together for Short Lives and the children’s palliative care sector is certainly in making sure that those structures do that.

[Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Q I would like clarity on a few views that we have heard, not just in this session but in previous ones. There is one mindset that says that by bringing patient voice into ICBs, they are going to be marking their own homework. Equally, I think about places like Wolverhampton, where we have such baked-in inequalities and we simply have not shifted the dial for far too long, as can be seen in the differences in life expectancy. I have also heard that if you want to bring real change, it is best to bring that change from within the system. I will open that up to you, Sarah.

Sarah Tilsed: I disagree with that. It is fine for ICBs to be involved, but it is all about local partnership working—bringing in the voluntary sector and really going into the community, and doing it in partnership. That is the only way of doing it. If you are bringing it into the ICB, consider how much funding there was when Healthwatch was doing it and—I do not want to repeat this point, but I will—the fact that it will be marking its own homework. For me, it is about partnership working going from the community—not within the system and not within the NHS, but going out to the community and feeding inwards.

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

Q I know that in this conversation some have highlighted that patients have stated that their experience has worsened or not improved, but I would argue that is not a Healthwatch failure; it is actually down to the NHS or ICBs not acting on Healthwatch recommendations. It seems to me perverse to give that voice to the organisations that are actually part of the problem through not acting.

As a Minister, I was on the receiving end of some quite sharp recommendations from Healthwatch, but they were always constructive. Whether right or wrong, my fear is that this measure risks a perception among patients that it will be down to NHS managers and ICBs essentially to make recommendations that reflect their priorities, rather than the priorities and voices of patients. Professor, even if the principles that you have enunciated that might mitigate that risk were applied to the new model, are you really confident that they could mitigate the risk to patients’ confidence that their voice is genuinely and independently heard, loud and clear, however unhelpful it is perceived to be by bits of the NHS?

Professor Croisdale-Appleby: I cannot be confident of that, because we are in the foothills, not up the slope, and the details have not been given. ICBs have received something approaching a 50% cut in their running costs. I will not comment on the appropriateness or otherwise of that, but one has to be realistic and think about how high a really informed patient voice—particularly one that seeks out the views of both communities and individuals where the health inequalities are the greatest—will be on the priority list. I would question that, but I will leave it there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

Q Having been both a local councillor and a Health Minister, I am very conscious that the real test of any joint working arrangements between different bodies comes when budgets start getting a little tighter. We see that tension growing a little bit with the cuts made to ICBs’ budgets.

I was the Minister who created ICBs, and I sat on that Bill Committee with the current Minister for Secondary Care. I am getting a sense of déjà vu—we are on different sides of the Chamber now, but we sat through the Committee stage of the Health and Care Act 2022 together. I deliberately created ICBs to match the geography of upper-tier authorities because health and social care is essentially one system. If one bit does not work, the other bit does not work.

Since then, we have seen significant mergers and larger areas, further removing them from that direct relationship and read-across. Although the good ones do, I fear that a lot of NHS ICBs do not fully reflect the intention behind their creation, which was to see them as a genuinely collaborative exercise with equal voices in the room.

My question is: if we see ever-larger areas or fragmented areas, whether through neighbourhood health plans or mergers and acquisitions among ICBs, how do we maintain genuine local accountability and the relationships that underpin any structure written in law, on a piece of paper or in guidelines?

Notwithstanding what is being done about the health and wellbeing boards’ increasing involvement, do they actually have the teeth they need? In my experience, however good the collaboration, it is within the ICB boardroom that the decisions are actually made. However well things have been discussed beforehand, the ICBs will make their own decisions based on their own priorities. Does the removal of that voice from the ICB strengthen or weaken the ability to see this as one local system and to deliver a genuinely holistic local solution?

Councillor Wright: It will probably weaken it, unless we are given more say in our local health and wellbeing board. Our Thames Valley ICB has one director of public health. Thames Valley ICB I think has nine local authorities, and one chief executive and one director of public health sit on the board, so already the voice on it is quite small. If we lose that voice, where would we have those conversations? That brings me back to the whole thing about health and wellbeing boards needing to be stronger, definitely.

Sally Burlington: We would agree with that. If you take away the voice that is able to speak on behalf of social care, public health and wider public services, it will be harder and an additional job to bring in that consideration. It will be even harder to expect there to be notional teeth in that relationship, so we have concerns about that.

Maria Higson: It is also worth recognising that the delivery of any strategy or plan will require partnership working with local authorities, so whether or not they are in the room, they will be needed for delivery, and the proof is always in the pudding. For me, the partnership is somewhat non-negotiable in order to achieve delivery.

[Sureena Brackenridge]

Q Constituents have raised issues with me about when elderly patients or patients with dementia, in particular, come to discharge and the transfer of care, because of the lack of effective data and information sharing. To what extent do the provisions in the Bill on the single patient record allow data to be shared with social care providers? I will ask Councillor Wright to start off.

Councillor Wright: At the LGA, we are arguing for a single person record, so that we have a single patient record that brings in social care providers, or at least the local authorities’ social care statutory provision, too. Someone discharged into the community would therefore still have access to records and know what was going on, while others would know what has happened to that person and what they need. Yes, we agree: we hope that a single patient record would make things as smooth as possible from hospital discharge to home and would help when someone comes into hospital, so that the clinicians have a better idea of what the patient’s quality of life was like, what treatments they were on, and so on. We are definitely in support of the single patient record for that, and we would like it to become a single person record.

Sally Burlington: We are supportive as well. The Bill itself is unlikely to solve all the problems in this space. A huge number of practical cultural system problems exist in data sharing, so the regulations that follow the Bill will be important to enable that to work for social care providers and commissioners. It is worth noting that there are thousands of social care providers, so the implementation of the Bill and subsequent regulations will be important. We are keen to ensure that any approaches are co-produced with the social care sector, as well as the NHS. It will be a lot of thinking, a lot of planning and a lot of hard work to get it right, and social care providers will need lots of notice to upgrade their systems in the right, consistent way to enable them to speak to each other, if we are to see the vision of the single person record delivered. I guess it would also be helpful to think about the role of carers as we move into that space, because we know from covid that data sharing among carers was one of the issues that came up.

[Gregory Stafford]

Q Ms Higson, given that you are a director of transformation, and that this is, in a wider sense, a transformation of the NHS, if you had the money, resources and political capital that the current Government have, would you do this or would you do something else?

Maria Higson: Any time we go through an NHS reorganisation, it is distracting—that is the reality of such situations. It is unfortunate that, over the past 15 months, this has been a large distraction for people who are genuinely trying to deliver the three shifts—prevention, digital and neighbourhoods. It is true that it has been a distraction. I am not sure that this Committee is the right space to go into these, as I am aware that we are here to discuss the Bill, but there are probably opportunities to go further on some elements, which may help us in future.

Community Pharmacies

Sureena Brackenridge Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) for securing this important debate on the future of community pharmacies. I want to take a moment to acknowledge the importance of community pharmacies across the country, especially in Wolverhampton and Willenhall. They are true anchors of support for my communities, providing not only specialist healthcare services but a friendly, familiar face for so many residents.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Lady join me in paying tribute to the many people who work in community pharmacies, including my constituent Sadie Jefferson, who is 90 years old and retired last week from the community pharmacy where she had worked for 75 years? Hers is an example of the commitment and effort in community pharmacies right across the United Kingdom.

[Sureena Brackenridge]

I extend my sincere gratitude and congratulations; 75 years working in a pharmacy is incredible. At the other end of the scale from Sadie, my very first Saturday job was in pharmacies in Wednesfield and Willenhall in my constituency. I also extend my thanks to the pharmacies, dispensers, frontline shop staff and delivery drivers whose dedication underpins that support. Community pharmacies are among the most accessible and trusted parts of our NHS.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

Boots closed its pharmacy in Thames Ditton in 2024. An application was put in for another one, but it was decided following a pharmaceutical needs assessment that the need was met by the chemist. However, elderly residents have a 20-minute-plus walk to get to the chemist, and the high street around it has pretty much collapsed. Does the hon. Member agree that, beyond macro PNA figures, local circumstances are relevant?

[Sureena Brackenridge]

I agree. The absence of a community pharmacy leaves a vacuum on the high street that is felt by residents. I am sure that Members across this Chamber will appreciate that factor as well.

Some 1.6 million people walk through a pharmacy door in England every day; they are embedded in our communities. That is why I welcome the Government’s recent £340 million funding agreement for the sector and the expansion of Pharmacy First. It builds on a service that has already delivered more than 3.3 million consultations in the past year alone. Crucially, from autumn 2026, pharmacists with independent prescribing qualifications will be able to assess patients and prescribe medicines directly on the NHS. It is a significant step forward to deliver faster care right on our high street.

However, if we are serious about shifting care into the community, improving prevention and delivering on the ambitions of the NHS 10-year health plan, we must be honest about the challenges that the sector has faced. From 2010 to 2015, community pharmacy funding broadly kept pace with demand, but from 2016 onwards it was cut and then largely held flat in cash terms through 2023 as costs and workload increased. That resulted in a sustained real-terms decline of around 20% to 25%. Since 2024, funding has begun to rise again, but primarily to stabilise the sector after years of underinvestment, with a significant gap still existing between funding and actual costs.

Across England we have lost nearly 1,500 pharmacies since 2017—that is 15% of the entire network. Those national pressures are felt acutely in my constituency of Wolverhampton North East, where, since 2020, we have seen a net loss of six pharmacies. Yet, despite those challenges, my local pharmacies continue to step up. Through Pharmacy First alone, they have delivered more than 23,500 consultations. That points to the scale of the opportunities ahead.

Community pharmacies are central to the future of primary care. It is thought that they could release up to 51 million primary care appointments by doing more on prevention and helping patients to manage long-term conditions. Independent prescribing is a vital part of that vision. At present, many pharmacies derive over 90% of their income from NHS funding while facing rising staff costs and increasing business pressures. The sector has also lost more than 3,000 full-time equivalent pharmacists in recent years. I therefore ask the Minister: what steps will the Government take to provide long-term sustainable funding and a road map for community pharmacies, and how will they address the workforce shortages and challenges?

In Wolverhampton North East, pharmacies have stepped up time and again for local people. Now I stand with my pharmacies to ensure that they can continue to serve my constituents for many years to come.

Health Bill

Sureena Brackenridge Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 1st June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Given the lack of time remaining in this debate, I will focus my remarks on the long-overdue move to a much-welcomed single patient record.

Many Members will have had constituents get in touch with casework, raising blunders and delays that stem from fragmented patient records. When they have been in severe pain or at their most vulnerable, patients have been asked to repeat the same medical history again and again to different clinicians, whether in hospital or in the GP setting. It is frustrating, and in some cases distressing, especially if the patient is elderly or with neurological conditions such as dementia. A single patient record will ensure that clinicians have the right information at the right time, including on allergies, medications and previous diagnoses, so that they are better placed to make the right decision quickly. Today, we have heard of surgeons who have had to cancel operations because patient histories were incomplete or did not arrive quickly enough. There is consensus that a single patient record will make a significant difference in A&E, for paramedics at the roadside and even in routine care, where small details can have significant consequences.

I must, however, also make clear the concerns of many of my residents in Wolverhampton North East. Bringing together such large volumes of highly sensitive personal data into a single system will inevitably raise questions about cyber-security and data protection. We know that patient data in the UK would be extremely lucrative to some, and many will be acutely aware of international interest in getting hold of our data-rich NHS in order to profiteer. As such, can the Minister set out in more detail the safeguards that will be built into the system from the very start to guard against cyber-attacks and unauthorised access? How will this be controlled, and what oversight will exist to ensure that public confidence is maintained if threats evolve?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sureena Brackenridge Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

As I have just pointed out to the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), we have broadened the definition, because the clinical definition of “urgent” was simply not in line with the common-sense interpretation. People removing their own teeth in DIY dentistry were not fitting into the classification of “urgent”. We have changed that categorisation. As a result of that, I am pleased to confirm that we have delivered 1.8 million additional appointments and treatments this year compared with the same period last year—April to October 2025. We will continue to work on that basis of embedding urgent care into the contract, as I announced on 16 December, in the 2026 reforms that we are carrying out.

[Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

8. What steps his Department is taking to improve ambulance response times.

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

We now have ambulances arriving faster, but we know there is much more to do. We have taken action to reduce handover delays by introducing release-to-rescue 45-minute handovers, supporting ambulances back on to the road to respond to patients faster. We have invested in an extra 500 ambulances. I am pleased to announce that as a result of this Government’s investment and modernisation, West Midlands ambulances are reaching patients with conditions such as suspected heart attacks and strokes almost seven minutes faster this winter than last winter.

[Sureena Brackenridge]

I thank the Minister for her update. I welcome the progress made on ambulance response times and handovers. I recently visited Willenhall ambulance hub to thank the incredible staff and to hear about winter pressures, local handover delays and the strain of late finishes on their family life and childcare. What action is being taken to tackle systemic bottlenecks in A&E departments, high bed occupancy and pharmacy delays to protect staff wellbeing and ensure high-quality patient care?

[Karin Smyth]

I commend my hon. Friend for visiting her ambulance service, as many hon. Members do, to understand the pressures they are working under. It is a useful visit to understand those wider issues, as she says. She raised an important point about handover delays impacting staff as well as patients. Reducing these delays will ensure that staff are no longer stuck outside emergency departments. On the wider issue about the front door, NHS England’s model emergency department will set out core principles and pathways for high-performing emergency departments, which will improve patient experience and flow with lower waiting times and less overcrowding. We are committed to improving rest facilities to support staff wellbeing.

Baby Loss

Sureena Brackenridge Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

I thank every Member from across the House who has shared their personal experience and those of their constituents. I also thank the families who have been listening to the debate in the Gallery.

From what has been shared so passionately, it is clear that not every family faces the same risks or receives the same care. The latest data from MBRRACE-UK—Mothers and Babies: Reducing Risk through Audits and Confidential Enquiries across the UK—has already been shared, but I feel that I must repeat it, as it is so deeply concerning. It shows that babies of black ethnicity are more than twice as likely to be stillborn as babies of white ethnicity. Neonatal mortality rates among black and Asian babies are over 50% higher than those among white babies, and babies born to mothers in the most deprived areas are twice as likely to die in the first month of life than those in the least deprived areas.

Access to bereavement care is also unequal. The national bereavement care pathway sets out what good care should look like, but voluntary adoption, stretched staff and a lack of time for training mean that too many families miss out. When mental health support is needed, it is even harder to access. Over 80% of bereaved parents report needing psychological support, yet only half are able to access it through the NHS. In particular, fathers and partners are forgotten far too often.

I thank the Secretary of State for being in the House to listen to the debate. Will the Government commit to eliminating inequalities in maternal and neonatal outcomes based on ethnicity and deprivation? Will they ensure that every bereaved family—wherever they live and whatever their background—can access high-quality bereavement and mental health care? Will every NHS professional who supports those families be given the training and time they need to do so with confidence and compassion?

I welcome the steps that the Government have taken, including extended baby loss certificates and the improvements to parental bereavement leave set out in the Employment Rights Bill. However, Members from across the House, like families across the country, are calling for the compassionate, consistent and equitable care that every bereaved family deserves.

Defibrillators

Sureena Brackenridge Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

I sincerely thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for securing this important debate. I will focus on the maintenance of defibrillators, which is intrinsic to access to this lifesaving equipment. In my constituency of Crewe and Nantwich, it represents a very real challenge. I want to share a story about the gravity of the situation.

In September last year, my constituent collapsed in Nantwich town centre, from a suspected cardiac arrest. CPR was administered by the public on site and a 999 call was made. The operator directed the member of the public to a defibrillator in the town centre, only for the member of the public to find, when they opened it, that it did not work. Another call was then made to 999 and they were directed to another defibrillator, which meant another 10-minute delay in finally administering treatment. We all know how vital it is that quick treatment be provided in cases of cardiac arrest. Sadly, the man who had the cardiac arrest did not survive; he passed away later. We do not know whether finding a working defibrillator first might have saved his life, but I am almost certain that it would have helped. I ask the Minister what plans the Government have to better regulate the maintenance of defibrillators.

I have spoken at length about the situation with the British Heart Foundation, which operates the Circuit, and with the British Healthcare Trades Association, and it is clear that there are improvements that we could make. As of August 2024, in Crewe and Nantwich there were roughly seven defibrillators per 10,000 people. The national average is just 10. They recommend that there be between 50 and 100 defibrillators per 10,000 people. What is more, according to the British Heart Foundation, 46.4% of postcodes in Crewe and Nantwich are out of direct reach of a defibrillator. In a context in which we know that, with defib use, the chances of surviving a cardiac arrest increase from just 8% to above 70%, the existence of such defib deserts is clearly not acceptable.

[Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

I am experiencing exactly the same problem in Wolverhampton North East: I am sad to announce that almost 70% of postcodes are not within easy reach of a defibrillator. Local community groups are stepping up, but they can be hit with a VAT charge of anything between £200 and £500 per device. Does my hon. Friend agree that an important step forward would be to review VAT on defibrillators, to widen access?

[Connor Naismith]

My hon. Friend has almost taken the words out of my mouth, because I was about to move on to some of the steps that we could take to address this issue. She is absolutely right. Clearly there is an issue with the VAT; as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland, that is something that the Government should look at. It is also about ensuring that defibs are always accessible outside, about education on administering the equipment, about maintenance and about ensuring that defibs are on the Circuit wherever possible, because we know that in many cases they are not.

One thing is certain: inaction is not an option. This equipment saves lives. If we fail to act, we will continue to have avoidable deaths, unfortunately, as in the case of my constituent. The opportunity is there to save lives. I urge the Government to grip it.

Dementia Care

Sureena Brackenridge Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Voaden]

I could not agree more. If we had little chunks of regular respite care, people would not end up having to pay for several weeks, just to recover from the care that they are providing.

There are some brilliant projects working to support families afflicted by dementia, and several of them have been mentioned already. One of the most inspiring examples that I have seen is the Filo Project, a community interest company that offers dementia support in Devon, Cornwall, Somerset and east Lancashire, and which has recently expanded to Bournemouth. The Filo Project takes its name from the pastry, referring to the many layers that make up a personality—the layers that are cruelly and silently stripped away by dementia. The project provides high-quality, community-based day care for people with early to moderate dementia, and what makes it so powerful is its simple approach: small, weekly group support in the home of a host, where people with dementia spend the day receiving the attention, care and companionship they need. That not only helps them, but provides their families with regular and crucial respite and support. I commend founders Libby Price and Dr Liz Dennis, who I believe is in the Gallery today. It is a model that works, and it has made a tangible difference to many families.

There is a critical need for more community-based initiatives such as the Filo Project, and one of my direct asks of the Minister today is that VAT be removed from such services. Although dementia patients can access goods and services exempt from VAT, they have to pay it on the care provided by the Filo Project and others like it. Families supported by the project have paid more than £700,000 in VAT for care since the group was set up 10 years ago, and the extra cost restricts who can afford to take part, so I urge the Minister to remove this burden. While the Government are facing mounting pressures from all sides to find additional funding, it is worth noting that investing in community-based projects is a fraction of the cost of the NHS, yet the impact is transformational, benefiting families across the country and ultimately saving money.

[Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Like every Member here, I have many constituents who have explained that navigating such a complex web of health and social care services is absolutely exhausting. For many families, it leads to crisis before help arrives. Will the hon. Member join me in calling on the Government to tackle the delays and disparities in dementia diagnosis, and to ensure that there is investment in diagnostic capacity, including the fantastic memory clinics that hon. Members have spoken about today?

[Caroline Voaden]

I absolutely agree.

In 2023, Devon saw the closure of its dementia advice service after 10 years because of a cut in funding under the previous Government—a decision that left a significant gap in community support across the county. The service offered vital information, practical advice, and tips and strategies on coping with dementia, as well as signposting to legal and financial support, and the closure was a blow to many families already struggling to cope. It is a scandal that Devon’s integrated care board has neglected older adults by cutting a service that was designed to prevent early care home and hospital admission, and to ease pressure on primary care.

However, there is hope on the horizon. Devon has recently developed a new countywide Devon dementia strategy, which aims to bring about real and meaningful change for those living with dementia and their loved ones. Written in collaboration with over 40 organisations, it sets out what is needed in dementia care today and for the foreseeable future, and I commend them for their work. This strategy is vital, and so is the funding to support the measures it highlights. Dementia prevalence in the area covered by Devon’s ICB is expected to rise by 54% between 2023 and 2040, and by then, over 33,700 people in Devon will be living with dementia. Now is the moment to act, to ensure that this strategy is not just a document that sits on a shelf but becomes a driving force for better services, earlier diagnosis and more consistent support.

I would like to briefly share the story of one of my constituents, Michael, to illustrate why this is so urgent. Michael’s wife began showing signs of dementia six years ago and was diagnosed with moderate to severe Alzheimer’s nearly five years ago. As her symptoms worsened, her condition became more difficult to manage, and she was eventually sectioned as being a danger to herself. At that point, the NHS took over her care, and she is now in a home where she is receiving very good care. Michael has nothing but praise for his GP, the older people’s mental health team and his local hospital for their support. However, his experience has highlighted critical gaps in the system. He recalls the complete lack of day care facilities to provide respite before his wife went to hospital and the overstretched system that was unable to assess people quickly or provide necessary help, either at home or in day care.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

I, too, thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for initiating this important debate, especially because dementia is the defining health and social care challenge of our time. It is now a leading cause of death in the UK, and one in two of us will be affected in our lifetime, whether through receiving a diagnosis ourselves, caring for a loved one, or both. Yet despite the scale and impact of the condition, people affected by dementia continue to face a fragmented system that all too often leaves them without the support they need when they need it most. Navigating a complex web of health and social care services is exhausting, and for many families it leads to crisis before help arrives.

As the hon. Member explained, there is a postcode lottery, but I am proud of the fact that Wolverhampton is a dementia-friendly city. Through Dementia Connect, a personalised support service from the Alzheimer’s Society, people have access to a wide range of help. Whether it involves emotional support, advice on benefits, connection to local support groups or practical tips for living with dementia, the service makes a real difference, enhancing the quality of life for patients and their families.

Alongside that, Wolverhampton’s wider dementia pathway—our memory clinics, community health teams, Admiral Nurses, dementia cafés and carer support services—form a crucial safety net for families who are under immense pressure. To every NHS worker and social care professional, and to all the volunteers and the army of unpaid workers who provide support for patients and families in my constituency, I say “Thank you.” Their knowledge, their lived experiences and their absolute dedication are deeply valued and appreciated.

However, local services can only go so far, which is why I am urging the Government to make dementia a core priority in their upcoming NHS 10-year plan. I ask the Secretary of State and the Minister to listen to leading experts such as Dementia UK and Age UK; to ringfence funding for dementia specialist nurses in every NHS acute trust; to embed dementia specialist nurses, such as Admiral Nurses, in neighbourhood health centres; to tackle the delays and disparities in dementia diagnosis —as of April 2025, only 65% of those aged 65 or over who were estimated to have dementia had had a recorded diagnosis—to ensure investment in diagnostic capacity, including memory clinics; and to address the growing concern among older people and unpaid carers about their ability to access these vital services.

Dementia is not just a clinical condition; it is a personal crisis that unfolds in so many living rooms, GP surgeries, hospital wards and care homes across our country. Let us not allow a “geography roulette” to determine the dignity that is needed by every person who is affected by dementia.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Sureena Brackenridge Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. We have heard that point made articulately, and not just by her. I look forward to the Minister’s response to that.

The issue of the 3,000-puff vape and the additions that can be made to vapes are why I tabled new clause 21, which builds on themes that have been spoken about in the Chamber this afternoon. I welcome the power in the Bill for the Secretary of State to regulate further to standardise the size of reusable vapes, but my new clause would allow us to limit their size sooner and prevent rogue vape manufacturers from circumventing the rules while the Secretary of State undertakes further consultation on such measures. Though the Bill provides the power to standardise vapes, I am asking the Government to legislate now to standardise and regulate puffs per vape, so that we do not see an explosion of new vapes in the marketplace that are trying to get around the single-use vapes ban in this legislation.

I close by thanking the Minister and the Department for their work in bringing the Bill forward, and for the cross-departmental push to make vaping safer and reduce its appeal to children. I hope that it is welcomed in all parts of the House.

[Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

I will focus my comments on the vaping elements of the Bill, and particularly the impact on children.

It is a desperately sad and damning reflection on our society that we now need a dedicated clinic at Alder Hey children’s hospital to treat children as young as 11 for vaping addiction. I was horrified to read Professor Isba’s account of children reaching for their vapes early in the morning, before they get out of bed. Their vape sits next to their mobile phone on the bedside table. The alarming rise in nicotine dependency among children is deeply troubling. Although I welcome the fact that the clinic’s success will lead to similar schemes being rolled out across the country, that is not a sign of progress; it is a glaring wake-up call.

Today, we have a chance, through the Bill, to break the cycle of addiction, protect our children and build a healthier future for country. We face the alarming rise of vaping, which has hooked a record number of young people. As a former deputy headteacher, I saw vaping spread through schools like wildfire. I caught students hiding vapes—already hooked before they even understood what addiction meant. I saw students who should have been focused on their schoolwork struggling instead with cravings that they could not control. I saw teachers battling to keep their students in the classroom, instead of sneaking puffs in the toilet. I spoke to worried parents who felt helpless and never thought that their child would be caught up in this. Vaping is not just a bad habit; it is a trap, and too many of our young people are already caught in it.

The situation that we face did not come about overnight. For far too long, the previous Government failed to act while vaping rates among children soared. It felt like the stable door was left wide open and the horse had bolted. We could sit back and do nothing, and watch another generation of young people in Wolverhampton North East and across the country get hooked, but that is not what a responsible Government do, and it is not what this Labour Government will do. Through the Bill, we will take bold action. Smokefree zones will be expanded to protect children, families and the most vulnerable in our communities. For those who want to quit, there will be real support, backed by real investment, delivering real results. For too long, we have seen a market designed to hook kids on nicotine, with bright colours, fruity flavours and shameless advertising that deliberately targets young people.

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful contribution. Vaping is not a safe alternative for children. According to last year’s “Growing Up in North Yorkshire” survey, 25% of year 8 students and 49% of year 10 students have tried vapes, with 9% vaping regularly. Does she agree that the Bill will put an end to vapes deliberately being branded in ways that appeal to children?

[Mrs Brackenridge]

I am pleased to say that that will end with the Bill, which will ban vape advertising aimed at children, outlaw sales from vending machines and crack down on packaging designed to attract young eyes. Firm action to protect the health of children includes a £10 million boost for trading standards to fund more enforcement officers.

I welcome the recent announcement of the £62 million groundbreaking research to investigate the long-term health effects of vaping by tracking 100,000 young people aged eight to 18 over a decade. Unless we prevent illness, our NHS will continue to be overwhelmed, and billions of pounds will be spent addressing a problem that could have been curbed in advance. I call on the House to pass the Bill in order to protect children in Wolverhampton East and across the country.

[Ashley Dalton]

Let me begin by thanking all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions. I will try and touch on the many amendments discussed and the key questions raised.

At the heart of the Bill is the establishment of the smokefree generation by gradually ending the sale of tobacco products across the UK. Amendments 4 to 35 tabled by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), amendments 38 to 45 tabled by the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), amendments 103 to 111 tabled by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and new clause 12 tabled by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) would remove that policy or water it down. There is no liberty or choice in addiction, however, and that is why the Government are committed to creating the world’s first smokefree generation. We have the public’s backing, with 71% of adults supporting the goal of a smokefree Britain in a YouGov poll carried out in November 2023. Raising the age of sale to 21 will not meet our ambition to make the UK smokefree.