Major Trauma Centres: Helipads

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is right to underline that issue. I understand that he has a very dispersed community, and an air ambulance in that location can shorten journey times—I will mention this in my speech in relation to an issue back home. A journey that maybe takes an hour and a half by road can be done in 15 minutes in an air ambulance. That 15 minutes can save lives. An hour and a half in an ambulance fighting to save the person in the back sometimes just does not work.

I thank the Members who are here to support this debate. I also thank the all-party parliamentary group for air ambulances for bringing this important issue to Parliament in the past, and I am happy we can have this debate today for them. I acknowledge the work of Air Ambulances UK, which provides the APPG’s secretariat, the HELP Appeal and the University of Liverpool’s flight science and technology group in developing the evidence underpinning this work, alongside the UK’s 21 air ambulance charities and the wider group of stakeholders who have contributed their expertise and support. I also thank Air Ambulance Northern Ireland for what it does. I can vouch for the air ambulances and the lives that they have saved. As I will explain later, I know people who live today because of AANI and the quick response of staff.

When someone is critically ill or seriously injured and needs specialist hospital care, can we be confident that the receiving hospital has the facilities they need that will be available when required? The same question applies during a major incident, as we have seen on several occasions this summer in my constituency and across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, when hospitals needed to respond to a sudden surge in demand. For too many hospitals, that cannot be taken for granted.

Air ambulances across the UK play a vital role alongside the NHS in bringing specialist clinical teams to patients and helping transport them to the hospitals that are best equipped to treat them. That relates to an ask I have of the Minster, and I have shared that ask with other Members of the same mind. Across the United Kingdom, air ambulance charities attend an average 137 missions each day. For 365 days of the year, that is what they do. An estimated 23,248 helicopter missions take place annually, at an average cost of £4,748 per mission. That gives us an idea of the work they do, but there is also a cost factor, which is an important part of the debate. Those 137 missions, 365 days a year, represent around £110 million in annual costs.

Behind those figures are patients, families, clinicians and crews working in extremely difficult circumstances, but it is also important to recognise how these services are funded, and that is part of this debate. The UK’s 21 air ambulance charities operate independently of the NHS and receive no day-to-day Government funding, but the people of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are incredibly generous. The charities rely on some £200 million in public donations each year to provide lifesaving pre-hospital care.

Despite that fact, public understanding of the independence of air ambulance charities remains limited. Research done in 2025 by Air Ambulances UK found that 53% of the public did not know that these charities operate independently of the NHS. However, they still depend on reliable NHS infrastructure, including hospital helipads, to transfer patients to the care they need. Their ability to deliver a consistent service is therefore affected by NHS infrastructure and operational arrangements beyond their direct control.

This is the thrust of the debate: when a helipad is unavailable, has restricted operating hours or cannot operate safely, additional challenges can arise in getting patients to the right place at the right time for treatment to save their lives. In some cases, staffing arrangements or restrictions outside normal operating hours can limit access even when a helipad already exists. This is an urgent and emergency care issue that requires co-ordinated leadership from the Government and the NHS.

I want to be clear that this is not a call for every hospital to have a 24/7 on-site helipad. I recognise that in Northern Ireland. I was asked by one of the officials whether we want a helipad in every hospital. No, we do not, but we want one at the Royal Victoria hospital in Belfast because that is the No.1 accident and emergency hospital. It has the surgeons, doctors and care available, and from a regional point of view, that is what I am after. Decisions must reflect clinical evidence and operational requirements. We need national leadership and a consistent policy framework to support safe, reliable, 24/7 on-site hospital helipad access whenever there is a clear clinical and operational need, which must be informed by evidence.

I will focus on three practical areas: a national policy and implementation framework, or road map, to address inconsistent provision and establish a data-led approach to safe, reliable, 24/7 on-site access; clearer NHS standards and stronger planning safeguards; and a national emergency hospital helipad infrastructure contingency fund to support urgent infrastructure needs that cannot be met through charitable funding alone.

The APPG for air ambulances has launched a report, and I have no doubt that the Minister has had a chance to look at its recommendations. I commend the APPG members, some of whom are present, for what they have done in outlining the case for safeguarded, 24/7 on-site hospital helipads at major trauma centres and specialist hospitals.

Some hospitals need infrastructure improvements, and hon. Members will speak to that. Others face restrictions in operating hours, while some require further assessment of their clinical and operational needs. Although solutions may differ for the helipads in each hospital, they should be considered within a consistent national framework. One thing we hope to come from this debate is a national framework within the NHS 10-year plan, which I very much welcome—indeed, everyone in the Chamber does. Although the report provides an initial assessment of major trauma centres and specialist hospitals, the need for a national approach extends well beyond those sites.

Air Ambulances UK’s assessment of 47 major hospital sites, updated on 10 September 2026—about six weeks ago —illustrates the scale of the issue. Six sites, or 13%, require priority action, while 16 sites, or 34%, require further action or monitoring, and 25 sites, or 53%, were assessed as being in a good position. That means that 22 of the 47 sites assessed were identified as requiring priority action, further action or monitoring. That is the target that we hope to achieve. The wider picture should be considered as the national policy develops. Air Ambulances UK’s 2026 public survey found that 83% of respondents supported a national policy to ensure that major hospitals can receive air ambulance patients at any time via an on-site helipad.

I will tell the story about my introduction to Air Ambulance NI and the wonderful people who work there. I live in a village called Portaferry at the bottom of the Ards peninsula, where the AANI service is the thin line between life and death. If a child in Portaferry suffers a critical trauma or a sudden, life-threatening medical emergency, a blue-light ambulance land journey to the Royal Belfast hospital for sick children takes well over an hour, done safely and in the best road conditions, with no cars in front or behind. In a paediatric emergency, when every single second dictates a child’s survival and long-term recovery, a 60-minute delay on a winding rural road is a luxury that those families simply do not have. I know some of the families in the Ards peninsula whose children’s lives have been saved by the presence and response of Air Ambulance NI. When it comes to transferring a vulnerable child to the regional trauma centre in less than 15 minutes, they can do it—an ambulance on the road cannot.

We cannot allow this lifeline to be taken for granted. Securing robust, long-term funding for the air ambulance service is not a bureaucratic policy debate or something that will divide us in this Chamber. It is a moral imperative to protect the lives of our children in the most rural corners of Strangford. It is not just somebody being injured on a farm or having a road traffic accident; that can happen, but it could be a boating accident where the air ambulance comes to the rescue. Some of the air ambulance team are in the Gallery, and I thank them for all their information and comments.

I will refer next to Bristol. Given Bristol royal infirmary’s role as a regional paediatric major trauma centre and a specialist children’s hospital, the case for operating its helipad 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, should be properly assessed against clinical and operational need. That is important for all of us in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Any policy must recognise the particular needs of major trauma centres and specialist hospitals while taking a broader view of the hospital helipad network across the United Kingdom.

Many other hospitals have helipads that support emergency transfers and wider patient pathways. A national policy must recognise their contribution and ensure that their operational requirements are not overlooked. The framework should provide a consistent way to assess clinical and operational need, taking account of each hospital’s role, local circumstances and the consequences of restricted access. That means identifying where clinical and operational need justifies 24/7 access and understanding the barriers that prevent it, whether that relates to infrastructure, restricted operating hours, staffing or out-of-hours arrangements. Sometimes, it can be about planning issues relating to the safety of the helicopter coming to the helipad in the hospital. That may impact on the situation.

Decisions should be based on robust data. That would allow the Government and NHS partners to prioritise action proportionately, rather than adopting a blanket requirement for every hospital. The policy should identify where new infrastructure is required, where existing facilities need improvements, where operating arrangements create barriers, and where facilities need stronger protection from surrounding development, as I was saying. In England, the NHS 10-year health plan and the medium-term planning framework of 2026-27 to 2028-29 set out ambitions to improve care, reduce delays, strengthen productivity and support more integrated services. I welcome that—it is good news, and how could anybody not welcome it? That is the sort of programme and strategy that we want, but the new hospital programme and the UK’s 10-year infrastructure strategy also provide a wider context for modernising and planning resilient infrastructure.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

Thank you for chairing this debate, Sir Alec. I benefit from Dorset and Somerset Air Ambulance and the Great Western Air Ambulance. They are both fantastic, but they have raised concerns with me about existing helipads that they may not be able to use in future. Will the Minister—I ask him through the hon. Member for Strangford— consider whether there needs to be some protection and development of the town and country planning direction 2002 so that flight paths are protected from development and infrastructure? It is not just the new hospitals that we need to be concerned about; we need to make absolutely certain that existing helipads can be accessed by the air ambulances.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady is right; that is the thrust of my contribution. I know that others will make contributions on that issue, including my colleague on my left, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire).

Helipad provision should be considered as part of delivering on wider ambitions. Reliable access could support more direct transfers to appropriate special care, help to avoid unnecessary additional road journeys and ensure that hospital infrastructure reflects clinical and operational needs. As the hon. Lady mentioned, being operational means that helicopters need a free and safe path to where the helipads are. That is particularly relevant for major trauma networks, but also for the wider network of hospitals that receive air ambulance patients and contribute to emergency care.

I am conscious that other Members want to speak, and I want to ensure they have ample time to do so. I have three asks of the Minister. Will the Government commit to working with NHS partners and Air Ambulances UK to develop a national policy and implementation roadmap for hospital helipads, using clinical and operational evidence to identify where safe, reliable, 24/7 on-site access is needed, and address the inconsistencies in provision that we unfortunately have across the United Kingdom? We all know that the purpose of this debate is to come up with solutions, so we look to the Minister to help us to achieve our collective goals.

The Bristol example demonstrates that having a helipad does not necessarily mean that patients can access it at all times. Improvement is needed. Operational arrangements must be considered alongside the physical infrastructure. Where 24/7 on-site access is clinically and operationally necessary, we should expect the practical arrangements required to deliver it, including staffing, safe operating procedures and out-of-hours availability. That would help to ensure that the presence of a helipad translates into reliable access where patients need it.

There is also a need to protect existing and planned helipads from surrounding developments that could compromise safe operations. The planning around helipads and the flight paths for helicopters is an integral part of that. The Government should work with NHS England and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to review whether current planning arrangements provide sufficient protection and whether stronger safeguards are needed. That should include considerations to change the town and country planning direction 2002. That is not the Minister’s responsibility; as so often happens, other Departments need to feed into this issue.

This is not about preventing development; it is about making sure that development can proceed in a way that does not impact unfavourably on air ambulances and helipads. It is about ensuring that planning decisions properly consider the operational requirements of hospital helipads and their role in supporting emergency care. Planning authorities and Departments should help to protect those facilities and provide greater certainty for hospitals that are planning for the future.

My second ask is: will the Government work with the NHS and MHCLG to establish clear expectations for hospital helipad provision and availability in the NHS estates standards and commissioning arrangements? That includes addressing staffing, restricted operating hours and out-of-hours barriers where 24/7 on-site access is clinically and operationally necessary, and strengthening planning safeguards to protect existing and planned helipads.

The Helicopter Emergency Landing Pads Appeal provides charitable funding for the vast majority of local hospital helipad projects and has made a vital contribution to developing and improving infrastructure. However, charitable funding cannot be expected to meet every urgent or emerging requirement. Charities should not be left to address every infrastructure gap through fundraising alone. The Government must—hopefully they will—consider establishing a national emergency hospital helipad infrastructure contingency fund, which would enable air ambulances to make the health delivered in the NHS even better. The funding could help projects that address barriers to safe, reliable, 24/7 on-site access where that access is clinically and operationally necessary. The fund should complement the HELP Appeal’s work, not replace charitable investment.

Thirdly, will the Government consider establishing a national emergency hospital helipad infrastructure contingency fund to support urgent, evidence-based infrastructure requirements, including essential upgrades or new facilities, where safe and reliable 24/7 on-site access is clinically and operationally necessary, but where charitable funding cannot meet the need? The Government do not need to start this work from scratch; the APPG has done much of the hard work already. Its report and recommendations have established an initial national picture of provision at major trauma centres and specialist hospitals, and have identified areas requiring further action. The Government’s next stage can build on that evidence and help to form a broader national approach that also considers other hospitals with helipads.

Lots of the spade work has been done. Air Ambulances UK represents and supports the UK’s 21 air ambulance charities. The HELP Appeal also brings considerable experience of supporting hospital helipad projects and understanding infrastructure funding requirements. Both should be involved alongside NHS organisations. They all want to do the same thing and have the same objective, so we should bring them all together—they are all singing from the same hymn sheet. I believe that there is an opportunity to do this collectively. They should be involved alongside the relevant Government Departments to ensure that the resulting policy is evidence-led, proportionate and capable of being implemented and monitored. The objective should be a practical framework that recognises the difference between hospitals, identifies where action is needed and ensures that the contribution of the wider hospital helipad network is not overlooked.

While major trauma centres and specialist hospitals are a clear priority, the wider network of hospitals with helipads must not be overlooked either. The UK’s 21 air ambulance charities provided lifesaving care through public donations, but their ability to transfer patients depends on NHS infrastructure, which they do not control. There is a wider emergency care issue that requires Government and NHS leadership, and we need a data-led national policy to identify where safe, reliable, 24/7 on-site access is clinically and operationally necessary. It needs to address the gaps in provision, strengthen the NHS standards and planning safeguards, and support urgent infrastructure needs where charitable funding cannot meet the need.

In conclusion, this sector has provided substantial evidence and stands ready to help. I thank the Minister for all that she does for health and the campaigns that she has led over the years, which I have been honoured to support. I urge her to work with the NHS, Air Ambulances UK and the HELP Appeal to turn this debate into a practical, sustainable policy and implementation roadmap. I look forward to hearing other Members’ speeches and the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this important debate, which is very timely because exactly this issue is affecting my local hospital. I want to tell Members about it, but I first want to set the scene by reiterating some of the things that other hon. Members across the House have already said. When someone is critically injured, every single minute—in fact, every single second—counts. Air ambulances, with an average journey time across the country of 17 minutes, can get patients seen by specialist doctors and nurses as quickly as possible. That is why it is critical that major trauma centres have helipads that are open 24/7.

[Tessa Munt]

I went out with the South Western ambulance service to a cycle accident in my constituency, where a young man had fallen off on a road and was unconscious. When the air ambulance came, the doctors on board were able to stabilise him. I then went with him in the ambulance to the hospital in Bath. Air ambulances can sometimes stop the progression of injuries as well as take people to hospital. They are brilliant.

[Marie Goldman]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Air ambulances have specialist expertise on board, so they do not just provide transportation; they provide lifesaving interventions along the way.

The advantage of the speed of an air ambulance can be completely lost if it cannot land on top of a hospital. Broomfield hospital, run by the Mid and South Essex foundation trust, is the main hospital that serves my Chelmsford constituency—it is not in my constituency, but it is just outside it—and it has a helipad. I pay huge tribute to Essex and Herts Air Ambulance; the crews and the communities that fund it are doing absolutely phenomenal work. However, when I met representatives from the air ambulance, they told me that every day when they do their briefing to the crews, they hold their breath a little bit and roll their eyes, because they know the answer to the question, “Will Broomfield’s helipad be open for long today?” is usually no.

Frustratingly, I have tried to persuade Mid and South Essex foundation trust to work with Essex and Herts Air Ambulance, Air Ambulances UK and the HELP Appeal to implement a solution—which does exist; it is just about getting the will for it—but I have met with so much reluctance from the hospital trust to do that or even to have meetings and listen to the problem. I get pushback and pushback, and it is incredibly frustrating. That is one of the reasons why we need to have national leadership on this issue. Although we can individually try to influence it, sometimes we just get pushback.

I know that hospitals and hospital leaders are under lots of constraints, but the solution seems so obvious when we already have a helipad at Broomfield hospital. Yes, it needs upgrading, but there is a solution for that, and yes, it needs to be staffed, but there is a solution for that. Getting pushback from the hospital itself is incredibly frustrating. I should say that Broomfield hospital is a major trauma centre, and its helipad is listed in the APPG report as one that needs to be open 24/7—but it is not. The hospital also has a specialist burns unit, so it is part of the national asset list. Of course, with burns, like so many other things, the speed of treatment is incredibly important.

When Essex and Herts Air Ambulance helicopters cannot land on top of the hospital, they have to go elsewhere. Their alternative landing site is Chelmer Valley high school, which is a few minutes down the road. There is a lot of traffic around the hospital a lot of the time, which adds to journey times, but landing there also means that an ordinary ambulance has to come to meet the helicopter. That takes up the time not just of an air ambulance, but of an ordinary road-based ambulance.

There were 12 or maybe even 14 road-based ambulances queuing up at the A&E department at Broomfield hospital just a few days ago. Members will know that we are not awash with loads of ambulances. If an ambulance’s time is being taken up unnecessarily—or necessarily, as it turns out, but it should not be the case—by having to meet an air ambulance, then it is not available to do other work. That ambulance transfer is also estimated to cost anywhere between £200 and £600 per journey. That is crazy. We are throwing away money when, if we just got the helipad at Broomfield open 24/7, it would be so much better.

Burns patients sometimes do not even end up coming to Chelmsford; they end up going to Thames Valley instead, which I find ridiculous. We also need to think about national security and the assets that are around London. Broomfield is not very far from our capital city. If there were a major incident in London, Broomfield hospital, just outside Chelmsford, would surely be one of the centres asked to respond, so having its helipad open would make so much sense.

Other hospitals in the east of England—I am an east of England MP—are also in the report, such as Addenbrooke’s, which has a red rating because it has serious problems with 24/7 access. It is the only major trauma centre for more than 6 million people, and yet new building on its own campus is set to make its helipad inoperable. How mad is that? We have invested in a helipad, and then we are saying, “Oh no, let’s just build some more houses around it and stop it operating.” That does not make any sense whatsoever. We have invested public funds in this, and we are wasting them.

The scale of the problem is set out in the APPG report and by the hon. Member for Strangford, so I will not go through all of it. I know that others have highlighted rural issues, but this is not only a rural problem: none of the three London hospitals assessed has 24/7 helipad access. My word, what are we doing? Why does this access matter for patients? It matters a lot: a Kent, Surrey and Sussex study identified five extra survivors for every 100 patients treated at a hospital with a 24/7 helipad. That is a pretty good case for doing something about it, surely.

We have talked about planning and the Government’s position, but we need central data so that we understand exactly what is going on. The APPG has actually done loads of the hard work, as has Air Ambulances UK. I want to massively thank the air ambulance crews, and the public for funding them. Members across the House have said that this should not be a matter of charitable funding alone. We do, but should not, rely on the charitable sector to step in all the time for these sorts of things. Yes, the sector can help, but it should be helped by Government as well.

Air ambulances are obviously experiencing the increase in fuel prices, which is massively putting up their costs. London Air Ambulance’s fuel costs have gone up by 116%. That is huge and so difficult; think of the extra fundraising that needs to be done to cover it. We need to step in and make sure that all the fuel being used is taking patients directly to hospital, not elsewhere. What would the Liberal Democrats do? We would integrate air ambulances into the NHS emergency response through a national commissioning framework, while keeping their charitable fundraising status. That would expose and fix exactly the problems that I have mentioned. Of course, we also need to end ambulance handover delays, but helipad access is a very specific problem.

I have some questions for the Minister. Will the Government collect and publish 24/7 helipad data for every trauma centre? Will hospital helipads be safeguarded in planning, like aerodromes are? Specifically, what is being done to keep Addenbrooke’s helipad operational? That is a really important question for the east of England in particular. Will the Minister help me get the helipad at Broomfield hospital open 24/7 as well? If she or one of her colleagues would be willing to meet me on that subject, I would be very grateful. Will the Government also publish how many air ambulances are at risk of closure or of cutting services because of the challenges they face?

I want us to recognise that hospital helipads are absolute lifelines. Survival should not depend on whether a helipad happens to be open at that time of day, or on where people live, and yet that is what is happening at the moment. Patients—our constituents—deserve better.

Baby Loss Awareness Week

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andy MacNae]

I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Sands—indeed, we are joined today by staff from Sands in the Gallery. There are so many charities, such as Tommy’s and others, that are vital. It is a fact that so many parents rely on voluntary services and voluntary support to get through what is one of the most difficult times in their lives. Those charities are indispensable, but at the same time they are often plugging gaps that exist in the system that maybe should be providing that support.

The third point I want to focus on is on the question about personalised family-centred care. Every pregnancy and every family is different. Good care depends on seeing the person in front of you, listening carefully, and understanding their history, circumstances, concerns and individual risks. Too many families have described being dismissed or treated as a category rather than as a person. A safe service cannot be one in which parents are not heard. Nor can it be called safe if assumptions about ethnicity or background influence the care someone receives.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I am here to represent the views of my constituents John and Holly Osman. Holly and John lost two babies and have had a catastrophic history, but that has driven Holly to work in this area. She asked me to point out that the NHS maternity survey says that 18% of parents reported that their concerns during labour and birth were not taken seriously. The hon. Gentleman has already referred to Sands and Tommy’s. I wondered whether he had some ideas about whether it would be right for staff to ensure that the concerns of parents are listened to and acted on. Does he agree?

[Andy MacNae]

I thank John and Holly for raising that question. Of course, I agree that listening to parents, listening to families and listening to mothers is crucial to a good service. To me, it is the thing that defines a good service: the personalisation and individualisation of care.

Building on that, families must be genuinely involved in decisions. Information must be clear and accessible. Risk must be assessed individually. When a mother or parent says that something is wrong, that concern must be taken seriously. The national action plan should establish what every family is entitled to expect throughout the maternity and neonatal pathway: physical and psychological safety, dignity, informed choice, and compassionate care and communication.

In designing this change, we should recognise that there are midwives, doctors, nurses, support workers and bereavement specialists throughout the country delivering extraordinary care every day, often under immense pressure. We must learn from that and build on it. To give just one local example, we have the Lancashire Women and Newborn Centre in Burnley. Speaking with staff and patients there, we can see what good practice looks like. It is a high-quality environment, with a triage unit to catch early issues. There is mutual respect among staff and personalised care for patients. They take time to listen and to provide compassionate bereavement support when needed. This same high standard of care is replicated in many units throughout the country, so reform must not simply identify what has gone wrong. We must recognise, celebrate and share what works. We must have structures that identify best practice and effectively propagate it throughout maternity services.

That brings me to my fourth point. Supporting and empowering staff must be central to reform. Throughout the all-party parliamentary group’s work, we have heard from healthcare professionals who care deeply about families and take great pride in their work, but goodwill cannot compensate for a lack of time, training, capacity or appropriate facilities. Safe care requires the right staff with the right mix of skills and the right resources and facilities needed to deliver it. Staff need time to listen properly to families, undertake training, reflect on difficult cases and learn from colleagues.

GP Contract

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

Thanks to the decisions that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made, significant additional funding has been made available for capital investment in our NHS, and a big part of that is about driving the shift from analogue to digital. The other shifts—hospital to community, sickness to prevention—are not going to work otherwise; they all rely on this pivotal shift from the analogue age to the digital age. It is disappointing to hear the specific feedback that my hon. Friend has heard from the practices in her constituency. If she would like to write to me, or grab me in the Division Lobby, we can talk about the specifics of those cases. But overall the capital budget has been significantly boosted by the decisions that our Chancellor of the Exchequer has made.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

Serious concerns have been raised about GPs being offered incentives to prescribe particular branded drugs. We cannot have a situation where prescribing decisions are made to balance the books; they should be made on a purely clinical basis, as I am sure the Minister agrees. With many GP practices seriously strapped for cash, does the Department of Health and Social Care have a clear picture of the situation, and what consideration has the Minister given to banning incentives so that the very best drugs are prescribed, not those produced by the most influential companies?

[Stephen Kinnock]

The hon. Member raises an important point. It is important that we at the Department of Health and Social Care work closely with the NHS regions and the ICBs to keep a close eye on that issue. It is vital that GPs are aligned with the highest professional standards. If we see those standards not being observed in any case, action must be taken. If she has specific evidence to suggest that such practices are going on, she is more than welcome to share it with me.

Funeral Directors: Regulation

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

I do not think that the size of a business is necessarily any reflection of its professionalism. We know that a large number of small, independent funeral services up and down the country work with incredible professionalism.

The hon. Gentleman is also right that nothing should be introduced that is unnecessarily bureaucratic or costly for those businesses.

The Fuller report says:

“It is important that real change is implemented to ensure the security and dignity of the deceased, and that a specific government department is given responsibility for overseeing this.”

Everybody who is involved in this sector recognises that there is a need for it to be properly regulated, inspected and overseen, so can the Minister set out clearly what his initial thoughts are on the recommendations of the Fuller report and when the Government will respond to them in full? When they do so, will they set out clearly what firm action will be taken, and when? We have waited so long, so when the Government respond, it must be with clarity, with purpose and—above all—with urgency.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

When the Minister replies, can he be clear about whether it is the Department of Health and Social Care or the Ministry of Justice that has control over this area? There seems to be a bit of a wrestling match going on between the two. I am sure the hon. Lady agrees that responsibility needs to sit in one place, so that there is definite control over this sector.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is crucial to know which Department will take the lead on this work and ensure that it happens, because while I think the Minister will be responding to the Fuller report, we are also awaiting the outcome of a Law Commission report that was kicked off in 2022 by the last but one Justice Minister, the former Member for Finchley and Golders Green. That report is looking at different laws on what happens to our bodies after death; it does not include the regulation of funeral directors. My fear is that, as the hon. Lady just said, efforts to regulate the sector will fall between the silos of Government Departments, and nobody will grip this issue.

As we have discussed, what is required is a minimum standard of qualification, accreditation or licensing, and robust inspection. A regulator with the power to withdraw licences and sanction wrongdoers might seem like a tempting first step, and Scotland is ahead of England, having passed legislation 10 years ago to introduce a licensing and inspection regime. However, 10 years on, not a single Scottish funeral director I have spoken to has actually been inspected. I am concerned that this could be the worst of both worlds, with the illusion of regulation masking the possibility that nothing has changed in practice.

A sensible approach would be to extend the scope of the Human Tissue Authority beyond public mortuaries to the whole death pathway. The Fuller report recommends that the HTA

“should require the organisations it licenses to ensure that any individual who provides care to deceased people is suitably qualified, experienced and supervised.”

If inspections are going to be carried out by local authorities, they need to be significantly better trained and resourced to do so, and we would have to take into consideration the fact that some of them run funeral services of their own. They cannot mark their own homework. Inspections must have public trust. The regulator can make sure of this by aligning its minimum codes of practice with those provided by the two voluntary trade bodies we have already heard about, the SAIF and the NAFD.

I am also concerned about the existing marketplace in training. For sums of money reaching into the thousands of pounds, professional qualifications are delivered by the British Institute of Funeral Directors. At face value, that seems quite promising; after all, those courses are accredited by the University of Greenwich. So far, though, I have seen absolutely nothing that gives me confidence in the legitimacy of the BIFD’s work, particularly in light of the fact that Hayley Bell of Elkin and Bell fame, who has now been sentenced to four years in prison, was one of its examiners. If its own examiners cannot uphold even the most basic standards of care for the dead, what is the value of the qualifications it is selling people? Just as important as qualifications is a person’s suitability for a job. Surely, a lesson from the Fuller case is that funeral technicians and embalmers, as well as anyone else involved in the death pathway, should undergo a Disclosure and Barring Service check.

As we have heard, the death pathway is open to so much abuse, and I warn the Minister that the cases I have mentioned will only be the tip of the iceberg while there is no regulation to tackle them. Doing so will require a whole system of changes, not just licensing and inspection. In some cases, this could be achieved by expanding existing legislation, such as the Human Tissue Act 2004, and it must be done in a way that is not punitive for small, independent businesses.

I would also like the Government to explore the possibility of a new crime, that of the mistreatment of a body after death, because we cannot keep relying on Victorian common law. We must ensure that the death pathway is much clearer and runs more smoothly, to provide a minimum of opportunity for things to go wrong. For example, I have heard that in some cases, bodies are already decomposing by the time they make it to a funeral director because of a lack of medical examiners to sign off the death. What reassurance can the Minister give me that his Department is going to improve standards in this area as well?

I believe that for there to be full accountability and trust in the system, a clear method of tracking the bodies is necessary. One of the most heartbreaking parts of the Elkin and Bell trial was the story of baby Albie, who died after just 11 minutes of life. His parents still have no clear picture of what happened to his body after it was taken into the care of Elkin and Bell. At every step of the journey, identification numbers and proof of licence should be shown when a body is passed from one responsible authority to another. Without that, families simply do not have the certainty that their family members have been well treated, or even that they have been reunited with the correct ashes.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be pleased to know that I am coming to a conclusion. Why is this issue important? We all know people who say, “I don’t care what happens to me after I’m dead; I won’t know anything about it.” It is a truism that funerals are for the living. I have been heartbroken by the stories I have heard from families who regret the arrangements made for loved ones—stories of feeling racked with guilt and unable to say goodbye in the way that they wanted. Grieving is such an important part of human ritual, regardless of someone’s religion or beliefs. We are elected to Parliament to make things better and to improve people’s lives, but today I am asking the Minister to commit to improving people’s deaths, to restoring dignity in death, and to ensuring that our loved ones are treated with the care and professionalism that they deserve.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)]

This UK Labour Government, at least, are spending billions of pounds upgrading the digital architecture of the NHS in England. That means that over 90% of GPs now offer appointments online, and by 2029 we will have a single patient record for patients and their clinicians to access all their information. That is in contrast with the digital desert that exists in Scotland, which is why it is time for Analogue John to move over and make way for Anas Sarwar as First Minster to save Scotland’s NHS.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

T2. Earlier this month, I joined South Western Ambulance Service for a shift, which was an incredibly humbling experience. At the hospital, I met paramedic science students who told me that it is almost impossible for them to get a job: only eight of last year’s 120 paramedic science students got a job. The university has assured students that they can definitely get employment as a graduate, but the ambulance services have a massive pool—of 200, in my local area—to draw from and it has not advertised a single job in the past six months. What is the Minister going to do about that?

National Cancer Plan

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ashley Dalton]

We recognise that the provision of cancer services varies significantly across the country. This plan sets out how we will end that variation by bringing healthcare to the community and ensuring that everyone, no matter their postcode, has access to high-quality cancer care. I want to assure everybody that cancer outcomes should not be dependent on someone’s location in the country and that we will make timely access to high-quality diagnostic and treatment services a reality for anyone and everyone who needs it.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I welcome the statement and the plan, and salute the Minister’s bravery; I wish her very good health.

My constituents do not get a particularly good deal: when measured against the 62-day target, 47% meet the target for radiotherapy, 62% for drugs and 73% for surgery. However, looking at just the first treatment masks the true picture, as a combination of treatments is often crucial to survival, and if people wait six months for their second treatment, it is really poor. Will the Minister consider bringing in measurement of secondary treatments? We know that radiotherapy can reduce a tumour and that surgery comes later, but if someone has to wait six months for surgery, they are in trouble.

[Ashley Dalton]

Yes, we are aware of that. We are looking at the existing metrics and at what we can do to improve them to ensure that they are actually making a difference to people’s outcomes.

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for people with myalgic encephalomyelitis.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. Myalgic encephalomyelitis is a complex, chronic condition affecting multiple body systems. There is currently no cure or established treatment. The symptoms of ME go far beyond chronic fatigue or being very tired; the sickest patients lie alone in darkened rooms, sometimes unable to move or to speak—or, in the very worst cases, to swallow or to digest food. Even at the mildest end of this condition, people with ME who once had lives, hopes and dreams for the future live a shadow of their former lives.

More than five years on from the start of the covid pandemic, it is timely to note how the numbers affected have increased. Approximately half of those with long covid go on to meet the diagnostic criteria for ME, so it is now estimated that 1.35 million people live with ME or ME-like symptoms. That includes healthcare workers, teachers and other key workers who kept our country running at the height of the pandemic. Add in carers, and even more are directly affected.

Importantly, there is a gendered dimension, with women five times more likely than men to develop ME. Despite the devastating toll of the condition, people with ME have endured decades of substandard and sometimes downright unsafe healthcare, with pitifully little funding for research. In spite of the lack of robust evidence to this effect, ME is treated as though the condition is psychiatric.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and for securing this important debate. According to at least one survey, about 66% of sufferers require some form of social care and, as is the case for some of my constituents, it is their own families who put their life on hold to provide that care. Will my hon. Friend join me in stating that this is just one example of how the Government must address social care if they are going to get health and social care right?

[Tessa Munt]

I could not agree more. For far too long, patients have been dismissed, and that care element is incredibly important, because it affects so many people.

In July, the Department of Health and Social Care published the final delivery plan for ME, a cross-Government strategy aiming to improve attitudes, bolster research and better lives. It included some positive steps: new small grants for research into repurposed medications, and the development of a new service specification for mild and moderate ME. However, overall, the consensus of the charities and patient advocates I have spoken to is clear: the delivery plan falls far short of what was needed.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I am interested in what my hon. Friend says about plans in England, because in my constituency we were privileged to have an incredible ME specialist nurse, Keith Anderson, who helped countless people. Sadly, he passed away two years ago, and since then there has been no specialist support in Fife—indeed, there is no specialist ME doctor or nurse in the whole of Scotland. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the things any plan needs to consider is training, so that, no matter where someone is in the country, they can get access to a specialist?

[Tessa Munt]

I agree. In fact, we do not just need specialists; we also need training for GPs and other healthcare workers.

I will highlight four areas in which we need to see much more from the Government going forward. Given the gravity of the situation, I would appreciate it if the Minister could arrange for written responses to a number of my points.

The first area is funding. If the delivery plan felt threadbare, that is because no substantive new funding was attached to it. Before the plan was published, all 72 Lib Dem MPs signed a letter expressing our concerns about the anticipated lack of funding, which of course came to pass. To put it bluntly, what patients need is transformed NHS care and a step change in research. Neither is likely to happen without investing some money.

The case for investment is clear. I urge the Minister to see this not as a sunk cost, but as an investment in a group of people who are desperate to contribute to society. We know that one in five working-age adults are out of the workforce, many because of health problems, yet remarkably there was no modelling of the demography of those living with ME for the delivery plan exercise, and neither the Department of Health and Social Care nor the Department for Work and Pensions has an estimate of what the neglect of people with ME is costing our economy.

I would like to look at some of the figures. The most recent estimate of the economic impact of ME was for 2014-15—10 years ago—and was carried out by 20/20health. The cost was then calculated at £3.3 billion annually, based on only 260,000 people living with ME. With many more affected following the pandemic and a decade of inflation, that cost will now be much higher. Even the most conservative estimate of current numbers living with ME, excluding cases linked to long covid, puts them at 404,000 patients. Does the Minister accept, using that conservative estimate and adjusting for inflation, the annual economic impact of ME today is likely to be at least £7 billion? If those living with ME-like symptoms following covid are included, we could be approaching an annual cost of £20 billion. Surely it is time for the Government properly to cost the impact of a condition that affects so many, rather than brush it under the carpet, and to invest accordingly.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making a very strong case. She will be aware that there is still significant uncertainty among many clinicians as to whether this should be treated a medical rather than a psychological condition. Does she agree that, because of the gravity and extent of cases around the country, it is important that medical services are supported to deal with those patients and their symptoms?

[Tessa Munt]

I accept my hon. Friend’s point. Most people I speak to say that ME has nothing to do with psychiatry. We now have evidence from Edinburgh, which I will go on to in a moment, to explain exactly why that is the case.

Our counterparts in Germany have grasped the importance and scale of the challenge. Just last week, the German Government announced a national decade against post-infectious diseases, with a particular focus on ME and long covid. In Germany, an estimated 1.5 million people are living with ME or long covid. The German Government have rightly recognised post-infectious diseases such as ME as one of the greatest public health challenges of the 21st century. Last week, they committed €500 million—around £440 million—over the next decade into research to understand the causes of post-infectious diseases and to develop treatments.

Will the Minister confirm whether Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care have discussed that recent funding announcement and the logic behind it? I would love nothing more than to see the UK Government come up with a comparable level of commitment—or will the Government wait a decade for the German Government’s conclusions before taking action?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady on bringing this debate forward. In Northern Ireland, the figures for ME have unfortunately risen from 7,500 to 12,500 in the past few years. We have no clinical lead, no specialist services and no commission care pathways. We need research. Queen’s University Belfast is really good with research partnerships. Does the hon. Lady agree we should spend the money on research and find the cure? It has been said that the cure for cancer will come in 10 years’ time. The cure for ME could come too if research money were put into it.

[Tessa Munt]

I absolutely agree, and I thank the hon. Gentleman. The second area where I would urge the Government to go further is support for people with severe and very severe ME. It is estimated that around one in four people with ME are severely affected. ME is perhaps the only condition where the sicker someone becomes, the less care they receive from the NHS. The recent prevention of future deaths report focused on the tragic case of Maeve Boothby O’Neill, describing NHS care for severe ME as “non-existent”.

In my work on this issue, I have collaborated closely with #ThereForME, a campaign founded by two women, Karen and Emma, who are carers to partners with very severe ME. It can be difficult to comprehend the depth of suffering that ME can bring in its most extreme forms. With his permission, Karen has shared details with me about of her husband James’s day-to-day life.

Before developing ME, James, in his 30s, lived a full life and was a civil servant. Today he is completely bed-bound and spends 99% of his day alone in a dark room, unable to tolerate any noise, light or stimulation. He is hardly able to communicate and is so sensitive to touch that, despite his suffering, his wife Karen is unable to give him a hug or hold his hand. Despite an acute level of need, James is receiving next to no care from the NHS. Karen tells me that her biggest fear is that he deteriorates to the point of needing lifesaving care. She cannot feel confident that the NHS will provide it.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is making an incredibly powerful speech. One of my constituents, an NHS nurse, suffers with ME. He cannot play with his children, walk his dog or undertake basic activities. When he went to the NHS, he got a referral, but was told that it would be nine months before he got an appointment, which forced him to consider private options. An NHS nurse is having to use private healthcare to get results—this situation is untenable, is it not?

[Tessa Munt]

It is not only untenable, but completely absurd. In September 2024, on World Patient Safety Day, over 200 healthcare workers were so concerned about NHS care for ME, and particularly care for severe and very severe ME, that they wrote a letter to the Health Secretary calling for immediate action to save lives. That letter was sent 14 months ago. I am sorry to say that very little has changed since, and they did not receive a response.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I want to quickly mention one of those 25% of people with ME who are severely affected: my constituent Alice. She cannot leave her room, and is scared to call for treatment in case she has to go into hospital: she has been into hospital twice, but people there are not sure how to treat her and they make it worse. I simply want to empathise on behalf of my constituents, one of whom is one of the very severe cases the hon. Lady is talking about.

[Tessa Munt]

Probably most of us have constituents in exactly the same situation. In just over a year, two prevention of future deaths reports have been issued related to severe ME. I have already referred to one of them, regarding the case of Maeve Boothby O’Neill; the other was on the case of Sarah Lewis. Neither report has yet resulted in satisfactory action. The risk of death, specifically from malnutrition, is real and ongoing.

Earlier today I spoke with Dr Binita Kane, a private sector clinician with a special interest in ME and long covid. She told me about the case of a 25-year-old woman, a medical student, who developed severe ME after a viral infection in 2018. The young woman has been in an acute NHS hospital for 17 months with nutritional failure and has deteriorated to the point that palliative care is being instituted. Her family is being prepared for the worst—it is dreadful. She has been disadvantaged not because of the individual clinical decisions, but because she suffers from a condition for which there is no safe or established service model. There have been multiple missed opportunities to prevent her condition progressing to this stage.

Sadly, that young woman is not alone. I have heard of many other cases today, and before today. What is being done to help patients like her? In the foreword to the final delivery plan, the Minister stated that

“tragically avoidable deaths of people with ME/CFS, in England…must become never events.”

However, the plan does not clearly set out what actions the Department will take to guarantee patient safety. No one is being held to account. The plan committed the DHSC and NHS England to

“explore whether a specialised service should be prescribed by the Secretary of State for Health for very severe ME/CFS”.

I hope that the Secretary of State will do the right thing and commission that service, but it is frankly astonishing that the option of leaving this group of patients without specialist NHS care, as they are now, is even on the table.

I ask the Minister to clarify what progress has been made in commissioning such a service. That is not to mention that developing a new service from the ground up is, at best, a medium-term solution. It may take years. It is astonishing that no interim solution has been proposed to ensure that patients with very severe ME, whose lives are at risk right now across the country, do not become tomorrow’s mortality statistics. How many more preventable deaths will it take? I ask the Minister to commit to work with groups such as #ThereForME to rectify the situation immediately, for example by convening a national advisory group to advise in these cases and by undertaking a full review of the lessons learned from ME deaths. Will the Minister clarify what data is being collected to better understand the number of those with ME who are affected by life-threatening complications?

The third area on which I would like to see the Government do much more is accelerating ME research. I spoke earlier about the need for investment in research and improving healthcare. For many patients, biomedical research represents their best hope of regaining their former life, yet the condition has historically received very low levels of research funding from the UK Government.

Based on parliamentary answers and official announcements, I estimate that around £10 million has been invested in ME research over the past 12 years. To put that figure into context, on the current numbers that is about 60p per person living with ME per year. Four times as much was spent on a helicopter for the former Prime Minister as has been spent on ME. We spent £125 million—12 times as much—on a bat tunnel for HS2. We spent £10 billion—about 1,000 times as much—on personal protective equipment that turned out to be unusable. Money talks, and the record of the past decade makes it clear to people with ME that their collective futures have been valued by successive Governments at astonishingly little.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Tessa Munt]

Forgive me, but I am going to carry on.

The final delivery plan rightly points to the need to build capacity in ME research, given the small UK research community and very few funded research projects. The University of Edinburgh’s DecodeME project has been a notable exception, recently reporting groundbreaking findings that revealed distinct genetic signals in people living with ME—medical, not psychological. This gives us a solid and compelling foundation for future research. Can the Minister explain what plans are in place for future funding to capitalise on this research? Again, the delivery plan is light on actions to build UK capacity in any research. A consensus recommendation for a post-infectious disease research hub was not funded.

A joint showcase event was held earlier this month by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and the Medical Research Council, with the goal of stimulating research, yet it is not clear whether this will yield tangible results or how its outcomes will be monitored. Again, I ask the Minister what the plan is if, as seems possible, it is not a lack of information holding back capacity, but secure long-term finance to encourage researchers to build a career in the field.

The final delivery plan gestured to HERITAGE and PRIME, which were effectively pre-existing funding announcements. The only genuinely new funding announced through the plan from the National Institute for Health and Care Research for research into repurposed therapies was capped to grants of £200,000. The Government’s response on this issue, including in the letter sent in response to concerns raised by the 72 Lib Dem MPs, tends to be that it is not usual practice to ringfence funds for specific conditions, and that researchers can apply for funding in open competition. Yet historical funding imbalances mean that it is not realistic to expect ME researchers to compete with researchers of diseases that benefit from more advanced research and much stronger institutional capacity.

The UK Government do, in fact, set aside funding for specific conditions when they are considered a strategic priority. Just this June, £50 million of funding was announced for cardiovascular disease research to be awarded through open competition. In 2021, £50 million was committed to research into motor neurone disease. If we can award ringfenced funding through open competition for those conditions, why not ME? To echo a question asked at a recent research showcase event, why is ME not considered a strategic research priority? Can the Minister clarify that?

The fourth and final point on which I would like the Government to go further is support from wider Departments, particularly the Department for Education and the Department for Work and Pensions. Children and young people are uniquely affected by ME. The condition disrupts and can derail key life stages and developmental milestones. Among educational professions, poor understanding of ME contributes to a lack of adjustments, limiting access to education and increasing school absences. The final delivery plan acknowledges the need for access to education and improved life chances among children and young people with ME, but while this is in theory a cross-Government plan, engagement from the Department for Education seems to have been extremely limited. Can the Minister outline what engagement has taken place so far and commit to speaking with colleagues in the Department for Education to ensure that they will engage with the delivery plan moving forward and ensure that children and young people with ME receive appropriate accommodations?

Meanwhile, welfare benefits are the most common issue that constituents with ME raise with me. Many have struggled for years to access the benefits they are entitled to, feeling that they are fighting a system that works against them. Like most people living with disabilities, my constituents are terrified at the prospect of future welfare reforms and losing the support that they have and rely on to meet their basic needs.

Looking at the current situation, I am indebted to a benefits adviser focusing on ME for her summary.

“People with ME face intersectional and compounding barriers when interacting with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). These include structural flaws in benefit design, widespread misunderstanding of their conditions, systemic disbelief, inaccessible systems, poor-quality assessment practices, and the cumulative harm of being required to repeatedly prove their illness. The current benefit system and emerging reform agenda both fail to reflect the fluctuating, energy-limiting multisystemic nature of these conditions.

And then, the Universal Credit Act 2025, together with the proposed abolition of the Work Capacity Assessment (WCA) and on-going threats to PIP eligibility, signals a fundamental shift in how disabled people meet entitlement to financial support.”

I am particularly concerned about the proposals to replace the new-style employment and support allowance with a time-limited unemployment insurance and to abolish the work capability assessment. Replacing the new-style ESA would disproportionately harm individuals who are not eligible for means-tested support, for example because their partner works. Among other harms, that would increase the risk of domestic abuse while heightening financial dependence—a particularly pressing concern, given that ME is considerably more prevalent in women.

Abolishing the work capability assessment removes critical safeguards in regulations 29 and 35 of the Employment and Support Allowance Regulations 2013 for those whose health would be seriously harmed by work or work-related activity. Those protections are vital for people with ME, who are at particular risk of harm and long-term health consequences if they push beyond their energy limits.

Time prevents me from providing more detail, but I will conclude my observations by saying that, on the whole, what people with ME want most is to recover their capacity to contribute to their families, their community and wider society. They hate being ill. An appropriate benefits system must acknowledge that and treat them with dignity and fairness. The way to get people with ME and those caring for them back into work is not to take away crucial support, but to invest in helping them to get better.

Many will be watching this debate from home, desperately hoping that we are doing everything we can to build them a better future. They deserve the assurance that the Government are committed to a clear, ambitious and, crucially, properly funded vision for change across healthcare, research and all forms of Government support. I ask the Minister for a meeting to discuss myalgic encephalomyelitis and the way forward for the 1.35 million people affected. I very much hope that today’s debate represents a big step forward in delivering that for them.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Munt]

Thank you, Mr Mundell, but I have little to say. I am delighted to hear what the Minister had to say, and I will be holding her feet to the fire. I wish to continue this campaign, and I will work with others on it. One of the things I omitted to say at the beginning was that I am a member of the APPG on ME. I should have declared that, so I seek your forgiveness for not having said so.

I am delighted by a number of the things that the Minister has been able to say. I thank everyone who contributed to the debate—I should probably have asked for a two or three-hour debate. In particular, I point to a phrase of the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), about digging for treasure, I think. It is so moving to have heard so many important stories of people who are suffering. We really have to do something about this.

Regulation and Inspection of Funeral Services

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

rose—

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

rose—

[Simon Hoare]

I want to draw my remarks to a close, but not before I have given way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Simon Hoare]

I agree fundamentally; it would be “the rising tide that floats all ships” argument. I will give way briefly to the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt), and then I have a couple of suggestions for the Minister.

[Tessa Munt]

My constituents would be really shocked to discover the lack of clarity in this matter. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as part of the licensing regime, anyone undertaking a funeral service in the community should be clear about where bodies are kept and the various arrangements that are in play? I have heard some fairly dreadful things about arrangements for those who have passed away.

[Simon Hoare]

I agree. In so many choices that we make, the consumer now rightly demands the highest of standards. People want to ensure that the departure of their loved one from the world is as dignified, graceful, calm and respectful as it possibly can be.

[Tessa Munt]

rose—

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Lady is scowling at me in such a friendly way that of course I will give way.

[Tessa Munt]

Funeral directors deal with people at the most vulnerable time in their lives. It is not the time when somebody asks, “What is happening? Where is my loved one’s body? What are you going to do next?” All of that detail is assumed. When people are so vulnerable, they are highly unlikely to ask the questions that they really should ask, and that they would certainly ask if they were buying any other product or service.

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Lady has hit upon the key word—assumed. Why would people think to think anything else? Funeral directors have chosen their profession—it is not like there is a conscript army of funeral directors, press-ganged into dealing with the deceased—so people presume and assume that the highest standards and quality will be deployed.

The hon. Lady is right that most of our constituents would be shocked that it is only section 25 of the Burial Act 1857 that makes it an offence to remove buried remains without a licence from the Secretary of State or, in relation to consecrated ground, without the permission of the Church of England, according to the rites of the Church. There is, however, a common-law offence of preventing a lawful and decent burial, where a person conceals the death of another person. That is not the same as not giving somebody a dignified burial. The death has not been concealed, because it has been registered—they have a death certificate—but it is what is done to the deceased thereafter that is important.

Let me make some points to the Minister—he may well need to respond in writing, rather than give a detailed answer from the Dispatch Box. He will have heard from Members from across the House, and he will know from conversations that he may have had with trade bodies and others, that there is a strong and growing appetite for licensing and inspection. The default position, as I understand it, is with the Human Tissue Authority, and some changes to its terms of reference would be required, which might be a good place to start.

There was a mixed reaction from across the local government family, but I still think that our local councils know the granularity of their jurisdictions. They will often be running the crematoria and the graveyards, and they will have official relationships with the funeral directors. They also have a long track record of inspection of premises. I am certain that when local government was given the duty to inspect licensed premises and facilities serving food, they said, “We have no experience in this”, but they very quickly picked it up.

I know that the trade bodies stand ready to work alongside and with local authorities, as they were going to do before the general election, to say, “This is what best practice looks like. Come and see our leading members and get a feel for this. We will then accompany you on inspection so that you get a feel about what to look for, the right questions to ask, and so on.” It was going to be an evolution in partnership between the quality operators and the Government. I think any and all of us would support anything—there is certainly a clear role for the Human Tissue Authority, but I urge the Minister not to rule out at this stage active and engaged involvement from the local government sector.

There is also a beefed-up supervisory role for the Financial Conduct Authority. We are all familiar with the TV advertising and other advertising, which I referenced, that says, “Pay a couple of quid a month and build up your funeral kitty. Your loved ones don’t have to worry about it.” I am aware of a few cases whereby people have gone in on a weekly or monthly basis with cash, paid it in good faith and been given a piece of paper. They have been given no receipt, the funeral director has not been registered, and the scheme has not been registered with the Financial Conduct Authority—the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy) will remember that she had that with a number of her constituents.

Let me share with the House that such people are not the wealthy or affluent, who can say, “I can afford to write off the £2,500 or £3,000 I have put in.” These are people on limited, low incomes and limited means who are trying to defray the costs for their family by doing the right thing. We then find that all they have is a piece of paper in their own bank book or ledger, in which they might write things saying, “This is what I have paid in. Go and talk to Mr Whoever—they are my funeral director of choice.” Guess what? That person has done a moonlight flit; they have disappeared, and there is no record. We have never heard of them. They say, “Oh no, your mother only paid in £4.20, then she did not make any payments.” Nobody stands as the guarantor of last resort. That money is just lost and written off.

If only frightfully well-to-do people were affected, we would be sympathetic with them, but I suggest that the people affected are being proactively preyed on in areas of the country where there is not a vast amount of cash to go around. People are trying to do their best to ensure that their funeral is as cost-effective and problem-free as possible for their surviving relatives, and that it gives them dignity in their choice of being cremated or interred.

The Treasury needs to step up to this issue as well. We know that the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 was amended by order in 2021, but it does not quite seem to be doing the trick. There is a problem when any issue requires interdepartmental solutions. We have the Treasury and financial regulation on one side, and there is the potential for Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government involvement on the other. There is also the Ministry of Justice as the sponsoring Department for death—not necessarily the best thing to put on a ministerial strapline, but the Minister is the Minister for death, as far as the MOJ is concerned. Who takes the lead? Who pushes it forward? Who convenes? Who gets it right?

This issue cannot be ignored. I say with the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), who I am privileged enough to count as a friend, that this is a complex and sensitive issue, and we are going to need to take our time. The canon of evidence on the need for progress is very clear and compelling. I suggest that the time for consultation and consideration has passed. The time is now for joined-up Government, energetic thinking and speedy delivery, which will give comfort and confidence to each and every constituent.

Apart from taxes, we know that there is only one other certain thing in this life: we have a span on this Earth, and it is not an infinite resource. We are all going to have to use one of these services at some point, so it is in the interests of the whole country to get this right. The Minister is jolly lucky, because the trade bodies and others are willing him on. They want to see this happen and are ready to act in quick lockstep in order to deliver it.

As the House has reflected in this evening’s debate, and as I hope the Minister will have picked up on, doing nothing and hoping for the best—hoping that somehow or another, by a process of osmosis, the bad actors disappear and the good actors rise to the fore and are the sole operators within this sphere—is, I am afraid, for the birds. I urge any right hon. or hon. Member to talk to any of their constituents, at a surgery or an event, and ask, “The funeral sector is regulated, isn’t it?” They will answer, “Of course it is.” “It’s licensed, isn’t it?” “Yes, of course it is.” When you tell them it is not, there is a look of total and utter astonishment. That situation cannot continue.

I suggest that the Minister could bring forward whatever legislation he needs, and it would probably pass this House in a couple of weeks. As the Minister has heard from across the House, this is now an urgent and pressing issue. I look forward to his reply, but more importantly, I look forward to seeing any legislation that he brings forward in order to enact a remedy that is long overdue.

Postural Tachycardia Syndrome

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Cat Smith]

Absolutely—I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I very much agree with him.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for allowing me to intervene. My constituent Julie told me about her adult daughter, who has myalgic encephalomyelitis, or ME, and believes she also has PoTS. After struggling to find a specialist, Julie’s daughter finally got a GP referral to a consultant in Bristol, who said that PoTS was “a TikTok fashion” and refused her any testing. She had spent ages travelling and had a long wait, it was quite an effort to get around the building, and she was bed-bound for weeks as a result of the experience. That terribly dismissive approach left her unable to believe that she could try to get any other help, and I understand that that is not uncommon. What steps might be taken to ensure that people with complex, debilitating conditions can access informed and supportive specialist assessments?

[Cat Smith]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention; I will address those points in my speech if there are no further interventions. One of the most difficult things for someone with PoTS is to have to sit and stand up repeatedly, so hopefully I will get to the end of my speech.

Colleagues have been really helpful in highlighting that the average time taken for diagnosis is seven years. Indeed, the fight for a diagnosis is one of the first and the longest fights that a sufferer of PoTS will have to go through in order to begin to consider accessing services, although that is a different matter altogether.

During that devastating period, where sufferers have huge uncertainty about whether or not everything is all in their head or they really are fainting and feeling dizzy, they struggle to access any support and are often disbelieved. That leads to many sufferers of PoTS having to drop out of education, losing employment and withdrawing from social settings, which also has an impact on mental health, as hon. Friends have mentioned.

I do not believe that that is because doctors do not care; I think it is because awareness of PoTS remains astonishingly low within the medical profession. Most GPs will never have encountered the term in their training, and even among cardiologists and neurologists expertise in autonomic disorders is scarce. As a result, patients often find themselves being referred to different specialists, bouncing from cardiology through neurology to endocrinology and psychiatry, without there being any one clinician to join up the dots and provide the diagnosis.

The crisis in accessing specialist services has been brutally highlighted this week: we have learned that in London a major teaching hospital clinic has closed its doors to new PoTS patients and a second has reduced its capacity, so that it will see only local patients. All the rejected referrals are now being forwarded to a third London clinic, which is already totally overwhelmed and has a two-year waiting list. Those referrals will put extra pressure on that clinic and leave patients in the south-east without any access whatsoever to healthcare pathways.

This is blatantly a postcode lottery, whereby someone’s access to diagnosis and care depends entirely on where they live. This situation is summed up in an email that I received from a woman last week:

“I would like to note that I got involved with this as I am still unable to get a formal diagnosis of PoTS while suffering the symptoms, as the only specialist we had in Plymouth retired and my GP said they were currently unaware of where to send me for help. Please. I am begging. Please help.”

That is the desperation that many people experience: they can recognise their symptoms, they can use the internet and are quite confident that their symptoms match those of PoTS, but they have no way to get a diagnosis and then to access support.

The crisis has been made even more urgent by a recent surge in PoTS cases associated with long covid. Clinics that were already stretched thin are now being overwhelmed by more referrals, which is adding further pressure to a system that was already struggling to cope pre-covid.

Ultimately, these challenges point to a systemic gap, which is a lack of clinical understanding of the autonomic system. That system sits awkwardly between medical disciplines and is often overlooked in medical education. Until that changes, thousands of people with PoTS will continue to fall through the cracks—dismissed, misdiagnosed and left without the support they need to live well with a complex and chronic condition. The challenges I have described are not simply matters of medical complexity; they are also matters of policy and system design. People with PoTS are not falling through the cracks by accident. They are falling through because the system was never built to recognise or support them.

PoTS predominantly affects women, which contributes significantly to the fact that it takes seven years to be diagnosed. The delay in diagnosis of PoTS is a stark example of a concerning gender health gap in the UK, where many women receive poorer healthcare than men. I welcome the Government’s 10-year plan, but have serious questions for the Minister about its ability to help the PoTS community. It focuses heavily on prevention rather than diagnosis, yet that is not a coherent strategy for chronic multi-system conditions, such as PoTS, which often have genetic or variable causes. The NHS cannot focus just on prevention; there also needs to be adequate access to diagnosis and ongoing aftercare for chronically ill patients, such as those with PoTS, when there is currently no cure. We need an explicit commitment on the Government’s plan to overhaul education and training curricula to create 1,000 new speciality training posts. Although those changes are welcome, will they include dedicated education and training on PoTS for frontline clinicians, and will the new posts include specialists in autonomic disorders?

Finally, with the plan’s commitment to health data research service investment and making wearables standard in chronic care, I ask the Minister whether that investment will include dedicated research into PoTS. Will PoTS patients be explicitly included in the initiative to provide wearables, which are vital for monitoring a heart-rate driven condition? It is clear we need change and a clear co-ordinated strategy that brings together awareness, research, clinical care and social care.

My ask of the Government is clear, but it is fivefold. First, we need national guidelines, ideally from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, to provide the evidence-based framework that clinicians, including our overstretched GPs, need to diagnose and treat the condition. Secondly, the Government must require and ensure that commissioning bodies and integrated care boards execute their statutory duties to understand the prevalence of PoTS in their communities and provide for the needs of those patients. Thirdly, we need to ensure that every ICB has a clinical pathway and that all patients requiring secondary care have access to a high-quality service regionally and not just in central London—ultimately, the postcode lottery must end.

Fourthly, we must fully support existing specialist services, which are currently overwhelmed and under threat from closure by hospital management. That includes immediately intervening in the London crisis and protecting every single specialist across the country. Health is devolved in some countries of the United Kingdom, so that is more challenging, but this is a UK-wide issue—although I recognise that the Minister is responsible only for England. Finally, I ask the Government to make PoTS and related disorders a health and social care priority to ensure that affected people have equitable access to the NHS healthcare and social support that they deserve.

We have an opportunity to fix a long-standing wrong. We must not allow the thousands suffering with PoTS to remain invisible any longer. I thank hon. Members for coming out in numbers that I did not expect to support this 30-minute Westminster Hall debate; I hope that demonstrates to the Minister the strength of feeling across the country. All our constituencies have many people suffering from PoTS who are struggling to get diagnoses or to access services, and ICBs are letting down people with PoTS right across these islands. I urge the Minister to use this opportunity to take decisive action and set out how the Government are going to take people with PoTS seriously and ensure that they are no longer invisible.

Baby Loss

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

This Baby Loss Awareness Week, we honour those children who are loved and missed, and we recognise the parents, siblings, families and friends who carry their memories every day. Today, I want to emphasise just how vital it is that we see the quality of bereavement care standardised, and that this standard is mandated for every NHS trust and health board.

My constituents John and Holly Osman live in Wells with their two lively children, six-year-old twins named Alex and Amelia. It may surprise some of my constituents that I speak about John, as we do not share a political perspective. However, we share a life experience with each other, many of my constituents and, I understand, one in every two people in this country: the terrible loss of a pregnancy or the death of a baby. That experience transcends all political differences.

Some eight years ago, John and Holly lost their much loved twins, Logan and Lottie, five months into their pregnancy. Logan and Lottie’s lives were short. Logan was with them for 15 minutes and Lottie for 57 minutes. Holly, who is in the Gallery this evening, tells me that registering their births and deaths will remain one of the hardest things they have ever had to do.

John and Holly were lucky to receive excellent bereavement care from the team at the Royal United hospital at Bath, which in 2017 and 2018 was piloting the national bereavement care pathway. Being able to deliver in the forget me not suite, where they receive care from trained bereavement midwives and spent two days with their babies making memories, is something they say they probably did not realise how much they needed then, but that they cherish deeply now.

As Holly highlights, the power of compassionate, skilled bereavement care cannot be overstated. It helps parents begin to process trauma, to create memories and to honour a life, however short. That care does not erase loss, but it brings dignity, acknowledgement and a foundation for healing. The care that parents receive in those heartbreaking moments stays with them forever. No one can turn back the clock, but we can make a difference through having compassion, understanding and better care.

It shocked me that 50% of bereaved parents reported that they were able to access the support they needed, but only 17% were able to do so through the NHS. I pay tribute to the NHS clinicians, midwives and support staff who deliver that care with tenderness and professionalism. Good care helps parents and families begin to navigate the painful journey of bereavement. Whether those NHS staff who engage with the bereaved family during this journey have received specialist bereavement training depends on where that care is being provided.

Poor care can deepen trauma. We know that bereavement leaves parents vulnerable to increased risk of developing mental health conditions. That is why it is essential that every bereaved parent in the UK has access to standardised high-quality bereavement support, including clear signposting, timely referrals and specialist mental health care when it is needed most.

Excellent bereavement care should not be a matter of luck or postcode. The national bereavement care pathway has finally been adopted voluntarily by every hospital offering maternity care in England, with the last trust having adopted it last year. However, in Scotland, the pathway has been mandated by Government. The difficulty with voluntary adoption is exactly that: it is voluntary, which means that the nine standards of care that comprise the bereavement care pathway are not national standards in England until they are mandated by the Department of Health and Social Care. I ask the Secretary of State to consider mandating the bereavement care pathway with immediate effect, so that families and friends can be reassured that care in the most difficult of circumstances will be exemplary.

To Lottie and Logan’s family and to the many others who have written to me, thank you for your courage in sharing the most personal of stories. Your love for your children and your determination to help other families is a gift to us all. We cannot take away the pain of loss, but we can ensure that no parent walks through it alone.