Incontinence

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

I thank my constituency neighbour, hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar), for securing this important debate, and for attempting to remove the stigma and silence that too often surrounds this key area of healthcare.

As has been mentioned, in the UK over 14 million people experience bladder leakage and more than 6.5 million people—around one in 10—struggle with bowel control. However, those figures are probably not a true reflection of the reality, as many individuals choose not to disclose their symptoms, often because of embarrassment or in the mistaken belief that incontinence is simply an inevitable part of ageing.

I want to talk about how women suffering from incontinence have been treated in the past, because we need to focus on the availability of proper treatment options for the future. For far too long, vaginal mesh surgery was widely accepted as the so-called gold standard to treat stress urinary incontinence in women. Between its introduction in 2008 and when its use was paused in 2018, it is believed that over 100,000 women in the UK underwent mesh implant procedures. Sadly, many of them were not properly advised about the alternative options available to treat stress urinary incontinence, such as the physiotherapist-supervised pelvic floor exercises that my hon. Friend mentioned, nor about the risks associated with using vaginal mesh, and some of them sustained life-changing injuries.

Before I became an MP, I worked as a solicitor specialising in representing women who had been affected by vaginal mesh implants and pursuing claims for compensation for them based on clinical negligence. I came across women who were left in constant pain, unable to work or participate in daily aspects of life. Their personal relationships were affected and their lives were changed forever by a treatment that was supposed to help them.

I commend the work of Baroness Cumberlege in her landmark July 2020 report “First Do No Harm”, which recommended that the Government should immediately issue a full apology on behalf of the healthcare system to the families affected by mesh. She also proposed setting up a scheme to meet the cost of providing additional care and support to those who experienced avoidable harm, and networks of specialist centres to provide comprehensive treatment, care and advice for those affected by mesh implants. A subsequent report by Dr Henrietta Hughes, released in February 2024 through the patient safety commissioner, recommended a Government financial and non-financial redress scheme for all those affected by mesh.

Looking ahead, it is critical that current recommended treatments for incontinence are subject to the highest clinical scrutiny and that we take steps to ensure that no more patients are harmed in the pursuit of quick fixes or one-size-fits-all solutions. At the heart of every treatment plan must be the dignity, safety and informed choice of the patient. Treatment must be tailored to the type and severity of each individual’s condition, not determined by cost effectiveness alone. Patient outcomes, not just financial metrics, must be central to how we define value in care for incontinence patients.

We must break the stigma surrounding the issue. A recent study found that around 40% of women had experienced urinary incontinence, yet only 17% of them had sought professional help. Poor continence care, as has already been mentioned, can lead to complications such as infections, social isolation and, in some cases, hospital admissions. Each of those outcomes is completely avoidable with early intervention and treatment, which is something that we must aim for in our healthcare system. Only by tackling the taboo, investing in better treatment pathways and listening to the voices of those affected can we ensure that people living with incontinence are able to access the support they need, and to do so with the dignity that they deserve.