Resident Doctors: Industrial Action

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, and I think I can reassure her on a number of fronts. First, she is absolutely right to call out the disgrace that is corridor care. Despite the best efforts of staff, who suffer the moral injury of treating patients in that situation, in too many parts of the NHS we have patients being treated on trolleys in corridors. In this decade of the 21st century, I think that is unacceptable, as is the emerging nomenclature that has started to describe these as “temporary escalation spaces”, because we are in danger of normalising what should be considered unacceptable practice. That is why this Government will shortly begin transparently publishing corridor care data showing the number of patients being treated on trolleys in corridors. I am sure there will be moments when that might cause Ministers and NHS leaders to blush, but frankly, until corridor care is consigned to history, so we should. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and by publishing the data we will hold ourselves to account, and I am sure this House will hold us to account to ensure that we deliver the conditions that staff and patients deserve.

I also reassure the hon. Member that, while the Casey commission is under way, work on social care goes on, whether that is the £4 billion increase in investment in social care through the decisions taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, or other improvements such as to carer’s allowance, the disabled facilities grant and uplifts in funding for local authorities. However, I am also committed to ensuring that, as we improve the flow of patients through our hospitals and deal with the scourge of delayed discharges, we are a lot better at thinking about how we use the taxpayer pound to best effect to deliver the right care, in the right place and at the right time. That will often mean using NHS resources to commission social care to help tackle delayed discharges, and we will be keeping a close eye on that.

Finally, I thank the hon. Member for joining the voices of reason in this Chamber. I hope it is not lost on the BMA and resident doctors watching that this is not a case of an intransigent Government unwilling to work with and support them who are trying to face down, for political and ideological purposes, a trade union speaking up for its members. This Labour Government have delivered a 28.9% pay increase and we are willing to work further to improve conditions for resident doctors. That work can start now, and I am ready to meet the BMA immediately.

There are other voices of reason in this Chamber, including among the Liberal Democrats, who recognise the pressure on the public finances. They recognise that we are trying to do many things across the NHS that will also directly benefit resident doctors, such as making sure they have the right kit and are working in decent buildings. We are improving the conditions that they are working in and that patients are treated in so that, together, we are building in, working in and being treated in an improving NHS. That is the prize, and that prize is being thrown into jeopardy by the resident doctors’ actions. If they go down this path, with all of the consequences that will follow, I am afraid—for them, let alone for the NHS and for the country—things will get worse rather than better, and I urge them not to take that course of action.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we were right to settle the strikes last year, for the sake of ensuring the future of the NHS, protecting the interests of the public and showing our doctors that they are valued, that that will always be his position, and that it is therefore somewhat surprising that resident doctors have decided to call this strike?

[Wes Streeting]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend—he is absolutely right. I am happy to stand corrected, but there is genuinely no historical precedent in the history of British trade unionism for a trade union to have successfully negotiated with the Government of the day a 28.9% increase for its members and then go out on strike. I think that undermines the BMA, and the more reasonable voices in the BMA with whom we continue to work constructively. It certainly undermines our NHS.

It also reinforces the grossly unfair caricature, which is often thrown at trade unions by the Conservatives, that they are all unreasonable, do not want to work with the Government of the day and are only interested in combat and agitation. In my experience, the vast majority of trade unions and trade unionists are interested in constructive engagement, striking good deals and moving forward the interests not just of their members, but of our whole country. I urge the BMA resident doctors committee to stand in that proud tradition of British trade unionism and in the proud traditions of the wider Labour movement, but I am afraid I do not see those traditions or behaviours reflected in the current approach of the BMA RDC.

Access to GPs

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Easton]

I totally agree. There is no point in building new houses if we are not going to put in the infrastructure, including health infrastructure and GPs.

While I welcome initiatives aimed at recruiting and retaining GPs, it is concerning that in Northern Ireland we have recruited only 121 GPs when we need 161 merely to restore the levels we had in 2014. The growing UK population, coupled with increasingly complex health needs, is exerting significant pressure on existing resources. In Northern Ireland alone, the population has risen by 70,000 over a decade, while 38 GP practices have closed—a reduction of 11%. It seems clear that as the population grows, funding should increase. We must also recognise that since April 2023, there have been 17 GP contract hand-backs, resulting in a decrease of 12 GP practices, leaving us with a total of 305.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member agree that we need to address the disparity he mentioned—the inequality in GP funding allocations—across the United Kingdom? Despite having some of the most deprived areas with a higher demand, the funding Wolverhampton receives is, on average, 10% less than more affluent areas. The ratio of GPs to patients is therefore lower, which increases the length of time people have to wait to get an appointment with the GP. Does he also agree that the experiences of patients differ? When I speak to my constituents in Wolverhampton West, they give me different accounts of the experiences they have had and the level of service they have received from their GP, depending on the surgery that they use. We need to achieve greater consistency in access to GP surgeries.

[Alex Easton]

I totally agree with everything the hon. Member says. There are areas across the UK where there are inequalities in people’s access to GPs, and there needs to be a level playing field across the board.

We must consider value for money. Evidence indicates that every £1 invested in GP services yields a £14 return for the local economy. Let me revisit the crucial role of face-to-face appointments. In an increasingly digital world, it is pertinent to ask just how important in-person consultations truly are. While the question is valid, what remains crucial is that face-to-face interactions allow GPs to deliver holistic care that surpasses what is achievable in the virtual environment.

Face-to-face appointments facilitate physical examinations, which are indispensable for accurate diagnosis and treatment planning. While the advances in telemedicine are certainly welcome, physical examinations remain essential for certain symptoms and conditions. In-person consultations are key to effective communication, as they enable GPs to observe non-verbal cues and facial expressions that are crucial in understanding a patient’s needs. Such interactions foster trust, empathy and understanding, greatly enhancing personalised care. This trust encourages patients to be more honest and forthcoming, directly contributing to improved health outcomes. For many vulnerable groups, such as the elderly or individuals living with poor mental health, face-to-face appointments serve as a lifeline. They offer reassurance and a sense of connection, helping to combat isolation and ensure comprehensive care.

In 2022, as we emerged from the covid pandemic, there were 9.7 million GP consultations in Northern Ireland. In 2023, that number increased to 10.1 million. However, we must face the reality that one third of GP practices need the support of the practice improvement crisis response team. I am troubled that with private GP services, we risk creating a two-tier system that exacerbates health inequalities, both in North Down and across Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. We must have a GP service that is accessible to all, not just a service reserved for those who can afford it.

We need to invest in our GP workforce and develop effective retention strategies. I direct the House’s attention to the 17 recommendations made by the Royal College of General Practitioners Northern Ireland in its document “A Workforce Fit for the Future”, which warrants thorough consideration followed by decisive action. Other solutions, such as the Pharmacy First programme, deserve detailed consideration. That practice, enabled across the UK, has been shown to effectively serve deprived communities and has real potential to alleviate the workload on our GPs. Therefore, this challenge is not a matter of choosing one over the other, but rather of finding a balance where digital and face-to-face services complement each other in delivering optimal healthcare.

Patients are becoming increasingly frustrated at not being able to speak to or see their GP. GPs are becoming increasingly frustrated at the ever-increasing workload, which has a knock-on effect, with many people having to go to their nearest accident and emergency unit. Those have some very long waiting times, and that adds more pressure to the health system. I emphasise and underline that access to GP services and face-to-face appointments are vital to maintaining a robust health system across the UK.

As I finish, allow me to pose some questions informed by the Royal College of General Practitioners Northern Ireland. Is it not true that Northern Ireland has the lowest proportion of its healthcare budget allocated to GP services, compared with the rest of the UK? Can anyone point to anywhere that spends less? Does the Minister agree that Northern Ireland deserves better?

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.

Spending Review: Health and Social Care

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

I have already given a history lesson about some of those 14 years. When the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats were in the coalition together, we had a commitment, a promise and a cross-party agreement; the Conservatives then got into government by themselves and broke it, so we are where we are. We want to invest in social care, which is why we have announced the £4 billion. We are seeing a very interesting alliance going on between our Green and Conservative colleagues; they agree on something, as we saw in the Lobby last week.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her statement and the excellent work that this Government are doing in bringing additional investment in the NHS and bringing waiting lists down. We have had to make really difficult decisions to clear up the mess left by the previous Government, and I am sure we all agree that we need to protect our charitable adult social care providers. Will the Minister facilitate a meeting with myself and Woodlands Quaker Home in my constituency, which provides non-profit residential social care for older people so that they are able to carry on in the best way possible?

Dementia Care

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Voaden]

I could not agree more—I am sure I will agree with most of the interventions in this debate.

This does not have to be the outcome. We know that with the right support at the right time, people can live well with dementia at home, and that reduces pressure on services and improves quality of life.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

One in four hospital beds are occupied by someone living with dementia, and there is a 50% higher hospital readmissions rate for those who have dementia than the general population, with one in three people living with the condition never receiving a diagnosis. Does the hon. Member agree that the key is to get that early diagnosis, so that help and support can come in early, which will have better prospects for the individual and their families?

[Caroline Voaden]

I absolutely agree that early diagnosis is one of the key things that makes a difference to anyone living with dementia.

We talk a lot about social care in this place, and the Liberal Democrats have championed the cause of carers—those thousands of people who quietly and lovingly dedicate themselves to caring for someone they love, often someone suffering from dementia. These carers are, because of the nature of this disease, often elderly themselves and, because of a postcode lottery, are sometimes left to just get on with it themselves without the vital support and advice that they so desperately need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this important debate. As Members across the House have rightly highlighted, dementia remains one of the most urgent health and social care challenges facing our country. One in two of us will be affected by it in our lifetime, whether through our own diagnosis, caring for a loved one or both.

Over 14,200 people in the Black Country live with dementia, including over 3,000 in city of Wolverhampton. That number is expected to more than double over the next 10 years. As lack of early diagnosis is an issue and prevents proper dementia care, and considering the prevalence of dementia in our communities, I am pleased that 67% of people with dementia in Wolverhampton have been formally diagnosed as having the condition, compared to 62% nationally and 59% across the west midlands. These are more than just statistics; each number represents the individuals, families and communities living with the daily realities of this cruel condition.

The total annual cost of dementia in England reached £42 billion in 2024, and that is set to double in the next 15 years. More than half the cost is shouldered by unpaid carers—the family members and friends who often go without support, recognition or respite. I welcome the Government’s recent increase in the carer’s allowance earnings threshold, which will enable more carers to remain in work while continuing to receive the support they rely on. That is certainly a step in the right direction, but if we are serious about improving dementia care, we must start with the chronic underfunding of our social care system, which is fragmented, overstretched and under-resourced. We cannot rely on good will alone, so I urge the Government to commit to sustainable, long-term funding for our social care sector—for the workers, for community-based services and for specialist dementia provision.

I am proud that the city of Wolverhampton, which is within my constituency of Wolverhampton West, has been recognised as a dementia-friendly community by the Alzheimer’s Society, with over 13,000 dementia friends across the city. I particularly commend the work of Alz Café in my constituency, which is an independent, volunteer-led service providing a warm, welcoming space for people living with dementia and their families. With live music, hot meals and compassionate support, it is a lifeline for many, and it is run entirely free of charge.

Community-led initiatives are vital, but we cannot allow them to become a substitute for a robust national care infrastructure in our NHS and our country. Volunteers and charities play an incredible role, but they cannot carry the burden alone. Dementia care should therefore be included in the NHS 10-year health plan, as advocated by Dementia UK, with more specialist dementia nurses in our hospitals and in the community to deliver timely, person-centred care, which can save on costs by reducing hospital stays. It is beyond time for us to have a properly funded, co-ordinated national approach to social care that ensures that everyone affected by dementia can access the crucial care and support that they so need.

It is important that we have timely diagnosis of dementia, particularly given that young-onset dementia is becoming common, and age-appropriate support. Dementia care is vital for the future health of us all.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

My constituent Silé’s husband developed early onset dementia at the age of 38. Nobody knew what it was initially, because they were not expecting a normal, healthy 38-year-old to have early-onset dementia. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to do much more right across the UK to highlight that dementia and Alzheimer’s can develop at any age?

[Warinder Juss]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right: we need to take urgent action, and earlier. There are now cases of people having got dementia even as early as the age of 50 without knowing that they have the condition because there is no diagnosis, so I agree with the hon. Lady.

Hospice Funding

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady join me in commending Compton Care hospice in my constituency? The hospice, which I visited recently, does great work raising funds, and it really welcomed the £100 million support provided by this Government. However, the hospice emphasised to me that if it was not there to provide social care, therapy and respite care for patients and their families, the NHS would need an extra 100 beds. Hospices provide invaluable services to our communities, which makes it so important for us to continue to support them as much as we can.

[Joy Morrissey]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point about the pressure that hospices take off the NHS. The wonderful work of the hospice the hon. Gentleman mentions is the reason the NHS can function in the way it does. The cost savings on palliative care—both in hospital and out-of-hospital care settings—are invaluable. The hospices in our constituencies are a model that already works, and they are trusted by the community. I think we should be funding that model, instead of allowing hospices to die on the vine because of a lack of funding and changes to the funding model. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point.

Prevention of Drug Deaths

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing a debate on this serious and important topic.

Across England and Wales, there has been a 113% increase in drug-related fatalities in the last decade, and the impact of illegal drugs costs the Government around £20 billion a year. The number of deaths has been rising steadily since 2012, in line with the austerity measures introduced by the previous Government that resulted in a reduction in funding for treatment services. The National Audit Office reports that, between 2014 and 2022, real-terms funding for drug and alcohol treatment in England fell by 40%.

Deprivation leads to more drug deaths, but even in Wolverhampton West, which is not as deprived as some areas in the north-east of England, the number of drug- related deaths has risen sharply since 2021 to reach levels above the national average. What funding will be made available to deal with drug addiction? Public Health England recently found that 50% of those dying from opioid use had not been in contact with any support services in the previous five years.

We need a holistic approach to the problem of drug misuse that invests in our mental health services, reduces levels of deprivation and encourages those who use drugs to engage with services. Reducing the number of drug deaths would be incredibly cost-effective, resulting in a reduction in drug addiction and crime associated with drug usage. Dame Carol Black, who has already been mentioned this afternoon, found that every £1 invested in harm reduction and treatment services produces a £4 return to the health and justice systems.

We must continue to support and fund the amazing work of organisations that focus on the issue of drug abuse. Wolverhampton Voluntary and Community Action provides a service user involvement team in my constituency and throughout Wolverhampton. The SUIT is a peer-led service, led by people with first-hand experience of drug and alcohol abuse. It supports not only addiction recovery, but mental and physical health, wellbeing, homelessness, employment, welfare and housing, and tackling the stigma and discrimination around drug use. We need to invest in and support such organisations.

Hughes Report: First Anniversary

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Before I became an MP, I specialised exclusively in dealing with compensation claims on behalf of women who had suffered from the use of vaginal mesh. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the mesh was sold to patients as a gold standard, and they were misled. Does she agree that a proper Government-backed compensation scheme will save the NHS money in the long run? As a solicitor, I was always conscious of the fact that, in pursuing these claims, it was ultimately the NHS that had to pay out the compensation and legal costs.

[Mrs Hodgson]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which perhaps nobody else but him would have been able to make in this debate, so I thank him for it, and I do agree.

The people harmed by mesh and valproate did nothing other than trust a medical professional’s judgment. The very least we should do is offer them compensation to help them navigate their now damaged lives, which they have had inflicted on them, most horrifyingly, by our very own NHS.

The fact that the victims of these scandals are mainly women is no coincidence. I have recently spoken in this place about medical misogyny in our healthcare system, and some colleagues here were in that debate. I said then—and I say it again—that had the thousands of women impacted by these scandals been men,

 “I do not believe that dismissal on such a scale would have occurred.”—[Official Report, 27 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 499WH.]

We hear stories of women seeking advice from medical professionals, only to be told it is all in their head—that it is just their menstrual cycle or the menopause—or being gaslit into believing it must be anything other than the devices or medication they were prescribed.

Women not being listened to by medical professionals not only perpetuates structural misogyny; it endangers lives. It is so heartening to see so many male colleagues in this debate, because it proves that we can change things and that it does not have to be this way. Issuing compensation to these women would, at least and at last, confirm that they were right to be concerned and that they were not being hysterical—we know why it is called a “hysterectomy”—which is something women have been accused of for many hundreds of years when it comes to our health.

As well as medical misogyny, part of the defensiveness and dismissal stems from the huge sums given to the healthcare system by the industry, which creates bias. Knowing that that is the case is not enough: the UK needs to adopt sunshine legislation to ensure that this information is fully declared, in the same way that all of us in this room, as MPs, have to make declarations. That information should be presented via a centralised public database that is totally independent of industry. As we all know, sunlight is the best disinfectant, and we need to act now to prevent future scandals.

I am conscious of time, and colleagues will have a lot to say and experiences to share, so I will end my remarks by leaving the Minister with a few quick questions—sorry, Minister. Will she provide Members and campaigners here today, and the no doubt many victims of these scandals watching at home on the internet, with a timeline for when we can expect a Government response to the excellent Hughes report? If she is unable to do that today, will she commit to writing to Baroness Merron to ask for a timeframe?

Will the Minister explain what scope there is for the Government to implement a sunshine-style piece of legislation to ensure the transparency of payments made by industry to our healthcare sector? In the spirit of cross-departmental working, which I know the Government are committed to, will she write to the Work and Pensions Secretary for reassurance that victims of the valproate and mesh scandals will not be subject to reassessment and forced into work, given their physical and mental complications? Finally, in her new role, will she commit to meeting campaigners, many of whom are here today, to hear at first hand about the valproate and mesh scandals, if she did not do that in her previous role as a Back-Bench MP?

I thank the Minister in advance for her consideration, and I look forward to her answers. I will end with this: we have rightly seen compensation for the infected blood scandal, which I mentioned at the start of my remarks, the Post Office scandal and the Grenfell disaster. Those all involved innocent people whose lives were turned upside down, whether physically, mentally or worse, through no fault of their own. I fail to see how the mesh and valproate scandals do not meet the same criteria, and I encourage anyone opposed to compensation to consider that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for securing this important debate and for all the work she does on this issue.

As I mentioned earlier, I specialised in pursuing clinical negligence claims on behalf of women who had had mesh implants, and I have seen many examples of the type of life-changing injuries described by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards). As the Hughes report confirmed, these women were in debilitating pain after the implants; they were forced to stop working and faced a lifetime of uncertainty. The implants had a major impact on their relationships. My hon. Friend’s client was lucky in the sense that she had a supportive husband, but I had many clients whose marital relationships had broken down because of the inability to have intimate relationships following the mesh implant.

The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said that 10,000 women had been affected by pelvic mesh implants, but the campaign organisation Sling the Mesh has argued that that figure could be as high as 40,000. Before the Hughes report was published in February 2024, we had Baroness Cumberlege’s report in July 2020. She said that there should be a Government apology, a scheme to meet the cost of providing additional care and support to those affected, and a network of specialist centres.

A patient engagement survey carried out by the Patient Safety Commissioner found that more than half of those impacted by pelvic mesh or valproate said that it had had a very negative impact on their ability to work, and that it affected their financial situation. More than three quarters said that it had a very negative impact on their mental health.

It is essential that the Government provide a redress scheme. The right hon. Member for New Forest East said that delay will not help matters, and we have all heard the phrase “Justice delayed is justice denied.” The clients that I dealt with just wanted to move on with their lives. It is essential that we have a redress system that works quickly, so that these women can try to rebuild their lives and move on. The redress scheme must provide not only financial compensation but non-financial compensation.

The right hon. Member mentioned PIP. Lots of these women struggled to apply for PIP and other benefits after they had been injured. They had little or no access to mental health services, and they were exposed to an inaccessible and adversarial legal system that was complicated to navigate. There are often delays in legal claims, and we need to move away from that. We need a Government-backed compensation scheme that is similar to the infected blood compensation scheme that this Government are properly pursuing. Only with such a scheme will we have proper redress for these women and ensure that justice is given to those impacted by this tragedy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) on securing today’s timely and important debate on the first anniversary of the Hughes report. She has been a tireless champion for those harmed by pelvic mesh and for children born with birth defects as a result of sodium valproate. I commend her work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on first do no harm, mesh, Primodos, valproate—that is a mouthful and could have been a bit shorter—of which I am also a member.

In 2024, the Patient Safety Commissioner estimated that at least 10,000 women in England have been harmed by vaginal mesh implants, some involving the mesh slicing into their bladder, bowels or vaginal wall, leaving them in permanent pain, sometimes unable to walk, work or have sex, leaving their lives changed profoundly. As multiple hon. Members have mentioned, including the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), the campaign group Sling the Mesh believes that the true number could be closer to 40,000 women.

When Dr Henrietta Hughes agreed to produce this report, she made one thing very clear: this was not to be another review that just gathers dust—this report must lead to action, not just words. We are now a year on and the people affected are still waiting.

The Hughes report makes the case plainly: there is a clear need for redress. These women were, in most cases, not failed by a single doctor or a one-off error. They were failed by the system, by healthcare structures, by regulators and by Governments who did not listen when they should have. The redress we need is not about blame but about restorative justice. It should be co-designed with the patients, and it should be distinct from adversarial court proceedings where, as other hon. Members have mentioned, women have to relive their experience and their trauma, time and again.

The Hughes report recommended establishing an independent redress agency. The lack of clarity on creating a bespoke redress scheme has left patients in limbo, which is deepening the harm—on that point, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) shared his useful insight and learnings from the infected blood scandal. Several women in my constituency of Chichester have shared their stories with me: stories of being dismissed by clinicians, of medical records being incomplete, inaccessible or not reflecting the true circumstances that these women are in, and of suffering through chronic pain and ill health even after the mesh has been removed. I have met two of those women in person. I met one at her home because she is so profoundly injured and traumatised that she no longer leaves her property for any reason. With no access to social media or the outside world, my constituent had no idea that there were others like her, or that there is a national campaign for justice. She felt alone, embarrassed and broken by her circumstances, so I promised to stand by and with her, and with the thousands of others, up and down the country, who have been failed.

I take this opportunity to mention Paula Goss: a national campaigner, and a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young). Paula was affected by a mesh procedure that was not covered by the original Cumberlege review. The surgeon involved was found guilty of serious misconduct but only suspended for six months. Of the 462 patients harmed at the Spire private hospital and the Southmead hospital, just five were called as witnesses to the General Medical Council. When Paula tried to complain, she was—as many hon. Members, from both sides of the House, have noted in this debate—told that she was out of time, and that it was not in the public interest to waive the deadline. How can we call that justice? It is not justice or accountability. Cases like that of Paula, and those raised by my constituents in Chichester, are why we Liberal Democrats believe that the entire set of recommendations in the Cumberlege report must be implemented without further delay.

This scandal is not limited to mesh and sodium valproate. The same approach must be extended to other medical scandals, such as Primodos. We cannot continue to treat each crisis as an isolated issue, and need a system-wide approach to patient safety and accountability. That means a duty of candour on public officials. The Liberal Democrats would achieve that by establishing an office of the whistleblower so that safety concerns can be raised without fear or delay. It also means embedding patient voices in the heart of our healthcare system, not as an afterthought but as a fundamental principle. Earlier this year, 100 women secured a financial settlement from mesh manufacturers, but that is a drop in the ocean compared to the number of women who deserve redress. Every single woman affected by this scandal deserves proper compensation, not just those women able to pursue lengthy and difficult legal claims.

[Warinder Juss]

The Hughes report actually recommends that women affected by pelvic mesh should receive an initial interim payment of £25,000, followed by a main payment. Does the hon. Member agree that that interim payment would be of some comfort to the women she has mentioned, and mean that they could at least begin to try to get redress, and make some improvement in their lives?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

The hon. Member says that from a place of experience and knowledge. Who am I to speak against anything he says as the expert in the room? I totally agree that that would provide those women some reassurance that their cases have been heard and recognised by the Government.

Finally, we are still waiting for a formal response from the Government to the Hughes report. In August, that response was promised “in due course”, but “due course” has come and gone. These women have waited long enough. People who have already suffered for years should not be forced to wait any longer for the compensation and recognition that they deserve. Let us end this culture of delay, disbelief and denial and do what we should have done years ago: listen, apologise and act.

Ambulance Response Times

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

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

NHS England has set ambulance response time targets since 2018. As the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) indicated, there are four categories of severity for ambulance calls, each with a different response-time standard. In my Wolverhampton West constituency, ambulance response times are managed by the West Midlands Ambulance Service. The Care Quality Commission�s 2023 inspection of the West Midlands Ambulance Service resulted in a regulation 12 notice for response times.

I pay tribute to ambulance workers, who work very hard. When the ambulance was called for my parents, before they passed away, the ambulance workers were very diligent. They worked very hard and did their best for my parents.

I wish to address an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal): mental health among ambulance workers. Sadly, it has come to my attention as the MP in Wolverhampton West that there have been cases of bullying and harassment among ambulance workers, with whistleblowers then being targeted by management. Although I appreciate that this is probably a discussion for another time, I want to emphasise that we need to protect whistleblowers in our health service. The wellbeing of ambulance workers will have an impact on ambulance response times.

The Black Country integrated care system covers my constituency of Wolverhampton West. On the four categories for ambulance response times, although the ICS�s response time for category 1 was found to be within target, the response times for categories 2, 3 and 4 were under target.

In January this year, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care acknowledged that patients have been let down by ambulances that do not arrive on time, and that there is variation in performance across different parts of the country. He also mentioned the urgent and emergency care improvement plan, which is currently in production and will be published before spring 2025. I look forward to seeing the results.

The Government�s mandate to NHS England this year includes an objective to reform and improve urgent and emergency care. The mandate describes ambulance response times and A&E waiting times as unacceptable. NHS England�s priorities and operational planning guidance includes a national priority to improve A&E waiting and ambulance response times.

As a Government we have made excellent strides in reducing hospital waiting lists and making more hospital appointments available, and we have improved accessibility to GP appointments. In the same way as we have made strides in reducing hospital waiting lists and increasing hospital appointments, we must now make similar strides in improving ambulance response times.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Welfare of Doctors

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Peter Prinsley]

I will speak of general practice shortly. My son is an A&E doctor here in London, and I am therefore one of three generations of doctors who have served the NHS continuously since it began; the welfare of doctors is personal for me. This Government have already done much for doctors, who are on the frontline and not the picket line for the first time in several years, but burnout, fatigue and stress are still very real problems that threaten to undermine the efficacy of our NHS.

Today’s new doctors graduate into the profession with debts of nearly £100,000. They immediately enter a lottery to be appointed to their first jobs as pre-registration doctors, sometimes ending up miles away from family and friends in places they have never visited before. Now that reminds me of another job that I just started. Young doctors are left immediately responsible for life-and-death decisions, sometimes with insufficient support. They are left scrabbling at the very last minute for somewhere to live—the on-call accommodation that my generation remembers has disappeared—and I have known several of them to sleep in their cars.

It has not escaped my notice that the new name for junior doctors is “resident doctors”. Resident doctors? That is the very last thing they are. If they are lucky, there is a place for them to rest, but many a time I have arrived to find a young doctor fast asleep from exhaustion at an office desk.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Given the desperate need for more doctors in the NHS, does my hon. Friend agree that we need to be looking after doctors’ welfare to encourage more people to enter the medical profession?

[Peter Prinsley]

I agree with my hon. Friend, as he will see.

There are odd shifts, night duties without hot food, and days and weeks that go by without an opportunity to meet supervising consultants. Short clinical attachments mean that the relationships previously created with senior mentors are rare. Just last week, I received an email from a surgeon who was my consultant in 1986. He had noticed in a surgical journal that I had become an MP, and I remembered him as the brilliant surgeon that he was. These are the relationships that make people feel as if they belong within a wider profession, but I doubt whether the young trainees of today would have the chance to make such lasting connections.

There is little security of employment, because doctors are obliged to apply every year or two for another post, probably in another place. The doctors’ mess used to be a place where young doctors could find a sort of surrogate family in an unfamiliar place, but that is now sadly a thing of the past. According to research from the British Medical Association, fewer than 10% of UK trusts or health boards offer hot food after 11 o’clock at night.

The demands of the job affect relationships. Many young doctors are in relationships with fellow doctors, but lucky indeed are the couple who can work and live in the same place, or even contemplate raising a young family together. Sadly, relationship difficulties and breakdowns are commonplace. Holidays must be taken at odd times, and rotas are inflexible. Doctors are left unable to take a day off to attend a wife’s graduation, a sister’s wedding or even their own wedding—all true.

Progression in a chosen career depends on a multitude of competitive interviews and hugely costly professional exams. There is no security of employment. In a survey called “Fight Fatigue” conducted by the Royal College of Anaesthetists, 50% of respondents said that they had had an accident or a near miss when driving home after a night shift—I recall fatalities like this in my own hospital; 84% were too tired to drive home after a night shift; and only 64% had access to any rest facilities. What would we say if the same were true of airline pilots, to whom anaesthetists are sometimes compared?