Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th March 2025 Commons Chamber

I reiterate my full support for this legislation, and how important it is that we stop the start and bring about a smokefree generation. I commend the work of Action on Smoking and Health in supporting and shaping an excellent Bill that will be a great law.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I rise to speak to new clause 1 in my name. It would strengthen the Bill by requiring the Secretary of State to conduct a review and publish a report on the impact of contaminated e-liquid and ways to reduce its prevalence. It would also give the Secretary of State power to make regulations to kerb the harm caused by contaminated e-liquid.

I have been campaigning on the issue of Spice-spiked vapes ever since it came to my attention last summer. The Bill is an opportunity to make a real change on this hugely concerning problem that is sweeping through schools across the country. New clause 1 would improve our understanding of contaminated e-liquid and ensure that the necessary regulations could be introduced to reduce the harm that it causes. The issue was first uncovered by Professor Chris Pudney at the University of Bath, who found that one in six vapes confiscated in schools contained the synthetic drug Spice.

Spice is a dangerous prison drug that causes serious harm to users, including hallucinations, dizziness, chest pain, breathing difficulties and damage to vital organs. The highly addictive nature of Spice makes it a gateway to criminal activity, coercion and abuse. It is tragic that anyone would take this drug, but it is especially tragic when young people do, who are often unaware of the dangers. Many young people inadvertently smoke Spice under the impression that it is cannabis. Worryingly, recent investigations have found that vapes are being contaminated with not just Spice but ketamine and MDMA, which are particularly harmful when taken in high doses. The landscape of contaminated e-liquids is evolving rapidly, and it is likely that this issue will worsen if the Bill passes unamended.

An unintended consequence of banning disposable vapes is that it will drive more users towards refillable vapes, which are the primary vehicles for contaminated e-liquids. Refillable vapes are more susceptible to being spiked with harmful substances than disposable vapes. This shift could exacerbate an already significant public health threat, making it even harder to control the spread of dangerous substances in the market. I welcome the ban on disposable vapes, but we must take action to safeguard against these unintended consequences.

The Metropolitan police have warned about children accessing illicit vapes through social media platforms such as Snapchat and Telegram. There is clearly a link between social media-driven drug dealing and the rise of vaping in schools. The ease of access to vapes and their widespread use makes them even more difficult to regulate, and makes it difficult to protect individuals from unknowingly consuming illicit substances. There is a lack of knowledge and oversight, and counterfeit or illicit vape products are slipping through the cracks, exacerbating the already alarming rise in drug-related incidents. There is much more to understand about how illicit vapes and e-liquids are obtained. New clause 1 would set us on our way; it would ensure that we built on the research of Professor Pudney at the University of Bath by conducting a review of the impact and prevalence of these illicit e-liquids.

I have had several conversations with Ministers about this issue. First, in response to my Adjournment debate, the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention committed to addressing the issue through the Bill. I also met the former public health Minister, who assured me that the Government and health officials were taking the issue very seriously. I appreciate that Ministers want to make changes in this area; I urge them please to follow through and make this change by supporting new clause 1.

As I have a little time, I note new clause 19, in the name of the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), which would require the Government to report on the availability of illegal tobacco and vaping products. This is a serious problem to which attention is rightfully being brought. I support that addition to the Bill, but the new clause does not quite get to the heart of the issue that I am focusing on. New clause 1 calls for a specific review of contaminated e-liquid and ways to reduce its prevalence, and gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations to combat the harm that contaminated e-liquid causes.

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)]

I welcome the amendments to the Bill. This is now a strengthened piece of legislation that will create the first smokefree generation. The chronic health issues that stem from smoking and their impact on our NHS are well known. The Bill, the amendments and what they will go on to achieve will be critical in supporting the NHS and improving health outcomes.

Smoking costs the economy and wider society more than £20 billion a year, including a cost of £3 billion to the NHS and social care. That is equivalent to the annual salary of almost 700,000 nurses or 500,000 GPs, and is the cost of more than 500 million GP appointments.

While the Bill will create the first smokefree generation, the Government recognise that we need to do more to help people quit smoking. That is why I was so glad to welcome the additional funding announced in December to support local authority-led stop smoking services. Suffolk was allocated an additional £900,000 for this year, which means that people in Suffolk Coastal will be able to access support and live healthier, smokefree lives. I know from personal experience just how hard that is. On the very day of the Bill’s Second Reading in November, I gave up smoking, because I had just voted on a Bill that would mean that my nieces and nephews would never legally be able to smoke. I have tried to give up smoking before—the last time was just before the general election, when in truth I never stood a chance of succeeding—but I was able to succeed this time only because I have moved to vapes. To quote something that has already been said, “If you smoke, vape; if you don’t smoke, don’t vape.” It is simple and true.

I spoke on Second Reading about the important role that the Bill will play in preventing young people from taking up vaping. The dramatic rise in children taking up vaping should be nationally recognised as one of the most concerning crises facing young people and children. The Bill will make it harder for young people to be drawn into vaping and will bring the law on vape advertising in line with that for tobacco advertising: there will be a total ban on vape advertising and sponsorship. There will also be a consultation on the vape flavours that we all know are far too appealing to children.

However, we need to do more. As I stand here delivering this contribution, new products are appearing on the market that seek to exploit the loopholes in the upcoming ban on single-use vapes. I understand that the Bill explicitly gives the Secretary of State power to regulate further to limit the size of vapes, and to ban the so-called big puff vapes, which provide more than 600 puffs per pod. Since Second Reading, we have seen products come on to the market that allow people to attach refillable 10 ml pods, creating, in effect, a 3,000-puff vape. That is not a big puff vape; it is a colossal puff vape.

[Wera Hobhouse]

The hon. Lady is talking about refillable vapes. Does she agree that contaminated refills are a huge problem, and that the Government should take that seriously and amend the Bill further?

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse]

I hear what the Minister is saying, but the Metropolitan police and other forces tell us that it is incredibly difficult. The Bill gives us an extra opportunity to protect young children from a terrible pathway into addiction and crime. Is it not the task of this Government to stop that?

[Ashley Dalton]

The entire Bill is about preventing addiction among our young people and preventing their move into crime. These things are already illegal and the Government believe that existing legislation will allow for them to be dealt with.

On cigarette filters, I understand hon. Members’ concerns about tobacco litter, but new clause 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), could lead to greenwashing, improving the reputation of tobacco manufacturers while not necessarily improving environmental outcomes.

NHS England Update

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

The frustrating thing is that we are delivering the wrong care in the wrong place at the wrong time, which is delivering poorer outcomes for patients and poorer value for taxpayers. People cannot get a GP appointment, for example, which might cost the NHS £40, and then they end up in accident and emergency, which could cost £400. If people cannot find a bed for a delayed discharge and rehabilitation outside of hospital, they end up stuck in a hospital bed, wasting away at greater cost. In fact, when I was up in Carlisle earlier this year, such intermediate care was being offered by a local social care provider, commissioned by the NHS, at half the cost and of a much better quality than the hospital bed that patients had been discharged from. That shift to the community is about delivering better outcomes for patients and better value for taxpayers, and that will be reflected in our 10-year plan.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I declare an interest as the vice-chair of the newly formed all-party parliamentary group on emergency care. A&E staffing across the country is dangerously low, especially at night, putting unacceptable pressure on staff, who warn persistently about the risks to patient safety. Hundreds of keen applicants are being turned away from emergency medicine training. Last year, there were 359 places for 2,718 applicants. Following this announcement, how quickly will emergency care and A&E departments see changes and have more permanent staff and consultancy places, but especially more training places?

[Wes Streeting]

We will shortly set out our emergency care improvement plan so that we can deliver the year-on-year improvements that people deserve. The long waiting times, not just in emergency departments but in ambulance response times and across the entire system, are completely unacceptable. I refuse to use terms such as “temporary escalation spaces” to describe the true grim reality of corridor care. That is a shameful situation, and I am genuinely sorry that patients are being treated in those conditions and that staff have to suffer the moral injury of working in those conditions. From the moment we came into government, we have worked to ensure that we got through the winter as well as we could. That is reflected in the fact that, despite the winter pressures, waiting lists fell five months in a row throughout the winter.

On the targets and standards challenge set out by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, ahead of the winter I was very clear with frontline leaders that patient safety must come ahead of performance targets—particularly the four-hour target—but the 12-hour target is absolutely related to patient safety, as I think the royal college would agree. We must work together to get waits of longer than 12 hours down as a priority, because those waits are directly linked to safety and patient outcomes.

Women’s Health

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) for bringing forward this very important debate.

The UK currently has the largest gender health gap in the G20 and the 12th largest in the world. It is high time that we focus on these disparities. Let me start with breast cancer. Breast cancer does not only affect women, of course, but the vast majority of cases are in women, with one woman being diagnosed with breast cancer every 10 minutes.

Over the last 20 years, the prognosis for women diagnosed with breast cancer has improved significantly. Women diagnosed with primary breast cancer today are 66% less likely to die from the disease within five years. That is encouraging news, but we cannot stop there.

Detecting breast cancer in its early stages drastically improves a woman’s chances of survival, but young women face huge challenges when it comes to being diagnosed. That is particularly harmful, because younger women are more likely not only to develop aggressive forms of the disease, but to be diagnosed at a later stage when the tumours are larger and have spread to the lymph nodes. As a result, younger women have a significantly worse prognosis, a higher risk of recurrence, and a greater chance of death compared with older women.

Even more alarmingly, cancer cases in women under 50 have increased by nearly 80% worldwide over the last 30 years. In the UK, breast cancer diagnoses in women under 50 have been steadily rising, and in 2013, we saw over 10,000 cases for the first time. Yet despite that growing trend, routine breast cancer screening still does not begin until women turn 50. Why do we start so late? It is an alarming trend and the Government must look at it. I know that the UK National Screening Committee advises on the decision about who to screen, and I have been assured that it will be looked into, but I mention it today to urge the Government to make progress.

Another issue affecting many women in Bath is gynaecological care. A new report from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said the UK has a “gynaecology care crisis”, with over 750,000 patients currently waiting for treatment for a serious condition.

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

My constituent, a GP, got in contact after she recently had to cut specialised contraception services in her practice due to national insurance hikes and inadequate funding. The services were running at a loss, making them unsustainable. Does my hon. Friend agree that that lack of funding is short-sighted and will harm health outcomes, and that all women should have equitable access to contraception?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I could not agree more. We already have a crisis, which that will only exacerbate, so I thank my hon. Friend for rightly highlighting that issue.

My Bath constituents are at particular risk. A recent report said that appointment waits have doubled since the pandemic—another serious trend that the Government need to look at. A constituent recently reached out to me about the length of time it takes to get an endometriosis diagnosis in the NHS, which has already been mentioned today. That is not only a problem in Bath; far too many women wait far too long. The Government need to look at that.

In better news, the national maternity survey 2024 found that Bath’s Royal United hospital received a top Care Quality Commission rating over its treatment of patients. The survey found that those giving birth felt confidence and trust in staff during their care at the RUH. There was also praise for the dignity and respect people that were treated with. I am grateful to the RUH and all its staff for setting such a brilliant example, and offer them my congratulations.

In such a debate, I cannot, as chair of the eating disorders APPG, leave out eating disorders. Although they affect more women than men, it is not only women who suffer from them. One issue of particular concern is online platforms recommending harmful eating disorder-related content to young users. The Center for Countering Digital Hate, whose representatives I met this week, recently published research on the dangerous eating disorder videos recommended by the YouTube algorithms. It set up an account for a 13-year-old girl searching for body image and dieting content, and found that, of the next videos recommended by the YouTube algorithm, one in four was harmful eating disorder content. That is alarming.

I urge the Government to look into that and to hold these powerful digital platforms to account. In 2025, it is not acceptable that there are continuing disparities in women’s health and, in particular, young women’s health on this issue. I urge the Government to take action.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

I am sorry to do this, but I am imposing a newly reduced time limit of three and a half minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) on securing this really important debate on women’s health. She and all Members who have participated today have raised a number of important points.

Let me begin by agreeing that reading the Ockenden review is harrowing, and progress on women’s health has been far too slow. I want to address some of the key issues that Members have raised; I will attempt to cover as many as I can, but if I miss anything, please get in touch, and I will endeavour to fill any gaps after the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye raised the story of our very good friend Margaret McDonagh and how her experience feeds into the medical misogyny that has been highlighted on a number of occasions. In addition, it was very powerful to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), who put an important focus on women’s voices and said how important it is that those are heard in this space. Those voices can lead to the important cultural shift that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) raised and that underpins all of this.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) spoke about the devolved Governments. We are committed to ensuring that we have closer working between the UK and devolved Governments so that we can share insight and best practice and cut waiting lists right across the UK.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) raised issues relating to eating disorders and women in online content. The Government inherited a broken NHS, in which patients wait too long for eating disorder treatment. The 10-year plan will overhaul the NHS, and the Online Safety Act 2023 will prevent children from accessing harmful online content on eating disorders.

The hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) raised the differences in heart attack symptoms between men and women. NHS staff can now access guidance through the British Heart Foundation, and there are learning sessions available to support training. NHS England ensures that there is clear messaging on atypical symptoms in women in all public campaigns, and training on heart attacks and the identification of gender and sex are a core part of the cardiology curriculum. The hon. Lady will be aware that the National Institute for Health and Care Research has a very clear definition of sex and gender, which has an important impact on delivering the right healthcare to everybody.

I was really interested to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar), who has expert knowledge of perinatal pelvic health services, which are being rolled out across England to ensure that women have access to physiotherapy for pelvic health issues during pregnancy and for at least one year after birth. Those services incorporate a range of interventions aimed at improving the prevention and identification of perinatal tears and other perinatal conditions.

The Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), spoke about the Committee’s recent report, which we welcome and take extremely seriously. We are grateful to everyone who gave their time and expertise to the inquiry, and to the Committee for its thoughtful recommendations. My Department has looked closely at the findings, however chunky they are, and has worked with NHS England to consider the recommendations and develop a Government response. I assure her that it will be published very soon.

The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) spoke about contraception. Let me make one thing really clear: we are committed to ensuring that the public receive the best possible contraceptive services, which are vital in helping women to manage their gynaecological health. Since 2023, the NHS Pharmacy Contraception Service has allowed pharmacists to issue ongoing supplies of contraception that have been prescribed by GPs and sexual health services. That service was relaunched in December 2023 and will be continued.

We have also talked about fertility issues. Access to fertility treatment across the NHS has been varied across England, and funding decisions are made by integrated care boards, based on the clinical needs of the people they serve. We expect those organisations to commission fertility services in line with the guidelines set by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. We recognise that provision is variable across England, and we intend to support ICBs to implement the updated evidence in the revised guidelines to benefit all affected groups.

We recognise the significant physical and psychological consequences of birth trauma and the devastating impact it has on women. I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the report of the APPG on birth trauma—the hon. Member for Canterbury was intrinsic to it. The Government will ensure that lessons are learned from the recent inquiries and investigations, including the APPG report, and that the experiences of women and their families are listened to and woven into our efforts to improve services.

For too long, women have been let down by their healthcare. The system is broken—it does not work for them. This Government are committed to fixing women’s health as a key part of building an NHS fit for the future. As a first step, we have delivered 2 million more appointments since July, in line with our manifesto commitment of delivering 2 million more appointments in the first year. We have achieved that seven months early. That includes appointments for breast cancer care, for gynaecological conditions such as endometriosis and for many other conditions.

However, we are still nowhere near satisfied with the state of women’s healthcare. Kate’s story, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye shared, is testament to that state.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I do not mean to be pompous, but the Minister did not mention me—it was me who mentioned the online harm.

[Ashley Dalton]

I am getting there.

[Wera Hobhouse]

May I ask whether the Minister would meet the eating disorders APPG to talk about online harm, particularly in relation to sufferers of eating disorders?

[Ashley Dalton]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, and I will get there and mention her. I am more than happy to have that conversation with her.

For the benefit of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), I would like to clear something up and dispel some misinformation. We have not scrapped the women’s health strategy, nor have we abandoned women’s health hubs—far from it. We are using women’s health hubs to beat the backlog. The future funding decisions around those health hubs will be taken in due course. I can also confirm for the shadow Minister that Baroness Merron is the Minister with responsibility for women’s health, and she regularly meets Dame Lesley, the women’s health ambassador. Dame Lesley attended the 10-year plan round- table in January, which was chaired by Baroness Merron. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that.

When we came into government, we inherited an appalling legacy of nearly 600,000 women on gynaecology waiting lists. That is why the Prime Minister kicked off 2025 with our elective reform plan. The plan states our commitment to offer women gynaecological care closer to home, an approach that has been pioneered by those women’s health hubs. As of December, nine in 10 integrated care boards had at least one women’s health hub, and some have more.

National Cancer Plan

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Gwynne]

First, may I send my condolences to my hon. Friend and his family on the loss of his brother Alex?

Of course rarer cancers are important, and they are a crucial part of what will be in the national cancer plan. It is in these areas that we must focus our efforts on diagnosis, treatment and, more importantly, getting the research done, so that we can find ways of tackling some of the very rare but deadly cancers that affect many families, including my hon. Friend’s.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

In 2013, the number of breast cancer cases in women under 50 topped 10,000 for the first time, but routine breast cancer screenings are given only to women aged 40 and over. Will the Department review that and ensure that, when appropriate, initial appointments can be given to younger women? While I am at it, although the Minister might not have time to attend, may I invite everyone else to swing by my drop-in event this afternoon to discuss local health inequalities in breast cancer?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the work that she does in this regard. The decisions on whom to screen are made by the UK national screening committee and their advice comes to Ministers, but I am aware of the case that she has made. Screening women earlier for breast cancer should perhaps be looked at, and I will ensure that my officials look into whether we can make some progress on that for her.

Obesity: Food and Diet

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of food and diet on obesity.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating parliamentary time to this crucial issue. We were actually going to have this debate before Christmas, but we decided that before Christmas was not a good time to discuss obesity; we were then going to have it last week, but it was postponed. I am really grateful to colleagues across the House for supporting the debate.

Our country has an obesity crisis that is threatening the health and wellbeing of the whole nation. It is a cross-party issue: since 1990, rates of obesity have doubled. Two thirds of all adults in the UK are carrying excess weight, and a quarter of adults are classified as obese. The figures are even more worrying in children: 10% of children aged four, when they enter school, are obese; that figure rises to 22%—nearly one in four—in year 6. One problem with obesity is that, as many of us know, once someone becomes overweight, it is difficult to shift. That is why the most important age group to concentrate on is young people.

Obesity is now the single most important modifiable risk factor for the prevention of disease, and I will briefly go through its effects—as a doctor, I cannot resist. Around 4 million people in this country have type 2 diabetes, which is five times more likely in obesity. Type 2 diabetes almost doubles a person’s mortality rate, with 22,000 people with diabetes dying early every year. Ischaemic heart disease, the leading cause of death in the UK, is much more common in obesity, as is hypertension and osteoarthritis, which causes joint pain and reduced mobility. Something that a lot of people do not know is that 13 cancers are directly attributable to obesity—it is actually also the second commonest cause of cancer.

As a GP, there are other things I see quite regularly, such as reflux, varicose veins, infertility and even thrombosis, all of which diminish quality of life. The commonest cause of liver disease is now obesity. I will not go into the cost too much but, as we can imagine, obesity costs the country an absolute fortune: on average, four extra sick days a year; and, taking into account the cost to the NHS and so on, an estimated £98 billion a year, or 4% of GDP. The cost to the NHS is £19 billion a year.

What is the cause of obesity? From the evidence, it is clear that the main cause of obesity is diet—it is what we eat. The food system in this country is fundamentally broken. I welcomed the statement from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed) about sustainable food production: nutritious foods grown while restoring nature, and farms with good food production at its core, rewarded properly. There is a complicated relationship in food production, whereby farms mostly exist on Government subsidy with very small profit margins and then the supermarkets make profits out of what they sell. We need to look into that complicated relationship.

One problem is that unhealthy and ultra-processed foods—UPFs—that are high in fats, salt and sugar are often the easiest, cheapest and most convenient. Crucially, they make the most profit for the food industry. The other problem with these types of food is that they are addictive—salty, fatty foods are addictive. Another problem, revealed by the Food Foundation, is that healthy foods, calorie for calorie, are twice as expensive as less healthy foods. So there are a lot of issues there to unpick.

Inequalities and deprivation are very, very strong causes of obesity, with less well-off people being twice as likely to be overweight. Therefore, one strategy has to be to increase the living wage, reduce child poverty, improve health and social services, and invest in education —all of which the Government are doing.

On pregnancy, obesity actually begins in the womb—it does not even begin when we are born. In one fascinating experiment, one group of pregnant women were fed a lot of carrots and another group did not have any carrots. The children of the women who ate carrots loved carrots, so a memory is made in utero. It is therefore really important that pregnant women have a very healthy diet, as this is a risk factor for obesity in young people. Another is formula feed. Breastfeeding protects against obesity, but formula feeds do not. Follow-on feeds, hungry baby feeds, are just normal milk packed full of calories, so they tend to increase obesity. That is perhaps something we need to discuss, too.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I am the chair of the eating disorders all-party parliamentary group. To make any progress, we have to understand that eating disorders are highly stigmatised. Many people with obesity also have an eating disorder. To make real progress, is not the first thing to take the stigma away from obesity and get to the people who really want to improve their lives?

[Dr Opher]

I absolutely agree with that. We must treat people in a fair and compassionate way. We must point that out to them, as medical professionals, and help them to get better. I agree with the hon. Lady about stigma.

On obesity strategies, since 1990, we have had 700 separate policies to tackle obesity, yet it has doubled. Clearly, we are doing something wrong. Having looked at the evidence, it is clear that voluntary targets do not work. Voluntary targets for the food industry and relying on individual agency—giving us choice in what we eat—cannot reduce obesity. The food industry, of course, has a vested interest in making money. While education and exercise are really good, there is not much evidence to suggest that they reduce obesity. It is all about food.

There has been a lot of research. Nesta, the Obesity Health Alliance and the House of Lords Food, Diet and Obesity Committee have done multiple reports on obesity, and it is clear that we can halve it. All we need to do is reduce everyone’s calorie intake by 200 calories a day. That is the difference between McDonald’s large fries and standard fries—other fries are available—so it is not a massive thing, but we all have to do it. As always with public health, small drops in what we take can have a massive effect on the population.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 26th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am afraid that one of my first experiences of death was watching my grandmother die a very long, slow, painful death from lung cancer as a result of a life of chain smoking. That is the consequence of this cruel addiction. People who start smoking come to regret it. They struggle to stop, and I am afraid that the stolen years that they could have spent with children and grandchildren are only part of the cost. Part of my argument today, particularly to some Opposition Members, is about better use of public money and reducing the taxation burden. Other arguments, too, may have some currency with Members who might be opposed to these measures for libertarian reasons. We should not forget for a moment the impact of this cruel addiction and the harms caused by smoking on people’s quality of life, family life, and memories.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

rose—

[Wes Streeting]

I must make progress, otherwise we will not hear from anyone else in this debate—and I think that it will be a debate.

Taking action requires a reforming Government who are unafraid to take on the orthodoxies of both the right and the left. As I said, my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary is today proposing radical reforms to the welfare system. Earlier this month, I set out a package of reforms to drive better productivity in the NHS. Today, we are proposing the biggest public health reform in a generation: phasing out smoking for the next generation by raising the legal age at which tobacco can be sold by one year every year, so that anyone aged 15 and under today will never legally be sold cigarettes. That will phase out smoking altogether.

Almost 20 years ago, the last Labour Government introduced the ban on smoking indoors in public places, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) said. We heard many of the same arguments, frankly, from opponents of that measure as we hear from opponents of the Bill today. They are free to correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think that Opposition Members who oppose the Bill are also proposing scrapping the indoor smoking ban. We have political consensus on the issue because of its success. The year after the ban came into force in 2007, hospital admissions for heart attacks dropped by 1,200. Admissions for children with asthma had been rising by 5% a year before the ban. After it was introduced, admissions fell by 18% in just three years. Since 2007, smoking rates have been cut by over a third, and as our understanding of second-hand smoke grew, the ban sparked a cultural change. People no longer thought it acceptable to smoke in front of their children, and many stepped outside, even in their own homes. It is time to build on that success.

No smoker intends to cause harm to others, but that is unintentionally what they do through second-hand smoke. The harms from second-hand smoke are less than from actively smoking, but the evidence shows they are still substantial. If people can smell smoke, they are inhaling it. Smoke near schools and playgrounds exposes children to smoke. Hospitals, by definition, have high numbers of medically vulnerable people on their grounds. The Bill will allow Government to extend the ban on indoor smoking to certain outdoor settings, and we will consult on banning smoking outside schools, playgrounds and hospitals to protect children and the most vulnerable.

As we act to prevent harms from smoking, we must also tackle the rising problem of youth vaping. It has more than doubled in the last five years, and one in four 11 to 15-year-olds tried vaping last year. A new generation of children is getting hooked on nicotine, and there should be no doubt about the cause, and no illusion that this has happened by accident. On any high street in the country, we can see shop windows filled with brightly coloured packaging for vapes, with flavours like blue razz lemonade and tongue twisters sour apple. Those products are designed, made, packaged, marketed and sold deliberately to children. This industry has cynically targeted its harmful products to kids.

Action is long overdue. We promised to stamp out youth vaping in our manifesto, and the Bill delivers the change that we promised. It will close loopholes that allow vapes to be sold or given away to children, provide powers to regulate the flavours, packaging and display of vapes, and introduce on-the-spot fines of £200 for under-age sales. Just as we took action on the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products, we will bring the law into line for vaping products, too.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I do not know whether the Secretary of State will still be in the Chamber when I talk about Spice-spiked vapes. I see a gap in the Bill: it does not talk about refills. The harmful practice of spiking vapes with Spice comes from the refills. I hope that the Government will listen to my concerns and be flexible, as they have already shown themselves to be in other places. Perhaps, during the passage of the Bill, we can include something about refills. Would he agree to that?

[Wes Streeting]

We want to work in a genuinely collaborative and cross-party way, and I know that is true right across the House. As I look at the Opposition Benches, including Conservative Benches, I see long-standing campaigners for action on smoking and vaping. We want to listen and engage.

I feel strongly about the matter, as does the Prime Minister. In our manifesto, we set out Labour’s mission to improve the health of the nation. We will be far better served as a country if this is a truly national mission, and if we come together in common cause for action on public health.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Cooper]

I wholeheartedly agree. Vending machines are often forgotten, but they are used for sales and marketing, and sometimes in ways we do not understand.

[Wera Hobhouse]

We should also look at online sales. A lot of young people purchase products online. May I ask the Minister what the Bill says about that?

[Dr Cooper]

I do not disagree. The Bill will give the Government far greater control over the marketing side of vapes and the flexibility to adjust regulations in the future. Life evolves outside this Chamber, and we need to be able to evolve with it flexibly.

Alongside the measures in this Bill, this Government have made important commitments to integrating smoking cessation into routine care and ensuring that the most disadvantaged groups are not left behind as we move towards a smokefree Britain. When I was undertaking my training in public health, a director of public health told me that our profession is where medicine meets politics—I am not sure how he would feel about me going into politics, but there we go. In this Bill, I am delighted to see the evidence and data provided by my profession working in synergy with this Government’s policy development to bring forward a Bill that will allow our young people to enjoy healthier futures and allow us all to live in a healthier environment. I thank all Members across the House for their work on this issue, and I offer my wholehearted support for the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I congratulate the Government on their very strong stance on tobacco and protecting children, but—the Minister will know what is coming—when it comes to refillable vapes, the Bill is missing the mark. Research by Professor Chris Pudney at the University of Bath discovered that one in six vapes confiscated in schools contained the synthetic drug Spice—a highly addictive and dangerous drug commonly found in prisons. It causes very dangerous health conditions, including damage to vital organs. On our streets, users are often slumped in a semi-conscious state, unable to function. In our schools, children are collapsing. Some are rushed to intensive care; others are left battling lifelong addiction. The highly addictive nature of Spice makes it a gateway to criminal activity, coercion and abuse.

I have spoken about this alarming issue on several occasions, and I have had some assurances from the Government, but so far I have not seen anything on it in the Bill. It will not do anything to stop the trend of Spice-spiked vapes in schools, because the vapes that contain Spice are almost all refillable. Refillable vapes are rechargeable and feature an empty pod that can be filled up with a liquid of choice. Banning disposable vapes will not address that problem. Many of the confiscated vapes containing Spice were made to look exactly like a normal product from a shop, and they are usually sold as containing THC—tetrahydrocannabinol—also an illegal product in this country. Children are inadvertently consuming Spice under the impression that it is cannabis.

Vapes containing THC are widespread in parts of the United States where they are legal, but importing them to the UK is costly and difficult. Spice, however, is cheap, readily available and highly addictive. Dealers exploit that by passing off Spice as cannabis, preying on young people and putting them at serious risk. This drug has the potential to condemn young people, in particular vulnerable young people, to a life of crime and addiction.

When such Bills come along, we have the opportunity to make them as strong as possible. There are other issues associated with Spice-spiked vapes, but I urge the Government to really look at what they can do to strengthen the Bill to address this serious problem. There are opportunities in the Bill, but focusing solely on disposable vapes risks backfiring; it may push demand towards refillable vapes, which are even easier to tamper with for illegal use. Have the Government really prepared for the potential unintended consequences? I hope that they acknowledge the points that I have raised. I look forward to seeing them addressed as the Bill progresses. I support the Government on their very strong stance and on what they want to achieve, but I hope that the Bill can be strengthened.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point on behalf of Rachel and many other women suffering from this disease. We are looking urgently at gynaecological waiting lists. They are far too high, including for endometriosis. I welcome the new National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. We will be looking at women’s health hubs and how they work, and future guidelines will help women to get a diagnosis more quickly and help with situations like Rachel’s.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Respiratory health conditions are one of the main drivers of NHS winter pressures, yet only 32% of asthma sufferers in Bath and across the country can access the most basic level of care. What will the Government do to improve access to basic levels of care for the 68% of asthma sufferers who are currently missing out?

[Andrew Gwynne]

NICE is reviewing its guidelines for the diagnosis, monitoring and management of chronic asthma, and an updated version is due to be published in late November 2024. I am happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss it further.

Breast Cancer: Younger Women

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

I will call Vera Hobhouse to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention in 30-minute debates.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered breast cancer in younger women.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I thank the Minister for being here to respond.

Every woman deserves a fair chance against breast cancer, no matter her age. It is the most common type of cancer in the UK. Most women who are diagnosed are over 50, and it is therefore a disease often associated with older women, but young women are at risk, too. Breast cancer in younger women is often caught later when it is more advanced. That is because there is no routine screening and too often symptoms get dismissed as something less serious. That must change. Awareness and early detection are crucial, no matter your age.

The issue arose for me during a constituency surgery when my Bath constituent Lucy shared her story, which resonated with me because my nephew’s mother died many years ago of breast cancer aged 35. In 2021 Lucy, who was 38, had two young children and was diagnosed with primary breast cancer. She underwent a mastectomy, chemotherapy and radiotherapy before being given the all-clear. In 2024, when she was 41, a self-initiated MRI scan tragically came back showing that her cancer had returned, leading to a diagnosis of secondary breast cancer, which is currently incurable. In both cases she found it a struggle to be diagnosed.

The first time, despite her mother having had breast cancer and Lucy presenting with a lump, at least three different doctors told her that it was likely to be hormones and nothing to worry about. It was not until she requested the biopsy, which ultimately came back showing it was cancer, that the diagnosis was made. The second time she repeatedly voiced concerns about a symptom that she was experiencing, but she was repeatedly assured that it was just a side effect of the treatment. Still concerned, she approached the GP, who did some initial tests but ultimately suggested that her worries were anxiety-driven. After that appointment she came out and sobbed in her car.

Searching for peace of mind, Lucy then paid privately for a breast MRI, which tragically revealed that the cancer had returned, but by then it was too late. In both cases—first by requesting the biopsy and secondly by initiating an MRI—it was up to Lucy to fight for a diagnosis.

[Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. Because of the age restrictions in accessing NHS mammograms and the importance of early diagnosis, which she highlights, does she agree that self-awareness and self-examination in young women is critical in the battle to beat breast cancer?

[Wera Hobhouse]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we need to continue to raise awareness, but I am pointing out that even when young women are aware and go to a doctor, the doctor says, “Don’t worry about it.” However, I agree that we need to continue to make sure that women examine their breasts and are aware of the risks of breast cancer, even when they are young.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I spoke to the hon. Lady yesterday. This is a massive issue for me and my constituents back home, and they bring it to my attention all the time. It was great to attend the Breast Cancer Now “Wear It Pink” event last month to raise awareness of the most common cancer in the UK. Studies have suggested that breast cancer among younger women has a more aggressive pathophysiology, correlating to poorer outcomes compared with those for breast tumours in older patients. Does the hon. Lady agree that consideration must be given to lowering the age requirement for breast screening to ensure quicker intervention for younger women?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I will come to that later in my speech, but I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are here to make the case for earlier screening programmes for younger women, because it is becoming such an issue—the rates are increasing. It is because of Lucy’s struggle to get a diagnosis that she felt the need to speak up on behalf of the countless young people who would not question decisions made by medical professionals.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. After I survived breast cancer, one of my many emotional conversations with my daughters was about having the BRCA gene. Currently, there is a postcode lottery for the availability of counselling with proper genetic guidance for those who are identified as having the gene. Does my hon. Friend agree that NHS England should ensure equitable access to information and counselling services, and that fixing the system should be a feature of the Government’s future cancer strategy?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I am sorry to hear that my hon. Friend went through a cancer diagnosis, and I am glad that he recovered. Breast cancer in men is not as well known; people do not necessarily recognise that men can develop breast cancer. Once a diagnosis is made, it is quite traumatic for the whole family. Counselling services need to be adequate, and I agree that there should not be a postcode lottery.

The description of Lucy’s story is in no way meant as an attack on the NHS. Since she was diagnosed, Lucy has received the top-class care for which the NHS is renowned, but she is not alone in having her age used against her. There are countless similar stories of women of a similar age or younger who have found it difficult to receive an initial diagnosis, with concerns often dismissed too early by doctors as hormones, anxiety or tiredness. This is by no means the doctors’ fault; they are forced to make difficult decisions about who to prioritise because of the impossible time and budget constraints that are imposed on them. That does not, however, make it acceptable.

There is a long-standing myth that breast cancer only affects older women, but there has been a global surge in cancers among the under-50s over the past three decades—sadly, the issue is not limited to breast cancer. Last year, a study found that cancer cases in under-50s worldwide are up nearly 80% in the last 30 years. More than a million under-50s are dying of cancer each year, and that figure is projected to rise by 21% by 2030.

I draw attention to the “Jess’s Law” petition, which has more than 350,000 signatures, to improve the awareness and diagnosis of cancer in young adults. It points out the struggles young adults face in getting diagnosed, even though adults aged 25 to 49 contribute around a tenth of all new cancer cases. According to Cancer Research UK, cancer rates in 25 to 39-year-olds in the UK increased by 24% between 1995 and 2019. In 2019 alone, almost 35,000 people in that age bracket were diagnosed with cancer.

The trend is especially alarming in breast cancer. Diagnoses of breast cancer have increased steadily in women under 50 over the past two decades, but in recent years the increase has been even more stark. In 2013, breast cancer cases in women under 50 topped 10,000 for the first time. To the alarm of experts, breast cancer diagnoses in women under 50 have risen by more than 2% annually over the past five years, so the trend is clearly an increase. That is deeply concerning, especially since women under 50 are nearly 40% more likely to die from breast cancer than are women over 50.

It is truly alarming that in the UK, breast cancer accounts for 43% of all cancers diagnosed in women aged 25 to 49. Despite that, we continue to wait until women are 50 or older to begin routine screening. Why are we delaying early detection when the rates of breast cancer in younger women are rising year on year? Cervical cancer screening is available to women from the age of 25, but of the top 10 cancers detected in those aged 25 to 49 in the UK, breast cancer outweighs cervical cancer by more than five times, so that discrepancy simply does not make sense. If we can screen for other cancers earlier, we should do the same for breast cancer. We all know that early detection saves lives, so we must ensure that all women, regardless of their age, have the opportunity to access lifesaving screenings.

Young women are more likely to develop aggressive forms of the disease. Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women, and it remains one of the leading causes of death in women under 50 in the UK. Unfortunately, as Lucy’s story shows, younger women often face more challenges to diagnosis. They are more likely to be diagnosed at a later stage of the disease, with larger tumours and greater lymph node involvement. Cancer in younger women is also more likely to be biologically aggressive: sub-types such as triple negative breast cancer are harder to treat and have poorer outcomes. As a result, younger women have significantly worse prognoses, with a higher risk of recurrence and death than older women. We cannot ignore that stark reality.

Premature death from breast cancer among women in their 40s accounts for the same years of life lost as those in their 50s, and substantially more than those diagnosed in their 60s. That is crucial. A death of a woman in her 40s or 50s represents not just a loss of life, but a tragic loss of potential life years.

Researchers also found an increase in the diagnosis of stages 1 and 4 tumours, which suggests that if stage 1 tumours are missed in younger women, they tend not to be found until they reach stage 4, at which point the cancer is incurable. Early detection can make all the difference. During the previous Parliament, a petition calling for funding to extend breast cancer screening to women from the age of 40 got more than 12,000 signatures. That widespread public support reflects the growing concerns about early detection.

The Government’s response was deeply disappointing. They continue to use the Marmot review as their main reference point, citing the lower risk of young women developing breast cancer and the fact that women below 50 tend to have denser breasts, reducing the accuracy of a mammogram. It is true that the risk of younger women developing breast cancer is lower, but statistics show that rates of breast cancer in women aged 25 to 49 are rising fast, and that upward trend demands urgent attention.

Although mammograms can be less effective in women with denser breast tissue, that should not limit our approach to early detection. We should continue to use modern digital mammography, but the Government should expand the use of automated breast ultrasounds. Ultrasounds are especially effective in detecting abnormalities in dense tissue that might be missed on a mammogram. The technology is not invasive; it is quick and radiation-free, and it is often used for secondary screening for women with dense breasts. Automated breast ultrasounds can detect up to 30% more cancers in women with dense breasts than mammograms alone. By embracing both mammography and ultrasound, we can significantly improve detection rates, ensuring early and more accurate diagnosis.

Last week, in the light of Sir Chris Hoy’s bravery in sharing his story about his struggle with prostate cancer, the Health Secretary asked the NHS to look at the case for lowering the screening age for prostate cancer, particularly for people with a family history of the disease. That is an important and welcome step, but we must look at extending that approach to breast cancer too. Both diseases share a significant genetic link, and a family history often increases the risk. Aligning the screening policies for prostate and breast cancers in recognition of the shared genetic risks would provide a better safety net for those affected.

Various parts of the NHS are competing for investment, but it is clear that short-term investment in this area will save money in the long term, with fewer women needing extensive long-term treatment if breast cancer is caught early. According to Breast Cancer Now, breast cancer will cost the UK economy almost £3 billion in 2024, and the annual cost could rise to £3.6 billion by 2034.

I call on the Department of Health and Social Care to review the national breast cancer screening programme to identify where changes can be made to increase capacity in the system, to ensure that, where appropriate, a woman’s initial screening appointment can happen at a lower age. I also call on the Government to investigate the merits of early optional ultrasound for women aged 30 to 49. Finally, we must educate healthcare professionals and increase resources so that younger women who seek help are always taken seriously and investigated thoroughly, and never dismissed.

It is about not just policy change, but giving people the best possible chance to fight back against cancer and live healthier, longer lives. I hope that the Minister has heard Lucy’s story and will actively look at changing the way we screen for breast cancer for good.

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for bringing this debate to the House, as well as other hon. Members for their interventions. I also pay tribute to the hon. Lady for championing the story of her constituent Lucy and others, such as Jessica Parsons, who have done so much to raise awareness. We have a powerful role as Members of Parliament, and I commend the hon. Lady for doing an excellent job.

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that awareness raising is key to catching cancer early, and the most effective way to tackle breast cancer in younger women is to encourage them to check their breasts regularly. The NHS is going through the worst crisis in its history, and this Government will turn it around so that cancer patients are diagnosed and treated on time. The investments we are making now in breast cancer treatment and research are part of our plan to make the NHS fit for the future.

Although women of any age can get breast cancer, it is much more likely to occur over the age of 50. That is why our screening programme sends women their first invitation at 50. However, I will take this opportunity to emphasise that the take-up of breast cancer screening is currently below 70%. That is worryingly low, and we are determined to change that. I make a plea to all hon. Members to help the Government achieve greater take-up of breast cancer screening in women over 50. Women need to come forward for screening.

Taken as a whole, the evidence does not support regular mammograms for women below the age of 50. Decisions on screening, including the age at which to offer it, are made by experts on the UK National Screening Committee, and those decisions are kept under review so that they continue to be based on the best available research. Ultrasound can be used as a diagnostic tool, but it is not appropriate for screening. Mammograms provide a fuller picture of the breast, and are better able to spot early signs of cancer. As the hon. Lady said, mammograms used for screening are less reliable for younger women given their denser breast tissue. Change in the screening age could mean a greater risk of false negatives, where cancer is missed, and there would also be a greater risk of false positives, which may lead to invasive testing when there is no need for it. Our approach is in line with that of most European countries, which screen women between the ages of 50 and 69.

For younger women who have a greater risk because of their family history, we offer screening using mammogram or an MRI scan. As I have said, the most effective way to tackle breast cancer in younger women is to encourage them to check their breasts regularly, and to consult their GP straight away if they have any concerns.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Lucy did that and was dismissed. Today’s debate is particularly important for awareness raising among the medical profession to ensure that women, particularly those who know about a family history of breast cancer—some do not—are not dismissed and are taken seriously.

NHS Dentistry: South-west

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Richard Foord]

The hon. Gentleman is right. We want to move NHS treatment back into primary care and away from the most critical acute care, yet it seems to me that primary care services are moving in the other direction.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Royal United hospitals in Bath saw nearly 260 people last year with serious dental issues such as abscesses, largely because those people could not get a preventive care appointment from a dentist in their community, forcing them to go to A&E. Does my hon. Friend agree that a lack of NHS dentistry drives up costs because people go to A&E when it should only be there for emergency cases?

[Richard Foord]

I agree that emergency care should not suddenly become the routine. It is there for the most critical cases, but we have not seen that, given the drying up of NHS dentistry provision in our towns and villages.

Access to Primary Healthcare

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Today I speak as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on eating disorders. Eating disorders are a national emergency. Hospital admissions have risen by 84% in the past five years, while more than 80,000 sufferers are stuck on waiting lists while their condition gets seriously worse.

Eating disorders are treatable, but the treatment must be timely and appropriate if sufferers are to make a full recovery. Early diagnosis is crucial. According to the charity Beat, approximately 1.25 million people in the UK have an eating disorder, and I am sure that many of my colleagues have either a friend or family member or know about a constituent who is suffering from an eating disorder. The sooner a person with an eating disorder accesses the right treatment, the more likely they are to recover. When eating disorders are left undiagnosed or poorly treated, they can be killers.

Eating disorders are the mental health disorder with the highest mortality rate, and there is still a stigma surrounding them. There are still too many who think that having an eating disorder is a choice. What a terrible thing to say about people who are suffering from an illness—that it is a choice. Only 6% of people with an eating disorder are underweight, yet some eating disorder services—and GP services—still only offer treatment to patients depending on their body mass index. Many eating disorder sufferers are told that they are not thin, or not thin enough. Others are told, once they return with an even lower BMI, that they are too sick or their condition is too complex to be treated. That happens only because too many sufferers are left untreated when full recovery was perfectly possible.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I would rather not, because too many people want to speak.

NHS waiting times are one of the biggest barriers to treatment. At the end of 2023-24, more than 10,000 children had entered treatment for an eating disorder, but 12% of those were made to wait over three months for treatment—three times the target for a routine referral. Missing the target waiting time standard can severely harm the progress of a child’s recovery. Even more shockingly, an access and waiting time standard for adults does not even exist.

I will continue to work tirelessly to improve eating disorder care, in particular by fighting for improved access for treatment and for more suitable treatment options for individual patients. We on the APPG have commissioned an inquiry, and I hope the Government will carefully listen to the recommendations. In 2024, no one should be condemned to a life of illness, nor should anyone die of an eating disorder.

[Several hon. Members rose—]