Westminster Hall

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 21 May 2025

[Sir Desmond Swayne in the Chair]

Chronic Urinary Tract Infections

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered chronic urinary tract infections.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I rise to speak about a horrific condition that has been ignored for much too long. For thousands of Britons chronic urinary tract infections turn ordinary lives into living nightmares. The pain and permanence of the illness has left thousands suffering on a daily basis. Having heard many of their stories it is clear to me that what they are living through is nothing short of torture. This speech is not just about a medical condition; it is about a scandal that highlights the systemic failure to take women’s pain seriously in this country.

Over the last few months a brave community of patients have shared their stories with me—stories of trauma, suffering and desperation. I have been utterly heartbroken by what I have been told. The cruelty of the condition is matched only by the cold indifference that its sufferers have faced from our healthcare system. It is a national disgrace that thousands of chronic UTI sufferers have been so profoundly let down by modern medicine.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. As a physiotherapist I meet patients with chronic UTIs who tell me about the increasing urgency leading to incontinence. The stigma behind incontinence is disgraceful. Does he agree that we need a wider strategy? When it comes to UTIs we need to look at the other effects, such as people falling and the number of fractures that happen because people are rushing to go to the toilet. It is important to look at a wider strategy instead of just thinking of this as a single issue.

[Luke Taylor]

Absolutely. I thank the hon. Member for raising those related issues, which are so important to consider. I will come on to talk about the wider challenge of women’s health being treated without the importance that it requires. I understand that she is attempting to secure a debate on a similar subject, so I wish her the best of luck in that endeavour.

Many of us have already heard of this illness and have heard people’s stories. I first learned about it from my constituent Phoebe, who has lived with a chronic UTI since she was three years old. Now in her mid-20s, she has become a tireless advocate for others suffering in silence. She shows remarkable perseverance and strength, even when the pain she lives with is beyond anything I can describe. Phoebe is here with us today, along with a number of other sufferers. It is my absolute privilege to stand in this place and speak for them and every other individual enduring such an awful condition. Will the Minister meet me, Phoebe and representatives of other campaign groups to hear how they have been let down by the system?

A chronic UTI is not just a diagnosis; it is at present a life sentence of torture that eats away at every part of a person’s existence. The condition first develops when bacteria from an acute UTI become permanently embedded in the lining of the bladder. Left untreated, the infection becomes entrenched, wreaking long-term havoc on the rest of the body.

I want to be absolutely clear: a chronic UTI should not be confused with the recurrent version of the condition. A patient diagnosed with a recurrent UTI might experience one or two infections over a six-month period. Although it is still serious, patients suffering from a recurrent UTI experience distinct intervals of relief from their symptoms. Chronic UTI sufferers live in constant and excruciating pain, with the infection never relenting. They are in agony every single day and every single night. Many sufferers have lived with the condition for decades, with the illness at present incurable.

Chronic urinary tract infections can affect anyone at any age, but they disproportionately affect women. At the UK’s only NHS specialist clinic, which I will come on to later, 95% of patients are women; only 5% are men. Individuals living with a chronic UTI are often forced to urinate more than 20 times an hour. I have been told that each time they use the toilet, it feels like they are passing razor blades through their urethra. Their urine is bloody. Their bladders are so tender they struggle to walk, and their bodies are consumed by fever. In many cases, the prolonged infection spreads from the bladder to the kidneys and the bloodstream, causing sepsis, with complications for other organs.

I have been told harrowing accounts of the agony caused by this illness. The pain has been likened to corrosive acid burning through the abdomen, glass shards lodged in the bladder and the feeling of mice eating away at the sufferer’s insides. Some liken it to scorching knives slashing forever at their stomach, or a hot cauldron constantly bubbling in their groin. The most common comparison I hear is that people’s bodies are perpetually on fire. To reiterate, the torment never stops—for the majority of patients, it is 24/7.

These symptoms destroy lives overnight. The illness renders individuals severely disabled, often forced to live a life of bedbound isolation. The pain is so overwhelming that patients can lose their ability to sleep and become trapped in a cycle of exhaustion. Household chores become impossible, and individuals can lose the ability to care for their children. Sufferers often lose their dream careers, as they cannot function with their symptoms in the workplace. They are unable to work or afford costly bills for private medicine.

Young adults living with the condition often have to forgo university studies, with the severity of their agony making their education unbearable. Romantic relationships break down, with at least one case of a marriage of over 40 years ending due to the illness. Sexual intercourse is virtually impossible due to the immense pain. Many people with the condition fear they will never be able to start a family. Patients face an utter loss of independence and, unsurprisingly, depression and suicidal ideation are daily struggles for the chronic UTI patient community.

This brings me on to my second ask for the Minister: every healthcare professional in the UK must be properly briefed to recognise and treat a chronic UTI. Since 2022, the NHS website has formally recognised the existence of chronic UTIs, yet I have heard that many GPs and urologists still deny the existence of the illness. Patients suffering from chronic UTIs are left to fight for recognition and are misdiagnosed with conditions such as internal cystitis or recurrent UTIs.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Does the hon. Member agree that part of the issue is the use of antibiotics, to which UTIs are becoming immune? The medical profession cannot keep up with treatments, and there is a case for better education of the general public in terms of sanitisation. I know it is possible to get UTIs in different ways, but it would be helpful to educate and remind the population about sanitation.

[Luke Taylor]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. Many of our modern medicine practices are designed around avoiding the build-up of antibiotic resistance. The intention is to allow high-dose, effective antibiotics to be available when required, yet so many sufferers tell us that when they go to the doctor because they require those antibiotics, they are denied them. If this is not a case where those effective antibiotics must be used, even though resistance must be avoided, there cannot be a better example of the mismatch between intention and practice. I will come on to that in more detail, but I thank the hon. Member for making that point.

The misdiagnosis of chronic UTIs does not lead to effective treatment and compounds sufferers’ agonising pain with awful frustration. At their most vulnerable and weak, they are being forced to prove that what is happening to them is real. That is Kafkaesque, and it is totally wrong. The key problem appears to be that specific National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines do not exist for chronic UTIs in England, and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network guidelines do not exist for the condition in Scotland. NICE guidelines for acute and recurrent UTIs exist, but as I have outlined, they are not fit for purpose for this chronic condition. How can GPs and urologists provide and recommend proper care, as the first point of contact with the patient, when there are no clear clinical guidelines?

Without guidelines, many medical professionals are practically blind to the condition. They cannot prescribe the right antibiotics to relive patients’ pain because chronic UTIs are not even on their radar. Chronic UTI specialists do exist, and they recognise the condition and can help treat symptoms, but without proper guidance GPs and urologists, unintentionally or not, block patients from reaching them and refuse their requests for referral. Many chronic UTI sufferers have post-traumatic stress disorder from their interactions with medical professionals, never mind the suffering from the condition itself. I have heard stories of patients being essentially gaslit by medical professionals, told that the concern is all in their heads, denied antibiotics and given antidepressants instead. It seems that some GPs and urologists have dismissed the illness as a women’s problem and have told patients just to deal with the pain. That is not medicine; it is misogyny.

I urge the Minister to push for the creation by NICE and SIGN of guidelines on chronic UTIs that are distinct from those on recurrent UTIs. That is long overdue and will hopefully bring to an end those kinds of interactions between suffering patients and GPs, but that alone will not be enough. There have to be better treatment offers for chronic UTI patients further down the pipeline. Right now, there is just one NHS specialist clinic in the entire country: the lower urinary tract symptoms clinic at Whittington hospital in London—one clinic for a nationwide illness. It offers fantastic support for patients, but waiting times are too long. We all know that waiting lists are far too high across the NHS— I commend the Government for their approach to bringing waiting lists down generally—but for chronic UTI sufferers forced to compete for the time of a solitary clinic, the effect is even more pronounced. Sufferers wait months, even years, for help if they are lucky enough to secure a referral in the first place.

Even once patients get to the clinic, relief is still not guaranteed. The LUTS clinic offers long-term, high-dose antibiotics that can treat the symptoms, but they bring only partial relief, leaving many dragging themselves through life exhausted, drowsy and still in pain. That is not really living; it is enduring. Worse, the antibiotics do not work for everyone: about 30% of patients cannot tolerate them at all. Imagine the despair of being in that 30%.

The situation would be scandalous enough if it were simply the case that, in desperation, many chronic UTI patients turned to private healthcare, spending thousands of pounds that they do not have just to access the bare minimum of care, but it is more awful than that. Some are forced to go to even more extreme lengths and choose risky, experimental procedures just to lessen their suffering. They fly abroad and pay unlicensed doctors more than £30,000 to have their bladders surgically removed. Let me say that again: people are choosing to have their organs ripped out in foreign countries because mainstream healthcare in the UK offers them nothing.

For some, those risky surgeries offer relief, but for many the infection is already in their kidneys, and they return from the operation bladderless and with multiple complications. Some suffers, with few options left, make a choice that should haunt us in this House. Rather than live another day like that, they take the most extreme choice of all: to take their own life. That is not how people should be living in modern Britian, and that is why we should spare no expense in researching better treatments and, of course—as so many dream—a cure.

I argue that the Government have an obligation, no matter the prevailing economic circumstances, to expedite the day that that becomes a reality. Promising medical trials already under way in the UK show real potential to transform how we treat chronic UTIs. Those treatments are ready to progress to human trials; the only thing standing in the way is funding. I urge the Minister to look into the roadblocks to getting more funding to the trials, and to come forward at the earliest opportunity with a plan to put conditions that are under-diagnosed and under-prioritised, such as chronic UTIs, at the front of their research agenda for this country’s biomedical research industry. I would be happy to put the Minister in touch with some of those working at the cutting edge of treatment in this field.

I have told the story of chronic UTI sufferers and their longing for relief—a relief the Government can help them seek if they back their cause—but I remind the House that the condition exists in a much wider context: health issues that mainly impact women are consistently neglected and routinely dismissed. We know that women wait longer in accident and emergency departments. We also know that just 5% of global health research goes towards conditions that exclusively or disproportionately affect women. Even though 15% to 20% consult doctors for chronic pain, it was only this year that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists introduced an optional training module on chronic pain for trainee doctors.

Inquiries such as Paterson and Cumberlege laid bare the systemic failures in how women’s health is treated in this country, but implementation and cultural change have lagged far behind the words. I have wondered many things since I first heard stories of chronic UTI sufferers, but nothing has unsettled me more than the lingering thought that if more men were affected by the disease, we would have had better treatments decades ago. That is an oft-used cliché but it comes up time and again.

The Minister has heard today about the scale of unimaginable pain that those with chronic UTIs experience. She has heard about the broken diagnostic system that stops too many sufferers getting the help they need. She has heard about the roadblocks to developing better treatments that are standing in the way of relief. I simply reiterate my asks. Will she and her officials meet me and these brave sufferers to hear more about the specific actions that the Government need to take to clear the roadblocks? Will they commit to pushing for the NICE guidelines to be brought up to date to reflect the latest understanding of this disease? Will they outline what steps they are taking to combat the wider problem of the neglect of women’s health issues? Chronic UTI sufferers deserve so much more.

09:46

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I am not well today for the very reason that we are here. I may need to sit down during my speech if that is okay. I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for securing this incredibly important debate. [Interruption.]

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

This is a difficult subject for those who suffer from this condition. I will give an example in my speech, as one of my staff members suffers from it. We are deeply indebted to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for bringing this forward. It is important to hear personal stories from sufferers, such as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), and that they are given the opportunity to express themselves on the importance of this issue to them personally and to all our constituents.

[Dr Gardner]

As hon. Members may have guessed, this debate is not only important to thousands of women across the country—according to the Chronic Urinary Tract Infection Campaign, about 1.7 million women suffer from chronic UTIs—but incredibly personal to me. I have suffered from UTIs as a result of menopause for more than 10 years, and received a diagnosis of chronic UTI in 2023.

I do not think many people realise how debilitating and excruciating chronic UTI can be. At my worst, I wondered how I could go on. I even changed from a beloved lecturing job to one at NICE because I wanted to change things from within, and it is why I am an MP now. I have tried almost everything; I was even considering—as a final step before the final, final step—having my bladder removed.

Although my NHS consultant gave me Hiprex—methenamine hippurate—thank God, which is life-changing for me, he finally shrugged his shoulders and said that I would just have to live with this condition. In desperation, I tracked down a specialist who worked in private practice. How lucky I was to have the money. I can confidently claim that Dr Catriona Anderson saved my life, which I do not say lightly.

Chronic UTIs can lead to hospitalisation—I have been twice—and sepsis and death. I have a long list of all the drugs that I am on, but I will not read it out. I believe this is another case of how women’s medical conditions continue to be misunderstood, under-researched and underfunded. To illustrate that point, there is a belief that UTIs are more serious in men than in women. I acknowledge that men’s physiology—men have a longer urethra than women—means that they are less likely to develop a UTI, although the possible presence of an enlarged prostate means that they may experience restrictive urine flows and develop a UTI. That is certainly the case in older men. Consequently, all men are recommended seven-day courses of antibiotics compared with the three-day courses that women are recommended. By the way, there are three antibiotics to treat UTIs. Trimethoprim and nitrofurantoin are the top ones, but I am allergic to them, so I am on cephalexin when I need it.

There is a lack of acknowledgement that poorly treated UTIs can lead to bacteria becoming embedded in bladders. Incidentally, a much shorter journey in women means that the diligence afforded to men is not afforded to women. In addition, women’s immune response to pathogenic bacteria in the bladder is oestrogen-dependent, and so it is also age-related. Lack of official recognition of chronic UTIs means that women do not receive treatment equal to what men. I am a molecular biologist, but I will not bore Members by setting out the different types of receptors in the urethral lining of the bladder.

I will further illustrate this point in simpler terms. A campaigner told me how her doctor, who repeatedly prescribed her three-day antibiotic courses for her chronic UTI, prescribed her husband, when he presented with a UTI for the first time, a month-long course, which would entirely clear the infection, of course, and minimise risk of recurrence. That says it all. Incidentally, chronic prostatitis is recognised by NICE.

As has been mentioned, for many women—approximately 70%—three-day courses will be sufficient, but for rest of women, three-day courses clear only some bacteria. Those that remain are relatively resistant; they then increase in population and there is recurrence. Essentially, repeated short courses establish a system of natural selection for resistant bacteria. It also means that the remaining bacteria then have time to invade the bladder and become embedded, finally leading to chronic UTIs. So, patients are stuck in a loop.

The use of the useless urine dipstick test, which is no more accurate than the toss of a coin, and of the midstream urine test, which is even worse, means that infections go undetected. As a result, no antibiotics are prescribed until the infection gets worse and, finally, a short course of antibiotics is prescribed. However, the infection is still not fully cleared, so the loop starts again. The infection then becomes embedded in the bladder wall and chronic UTI develops.

Short-term antibiotic courses often do not treat chronic UTIs, because dormant populations of bacteria exist within the bladder wall. Your life revolves around desperately trying to convince doctors to prescribe a course that you know will work for you. I am due to move house soon and I am petrified of having to move GPs, which would mean again starting this battle of trying to convince a GP to take me seriously. I understand concerns around antibiotic resistance and the medical hesitancy in prescribing longer courses of antibiotics. However, the solution is not to minimise antibiotic use; it is to get the diagnosis right, treat thoroughly, recognise the existence of chronic UTIs and prevent their development.

I am concerned by the lack of research and guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of chronic UTIs. We could prevent them all together if we get things right. I am particularly excited by the UTI vaccine, which is not currently available in the UK. Prevention of UTIs would not only save the NHS countless hours and money, but save people from living miserable lives.

In April, the Minister for Care said in a response to a written question:

“there are no current plans to train GPs and urologists on recognising the symptoms of chronic UTIs”.

Also, current NICE guidelines do not contain guidance for chronic UTIs. This situation must change. Too many women are being left in unbearable pain without a proper diagnosis or appropriate medication.

I will be very quick now, Sir Desmond; you have been very patient with me. About 50% of all antibiotics are prescribed for UTIs. However, each year there are thousands of deaths from UTIs and approximately 200,000 A&E admissions are due to UTI-related illnesses. The cost of UTIs to the NHS, as well as to people’s lives, is huge.

This issue is personal for me. It is also personal for the millions living with the pain, frustration and isolation of chronic UTIs. Will the Minister meet me and others, including campaigners, to discuss how we can improve diagnostic tools, develop guidance and ensure that people suffering from this condition receive the care that they deserve?

Thank you for your indulgence, Sir Desmond.

09:54

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I commend the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) on his presentation of this debate on subject matter that some, such as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), have personal experience of. Others, including me, have staff members who have had this condition, and some have family members who have had it—I understand that my friend the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) has experienced that.

This is an opportunity to speak on behalf of sufferers in my constituency of Strangford and across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The NHS estimates that some 14 million people in the UK experience some form of urinary incontinence. That figure is expected to rise because of an ageing population with often very complex health issues. That is a fact of life. Those of a certain age—I am one of them—find that their health issues are multiple. That is the nature of age; it takes its toll.

Inadequate continence care can lead to serious complications, with urinary tract infections among the most common and concerning outcomes. NHS data showed that there were more than 1.8 million hospital admissions involving UTIs between 2018-19 and 2022-23. The majority involved patients aged 65 or older. The admissions include both those directly caused by UTIs and those for other reasons but where a UTI was also present. As a leading cause of emergency admissions, UTIs place substantial strain on NHS resources, while diminishing patients’ dignity, experiences and outcomes.

I wish to highlight that this issue affects both men and women, as well as children. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam referred to a three-year-old girl, so children are affected by chronic UTIs. A member of my office staff, one of our young girls, came to work with me when she was 16. She has been there for a long time, so I must be doing something right; she has not left me to go elsewhere where the money is better. Perhaps the conditions and the time off are better as well.

I understood the chronic pain that my staff member had, but also the need to be flexible at times—whenever she was not well, she obviously needed time off. She attended a fair few hospital appointments for a chronic UTI, and it was a very difficult time. She was on antibiotics for six months. I wondered, “Is that possible?” But in this case it was, because the infection was so chronic. Ultimately it cleared. Also, on 1 January this year she got married, so her life is going in the right direction now—thank goodness for that. The issue was exacerbated at the time by the difficulty of getting GP appointments and specialist referrals. The chronic pain just seemed to exist forever, even with the help of antibiotics. Eventually she got to the end of that six-month period and she is now in much better health.

I want to mention what we are doing in Northern Ireland, because obviously that will be part of any debate in which I speak. In Northern Ireland we have something, and perhaps the Minister will say to me in a few minutes, once I tell her what it is about, “Well, we’re already doing that.” If they are, that is good. I was very relieved when Northern Ireland rolled out the Pharmacy First scheme, especially as the scheme covers advice and treatment for uncomplicated urinary tract infections in the local pharmacy, so without having to wait for a GP appointment. If the Minister tells me that the Government have not done that yet, can I say that it is another Northern Ireland first? And if the Minister is not aware of it, may I say, to be helpful in this debate, that perhaps it should be done here as well?

The pharmacist may test the patient’s urine to help to determine whether a UTI is present. How does the scheme work? What happens when a person goes to their local pharmacy in Northern Ireland? In some cases, self-care advice may be all that is necessary. In other words, they will get a bit of advice. The pharmacist will find out what the symptoms are and explain the situation to the person, and perhaps will be able to respond fairly quickly. As I said, in some cases self-care advice may be all that is necessary, but the community pharmacist is also able to supply the patient with medicines to relieve pain—in some cases there can be chronic pain—and, if applicable, antibiotics. In all cases, women will be advised on what to do if their symptoms worsen or do not resolve.

The Pharmacy First UTI service means that women can be assessed and treated much sooner, without having to wait for a GP appointment—like the young girl in my office—for a month, two months, six weeks or whatever the case may be. Not only will patients not need an appointment, but community pharmacies are more likely to be open after normal working hours, at weekends and on bank holidays. Newtownards, my major town, has a number of pharmacies, which take turns staying open at the weekend; there is always access to a pharmacy in Newtownards and, indeed, other major towns in the Province.

The UTI management service expanded to more than 400 community pharmacies in 2024-25, following positive evaluation of the pilot, which involved 60 pharmacies and started in July 2021. That success convinced the Northern Ireland Department of Health to make the pilot bigger and showed that we could do more. Between March 2022 and April 2023, 3,500 women in Northern Ireland used the pilot service. Following assessment, more than 85% were diagnosed with a UTI and received appropriate advice and treatment from a pharmacist.

That is positive, but for those with chronic UTIs, like the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, the pharmacy does not cut it and the GP can only do so much. There are different levels of response: community pharmacies in Northern Ireland provide an automatic response to those who have a urinary infection, rather than a chronic UTI, but sometimes things are much more complicated.

The waiting list to be seen for a UTI in Northern Ireland is long, and the average waiting time for urology appointments varies significantly, depending on the health and social care trust and the urgency of the case. For example, in the Belfast health and social care trust, the wait in a red flag case—the most urgent—might be nine weeks, which is more than two months and far too long; a non-urgent case could wait 76 weeks, and a routine case could wait 180 weeks. Those are horrendous and completely unacceptable waiting times.

Throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, there needs to be access to specialised care, innovation, new and modern technology, and new ideas, rather than a six-month course of antibiotics and a hope for the best. Men, women and children need more, and it must be provided.

I look forward to the Minister’s response. She responded positively to last week’s debate, and I am sure that today she will again indicate her wish to make lives better. This debate gives her the opportunity to do so, and to help those who have been waiting so long for an end to their health issue. We can do better—and we must.

10:02

[Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for securing this important and emotional debate. I also thank other hon. Members who have made contributions on this deeply upsetting subject, as well as the members of the public who have travelled to be in the Gallery. Having heard about this condition, I know that some of them must have had incredibly difficult journeys to get here, so I thank them for their efforts.

Research from 2019 showed that 83.3% of cases of reported UTIs in primary care involved women, and that UTIs were most common in women over the age of 65, as we have heard. In 2023-24, there were 679,399 hospital admissions involving a UTI diagnosis. Hon. Members have touched on suicidal ideation, and it is important to note that suicides have happened as a result of the suffering caused by this condition. It is therefore imperative that it is taken seriously and that we act on it.

Suffers are bedbound, unable to work, unable to sleep and unable to leave the house or socialise, all while they experience debilitating pain. A Watford constituent of mine has had to give up her job at a school, where she worked for more than two decades. Imagine what that feels like when our lives are so defined by the careers we undertake. It is nothing short of tragic. The condition has impacted her personal life as well, and she had to take remedial action even to attend her own daughter’s wedding.

What sufferers want is, first, the development of effective pain relief, which goes without saying, given the contributions that have been made already; secondly, research and funding for new and speedy treatment options; thirdly, the introduction of accurate testing at primary care level; and finally, as has been touched on, a meeting with the relevant Minister so that she can fully understand the nature of living with this condition. Overall, what they want can be defined as a cure.

10:05

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for securing today’s debate and for being a champion for both his constituents and the wider population suffering with UTIs. Although I will not mention all the contributions this morning, I must mention that of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), whose speech was not only passionate, but well informed and very personal. It is the hardest thing to share a personal story, and I commend her for her bravery this morning.

Urinary tract infections are far more common than many realise and far more serious than many assume, and women are 30 times more likely to suffer from a UTI than men. They are agonising and can, in some cases, even be fatal. Between 2018 and 2023, 1.8 million hospital admissions in England involved UTIs, not to mention the no doubt countless GP appointments.

Chronic urinary tract infections, where symptoms do not go away, are a particularly distressing form of this condition. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam spoke about sufferers being in bedbound isolation and unbearable pain, preventing them from living their lives and often from attending important family events and moments that should be celebrated, because this condition can be so debilitating.

Short courses of antibiotics often fail, and urine tests can come back negative, even when the patient is in clear discomfort. That is because chronic UTIs can be caused by bacteria entering the lining of the bladder, which makes them much harder to detect and treat. The diagnostic tools available to us are simply not good enough. Midstream urine cultures are still considered the gold standard for diagnosing acute UTIs, but recent research shows that MSUs miss a wide range of bacteria, which leaves many sufferers undiagnosed, untreated and often feeling disbelieved.

Like most women, I am grateful that I do not suffer from regular UTIs, although I do remember the panic as a child when I was in absolute agony. I do not know whether this is oversharing, but I remember my mum running in with a milk bottle of cold water to pour on me while I went to the toilet, just to take an element of that pain away for me, as a young child experiencing something I did not understand.

I have seen how a UTI can be particularly debilitating for those living with dementia. I experienced that with my nana during her final years. She could not identify that she was experiencing pain, so it fell to us, as her family, to recognise the symptoms. Her carer would test her urine most days, as she became so prone to infections. Those can cause sudden and alarming changes in behaviour, known as delirium, which is often exhibited as confusion, agitation, hallucinations or sudden withdrawal.

My nana ended up being hospitalised for some severe UTIs in her final months. Her hallucinations were quite often enjoyed by the family, and I particularly remember one where she was very cross at me for coming to her hospital late at night with an entire choir, singing to her and waking up the whole ward. That obviously did not happen, but in her delirium she was absolutely convinced that I had not respected her sleep. Such symptoms are often mistaken for the progression of dementia, leading to the underlying UTI going uncured.

Social care has a key role to play in UTIs, but only 45% of care workers receive any sort of dementia-specific training. We were incredibly lucky that the carer we had for my nana was dementia-trained and recognised the signs of UTIs before they got too bad. Families are also vital in this process, especially when someone cannot advocate for themselves. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam mentioned, when patients are so exhausted from having to fight a system that does not believe them, families often have to step in and be their advocates. People cannot do this alone.

Too often, UTIs are dismissed as short term or minor, but for many people, particularly those with underlying conditions, they are anything but. We welcome the NHS’s recognition of chronic UTIs as a legitimate condition since 2022, but too many people still suffer in silence or are dismissed, misdiagnosed and left without adequate support. That is why we urge the Government to explore ways to improve diagnosis, particularly for chronic UTIs. Further research is desperately needed.

The Liberal Democrats are calling for a significant expansion in the capacity of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, and for a comprehensive agreement with the European Medicines Agency. We must ensure that new treatments can reach UK patients without delay, especially as we currently rely on three different strands of antibiotics to treat UTIs, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South said. Those who suffer regularly are at risk of developing antimicrobial resistance, which then makes treatments less effective. If they are also allergic to certain strands, they are incredibly limited in the antibiotics they can receive. The hon. Member also mentioned that there is a UTI vaccine in other countries, which I am very interested in.

Continuity of care is equally important. Everyone with a long-term condition such as a chronic UTI should have access to a named GP. That would help to build understanding, avoid delays and improve outcomes, especially for those whose symptoms may be dismissed or misunderstood.

Lastly, I want to touch on the role of community pharmacies, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned. The Pharmacy First scheme, which was introduced in England in January last year, has the potential to relieve pressure on GPs and to provide quicker treatment for uncomplicated UTIs, but many pharmacies are struggling to meet the consultation targets required to access funding. Ongoing financial and operational pressures are undermining the very service that we need to provide, and in the year to date we have lost the equivalent of four community pharmacies a week.

My questions to the Minister are as follows. What steps is her Department taking to support community pharmacies in delivering the Pharmacy First service, especially those struggling to meet the increase in consultation targets, and to ensure that patients with UTIs can access timely, local and effective care? Pharmacy First is currently available only for those with UTIs between the ages of 16 and 64. Is there a plan to widen that age range? Given the known limitations of current testing methods, will the Minister also outline what steps are being taken to ensure that better diagnostic tools are made available? Is there any plan to introduce a UTI vaccine? Finally, will chronic UTIs be included in the 10-year health plan, and is that still on track to be published in June?

10:13

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) on an excellent speech that graphically explained how this condition has a horrific impact on those who suffer with it. I also congratulate him on securing this important debate to raise awareness.

As we have heard, urinary tract infections are common infections affecting the bladder and kidneys, and the tubes connected to them. Anyone can get them, but they are particularly common in women. The NHS estimates that 14 million people in the UK experience some kind of urinary incontinence, too, a figure that is expected to rise due to an ageing population. Most urinary tract infections, although painful, clear up in a few days and can be treated with antibiotics.

The earlier a urinary tract infection is identified, and the earlier a patient can receive appropriate treatment, the more they will be able to manage their condition, maximise their quality of life and reduce the risk of chronic infection. For many, UTIs are not a fleeting inconvenience but a chronic, recurrent, life-limiting illness. Short-term antibiotic treatments fail, standard urine tests might not detect infections, and persistent symptoms can severely diminish a patient’s quality of life. I hope this debate will raise awareness of the issue of chronic UTIs, which some patients have said have shaped their whole lives.

We know that women are 30 times more likely to get a urinary tract infection than men, and that UTIs are agonising and occasionally fatal. NHS data shows that there were over 1.8 million hospital admissions involving UTIs between 2018-19 and 2022-23. UTI rates increase when women reach 45 and are in the perimenopause. Studies suggest that over half of all women will experience a UTI at some point in their lives, with many enduring recurrent infections. There are several physiological and hormonal factors that make women more susceptible to UTIs, including that they have a shorter urethra than men. Hormonal fluctuations during menopause lead to a decrease in protective vaginal flora, making older women more prone to infections. Pregnancy’s shifts in hormones and pressure on the bladder also exacerbate vulnerability.

The Chronic Urinary Tract Infection Campaign estimates that up to 1.7 million women suffer from chronic UTIs, yet as we heard, this is a neglected area of research—indeed, women’s conditions in general are not as researched and treated as they ought to be. The last Government recognised the need to target women’s health conditions specifically and launched the women’s health strategy in 2022, which was successful in tackling issues that disproportionately affect women. Will the Minister commit to the continuation of that programme?

I want to briefly discuss children—I should declare that I am a children’s doctor in the NHS. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam talked about his constituent, who was three when symptoms first occurred. Urinary tract infections are common in children; symptoms vary in severity and treatment requires different approaches depending on age, sex, and each individual patient’s condition. There are NICE guidelines on this issue, which also recommend imaging for children with UTIs, including a DMSA scan and an ultrasound depending on their condition. Can the Minister say what she has done to assess the number of children being treated for UTIs, the waiting times for scans, and whether there are sufficient radiology staff to both perform and report these procedures within the timeframes recommended by NICE?

The Government have recently pointed to research being carried out by NHS England, along with the industry, to horizon-scan for new innovations in point-of-care tests for diagnosing UTIs, in order to guide better treatment options. With the impending abolition of NHS England, will that research continue, and if so, who will now be responsible for leading it? In 2023, the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England and the UK Health Security Agency launched a campaign to raise awareness of UTI symptoms and available NHS treatments. Will the Government continue that initiative, to ensure ongoing public awareness of UTIs and prevent hospital admissions? Has the Minister evaluated that campaign’s success in improving early detection, reducing hospital admissions and reducing the incidence of chronic UTIs?

For those suffering from UTIs, their first point of contact with the healthcare system is often their local pharmacy. Those services are conveniently located in the heart of many communities and are staffed by highly skilled professionals with years of experience under their belts. As we have already heard, the previous Government launched the Pharmacy First initiative, through which community pharmacists can treat women aged 16 to 64 with uncomplicated UTIs, offering rapid treatment and advice. A report from the Company Chemists’ Association in January 2025 found that nearly a third of all Pharmacy First consultations each week are for urinary tract infections.

What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of Pharmacy First on people affected by UTIs and other common conditions? My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) has called on the Government to provide financial incentives for GPs to work with community pharmacies to support referrals into Pharmacy First. As the spending review draws near, will the Government consider that proposal, so that more people affected by UTIs can access support from Pharmacy First?

At the time of its inception, concerns were raised about the Pharmacy First initiative, relating to an increased risk of antimicrobial resistance to standard antibiotics. Now that it has been running for a year, does the Minister have any assessment of whether that is a risk that we should continue to be concerned about? The Chronic Urinary Tract Infection Campaign estimates that 20% to 30% of patients do not improve with initial antibiotic treatment. What research are the Government planning to carry out to see what further treatment can be offered to those patients?

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam raised the issue of NICE and SIGN guidance. I can say as a clinician that both are very useful to doctors and other clinicians in guiding their practice, and they are written by experts in the field. Does the Minister plan to speak to those running NICE about whether specialists in this field could come up with some consensus-based, evidence-based guidance on chronic UTIs? As we have heard today, that could support patients who are suffering terribly.

I want to touch on continence care. Adopting a personal, clinician-led approach to product provision can allow users to manage their conditions and lead to improved outcomes for both patients and the wider healthcare system. What steps are the Government taking to prioritise patient dignity and outcomes in continence care? The Government have also stated that support for those affected by UTIs is currently commissioned by integrated care boards. However, we know that ICBs are facing budget reductions of 50%, and many are planning to merge over the next two years. Can the Minister confirm whether the responsibility for supporting those affected by UTIs will remain with ICBs, or whether she intends for this function be transferred elsewhere?

To close, UTIs can be managed with increased public awareness of symptoms and treatment, early diagnosis, preventive measures, research and improvements in NHS care. We have heard how life-changing that could be for many, particularly women. All those factors could reduce the burden of chronic and recurrent infections and ensure that every patient receives the care they deserve. I hope the Minister will take all this into account, because she could help to alleviate the suffering of many women and other people.

10:21

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

It is an honour, as ever, to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for securing this debate. I would like to welcome and acknowledge Phoebe and all others in the Gallery. Of course, I put on record straightaway that I will ensure that a meeting takes place with the relevant Minister—we are just working out whether that will be me or somebody else, but I will ensure that it takes place.

I also recognise the contributions from other hon. Members here today. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar), who is no longer in her place, always brings her expertise as a clinician to this discussion and does much to raise awareness. The hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton), who is also no longer in his place, talked about antibiotics and AMR, which I will come to later. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), spoke about Pharmacy First. Just to confirm, it does operate in England and is designed to ensure that women aged 16 to 64 can access treatment for uncomplicated UTIs. It is worth saying that the Government currently have no plans to extend that age group, as pre-16 or post-64 cases are not necessarily considered uncomplicated and would, we would argue, require a little more focus. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine) recognised the desperation of many sufferers and highlighted the links to suicide.

Before I come to my speech and refer to some of the issues raised by the Front-Bench spokespeople, may I say that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) and I have been very good friends for some years? I know how she suffers, and I recognise her courage. She is such a powerful voice on this issue, and I am delighted that she has done what was necessary and worked so hard to get to this place and to be that voice here. I congratulate her on that.

UTIs are very common, especially for women, but chronic UTIs are much rarer. However, the charity Chronic Urinary Tract Infection Campaign, CUTIC, estimates that up to 1.7 million women in the UK may suffer from a chronic UTI. That is a very large number of people living in discomfort. I commend CUTIC for its work bringing attention to the plight of chronic UTI sufferers.

It is important to make clear the distinction between a UTI, a recurrent UTI and a chronic or persistent UTI. A recurrent urinary tract infection is defined as having two or more UTIs within six months, or three or more UTIs within a year, with symptoms sometimes reappearing after a course of treatment, but regular treatment can eventually cure these. For a chronic UTI, the symptoms never go away, despite treatment. At most, they might slightly abate. A UTI can impact significantly on someone’s quality of life, making it hard to concentrate, sleep or exercise.

For someone with a chronic UTI, the pain and discomfort does not end. The physical and mental struggle is relentless. The contemplation of suicide is, as we have discussed, not uncommon among people suffering with chronic UTIs. They can have a negative impact on both intimate and social relationships, as well as self-esteem. That can be incredibly isolating. A population-based survey in England of women over 16 in 2015 found that 37% reported at least one episode of UTI in their lifetimes. Meanwhile, 29% of women reported more than one episode of UTI and 3% of women reported a history of recurrent UTIs in the past year.

Misogyny in health services is an issue that has been discussed in this Chamber before, and women’s health remains a priority for the Government. We have been let down for too long, but we are determined to change that, and women’s health will continue to be a major focus as we fundamentally reform the health service and get it delivering for patients once again. We are working with NHS England to take forward our women’s health strategy, and we have set out plans to use the independent sector to cut gynaecological waiting lists through our investment and reforms. We will make sure that the NHS can be there for all women when they need it. We are bringing through those commitments as part of our 10-year health plan.

It is vital that people with chronic UTIs receive support and compassion from the NHS in diagnosis and treatment. No one suffering with a chronic UTI should be made to feel ashamed or in any way at fault for their condition. Living with the condition is a struggle enough without having to bear the insensitivity of others. Chronic UTI sufferers merit the same understanding as anyone else with a non-communicable disease.

As stated previously, the reasons why some people develop a chronic UTI are not well understood, and neither is how to cure one once it develops. A long-term dose of antibiotics has been shown to work in some cases, but it is not consistently replicable, and it is not a risk-free approach. There are also the added complications of antibiotic resistance to consider when adopting such a treatment regimen. I will return to that point.

Management of the condition is at the discretion of the responsible clinician, based on their specialist training and experience. Patients who remain symptomatic despite investigations and treatment by specialist urological services can be referred onwards to tertiary services. Again, I emphasise that all patients with chronic UTIs should be afforded compassion and support as part of their care. As the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, who secured this debate, said, there is no NICE guidance specifically on chronic UTIs. The existing guidance provides advice on pain management and hydration. The local NHS is expected to have regard to NICE guidance in providing care and advice to patients.

The UK Health Security Agency has begun work in this area, alongside NHS England, primary care and patients, to develop resources to support clinicians in managing UTI conditions. At the moment, that is for recurrent UTIs, and we agree that more research is needed. To address the uncertainty, research is being undertaken. Through our National Institute for Health and Care Research, we are supporting work to understand the research gaps on UTIs. This happens through a James Lind Alliance priority-setting partnership, led by Antibiotic Research UK, Bladder Health UK and the Urology Foundation. The partnership will publish its findings in spring 2026.

The Department, through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, is funding research to improve the diagnosis and treatment of urinary tract infections, including chronic UTIs. The research includes the development of antimicrobial-impregnated catheters to reduce episodes of catheter-associated UTIs, as well as something called the TOUCAN study to evaluate the rapid point-of-care UTI diagnostic tests in GP surgeries. Recently the NIHR invested £3.1 million into improving primary care antibiotic prescribing programmes.

I want to return to antimicrobial resistance and why it is an important consideration. The first five-year national action plan for AMR in 2019 set out a comprehensive “One Health” approach to address AMR, acting across humans, animals, food and the environment. A further five-year plan was published in March 2024. The UK Health Security Agency has also been working with colleagues from NHSE, primary care settings and patients to develop resources to support clinicians through the TARGET antibiotics toolkit. This toolkit training is currently being rolled out in multiple NHSE regions as part of an intervention to improve the management of common infections, including UTIs, in primary care. We need to build on these successes and ensure that antibiotics use is supported by evidence. AMR is a significant health threat, and an estimated 7,600 deaths were attributable to AMR in the UK in 2019.

The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester, spoke about dementia and the added complications that that can lead to. Diagnosing UTI can be especially difficult in older people who often present with atypical or non-specific presentations, and it can be difficult to assess lower urinary tract symptoms in older patients with dementia. In care home settings the resident might not initially present as acutely unwell. They might present with increased lethargy, diminished appetite, reluctance to drink or just not be their usual self. Tools such as RESTORE2 can support care homes to alert a primary care clinician that the resident might be unwell and would benefit from an early clinical review. Care home staff encourage residents to keep hydrated, although that can be challenging in residents with dementia, as we know.

The Department is funding research into dementia and chronic urinary tract infections via the National Institute for Health and Care Research. The StOP UTI project at the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration in Wessex sought to identify effective strategies for preventing and recognising UTIs in care homes and has done some work to embed activities into care routines. It concluded that a systems-wide approach was necessary. In July 2024 the NIHR published a call for research applications to improve diagnosis of UTIs in older adults. Stage 2 applications are being considered by the funding committee this month.

The Lib Dem spokesperson also talked about community pharmacy and the 10-year plan, which will cover all conditions and is a strategic overview of how we will improve the NHS for everybody. I can confirm that the 10-year health plan is on track to be published next month.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), talked about research programmes and guidance. I think I have referred to most of those things in my speech. If I have not, I am more than happy to write to her after this debate. She also touched on prevention. The UKHSA is working with NHS England to run a targeted campaign around UTI prevention in older adults. The campaign will include messages and materials that can be used to support older adults to adapt behaviours, which should reduce the risk of developing a UTI, including messages that suggest they talk to clinicians about treatment options if they have recurring UTIs.

In conclusion, I want to highlight our work to make a health service that is fit for the future. We hope that our focus on the three shifts to develop a modern NHS will help to address many of the challenges in navigating the health service faced by those with long-term conditions, including chronic UTIs. Our shift from hospital to community will help to drive more joint working between neighbourhoods in primary care, pharmacies, community health and social care, in order to help people to manage their conditions. As I have said, shortly we will publish our 10-year plan for health, which will set out how we will make our NHS fit for the future. I thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam once again for securing this debate to raise awareness of this important but often overlooked issue.

10:35

[Luke Taylor]

I start by thanking the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for her contribution to the debate on the broader health inequalities for women, and I wish her the best of luck in securing the debate that she seeks.

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). He talked particularly about the strain on NHS resources that is caused by the lack of attention on this condition, which further compounds the challenges and backlogs in the system.

I thank the hon. Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine) for his account of the impact of this condition on his constituent, who had to give up her job; that shows the terrible impact it has on people’s lives.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for talking about the challenges around the antibiotic regime, including antibiotic resistance, and the complexity of that issue.

I thank the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) for her contribution. Her focus on the treatment of children was particularly instructive, because, as we have heard, the challenge is stopping a UTI becoming a recurrent UTI, which then becomes a chronic UTI. That is a real focus on that in the treatment of children. There is also a focus on Pharmacy First to help by stopping UTIs in children from becoming an issue in the first place. That was a particularly insightful point. I also thank her for bringing her knowledge as a doctor to the debate.

I thank the Minister for confirming that she will meet me and campaigners to further discuss the issues. However, I do not think that she gave a specific answer on how NICE and SIGN guidance would be updated to incorporate guidance on UTIs, but we can discuss that later, and I apologise if I missed it.

However, I will really focus on the contribution from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner). She spoke heartbreakingly about her experience of this condition and about how it has driven her into politics. I look forward to working with her to try and raise awareness of this issue and keep it current, and to try to understand how we can help her and the incredibly brave campaigners who brought the condition to my attention, so that we can really see some action on all the various streams of work that we can propose in this place.

Once again, I thank the Minister for being here to listen to the stories of sufferers and for responding to my points. I thank all hon. Members who took part in this debate, particularly pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South for her bravery. I also thank campaigners, including Phoebe, who is in the Public Gallery today. Their strength and resilience have given us a chance in this place to try to take clear action to give them their hope back.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered chronic urinary tract infections.

10:38

Sitting suspended.

Roadworks: Cheshire

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of roadworks on communities in Cheshire.

It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I am grateful to you and to the House for granting me this opportunity at short notice. I particularly thank the Minister for being here as well; I know that she has an incredibly busy schedule as well as a terrible inheritance from the previous Government, which she is trying to fix.

In my constituency of Macclesfield and elsewhere in Cheshire, we rely on our road network day in, day out, and it should be stable, dependable and free flowing. Over the past year, that network has become a source of constant frustration: what should be routine journeys have turned into a daily ordeal and a monotonous misery. Week in and week out, I find myself fighting to get basic roadworks resolved. I cannot quite believe that one year on in one place and six months on in another, the works are still unresolved—one year of disruption, one year of misery. That is what brings me here today. The two specific cases I want to highlight are the closure of the B5470 in Rainow and the traffic lights at the A523 Mill House bridge in Adlington.

The Mill House bridge sits on the A523, which is the main road in and out of Macclesfield. It is regularly used by people heading to Manchester, Poynton, Adlington and the north—or pretty much anywhere, including Leek and Stoke to the south. The importance of that road simply cannot be overstated to residents across swathes of Cheshire. A full year ago, part of the bridge collapsed, meaning that two-way traffic was unsafe. The council acted properly, putting in place temporary traffic lights to restrict the flow of traffic to one lane at a time.

Since then, to be frank, insufficient progress has been made by Ringway Jacobs, the main contractor for the council. When it comes to the delays, it has talked about the complexity of a nearby gas main and confusion over who is responsible for part of the repair. But the delays are simply unacceptable. In January, works beneath the bridge finally began, after much urging from me, but that was eight months after the traffic lights had been installed. Those works are scheduled to be completed in early summer, which basically begins next week.

I probably do not need to tell you, Sir Desmond, that confidence among my constituents that the issue will be resolved in a few weeks’ time is very low because too little has happened too slowly and with insufficient communication. Expected completion dates keep getting pushed back and back with no accountability, sincere apology or explanation.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Back home, we have had the very problems that the hon. Gentleman refers to, but those doing the roadworks have found a different way of responding to exceptional circumstances. The Sydenham bypass in east Belfast in Northern Ireland is a main thoroughfare for traffic. It was closed down for the Saturday and Sunday and contractors worked solidly for those 48 hours to get the work done. It was then reopened on the Monday morning so that the commuter traffic could continue. In my constituency of Strangford, the Portaferry road was closed from 7 pm to 7 am so that all the work could be done at night; the next morning, the traffic was able to go about its business. I mention that by way of being helpful to the hon. Gentleman. Is that something that the road service in his constituency has considered?

[Tim Roca]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the point. Constituents mention the issue of night time works to me, but perhaps I will let the Minister comment on that in a little more detail. In Cheshire, we are really lucky to be on the fast track for devolution, which is opposed by local Conservatives. Hopefully, when we get more powers and more money from central Government, we will be able to consider such things in Cheshire ourselves.

There has been too little regard for how these roadworks are impacting the public. I have a work experience student in my constituency office from my old school in Poynton, and she says that her mum describes the traffic lights on the bridge as the “bane of her life.” Traffic routinely backs up all the way to Poynton during rush hour, impacting travel in the north of the constituency. One Poynton resident complained to me that trips to Macclesfield, usually a 10-minute drive, can sometimes take up to an hour. An employee of AstraZeneca who commutes in says that every day they see large tailbacks of traffic with frustrated motorists, and all the while nobody is seen to be working on the bridge.

Another Poynton resident who works in Macc has had to add 20 minutes on to his journey both ways. He says that the queues start from 7.30 in the morning and are not gone until 9.30, so they are not even possible to avoid with flexible working. Forty minutes a day, 200 minutes a week, equals over 10,000 minutes of him sitting in a traffic jam this year. That is 166 hours away from his family before he can relax—or, heaven forbid, go out for the evening. That is 10,000 minutes per person every day—and it is going up—until the bridge is safe and the traffic lights are removed.

Although work sometimes takes place under the bridge out of sight from passers-by, the reality is that no matter how much progress is being made and however earnest the attempts to fix the bridge, this saga has lasted a year. Very little, if anything, took place prior to January and I have had to get increasingly involved with Ringway Jacobs and the highways team at the council. All that is simply not on. Everyone involved owes the residents across Macclesfield’s communities an apology. United Utilities gives compensation to residents if they lose their gas, electricity or internet, even for short periods. Would Ringway Jacobs even be solvent if it had to pay compensation to every driver who has experienced delays?

The disruption caused by the traffic lights at Mill House Bridge pales in comparison with the horror that is the B5470. This saga started with temporary traffic lights due to the embankment structure falling away on part of the road; they were in place, causing disruption, for a few months. In January, the difficult and necessary decision was taken to close the road between Rainow and Kettleshulme after it suffered a much larger collapse of both the carriageway and the supporting embankment following heavy rainfall. The road has been fully closed since January, and I have met with the council multiple times since the closure. I have spoken to the leader and conveyed my absolute demand, on behalf of my constituents, that the road is reopened as soon as possible, because the disruption and the impact on them is profound.

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. The issue is having a huge impact on my constituency of High Peak. The closure of the B5470 in my hon. Friend’s constituency has made the morning drive for many of my constituents living in Whaley Bridge and Furness Vale a nightmare, with some estimating that it has added an hour on to their daily commute. Does my hon. Friend agree that enough is enough, and that Cheshire East council need to resolve this issue? We have been waiting for far too long and it is having a huge impact on our constituents’ lives. It is affecting jobs, and we really need a resolution sooner rather than later.

[Tim Roca]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This needs to be resolved as quickly as possible. It is affecting my constituents and his. He has also been working tirelessly to get that road reopened; I thank him for working with me on that.

The road closure is impacting real people’s lives. The chair of governors at Kettleshulme primary school told me months ago that the June completion date was totally unacceptable. They said:

“We have families who utilise this route who will struggle with timely drop off and pick up of their children. Delivery of our curriculum is now compromised. The bus journey to Bollington for swimming lessons will take over an hour.”

As a result, the school has had to cancel swimming lessons. It has also had to cancel its parents and tots sessions, as the facilitator lives in Macclesfield and can no longer get to the school on time. It has pulled out of sporting events. Any collaboration with schools, which used to be easy to organise, now requires a minimum 40-minute trip and a whole host of planning. More seriously, the school has had to stop advertising places to families in Macclesfield because it knows that no parent will sign up for an 80-minute round trip to drop off their children, even at a really good school.

A company in Rainow has staff who cannot get to work because of bus cancellations. Not everyone has a car, or the time, to work their way around the road closure. One constituent said to me:

“To get to Macclesfield we have to make a huge detour via Bakestonedale Road to Pott Shrigley, then through Bollington to join the A523. We cannot use our bus passes to get to Macclesfield as the bus route is basically severed in two.”

Another, who has commuted to Sheffield every day for six years, said:

“This road closure is significantly extending what’s already a complex drive.”

They also noted that heavy goods vehicles are being forced on to narrow and unsuitable roads.

The diversion is not a suitable long-term plan. Bakestonedale Road is a single lane in places, with a steep and narrow track. It is really not suitable, especially in the winter months. It has already deteriorated, with huge potholes forming. Alicia—the head at Kettleshulme—hit one of those potholes recently and, having no phone signal, was forced to walk the rest of the way to school.

The diversion is also having an impact on those who live on the roads that are now seeing above-normal use. Keith Nixon, a resident on Shrigley Road, told me that as a direct result of the closure, commuters become frustrated and attempt to make up for lost time. Residents see cars travelling at well over the speed limit; he has suffered near misses twice, with vans passing within inches of him on the pavement outside his house; and of course, there are issues with noise as well.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I do not live in Cheshire, but in Staffordshire—a neighbouring county—we have been plagued by roadworks in a similar vein. The Parkside roadworks have been taking place for over 18 months now, with repeated extensions to deadlines. On the point of road safety, we have parents who are not able to get their children to school safely because the roadworks are not putting in proper crossings for those children. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is imperative that when these essential roadworks are taking place, communication from local authorities and county councils is improved, and that residents’ experiences are prioritised when we think about safety?

[Tim Roca]

I agree with my hon. Friend. She is more than welcome to move to Cheshire, but I suspect her residents will not let her, because I know she is a really good champion for these issues in her constituency.

The impact of the closure is widespread. The consequences of the disruption are wear and tear on roads that are not meant to be main arterial routes; the increased emissions from sitting traffic; and the loss of time in school and with family, of time in town with friends, of productivity through decreased trading, or of time spent caring for loved ones. I could go on and on—certainly, my inbox is full of stories like these.

Before I wrap up, I want to spare a thought for one constituent who represents many others who have to navigate both of these disruptions every day. She lives in Disley and works in Tytherington—both in my constituency—which means she has to go around this closure and over the Mill House bridge, which I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. Like others, she is being hit by a double whammy of roadworks. Her 20-minute commute has doubled, and given that she drops her child off in Macclesfield three days a week at set times, she has had to remove the first appointment of her day from her diary. She is a physio, so she is losing money.

When the things we rely on every day go wrong, the impact is huge. That is why I have been working closely with the council, feeding back these stories. I am grateful for the new sense of urgency that the highways team has—particularly since last week, when I called this debate—and I appreciate that things have to be made safe. In fairness to the council, it inherited a £100 million backlog of highway maintenance from the previous Conservative council, and we know that the austerity of the past 14 years has really impacted councils. I also appreciate that the contractor, Ringway Jacobs, used to get away with marking its own homework under a 15-year contract that was given to it recklessly by the Conservatives. However, these roadworks need to close. We need real progress for my constituents, and I am grateful that the Minister is present and will take the time to respond to the debate.

11:12

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) on securing this important debate regarding the impact of roadworks on communities in Cheshire, and indeed in Derbyshire and Staffordshire. I commend him on his assiduous efforts to raise the profile of the extremely difficult situation that his constituents face. Their lives are clearly being significantly impacted, as he described so vividly, with everyone from children to pensioners forced to change the way in which they live their lives, and suffering real pain and inconvenience as a result of diversions and traffic delays. As he and my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce) said, daily journeys should not be a source of misery, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) highlighted, road safety must not be compromised in these circumstances.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield pointed out, the traffic lights on Mill House bridge have been in place for over a year, and it is absolutely right that a solution to these problems is found quickly. I know that the patience of residents is growing very thin indeed, and I understand why. I also understand that the roads have become even more of a hot topic recently, because the council has been forced to extend the permit until the end of the year to secure the road space, as several utility companies also need to carry out urgent works in the area.

Although it is welcome that some co-ordinated work is going on, that of course brings a risk of further disruption to local road users over the months ahead. It is essential that the council works with the utility companies to keep that disruption to an absolute minimum, and that it considers how to expedite the works, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) described.

I understand that the permitting extension is largely a precaution, as the council hopes that the remedial work will be done in the summer and autumn. I understand that the complexity of the work means that that cannot be guaranteed, but the council must do its utmost in consultation with local people and keep them apprised of what is going on. People’s frustration only rises when they do not understand or they are not communicated with in an adequate and timely way.

As my hon. Friends have said, the appalling state of local roads in Cheshire is an indictment of the previous Government’s failure to invest in the vital national infrastructure that all our constituents rely on. It is frankly unforgiveable to allow our local road network to crumble and fail. By contrast, this Government are firmly on the side of all road users in this country. We are already delivering by providing £500 million of extra funding for highway maintenance this year, with a huge increase in funding for every local authority in England.

That takes highway maintenance funding this year to nearly £1.6 billion, which is the largest ever funding amount for local highway maintenance in England in one year. We are investing those amounts precisely because we want to deliver a transformation in the condition of our highways. That means authorities have been able to make an immediate start on resurfacing roads and fixing other more significant structural problems. I want communities everywhere to start seeing the benefits.

My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield will also note the new incentive requirements announced by the Secretary of State in March this year. We are ensuring that local people can hold their local authority to account and see for themselves how the investment will be spent to maintain and improve their local highway network. We are requiring every local authority that receives funding, including Cheshire East, to publish its plans by 30 June for how it will use that extra money.

That means that everyone, including the constituents of my hon. Friends the Members for Macclesfield and for High Peak, will be able to log on to their council website and see the difference the funding is making, and challenge the authority if it is not delivering. For Cheshire East council, the additional £5.54 million in highway maintenance funding that it has received this year comes on top of nearly £15.485 million in baseline funding. I am sure that funding will go a long way to help to improve roads in and around Macclesfield very soon.

In addition, Cheshire East will receive more than £2 million from the integrated transport block and more than £7.7 million through the local transport grant. That is only the start. My hon. Friends will be more than aware that we are awaiting the outcome of the forthcoming spending review in the next few weeks, to agree funding beyond 2025-26.

Turning back to the here and now, the more pertinent matter is how we resolve the difficult situation that is causing such distress for the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield. It is absolutely crucial that highways officials in Cheshire East council continue their efforts to resolve it as promptly as possible, and that they keep local MPs and residents up to date.

Officials have told my Department that they have been carrying out extensive drainage surveys, an ecology survey and a topographical survey to give the council a better picture of what is happening above and below ground. I note from my officials that the next stage of geotechnical surveys is due to be undertaken immediately; I believe that is on the B5470.

Further actions may need to be taken in that regard. I firmly encourage Cheshire East council to keep my officials fully sighted on this matter in case further support from the Government can be provided. I know that both departmental and council officials appreciate the tight timeframe for this issue—and if they did not appreciate it before, they will appreciate it when they read the Hansard report of our debate. We are all keen to see rapid progress, so I hope those officials are listening to the debate and the representations of my hon. Friend, and they will act accordingly.

I have been told that data from the surveys will be shared to allow an evidence-based decision to be taken. It is so important that local people understand the work that is being undertaken. Sometimes things take longer than expected, and sometimes there are unexpected discoveries when the council does survey work, but it needs to explain to local people what it is doing and how it will expedite the repairs.

That community engagement is critical, and the highways team in my hon. Friend’s authority must work closely with the community. I understand that they have explored alternative options, such as the reopening of the old road to the south of the B5470, but from what I have been told, they do not believe that is a viable option because doing it safely would require extensive work. Those are the sort of things that they need to explain so that people are confident that they have looked at every option to reduce the disruption that my hon. Friend described.

As the council is fully aware, our maintenance budgets are already allocated to all highway authorities, specifically so that they can fund repairs of this sort. There is no additional Department for Transport funding available now, but as my hon. Friend has heard, the authorities have received a substantial uplift in funding this year, which should enable them to tackle such problems.

To conclude, my Department will continue to work with all parties to establish what help can be provided by the Government, both now and in the future, when we will have the evidence from the surveys being undertaken. I am more than happy to be kept up to date by my hon. Friend with how things are progressing. If I can do more to ensure that his constituents see an improvement in the position they are facing on those local roads, I would be happy to discuss that with him too.

I also look forward to the conclusion of the spending review in helping to secure multi-year funding settlements for all authorities up and down England, so that councils—including Cheshire East in the constituency of my hon. Friend—have the funding they need to make long-term plans for the repair and maintenance of their road networks, including those that he mentioned today. We want everyone to have the local roads that they deserve, rather than those that they inherited from the previous Government and previous local administrations, which were simply not adequate. I am committed to doing all I can to ensure that my hon. Friend’s constituents see that improvement in the months and years ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

11:23

Sitting suspended.

Ukraine: Forcibly Deported Children

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stuart in the Chair]

14:30

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of returning forcibly deported children to Ukraine.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart.

I start by welcoming a distinguished guest to the Chamber: Olena Kondratiuk, the Deputy Chair of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, who is here with her colleagues from the Ukrainian embassy to the UK. Her welcome presence shows that our two nations’ great democratic institutions stand united alongside the families of the thousands of stolen children of Ukraine. Today, we commit ourselves to ensuring that our work will continue until every single Ukrainian child is returned home.

Earlier this year, I joined the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine and UK Friends of Ukraine on a delegation of British parliamentarians to mark the third anniversary of Putin’s illegal and bloody war. It was unquestionably one of the most humbling experiences of my life to meet the brave men and women, unbroken in spirit, who are fighting courageously for their freedom and their homeland. It is an experience that will stay with me forever.

On that visit, I met the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, Dmytro Lubinets. What we discussed was devastating: the systematic abduction of Ukrainian children by Russian forces—a grave crime that continues unabated to this day. When Dmytro told me that at least 19,546 Ukrainian children had been stolen, I had to ask him to repeat the number, because I simply could not believe that a crime of this magnitude was taking place before our very eyes and no one was talking about it. The official estimates are horrendous enough, but some other organisations estimate that the total number of children stolen could be much higher. The Russian Federation’s children’s ombudsman has stated that it has “accepted” 700,000 Ukrainian children since the start of its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

When I returned from Ukraine, I made it my purpose to ensure that the scale of this crime receives the attention that it demands in this place. That is why in April, alongside UK Friends of Ukraine, I co-authored a report titled “Returning the Stolen Children of Ukraine”. The report lays out, in no uncertain terms, a detailed timeline of the systematic abduction and forcible deportation of Ukrainian children from Russian-occupied territories. It highlights that President Putin has personally directed Russia’s children’s commissioner to identify and streamline bureaucratic barriers, not to protect children, but to fast-track their placement into Russian families.

The report highlights that Putin’s presidential aircraft is complicit in flying Ukrainian children from occupied Donetsk to Moscow. It highlights the role of federal and regional officials across Russia, occupied Ukraine and Belarus in the deportation of those children and the deliberate erasure of their Ukrainian identity. It highlights that military-style camps have been set up to indoctrinate the children, teaching them basic combat skills and loyalty to the Russian state. It highlights that parents in occupied territories are being coerced into sending their children to so-called summer camps across Russia—camps designed to distance them permanently from their homeland.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on obtaining the debate. I had the honour of joining her on that visit to Ukraine earlier this year, and it was life-changing. The experience of being stolen by Putin’s thugs is also life-changing for these children. Childhood is a very short period of our lives, so I hope the Minister will demonstrate that there is a sense of urgency about getting these children home again.

[Johanna Baxter]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Indeed, I will come later in my speech to what I hope the Minister will be able to set out.

The report also highlights that Ukrainian children in occupied areas are now being used to support Russia’s drone development and production efforts. Children are being made to assist a war machine.

Since the publication of our report, the situation has only worsened. Russia’s First Deputy Minister of Education recently announced that approximately 53,000 Ukrainian children from occupied territories will spend their summer holidays in camps—not in their homes or with their families, but scattered throughout occupied territories. These are not just numbers; they are children—sons and daughters—taken from their families, their culture and their country. Today’s debate is not just about numbers; it is about the stories of children such as Kira and Margarita.

Margarita was 10 months old—a baby—when she was taken from a children’s home in Kherson. She could not walk or talk, but she was already a target of the Russian regime. She was taken to Moscow on the excuse that she needed medical care, but she did not. She ended up in the arms of a senior Russian politician and close ally of President Putin. He adopted her, changed her name to Marina, changed her birthplace to a Russian city and registered her as his daughter. That baby girl, just months old, had her whole identity rewritten—erased. She is now legally Russian, and the truth is buried. That is not care; it is abduction in the uniform of bureaucracy.

Kira was an 11-year-old girl from Mariupol. At 10, she lost her mother. Then, during the invasion, she watched her father die—shot by Russian forces on their balcony as he tried to save what little they had left. She fled with her father’s partner, walking for a full day to reach her grandmother. Along the way, a landmine exploded, Russian soldiers came and Kira was taken, separated from her loved ones and told she would be sent to a remote orphanage in Russia if no one came to collect her. Weeks later, terrified and alone, she remembered she had a telephone. She called her grandfather. He found her, traumatised but alive, and brought her home. She is 11 years old. She said:

“The Russians took my childhood, my city, and my dad”.

Kira was one of the first children rescued by the Bring Kids Back initiative, supported by the United Kingdom, which to date has helped return 1,307 children, including two brought home over the weekend.

We now have clear and credible evidence, including from the Yale University humanitarian research lab, that approximately 8,400 Ukrainian children have been forcibly transferred to at least 57 so-called re-education camps. They span eight time zones, from occupied Crimea all the way to Magadan in Russia’s far east. Inside those camps, Ukrainian children are indoctrinated. They are told that Russia’s brutal invasion is justified. Ukrainian history is erased from textbooks and mentions of Ukraine as a sovereign nation are removed. This is not just the rewriting of the story, but its deletion. It is a chilling, systematic attempt to dismantle Ukrainian identity, starting with the youngest and most vulnerable.

Russia is not stopping at cultural erasure. In occupied territories, there is mounting evidence that more than 10,000 children are being trained in drone warfare. The training is gamified, turning it into some twisted kind of play, and taught through special engineering classes in which students are instructed in how to build and deploy drones for the Russian military. To make matters worse, occupation authorities in Donetsk and Luhansk have signed co-operation agreements with the Russian Young Army Cadets National Movement, with the goal of scaling up the recruitment of Ukrainian children into pro-Kremlin military patriotic youth organisations. According to the Institute for the Study of War, as many as 11,500 Ukrainian children may already be involved.

The Russian adoption system operates as a tool of administrative erasure; Ukrainian children are absorbed into a bureaucratic structure deliberately designed to erase their cultural and national identity. For those taken in infancy, this practice all but guarantees that an entire generation grow up on Russian soil, utterly unaware of their Ukrainian roots. This is not just occupation. It is indoctrination. It is militarisation. It is a deliberate, state-led campaign to steal Ukraine’s future one child at a time, and it is a war crime playing out before our eyes.

As the House will already know, the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for President Vladimir Putin and the so-called children’s rights commissioner, Maria Lvova-Belova, for the war crime of unlawful deportation of children. As our report sets out, I believe there is sufficient evidence and scope to consider whether charges of crimes against humanity and genocide could also be considered under international criminal law. It is certainly clear that Russia’s actions are flagrant violations of international humanitarian law and international conventions and treaties to which Russia is a party.

To conclude, I am calling for the Government to work with our international partners to take all necessary measures to secure the immediate return of these children.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Since her visit to Ukraine, she has worked tirelessly to raise the profile of this issue with her report, “Returning the Stolen Children of Ukraine”, on the Floor of the House and again today. She should be congratulated on all her work. On the practical measures that can be taken to help return the stolen children to their families, does she agree that the Minister should consider establishing a UK national day of action to continue her great work and help raise public awareness of this cause?

[Johanna Baxter]

I completely agree, and I have already called for the Government to recognise a UK day of action, to highlight the profile of this issue to the wider public.

Our report calls for Russia to publish a full register of all Ukrainian children in its custody, as required under the Geneva convention. We are calling for Russia to provide a framework, jointly agreed upon by both parties, for the return of every Ukrainian child who has been forcibly deported. We should also expand our intelligence sharing and support for child trafficking efforts. We need to know where the children are, who has taken them and who is hiding them, because with every day that passes, it is getting harder to bring them home.

I am calling for sanctions to be targeted, biting and relentless on every official, agency and person complicit in these crimes, from the senior politicians to the Russian organisations running re-education camps. I previously called for a special tribunal for the crime of aggression, and I am pleased to see that the UK, alongside 40 partners, has agreed to a framework for that. Can the Minister share more detail on the scope of that tribunal?

This debate is about turning up the volume on this issue. It is about making sure that no one can say, “We did not know.” We need help to amplify this. We need more pressure, more action and more urgency, because with every day that we delay, another child forgets their name.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. I suggest an informal four-minute limit to allow all those who wish to speak to do so.

14:39

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for securing this debate on such an important topic, and for speaking so powerfully.

Last month, I visited Ukraine alongside colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Committee. I pay tribute to the officials from our Government and the Ukrainian parliamentarians and officials we met on the ground who are working tirelessly on this issue. We met representatives of Save Ukraine, an organisation committed to helping rescue and return children. At the time of our visit, it had successfully returned more than 612 children—a heroic effort—yet, as we have heard today, an unacceptably high number remain missing. At least 19,000 have been identified, and there are almost certainly many, many thousands more.

I want to share one account that I heard in Ukraine. Just outside Kyiv I visited a children’s centre, where I spoke to two young people who had been taken by Russia. Although both had thankfully been safely returned home to Ukraine, I cannot overstate how clearly traumatising the experience had been for them, and the impact of hearing their stories. The young man was separated from his mother and five siblings and taken to Russia to be re-educated. In reality, he was sent to a military camp where Ukrainian children are taught to forget their culture and home. Through indoctrination, they are trained to forget all they once knew of a peaceful life in Ukraine and are taught to be fighters, potentially one day against their own families. That is a truly horrific and often unreported consequence of Putin’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine.

Yesterday, those of us on the Foreign Affairs Committee met our counterparts from the Rada’s Committee on Foreign Policy and Inter-Parliamentary Co-operation. We heard how Russia is targeting orphanages to take children. Those vulnerable children have suffered a great deal of trauma already, and are now being subjected to even more. We also heard of the difficulty of getting those children back. Their locations are often unknown to Ukrainian authorities, and their surnames are changed. It is clear that we must do more to support Ukraine in its efforts to identify, find and return those young people.

Both the previous Government and the current one have stood by Ukraine with regard to military support, and I know our Ukrainian friends are incredibly grateful for our unity. I urge the Minister to continue to provide humanitarian assistance through official development assistance. Earlier this year, I agreed with the Prime Minister’s decision to reallocate a portion of the ODA budget to bolster the defence budget, given the challenges and security problems that we currently face. When the Minister has discussions with officials and his colleagues at the Treasury ahead of publication of the out-turn data and future planned allocations annual report and accounts, will he reiterate the need of the Ukrainian people, and particularly those kidnapped children and their families? Will he support efforts, organisations and schemes that seek to see them returned? We need the ODA budget to be spent on vital causes, not vanity projects, and I am sure all here agree that this issue is of the utmost importance.

Since the start of the war, more than 600 children have been killed, 1,900 have been injured and at least 19 have been sexually abused. In this conflict, sexual violence is being used systematically as a grotesque weapon of war. Russia’s actions violate the Geneva conventions, international humanitarian law and United Nations Security Council resolution 1261. We must not stand by. Russia is waging war not just on Ukraine’s borders but on its future. It is trying to erase an entire generation. It is not just abducting children but trying to annihilate a national identity. I have heard two stories at first hand, but there are thousands more. We must see Ukraine’s stolen children returned.

14:49

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) on securing this vital debate, and particularly on her excellent work with the UK Friends of Ukraine on authoring this important but distressing report. I want to focus my remarks on the report’s findings in relation to disabled children. Almost unbelievably, it is disabled children in particular who have been targeted by Russian forces for forcible deportation.

Through my last role with the disability charity Enable I was privileged to meet Raisa Kravchenko, the founder of the VGO Coalition and the mother of a young man with a learning disability in Kyiv, who even in the midst of the invasion has formed an amazing support network for people with learning disabilities and their families. Anyone would find the experience of being in a bomb shelter terrifying, but how much more so for an autistic young person who already struggles with their environment? Of course, for many of the families of disabled children, leaving Ukraine is simply not an option.

I was in contact with Raisa again this week. She told me how the impacts of the invasion are frustrating the work in Ukraine, as they are across Europe, to move disabled children out of institutional care. The issue here is this: Russian forces have targeted care institutions. A disabled child will often be in a care institution and therefore they have been victims of kidnapping. I thought that powerful report brought out the tragic consequences of that.

The consequences were laid bare in the report’s distressing story of Mykola and Anastasiya, two children with autism and cerebral palsy, among 46 children taken by Russian forces from Kherson children’s home and relocated 180 miles away in Simferopol, Crimea. Their parents found the location that their children were in six months later only as a result of an investigation by The New York Times. One can only imagine the trauma they went through. The children were issued with Russian birth certificates, their names were changed, and they were put up for adoption in Russia. Those children must have been under unimaginable stress over that period. Although they were finally reunited with their mother in 2024, Anastasiya, tragically, died from an epileptic seizure shortly after her sixth birthday. Such are the human consequences. These are the horrendous cases that lie behind the grim statistics that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South shared with us so eloquently. It is important to recognise not only the level of trauma caused to disabled children by such terrifying ordeals, but that they will be affected by them for many years to come.

I will close my remarks by stressing two points. First, there must be accountability. I was privileged to be a member of our delegation to the Council of Europe, which passed resolution 2529 in support of the ICC arrest warrants and calling for parties to the Council of Europe to acknowledge the deportations and transfers of children by Russia as genocide. Secondly, as an international community we need to stand by Ukraine and the children and their families to help them with rehabilitation support. That will not be an easy task, and for disabled children it will require particularly intensive and specialised support. I very much support the recommendation made by my hon. Friend in her vital report. Support from the UK, from our international partners, and indeed the resources from the Trust Fund for Victims, should be utilised for that vital work.

I again congratulate my hon. Friend on all she is doing with the Friends of Ukraine in making a call for action on this horrific crime against Ukraine and its children. Yes, we look to the future for accountability and rehabilitation, but we must do all we can now as a nation, with international partners, to stop the horrendous action by the Russian Government and their forces.

14:53

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter). Normally we would congratulate somebody on securing a debate, but on this occasion it is such an absolutely miserable subject that all I can say is that I am as sorry as she is about what is going on. It is ironic that yesterday at 2.30 pm in this Chamber we were debating kinship care and adoption in the UK and British Government support for that. When I first heard about Russia’s “adoption” of Ukrainian children, I wondered whether it was an exaggeration on the part of the people speaking about it, but then we look at the evidence provided and it is absolutely going on.

Independent investigators at the Yale humanitarian research lab identified in March this year 314 individuals from Ukraine who had been placed in Russia’s programme of coerced fostering or adoption. It describes in great detail the circumstances of those 314 children, but the scale is much greater than that. Russia’s children’s commissioner, Maria Lvova-Belova, has boasted that 700,000 Ukrainian children have been “accepted” into Russia since the war began. Those children are being re-educated in an effort to assimilate them into Russian society. There are at least 57 re-education camps spread across Russian-occupied Ukraine, Belarus and Russia proper.

This is an attempt to eradicate the national identity of Ukrainian children. Videos show children riding around on Belarusian tanks, in body armour and holding rifles. Reports suggest that the children are subjected to psychological coercion, denied their language and indoctrinated with Russian nationalist propaganda. Belarusian President Lukashenko has personally endorsed this so-called “humanitarian project”. Of the nearly 20,000 children recorded as having been taken, little more than 1,000—just 7%—have been recovered. Maria Lvova-Belova is subject to an international arrest warrant, as is President Putin, in relation to this alleged war crime, yet she can be seen on state television describing how proud she is to have adopted a Ukrainian boy from Mariupol.

While the Kremlin has been escalating these abductions, the international response has fallen somewhat short and in some cases has regressed. Just a few weeks ago, the United States Government pulled funding from the conflict observatory based at Yale University. The observatory, which was compiling evidence, had forensically identified satellite imagery and biometric data. It has tracked the identities of 30,000 Ukrainian children taken and their locations. The decision by Trump’s State Department to pull funding has rightly drawn widespread criticism.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I was in Helsinki last week as part of my role in the Council of Europe, attending a conference on the deported Ukrainian children, which was incredibly powerful. One of the most powerful things I heard was a gentleman from Yale University speaking of how the removal of funding would impact their vital work. Frankly, they were already doing it on a shoestring. Does the hon. Member agree that as a country we need to prioritise working with other nations to ensure that that work can continue, because it could end next month?

[Richard Foord]

Absolutely. The hon. Member is right that pulling support from the programme is not an act of impartiality; it is an act of complicity. I am sure the State Department of the United States must have done it very reluctantly, given the professionals who work there on the programme.

To summarise, a short reprieve for the programme is not enough. It must be preserved and fully funded, so that we have the evidence needed in the fullness of time to prosecute these potential war crimes.

14:58

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for securing the debate and for all the work she has been doing on such an important issue.

In August last year, I was delighted to attend what has become a regular event in Victoria park in my constituency to celebrate Ukrainian independence day. It was hosted by the Friends of Victoria Park, in partnership with the Glasgow branch of the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain. We celebrated Ukrainian culture, freedom and sovereignty, and created a sense of community by bringing together Ukrainians and Glaswegians who took part in various sporting activities, enjoyed Ukrainian art workshops—best to gloss over my efforts—and listened to beautiful Ukrainian music. People across all generations were brought together in a celebration of Ukraine’s cultural heritage.

But many Ukrainian children are denied the opportunity to engage with their heritage. Russia’s forced deportation of children has torn Ukrainian families apart, and the weaponisation of citizenship by the Russian Government is making it increasingly difficult for stolen Ukrainian children to be identified and returned to their families and homes. The naturalisation of these children as Russian citizens has a further devastating consequence, because it robs Ukraine of its future citizens. By denying those children their right to be Ukrainian, Russia is systematically working to remove their identity. As we have heard, this ideological strategy comes directly from the top of the Russian Government, with President Putin repeatedly denying the legitimacy of Ukraine’s sovereignty and describing Ukrainians as Russians.

Beyond the horrific removal of children from Ukraine, the Russian Government are using a deliberate tactic of cultural suppression and re-education to further erase the children’s Ukrainian identity. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has described the Russian Government’s actions as the targeted destruction of Ukraine’s culture, noting that the Russian authorities have removed cultural symbols, dismantled Ukrainian language education and rewritten national history in the occupied territories.

Sadly, this is not a new tactic. The Russian Government also used the forced displacement of children and the erasure of their culture during the annexation of Crimea. According to a 2017 review of court records, this meant that less than 10% of children born in occupied Crimea were able to get a Ukrainian birth certificate. This deliberate war strategy will have long-term implications for the future of Ukraine. By targeting the youngest members of society, Russia is purposefully raising a future generation whose ties to their country and heritage have been weakened and, in some cases, completely erased.

The Government have taken welcome action to implement targeted sanctions on Russia to disrupt the military supply chain and revenue funding for the war; hopefully, the same urgency can be applied to identifying and sanctioning those involved in the illegal transfer and mass deportation of children. I am very taken with the idea of a day of action to highlight this issue—perhaps we should do that on Ukrainian Independence Day in August.

Without imminent action, more Ukrainian children will lose touch with their family, their home and their culture. Russia’s actions will have far-reaching and damaging effects for the families and for Ukraine, but most of all for the children.

15:02

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart.

First, I want to thank—genuinely, from the bottom of my heart—the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for her leadership on this deeply distressing issue. Her introductory speech was emotional, powerful and passionate; there were not many dry eyes in this Chamber when she was speaking. I was on the Ukraine trip with her and other colleagues for the three-year anniversary, and it was very moving to see for myself what has happened and is happening in Ukraine. The thing that stuck out for her and for me was the appalling actions of the Russian Government in removing a generation of children from Ukraine, which is what this debate is about.

Each story of a child being removed from their Ukrainian family, where they belong, to be taken to Russia, is moving and appalling, but let me give an example to illustrate the scale of what is happening. There are around 20,000 children in my Woking constituency; imagine if every child in my constituency, or in most of the constituencies of other Members present, was taken overnight. Imagine if they vanished—they just went. That is the scale of what we are dealing with. It is the theft of a generation, and standing up to that will define us.

According to research by Queen Mary University of London, it is estimated that clinically significant psychological trauma is present among 35% of adolescents in Ukraine. Research in the same report shows high levels of post-traumatic stress disorder among displaced children, with trauma linked not only to conflict exposure but to family separation, loss, property damage, economic hardship and disrupted education. The findings emphasise the psychological toll that the war is taking. It extends beyond the battlefield and will be particularly profound for the children abducted by the Russian state. For them, the risk of PTSD will rise significantly.

Back in March, I tabled a written question asking the Foreign Secretary what steps the UK Government were taking to provide funding to track and return the kidnapped children, particularly following the appalling decision of President Donald Trump to withdraw funding from the Yale Humanitarian Research Lab. In response, the Government said:

“The UK has supported ‘Save Ukraine’…and ‘Bring Kids Back UA’ through The Partnership Fund for a Resilient Ukraine.”

They noted the return of children through Qatari mediation last September and expressed gratitude to Qatar for that.

But let us be honest. Our Government’s support was lacking in detail, lacking in scale and particularly lacking in urgency. It made no mention of the United States or a broader international agreement and broader international pressure to bring these children home. It is clear that the current UK efforts just have not been enough. They have not met the significant challenge. We need to support the work of the Bring Kids Back initiative and the Yale Humanitarian Research Lab, but we also need to go beyond that.

Applying more pressure on the United States, via our special relationship, is key. It is time for the UK to take a stronger line. Our Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary should not be afraid to challenge President Donald Trump, to ensure the release of the thousands of children stolen from Ukraine. Trump’s appalling bromance with Putin is disgusting, but if we have that special relationship with the United States, we should be asking and demanding that the US do something. Will the Minister confirm whether either the Prime Minister or the Foreign Office has raised this issue with the United States, how many times they have done so and what the United States has said in return?

15:07

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for securing this debate. It is on a harrowing subject—the systematic abduction and deportation of Ukrainian children—but it is absolutely one that we should be discussing in the House, so I thank her for her work.

As has been outlined, by day 1,000 of the conflict, according to UK Government figures, at least 19,500 Ukrainian children had been unlawfully deported to Russia, and independent estimates put the figure much higher. Behind each number is a name, a family, a severed childhood. Children have been taken from foster care homes, boarding schools and hospitals, and even directly from their families. Many have been placed with Russian families, sent to so-called re-education camps or absorbed into military patriotic training programmes aimed at erasing their Ukrainian identity.

The individual stories already outlined by Members are heartbreaking. They involve children being renamed, issued with Russian passports, told that their homeland no longer exists, separated from their siblings and told that their parents have never tried to find them. Some children have even been issued with military draft papers. These actions are not merely incidental violations of the rules of war; they are part of a co-ordinated state policy to erase Ukrainian culture. In my view, they represent war crimes and constitute crimes against humanity.

It is important that we recognise and pay tribute to the resilience and courage of the many people working to bring the children home: the Ukrainian officials, non-governmental organisations, lawyers and, of course, families, who have refused to give up even in the face of enormous obstacles. The UK must support those efforts, not only with words but with practical assistance, by funding legal support, supporting reunification logistics and ensuring that international pressure remains focused and sustained.

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

Does the hon. Member agree that we should support not only the return of the abducted Ukrainian children, but their reintegration into their families and communities through rehabilitation programmes that address the psychological and developmental trauma that has been inflicted by their forced deportation?

[James Naish]

I wholeheartedly agree. Prior to coming to this place, I led a council, and one of the motions we passed twinned us with part of Ukraine, because we recognised that the long-term reintegration of Ukrainian people and rebuilding of Ukrainian society would take a long time. It will require a huge global effort to make that work.

This is not only a question of justice for Ukraine, but a test of our commitment to international law and the protection of children in conflict. If we allow the forced deportation and indoctrination of children to go unanswered, we risk setting a devastating precedent for future conflicts. I serve on the International Development Committee. International law and international humanitarian law are being broken in many conflicts across different zones around the world, and it is important that the UK stands up for the established order, which has protected billions of people over several generations but is under huge attack on many fronts.

I note that the Government have worked closely with the US on this issue—a couple of organisations have been mentioned. What further steps does the Minister think can be taken? I believe there are already three sanctions packages that target those attempting to forcibly deport and indoctrinate Ukrainian children, but what else is being considered or will be considered in the future? Will the Minister outline what the next steps of the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children are likely to be? The UK is part of that organisation, so what role will the UK Government continue to play?

We in this Chamber today may not be able to return these children ourselves, but we can send a clear message that their abduction will not be ignored, their identities will not be erased and their safe return will remain a priority for as long as it takes. Justice demands nothing less.

15:12

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. Like others, I congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) on securing the debate. We say that at the start of every debate, but this is different—it really matters. She has done a fantastic job since our visit to Ukraine, on which I joined her, not just by bringing the issue to national attention—we now see it in the national news—but by ensuring that it gains international traction.

Until my visit, I knew nothing about this issue, and of all the things I saw this was the most shocking. I learned many things on the trip. The first thing, of course, was the hospitality. Wherever we went, there were fantastic people and such warmth—it was unforgettable. I learned also that life goes on; it is incredible how people can continue. There have now been three years of war, with drones dropping from the sky. We all downloaded an app that warned us about drone attacks and, believe me, it was going off all the time. Yet people went about their everyday lives: they went to work or to restaurants as if it was not happening. It was incredible.

I was impressed by the ingenuity of the Ukrainian people, particularly at a secret drone factory that we visited. Ukraine has become the world leader in drone design and manufacture. It is the future of warfare, so we have a lot to learn from them, and we should be grateful to them for their work. We would not necessarily have expected that level of entrepreneurship in an ex-Soviet bloc state, which shows me that Ukraine belongs in the west and in Europe.

I was struck by the commitment to cause. President Putin and others put about unpleasant stories that this was Zelensky’s war, that the people of Ukraine were not behind him and that he was forcing them into war. That is untrue. In every single community there are flags, memorial centres and graves. It is not hidden. It is in full and present view everywhere, and it is all the more impactful because, in the habit of the Orthodox church, they show pictures of the fallen. We also visited two hospitals where we saw young men in rehabilitation with very difficult injuries.

I also took from the visit something more practical, which relates to international security. We have talked about the need for a European army, because of the pressure we are under, but that is our army: it is larger than all the western European armies put together already. Given the time it will take us to get an army together, we need to support Ukraine’s army, because that is our defence.

There were lighter moments on the trip. I will never forget a night we had in Kyiv. We were in a lovely hotel, but unfortunately we spent half the night in a bomb shelter because of warnings. One of the MPs managed to get his laptop out, and we watched “Darkest Hour”. The parallels between 1940 and where we were in Ukraine were very striking.

At the start of the war, I did not believe that it could get like this. Putin was putting out the story that Ukrainians and Russians were brothers—that they were the same people. I never imagined that things could get as violent, destructive and vicious as they have, but they did straightaway, as we discovered. The Bucha massacre, near Kyiv, was in the first days of the war. It is not as if it grew to that moment; it began with that moment.

The worst crime of all, as we have heard today, is the systematic theft and abduction of all these children, clearly with the knowledge and instruction of President Putin. He brings shame on Russia, which is a great nation. I cannot imagine what it is like to know that your child is alive but with another family. I will say one last thing: besides all the other requests that have been made today, it has to be a precondition that there is no peace without the return of these children.

15:17

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I commend the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for setting the scene. She might be small in stature, but she has the biggest heart in the Chamber—well done. The opportunity to urge our Government to continue to do the right thing and act for the innocent people of Ukraine is the reason why we are all here.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

The strength of feeling in the room is shown by the raw emotion of the hon. Gentleman and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne). Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the most important thing we can do today is take the opportunity to come together, across the parties, and recognise the need to continue to support these Ukrainian families?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. It is much appreciated.

The forced deportation of Ukrainian children without their parents by Russian forces is a grave violation of international humanitarian law. Indeed, I will go as far as to say that these actions constitute a war crime under article 8 of the Rome statute, which explicitly forbids the unlawful deportation or transfer of protected persons. These acts, targeting the most vulnerable, have torn families apart and have eroded the culture and national identity of Ukraine’s future generations.

Article 6 of the Rome statute is also relevant. The systematic and calculated manner of these abductions is evidenced by reports that refer to some 20,000 Ukrainian children. The figures are unknown, as the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South pointed out. Who knows what they really are? The crimes demand urgent scrutiny to determine whether they meet the threshold for genocide.

These children, torn from their families and homeland, are victims of a deliberate campaign by Russian and Belarusian authorities not only to erase their identity and culture, but to erase their memories of their families. This is not just a humanitarian crisis; it is a moral outrage. Forced deportation by Russian authorities during the ongoing conflict has created a stolen generation—a term that is reminiscent of other historical cases, such as that of Australian’s stolen generation, when Government policy saw indigenous children removed from their families and communities to assimilate them into a different cultural identity. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. To steal a nation’s children is to steal its future.

The United Kingdom must lead with moral and legal clarity on agreeing a course of action to hold Russia’s feet to the fire over these crimes against humanity. I believe that we must intensify our sanctions on Russian and Belarusian officials, military and other state actors who are complicit in these abductions. We must demand justice through international legal bodies, including the International Criminal Court, to hold perpetrators accountable. The UK must support investigations and advocate for expedited arrest warrants. Justice delayed is justice denied. These children and their grieving families cannot wait.

The scale of the tragedy remains unreported by the mainstream media, but I believe that today’s debate amplifies the voices of Ukrainian families, places pressure on policymakers and signals to Russia that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland stands firmly against this greatest act of sheer inhumanity. The forced transfer of children is explicitly defined as genocide under article II of the 1948 genocide convention.

The abduction of Ukrainian children is yet another stain on humanity’s already overburdened conscience. By intensifying sanctions, pursuing justice and acknowledging the genocidal nature of Russia’s actions, the UK can be a leader in demanding the return of these children to their families. We cannot stand idly by while their futures are stolen. I therefore look to the Minister, who I believe is of the same mind. We must act with the urgency and the conviction that this crisis demands and remind Russia that good people will not stand idly by.

15:21

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. May I join all colleagues in thanking the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter)? She has led on the issue with determination and relentlessness, and she is an example to all of us.

The people of Ukraine are fighting for their country and their continued existence, but they are also fighting for us. There is no way Putin will stop in Ukraine if he gets what he wants. It is right that the UK is supporting Ukraine, and we should continue to do so until a just and lasting peace—on Ukraine’s terms—is found.

I was most recently in Kyiv three weeks ago as part of a delegation of Liberal MPs from across Europe. I was fortunate enough to meet Ukrainian MPs in the Rada and to meet the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights—the ombudsman—who is undertaking incredible work in documenting the extent of the various international crimes committed by Russia in Ukraine and in working with international partners to bring these children home.

One of the most moving moments of my recent visit came when we met two of the children who had experienced for themselves the brutal policy of forced deportation and assimilation. One had had to work relentlessly to have his younger brother returned, and the other had escaped Russian re-education by walking for days to get to safety. Their stories are not isolated tragedies; they are part of a wider state-sponsored strategy to destroy the nation of Ukraine.

Last year, the UK rightly helped to launch the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children, which was designed to co-ordinate joint efforts. I commend this Government for their commitment to that, but it is clear that much more is needed. We must demand the full implementation of the 2024 recommendations to Russia from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. We must push for humanitarian and monitoring access to any facilities that are holding these children. We must facilitate communications with authorities to ensure safe returns.

The Ukrainian ombudsman himself told me that the international community needs a special tribunal to take full account of these crimes and to properly hold Putin and his flunkies to account. Each day that these children remain outside their homes and outside their homeland is a day that justice is denied. Our role is clear: we must help to bring them home. The stealing of thousands of Ukrainian children is a particularly heinous crime, but there are also millions more Ukrainian children who have lost their childhoods because of Putin’s actions.

On my recent visit, I also visited Chernihiv to see the extent of the damage caused by constant attacks. I saw for myself the basement in Yahidne where, in the early days of Russia’s full-scale invasion, dozens of nearby inhabitants, including babies and children, were rounded up by Russian soldiers and tortured for weeks before being liberated by the Ukrainian army.

We know that one of the weapons of war used by the Russian Government is mis and disinformation. In their programme of trying to dehumanise the Ukrainian people, they also try to paint them as not telling the truth. I saw for myself, and the look in the eyes of the people who told me of their experience will stay with me for a very, very long time.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) on her speech and on her incredible work across the country to try to make people aware of the awful things happening over in Europe.

I am very lucky to have a large Ukrainian population in Redditch. These are people who have fled from the Donbas and other areas over the past few years, including children who have had 20 homes in their few years on this planet. Now they are here, separated from their homeland and their friends and family members who have been forcibly removed and taken to Russia. The hon. Lady made a powerful point about disinformation. In Redditch, we see and hear every day the impact that it is having on those who may never see their family members again.

[Lisa Smart]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for talking about the Ukrainian communities who are contributing so much in our country. I have asked the Government to give further clarity and more than an 18-month visa extension, to continue to show support for the Ukrainians living in all our constituencies. We know that far too many Ukrainians are being rejected from tenancies, jobs and studying opportunities because they do not have that length of visa ahead of them. The point about mis and disinformation is absolutely right. It is not a new tool, but it is being used in many more sophisticated ways. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to work across Government and internationally to combat it.

In closing, I repeat the calls that I and others have previously made for the Government to move from freezing to actively seizing Russian assets—both the principal and the interest—because we need to support Ukraine’s defence and reconstruction. The Government are taking the right approach in co-ordinating these efforts multilaterally, but the UK should be in a position to lead on this and, should progress stall, we must be willing to act unilaterally. These children must be returned, and Putin and his flunkies must pay for their crimes.

15:27

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. Like everyone else, I thank the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for securing this important debate and for the commitment and tenacity that she has shown in raising this topic, about which she cares so deeply.

It is so important that we are discussing this shocking topic today. Of all the crimes that the Russian leadership has committed in its invasion of Ukraine, this is the most distressing. No Ukrainian deserves to be caught up in this horrendous war, but we are all touched by the vulnerability of babies and children, so it is heartbreaking to consider what has been done to them and to family members who see their child ripped from their care. The emotion we have seen here is testament to how deeply that is felt by Members of this House.

Members have spoken with compassion and concern about this subject, and I welcome the consensus across all parties and the shared commitment to work together to challenge Russia’s crimes. Many, including my hon. Friends the Members for Torbay (Steve Darling), for Woking (Mr Forster), for Horsham (John Milne) and for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) and the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), have referred to the impact of their visits to Ukraine and the experiences they had there. I am grateful for their testimony.

Members have underscored the depth of friendship between the UK and Ukraine. The hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) recalled celebrating Ukraine’s independence day in the beautiful Victoria Park. Others have highlighted specific cases. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) for referring to the experience of disabled children, and to the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove for drawing our attention to the experience of the Ukrainian children and young people here in the UK. We have also heard practical suggestions from Members, including the day of action proposed by the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) and the seizure of Russian assets that my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove called for.

This gruesome project is the product of the twisted will and inhumanity of one man: Vladimir Putin. Driven by his imperial ambitions and archaic vision of a Russian empire, he aims not only to destroy Ukraine’s independence, but to erase its future. His systematic programme for the abduction and forced assimilation into Russia of at least 20,000 Ukrainian children will go down as one of the vilest acts not only of this war, but of this century.

As other Members have said, the Yale University humanitarian research lab has indicated that the real figures are likely to be much, much higher, and sadly, we can only expect them to continue to rise, so long as Putin’s invasion and control of occupied territory continues. The Yale lab has identified at least 43 children’s camps throughout Russia that house deported children, of which at least 32 are explicitly labelled as “re-education facilities”. The former Ukrainian children’s rights commissioner Mykola Kuleba puts it chillingly: he said that these re-education programmes constitute

“death camps for Ukrainian identity.”

As my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) highlighted, in March President Trump and Elon Musk took the callous decision to slash funding for the Yale lab, an organisation that has been helping to lead the search for the tens of thousands of Ukrainian children abducted by Russia. Gathering evidence of these war crimes is critical. It matters because it will allow prosecutors to go after the architects of this atrocity. It also matters because it increases the chances that when the conflict ends, these children might be returned to their Ukrainian homes.

On 1 April, I asked the Foreign Secretary whether the UK would step in to fill the funding gap left by the US Administration. He said:

“It is not our assessment that we can meet the shortfall left by the withdrawal of USAID”.—[Official Report, 1 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 149.]

I know that the Minister is committed to this issue, so may I take this opportunity to ask him what sum would be required for the Yale lab to continue its critical work and what the Government have done, working with partners, to secure the future of this project? Reports suggest that the lab’s data repository could soon be transferred to Europol so that its vital work can be taken forward. Can the Minister state whether those reports are accurate and what support the UK is offering?

[James Naish]

This morning, I met the International Foundation for Electoral Systems, which does great work around good governance, electoral integrity, democratic rights and citizen engagement. It has lost 70% of its funding as a result of USAID cuts, but it recognises that it will play a fundamental role in how Ukraine is rebuilt by dealing with the disinformation that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) talked about earlier. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to look at how such organisations are protected so that, when Ukraine rebuilds, it rebuilds in the right way and deals with the challenges that its neighbour will present?

[Calum Miller]

I wholeheartedly agree. This country, as well as the USA, should take responsibility for its hard power and its soft power. Just as the UK and its US ally have historically been willing to support Ukraine’s defence in the face of Russia’s aggression, we must make sure that we invest in peace by supporting those kinds of democratic institutions. I believe it is the shame of this Government that they have cut so significantly the UK’s aid budget.

I welcome the steps taken and the agreement that was struck on Monday to restore elements of judicial co-operation with our European partners. I hope that the Government will now take the opportunity to strengthen co-operation with Europol ahead of the transfer of any data relating to these crimes so that it can support the work of tracking and bringing home Ukraine’s stolen children.

Although there are no signs of a change in Russia’s policy now, we must also plan for a future when the children are returned, and we must support those already rescued by organisations such as Bring Kids Back. They will undoubtedly be traumatised and deeply affected by their experiences, as my hon. Friends the Members for Woking and for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) and the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury have highlighted. What steps can the UK Government take now to support the Ukrainian Government and civil society in developing programmes of psychological support for children and their families?

The previous Conservative Government agreed to the sale of Chelsea football club and that the proceeds would be forfeited by Roman Abramovich and used to benefit civilians in Ukraine, yet those funds—£2.5 billion—have still not been deployed. I asked the Foreign Secretary on 24 February what progress was being made. I asked again on 17 March, and he said that he was frustrated by the lack of progress and that he would consider

“all the tools available to Government.”—[Official Report, 17 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 41.]

Can the Minister update us on what is holding up the release of those funds and say which tools the Government are now using to secure their release?

As other Members have mentioned, the ICC has issued arrest warrants for President Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova in recognition of their crimes. It is a foul irony that she is Russia’s children’s rights commissioner. All those involved must be held responsible and accountable for their complicity. The Government need to be laser-focused in identifying the individuals and entities against whom sanctions should be applied so that they can be held accountable today for their actions. The Government should do that in concert with our international allies, as the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) highlighted.

By strengthening Ukraine and undermining Putin’s ability to prosecute his war, particularly through the use of sanctions, we can give President Zelensky the maximum leverage he needs in any future peace negotiations. A core aspect of any just peace must be the return of the Ukrainian children stolen by the Kremlin. Anything less will only embolden Putin and other authoritarian leaders like him, who would otherwise hope to continue acting with complete impunity and relentless cruelty.

As Ukraine continues to fight not only for its freedom today but for future generations, I am glad that this House is recommitting itself to that cause. Ukraine’s security is our security. We have a categorical moral imperative to help to secure its future by supporting every effort to return Ukraine’s stolen children.

15:35

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) on securing this debate. She has spoken with passion and sincerity in this place, not just today but on a number of occasions. I join her in welcoming the delegation from Ukraine, who will surely, after listening to this debate, be totally convinced of the cross-party support for their country and its people. The passionate and emotional contributions today have made that very clear. Many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), have reflected on their personal visits to the country and its people.

Few crimes are as harrowing or telling as the theft of a child, but that is what we are debating today: the forced abduction, deportation and ideological reprogramming of Ukrainian children by the Russian state. We need to call it out for what it is. It is not a relocation or an evacuation, which the Kremlin may dress it up as, but a systemic, state-sponsored assault on identity, sovereignty and humanity itself.

Since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, more than 19,500 Ukrainian children are known to have been forcibly removed from their home and transferred across Russian-occupied territory into Russia itself. Independent estimates suggest that the true figure could be more than double that. As we have heard today, with each child taken, we see families torn apart, culture erased and the future of a nation under threat. Behind every number or statistic is a child, a family, friends and loved ones.

I want to make three points. First, Russia’s actions are not just indefensible, but calculated, deliberate and disgraceful. Secondly, during our time in government, the Conservatives led the way not just with weapons and sanctions but with unwavering moral clarity and practical action in support of Ukraine. Thirdly, I urge the Government to be clear-eyed and bold. They should build on what we started and not flinch in the face of Putin’s cruelty.

I have had the privilege of visiting Ukraine twice: once as a Foreign Minister in 2021, and again in 2023 as a Back Bencher with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. On my first visit, I stood alongside Ukrainian leaders at the launch of the Crimea Platform, which was a powerful signal of international solidarity. Even then, Russia’s creeping aggression in Donbas and Crimea cast a long shadow, but the spirit of the Ukrainian people shone through.

When I returned two years later, though, Ukraine was in the grip of war as a result of Putin’s illegal invasion. Towns were scarred by missile strikes, civilians were forced underground and families were scattered across borders, but what struck me most was the resilience of the people I met: parliamentarians who had lost colleagues, mothers who had sent their sons to the frontline, children who were being educated in bunkers at school, and civil society leaders who were rebuilding community life amid chaos. They were resisting not just an illegal military invasion, but an assault on their identity, their history and, as we have heard clearly today, their children.

That is why the forced deportation of Ukrainian children is such a grotesque element of this war—it is wrong. These are not isolated incidents; they are part of a strategy to wipe out the next generation of Ukrainians by forcibly assimilating them into Russia—renaming them, placing them with Russian families and indoctrinating them in so-called re-education camps. That is not just child abduction; it is cultural erasure. That is why the International Criminal Court has, rightly, issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and his commissioner for children’s rights, Maria Lvova-Belova.

Let me turn to what we as Conservatives did in government in response. When Russia invaded Ukraine, the UK did not hesitate. We were among the first to send advanced weapons to Ukraine, including anti-tank missiles, long-range precision arms and air defence systems. We trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops under Operation Interflex, co-ordinated international aid and introduced the largest, most severe package of sanctions in UK history, targeting around 2,000 Russian individuals and entities. We also sanctioned Maria Lvova-Belova over the forced transfer and adoption of Ukrainian children.

Under our watch, we did not stand with Ukraine just in principle; we stood with it in practice. We understood, and we understand, that helping Ukraine to defend itself was about not just charity—it was about national security, and we treated it as such. We also understood, however, that Russia’s war crimes required a broader response. That is why we supported the gathering of evidence for war crimes prosecutions, championed media freedom and democratic resilience in Ukraine, and supported Ukrainian civil society, which is the lifeblood of any free nation.

I was proud, in and out of government, to advocate for Ukraine, from sanctioning oligarchs and calling out disinformation to welcoming Ukrainian families into British homes through the Homes for Ukraine scheme, including some in my own constituency. What are the Government doing to build on that legacy? I am sure the Minister will set that out.

The moral imperative could not be clearer. Returning these children must be a top diplomatic priority, not just for Ukraine, but for the entire international community. If we do not act now, we normalise the weaponisation of children in conflict and we send the message that the forced erasure of national identity can go unpunished. What are the Government doing to press international bodies, including the UN and the OSCE, to intensify efforts to track and return these children?

What support is the UK providing to Ukrainian and international NGOs that are engaged in tracing, documenting and litigating these cases? What diplomatic pressure is the Government applying to countries that are complicit in circumventing sanctions or turning a blind eye to Russia’s war crimes, including Belarus, which has been directly implicated? I welcome the commitment to £3 billion in annual military aid to Ukraine, but how much funding is earmarked for protecting civilians, documenting atrocities and countering the ideological indoctrination of abducted children? Ukraine does not need just tanks; it needs truth and justice.

I end with this: in every Ukrainian family torn apart by abduction, there is a mother waiting, a father grieving and a sibling left behind. Each stolen child is not just a tragedy, but a test of whether the democratic world will match words with action. We on this side of the House say that we must. We led the way in government, and we will continue to hold the line in opposition. We owe it to Ukraine and the families, and we owe it to every principle that this place is meant to defend.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister, with a reminder to finish by 3.58 pm at the latest.

15:43

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Stuart. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for securing this debate. I also thank hon. Members for their extraordinarily powerful and united contributions that send a strong message of support to Ukraine and Ukrainians from this House, and a strong message to Vladimir Putin, who is ultimately responsible for these wicked and heinous crimes.

I also welcome the delegation of Ukrainian officials who have been with us today—I do not think they are all still here—including Olena Kondratiuk, the Deputy Chair of the Verkhovna Rada. I hope that the contributions of right hon. and hon. Members have reassured our Ukrainian friends that this whole House stands with them, and will remain with them until Ukraine prevails. The raw emotion we have heard demonstrates that, when it comes to children, this House is united. Whether it is seeing the scenes in Gaza, Sudan or Ukraine—seeing the reality of what, in that case, Vladimir Putin has done—the plight of children unites us all, and should unite parliamentarians and legislatures around the world.

The forcible deportation of Ukrainian children is one of the most appalling aspects of Russia’s brutal invasion. As we have heard, approaching 20,000 children have been torn from their homes. Families and communities have been torn apart in this barbaric conflict, and the forcible removal of children to Russian areas along with the indoctrination and attempts to wipe out Ukrainian identity have shocked the world.

We believe that 6,000 children have been sent to so-called “re-education camps” to indoctrinate them with pro-Russian sentiment. It is very clear that this is an attempt not only to hurt Ukraine and its people now, but to hurt its future, as has rightly been reflected on. Let me be clear: Russia must end the deportation, exploitation and manipulation of Ukrainian children. They must be reunited with their families. We will do everything in our power as a Government to make that happen, and to ensure that those responsible for these crimes face justice.

Let me say again, as I have in a number of these debates, that this is personal for me. I have visited Ukraine three times since the start of Russia’s illegal invasion, including just a few months ago, and I also grew up studying alongside Ukrainians as a teenager in Canada and taught young Ukrainians in Lviv when I was younger. To think of those fellow schoolmates or the young people I taught being torn away from their families, culture, identity and language fills me with absolute horror. Going to places such as Bucha and not only seeing the reality of the atrocities faced at the start of the war, but the fact that children and other people are still missing, with no idea where they are, should be brought to all of our attention.

I have also heard at first hand from the different delegations that have come here of the trauma inflicted on Ukrainian children. In March, I met Deputy Foreign Minister Betsa, alongside Bring Kids Back Ukraine and Save Ukraine, and made it clear to them—I do so again now—that our support for returning children is unwavering. We discussed many ways we could expand and deepen our work together. Bring Kids Back gave me a painting by a child who was forcibly deported but, thankfully, has now returned. However, he is going through that trauma and is in art therapy. His painting hangs in my office and is a daily reminder of why this work matters.

Children must never be used as pawns of war, and those who do so must be held accountable. That is why we have given £11.3 million to help Ukraine document, investigate and prosecute war crimes. We have contributed £2 million to the International Criminal Court to gather evidence and support survivors more effectively. Going back to 2022, the UK led the way in bringing together allies to speed up an ICC investigation into alleged Russian war crimes in Ukraine. With 41 other countries now backing the UK, it is the largest referral in the ICC’s history. We welcome the progress the ICC is making with its independent investigations, which includes the arrest warrants issued for President Putin and the so-called children’s rights commissioner, Maria Lvova-Belova, for the illegal deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children.

[Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

The Minister is giving a typically humane account of what we are debating and of what I have been able to see today. It shows real strength of feeling to see the House so united on such an appalling issue. I have one question for the Minister. Can he confirm whether, as we saw yesterday with the change in the muscularity of our engagement on the Israel-Gaza issue, the UK will formally recognise those mass abductions as a violation of international law? Will he also confirm that the return of those children must be a precondition to any final lifting of sanctions and the completion of a peace process?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have been very clear, as the Foreign Secretary was yesterday, that we respect the independence of international courts and judicial processes, including the ICC, as I mentioned. However, I am also happy to be clear that this must be resolved: Russia must return those children. We are clear that we will not lift our sanctions, and we reserve the right to take further measures, as we have done in the last 24 hours—and we will continue to do so.

I was asked many times about the UK’s specific efforts. We are working closely as a member of the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children, and with the Ukrainian Government. That includes initiatives to identify, locate and return children to their families, as well as collaboration on diplomatic efforts and the provision of financial and logistical support. Our overseas missions are hosting events to raise the issue locally in capitals around the world. To support the work to get the children returned, we are bringing together experts from a range of backgrounds, including from academia and industry, and from other countries that have also suffered from conflict. I discussed that with the Deputy Minister when she was here.

I have already mentioned Save Ukraine and the Bring Kids Back initiative. We are providing practical and political support to both. The Foreign Secretary has also been working with Mrs Zelensky to support Ukraine’s children. He met her in Kyiv in February to discuss her campaign to end the Soviet legacy of institutionalised care and instead promote family-based care and provide support to foster families.

I was asked by the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), about our wider diplomatic efforts. We are continuing to work at the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, where we are calling out Russia’s unacceptable actions and challenging their lies. We are also supporting the OSCE’s support programme for Ukraine and its fact-finding missions to expose human rights abuses, including deportation.

In December, our permanent representative was absolutely clear at the United Nations Security Council that Russia must stop these deportations and return Ukrainian children to their homes. We welcome the renewal of the UN’s independent international commission of inquiry on Ukraine, and we also note the significant role that Qatar is playing in mediating the return of Ukrainian children. We are grateful for its engagement. Those efforts are part of wider diplomatic initiatives involving others, including the Holy See and NGOs such as Save Ukraine. Around 900 children have returned thanks to those efforts.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

I do not for one moment doubt the Minister’s sincerity or his determination to bring this to a satisfactory conclusion, but we all know that one of the keys to that is President Trump. Very little has been said, even in this debate, about the pressure that can and should be brought to bear on Trump and Putin together. The Minister does not have a magic wand, but will he make sure as far as he can that this issue does not come off the agenda and that it forms part of any settlement?

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that we raise a series of matters in our engagement with the United States, and we are working closely with President Trump and his Administration to find a just, lasting and sustainable ceasefire. We are working together with our European partners and the United States on that, as well as with President Zelensky and the Ukrainian Government. There have been many meetings in the last few days that the right hon. Gentleman and others will have seen. I can assure him that I raise the issue regularly. I met congressional delegations in the last few weeks, and I specifically raised this issue. There was broad bipartisan concern on it, and I will continue to raise it.

I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South for her powerful and passionate exposé of this wicked and heinous action by Putin’s regime. I fully endorse her fantastic work on the issue. It should unite us all in this House. Like many Members, my hon. Friend spoke powerfully of her visit to Ukraine, and she also asked about the Yale research. I wrote to her on that, and I want to add a correction to that. The data has now been sent to Europol, and we will endeavour to ensure that it gets to the Ukrainian Government Office of the Prosecutor General as soon as possible. We will be following up on that and I will update my hon. Friend as soon as we have further information.

The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) spoke about the importance of retaining our ODA support and humanitarian assistance. She will note that Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan have been all highlighted as areas to which we will continue to pay special attention, despite the cuts that we have to make. I have been looking at our programmes to see what more we can do over the weeks and months ahead.

I return to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) about disabled children. I want to make clear that we have particularly focused on disability inclusion and rehabilitation services in the £5 million of support that we have provided. Indeed, we also supported that through the partnership fund for a resilient Ukraine. My hon. Friend made some important points and I will write to him just in case I have not got the figures exactly right to ensure that he has the exact numbers. I would not want inadvertently to mislead the House.

I know the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) well, as we travelled to Ukraine together not long after the illegal invasion and saw the reality. He also spoke about the Yale research and raised the situation regarding Belarus, as other Members did. We are deeply concerned by the attendance of Ukrainian children at so-called “recreation camps” in Belarus, and we are following closely the investigations into those transfers. We call on Belarus to ensure that no Ukrainian children are forcibly transferred to, or via, its territory. I will continue to follow that very closely.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) spoke passionately about the local support in her constituency, which is similar to that in my Cardiff South and Penarth constituency.

The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) asked how we are engaging with the United States, and I hope that I have answered that question. He spoke about important research into trauma and the work that needs to be done on that. We are providing a lot of mental health and psychosocial support. That is a crucial issue, and it is important that he raised it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South mentioned the national day of action. I note her and other hon. Members’ request, and I have asked officials to consider the merits of supporting it. I hope to be able to update her soon.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) asked important questions about our own programmes. I can assure him that our concern for children will remain at the heart of those.

Hon. Members asked many questions about sanctions. As well as our wider Russia sanctions regime, we have already issued a number of rounds of sanctions in relation to this issue specifically. I will not comment on future designations, but I assure the House that we keep all such matters under close review.

The hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) spoke passionately about his experience of the resilience and ingenuity of Ukrainians, which I have seen again and again. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) always speaks passionately about these issues. We must not stand idly by, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) also made clear.

I have updated the House many times on seized assets, Chelsea and so on, and I will continue to keep the House closely informed. I hope to be able to update the House in due course on those matters, on which we are working at pace with international and other partners.

I reiterate that the UK will not let up until Ukraine’s stolen children are returned. This is a heinous, wicked and unforgivable crime, and I want to see action taken on it. We will continue to work with our allies, the brilliant campaign organisations I have mentioned and, of course, the Government of Ukraine to trace and return those children and to hold Russia to account.

15:56

[Johanna Baxter]

I thank every hon. Member who has participated in the debate. I cannot do justice to all the contributions in the time that I have, but the strength and depth of feeling expressed by colleagues across the House should send a strong message to President Putin that this is a heinous crime to which we all object.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) reminds us of the urgency of the issue. As he said, justice delayed is justice denied. As I mentioned earlier, this summer 53,000 children are expected to attend summer camps in Russia. We need to ensure that those children return home.

To reiterate the point, there can be no lasting peace in Ukraine without the return of these children. I ask the Minister to again consider sanctions, in particular aligning our sanctions on individuals involved in the forced and illegal deportation of these children with those that have been applied by the US and EU. I also ask for a little clarity—he may be able to write to me afterwards—on the terms of reference for the special tribunal for the crime of aggression and whether those will cover this issue. Also, will the Government continue to investigate whether these crimes meet the definition of genocide under international law?

I thank the Minister for his commitment to get back to me on the national day of action, which would certainly help to raise awareness of the issue. I also plead with the Government to look again at the issue of rehabilitation for these children, who will have gone through severe trauma. If we are able to return them home, they will need a lot of support.

I thank every hon. Member who contributed so powerfully to the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of returning forcibly deported children to Ukraine.

Broadband and Mobile Connectivity: Rural Areas

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

I will call Anna Sabine to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from both the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. If anyone does not have that twin permission, they should not and may not speak. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered broadband and mobile connectivity in rural areas.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I represent the fairly rural constituency of Frome and East Somerset. In February this year, I conducted a survey asking residents in villages such as Lamyatt, Doulting, Alhampton, West Pennard and Witham Friary about their experiences with mobile and broadband signal. The number of responses was overwhelming, and there was a striking consistency to what they told me. The current arrangements for getting a mobile or broadband signal are mismatched, too expensive, frequently slow and, in many cases, simply not fit for purpose.

Access to a reliable internet and mobile signal is now a basic necessity of our lives. Whether for work, education, healthcare or simply staying connected, people rely on broadband and mobile coverage every single day. I heard from a number of brilliant rural businesses—wedding venues, farms, ironmongers—who battle with poor connectivity daily. For many, broadband remains one of the biggest obstacles they face as a business, in terms of both the quality and speed of the connection available and the frustrating experience that creates for their customers. One local farm, for example, was quoted more than £250,000 by Openreach just to connect a wire across a relatively short distance to secure full-fibre broadband.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

We are all here for the same purpose: our constituencies do not have the 3G broadband that we all wish to see. Does the hon. Lady agree that Westminster and all the other regions of the United Kingdom—Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—should collectively have a programme that delivers 3G broadband for everybody in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Anna Sabine]

I have met the Minister before, which I will come on to. I know there is a plan, about which I have some specific questions. I totally agree that this is a nationwide challenge. On mobile reception, I am particularly concerned about the elderly and vulnerable in the Government’s digital switchover. Many of those individuals still rely on landlines, not by choice but because mobile signal in their area is unreliable.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

My constituency of Wolverhampton West is residential, densely populated and urban. The area of Tettenhall has lots of elderly constituents, many of whom do not have a mobile signal, creating a dead zone. A recent investigation by The Observer said that, nationally, mobile coverage is more than 1,000 times worse than reported by Ofcom. Does the hon. Member agree that this is not solely a rural problem, but a national problem that affects everyone and to which the Government need to give urgent priority?

[Anna Sabine]

I have not seen that research by The Observer, but it is interesting. I live in a town in my constituency and I have poor mobile coverage. I am sure it is not uncommon to find that it is worse than it is reported.

Many older people in my constituency still rely on landlines, not by choice but because the mobile signal in their area is unreliable. Although good internet and 4G can enable voice calls, that is not always the case in rural areas. Crucial services such as two-factor authentication for medical appointments or online banking still rely on SMS, which in turn relies on having basic mobile coverage. A constituent in Alhampton tells me that every time she needs a one-time passcode, she has to run out of her house and up the road to try to get a signal.

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

Half the areas in my constituency are considered to be among the worst 10% in the UK for broadband coverage. My community council raised the same issue as my hon. Friend in relation to updates, which are a problem for those who are home working and want to make payments online. I hope the Minister will reassure me, but does my hon. Friend agree—a bit like the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—that we need to work on a nationwide basis to resolve these issues?

[Anna Sabine]

I thank my hon. Friend; there are a couple of interesting points there. The number of people affected may be relatively low, but they can be concentrated in one area, and it is quite often a rural area. On the question of one-time passcodes, I notice that many companies now offer alternatives, but the process seems to be quite slow.

We often talk about 5G-ready smartphones and fibre-optic broadband, but not all communities start from the same point. Urban areas have a considerable head start, and rural areas should not be punished for being harder to reach.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

The connectivity challenge is a huge issue in rural areas, especially for businesses. I recently visited a local tourism business in Bacton that relies on multiple copper landlines—a very vulnerable set-up, given the upcoming switch-off of the public switched telephone network. That business has had outages and engineers unintentionally disconnecting those landlines during maintenance work, and there is clearly no plan yet from Openreach for full-fibre in the village. Does my hon. Friend agree that such connectivity issues are holding back our rural economy, and that Openreach needs to help villages like Bacton to thrive?

[Anna Sabine]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that those issues hold back rural economies. I am sure there are some interesting statistics on how much more growth—which is the Government’s agenda—we could get out of rural areas if they could connect at speed and at the times they needed to, without having to pay for often expensive satellite alternatives.

I welcome the Minister’s continued engagement on this issue, particularly his meeting with me and Somerset MPs to discuss the next steps in the roll-out of Project Gigabit, but I have three specific asks of him today. First, I would be grateful if he could confirm when we will receive the promised map identifying which households are included in the scheme. For any that are not included, what mechanism, obligation or incentive will exist to ensure that broadband providers still serve them?

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unacceptable for homes and businesses that were originally put in scope for local Gigabit projects to be de-scoped partway through, like the homes and farms on the National Trust’s Cowgrove estate, and then told that the Gigabit voucher scheme has been paused, so that they cannot even buy in to other projects in the area?

[Anna Sabine]

That does sound very unfortunate. I know of villages in my constituency where vouchers have been applied for and received, but it is taking so long to get internet coverage that the vouchers are expiring. Clearly, there are a few voucher-related issues.

My second ask relates to concerning reports from the telecoms industry that the remaining Project Gigabit fund, some £2 billion, might be at risk in the upcoming spending review. Any reduction in that funding would seriously undermine efforts to deliver universal full-fibre connectivity. If such cuts were made, it is highly unlikely that our more remote rural communities would ever see a fibre connection. Will the Minister confirm whether the funding will be protected?

Finally, as we continue the digital switchover, what specific support will the Government provide to ensure that the elderly, the vulnerable and those in isolated rural areas are not left behind?

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

On the matter of the radio teleswitch service, there are 790 meters in my constituency still running off RTS, which operates Economy 7 meters, and across Wales there are 11,000. The Government do not know how many households depend on those meters for their heating. In many areas, particularly rural areas, that are off-grid and without any signal, smart meters will not work. How will we ensure that these often very vulnerable people are kept safe?

[Anna Sabine]

That is an extremely good point; perhaps the Minister will be able to address it in his response.

In today’s hyperconnected world, no community should be excluded. We speak of self-driving cars and space tourism, so clearly the technology exists; it is not a question of possibility, but a question of political will.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that rurality does not necessarily correlate with population density? My constituency is a city, albeit a small one, yet mobile signal is non-existent in the city centre, and businesses have had real issues attaching to any sort of broadband availability.

[Anna Sabine]

I agree with my hon. Friend; when I moved into my house in Frome recently, I was told that only one broadband provider was available, because all the other cabinets were full. There are many issues around broadband connectivity in towns as well.

I will finish my points there, because I believe that other colleagues have agreed to speak.

16:09

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) for securing this debate.

Too many people in South Devon are still being cut off by poor digital infrastructure. Airband promised to deliver, but was allowed to fail spectacularly across my constituency.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

My hon. Friend mentions Airband. Building Digital UK wrote to me last month to say that villages and premises had been de-scoped because Airband had withdrawn from the contract. Does she share my view that BDUK ought to find alternative providers that can fill the gap left by companies such as Airband when they give up in places like Branscombe, Churchill and east Devon?

[Caroline Voaden]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I totally agree. It is outrageous that a company like Airband is allowed to pick off the easy bits and then walk away when it comes to the more expensive bits of the contract.

In Staverton, most residents have no mobile signal at all. Although mobile providers claim high coverage levels, the claims do not align with the reality on the ground. In Diptford, broadband coverage is at best patchy. I myself used to have to have a satellite connection on the roof of my house to connect to a station in Italy in order to get internet connection.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Member aware of the ways in which the structure of the mobile tower market in the UK is holding back investment in 5G? Some of the regulations introduced by the previous Government are leading to a concentrated market that is not investing quickly enough in more towers and the better signal that we need to reach properties that otherwise would need a satellite connection, particularly in rural constituencies like hers, or mine in Lichfield.

[Caroline Voaden]

I am not aware of the specifics of mobile towers, but I am sure the hon. Member is absolutely right.

Back to Diptford: years ago, residents were promised full-fibre broadband, but it has yet to materialise. Despite repeated assurances from providers and Governments, very little progress has been made. Residents in Holne, Loddiswell, Aveton Gifford, Rattery, Capton, Higher Brixham, Buckfastleigh West, Maypool, Galmpton, East Cornworthy, Thurlestone, Woodleigh, Norton in Dartmouth and more remain disconnected, creating a digital divide that affects access to vital services and businesses’ ability to connect.

[Jade Botterill (Ossett and Denby Dale) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way and the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) for securing the debate. The rural areas that I represent are blessed with incredible natural beauty, but too often that beauty can obscure deep issues in public services, transport, employment opportunities and connectivity. I have had to fight hard for local residents, such as those in Inkerman Court in Denby Dale in my constituency, to get the connectivity they deserve. With the new Government investing £500 million next year to deliver digital infrastructure upgrades through Project Gigabit and the shared rural network, does the hon. Member agree with me that high quality, stand-alone 5G is crucial to unlocking the economic and social potential of our rural communities?

[Caroline Voaden]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention; I could not agree more.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

My hon. Friend talks about rural businesses. Ollie, a constituent of mine in Glastonbury and Somerton, works in video editing and depends on fast and symmetrical broadband to be able to transfer his files, but his rural community is reliant on outdated copper infrastructure that severely restricts the upload speeds. Despite the nature of his work, suitable services are simply not available. He has asked several suppliers, but the services are just not available. Does my hon. Friend agree that outdated infrastructure is undermining rural employment and that we must urgently address that to support digital livelihoods?

[Caroline Voaden]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention; I could not agree more. I declare an interest here. A family member who has been trying to set up a business park has been told that it is not doable because they are too far from the exchange. As has been said, we can go to space, but we cannot connect to the internet. It just seems ridiculous.

For older residents, reliable broadband is crucial, as has been mentioned, for online GP appointments, personal alarms and emergency calls. Without it, they are left isolated and vulnerable, while young people in my area are being denied equal educational opportunities. Local businesses are missing out on the digital economy. Families are struggling with unreliable services. The divide between rural and urban areas is widening, and it is simply unfair. If remote parts of the UK can access full-fibre broadband and mobile signal, there is no reason that South Devon should be left behind.

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Caroline Voaden]

I am nearly finished—there is only one line left—but I will give way one last time.

[Alex Mayer]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Does she agree that it can be a particular problem when remote areas become new-build areas, yet are completely lacking in any mobile or broadband infrastructure? Some telecom companies say that they are not fully involved in the planning aspects, yet they can fully see the houses going up. Does she agree that this issue ought to be looked into?

[Caroline Voaden]

I absolutely agree. In the society we live in today, it is fundamental to planning that connectivity should be considered at the earliest stages of any new development.

I am on my last line, if anybody wants to intervene.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Caroline Voaden]

Go for it.

[David Smith]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, especially on her last line. One of the key issues with rurality is that we often depend on mobile signal because of the sparsity of the areas we represent, such as my constituency of North Northumberland. We can be profoundly impacted by storms as a result, and we should be looking to build in contingencies such as generators for mobile masts. The Government should consider simple things like that.

[Caroline Voaden]

I thank the hon. Member for his excellent contribution.

Digital connectivity is no longer a luxury; it is a necessity, and it is time to treat rural communities with the same priority as urban areas.

16:15

[The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)]

Mr Stuart, what a delight to see you in the Chair. I congratulate the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) on securing the debate. She probably should have secured an hour and a half, or three hours, or even a whole day, because this issue obviously matters to a lot of people.

The two key things to discuss are mobile and fixed connectivity. Both of those could occupy all of us here, because many of the issues apply equally, I would argue, to rural and urban constituencies, albeit in slightly different patterns. I will push back slightly on the idea that rural areas are getting a worse time than urban areas; actually, in some urban areas, the fibre is theoretically passing down the street, but it is not going into the building where the flats are because of wayleave issues. There is a problem in cities as well as in rural areas, and we need to address both—they probably need different answers, but we need to address both.

In the end, our ambition is to get to 5G stand-alone across as much of the country as we possibly can, as fast as we possibly can, and to get full fibre to premises. Full fibre will not be for 100% of the country; that would be impossible, and financially it would not make logical sense. In some cases, getting to the cabinet is good enough, where it is a relatively short passage from the cabinet to the premises and there are only a few premises, so there will not be the same contention problems as there would be with a lot of premises on that same passage. We want to go as fast as we can and as far as we can, and the hon. Member made some very strong points, although I will come to another area later where I completely disagree with her.

[Caroline Voaden]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I will, although I granted the hon. Lady permission to speak earlier.

[Caroline Voaden]

On the issue of not being able to get to every premises, particularly in very rural areas—the highlands and islands would be an example—have the Government given thought to satellite internet provision, and perhaps to subsidising the cost of that for homeowners?

[Chris Bryant]

We have looked at satellite provision. The difficulty is that there is not much of it left. It is already pretty occupied and it is quite expensive. There are other options as well, such as fixed wireless, where the connection is delivered to an area locally and the rest is delivered wirelessly. It would not be gigabit capable, but it would run at significant speeds that would match most people’s modern needs. We are looking at all of those options.

My suspicion is that in the next few years, technology will advance at such a pace that that will become easier for us, rather than more difficult. There probably needs to be more than one operator providing satellite options to people’s homes, and that might arrive in the next couple of years as well, with Amazon and perhaps others. That will definitely be part of the mix. There will always be a tiny percentage of properties that are simply impossible for us to reach with fibre; it would be crazy for us to try to take a piece of fibre down a 25-mile road just to serve one property.

We have obviously aimed to deliver as much connectivity as we possibly can on a commercial basis first, because that just makes sense. However, that is quite difficult in itself, because commercial operators change their investment plans. Some of that is about the availability of money to them in the market. We have been working on some of those issues so that they might be in a stronger position, but sometimes they make very specific decisions in local areas that make it difficult for us to know when we should intervene to provide a subsidy and when it should be delivered simply on a commercial basis. That makes Building Digital UK’s job of managing those decisions phenomenally complicated.

[Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

Openreach has changed its mind several times about the affected community of Affetside in my constituency. What advice would you give that resolute, resilient community as it tries to convince Openreach to honour not just its historical commitment, but the one that it made, through me, only in December, and has since reneged on?

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

I will give no advice, but the Minister will.

[Chris Bryant]

Well, you often do give advice, Mr Stuart, but that is another matter.

We will have to take this conversation elsewhere, because I am not sure whether that is a Project Gigabit-delivered contract or whether Openreach is rolling out its own commercial decision—[Interruption.] I will not take another intervention because I do not have very much time.

Sometimes all those elements change because the commercial operators say, “Well, actually, we have realised that this business park”—which is outside a town and feels more rural even though it is sort of theoretically attached to a town—“isn’t going to be connected unless we connect another bit that is contiguous.” They constantly change their commercial decisions. We try to help them to make sensible decisions that fit with our subsidy plans, but it is not always easy. That also applies to the shared rural network, which obviously deals with mobile connectivity. A large number of masts have been put up through the shared rural network, including in large chunks of Wales.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I congratulate the Minister’s BDUK officers, who are really useful. The radio teleswitch service switch-off will affect people, and it is starting to happen on 30 June—just over a month from now. There are 11,000 households in Wales that are presently dependent on it, and if they do not have access to signal, as many off-grid homes do not, it will have an immediate effect on them. I beg the Minister to discuss with his colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero how to resolve that for vulnerable people.

[Chris Bryant]

I am very grateful for the last bit of that, because the right hon. Lady reminds me that I need to talk to my colleagues in DESNZ about that. It is not directly my responsibility but, if she writes to me about it, I am happy to get it to DESNZ or to ensure she gets a response from DESNZ as soon as possible. She makes a perfectly legitimate point, and we need to get that right. I thought she was talking about a different switch-off, which is why I was confused.

Reporting of mobile coverage is something that frustrates many of us. The Ofcom site may say, “96% of all four networks available everywhere across the whole of your constituency,” but I say, “No, you can’t get a signal anywhere in Hannah Street in the middle of Porth—end of story.” I have been in discussion with Ofcom, and we have exchanged letters, which I have placed in the Library of the House of Commons, about how it is going to change its reporting.

That reporting has historically been based in part on two things: first, the coverage predicted by the mobile phone companies, which might not necessarily match people’s experience; and, secondly, 2 megabits per second, which frankly is of no earthly use to anybody—most of us now want 5 megabits per second. From about the middle of June, Ofcom will be reporting across the whole of the country on 2 megabits per second and 5 megabits per second, so people will have a much clearer understanding of the situation on the ground. I hope that might drive further commercial investment from the mobile phone operators, which will say, “You know what? We need to make sure we have more masts in this area, because frankly it’s not good enough.”

The hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) mentioned Chichester; I have Godalming in my head, because I was at the Pizza Express there one Saturday evening and I could not order a taxi because there was no mobile signal at all. You would think that in the middle of Godalming, with the former Chancellor of the Exchequer as its Member of Parliament, that would have been sorted. There are lots of places like that around the country where the mobile signal simply is not good enough and we need to strengthen it.

Much of that will be me trying to get the mobile companies to work harder to make sure that that works across the whole of the country. I want to work out with them what some of the problems are, and whether those are to do with the planning issues that have already been referred to. It seems to me bonkers that we would even consider building a new housing estate without making sure that it has proper mobile signal available and proper connectivity of every kind. One would think that that would just be quintessentially part of the offer. These are all issues that we are going to address.

The hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset asked me three specific questions—I try my best to answer specific questions when people ask them, in the hope that that will encourage people to ask specific questions. First, she asked me about the promised map. That should be happening fairly soon. “Soon”, obviously, is a parliamentary word that has a moderate quantity of meaning, but I am trying to make it as fast as I possibly can. The advantage that will come roughly in the middle of June is that Ofcom will be providing a completely different understanding of mobile coverage in all our constituencies, which will be helpful.

I too thank everybody in BDUK; I think that when we have done the drop-in sessions for MPs, everybody has found it very helpful. It has been able to provide specific details about what is happening in a particular village and a particular street. We will continue to do that, so I would say, “If anybody has not booked in, please do.”

The hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset asked me what would happen in the spending review. I will not answer that question, because I do not know what will happen in the spending review. As I said, our ambition is to get full fibre to as much of the population as we possibly can, as fast as we possibly can, and our ambition is to get to 5G stand-alone. For many public services, 5G stand-alone would be far more useful than a version of 3G that is not very efficient and not very functioning. For instance, the police would be able to use 5G stand-alone. People would be able to download video, to take part in video conferencing and so on.

We also need to do better at enabling people to have mobile signal inside their home and not just outside their home. I live in Wales and my house is stone built, which means whatever signal I get in the garden is not very available inside. I moved to VoIP, or voice over internet protocol, because I know how to do that—but of course many people do not, so we need to enable that more.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

The Minister asked for specific questions. Part of the problem is that the cost of customer acquisition is four to five times larger in rural Britain than it is in urban areas, so the big companies prioritise urban areas, where they can find a lot of customers, leaving rural areas to small businesses that then face the capital cost issue that he refers to. My specific question is this: how can the Government help those small businesses that are trying to connect rural communities to go faster?

[Chris Bryant]

That is precisely what Project Gigabit is designed to do. That is what we are doing, and it has been a significant investment already. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has been to one of our drop-in sessions with BDUK staff, but they would be very happy to go through every part of his constituency and work through precisely what we are doing to try to help.

I need to temper people’s expectations about the speed at which some of these things can happen, partly because there are skills needs out there that must be addressed. There is likely to be, I would guess, some consolidation in the altnet market in the weeks and months ahead. In addition, where there has been competition between them, some of the altnets have ended up putting in ducts and poles, which are not exactly welcome in local communities that have never had poles before. It is not always an easy thing to arrange.

I want to correct the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) on one thing, because she referred to the Government’s switch-off process. It is not a Government switch-off process; it is led by the industry, for the very fine reason that copper is failing. The number of occasions on which copper is now failing far exceeds the problems we have had in any other way.

The thing that keeps me awake at night is, if people are moved from copper to fibre—they have an entitlement under the universal service obligation to a landline-only fibre connection, if they want it—whether their telecare device will work with that. That is why, since I was elected to this post, I have worked with the industry as hard as I possibly can to address some of those issues. We have been working with local authorities to identify all the vulnerable customers, trying to make sure that the operators switch people over only when all these issues have been dealt with and they know that their telecare device will still work, and saying to the telecare companies that they should stop selling kit that will work only in an analogue system and not in the new system.

On top of that, many companies have now moved to a much longer battery life back up than the one hour provided for by Ofcom. That is not Government-led, but obviously, we are trying to make sure that the sector and the industry deliver in a way that is safe for all our constituents.

Question put and agreed to.

Parkinson’s Disease

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered care for Parkinson’s patients.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. Like many colleagues across the House, I was proud to mark Parkinson’s Awareness Month last month. This annual observance is more than a symbolic gesture; it is a vital opportunity to raise awareness, challenge misconceptions, and advocate for the thousands of people across the UK who live with Parkinson’s every day. It is also a time to reflect on the progress we have made and, more importantly, the work that still lies ahead.

Parkinson’s is a condition that touches every corner of our society. It affects over 150,000 people in the UK, and that number is expected to rise to 172,000 by 2030. In my constituency of Colne Valley, there are an estimated 253 people living with Parkinson’s. These are not just statistics; they are our neighbours, our friends and our family members, and behind each number is a story of resilience, of daily challenges and of hope.

Parkinson’s is a progressive neurological condition. It is complex, degenerative and life-limiting. It affects movement, speech, cognition and mental health. There is no cure, and while treatments exist to manage symptoms, their effectiveness often diminishes over time. The condition manifests differently in each person: some may experience tremors and stiffness, while others struggle with depression—

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Order. The sitting is suspended for 15 minutes for a Division in the House.

16:33

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

16:48

On resuming—

[Paul Davies]

This variability makes Parkinson’s particularly challenging to diagnose, treat and manage. In West Yorkshire, the integrated care board is responsible for planning and delivering care for people with Parkinson’s. In 2023-24, spending on hospital admissions for Parkinson’s patients in our area rose by nearly 5%, with each admission costing more than £6,000. These figures underscore the urgent need for a more proactive, community-based approach to care—one that prevents hospitalisations and supports people to live well at home.

Today I want to highlight five critical areas in which we must act to improve care for people living with Parkinson’s: workforce shortages, support from diagnosis, timely medication, prescription charges, and access to innovation.

There is a severe shortage of neurologists and Parkinson’s specialists in the UK, and neurology services are meeting the 18-week referral target only about half of the time. The UK ranks near the bottom in Europe for the number of neurologists per capita. This shortage leads to delayed diagnoses, missed treatment windows, and a lack of access to essential multidisciplinary care. Only 44% of patients in England have access to an occupational therapist, 62% to a physiotherapist, and just 40% to a speech and language therapist. These professionals are not luxuries; they are essential to managing the condition and maintaining quality of life. Investing in this workforce is not only clinically necessary, but financially prudent.

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

One of my constituents is a strong advocate for the Parky charter. I understand that the Government cannot commit to everything that is in the charter, but does my hon. Friend agree that, at every fiscal event from now until the end of this Labour Government, they should seriously consider investing in these services and the professions that he talks about, or at the very least outline exactly what they are doing to provide support for people with neurological conditions?

[Paul Davies]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. That is crucial. We know the impact of Parkinson’s on individuals, and later I will mention two constituents I have been working with. I know the impact that it has on the community.

Parkinson’s costs the UK £3 billion annually. Much of that is due to unplanned hospital admissions and the lost productivity of unpaid carers. Too many people with Parkinson’s feel abandoned after receiving their diagnosis. Nearly a quarter report not being given adequate information or access to support services. That is totally unacceptable.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

I defer to the hon. Member’s great wisdom on this matter, and he helpfully outlined the points that he intends to cover, but I want to add another aspect to the debate. The Government’s review of disability benefits may lead to pressure on people in receipt of personal independence payments, and it is poorly understood that people receive those payments to provide for adjustments that allow them to continue to work. Does he agree that the Government have an opportunity to learn from the system in Scotland? Scotland’s adult disability payment is a much more humane process, and it could support people in receipt of personal independence payments who have Parkinson’s, which is a fluctuating condition and may be missed.

[Paul Davies]

We have to keep an open mind, look at what is being done in other places, countries and regions, and learn from that. We should take that on board and relate any changes in the future to good practice elsewhere. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the intervention.

A diagnosis of Parkinson’s is life-changing, and patients deserve immediate, comprehensive support. That is why Parkinson’s UK launched Parkinson’s Connect, which is a pioneering programme that enables healthcare professionals to refer newly diagnosed patients directly to a network of support. This includes access to specialist nurses, care advisers, local support groups and educational resources.

[Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

I want to look at things in a positive way for a moment. In my constituency, the local newspaper, the Ardrossan and Saltcoats Herald, highlights that the North Ayrshire table tennis club holds classes for people with Parkinson’s, and that the activity has been very well received. In 2024, a constituent of mine, Steve Morley from Stevenston, who took up table tennis to help with his symptoms after his Parkinson’s diagnosis, played at the World Masters in Rome. That is excellent. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to provide support for those with Parkinson’s who are keen to keep active?

[Paul Davies]

I absolutely agree. This is not a case of placing people with Parkinson’s in the corner and providing them with medication; this is about helping them to lead full lives, improving their quality of life and aiding them to do what they want to do. I know from people I have met in the Parkinson’s community that that is exactly what they want to do, so I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.

Early intervention can make a profound difference in how patients manage their condition and maintain their independence. For people with Parkinson’s, receiving medication on time—within 30 minutes of the prescribed schedule—is not a convenience; it is a necessity. Delays can lead to severe symptoms, including immobility, pain and, in extreme cases, life-threatening complications. However, more than half of hospitalised patients report problems receiving their medication on time.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

A constituent of mine was diagnosed with Parkinson’s at the age of 61. Individual sufferers can experience the symptoms to varying degrees day by day, which brings into question the effectiveness of PIP assessments, the results of which can vary depending on when they are carried out. With medical assistance hard to come by, charities such as Parkinson’s UK and Cure Parkinson’s are vital to sufferers. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in thanking them and similar organisations for their support to these thousands of people across the country.

[Paul Davies]

I absolutely agree—the role they play is vital in terms of supporting this community. To be truthful, the people I have met in those groups are inspirational, as is the work they do, so I thank them for that.

NHS England’s medicine safety improvement programme, running from 2024 to 2027, is a welcome step. It aims to ensure that time-critical medications are administered promptly in hospitals, but we must ensure that the programme is fully implemented and that its findings are acted upon across all NHS trusts. Timely medication is a basic right for Parkinson’s patients, and we must treat it as such. In England, people with Parkinson’s still face prescription charges, unlike in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. These charges can be a significant burden, especially for working-age patients, who may already face reduced income due to their condition. Research shows that eliminating these charges could reduce hospital admissions and save the NHS money, but Parkinson’s remains absent from the list of conditions exempt from charges—a list that has not been meaningfully updated in more than 60 years. It is time for a review. We must ensure that no one is forced to choose between their health and their finances.

New treatments such as Produodopa, which was approved for NHS use in 2024, offer hope for those with severe symptoms. This medication could be life-changing for patients whose symptoms are not well managed by the existing treatments. However, due to staffing and funding constraints, many hospitals are unable to offer it. We must ensure that all patients who need innovative treatments, such as Produodopa, can access them, and that the NHS is equipped to adopt new therapies quickly and equitably. Innovation must not be a postcode lottery.

I will now turn briefly to my constituency. Since being elected, I have had the privilege of meeting Dr Chris Ryan and Mrs Liz Ryan MBE. Over a cup of tea in February, they shared their experiences and highlighted the urgent need for better Parkinson’s care in Kirklees. Liz, who received an MBE for her services to education, continues to be a pillar of our community despite her diagnosis. Together they have organised local events, including a Parkinson’s choir that brings joy and support to many.

Following our meeting, I wrote to Kirklees council and Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS foundation trust to ask what more can be done. I also contacted the Department of Health and Social Care regarding regular consultations and better medication management, and the Minister informed me that the neurology service specification is being updated, and will be published later this year. Although remote consultations are helpful they are not always suitable for Parkinson’s patients, who require regular, holistic in-person care. I urge the Government to consult with Parkinson’s UK during this review.

I also had the pleasure of attending the Big Sing for Parkinson’s on World Parkinson’s Day. The event was organised by the “Movers & Shakers” podcast, and it was a celebration of community, resilience and hope. As I said earlier, it was absolutely inspirational; to witness that community, and the strength of community spirit and determination to drive through with their lives, was incredible. The group also published the Parky charter, outlining five key needs for people with Parkinson’s—needs that are still unmet. This year, two Big Sings were held: the one I attended in Huddersfield, and the other in London. They brought together people in solidarity and song.

As we move forward, let us remember that Parkinson’s Awareness Month is not just about raising awareness, but taking meaningful action. It is about listening to those with lived experience, supporting families and carers, and ensuring that our health system is equipped to meet the needs of every person living with Parkinson’s.

Parkinson’s is a condition that demands our attention, compassion and action. By addressing workforce shortages, supporting patients from diagnosis, ensuring timely medication, removing financial barriers, and embracing innovation, we can dramatically improve the lives of those living with Parkinson’s.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

We have five Back-Bench speakers. I will call the Front Benchers at 5.23 pm, so I will let hon. Members make a judgment on that. We will start with the ever-succinct and effective Ed Morello.

17:01

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart—especially after that flattery. I congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on securing this important debate.

Parkinson’s, as has been said, is the fastest growing neurological condition in the world. But behind every statistic is a family, a carer, a friend—someone whose daily life is shared by this illness. My constituents have written to me about their experiences of loved ones living with the disease. The stories they have shared are heart-breaking, with long waits for specialist care, difficulties accessing the right medication on time, and exhausting battles for financial and social support. I know I speak for many here when I say that we must do more.

Parkinson’s is a progressive condition, with more than 40 possible symptoms affecting movement, sleep, mental health, speech, eating and swallowing. Nearly half of those living with it will experience anxiety or depression, and more than half will develop psychotic symptoms as the condition progresses. Across the country, there are long waits for specialist care, a lack of multidisciplinary teams with Parkinson’s experience, and serious difficulties in accessing vital medication in a timely and consistent way.

We urgently need to overhaul the way that care is provided for people with Parkinson’s, particularly in rural areas. That begins with primary care. GPs are the front door to the NHS, yet we know that continuity of care is beginning to be eroded. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for everyone with a long-term condition such as Parkinson’s to have access to a named GP—someone who can understand their history and needs, and can advocate for timely referrals and co-ordinated care.

This is not just about funding more; it is about funding smarter. Primary and community care can prevent some hospital admissions and provide medication and essential support for those who cannot easily travel. That is especially important in rural areas like mine, where distance, isolation and sparse public transport already pose significant barriers to treatment.

Care services are struggling with conditions like Parkinson’s and have been stretched to breaking point by Government decisions and a lack of funding. Weldmar Hospicecare in West Dorset is a lifeline for so many families. Earlier this year, NHS Dorset announced a £400,000 cut to its fast-track funding, starting next April. Weldmar also faces a £600,000 increase in costs as a result of rising national insurance contributions and other pressures. It already raises 60% of its NHS-commissioned care through charitable donations, and that is unsustainable in the long term.

The same goes for our community pharmacies, which are vital for people with Parkinson’s, especially in rural communities. They are not just dispensaries; they provide healthcare consultations, medical reviews and early advice, often acting as the first point of contact for worried patients. Yet the funding model they rely on is outdated and inadequate, leaving many rural pharmacies on the brink of collapse. If we are serious about reducing health inequalities, we must ringfence funding for essential services and not allow it to disappear into ever-wider budget allocations.

We owe it to everyone living with Parkinson’s, and to the families, the carers and the health workers supporting them, to do better. That means listening to the voices of those people affected, ending the postcode lottery and making sure that no one, wherever they live, faces this devastating disease alone.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Admirably delivered.

17:05

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in this debate, Mr Stuart, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on securing this important debate. A family member of mine was diagnosed with Parkinson’s about two and a half to three years ago, so although I am not an expert on the issue, I understand how difficult it can be for family members, friends and the community. Unfortunately, my good friend from Yorkshire—my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley—has used up all my talking points, so I will keep my speech brief.

Many colleagues have pointed out that 153,000 people in the UK have Parkinson’s, but the figure predicted for 2030 will rise to 172,000. That is a significant increase in five short years, so we must do more to support people and medical practitioners in terms of Parkinson’s. This point has also been made but, sadly, the Parkinson’s workforce in the NHS has been facing a shortage for over 30 years. It has been neglected and the Government should address that urgently.

The Association of British Neurologists found that 1.1 full-time equivalent neurologists per 100,000 head of population were involved in patient care in the UK. If we compare that with France and Germany, the figure is one neurologist per—less than—25,000 head of population. The UK ranks 44th out of 45 European nations for the number of neurologists per head of population. That figure is simply not good enough.

The Parkinson’s UK programme, Parkinson’s Connect, has been mentioned, and I urge the Government to roll it out across the NHS in England to make sure that more people with the condition get the support they need. This Labour Government have made a decision to freeze prescription charges for 2025-26. I really welcome that, but unfortunately, Parkinson’s is not on the list of medical conditions that are exempt from prescription charges. My understanding is that that list was decided in 1968 and has barely changed since. Independent research suggests that scrapping prescription charges in England for Parkinson’s would save the NHS £93 per person per year, and reduce A&E visits by approximately 9%. I call on the Government to scrap prescription charges for people with Parkinson’s.

I will end on the blue badge scheme. Sadly, many people who suffer from Parkinson’s also suffer from a postcode lottery, where the local authority decides whether or not they will get a blue badge for their transport. A lot more research needs to be done on that. The Department for Transport and the Department of Health and Social Care should work together to ensure that people with Parkinson’s get the support that they need.

17:07

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for raising this issue. As Members are well aware, I have been a vocal opponent of the changes to PIP, and I will concentrate specifically on PIP issues, how they affect people with Parkinson’s, and why it is important that the Government are careful about what they do with the PIP benefit and money in relation to those who have this disease. When we consider the care that is needed for those who suffer from Parkinson’s, it is a perfect example of those who might well miss out on the care that they need the most.

The hon. Gentleman set the scene well in relation to the problems that come with Parkinson’s, and others who have spoken also referred to them. We can all rightly understand how the personal independence payment costs may overstretch local authorities and providers—the NHS on the mainland and our underfunded trusts in Northern Ireland. The entire purpose of PIP, of course, is not to compensate for the illness in some way; it is to help someone live with the practicalities of the illness. That is the purpose of PIP and why I support it. I am really concerned about what might happen.

PIP is not a supplement to keep people off work. It can help people in work, which is part of what the Government say the purpose is. PIP exists to help offset the cost of being sick or disabled and, as such, is an effective health intervention. A recent freedom of information request, however, found that 36% of people with neurological disorders were at very high risk of losing out on PIP. That could be even higher for people with Parkinson’s, as even if someone has scored four points previously in a “daily living” category, the rapidly fluctuating nature of the condition means that it is not guaranteed that that will be scored again.

We need to understand what Parkinson’s is, what it delivers and the importance of it. Without the financial support needed to help with the additional costs of sickness and disability, and with many households losing passported carer’s allowance, unmet need will likely transfer to local authorities, as part of their statutory obligations. I am concerned about the scenario the Government could find themselves in if they remove or reduce personal independence payments, and take away the carer’s allowance. The leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), said during Prime Minister’s questions today that a family could lose £12,000 a year; other calculations that indicate it could be £10,000 a year. The financial impact will be ginormous.

[Cameron Thomas]

I am glad that the hon. Member has brought this point up. Hon. Members have mentioned that there are 153,000 sufferers in the UK, 10% of whom rely on PIP. It is vital for them to live and work independently. I share the hon. Member’s concern that any reduction in sufferers’ access to PIP will not only have serious financial consequences but lead to a diminishment of their independence.

[Jim Shannon]

That sums up the thrust of my comments. I am really concerned by what the Government are pursuing and the impacts that it will have. This is coming from the people on the frontline—I would call them the people on the coal quay—who understand exactly what it means.

Equally, if people with Parkinson’s are no longer able to afford the extra heating needed to help with their debilitating muscle spasms, they are more likely to have a fall. That will increase hospital admissions and stays, as well as social care support for fractures and joint replacements that could have been prevented by making sure that people retain their moneys and do not see corners cut in their care. It is not just individual health outcomes that will be affected. With a quarter of councils in England saying that they are on the brink of bankruptcy and other providers across the UK being stretched, this policy could have devastating impacts on local services.

I will conclude with this point, because I want to keep to time, Chair. When we think about care for Parkinson’s patients, we must think of the effect of removing PIP from those people. I know that it is not the Minister’s responsibility, but I ask that he convey the concern that has been expressed in the debate to the relevant Minister in DWP and fight the fight to ensure that these people have the care that they need in the most cost-effective way possible.

17:12

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for securing this important debate. Over the last few years, too many patients living with Parkinson’s disease have sadly been left facing unacceptable waits to be diagnosed and treated; they then face further challenges accessing the medication they need. That has ripple effects across our communities—it certainly does in my communities in South Dorset—as the neurological condition impacts not just the person with the diagnosis but their family and loved ones.

Many Members will be very aware from their inboxes that thousands of patients in England—far too many—are on a waiting list for neurological services, and around half are left waiting for more than the NHS target of 18 weeks. That means that the illnesses of many patients may have gone undiagnosed, with their conditions worsening as they wait to be seen by the necessary specialist doctor.

Patients living in coastal communities, including in South Dorset, often encounter specific challenges when accessing healthcare, and they also face higher incidences of long-term conditions such as Parkinson’s. Too often, patients in my community are confronted with a long wait for an appointment with a specialist and a long journey to the nearest major hospital. That problem is compounded by a national shortage of Parkinson’s specialists.

More than 20 constituents have written to me to raise this worrying state of affairs. Parkinson’s is the fastest growing neurological condition in the world, and we must do more to support those whose lives have been changed by the disease. I join my constituents in South Dorset and charities such as Parkinson’s UK in their support for the Parky charter. It sets out five principles to improve care for everyone with a Parkinson’s diagnosis. The Home Secretary has rightly pledged to support those principles, which include delivering referrals in under 18 weeks; providing comprehensive information; giving automatic access to free prescriptions; comprehensive care; and increasing funding for research into the condition. On that last point, Parkinson’s is deemed incurable, but it does not have to stay that way. Treatment options are very limited in this country. More funding could certainly enable the development of innovative, life-changing treatments, or even a cure in the longer term.

Progress has already been made on the five points in the Parky charter. This Labour Government have already begun clearing the NHS backlog, with waiting lists down by some 219,000 since July, and I believe that their elective reform plan will mean more neurological appointments every year. By providing extra appointments, scans and operations, in particular at evenings and weekends, the Government can clear the backlog so that everyone is seen within the critical NHS target of 18 weeks.

More broadly, I hope that the Government’s 10-year plan for our NHS will radically reform how people with long-term conditions such as Parkinson’s disease are treated through the NHS. The Health Secretary’s action to clear the backlog, the 10-year plan and the elective reform plan have begun to improve care for those with Parkinson’s disease, but we can and must go so much further. I hope that today’s debate will galvanise support across the House for the vital mission of ensuring timely diagnosis, comprehensive care and dignity for all people living with Parkinson’s. My constituents and their loved ones and families deserve nothing less.

17:16

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for securing the debate. It is interesting that three of the five Back Benchers who have spoken in it are from Dorset. I do not know what that says about our population, but there we go.

[Edward Morello]

I will answer that with one of my favourite facts about Dorset: if we were a country, we would be the oldest in the world by population age. We are older than Japan.

[Vikki Slade]

My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is correct. We have the Jurassic coast, but we are also the oldest county.

My daughter is currently undertaking a PhD in the causes of Parkinson’s, and I should also declare that I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on Parkinson’s. Although life expectancy for those living with Parkinson’s is much improved, their quality of life is deeply impacted. They are incredibly vulnerable to falls and infections, limiting their ability to work. The recent changes to PIP are causing deep distress to the community. I look forward to hearing how the Government will recognise the needs of those with fluctuating neurological conditions in assessments.

However, I want to focus on the issues of treatment and care for patients. There are 216 people currently registered as living with Parkinson’s in my constituency. I have been told that there is virtually no service of specialist nurses or active phone line support in my community. That leaves vulnerable people isolated and at higher risk of traumatic, expensive and often unnecessary hospital admissions.

The Minister will be aware that an absolute diagnosis of Parkinson’s is possible only post-mortem—I pay tribute to the work of the brain bank at Imperial and that of the similar motor neurone disease brain bank at King’s College London. We therefore rely on specialists to focus on the symptoms in order to make a diagnosis, but there is a significant problem, which was explained to me this week by a GP at Walford Mill surgery in Wimborne when I spent the morning shadowing him. He told me that wait times for diagnosis for Parkinson’s can be more than six months, so experienced GPs who are able to prescribe medications have a dilemma. They can help their patients by prescribing medications to reduce the symptoms, but in doing so they make it more difficult for the specialists to diagnose the condition. If the referral-to-treatment times were dramatically improved, GPs could ask people to wait, but with the current delays, it seems cruel to ask both those living with symptoms and their family doctor to do that.

That takes me to my next point: the lack of neurologists. The UK is 44th out of 45 countries in Europe for number of neurologists per head of population, and the waiting list for neurological conditions stands at a staggering 232,994 people. According to Alzheimer’s Research, neurological conditions are the leading cause of global ill health, with 3.4 billion people suffering from one, which makes it seem even crazier that we have this problem. It is not only that: Parkinson’s, along with other neuro conditions such as functional neurological disorder and achalasia, which I have raised previously, require multidisciplinary teams to look after patients, and local NHS systems just are not set up to do that properly. Will the Minister ensure that the NHS 10-year plan will deliver ways of working that will support those with such conditions?

Finally, I will touch on prescription charges. I know the issue has been raised before, but the list of conditions for free medication has not changed since 1968. It is shocking that Parkinson’s is not one of those conditions. My constituent, Carole, who was diagnosed aged just 46, is finding that really tough and believes, as I do, that a full review of these conditions for working-age people should be undertaken now.

The final word must go to two of my constituents. Malcolm, from Wimborne, said:

“I have suffered from Parkinson’s for 10 years. It has changed my life completely for the worse. I cannot speak, I have frequent falls, we need better support.”

Danielle, also from Wimborne, who was diagnosed at 38, said:

“This is becoming more common with younger people…The impact of this disease on my life is immeasurable. It is more than a struggle. It is a fight every day. We need these issues addressed urgently to reduce the burden.”

I hope that the Minister will be able to offer us some comfort.

17:20

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for securing today’s debate. As hon. Members in the Chamber have noted, Parkinson’s does not just affect movement; it affects every part of life. It disrupts eating, swallowing, sleeping, mental wellbeing and independence. Although more than 40 symptoms are recognised, each person’s experience is different—as unique as their fingerprint.

I want to focus a little on one group today: the experience of women with Parkinson’s is often more complex, more misunderstood and more neglected. That was brought to my attention by a constituent of mine in Mid Sussex, whose mother was diagnosed six years ago; it took her mother five years to get an accurate diagnosis. Women are more likely to be misdiagnosed, and more likely to be underdiagnosed. They are more likely to experience delays in treatment and to have their symptoms dismissed or attributed to anxiety or the menopause. Some research even suggests that women’s Parkinson’s symptoms may fluctuate more dramatically due to hormonal cycles, but we do not yet fully understand that because, historically, as in so many other contexts, women have been under-represented in clinical trials. Women with Parkinson’s are also more likely to carry the invisible burdens of being carers themselves, all the while struggling with a progressive neurological disease.

We need gender-specific research, treatment strategies and clinical training. We need health professionals who understand that Parkinson’s in women is a critical gap in care that we must close. When I submitted a written parliamentary question about that recently, the response revealed that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has no specific guidelines for Parkinson’s that reflect those gender differences. We need, as a society, to realise how differently the disease can present in and affect women.

Across the board, people with Parkinson’s face long waits for specialist care, delays in diagnosis and difficulty in accessing essential treatments. I recently talked to Richard, a constituent of mine in Mid Sussex who has Parkinson’s. He spoke of the profound difference that such treatments can make; he told me that they make life-changing differences to him. Yet for too many they are inaccessible due to postcode lotteries, which hon. Members have mentioned, and a lack of trained staff. What is perhaps worse is that some patients in hospitals are not even receiving their medication on time. For people with Parkinson’s, that delay can mean the difference between mobility and being bedbound, between clarity and confusion, and between dignity and indignity. We have to do better.

We must also talk about mental health. Nearly half of all people with Parkinson’s experience anxiety and depression. As the disease progresses, up to 60% develop psychotic symptoms, and they are up to six times more likely to develop dementia. Those are staggering figures.

What needs to change? We Liberal Democrats are calling for urgent reform, starting with a full review of the medicine supply chain, to ensure that no person has to live in fear of running out of vital medication. We want a faster approval process for new treatments through an expansion of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency’s capacity—not slashing it, as the Government have done by cutting 40% of its workforce. Every person with Parkinson’s or other long-term conditions needs access to a named GP, because continuity of care should not be a luxury. We also need to restore the importance of mental health in NHS planning. The Government’s decision to let the share of NHS funding going to mental health to fall and to scrap targets for dementia and mental health was wrong and totally short-sighted.

We also know that family carers are at breaking point. I thank the hon. Members for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), for raising the issue of the personal independence payment. According to the Government’s own assessment, 150,000 family carers are going to be impacted by 2029-30 as a result of the proposals on PIP, and that is on top of the 800,000 people losing PIP. Has the Minister pressed his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions on that point when it comes to conditions such as Parkinson’s?

People with Parkinson’s should be supported not only to live, but to live with independence and dignity. Parkinson’s is cruel: it steals movement, independence and, far too often, hope. But we can fight back with the right policies, the right funding and the right political will. We can make a difference. Let us listen to the voices of people living with Parkinson’s—including women, whose voices and needs have been overlooked for far too long.

17:25

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for his role in securing this vital debate and all Members who contributed.

As we have heard today, Parkinson’s affects 153,000 people in the UK; more shockingly, every hour, two more people are diagnosed. For me, the issue is personal: a close family member was initially diagnosed and treated for Parkinson’s, but more recently that diagnosis was revised to progressive supranuclear palsy—a rarer and more aggressive condition. That journey from uncertainty to diagnosis and then to living with a progressive neurological condition has profoundly impacted me. I have witnessed first hand the critical importance of early diagnosis, emotional support, specialist care and—above all—hope.

Last month, ahead of World Parkinson’s Day, I met representatives of Parkinson’s UK and individuals affected by the condition. I heard powerful accounts from volunteers about the daily challenges that they face with mobility issues, speech difficulties and the emotional toll on themselves and their families. I will continue to commend Parkinson’s UK for its tireless work, both across my constituency of Farnham and Bordon, including Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages, and across the country, providing advice, support and advocacy at every stage of the Parkinson’s journey.

However, I have been concerned that the Labour Government have yet to identify Parkinson’s as a strategic priority. Will the Minister confirm what level of funding is being allocated to Parkinson’s research this year? How does that compare with the past five years? During my tenure at the NHS Getting It Right First Time programme, I was involved in the publication of the neurology national specialty report. That analysis highlighted significant variation in neurological services across England, particularly in managing conditions such as Parkinson’s disease. The recommendations are essential for reducing disparities and improving outcomes, so will the Minister commit to addressing in detail the priorities in the report, beyond general references to cutting waiting lists?

The previous, Conservative Government invested more than £79 million into research into Parkinson’s between 2019 and 2024; in 2022-23, the National Institute for Health and Care Research enabled 114 studies related to Parkinson’s through its infrastructure. We also rolled out a new treatment for advanced Parkinson’s disease through the NHS, which started in February last year, offering an additional option for patients whose symptoms were no longer responding to oral medication. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the Government plan to continue that momentum. What research funding will be maintained or increased and what new treatment options are being supported or explored? The new Government have committed to updating the last Conservative Government’s long-term workforce plan. When will they announce the detail and what specialist training there will be for Parkinson’s nurses and clinicians? Will they maintain the focus on specialist care?

Charities such as Parkinson’s UK do an amazing job, but as with many other sectors they are having to respond to higher taxes and squeezed funding. Will the Minister outline how he is talking to the charitable sector to ensure that the changes that the Government are making in the Budget are not damaging Parkinson’s care?

Finally, what guarantees can the Minister offer that the recent restructuring of NHS England will not worsen access to Parkinson’s services? With 50% cuts to integrated care boards, can the Minister reassure people that Parkinson’s sufferers and their families will not be disadvantaged?

Members from across the House are united in wanting to improve treatment, support and outcomes for people with Parkinson’s. In response to a debate I spoke in earlier this month, the Public Health Minister said that she would be happy to meet with stakeholder organisations to discuss the Parky charter and the progress of Parkinson’s Connect pilots. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline whether the Public Health Minister has arranged those meetings and, if she has not, when they might happen. A meeting would prove the Government’s action on workforce, waiting times, integration, support for carers, and access to research and innovation.

My colleagues in the Conservative party and I stand ready to work constructively with the Government, and with Members from all parties, to ensure that progress is not only protected but accelerated. Let us match awareness with action, for only with action will there be hope.

17:30

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for securing this important debate. He spoke with real passion and conviction, as did hon. Members from across the Chamber. I do not know whether we have a full house from Dorset, but we have the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) and the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade); it was great to hear their thoughts. We also heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who spoke, as always, with great passion and conviction. This debate follows closely on the heels of the Backbench Business debate on Parkinson’s Awareness Month, which was led by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie). I thank the Members who have spoken in both debates.

I pay tribute to the invaluable work of NHS clinicians, charities and care workers who spend every single day improving the lives of people with Parkinson’s disease. I am particularly encouraged by the Parky charter, which is raising public and professional awareness about the needs of the Parkinson’s community and the importance of timely diagnosis, comprehensive care and dignity for all people with Parkinson’s. Organisations that fight for patients, such as Parkinson’s UK, are at the heart of our policies for the NHS, which is broken but not beaten. We look forward to working with them to fix the foundations of the NHS and to make it work for people with Parkinson’s in Colne Valley, throughout Yorkshire and across the country.

Parkinson’s disease can severely impact every aspect of a person’s daily life, as well as the lives of their family and unpaid carers. It can put people under immense strain, and they deserve additional support to help them live with the condition. Around 153,000 people live with Parkinson’s in the UK, and it is the fastest growing neurological condition in the world. About 16.5 million people in the UK, or one in six of the population, have a neurological condition, and 600,000 people are diagnosed with one each year. Together, neurological conditions cause around 140,000 deaths every year in the UK—one fifth of all deaths—and they are the leading cause of disability.

In 2019, the NHS spent just under £4.5 billion on neurological conditions and they cost the UK economy £96 billion, so tackling them presents a real opportunity not just for the Government’s health mission but for our growth mission. We must face the fact that patients are facing significant challenges, including not enough people in the places we need them, and delays to treatment and care, with long waiting times. We also listen to patients who tell us that they have experienced a lack of information and support.

We are acting to address those challenges, starting with our workforce. Parkinson’s nurses and neurologists are worth their weight in gold, and they are key to meeting patient demand. This summer, we will publish a refreshed long-term workforce plan, as a first step towards rebuilding our workforce over the next decade and treating patients on time again. We will ensure that the NHS has the right people, in the right places, with the right skills, to deliver the care that patients need when they need it. We will set out in black and white the numbers of doctors, nurses and other professionals who will be needed in five, 10 and 15 years’ time.

Turning to waiting lists, the NHS constitution sets out that patients should start consultant-led treatment within a maximum of 18 weeks from referral for non-urgent conditions. At the start of the year, my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister announced our elective reform plan, which sets out our approach to hitting that target by the end of this Parliament. We have already surpassed our manifesto pledge to deliver an extra 2 million elective appointments, seven months ahead of the deadline; we are now on 3 million appointments and counting. Many of those were appointments for treating Parkinson’s.

I know that there may be some people with Parkinson’s watching the debate at home and shouting at their telly, “Well, I am still waiting for treatment.” Although waiting lists are coming down, and recently fell for six months in a row, they are still high. I completely understand why people who are still waiting feel frustrated. I say to them: we are throwing the proverbial kitchen sink at waiting lists, and we will not stop until you see and feel the results.

The NHS has begun some important initiatives to improve its neurology services, including the neuroscience transformation programme, the Getting it Right First Time initiative, a strengthened clinical reference group and the appointment of a national clinical director for neurology. The NHS is focusing on improving patient experiences, addressing the disparities in care and ensuring that patients are given their medicines on time. The neuroscience transformation programme is focusing on faster diagnoses, better co-ordinated care and improved access to specialist services.

At the at the recent Backbench Business debate—and, of course, in this debate—a number of hon. Members spoke about personal independence payment as an important way of helping people to cope with the extra living costs of a disability or health condition. I am sure all Members would agree that those who can work should work. However, I am happy to reassure colleagues that our “Pathways to Work” Green Paper will make sure that people with the most severe lifelong health conditions who cannot work will see their incomes protected. We are consulting on the Green Paper to hear how best we can support those impacted by our reforms.

We continue to encourage research, which is advancing our understanding of Parkinson’s at breakneck speed, through targeted funding, infrastructure support and collaboration. For example, the UK Dementia Research Institute, sponsored by this Government, is partnering with Parkinson’s UK to establish a new £10 million research centre. The NIHR is supporting research that has discovered that eye scans can detect Parkinson’s disease up to seven years before symptoms appear, which helps people to receive treatment earlier and prepare themselves as best they can.

Research also underpins the entire drug discovery and development process. Produodopa is a groundbreaking new treatment for Parkinson’s disease, particularly for patients with advanced disease and severe motor fluctuations. It is revolutionary because it provides a continuous 24-hour infusion of medication via a small pump, allowing more consistent symptom control. The NHS rolled it out in February last year. It has been shown to improve motor function and has proved its worth by significantly improving the quality of life for people with advanced Parkinson’s.

At the debate on 1 May, many Members emphasised the importance of staying active. Indeed, there is strong scientific evidence that being physically active can help people to lead a healthier and happier life. For example, exercise can reduce the risk of major illnesses and lowers the risk of early death by up to a third. Our social prescribing programme is a key component of the NHS’s universal personalised care and a way for GPs or local agencies to refer people to a social prescribing link worker. Those workers give people time, focusing on what matters to them and taking a holistic approach to people’s health and wellbeing. They connect people to community groups and statutory services for practical and emotional support.

Looking forward, we have committed to publishing a 10-year plan for health to shift the focus of our NHS from hospital to community, from analogue to digital and from treatment to prevention. In the meantime, we have taken steps towards those shifts through the home-based care pathway, which is providing comprehensive support and care for people with Parkinson’s in their own home, and through the NIHR project to test a non-invasive vibrational cueing system, helping people with Parkinson’s to maintain their walking as they go about their everyday lives.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on securing the debate. I declare an interest as a member of the APPG on Parkinson’s, as the son of a sufferer of Parkinson’s, and as the grandson of someone who died suffering of Parkinson’s. We all agree that, while there are real challenges, we must secure a cure for Parkinson’s. Does the Minister agree that we owe a great debt of gratitude to the partners, spouses and community groups that do so much to support people suffering from Parkinson’s as they go through not only horrific mobility loss but the associated deep psychiatric problems?

[Stephen Kinnock]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; our system could not survive without the amazing and heroic work of our unpaid carers. One of our Government’s actions that I am most proud of is the change to the carer’s allowance. We increased the number of hours for which a carer can work and still keep their carer’s allowance by raising the threshold from £151 to £196. I hope that is giving carers the flexibility that they need. Many carers want to work but it is immensely stressful for them to balance their working and caring responsibilities. I was very pleased that we could announce that change back in January, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is a lot more that we can do. I am working with colleagues in DWP and the Department for Business and Trade to look at how we can do more as a Government for unpaid carers. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to pay tribute to them; they are the lifeblood of our care system.

The consultation on our 10-year plan received over 190,000 responses, giving people with Parkinson’s and other conditions a voice in the future of healthcare. I want to conclude this debate by quoting just one of those voices—that of Winston, a former St John Ambulance worker from Lewisham. He said:

“People don’t always see what’s happening to me, or what Parkinson’s looks like on me. They don’t see me early in the morning. They see me looking nice and managing the condition as best I can. But I have to deal with my own bubble sometimes, and it gets burst, and things go all over the place.”

I am pleased that Winston is doing fantastically well and now sharing tips with people on how to improve their public speaking abilities. His words will resonate with anyone who has a long-term condition. Stories like his should remind us why we need a health service that sees the whole person, not just the condition, to give patients the dignity, care and respect that they deserve.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley again for securing this important debate, and I pay tribute to all Members for making it constructive and powerful. I look forward to working with Members on this matter.

17:43

[Paul Davies]

I thank all Members for their really thoughtful and powerful contributions; we heard a powerful consensus across the Chamber. We have heard from the Minister about the Government’s focus on making a difference. Clearly, the Parkinson’s community want to see change, and they want to see it as soon as possible. It is up to us to ensure that that happens, and I am sure that the Members in the Chamber will continue to do that.

I pay tribute to the groups supporting our Parkinson’s sufferers, and to those individuals themselves. I said this earlier, but it is hugely inspiring to talk to people in the Parkinson’s community. Their strength is remarkable. We need to repay that with change as soon as possible to help them live their lives to the full, and find a cure for this terrible condition.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered care for Parkinson’s patients.

17:45

Sitting adjourned.