Westminster Hall

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 8 July 2025

[Graham Stuart in the Chair]

Alcohol and Cancer

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered alcohol and cancer.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting us the opportunity to debate alcohol and cancer. This issue affects all of us; it affects our constituents, our families and friends, and our local health services. I thank the Alcohol Health Alliance and the World Cancer Research Fund for providing me with detailed figures and materials that helped me to prepare for this debate.

As parliamentarians, we often need to know a little about a lot, but I confess that even I was shocked at how little I knew of some of the latest alcohol harms and cancer risks when I started to investigate this issue. I find it astounding that although alcohol has been designated a group 1 carcinogen since 1988—the same grouping as both tobacco and asbestos—almost 40 years later, this is the first debate in this place on alcohol and cancer. That speaks candidly to the lack of awareness that perhaps many of us have about alcohol. Were we better informed, perhaps we would pursue more changes to the drinking culture in our workplace. I therefore sincerely hope that we can do this issue justice and raise awareness—both among Members of the House and members of the public who might be watching at home—about the harm that alcohol causes, including cancer. Given the poor record of numerous Governments on tackling alcohol harms over the past 20 years, that is perhaps the least we can do.

It is hard to argue against public health experts who say that we are amid “an alcohol harm crisis.” The figures are frightening, and they have been rising at an explosive rate since the pandemic. For any other health condition, a 42% increase in deaths over a five-year period would be treated as a health emergency, but for alcohol it feels like just another day in the office. Those statistics are only for alcohol-specific deaths, and the numbers spike even higher once alcohol-related deaths are factored in.

I will return to that later in my speech, but I would first like to set the scene on alcohol and cancer. The reality is that alcohol is toxic to our bodies. Risks are present even at low consumption levels, and they increase the more someone consumes. That has led the World Health Organisation to declare in recent years that there is “no safe level” when drinking alcohol. Evidence now links alcohol to at least seven types of cancer, including breast and bowel, which are two of the most common cancers in the UK, and oesophageal, which is one of the hardest to treat. The other cancers that alcohol can cause include mouth, throat, liver and stomach. In addition, a new study released in May by the International Agency for Research on Cancer presented evidence linking alcohol to an eighth cancer: pancreatic cancer.

I am afraid that it gets worse. In the UK, 17,000 cancers a year are attributable to alcohol, which is close to one in 20. When it comes to breast cancer, which is the UK’s most common cancer, research figures from Cancer Research UK attribute as many as one in 10 cases to alcohol. We are already at a diagnosis rate of around 46 new alcohol-related cancers a day, and experts have warned that if the nation’s alcohol consumption does not start to return to pre-pandemic levels, we could see an additional 18,875 cancer cases by 2035.

With 46 alcohol-related cancers already being diagnosed every single day, that would add up to the equivalent of an alcohol-related cancer diagnosis for every Member of this House in just two weeks, which I find simply staggering. I know those are big numbers, but they are not faceless figures. Each is someone’s mother, father, spouse, sister, brother, colleague or friend.

The harm is disproportionate, and it is concentrated in our most deprived communities. Lancaster and Wyre is ranked worse than the national average in four of the six key alcohol harm categories, including hospital admissions, cancer cases and alcohol-related deaths. Government after Government have not got a grip on alcohol harm, and our constituents continue to pay the price.

My interest in this subject started just over 12 months ago when local stats on alcohol-related deaths were released. I was shocked to see my area at the top of the English league table. I thank the Alcohol Health Alliance for supplying me with so much information, including my constituency figures, in the lead-up to this debate, though it makes stark reading.

We are a year into this Government and, if nothing changes and we do nothing in this Parliament, my local figures suggest that I will have to explain to my constituents why we did nothing to stop another 195 alcohol-related cancer cases, as well as 225 alcohol-specific deaths and 9,400 hospital admissions in my constituency alone. Doing nothing is not good enough.

Figures in the north-west are not much better, with alcohol estimated to cost my region almost £4 billion a year. That pattern is repeated across neighbouring regions, including the north-east and the west midlands. Time and again, our most deprived communities suffer the most harm from alcohol, despite often drinking less than their more affluent counterparts.

Alcohol harm and health inequalities walk hand in hand: alcohol-related deaths, alcohol-related cancers and alcohol-related hospital admissions. Those are people’s lives. They are being chewed up and spat out by an alcohol industry whose main concern is delivering the highest profits to its shareholders and board members, at the expense of our national health.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on the timeliness of her debate. Does she agree that we need more research on the health costs endured by society and the NHS due to this problem? That has to be offset against the tax revenues that accrue from alcohol overconsumption. Those things have to be analysed and researched to address a worsening problem, to which she is right to draw attention.

[Cat Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is right that we should look at the cost to our communities. This debate is specifically about alcohol and cancer, but other costs beyond its scope include the impact on the criminal justice system, productivity in the workplace and violence, particularly against women and girls. Alcohol carries many costs to our communities, but I would like this debate to be tight in addressing the impact on cancer and cancer deaths.

I might sound dramatic, but I looked at a recent job advert posted by the global alcohol giant Diageo. It was bold enough to state publicly:

“Our industry is facing unprecedented challenges from the WHO and its NGO network globally and regionally.”

In response, Diageo is planning

“a global approach to member states’ engagement, to increase support for our industry at the UN/WHO fora.”

Although that is not surprising, I do not think it should be tolerated. It is for Governments to dictate our public health policies and to protect citizens’ health, as that is not in the commercial interests of multibillion-pound alcohol producers, which have no vested interest in protecting the nation’s health. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the NHS is often left to pick up the pieces of alcohol-related cancers, with preventable cancers costing the NHS £3.7 billion in 2023.

In addition, findings published today by the Royal College of Physicians from a snapshot member survey report that 25% of respondents said that at least half of their average caseload is made up of patients whose conditions have been caused or exacerbated by alcohol dependence. A third of those surveyed report seeing alcohol dependence increase their caseloads.

The Institute of Alcohol Studies reported that, in 2009-10, there were 1.4 million alcohol-related ambulance journeys—a staggering 35% of the total—and that alcohol-related A&E admissions accounted for as much as 40% of the total, approaching 70% during peak times. Alcohol is putting unsustainable pressure on our health service.

The reality is that alcohol harms will increase. The number of alcohol-related cancers will in turn increase, and therefore the price tag for our NHS will go up, too. The national cancer plan, the men’s health strategy and the work to reduce violence against women and girls are opportune moments for the Government to recognise the role alcohol plays in all three areas, and I really hope that alcohol is given the required attention.

We might expect almost 40 years of research to mean that the public are already very aware of the links between alcohol and cancer, but that could not be further from the truth. Recent polls commissioned by the World Cancer Research Fund for Cancer Prevention Action Week found that just 7% of UK adults know that alcohol increases the risk of cancer. That means that as many as 93% of us are essentially drinking in the dark, with little knowledge of the harms that our nation’s drug of choice is doing to our bodies.

Even more worrying, one in four of those polled thought that no health risks at all were attached to drinking alcohol. We have a product that is linked to more than 200 different health conditions and injuries and is the leading cause of death, ill health and disability among 15 to 49-year-olds in the UK, but that staggering lack of awareness is leaving the public unable to make informed choices about what they are consuming.

The situation is compounded by the fact that the alcohol industry is still not required to display the health risks of alcohol on product labels. It can pop a quick “Drink responsibly” line on the label, ignoring the addictive, harmful nature of its product, and walk away, washing its hands of the consequences. The industry has no interest in putting health information on product labels and, in fact, it is actively mobilising against it.

I hope that the Minister, a strong Lancashire woman, will hold her nerve in the face of the alcohol industry’s activism. We have previously seen such activism from the tobacco industry and in relation to anti-obesity food labelling. For the benefit of public health, I urge my hon. Friend to hold her nerve and stand up to it.

I now turn to the factors driving alcohol harms, which, if left unchecked, will continue to fuel more alcohol-related cancers, bringing misery to individuals and families caught in the crossfire. I for one am increasingly frustrated by the lack of motivation shown by one Government after another in tackling alcohol harms. Back in 2012 we had a promising national strategy, which over the course of that year was eroded and undone until very little remained. There has since been no national alcohol strategy, and the 10-year health plan’s prevention measures on alcohol fall far short of what is needed. With harm rates continuing to skyrocket, it is time to look again at what we can do to reverse that alarming trend.

The UK has astoundingly few alcohol control policies to mitigate the harmful effects of high alcohol consumption. The World Health Organisation recommends policies to tackle the price, marketing and availability of alcohol, which it describes as the “best buys” for Governments to deploy to reduce alcohol harms. Looking at all three, I am afraid my analysis is that we continue to fail miserably, and I will address them in turn.

In the UK, alcohol is more affordable than it has ever been. Overall, it has become 14% more affordable since 2010, but we can go back even further. Since 1987, off-licence wine and spirits have become 163% more affordable. Drinking patterns have also changed in that time. Almost 80% of alcohol is now purchased from supermarkets and off-licences for home consumption. That is driving people out of supervised and safer community drinking environments, such as pubs, bars and restaurants, and into the unseen confines of the home, where harms stay hidden.

Policies such as minimum unit pricing in Scotland have been bold steps to tackle the affordability of alcohol. Public Health Scotland’s comprehensive evaluation of MUP concluded that it has resulted in alcohol-specific deaths reducing by 13.4%. Were the Government to implement MUP in England, it could be a public health legacy we could be proud of. Instead, we are watching as first Wales and then Northern Ireland are moving to implement MUP in their respective nations, leaving England as the outlier. I was baffled to hear rumours about MUP being included in the 10-year health plan and then subsequently removed. Will the Minister share her thoughts on that?

Availability is the second of the WHO’s “best buy” policy areas, but I am afraid we are not doing much better on that. Without public health as a licensing objective, local authorities have their hands tied when it comes to rejecting licensing applications on public health grounds, including in respect of moves to sell alcohol in areas where there is a real and persistent public health concern, or in areas that are already saturated. Licensing laws also struggle to keep up with newer forms of consumption. Rapid home deliveries and online sales mean that those who are already struggling can have alcohol delivered to their door at any time, day or night, with almost no protections or safeguards in place.

The WHO’s third “best buy” policy idea relates to marketing. I have particularly grave concerns about this, because we are lagging behind other countries when it comes to alcohol marketing restrictions. We do not have so much as a 9 pm watershed, despite alcohol being an age-restricted product. I started to prepare for this speech on my journey from Westminster back home to Lancaster last week, and it was shocking how many times I saw alcohol advertised on that one reasonably short journey. It was on billboards and bus stops, and I walked past posters on the tube platforms and in the walkways.

On the final train, an advert on the screen advertised a thirst-quenching summer drink that was alcoholic. We all know the advertisements on the train Tannoy: “The café in coach C is open for alcoholic beverages”—they often come at 9 or 10 o’clock in the morning. Alcohol advertising is absolutely everywhere, and we know it works because companies spend millions of pounds on it. Advertising is doing one thing: it is driving people to drink more, more frequently, and exposing them to far more harms, including alcohol-related cancers.

I suspect we will hear arguments in the debate about the nanny state and the importance of free choice, but in a world where we are surrounded by relentless messages to drink alcohol, are we really making a free and informed choice? We are bombarded by industry advertising, sports sponsorships, celebrity endorsements, influencer partnerships, brand logos and product placements in everything we see day to day. Is it surprising that consumption and the related harms are rising? The industry has been allowed to go far too far for far too long, and it is fuelling alcohol-related health risks. There is now a serious need for the Government to step in.

I fear that, four years from now, colleagues and I will not be able to defend decisions on alcohol harm to the electorate if the current alcohol trends persist and nothing is done. Although I welcome the measures in the 10-year plan to address alcohol labels and improve consumer awareness, in some respects a lot of the damage has already been done by decades of inaction, misinformation and spiralling consumption. Forty years on, the public still do not know the real risks to their health or the growing evidence that links drinking alcohol to cancer. In this environment, alcohol-related cancer cases will continue to rise. It seems that the horse has bolted, and we now need robust prevention policies, alongside the promised improvements to alcohol labelling, to even begin to reverse the damage.

The consumption of alcohol must be an informed choice. I acknowledge that some people are predisposed to the disease of alcoholism, and society must do more to support and better understand that, but those who decide to consume alcohol still do not have sufficient information to make that a fully informed choice. There is no safe level of drinking alcohol. As I have pointed out, alcohol is linked to at least eight cancers, and every day 46 people are diagnosed with alcohol-related cancers. My ask of the Government is no more than to give the public information about alcohol and clear labels that make the link between alcohol and cancer.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called to speak in the debate.

09:49

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) for setting the scene expertly with all the detailed information we need. Before we started, she told me that this is our first debate together in Westminster Hall for some time, and it was a real pleasure to see her in full flow again.

This issue affects so many people in every constituency. The debate is an opportunity to explore the issue further and see how we, and ultimately the Minister, can inform and aid people to make good choices about nutrition and health. I am not in the business of telling people what to do. I do not think that is the way to do it; we should try to coax. If we raise awareness of the issues, as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre has done incredibly well, we will have a better way of persuading people to be careful and not excessive. I welcome the Government’s excellent 10-year NHS plan, which was announced last Thursday. All of us in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should be encouraged by the Government and Minister’s commitment to it.

It is estimated that nearly 40% of cancer cases in the United Kingdom are currently preventable, caused by known, modifiable risk factors such as the food we eat and what we drink. I am a diabetic, and that is because of my own circumstances—I would not recommend Chinese and two bottles of Coke five nights a week, and lots of stress. It does not work. Unfortunately, I did not have the wherewithal to understand that it was the wrong thing to do. It caught up with me when I was 17 stone and heading for type 2 diabetes, as a doctor told me. The point is that I did not know, but I should have known, because the symptoms were there.

It is the same for the symptoms of cancer. There is convincing evidence that being overweight, obesity, processed meat consumption and drinking alcohol are associated with increased cancer risk. Suggestions have been made that being overweight and obesity—this is really worrying—could overtake smoking as the greatest cause of preventable cancers in women in the United Kingdom by 2043. Some of the stats are incredibly shocking.

Cancer research has highlighted that there are many ways that alcohol can cause cancer, such as through damage to cells and changes to hormones. Alcohol can increase the levels of some hormones in our bodies such as oestrogen and insulin. All alcohol has an effect, even a small amount. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre is right that it is better if we do not drink it. By the way, I am not telling anybody what to do, to make that clear, but it is about advice.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

My hon. Friend is talking about an educational approach and trying to advise rather than force people; does he agree that the younger we start doing that, the better? Although they are not exclusively the target audience, we need to focus on teenagers and those in their early 20s, because lifestyle choices are made when we are very young.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those are, by and large, the factors that will indicate where someone goes in adult life and further afield. It is important to do that at an early stage, whether at school or in young adulthood.

Hormones are chemical messengers, and high levels of oestrogen and insulin can make cells divide more often. That increases the chance that cancer will develop. Alcohol can make it easier for cells in the mouth and throat to absorb harmful chemicals that cause damage. There are signs that alcohol can exacerbate the chances of different types of cancer such as breast cancer and bowel cancer—two of the most common types—and mouth cancer. It can also increase the chance of some types of throat cancer, including cancer of the oesophagus, or the food pipe; cancer of the larynx, or the voice box; cancer of the pharynx, or the upper throat; and liver cancer. All those are potential issues.

Cancer Focus Northern Ireland has highlighted on its website the fact that the consumption of any amount of alcohol increases the risk of developing cancer, as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre said. Cancer Focus Northern Ireland also says that the more alcohol a person drinks, the higher the risk of their developing cancer. Reducing consumption or, even better, avoiding alcohol completely will help to reduce the risk. Cancer Focus Northern Ireland also highlights the fact that drinking and smoking together multiplies the risk of developing certain cancers.

It is essential that we get the message across that just as we need to modulate our eating habits, we need to consider alcohol not simply from an addiction point of view but knowing that the links to cancer are clear. As with all things, it is important to educate young people, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) said. We need to give them the understanding that alcohol intake is linked to overall health. This is a cross-departmental undertaking, with the Department for Education having a role to play alongside the Department of Health and Social Care. Perhaps the Minister could give us some ideas about how those two Departments could work better together to ensure that young people have a healthy approach to alcohol and less of a binge mentality.

British women are the biggest female binge drinkers in the world. That is what the stats say. More than a quarter of British women consume more than six drinks at least once a month, according to a 2023 report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which compared alcohol consumption across 33 countries. Although the proportion is much higher for men, at 45%, the proportion for British women is still unmatched among female populations anywhere else in Europe. So we have a big job to do in encouraging a healthy attitude to alcohol. We must ensure that the messaging shows that it is an issue of long-term health, as well as one of short-term sobriety.

To conclude, people must be free to enjoy their lives and have a taste of things in moderation, but the health of the nation depends on a healthier approach to alcohol. The statistics outlined in this debate, by others before me and by those who will follow, show that this is a matter of urgency. As always, I very much look forward to the Minister outlining how the Government can—with us MPs, on behalf of our constituents—change the approach to the health of this great nation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

09:57

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart, and to speak in this important debate. I congratulate my good and hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) on securing it, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. It is always a mistake to start a speech with an apology, but I have a terrible cold and I can hardly hear, so please forgive me for my diction.

I have a particular interest in this subject: I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on drugs, alcohol and justice, so I was keen to support the application to the Backbench Business Committee. I would like to make a number of points to the Minister on behalf of the all-party group, but I will also reflect on the impact of alcohol in the north-east, and particularly in my Easington constituency, where alcohol is devastating lives and families. In my constituency, the rates of alcohol-related hospital admissions, deaths and traffic collisions are all worse than the national average.

We often obsess over statistics, but behind them are real people, families and communities, who are suffering from largely preventable harms. That is the thing about both drug and alcohol deaths, and cancers related to drugs and alcohol: they are preventable. My argument, and that of the all-party group, is that we must take the risks of alcohol far more seriously. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre said, alcohol is the No. 1 risk factor for ill health, death and disability among those aged 15 to 49. That is incredible—we are talking about the 15-to-49 age group. There is also a clear correlation with cancers; as my hon. Friend indicated the types, I am not going to repeat them.

Although alcohol has always been a part of society, the rates of higher risk drinking soared during the pandemic. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre mentioned that. Perhaps that is understandable because circumstances had changed, many more people were working from home and consumption at home increased. However, we have seen little sign of returning to pre-pandemic levels of alcohol consumption. If those trends continue, experts predict an additional 18,785 cancer cases—a very precise prediction, I know—by 2035. The predicted rise is deeply concerning, given that the NHS is already struggling to deal with the UK’s current cancer burden.

The hon. Member for Strangford and I have a particular interest in the all-party parliamentary groups on cancer, particularly the one on radiotherapy. We are aware that in April this year only 70.8% of cancer patients in my constituency were treated within the 62-day target, compared with the operational standard target of 85%. Once again behind the missed targets, people in my constituency, across the north-east and across the country are waiting anxiously for diagnosis and treatment.

There is a clear correlation between deprivation and alcohol consumption. The two seem to go hand in hand. Researchers connect alcohol consumption to inequalities in life expectancy. People in poorer areas tend to live shorter lives than those in more affluent areas. There is also a link with violence, especially against women and girls, with a decline in social and emotional wellbeing, and with child development. The human cost is immeasurable, but the financial cost is also huge. It is possible to calculate it.

Alcohol harm costs County Durham £277 million a year—over £530 per head. Across the north-east the total cost is estimated at £1.49 billion—almost £1.5 billion per year. The figures are stark, but not inevitable; all the costs are avoidable. Research by Cancer Research UK shows that around 2,700 cancer cases in England could be avoided by 2040 if just 10% of those drinking above the recommended levels reduce their intake by one intake category by 2030. There is no doubt about it—cutting down on alcohol can reduce our risk of cancer.

How do we reduce alcohol harm? The Alcohol Health Alliance and the World Cancer Research Fund have both set out clear solutions: tackling affordability, promotion and availability. Although I acknowledge and welcome the Government’s 10-year health plan, which was released last week, it announced only limited measures on alcohol. Commitments on labelling are welcome, but they do not go far enough and are not proportionate to the scale of the crisis. I respectfully urge the Minister to consider further measures in advance of the national cancer plan, which is expected to be published in the autumn, and to work with harm reduction organisations, the experts in the field, and go further.

Waythrough provides treatment and support to those suffering from the excesses of alcohol. It is also involved in the APPG that I chair. The chief exec, Paul Townsley, said:

“Alcohol treatment and recovery support has a transformative impact on people, families and communities—we urgently need government to commit to a national Alcohol Strategy that increases investment in treatment and recovery, evidence based prevention, and addresses the root causes of alcohol harm that devastates our communities so unequally.”

A little later today the all-party parliamentary group on drugs, alcohol and justice, which I chair, will launch a new “Action on Alcohol” document, which echoes the calls that have been made here and elsewhere for an alcohol strategy. In 2018, just next door in the Jubilee Room, I attended the launch of the “Alcohol Charter”, which made the very same demand. Let us not forget that, as the hon. Member for Strangford reminded us, the last alcohol strategy was issued in 2012, and since then the alcohol death rate has spiralled, so I would be grateful if the Minister outlined any plans she has to develop a cross-departmental alcohol strategy.

[Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

In Scotland, we have minimum alcohol pricing per unit. Will the Minister and the APPG consider that when making future interventions?

[Grahame Morris]

A number of positive suggestions have been set out by my hon. Friends during the course of the debate and by some experts in the field, and that includes the suggestion that my hon. Friend made in her intervention. I hope the Minister is considering the benefits and potential of them all.

Will the Minister meet me and treatment providers who support the all-party parliamentary group on the issue to discuss solutions? I gently remind her that she agreed back in March to meet the APPG about drugs policy, and we still have not been able to finalise the date for that meeting.

In my region, the organisation Balance does exceptional work in reducing alcohol’s harm, and it is the UK’s only regional alcohol prevention programme. Alcohol abuse is a huge societal problem in the north-east, and it should be at the forefront of shaping policy to reduce alcohol harm. Balance joins many voices across the sector in calling for a new dedicated alcohol strategy that prioritises proven measures to reduce the affordability, availability and promotion of alcohol. There is a clear consensus among alcohol and cancer charities that that is urgently needed.

The Government must introduce a comprehensive alcohol strategy without delay. The UK has not had a national alcohol strategy since 2012, and we must catch up with global leaders and show that the Government are serious about tackling alcohol harm. I urge the Minister to commit to a comprehensive alcohol strategy that tackles the crisis head on, protecting lives, reducing cancer risk and lifting the burden from our NHS and our communities.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

I will call the Liberal Democrat spokesman at 10.28 am.

10:07

[Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) on securing the debate.

Colleagues have rightly focused on the policy requirement of addressing alcohol harm, not just for the health of our constituents but to address the seismic burden that the effects of alcohol place on our public services, particularly the NHS. As my hon. Friend mentioned in her excellent speech, inaction is not acceptable or sustainable. This debate is especially pertinent, as we now understand that at least eight cancers can be linked to alcohol following new research from the IARC showing the link, as my hon. Friend mentioned, between alcohol and pancreatic cancer.

I would like to focus on the importance of early intervention in tackling excessive alcohol consumption. The UK consistently tops the table for binge drinking, and Scotland has long had a higher rate of alcohol-related death than the rest of the UK. More than one in four alcohol-attributable deaths were due to cancer. Furthermore, public awareness of alcohol harm is low, with polling research suggesting that 50% of people are unaware that alcohol causes cancer. Sadly, 53,000 people are hospitalised in Scotland due to alcohol each year.

Although we may be tempted into complacency by data that suggests that young people are drinking less than preceding generations, the stakes really are too high when we look at the figures. That is why early intervention initiatives, such as the work of Community Alcohol Partnerships, are so essential. Early intervention can prevent such health challenges from arising in later life. Their work is driving young people away from alcohol in 300 areas across the UK. My constituency is home to the View Park and Bellshill community alcohol partnership, which was recently recognised as Scottish CAP of the year. It has gained recognition for its approach to engaging young people while also partnering effectively with the police, NHS, local authority, residents groups and retailers to tackle under-age drinking head on. The impact of that work is significant, with the latest national figures from CAP showing a 63% reduction in drinking among 13 to 16-year-olds. We know the impact of under-age drinking on those under 15, and the consequences that it has.

There is, however, much more to do. I was pleased to sponsor the launch in Parliament of CAP’s report on the parental supply of alcohol recently. The report highlights that too many parents still believe that giving alcohol to children at home will teach them to drink responsibly or reduce the risk of them getting alcohol elsewhere. The report shows that every year earlier that a child is given alcohol, their risk of binge drinking, alcohol harm and health-related consequences as an adult increases significantly. CAP is set to launch a new pilot programme in 2026 aimed at preventing the parental supply of alcohol in six areas. I am very pleased that my area is one of those that is being looked at.

Early intervention is critical in the battle against alcohol-related cancers. I commend the CAP report to the Minister and all Members, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre for bringing forward this debate and highlighting the importance of this subject for my constituents and for people of all ages across the United Kingdom.

10:12

[Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) for securing this incredibly important debate. Having represented the Fleetwood part of my constituency prior to the boundary review, she will know the way the health service in that part of Lancashire has suffered from chronic underfunding throughout the 14 years of Conservative austerity and neglect.

My constituency suffers from more alcohol-related hospital admissions, cancer cases and deaths than the English average. It is a symptom of a community held back by low investment, industrial decline and neglect from national Government. I know at first hand the harm that alcoholism causes in communities and families; I have lost four members of my family to alcohol-related deaths. It was therefore extremely welcome to see the Government announce the 10-year health plan, but the plan must go further on alcohol-related diseases and cancers.

Although measures such as new standards for alcohol labelling and supporting the growth of low and non-alcohol sectors are welcome, we should be far more ambitious. We have not had a dedicated alcohol strategy since 2012. The Government should rectify that as part of the 10-year health plan. However, there are immediate measures that the Government can take, for example, ensuring that new alcohol labelling includes an explicit warning about the link between alcohol and cancer; strengthening marketing restrictions by classifying alcohol as an unhealthy product; and acknowledging the detrimental impact of the industry’s involvement in policy development.

It is clear that our current policy is woefully inadequate. Alcohol-related deaths are at an all-time high. We cannot be satisfied with our approach until the numbers begin to fall. We cannot afford to miss opportunities. Announcements such as the 10-year health plan must include a clear strategy to reduce alcohol-related deaths in future. That means introducing measures such as those I mentioned in my speech, but it also means addressing the root causes of poverty and under-investment.

10:15

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I very much appreciate the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) securing this important debate.

We vets often treat liver disease and cancers, but in animals they are rarely caused by excess intake of alcohol. On the few occasions that we use alcohol in veterinary medicine, it is therapeutic. It is quite common for cats to drink antifreeze, which causes kidney damage, and one way of treating that is to hook them up to a drip with vodka, because it is the antidote to antifreeze. That has probably saved the lives of thousands of cats in the UK over the last few years.

I remember that when I was a student there was a particularly vicious boar that everyone was too scared to go anywhere near, but its feet needed trimming. The only way to get anywhere near it was to give it a huge amount of beer. It would get completely drunk and pass out, and then we could safely go and trim its feet. We had to repeat that performance every six months. That is my own experience of using alcohol in veterinary medicine.

The point of this debate—highlighting the link between alcohol and cancer—has been made repeatedly by other Members. Most people are aware that alcohol causes liver problems, but so many people are not aware of the proven link between alcohol intake and cancer. We have listed at least seven related cancers, including breast, bowel and liver cancer. It does not matter whether the alcohol consumed is beer, wine or spirits; the risk it poses is real and increases with consumption.

The mechanisms are well understood. We know that alcohol gets metabolised into toxic chemicals. It damages DNA and has effects on other hormones in the body that increase cell division. These are well-evidenced biological processes. Indeed, the British Journal of Cancer has found that between 2% and 4% of cancer cases in the UK are attributable to alcohol, which means that thousands of lives are affected every year, many of which could be saved through better public health, education and early intervention.

I pay tribute to Professor Julia Sinclair, who lives in Winchester and works at the University of Southampton. She is a professor of addiction psychiatry and focuses very much on alcohol. I have worked closely with her, even before I was elected. We have had roundtables here in Parliament, including with the British Liver Trust; its headquarters are in Winchester, so I have worked closely with it. I have also spoken on panels at the Royal College of Physicians.

All those experts discussed alcohol and alcohol-related harms. There is not only a human cost but an economic cost. Alcohol-related harms cost the NHS £4.91 billion every year, and that is before we even consider the wider cost to families, employers and society. Other hon. Members pointed out that the misery and loneliness of the pandemic resulted in people increasing their alcohol intake, and that intake has not really decreased since that time. That has resulted in alcohol-related deaths increasing by 42% since 2019, which means that over 10,000 lives were lost in 2023 alone.

Along with the Medical Council on Alcohol, the Liberal Democrats are calling for a comprehensive national alcohol strategy that is properly funded, cross-departmental and informed by the latest evidence and public health expertise. Part of that strategy must be rebuilding and reintegrating alcohol treatment services, ensuring that addiction support is fully joined up with mental and physical healthcare.

We have heard from so many doctors who talk about people being admitted to hospital for their physical symptoms to be treated, but once they have been detoxed, essentially, they are discharged without any automatic mental health support. Of course, that means that they eventually come back in for further physical treatment. They can be treated as many times as they need to be when they get to a physical crisis-point, but we are never treating the underlying mental health issue that needs to be addressed.

We need to restore the public health grant so that social services can run alcohol cessation and early intervention programmes. We also need to invest in digital tools, including a kitemark for apps that are clinically proven to help people reduce their alcohol intake and live healthier lives.

We must recognise the wider context in which alcohol causes harm. Alcohol misuse does not happen in isolation; it is often closely linked to trauma, poor mental health, loneliness and disadvantage. Crucially, alcohol harm is not equally distributed. As the Medical Council on Alcohol’s research shows, rates of alcohol-related cancer, liver disease and premature death are highest in the most deprived communities. This is a matter of health inequality, and it should shame us that we have allowed those disparities to grow.

I was on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill Committee for several weeks. Fascinatingly, Professor Whitty told the Committee that the Bill was not only the single biggest piece of public health legislation in about 30 years, but probably the most impactful piece of legislation in addressing inequalities, because health inequalities between the wealthiest and most deprived postcodes are so large partly because of smoking rates—and, we also know, partly because of patterns of alcohol drinking.

We must see alcohol harm and alcohol-related cancer as preventable public health issues. That means that we need the political will to expand social prescribing to reduce isolation, deliver mental health MOTs at key life stages, open mental health walk-in hubs in every community, and legislate for a cancer survival Act to ensure that patients start treatment promptly and that research is funded for cancers with the poorest outcomes.

Alcohol is a legal product, but it is not harmless. People have the right to know the risks and get support when they need it. We need to stop treating alcohol-related cancer as an inconvenient truth and recognise this as a crisis of alcoholism.

10:21

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) on securing the debate, and declare an interest as an NHS consultant paediatrician.

We have a complex relationship with alcohol. On the one hand, it is a very social drug that is associated with celebration, religious observance in some cases, and small amounts of alcohol with meals. In other respects, it is an antisocial drug that is associated with violent crime, domestic abuse—particularly in cases of binge drinking—and, in some cases, addiction and dependency.

Does alcohol cause or increase the risk of cancer? Yes. We know it is metabolised into acetaldehyde, which can damage our DNA and reduce our cells’ ability to repair themselves. Alcohol changes chemical signals, particularly of oestrogen and insulin, causing increased cell division, and it increases the ability of the mouth to absorb harmful chemicals. It is therefore associated with seven types of cancer: breast, bowel, mouth, larynx, pharynx, oesophagus and liver.

Risk also increases with consumption: small amounts of alcohol are not as risk-provoking as very large amounts. The medical officers recommend a limit of 14 units of alcohol per week, shared over three-plus days a week, with some drink-free days. One in five people in the UK drink more than that. Risk is dose responsive. Education is important; we heard earlier that only 7% of people know that alcohol is a risk factor for cancer.

I was on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill Committee with the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers). I personally promoted the Bill very strongly, but smoking is different. It is exceptionally addictive and kills two thirds of users if used correctly, whereas alcohol does not have that level of risk for people who use small volumes of alcohol infrequently, and in most cases does not provide the level of addiction that nicotine does.

Life is full of risk. Obesity, processed food, ultraviolet light and infections all cause forms of cancer. Exercise is good for us, but again, it is not without risks to our health. I am not saying that we should not reduce the use of alcohol, but we must understand the risk in relative terms, and ensure that the population are educated about it and can make informed decisions about their lives.

In understanding that risk, evidence is important, so I have some questions for the Minister. What is she doing to improve the evidence that we have on the risks of drinking and the risks related to different levels of consumption? How does she intend to ensure that the public are able to make educated and informed decisions? The “Fit for the future” document published last week talks of labelling coming in on nutrition and calory content. When does she expect that labelling to appear on packets?

Hon. Members have talked about the number of units of alcohol that people drink. Many people do not understand what comprises a unit of alcohol and how to measure it relative to the different types of alcoholic drink. How does the Minister intend to improve understanding of units of alcohol?

I was shocked by the statistic in the “Fit for the future” document that 4% of people drink 30% of alcohol. That is a really shocking statistic, and it is worth repeating: 4% of people drink 30% of the alcohol in this country. There are, to my mind, two issues for the Minister to consider: how the Government can reduce the consumption of alcohol across the board and how they should treat heavy drinkers and dependent alcoholics.

Turning to the latter first, 4% of people drink 30% of alcohol and one in five drinkers drink more than 14 units per week. The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) talked about an alcohol strategy; I would like to know whether the Minister plans to develop one. One of the disappointing things about last week’s long awaited “Fit for the future: 10 Year Health Plan for England” document was that it did not contain the cancer plan, the workforce plan, the dental contract information or the HIV plan, which are all set to be published in due course. Perhaps an alcohol strategy could join them.

The previous Government rolled out alcohol care teams, which were designed to provide the patient and their family with hospital-based community support, as well as data collection and research. It was found that, for every £1 spent on alcohol care teams, £5 was saved. Those teams supported excessive drinkers and focused on those with the greatest need. Can the Minister talk about how she intends to support those with alcohol dependency and high levels of drinking?

Advertising is an interesting one. The newspapers trailed a suggestion that the Government would ban alcohol advertising. That was, perhaps, an informal U-turn, as it was trailed in the papers rather than announced to the House. We know from the evidence that alcohol advertising can influence brand choice, but it does not appear to affect overall alcohol consumption. Could the Minister enlighten the House as to whether that is why she dropped that measure? We need to be careful with the hospitality sector, which we know is reeling from the changes to the minimum wage and taxes such as national insurance contributions. We do not want people to be put out of business at the scale at which that is currently happening.

It is important to note that general alcohol consumption in the UK is steadily declining. Between 2019 and 2023, the alcohol sales volume in the UK declined by nearly 10%. Revenue from alcohol duty is also projected to fall by 5% this year, according to data from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. That shift is particularly observable among younger adults. Since the mid-2000s, there has been a cultural shift. Gen Z, as it is known, is the most teetotal generation in recent memory, and a quarter of 16 to 24-year-olds do not drink at all.

A study produced by KAM and Lucky Saint found that moderation of alcohol has also become a habit for UK adults, with three out of four adults who drink alcohol stating that they have been actively moderating their consumption across 2024. Although raising awareness of the health risks associated with heavy drinking is an important part of the strategy, we must avoid punishing responsible drinkers and damaging the hospitality industry, which is already under significant pressure.

NoLos, no and low-alcohol products, can currently be sold to under-18s. The Government have talked about banning that, which seems sensible to me when it comes to low-alcohol products, but how will the Government define a no-alcohol drink and when do they intend to introduce a ban? There is some evidence that no and low-alcohol beverages displace higher-percentage alcohol drinks, and therefore reduce alcohol consumption. What are the Government planning to do to increase sales of those products?

The previous Government were planning to change an EU directive preventing wine from being described as wine if it did not contain more than a certain percentage of alcohol. I believe that fell due to the general election. Do the Government intend to bring that proposal back?

Personally, I also welcome policies under which the Government plan to define no and low-alcohol products clearly, so that the public can be well informed on what constitutes “low” and “no” alcohol. I had presumed, before reading this, that no alcohol meant no alcohol, but it does not; it means a very low percentage of alcohol. It is important that people are aware of that.

The Government have rightly emphasised the importance of parity between mental and physical health, and socialising and being part of a community are vital components of positive mental wellbeing. Pubs and social venues play a central role in our communities. In a recent survey, 73% of respondents agreed that pubs in the area have helped to combat isolation; 72% that they have a positive impact in the communities; and 81% that they are important in bringing people together.

Ultimately, with more than 80% of the population consuming alcohol within Government guidelines, our focus should be on helping the minority who drink at harmful levels, and on improving decision making and education for those who drink at lower levels. We must work with industry to avoid policies that jeopardise the survival of community spaces, or lead to higher taxes for the majority of people who drink low levels of alcohol responsibly.

10:30

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart, as ever. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) for securing this important debate during Alcohol Awareness Week. The Government recognise that for too long there has been an unwillingness to lead on issues such as alcohol harm. It is unacceptable that alcohol-specific deaths are at the highest rates on record, having increased dramatically during the pandemic.

As my hon. Friend stated, alcohol is a type 1 carcinogen, meaning there is strong evidence that drinking alcohol can cause several types of cancer, as well as contributing to more than 200 other health conditions, including liver disease, high blood pressure, stroke and heart disease. That places an incredible and preventable pressure on our NHS: in England alone, of more than 1 million hospital admissions last year, 103,000 were due to alcohol-related cancers.

Today, we have heard from many colleagues about the variety of issues that alcohol can cause. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) talked about the cost to Government and to society, which I will address later; the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) discussed information and the importance of education; my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) mentioned the real impacts on communities and families in the north-east; my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Bellshill (Frank McNally) talked about how important early intervention is; and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) raised the links to poverty and under-investment.

As for the impacts, alcohol kills. Last year, in England, more than 22,600 deaths were alcohol related, with more than 8,000 entirely due to alcohol—an all-time high, with rates still increasing by 4% each year. The rate of alcohol-related deaths is 1.7 times higher in the most deprived local authorities, meaning that alcohol is a major contributor to the levels of health inequality in this country. Alcohol also kills young—in 2015, in England, an estimated 167,000 years of working life were lost due to alcohol-related deaths. That amounts to about 16% of all working years lost.

The hon. Member for East Londonderry asked about the cost to Government and society. Alcohol harms us massively. The estimated annual cost of alcohol-related harms in England is £27 billion, driven by the impact of alcohol-related illnesses and injuries on NHS services and alcohol’s high contribution to levels of economic inactivity, crime and disorder. Each year, £13 billion is raised in tax revenue from alcohol.

The guideline on alcohol consumption produced by the four nations’ chief medical officers advises that drinking any level of alcohol increases the risk of a range of cancers, including mouth, bowel, stomach, liver and breast cancers, and that the risk of harm increases with the frequency and quantity of alcohol consumed. In 2020, alcohol was estimated to have caused about 17,000 new cases of cancer in the UK. One study estimated that between 2015 and 2035 there would be 135,000 cancer deaths due to alcohol in England. In terms of cancer risk, drinking a bottle of wine is the equivalent of smoking five cigarettes for a man, and 10 cigarettes for a woman.

We also cannot overlook the impact that being exposed to multiple risk factors has in increasing the risk of developing certain conditions. For instance, the risk of developing head and neck cancer is 3.8 times higher among those who drink and smoke than those who partake in only one of those behaviours. That is why a holistic approach is needed to our health, with people supported to address all risk factors for poor health together.

We are continuing to invest in local alcohol treatment services to make sure that people have access to the treatment they need. While those services are primarily focused on supporting people to become free from alcohol dependence, they are also an important setting for providing health information for people with alcohol dependence, identifying alcohol-related health conditions and ensuring that people can access specialist assessment and care.

In the 12 months to February 2025, nearly 140,000 people were treated for their alcohol needs—9,000 more than in the previous year. In the coming months, the Department of Health and Social Care will publish the first ever UK guidelines on alcohol treatment. The guidelines will include recommendations on healthcare assessments for alcohol-related conditions and will strengthen pathways between specialist alcohol and drug treatment services and the wider healthcare system.

The incidence of liver cancer has increased by 50% over the past decade and is expected to rise further. A large percentage of liver cancer is caused by alcohol-related liver disease, which in its early stages has no outward symptoms. If we can find liver disease by screening at-risk populations, there is an opportunity to halt its progress and monitor for the development of cancer. To identify people at high risk of liver cancer due to liver cirrhosis or advanced fibrosis, the NHS in England has been piloting community liver health checks in 20 areas, and liver primary care case-finding pilots across 12 primary care networks. Those pilot sites have screened nearly 125,000 people, and over 9,000 of them have been enrolled in liver cancer surveillance.

As the Secretary of State has made clear since we came into power, one of the three big shifts that we want to see in the NHS is a shift from treatment to prevention. The complex challenge of cancer prevention will not be solved by a single solution.

[Grahame Morris]

I am listening intently, but I may have missed an important point, so I wonder whether it would bear repeating. The Minister indicated that a treatment framework will be published very shortly. Will that be informed by an alcohol strategy that the Government will also produce? We have not had one since 2012.

[Ashley Dalton]

A number of hon. Members have asked about a national alcohol strategy. We are continuing to work across Government to understand what other measures might be needed to reduce the negative impact of excessive alcohol consumption. I meet regularly with Ministers from across Government to discuss how we take that forward.

The drug and alcohol area of work is led by the Home Office. There are no plans to introduce such a strategy at this stage, but I expect further information on how we will deal with alcohol prevention and cancer in the national cancer plan, which, as I was just about to state, the Government will publish later this year. This plan will build on the progress of the 10-year health plan, which was published last week, and will continue the work to shift from treatment to prevention, including for alcohol-related cancer risks.

We are taking steps now. The 10-year health plan for England includes an important commitment to ensure that health warnings and nutritional information are legally required on alcohol labels. That is a crucial step in supporting people to make healthier choices when it comes to alcohol. There is international support for that approach. The World Health Organisation’s “Global alcohol action plan 2022-2030” recommends that countries should implement labelling requirements to display relevant information to support health protection.

Despite the fact that alcohol is a group 1 carcinogen, alcohol labels are currently required to display far less information than those for food, soft drinks, alcohol-free products or tobacco. We know that voluntary regulation does not lead to consistently good practice in alcohol labelling, so we need to ensure that there is a legal requirement to display certain information on alcohol products. We also know that consumers want more information on alcohol labels: a 2021 survey showed that 75% wanted unit information, 61% wanted calorie information, and 53% wanted sugar content to be displayed. Those results are supported by those of the 2023 alcohol toolkit study, which found that public support for health warning labels was 61.5%, and that 78% supported nutritional information labelling.

There is widespread awareness among people in the UK that smoking causes cancer. That information is important to supporting behavioural change. But public awareness that alcohol is carcinogenic is far too low. In a 2016 study of 2,100 adults, only 13% named cancer as a health risk from hazardous drinking. Another recent international study found that only 15% were aware that alcohol can cause breast cancer.

We will soon share details of our consultation to determine the best ways to get the necessary information to consumers. We welcome the support and input of parliamentarians in taking that important piece of work forward, but let me be absolutely clear: we will consult on how we will implement mandatory labelling, not whether we will do so. This Government are determined to introduce mandatory labelling for alcohol.

We have also discussed various other options available for controlling alcohol consumption. My hon. Friends the Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor), for Easington and for Lancaster and Wyre talked about minimum unit pricing. The Government are acutely aware of the cost of living pressures being felt by families and individuals, and the difficult economic conditions facing the country. Although interventions that affect the price of alcohol have been shown to be effective at directly reducing alcohol harms, the Government have chosen not to pursue policies that could exacerbate economic issues at this time, although we will continue to keep those options under consideration.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is the branch of Government responsible for advertising and marketing. The Advertising Standards Authority is responsible for regulating advertising through codes set by the Committee of Advertising Practice and the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice. Those codes are enforced by the ASA, include specific rules about how alcohol can be advertised, and recognise the social imperative of ensuring that alcohol advertising is responsible.

We will continue to work across Government to consider what other measures might be needed to reduce the negative impact that excessive alcohol consumption has on health, crime and the economy. The Government are committed to shortening the amount of time spent in ill health, and to preventing premature deaths. The commitment to labelling in the 10-year plan is a crucial first step to support people to make healthier choices about alcohol. It is the beginning, not the end. We will continue to work across Government to consider what other measures might be needed to reduce the negative impact of excessive alcohol consumption.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre also talked about public health as a licensing objective. Evidence to support its impact is, at the moment, somewhat limited, but we continue to work with the Home Office to consider how best to use licensing powers to support local leaders to address alcohol-related harms. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Easington for his leadership on this important issue. Officials are considering that report from the APPG on drugs, alcohol and justice. I recently met the Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), who leads on alcohol and drugs policy across Government. I will soon meet Lord Timpson to discuss those areas and their impact on prisons. We are working across Government. I would be happy to meet the APPG, as I have previously agreed. Diary pressures are very high at the moment, but I am confident that we will soon find time to do that.

We have also talked about preventing under-age drinking, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Bellshill. There is a commitment in the 10-year plan to make the sale of alcohol-free drinks also illegal to under-18s, ensuring that no-alcohol and low-alcohol products do not become a gateway to standard-strength alcoholic drinks. On alcohol misuse and mental health support, raised by the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), we totally agree on the importance of mental health support. The Government are committed to recruiting 8,500 new mental health workers, and have already recruited 6,700.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), cheerily reminded us that all activities are risky. She talked of improving the understanding of alcohol dependency. She focused broadly on alcohol use, but did not necessarily mention cancer. To avoid digressing from the debate, I commit to writing to her further on the areas she raised more generally on alcohol policy.

I thank everyone for their contributions to this important debate. We will continue to work across Government to reduce the negative impact that excessive alcohol consumption has on health—including cancer—crime and the economy.

10:46

[Cat Smith]

I thank all hon. Members for making time to take part in the debate. I am disappointed that there are no plans from the Government at this stage for a national alcohol strategy. I urge the Minister to take a message back to the Department that such a strategy would be an important tool for improving health outcomes and reducing cancer diagnoses.

The debate has been specifically about alcohol and cancer and how to prevent that link. Many hon. Members have personal reasons for taking part. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) has been a good friend for 20 years. I know her family well and the impact on them. She is not the only person to come to the debate with a personal motivation to drive down the harm caused by alcohol in our communities.

I welcome what the Minister said about labelling, which is an important first step to reducing alcohol harms. At the moment, alcohol needs to display only alcohol by volume, product volume and allergen information; even the pregnancy warning is optional for the industry to add. Anyone going into a pub or bar in this country today to buy a bottle of beer and a Fruit Shoot, will find that the latter provides more nutritional and health information than the beer, which is unsustainable.

Labelling should be clear that there is a link between alcohol and cancer, because it is easy to play that down. I believe in freedom of choice—I am not trying to restrict anyone’s right to drink alcohol, but that needs to be an informed choice. We should know that there is no safe level of drinking alcohol when it comes to its potential to cause cancer. At the moment, with only 7% of our constituents knowing that fact, they are not able to make that informed choice.

I hope the Government’s actions on labelling that the Minister is taking forward will see that figure of 7% massively increase, so that our constituents will make informed choices about what they put in their bodies. I again thank everyone for making the time this morning to take part in this important debate, and I thank you, Mr Stuart, for chairing it so ably.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered alcohol and cancer.

10:49

Sitting suspended.

Local Government Reform: Cambridgeshire

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they may only make a speech with prior permission from the Member in charge and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered local government reform in Cambridgeshire.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. Following the publication of the English devolution White Paper in December 2024, on 5 February Cambridgeshire and Peterborough’s district councils were invited to develop proposals for the introduction of unitary authorities within the county, expected to come into effect in April 2028. A detailed collective proposal for what the future unitary authorities in Cambridgeshire should look like is to be submitted to the Government by 28 November.

I applied for this debate to outline the sizeable concerns in Huntingdonshire about local government reorganisation. These concerns are potentially echoed across other areas of Cambridgeshire, and I encourage other MPs to whom I have spoken about the proposals also to voice their concerns.

Cambridgeshire residents have been presented with just three options on which to give their opinions. Proposal A is referred to as the north-west, south-east option, with Peterborough, Huntingdonshire and Fenland in the north, and Cambridge, East Cambridgeshire and South Cambridgeshire in the south. Proposal B is the north-south option, with Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire together, and then Peterborough combined with everywhere else—Huntingdonshire, Fenland and East Cambridgeshire. Proposal C is east-west, with Peterborough, East Cambridgeshire and Fenland in the west, and Cambridge, Huntingdonshire and South Cambridgeshire in the east.

These proposals were apparently narrowed down from six options. However, these have not been published, and it is difficult to know, even as an MP, how they were decided and why the possibility of a breakdown by Westminster constituency, county division or district council ward was ruled out. My own Huntingdonshire district council stated that:

“We are taking an evidence-based approach. Inevitably, the different needs and local identities of our areas will have a significant impact on the preference of our own councils, and we must respect that”.

However, what evidence is there? The consultation by each of the district councils appears to be little more than a paper exercise. How are residents expected to feed back an informed decision regarding a once-in-a-generation opportunity to shape the future of local government without any actual information on what the impact of expressing their preference might mean? Martin Hassall, the independent councillor for Buckden, Diddington and Southoe, said:

“The proposals are complex, poorly communicated, and offer little reassurance that the end result will mean better services or genuine value for money.”

In a written answer, the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), said:

“We expect there to be wide engagement with local partners and stakeholders, residents, workforce and their representatives, and businesses on a proposal.”

But how can Cambridgeshire’s district councils credibly be expected to develop a robust proposal without realistically understanding the preferences of their residents? The only feedback prior to the final proposal being submitted is an engagement survey that bears little resemblance to the three options that have been put forward. They are in effect situating the estimate, having already decided one of three answers, and will tailor the results to fit.

How will the Government ensure that any decision reflects the wants and needs of local residents? Moreover, if the Government overrule the proposals submitted by the council, upon which evidence will they ensure that the voices of local people are considered?

The Huntingdonshire district council website says:

“All proposals will be assessed against all the criteria in the invitation. Decisions on the most appropriate option for each area will be judgements in the round, having regard to the statutory guidance and the available evidence. That evidence will include information provided by the councils as part of their proposals, representations received during the statutory consultation, and other relevant information available”.

A written answer to me on Friday said:

“a consultation could be launched in early 2026, likely closing at some point after the May local elections”.

Could the Minister clarify whether impacted residents across Cambridgeshire will have their say? If so, is the late May date the first opportunity they will have? If the statutory consultation is not until after next year’s local elections, can we assume that district council elections in Huntingdonshire will definitely go ahead?

The Government are in the process of botching this local government reorganisation with their hands-off approach. Every question to the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution has so far been met with a deflection to the relevant local authority, but this has left a situation where local authorities seem unsure of the detail, local residents have endless unanswered questions, and we are on the cusp of making enormous changes that will have a lasting impact on people’s lives, their prospects and their quality of life, all because nobody had bothered to think through the detail.

In March, a joint statement from council leaders across Cambridgeshire stated:

“We look forward to further discussions with each other and with government, and when the time is right, with residents, Members of Parliament and our partners”.

When will Members of Parliament be engaged on the initial proposal? I have not been engaged thus far, and I do not believe any of Cambridgeshire’s other MPs have been officially engaged either. What is the plan? I appreciate that is more of a rhetorical question than one for the Minister, but the point still stands. I am sure this debate will be watched by council leaders, and some of my questions are more for their benefit.

Last week, I wrote to each councillor in my Huntingdon constituency to seek their input on the potential impact of the changes, and hon. Members will hear a selection of quotes peppered throughout my speech. I was very pleased to receive a range of responses from across the political spectrum, with Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat and independent councillors highlighting their concerns. Councillor Nathan Hunt, Liberal Democrat, Huntingdon East ward, said:

“throughout the process, communication from central government seems to have lacked required detail and has generally been poor”.

It is highly notable that, despite our political differences, the responses highlighted the same broad concerns: a rushed process, short timelines, lack of rigour, unclear criteria, poor communication, inadequate information, analysis and evidence, and no clear identification of what is best for residents.

The engagement survey currently in flight, led by East Cambridgeshire district council as communications lead, is not clearly signposted or easy to locate. It will be interesting to see once it closes whether there has been significant uptake. There has been no indication from Huntingdonshire district council of whether there is a minimum viable response rate. If sufficient responses are not received, will they be considered at all? Will that extend to the whole of Cambridgeshire and to other district councils? Prior to the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority mayoral election in May, a booklet was sent to every household, so why has a similar effort not been made to engage residents with a posted survey? Most people have no idea that the local government reorganisation is happening, and that is as much the fault of the Government as of the local authority.

The engagement survey closes on Sunday 20 July, so in less than two weeks, residents in my constituency and across Cambridgeshire will have had what initially appears to be their only opportunity to influence the process, and it will have passed most of them by. The three shortlisted options were sadly published only as maps and with no additional information, and all local authorities published the same survey at the same time. To what extent will the Government take into account the results of the engagement survey from residents in each district council area? To what extent will the Government take into account the submission from the district councils regarding the preferred option? If the Government decide that they simply do not like the unitary structure proposed by the Cambridgeshire district councils, which criteria will they use to override them and impose their own solution?

It is inconceivable that residents are being asked to make a decision on the future structure of Cambridgeshire without any financial information. No information is publicly available that compares the finances of councils, and we have seen no information on council income, expenditure, debt or council tax.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

My neighbour and hon. Friend is making an extremely effective case illustrating just how cosmetic the consultation is. His councillors’ concerns are shared by councillors in Fenland. Specifically, there is no detail on the different assets of local authorities, and no detail on key services that matter hugely. In Fenland, for example, we have free car parking. It is strongly valued by residents, but there is no indication of how that would be protected. There is no alignment across the strategies. The council tax relating to Fenland has been frozen for the last seven years, but the approach in Peterborough has been very different. This lack of detail makes the consultation deeply flawed, and my hon. Friend is right to set out his concerns.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend. I will come on to the division of assets. There is such a staggering lack of detail that I do not know how residents can possibly hope to make a good decision based on all the information.

To gain an insight into the current finances, I have had to turn to the House of Commons Library, a resource to which the vast majority of people do not have access. Huntingdonshire, which my Huntingdon seat sits completely within, is the second largest non-metropolitan district council in the country. Last year, it had a negligible notional overspend, with a £2.175 million contribution to general reserves. It also has £35 million in the earmarked general fund reserves. To our north, Fenland has a growing budget shortfall from an overspend of £350,000 last year to a projected £1.4 million this year, rising to over £4.5 million by 2029-30. Nearby Peterborough has a projected budget gap of £4.1 million next year and £7.3 million the following year.

It is unacceptable that my constituents should have to bail out the spiralling debts of other councils. This would see revenue raised in Huntingdonshire being largely spent elsewhere. Cambridgeshire residents should be aware of the projected budgetary overspend of these councils before they are asked to express a preference on how they would like the new unitary authority to be structured. It is frankly irresponsible for councils to gloss over the financial implications of this decision without full transparency.

From the look of the finances as they stand, Huntingdonshire could well find itself propping up financially unviable unitary authorities, meaning that the work we have done and are doing to make Huntingdonshire a fantastic place to live and work may be undone, with revenue raised here used to pay for services elsewhere. Councillor Ian Gardener, Conservative, Alconbury and Kimbolton division, said:

“The major concern for me is that HDC could lose control of its well managed financial reserves, which could be used to mitigate the losses of less well run councils in the newly formed unitary authorities. Which would be to the detriment of HDC residents.”

Councillor Simon Bywater, Conservative, Sawtry and Stilton division, said:

“There is a real risk that HDC’s reserves could be pooled and redirected…forcing them to subsidise areas that may not have shown the same level of financial responsibility.”

What steps do the Government plan to take to implement a pre-nup so that current districts are protected? If they choose not to do so, we are likely to see a spending splurge, lest we have to spend money elsewhere after the reorganisation. It is imperative that it is clearly explained to residents how the different combinations of district councils will look from a financial perspective. How will the assets and liabilities of Cambridgeshire county council be disaggregated? On the one hand, a lot of the assets are held in South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge city, including development opportunities; on the other hand, there is circa £450 million-worth of damage on Fenland’s roads. Are assets and liabilities to be shared equally or kept in their geographical location?

I am keen to hear from the Minister on whether the Government will write off any of the debt currently held by district councils or the county council. What work have the Government done to look at how that will be distributed? Can he address my concern that this is being hidden from the general public, and that it should be made statutory that finances, particularly inherited debt, be published? To that end, what transitional support will be available to new unitaries that inherit significant debt, or are projected to inherit significant debt, between the decision this year and the implementation in 2028 and beyond?

Furthermore, a new funding system will be implemented in the 2026-27 financial year, with fundamental changes in the needs distribution, council tax equalisation and, crucially, a business rates baseline reset. It is therefore essential to model the proposed options on these forthcoming changes in order to understand how they will impact each unitary in 2028. Initial independent modelling suggests that Cambridge city council may lose 25% of total resources and South Cambridgeshire district council 35%—combined losses of £18 million due to the baseline reset.

That illustrates just how important a published impact assessment will be. To date, no impact assessment has been published. Cambridgeshire residents have no idea how local services will be impacted, for better or worse. Given that the issue is regularly raised by constituents in my mailbag, it is difficult to see how councils could fail to engage with their MPs as key stakeholders. We have no idea how the differing combinations of district and county council wards and divisions will be affected.

How will the new unitary authority boundaries affect school places? Will parents suddenly find themselves outside the catchment areas for their desired schools? Will a school on the other side of the unitary boundary suddenly no longer be an option? How will special educational needs and disabilities provision work? Will the two new unitaries be resourced adequately to enable the timely provision of education, health and care plans? Cambridgeshire currently has a terrible reputation for meeting the statutory timeframe.

Social care is a key factor and consideration for any new unitary authority. Cambridgeshire as a whole is lucky in that it has lower social care needs than many other areas of the country. However, given how other formulae work against Cambridgeshire, owing to the area’s population growth outstripping the outdated modelling for these formulae—often by 10 to 20 years, when we look at the Carr-Hill formula, fire and rescue service funding formula or police allocation formula—the impact of social care costs on Cambridgeshire should not be underestimated, even if the relative needs formula looks more favourable. With regard to the proposed options, what consideration will district councils be obligated to give to service scale versus financial viability?

From a healthcare perspective, we have already seen that Cambridge and Peterborough integrated care board is set to merge with Bedfordshire, Luton and Milton Keynes ICB and Hertfordshire ICB. The 10-year health plan, announced only last week, makes it clear on page 13 that, under the proposals for a new operating model, the Government

“will streamline how local government and the NHS work together and make ICBs coterminous with strategic authorities by the end of the plan”.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Part of the Government’s plan for local government reform is to align the ICBs with new mayoralties, as he just mentioned. Does he share my concern that the plan to merge Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICB with Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Milton Keynes, despite there being no plans for a mayoralty to cover that area, is a complete waste of time and money that could be better spent fixing local healthcare gaps and patient care?

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I wholeheartedly agree. We saw that only last week, when the 10-year health plan was rolled out. The Government would have known full well that this contradicted their previous stance. How does the Government’s merging three ICBs together to make one of the largest in the country chime with the need to reorganise those same ICBs to reflect the 10-year health plan? Can the Minister confirm what the future of the new mega-ICB that includes Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICB will be under local government reorganisation? Currently, this is completely contradictory.

Analysis of the proposed Greater Cambridge unitary of Cambridge city and South Cambridgeshire has shown that it would have a high share of total relative needs formula from environmental, protective and cultural services. Greater Cambridge would have the highest total share after the City of London, and it would be ahead of Westminster. The same analysis shows that the balance of service in any unitary containing Cambridge city would be very focused on non-demand-led services, and thus there would be a greater share of service delivery based on resident services and services for visitors and commuters.

Huntingdonshire district council states on its website that the new unitary authority should have a population of around 500,000, though that has since been confirmed by the Minister as a “guiding principle”, not a target:

“We understand the need for flexibility, especially given our ambition to build out devolution and take account of housing growth”.

Given the proposed housing growth across Huntingdonshire, it is vital that the council does not max out the population size.

Huntingdonshire’s projected growth shows that it will be one of the fastest-growing regions in the fastest-growing county, but with several parts of Cambridgeshire expected to grow in the near term, with an increasing tax base and business rates, what modelling have the district councils conducted to ensure that the proposals put to the general public are balanced? The Government have suggested that population size is the main measure of sustainability for new unitaries, but to what extent has the projected growth been factored into those current proposals, particularly on the question of whether two or three unitaries would be preferable within Cambridgeshire? Even if the option were taken for three smaller unitaries, each between 275,000 and 300,000 people, what assessment has been conducted to ascertain the population size of each unitary in 2028, when they would actually come into effect? Furthermore, what would their size be once we see some of the projected growth? We could easily see the new smaller unitaries approach the 350,000 minimum size quite quickly.

Between 2021 and 2041, the Greater Cambridge unitary is projected to grow from 318,000 to 381,000. We could potentially see comparative growth across other parts of Cambridgeshire, where development continues at pace. In Huntingdon alone, we will see another 4,000 houses built at Alconbury Weald, with no commitment from the Government regarding a new east coast main line station at Alconbury Weald—a request I have made multiple times. I have discussed that with the Transport Secretary and asked for the current status of the plans from Network Rail, sadly to no avail. We will likely see up to 4,500 homes at RAF Wyton, now that the surplus Ministry of Defence land there has been designated as an MOD Trailblazer site. Between the two, we also have potential development at Hungary Hall. In excess of 10,000 homes in the area potentially means 20,000 to 40,000 additional people over the next 10 to 20 years. Coupled with the new defence technology cluster nearby, the travel to work areas will likely change dramatically. Going forward, we will potentially see Huntingdon as a centre of employment rather than a dormitory town for Peterborough, Cambridge or even London.

In 2032, we should theoretically be due a constituency boundary review. We will then see further disruption as constituency boundaries straddle new unitary boundaries, meaning yet more burdensome administrative upheaval, potentially leaving residents confused about who is representing them. Can the Minister confirm the smallest size of unitary that the Government will accept? To what extent will the Government include projected growth in their decision-making process, and over what period? In the event that current and/or projected growth figures do not meet the threshold, to what extent will a sound business case outlining the financial viability of the unitary take precedence?

There is much to cover on the various pitfalls of LGR—too much to cover today, arguably. There are still significant questions about how new unitaries will affect travel to work from one extreme to another, for those whose work takes them to Cambridge or Peterborough. There are questions about how unitary boundaries will impact school places and catchment areas for pupils close to the boundaries, how the availability of social housing will be impacted by different combinations of districts, with some owning their social housing stock and others not, and how South Cambridgeshire district council’s ridiculous new four-day week for five days’ pay will translate to the new unitary. Will the new unitary be a four-day week, or will those now on four-day week contracts be mandated to work five days? Will the whole thing be ripped up because SCDC will not technically exist any more?

Brett Mickleburgh, Liberal Democrat councillor for Godmanchester and Hemingford Abbots ward, has raised concerns that,

“a unitary authority will have huge seats/divisions with a single councillor struggling under an unreasonable case workload—compounded if they have a cabinet role. I fear the members allowance will only be sufficient to allow those retired, of independent wealth or aspiring career politicians to take office”.

Brett makes an important point. To what extent have the Government considered that? How big will each unitary council seat be? How many councillors will there be? How will the seats be divided and boundaries drawn? Will they be bigger or smaller than the county divisions? Will there be one, two or three councillors per area now that district and county council functions will be merged? Will we have district council elections in 2026? If we do not get an answer until the end of the year, we are doing a disservice to the candidates, who could have had months’ more time in which to campaign.

I could go on. To roll out LGR with such little detail and so few answers does not augur well. It gives me and other Cambridgeshire MPs and councillors little confidence that this will be a smooth transition to larger councils that everybody feels is an improvement on the current structure.

I will leave the last word to one of our local councillors, and my main opponent in last year’s general election, Labour and Co-operative Councillor Alex Bulat for St Ives South and Needingworth division:

“Among all these voices, Huntingdonshire local voices seem sidelined at best, if not ignored at worst.”

11:19

[The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)]

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) on securing this debate on local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire. His speech was very thoughtful. He covered quite a lot of ground, including ICB boundaries, devolution and the fair funding review, so it might not be possible to get through all of it. However, I am sure that we will communicate further—maybe in writing—as a follow-up on matters that we cannot cover here today.

This debate is an opportunity to look ahead to what the future holds for the hon. Member’s constituency, and indeed for local government across England. The Government are committed to resetting the relationship with local government, empowering local leaders to make the right decisions for their communities. We will work together to grow an inclusive economy, to reform public services and to secure better outcomes for local people.

As the Deputy Prime Minister said in her speech at the Local Government Association conference last week, true reform of local government means taking a long, serious look at the plumbing of local government, and we will not shy away from shifting local government on to a stronger footing. It is clear that the two-tier system of local government just does not work. We have heard from many councils that unitarisation or council mergers can help to strengthen local leadership, improve local services, save taxpayers money and improve local accountability.

Our plans for reorganisation will create structures that are simpler, more efficient and clearer to the public that local government is there to serve. This means that residents can access good public services without paying, as they do today, the two-tier premium. We must take the brilliant leadership being shown by district and county councillors across the country, and move it into local government structures that are simpler and more sustainable.

Local government reorganisation is already well under way. In March, we received interim plans for the 21 counties in the two-tier system that will undergo reorganisation. We have provided feedback to all areas as they develop their own proposals. Councils in Cambridgeshire and neighbouring Peterborough have a deadline of 28 November for final proposals to be submitted to Government. After that date, the Government will consult on selected proposals, before making a final decision on which proposals to implement. The fastest possible timetable has elections to new authorities in May 2027 and the new authorities will then go live in April 2028.

I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate that it would be inappropriate for me to comment now on the specific boundaries that he mentioned or the proposals that have been developed at a local level, because that would run the risk of pre-empting decisions that are being made later in the statutory process. However, I can give clarity on some of the specific points that he raised.

First, the consultation that is taking place at local level by the councils as they develop their proposals ahead of submission to Government is important. Many councils are conducting such consultations. To be clear, such consultation does not replace the statutory consultation that the Government will conduct with the public in those areas that are affected, to ensure that we can gauge the public view on the range of proposals that are viable and meet the criteria.

On the question of whether elections will take place, which I know is an issue affecting many district councils, there is no intention, as things stand, to cancel or postpone any of the 26 programmed elections.

I suppose there is a challenge, and perhaps even a tension, about the degree to which Government here in Westminster should dictate to local areas across 21 counties—covering a third of the population of England—what is right for their area. However, we have said that we will reset the relationship, and that we trust local people to know their areas better. So, we want local councils and councillors to lead local government reorganisation in their area.

Of course we have a statutory role, and we will make sure that the criteria are adhered to and the consultation takes place. Surely, however, the hon. Member will agree that it is for local people, who know their area better than people outside it, to determine what type of councils, in terms of their size and coverage, are right for their area. That should not be determined centrally.

[Steve Barclay]

If it is the Minister’s argument, as he has just set out, that it is not for Government to dictate the territory that would be covered, why do two different Government Departments appear to be dictating two different things? On ICBs, there is one geography, and then from his Department there are three options that cover a different alignment.

I will just take the example of transport. In Cambridge, there is the Greater Cambridge Partnership, which covers transport. Also in Cambridge, there is the metro Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, who covers transport, too. Cambridge city council and South Cambridgeshire district council also cover transport. The Oxford to Cambridge authority is looking at the rail link between the two. There are so many different bodies dealing with transport into Cambridge. We should avoid that situation for health, and make sure that health organisation aligns with local authorities.

[Jim McMahon]

I think we can agree on that, which is why the White Paper published in December said that we need to reconcile things now and have a much simpler system of regional government in this country. The truth is that because it has been so fluid—some might say ad hoc—it has been allowed to develop in different ways in different parts of the country where there are overlapping boundaries when it comes to transport, the economy, the health service and local government. It does not make sense and makes it difficult for local people to know who to hold to account politically for decisions made on their behalf.

The White Paper is clear that we want to see boundaries aligned with ICBs and other public services. There is a role for local government in reorganisation. New unitary authorities will be created where workforce transfers take place, but there is no reason why authorities cannot work in partnership. There is no reorganisation taking place in Greater Manchester, for example, but the local authorities in Greater Manchester are today working on building a better model for children’s residential care because they recognise that across the 10 councils they can provide a better service at a better cost with better outcomes. So we encourage partnerships to align across boundaries, and over time that will develop.

We recognise that a lot of boundaries across England have never quite made sense; they have always overlapped and been a bit disjointed, but we are starting from the founding principle that alignment makes sense. We should be careful, though, not to conflate. I find that quite a lot of conversations in Parliament conflate or amalgamate the conversations about mayoral devolution and local reorganisation. They have a relationship, of course, but they are quite separate processes.

On reorganisation, it is important that local people and local councillors are given the freedom and flexibility to do what is right for their area and put their best foot forward to make a submission to the Government. We will then consult on the proposals that meet the criteria in good faith. We will listen to what local people say, and that will be taken into account. There are a range of factors that we need to consider, which I will come on to shortly, but I think it is the right approach. This is not the Government letting go. We have defined the criteria in this round of local government reorganisation in far more detail than any other round of reorganisation in the last 20 years, because we know how significant it is to that reorganisation’s covering 21 counties. But within those criteria and that process we have to allow for local areas to determine what is right for their area in partnership with local people. That brings me to another point.

The hon. Member for Huntingdon mentioned how disconnected Members of Parliament feel from the process. In every consultation and communication that we have had in webinars, written confirmations and statements to Parliament, we have been absolutely clear—this is a minimum expectation—that when local authorities, particularly lead authorities, are developing proposals, going out to consultation, firming up their evidence base, and testing founding principles themselves, it is a minimum expectation that Members of Parliament will be part of that conversation. It is not acceptable, regardless of political affiliation at a local or national level, for MPs who have been democratically elected, and of course have an interest, not to be part of those conversations. I am happy to put that on the record, and to follow up with local authorities that Members of Parliament should be included. That does not mean that Members of Parliament will have the ability to prevent a submission. A local authority has to follow the statutory process. There could be points where there is disagreement, but at the very start they should at least be in good faith and discussions should take place. We extend that, by the way, to police and crime commissioners and other interested parties at a local level, too.

On the criteria that the hon. Member for Huntingdon mentioned, in the invitation that went out to local authorities on 5 February we set out the statutory guidance to support councils informing their submissions. The first was on population size. We said that as a founding principle 500,000 was where we wanted councils to start from, but it is clear that some have gone lower than that. If it is right for their area, they can make the best case in that context. Some have gone higher, and we want to allow that flexibility in the system.

On the point that the hon. Member mentioned about population size and population forecasts, it is for the local area to determine what their own housing growth forecasts are. If they want to take that into account as part of their submission, we would be open to that. I say that only because different areas are at different points in the process. Some have local plans, for instance, and some do not have local plans, but efficiency and financial sustainability, local public service delivery, community engagement and devolution should be supported, too. We are taking a partnership approach.

Of course we shall give guidance, and we have set that out clearly. We have been clear about what the Government’s role is and what the local authority’s role is. We believe that is the right thing to do. Ultimately it leads us to sustainable public services that are there to serve the public, who we are all here to serve.

Question put and agreed to.

11:29

Sitting suspended.

Generative Artificial Intelligence: Schools

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Jeremy Wright in the Chair]

14:30

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the use of generative artificial intelligence in schools.

It is a great pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. You will not be presiding over a heated political debate this afternoon, and I hope this is a good opportunity to openly discuss the enormous change that is upon us. Throughout the education world, a lot of thinking is being done about artificial intelligence and its implications. Most of that thinking is being done by teachers, and I hope we will contribute to some of the wider system and policy questions today.

In a November 2024 omnibus survey, half of teachers said they had already used generative AI in their role; about a quarter said they had no plans to; and the rest either planned to or did not yet know. The most common uses of generative AI are creating resources, planning lessons and communicating with parents.

In the same survey, 6% of teachers said that pupils were permitted to use AI in the work they are set. It is hard to pinpoint an exact number, but it is fairly safe to say that the proportion of pupils actually using AI to some degree in their work is rather more than 6%. The survey data that we have, incomplete as it is, suggests that somewhere between one in three and three in four children are using AI to some degree, with some frequency, in their homework.

In this rapidly changing world, I commend the Department for Education for its guidance update in January and the materials that came out on 10 June, made by the Chiltern Learning Trust and the Chartered College of Teaching. Those materials are easily accessible, but that does not mean that masses of people have seen them. This remains an area in which a lot of communicating remains to be done.

The DFE guidance talks about balancing the safety considerations of AI with the opportunities. Those are definitely two considerations, but they are not the only considerations, nor are they the most obvious. We always have to remember that at whatever pace we work at in this place, or that Whitehall works at, kids will work at about six times that pace.

The four areas I will briefly cover today are two areas of opportunity and two areas of risk, where we need some caution. The areas of opportunity are workload and enhancing learning, particularly for children with special educational needs. The areas of risk are the need for discerning and careful use of generative AI by pupils and, finally, the impact on homework, assessment and exams.

Workload is a big issue for teachers. Historically, along with pupil behaviour, it has often been the No. 1 issue in teacher retention. In a 2019 survey, it was encouraging to see that the reported workload had reduced by about five hours a week, or an hour a day. However, workload remains a stubborn issue, and the biggest contributors have been planning and preparation, marking, and data entry and analysis. There is also communicating with parents, dealing with behaviour issues and so on, but those first three all lend themselves to artificial intelligence.

In particular, the creation of teaching materials seems to be an enormous area of opportunity. Too many teachers spend their Sunday evenings at home, trawling the internet for resources to use during the working week, when much of that work could be done for them. I commend Oak National Academy for its work on the AI learning assistant.

As the Education Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), discussed just this morning, the national curriculum is, of course, a framework. It is not a precise set of things that children will learn, because we need diversity in provision. We therefore need to think about how AI can support that diversity. I hope the Minister will give us an update on the content store announcement of August 2024.

AI has plenty of other potential uses, such as for timetabling, for letters and emails home—although my special request would be that we do not add to the volume of communications that have to be consumed—and for report writing. But we need a clear code of practice, because for the trust of parents, and indeed of pupils, there needs to be clarity about when and in what ways generative AI has been used. Care will still be needed. How does a teacher tell children that they must write their own work, if that teacher is generating text through a machine?

The second area of opportunity is in supporting learning. There is clearly a lot of potential for learning personalisation, especially for certain types of special educational need, alongside the role of assistive and adaptive technology. For some subjects, AI will also be useful for dynamic assessment. But schools will have the same issue with AI as with all educational technology, which is that they generally do not have much idea which bits of it are any good. There are both great products and pretty low-grade products, and discerning one from the other is notoriously difficult. As with edtech in general, but even more so with AI, product development cycles do not lend themselves to randomised controlled trials to try to establish what is good. I suggest that schools require an extension of the principle established with the LendED product, which is made with the British Educational Suppliers Association: a sort of forum where teachers can see these products, distil the good and bad, and crucially get recommendations from other schools and teachers, because teachers tend to trust teachers.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

With the input of biased data, large language models are liable to produce inappropriate, biased or factually incorrect outputs. Does the right hon. Member agree that if generative AI is to be rolled out to schools, actions such as introducing statutory regulations must be taken to limit any bias or misinformation taught to children and young people?

[Damian Hinds]

Funnily enough, I agree with the hon. Member, though not necessarily about statutory requirements. It is certainly true—in fact, he inadvertently leads me on to my next point—that we need to be careful and discerning in using these products. There are many risks, including the safeguarding risks inherent in technology, hallucinations, dud information and, as the hon. Member rightly says, biases.

There are some very direct and sharp risks to children. I am afraid that many misleading, unpleasant and cruel things can be done with AI. They can be done already but, as with so many other things, AI magnifies and turbocharges the problem. Some of those things can be done by adults to children; some of them are done by children to other children. We need to be very aware of those risks, some of which relate to existing practices and policy questions, such as how to deal with intimate image abuse and sexting. The problem further supports the case for a comprehensive school-day phone ban, to take cameras out of schools.

More generally, there is a need for media literacy and general discernment. I am reluctant and nervous to talk about media literacy, and more so about the phrase “critical thinking,” because it is too often conflated with the false dichotomy that occasionally comes up in the educational world: knowledge versus skills. Clearly, we need both. We need both in life, and we need to have developed both in school, but knowledge precedes skills because we can only think with what we know. However, it is really important in this context that children know how AI can make mistakes, and that they come to trust and know to look out for the correct primary sources, and trusted brands—trusted sources—rather than just stuff on the internet.

In the 2019 guidance on teaching online safety in schools, since updated, a fusion of the computing, relationships and citizenship curricula was envisaged. Children would be guided through how to evaluate what they see online, how to recognise techniques used for persuasion, and how to understand confirmation bias, as well as misinformation and disinformation. The new edition of “Keeping Children Safe in Education”, which came out yesterday, lists disinformation and misinformation as safeguarding concerns in their own right for the first time. The online safety guidance also included the importance of learning why people might try to bend the truth on the internet and pretend to be someone they are not. That was a start, but at this technological inflection point, it needs a huge scaling up.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern about some of the dangers of using generative AI in the classroom, particularly around harmful content and activity? I read the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children’s “Viewing Generative AI and children’s safety in the round”, which gave examples of children creating deepfakes of other children in the class.

Does the right hon. Gentleman also share my concerns about children’s privacy and data protection, and the extent to which many of these edtech applications are created with the aim of minimising data protection? I understand he has concerns about regulation, but this seems to be almost entirely unregulated in the classroom. There is certainly a case for, at the very least, regulating data protection, data to third parties and—

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

Order. That was either several interventions or a speech, neither of which is permissible. I urge all participants to keep interventions brief.

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) should not misunderstand me, as I am not against regulation. His points about data protection and privacy are really important, although they are probably too big to fold entirely into this debate. His first group of points and what the NSPCC talks about are the same risks that I am talking about.

There is an even broader point, as there is already a lot of blurring between fact, fiction and opinion online. There are all manner of news sources and influencers, network gaming, virtual reality and augmented reality, the metaverse—the whole concept of reality is a little hazier than it once was. With these machines, which in some cases almost seem to have a personality of their own, there is a danger of yet more blurring.

We all shout at our PCs sometimes. Indeed, adults using AI may start to give human form, which is called anthropomorphism, to the machine they are interacting with—I occasionally try to be polite when I interact with one of these interfaces. Apps such as character.ai take that to another level.

We have to think about the impact on children in their most formative years—on their sense of self, their understanding of the world and their mental wellbeing. That includes the very youngest children, who will be growing up in a world of the internet of things and connected toys. It will be that much more important to draw a line between what is real, what is human, and what is not. In time, when the system has had enough time to think about it—we are not nearly there yet—that may be yet another area for regulation.

Finally, I come to the most immediate risks, around homework, assessments and exams. Colleagues may already have had a conversation in which a teacher has said, “Isn’t it brilliant how much so-and-so has improved? Oh, hang on—have they?” They now cannot be absolutely certain. There are AI detectors, but they are not perfect. They can produce false positives. In other words, they can accuse people of plagiarising using AI when they are not. In any event, there is an arms race between the AI machine and the AI detector machine, which is deeply unsatisfactory. Of course, that is where the teacher’s skill comes in, because there is always classwork to compare. Most importantly, there is always the exam itself, and we need to keep it that way.

The safest way to protect the integrity of exams is for them to be handwritten in exam conditions, with a teacher walking up and down between the desks—not quite for everybody, but for the vast majority of children, except where a special educational need or disability requires another arrangement. There are also subjects, such as art, design and technology and computer science, where it would not be appropriate.

There is already a big increase in access arrangements for exams. A particular type of adjustment, called a centre-delegated arrangement, does not need approval from the exam board, so no data on it is available. One such centre-delegated arrangement is to allow the child to use a keyboard—in the rubric it is called a word processor, which is a delightfully archaic term.

If children are allowed to use a keyboard, spellcheck and AutoText are disabled, to ensure safeguards are in place—but it is still true that most people can type faster than they can write, so there is a disparity in the two formats. The regulations require a school’s special educational needs co-ordinator to decide whether a child is able to use that facility, but they are still quite loose in that they refer to the keyboard being the child’s

“normal way of working at school”.

I would love the Minister to say a word about that. The Department for Education should be clear that, where such arrangements are made, it should be because of a special educational need or disability.

[Afzal Khan]

One concern I am beginning to feel is that, while acknowledging that the technological development is important, an over-reliance on generative AI runs the risk of limiting open-mindedness, independent thinking, literacy and creative skills. Does the right hon. Member agree that we must protect key critical thinking and reasoning skills in children and young people, for their future and ours?

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point lucidly and well, and I think it stands on its own feet.

The bigger issue with more children taking exams on a keyboard rather than on paper is that exam boards would like to move entire exams online for all children. In a sense, that would be better because it would be equal; there would not be any difference in the speed of writing and typing.

Some might ask what is wrong with that, as long as it is the same for everybody, and as long as the internet, spellcheck and autocorrect are disabled. I suggest there would still be multiple types of security risk in having exams done en masse online. There is also a wider problem: if a GCSE is done online, how will students do a mock GCSE? They will do it online. How will someone do a year 9 exam? Hon. Members can see where I am going with this. It cascades further and further down the age range, until eventually people question why they are learning to write with a pen at all. Some are already asking that question.

By the time my child is an adult, people will not even be using a keyboard, but other types of communication and interface, and this will seem very archaic. There are important advantages to learning to write by hand, however. Handwriting and writing are not the same thing. The way someone develops their handwriting, learning the strokes and patterns and how letters join together is an important part of learning the skill of wider writing. There is also plenty of evidence that making marks on a page by hand aids visual memory. Handwriting helps us to understand things because, as we write, we synthesize what we are reading or hearing into our own words. There is even evidence to suggest that people do better in tests and have better recall as a result. Maintaining handwriting is therefore important in its own right, quite apart from maintaining the security and integrity of examinations.

DFE guidance states that teachers should keep up to date with this rapidly changing world. That is a tough ask. Over the months and years ahead, the Department will have to do a lot to provide teachers and school leaders with bite-sized, easily digestible chunks of information to keep them up to date with this rapidly changing area. A recent Ofsted report, on 27 June, said that there was not yet enough evidence to conclude what constitutes a good use of AI in schools, but that one common approach among schools that seemed to be using AI successfully was to have a champion who spreads good practice throughout the school. That seems to me a good approach.

Sarah Hannafin of the National Association of Head Teachers stated:

“The technology should be introduced gradually…to maximise its potential and mitigate the risks.”

That is an important point. Most immediately, I implore the Minister not to allow all exams to go digital en masse, except for certain subjects where that makes sense, and except, of course, for an individual child for whom that is the right thing because of their special educational need or disability.

I contend that there should be no rush to move to online exams. There might be opportunities, lower costs or easier administration involved, but there are certainly also risks, some of which are immediate and some of which would manifest only over time and might take us a long time to spot. If we do move en masse to online exams and away from pen on paper, I promise hon. Members that we would never go back. A cautious approach is what is required.

14:54

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing this important debate.

The use of generative artificial intelligence in education is a critical challenge of our time. As parliamentarians, we bear the responsibility for ensuring that this new technology is harnessed to support teachers and examining bodies and to enhance learning, while safeguarding our children’s intellectual and emotional growth and not undermining the critical skills and values they need for the future.

Although generative AI presents some distinct challenges, it sits within a suite of technology-related issues that have all significantly changed the landscape in which our children are growing up and being educated, including the use of smartphones and other devices and engagement with social media. Every generation of parents and teachers has to support children and young people to navigate something that they did not have to contend with in their own childhood—and so it is for our generation. We must understand the power and potential of AI and other technologies, and we must understand in detail the risks and threats. We must also give our teachers and school leaders, our children and young people the tools they need to harness its potential with good ethical and critical thinking, while safeguarding their wellbeing.

Generative AI holds immense promise across a range of applications in our schools. There are important potential applications in the context of rising teacher workloads, which it is vital to address if we are to improve the recruitment and retention of teachers in our schools; but the use of AI for lesson planning, assessment and marking cannot be a substitute for subject experts who work in person with their students, providing tailored teaching to meet the needs of individuals in the classroom.

It is important that older pupils have a good understanding of the benefits, weaknesses and threats of emerging technologies such as generative AI. At its best, generative AI offers the potential to accurately summarise lengthy and complex technical texts in a way that is easy for a layperson to understand, or to generate computer code to achieve much more than an experienced computer scientist could over a period of months. There are potential applications for children with special educational needs and disabilities, too.

However, the promise of AI comes with potential peril. Over-reliance on generative AI risks eroding children’s critical thinking and independent learning. The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology warns that AI tools, if misused, can reduce students to passive recipients of unreliable, biased and potentially hallucinated pre-generated content, undermining the cognitive struggle essential for deep learning. Studies suggest that excessive dependence on AI for problem solving can weaken analytical skills, as students bypass the iterative process of reasoning and reflection. The ability to assess ideas critically for their origin and value could be fundamentally affected. That is particularly concerning for subjects requiring interpretive or creative thought, where AI’s efficiency may shortcut the development of original ideas. If children lean too heavily on AI, we risk nurturing a generation skilled at consuming information, but less adept at questioning, critiquing or innovating.

Beyond our schools and classrooms, generative AI has potential in aiding and assisting exam boards in the accurate and fair assessment of public examinations and becoming an invaluable tool in our universities and workplaces. However, alongside the potential benefits, we are already seeing significant harms that AI can inflict through the generating of convincing altered deepfake images and their use in the appalling bullying and exploitation of some children and young people.

That concern is amplified within the broader context of screen time. Our predecessor Education Committee’s inquiry into screen time last year revealed a 52% surge in children’s screen use from 2020 to 2022, linked to declines in attention, sleep quality and mental wellbeing. Generative AI, which is often accessed via screens, must be integrated thoughtfully to avoid exacerbating those trends. Vulnerable children, those facing socioeconomic hardship, neurodiversity or mental health challenges, are particularly at risk. The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology briefing on AI and wellbeing notes that those students may benefit most from AI’s accessibility, but they are also most susceptible to its potential harms, such as reduced agency or exposure to inappropriate content.

We are already seeing the profound impact of AI in education, from schools rethinking their approach to homework to universities reverting to traditional in-person exams. Sam Illingworth of Edinburgh Napier University has argued that we need to think about how we can tailor the assessment of students and provide better and more creative support for their learning, and work to that end is ongoing in universities. These shifts may signal that we need a more fundamental re-evaluation of how we design learning and assessment in this new technological era.

What must be done? First and foremost, the Department for Education must provide clear and robust guidance on the ethical use of generative AI in schools. Our predecessor Committee rightly called for urgent legislation to regulate AI, warning that the pace of technological advancement risks outstripping our ability to legislate effectively, with potentially harmful consequences for children. It is imperative that AI developers are held accountable for how children’s data is used, particularly where those children are below the digital age of consent. Indeed, there are strong arguments, which I support, for increasing the digital age of consent from 13 to 16. Safeguards must be put in place to ensure transparency in AI-generated content, prevent over-reliance on automated tools and preserve essential skills such as critical thinking.

Secondly, my Committee has recently heard about the importance of prioritising digital literacy across the board. Teachers, students and parents need training to understand AI’s mechanics, biases and limitations. An informed educator can guide students to use AI as a tool for exploration, not a crutch for answers.

Finally, we must champion the irreplaceable value of human connection. No algorithm can replicate a teacher’s empathy, a student’s curiosity or the spark of collaborative discovery. AI must be used to enhance those relationships, not to supplant them.

The choices we make today will shape the minds of tomorrow. If we fail to balance AI’s potential with its risks, if we fail to regulate appropriately, if we fail to fully understand this technology and the opportunities and risks it presents, we may compromise the critical thinking skills that define an educated society and we may undermine the values that we seek to promote. Let us act decisively to harness generative AI as a servant of learning, not its master.

15:00

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy, and I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for leading the debate.

I have to confess that I do not understand all about AI, but I do understand the need for it and that the technology is changing. Modern society has a new way of doing things, and I am not against the idea of doing that; it may just not be for me. But I do have children, and grandchildren in particular, who are so technically minded at a very young age. The knowledge they have absolutely overwhelms me, as they look to a society in which they want to play their full part.

I was just sitting here thinking about an Adjournment debate in the main Chamber a couple of years ago. Kevin Brennan, now in the House of Lords, gave a speech, and he never let on till the end of it, when he said, “That speech was written by AI.” Kevin was sitting behind me; I said, “Kevin, what do you mean?”, and he told me what he had done. His speech was a normal speech, except for one thing: it did not have the characteristics of Kevin Brennan. Those of us who know him know that Kevin is quite a witty guy, and his humour and other characteristics were not present in that speech. But it was a speech, done by AI, and he did that, not because he was committing himself to doing all his speeches with AI; he did it because he wanted to show the potential of AI. I always remember that. I said to him afterwards, “Kevin, I’ll always be writing my speeches. I’ll never be doing what you’re doing,” but that is just me talking personally.

We are seeing a progression within our schools, which must be used safely and appropriately, so it is great to be here to discuss this. My key issues are the very issues of protection, safeguards and using AI as we can, with the good potential that the right hon. Member referred to, but, at the same time perhaps, with that wee question mark in my mind. To give the Northern Ireland perspective, as I always do, only last month in Northern Ireland—just four weeks ago, to be precise—Ulster University, in conjunction with the Education Authority, launched a study whereby 100 teachers would trial Microsoft Copilot and Google Gemini in the classroom. So, it is part of life—and I suspect it will become a big part as we move forward. The study indicated that teachers themselves reported time management benefits, especially in admin and planning, but they also referred to a strong need for professional and thorough training. In a way, it was perhaps very much a first experience—or maybe not for them all, in all honesty. They outlined that this is something that needs to be done very thoroughly, with great protections and safeguards.

My colleague the Minister of Education in Northern Ireland, Paul Givan MLA, has announced a literacy programme in which 15,000 pupils will use the Amira Learning AI tutor to assess how AI can support literacy training, especially with disadvantaged children and SEND children. This is an area where we can potentially do better, and AI could be the means to ensure that SEND children and disadvantaged children have that opportunity. Again, the potential benefits are there.

Although the prospects of benefiting children with this sound wonderful, and while Northern Ireland very much seems to be taking a giant step in this transition, there are undoubtedly concerns that teachers, parents and, indeed, pupils may have. For example, staff have raised concerns about accessibility for them personally in their job. For teachers from other generations, such as my own, AI is a minefield. I suppose what I am really saying is that we need to be taking small steps, maybe not giant steps, to make sure that the way forward is measured carefully, in the way that I would like it to be. In addition, I am sure parents want reassurance that their children are being taught properly and that a computer program is not their only source of learning. We need to make sure that does not happen and that if children need personal support from a teacher, they are still able to get it. Although AI will undoubtedly take steps forward, the old way of social interaction and being taught by teachers, and classroom assistants for those with special needs, must also be there.

We had a discussion with some American students recently about the use of AI. It was clear that, although AI can prepare a great briefing, it does not give one the knowledge found in reading and in finding pertinent reports. The hard graft of investigation and studying that we do for our speeches is an example. Although AI could give me a speech for this Chamber, it could not give me the secondary knowledge that I have gained in preparing for the debate. AI has a role, but it can never be a stand-alone role.

Many will share concerns similar to mine. We should be proud of the fact that we are able to progress digitally but also safely. The Minister is a good man, and he understands this issue much better than me, but I hope he can understand my concerns about safeguards, protections and the ability for the right information to feed into the process. I seek that assurance from him, especially in relation to educational settings across the United Kingdom.

We are doing some things on AI in education in Northern Ireland through Paul Givan. I know that the Minister talks to Paul Givan on a regular basis, but I think it is important in any debate on any subject that the interaction between the four regions is constructive and positive. I have to say—I am not being disrespectful—that I find the Minister is all here, and I wish to see more engagement with Northern Ireland Ministers from him.

Children need to be equipped for an AI world, but also for the real world. Face-to-face interaction and the need to think outside the scope of a question is simply non-negotiable, and I am pretty sure that the Minister will agree with me on that.

15:07

[Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing this debate. I know he is incredibly passionate and pretty knowledgeable about this subject. I also thank the Government for the AI opportunities action plan.

I appreciate that there is a lot of fear around AI. Did we not learn from “Terminator” 1, 2 or even 3? However, AI does exist, and generative AI is already reshaping education whether we legislate for it or not. It is our duty to ensure that these technologies are used ethically and deployed equitably, and that they enhance the role of educators, not replace them.

We are seeing countries around the world use AI in schools. South Korea is leading the way: 30% of its schools now use AI-powered digital textbooks; AI is already being taught as part of the national curriculum; and it is considering making it a separate subject at all levels. Its goal is to become a global leader in AI talent, and I believe that the UK can learn a great deal from it.

We cannot ignore AI. It is changing how students learn and how we assess them. We need to think carefully about our current exam systems and whether they are still fit for purpose in this new world. Generative AI could be a big part of the answer. It could help teachers by saving them time, tailoring lessons to each student and making them more engaging, especially for students with SEN. That is a massive issue in Swindon. We are seeing a rise in children who have SEN. They need tailored lessons and support, so I really believe that this is something that we should be doing.

Almost half of teachers and most young people are now using these tools. Many teachers say that they help them to create lesson plans and materials and reduce their admin work. I think we can all agree that that is good, but with the opportunity comes responsibility. There are serious concerns around academic integrity and data privacy. I want to highlight the work of the Institute for Ethical AI in Education, which has created a practical framework to help schools and Governments use AI safely and fairly. This is not just about schools, but about holding companies to account. If the product is not ethical, it should not be used in education. AI is still new and evolving, but with careful planning, training and investment we can make sure it becomes a tool for inclusion and creativity. We owe it to our young people to get this right.

15:10

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing this important debate.

AI use in schools has reached a critical juncture. According to Ofcom, 50% of children aged eight to 17 have already used AI tools. The Alan Turing Institute and LEGO report that 60% of teachers actively use generative AI. We have heard many colleagues across the Chamber today reference that. AI is everywhere, whether through explicit choice or integration into Google Workspace, Microsoft 365 Education and countless educational tools. The Government have funded AI development for teachers to speed lesson planning and reduce workloads, positioning AI as central to educational transformation. Yet, as 5Rights highlights, no statutory standards currently govern genAI use in schools.

The Government’s own AI opportunities action plan fails to address children and their rights and development needs, despite encouraging schools to

“move fast and learn things”

when piloting these technologies. With AI’s undeniable rise, the Government really need to address this head on, hence today’s debate is incredibly important.

We have heard across the room today that AI presents genuine opportunities for education. For teachers struggling with budget cuts from the last Conservative Government, AI can ease the burden of lesson planning, marking and administrative tasks. For students, responsible engagement with these technologies prepares them for tomorrow’s world of work. Those who understand technological change and harness AI effectively will thrive in today’s and tomorrow’s economy. They will be prepared for an AI-dominated world where critical thinking and analysis become even more vital.

However, serious concerns are emerging about generative AI’s impact. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology research indicates that

“over-reliance on AI tools could lead to the erosion of teaching, writing and reasoning skills”.

The MIT Media Lab recently released a study that was so urgent, it published it before peer review. The study showed that students using ChatGPT showed dramatically lower brain activity than those writing without AI. Brain scans revealed a 32% drop in cognitive load. After just weeks of use, 83% could not even remember what they had supposedly written. That is really concerning information. We can understand why it was so keen to publish it, despite the fact that it had not yet been peer reviewed.

The voices of concern grow louder, UNESCO warns that AI roll-out is

“outpacing the adaptation of national regulatory frameworks.”

Even industry leaders in the Alan Turing Institute acknowledge we have

“limited evidence on the impact of AI use in education on learners’ development”.

Evidence mounts about the negative effects of an unsafe online world. Research by 5Rights and the London School of Economics found that

“EdTech products used in schools are highly invasive of children’s privacy and rely on the extensive collection of children’s data.”

As we heard earlier, the NSPCC has documented cases where generative AI created deepfakes of children in schools, and the Children’s Commissioner has called for urgent action. This is particularly concerning given that many AI tools have not been developed with the younger audience in mind.

We Liberal Democrats call for a public health approach to the online world, including AI, to ensure that children remain safe online and can enjoy their childhood as intended. We also call on the Government to introduce a safer screens taskforce that would be empowered to ensure a public health approach to children’s social media across all Government Departments, and lead research into social media’s impact on children. We believe that the UK must lead the world in building a future where AI is developed and deployed ethically, transparently and in the public interest. We favour a workable and well-resourced framework for AI that can promote innovation and protect individual rights and freedoms. We call on the Government to establish a cross-sector AI regulator, combining flexible, ethical oversight and technological expertise to ensure that the UK keeps pace with rapid technological advances.

As Liberal Democrats, we also believe that we should modernise our curriculum to face 21st century challenges, offering an approach that allows students to explore pathways in science, maths and the arts without prejudicing their learning in other disciplines. Such a curriculum must embed digital and data literacy throughout children’s learning experience, preparing every single student for a future shaped by AI and new technologies.

I have a few questions for the Minister, which I hope he will answer in his remarks. What skills audit has been done to ensure that we have the right skills for AI, and for working alongside AI, such as critical thinking? We welcome DFE guidance that pupils should only be using generative AI in education settings with appropriate safeguards in place, such as close supervision. But where is the implementation guidance, and where are the resources for schools to achieve this? Finally, how will this Government prevent AI from widening inequality between those with access and those without?

Once again, I am grateful for being able to take part in this debate, and I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire for bringing it to this Chamber. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments, which I hope will be just the start of an ongoing conversation on this incredibly important issue, as we look to the future of our young people.

15:16

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I knew as soon as my brilliant and learned right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) secured this debate that it would be well worth attending and very interesting, and it has proved to be exactly that. It builds on important work that has already been done by POST and Ofsted, as well as by the DFE officials who wrote the recent guidance, and it further increases the level of public debate and improves our knowledge.

I would echo a lot of what other Members have said about the pros and cons, the opportunities and threats, because there is a delicate balance between those things. We heard really good speeches from the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Swindon North (Will Stone), as well as a brilliant intervention from the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm). There was a particularly good and thoughtful speech from the Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), with which I agreed 100%, as indeed there was from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin).

Of course we want students to learn about AI and how to use it effectively. It is a very effective research tool in the right hands. On the other hand, we want them to understand that it is not always right, despite its godlike quality and the incredible smoothness with which it lies. We must also teach them to understand that it is not a substitute for original thinking. They must have the ability to do their own research. We must avoid having cardboard cut-out students who regurgitate a particular way of framing issues.

We heard from the hon. Member for Guildford about the MIT study that used brain measurement experiments to show a decline in critical thinking. Of course, this debate is nested in a wider debate about the use of screens and technology by our students and educators, and that study reminds me of a similar one, which discovered that a student’s simply having a smartphone on them reduced their retention of information from an educational video. The effect of these things can be quite subtle. It was not being on the phone, but just having it on them that reduced their attention. The wider rewiring of childhood and of the student experience is operating on several levels, of which AI is just one.

According to a study by the Higher Education Policy Institute, more than half of HE students now use AI to help write essays—I suspect that figure is rather higher by now. One vice-chancellor I spoke to said that he thought we would end up going back to more handwriting in exams to avoid cheating, which is now incredibly present. I was amused by a social media post the other day that said, “Lots of discussion about how on earth we will spot AI cheating,” with an image of an essay that began with the wonderful words, “I cannot help you to write this assignment. It would be wrong of me to do so.” It had clearly been written by a very honest AI, but it had been handed in by the student none the less.

It is perhaps more important than ever that we teach students to understand what is real and not real in the online world. There has recently been discussion about a new band called The Velvet Sundown. Sir Jeremy, I cannot quite place when you came of age—perhaps somewhere between the new romantics and the grunge period. I will not assume where you stand on that spectrum, but this band sounds a bit like a mashed-up version of Creedence Clearwater Revival. It sounds okay—it is not bad—but it is very derivative, and all the pictures of the band look kind of AI-y. However, the band denies it. The interesting thing about the episode is that it is not possible to say definitively whether it is real or not—and there will be many such cases, some of them very important. We see AI-generated images from the middle east; people are told that things have happened when they may not have happened. We see fake bot accounts playing a role in our politics. A surprising number of accounts in the UK suddenly disappeared during the recent Israeli strikes on Iran. What does that tell us about the interference in our democracy empowered by AI?

Of course, there are opportunities in students’ use of AI, but there are also risks. There are important benefits from learning to handwrite. A surgeon I spoke to recently talked about his worries about the future, with fewer children learning the fine motor skills that are learned with handwriting.

Let me turn to educators’ use of all this. It is very exciting. If someone had asked me 15 years ago about AI in schools, and technology in schools and universities more generally, I would probably have been unabashedly, straightforwardly enthusiastic. The attractions are obvious, whether for the production of lesson plans, the personalisation of learning, the translation of languages, the avoidance of marking and repetitive work or the reduction of workload, which is crucial for teacher retention. It is all very exciting, but of course there are risks, which have been illustrated well in the debate.

I am excited by some of the models that bring human judgment together with AI. It is probably slightly invidious to single out a particular group, but No More Marking is an interesting model. It is doing lots of things that bring together teacher judgment and AI tools. It talks about “human in the loop” models, and that is potentially the way that these things will need to move forward.

Of course, we have also heard about the difficulties of assessment in the new era. We have talked a bit about the dangers of AI use in exams in which computers are used. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire talked about the quaint language in the legislation, which refers to “word processors”. Perhaps word processors are exactly what we need. For those who really need it, we should dig out some of those things from the ’80s and ’90s that can do nothing other than function as a typewriter. However, it is not just about exams. The interim curriculum and assessment review included a suggestion that we might have more coursework, but while there was always scope for cheating and social biases in coursework, those dangers have increased. I think that Becky Francis, who is running that review, is conscious of the risk. I share my right hon. Friend’s scepticism and concern about the move to an all-online examination system, and the way that would iterate back through our school system. I think that is a very dangerous way to go.

The Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, brilliantly explained some of the wider concerns about cognitive and attention damage caused by some of these tools. There is a famous philosophy experiment by John Searle called the Chinese room. He talks about what machines do and do not experience, and what they can and cannot do. In the experiment, Chinese characters are fed into one end of a box, somebody looks them up in a table and feeds Chinese characters out of the other end of the box, and nothing is truly understood inside the box; it is just inputs and outputs. In a sense, we run the risk of putting all our children in the Chinese room, where they are set a task, perhaps even using AI, they go away and use AI to find a plausible answer for their coursework, exam, homework or whatever, and the real cognition—the real learning—does not happen in the middle of that process.

We have also talked about some of the other risks, and that brings me to the final thing that I want to talk about: the fact that this debate is nested in a wider set of discussions about screen time, social media and students’ relationship with technology, all of which are magnified by AI. I will not relitigate the discussions we have had with the Government about our case for a complete ban on phones in our schools. I think that the AI dimension makes the argument stronger.

AI makes some of the issues about deepfake porn and intimate image abuse even more acute than they already were, but this thing about cognition and AI that we have talked about is also an issue about technology more generally. It is known that people understand better and take in more information from material written on a piece of paper than that on a screen. There are wider issues, to which I have already referred, about what the excessive use of technology does to a person’s ability to take on board information—and, indeed, to present it.

Recently, the DFE surveyed last year’s GCSE students and their parents about the things they wanted students to have done more of at school. One of the things at the very top of the list was presenting information, public speaking and marshalling an argument. That is one of the great 21st-century skills—it is what we are all doing now. I pity the wonderful and long-suffering people who write Hansard, because my speech today consists of a series of scrawls and arrows; it looks like a Jeremy Deller painting, and they will never decrypt it. The ability to put together an argument, and not just to use Ctrl+V and Ctrl+C, is one of the critical skills of the 21st century. It is vital that we do not drift into a world in which we do not learn those skills because we outsource our thinking to an outboard motor in the form of AI.

I hope I have brought out some of the pros and cons in this important debate. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire said at the very start, this is not an issue on which there is a great degree of partisan conflict. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about how we can make the best of these exciting new technologies and avoid some of their downsides.

15:26

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I thank my near-ish neighbour, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), for securing a debate on this important subject and for the constructive and collegiate way in which he has sought to conduct it. I thank all other Members for their interventions and contributions, including the Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), for her insightful comments on challenges and opportunities and her helpful reminder of the Committee’s work on screen time.

The Government believe that generative artificial intelligence presents exciting opportunities to improve people’s lives, including by making our public services better. AI will support the delivery of the Government’s plan for change and our opportunity mission. I agree with the comments of hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Swindon North (Will Stone) and for Dulwich and West Norwood and the right hon. Member for East Hampshire, about the potential for AI and technology to support children with special educational needs. There is a strong evidence base for the impact that assistive technology such as screen readers and dictation tools can have in breaking down barriers to opportunity for children with SEND.

If used safely, effectively and with the right infrastructure in place, AI can support every child and young person, regardless of their background, to achieve at school and college and develop the knowledge and skills that they need for life. AI has the potential to ease workloads, assist with lesson planning and free up time for high-quality face-to-face teaching. That is why we have put AI at the forefront of our mission to modernise the education system, to support our teachers and school support staff and to enable them to deliver better educational outcomes for our children. The Department’s approach to generative AI in education is not static. It will continue to develop as our evidence and understanding grow.

The Government are leading the way. As announced at the Education World Forum in May, we will host an international summit on generative AI in education in 2026, bringing together education leaders from around the world to implement global guidelines for generative AI in education. We are committed to taking action that considers the risks, such as safety, and challenges, alongside opportunities and benefits. I assure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that those discussions include ministerial colleagues across the UK. He will know that education is a devolved matter, but I can confirm that I had discussions with my ministerial equivalent in Northern Ireland during my visit to Belfast last month.

We have taken action to make sure that AI can be effectively used in schools. We have funded Oak National Academy’s AI lesson planning assistant, Aila, which helps teachers save significant time with lesson planning. Teachers report time savings of around three hours per week.

The right hon. Member for East Hampshire was right to mention support through the effective use of AI. Further, we launched the content store pilot in August of last year, aiming to make available the underpinning content and data that are needed for great AI tools. Coupled with investment in the AI tools for education competition, we are supporting edtech innovators to develop effective AI tools that can reduce the burden of feedback and marking on teachers.

Last month, I attended London Tech Week and announced an additional £1 million in contracts to further develop existing prototype tools so that they are ready to be used in the classroom. I saw demonstrations of tools developed at a hackathon using our innovative education content store. I also saw at first hand the value of that store and the importance of making available the underpinning content and data to develop excellent AI tools for education.

We know that any advancement in technology presents risks as well as opportunities, which is why we are taking steps to manage these proactively, including through safeguards and by gathering robust evidence on AI use.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephen Morgan]

I will give way, but I am conscious that the right hon. Gentleman was not here at the start of the debate.

[Graham Stuart]

I apologise for not being here at the start, and I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. To what extent is he concerned about biases within the models? Most of the major generative AI models are not produced in this country; they are developed in highly competitive circumstances and tend to be secretive about the data used to train them. Is that an area of concern? If he thinks there are going to be more applications in the education sphere and others, should the Government take steps to ensure greater transparency about the data upon which these models are trained?

[Stephen Morgan]

I will certainly take that back. I have had discussions with colleagues at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and others about reliability, safety and biases.

In November last year, with the Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark), I met leading global tech firms, including Google, Microsoft and Adobe, to agree safety expectations and to ensure that AI tools are safe for classroom use. We are also supporting staff to use AI safely. In partnership with the Chiltern Learning Trust and the Chartered College of Teaching, we have published online support materials to help teachers and leaders to use AI safely and effectively, developed by the sector, for the sector. They supplement the Department’s AI policy paper—which we updated in June—alongside the information for educators about using AI safely and effectively, and the toolkit for leaders to help address the risks and opportunities of AI across their whole setting.

To develop our evidence base, we have launched two pilot programmes, the edtech evidence board and the edtech testbed. The first is to ensure that schools have the confidence to secure edtech products that work well for their setting, and the second is to evaluate the impact of edtech and AI products on improving staff workload, pupil outcomes and inclusivity. I want to assure all hon. Members that we will continue to work with schools to support them in harnessing opportunities and managing potential challenges presented by generative AI.

A number of hon. Members, including the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), spoke about social media, and “Keeping children safe in education” is statutory guidance that provides schools and colleges with robust information on how to protect pupils and students online. The guidance has been significantly strengthened with regard to online safety, which is now embedded throughout, making clear the importance of taking a whole-school approach to keeping children safe online. The DFE is working across Government to implement the Online Safety Act 2023 and to address technology-related risks, including AI in education. I can assure the hon. Member for Guildford that it is a priority for us to ensure that children benefit from its protections.

On the point that a number of hon. Members made about the impact on qualifications, assessment and regulation, the majority of GCSE and A-level assessments are exams taken under close staff supervision, with no access to the internet. Schools, colleges and awarding organisations are continuing to take reasonable steps to prevent malpractice involving the use of generative AI in formal assessments. Ofqual is, of course, the independent regulator of qualifications and assessments, and published its approach to regulating AI use in the qualifications sector in 2024. Ofqual supported the production of guidance from the Joint Council for Qualifications on the use of AI in assessments. That guidance provides teachers and exam centres with information to help them to prevent and identify potential malpractice involving the misuse of AI.

More broadly, the curriculum and assessment review’s interim report acknowledged risks concerning AI use in coursework assessments. The review is taking a subject-by-subject approach to consider assessment fitness for purpose and the impact of different assessment methods on teaching and learning. I assure Members that the review is considering potential risks, the trade-offs with non-exam assessment such as deliverability, and the risks of malpractice and to equity.

[Damian Hinds]

There are two simple safeguards against misuse of AI in exams here in front of me. Will the Minister recognise that the best way to ensure the security and integrity of exams, and how assessment is done lower down the school, is—for the great majority of children, in the majority of subjects—for exams to be handwritten in exam conditions?

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

For the assistance of Hansard, I point out that the right hon. Gentleman was holding up a pen and paper.

[Stephen Morgan]

I will absolutely take away the point made by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire. I mentioned the role of Ofqual as the regulator and the role of the curriculum and assessment review, which is independently led. I look forward to hearing the outcomes of that review in due course.

In conclusion, I thank the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members for their contributions on this important topic. As I set out, the Government are committed to working with the sector to harness technology, which presents new and exciting challenges for the sector. We are also committed to ensuring that that technology is used safely and effectively—never to supplant the irreplaceable face-to-face work of our teachers and educators, but to support them to spend more time doing what they do best: teaching.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

The right hon. Member for East Hampshire, who moved the motion, has the right—if he wishes it—to wind up the debate, and he has about 20 minutes in which to do so. He is, however, under no obligation to use all or any of that time.

15:36

[Damian Hinds]

I was happy not to wind up, but you have now made me stand up, Sir Jeremy. We have had a good and constructive debate. I am grateful to the Minister for his engagement, and to all colleagues for taking part.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

Please accept my apologies for my late attendance in the Chamber. I was at the statement in the main Chamber on the Horizon scandal, which is perhaps another example of overreliance on technology—the human eye was identifying issues that people could see. My experience comes mostly from the higher education sector, where colleagues I have spoken to report far greater incidence of the use of AI. It is so clever that it is generating false sources to back up incorrect claims, but with incredibly plausible use of academic names in order to make profound points. I wonder whether we now face a reality in which AI might be used not only for marking, but for the marking of AI-generated material.

[Damian Hinds]

Indeed—computers talking to computers, with us as the facilitators. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point.

I will conclude by repeating something I said much earlier in my remarks. We should always remember that, at whatever pace we, the education system or, certainly, Government can work, young people will work at a pace six times faster. I am, again, grateful to the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

That this House has considered the use of generative artificial intelligence in schools.

15:38

Sitting suspended.

Military Helicopters: Blood Cancers

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Westminster Hall

16:00

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered military helicopters and blood cancers.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I am here because of someone who joined the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm at the age of 19 because he had always wanted to fly. He always had the vitality to attack life and live it fully. He flew everything from Hawks to helicopters, and was a talented and committed pilot. By the time I met him, he was teaching new recruits to fly at RAF Cranwell, and was Navy snowboarding champion. In 2005, he went to Cornwall and was stationed at Culdrose, where he flew search and rescue on the old Sea Kings. I represent Truro and Falmouth. Cornwall is rich in forces personnel and veterans. Five and a half per cent of people in Truro and Falmouth have served, which is a much higher percentage than the national average of 3.8%. In Truro and Falmouth, 4,160 houses—more than 10%—have at least one veteran living in them.

He was living in Dorset when he suffered strange symptoms of blood clots in his lungs and legs in the spring of 2022. It took some time and persistence, but he was diagnosed with multiple myeloma, a rare blood cancer that affects only 5,000 people a year in the UK and is most common in men over the age of 85. He was lucky to have some pioneering treatment in Dorset and later at the Royal Marsden hospital, and he was able to trial drugs that were not yet available in the UK. Treatment is developing for blood cancers all the time, and it is important that people in the UK have access to new treatments. The cancer, however, returned, and he died a year after diagnosis, not long after his 54th birthday. His was not an isolated case. Last Tuesday, in the Welsh Senedd, Julie Morgan led a debate very like this one about RAF winchman Zach Stubbings. Zach died from multiple myeloma at the age of 46, after working many hours on Sea Kings.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her excellent, sterling efforts to advocate on behalf of serving personnel and veterans, seeking answers on the important matter of military helicopters and blood cancers. Does she agree that although the current in-house testing of in-service helicopters is welcome, we must ensure full transparency on the matter so that there is work done for those who have previously worked on those helicopters? The health and wellbeing of our serving personnel must always be front and centre.

[Jayne Kirkham]

I agree absolutely. The health of our serving personnel is and always must be paramount. I will move on to previous cases shortly.

I know of 180 cases with solicitors of crew working on military helicopters who have contracted cancers, many like those of the two people I mentioned. They worked on the Sea King particularly, but also the Westland Wessex, the Puma, and the CH-47 Chinook. Many of the crew affected were in touch with each other, as there seemed too many of them, and the cancers too rare, to be pure coincidence.

Last July, a report was written by the Independent Medical Expert Group on medical and scientific aspects of the armed forces compensation scheme, and was published in November last year. There was a section at the end on the potential link between exhaust fumes such as benzene from helicopters and blood cancers such as multiple myeloma. The findings were that the evidence and data available did not meet their threshold to establish a causal link between Sea King helicopter exhaust fumes or benzene and multiple myeloma, leiomyosarcoma, and soft tissue sarcomas.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for introducing this debate. In the short time that she has been in the House, she has made a real name for herself as an assiduous MP, and I wish her well in her efforts. I concur with her comments. For us in Northern Ireland, helicopters were a part of life for getting troops in, and the police in and out. Numerous cases have been settled out of court for aircrew who developed rare cancers after being exposed to helicopter exhaust fumes. Given that certain types of blood cancer can take 10 to 20 years to manifest themselves, does the hon. Lady agree that steps should be taken to encourage those who served in specific aircraft types to seek screening and early intervention to provide better outcomes?

With your indulgence, Sir Jeremy, on the question I asked earlier, there is a specific case of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland. Those who did undercover work carried battery packs on their backs by their kidneys. Of a patrol of 12 policemen who did undercover work, 11 are dead. There is a big case to answer for all that happened in relation to helicopters and service in Northern Ireland.

[Jayne Kirkham]

I thank the hon. Member. He is correct that some cancers can take a long time to manifest. Personnel, veterans and those around them in their communities have to be aware that this could show itself much later in their lives.

Solicitors for some of the personnel point to an RAF Institute of Health report dated March 1999. Although it did not establish a causal link, it contained recommendations to reduce crews’ exposure to exhaust fumes. I understand that modifications to the aircraft to do that were not made, although they did take place on some other countries’ military helicopters.

Six cases in this country, including Zach’s, have so far been settled, and compensation paid by the Ministry of Defence without admission of liability. The Sea Kings were taken out of UK military service in 2018, and the Westland Wessex in 2003. Pumas and Chinooks are still in service, although the older aircraft have recently been retired. Sea Kings, however, are still in service in the private sector, and in military use in other countries. Three were donated by the UK to Ukraine in 2023. The MOD started testing exhaust emissions from military aircraft this February and has started the process of checking the records of personnel and veterans, to assemble data about how many have subsequently developed cancer. That will provide crucial data about who and how many people may have been affected.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for bringing this important matter to the attention of parliamentarians. It is not just about those who have contracted cancer. We know that other respiratory problems may also occur. Does he agree that our veterans, who do so much for our country, need the benefit of additional research to ensure all aspects are covered, not just those who have suffered cancer? I pay tribute to her late husband for his effort and involvement in the military.

[Jayne Kirkham]

I agree with the hon. Member that all manner of injuries may have occurred due to people’s military service. It is important that every single one is investigated to check if there is a link. I thank him for reminding me of that.

Due to the sheer number of records and the way they are stored, I understand that checking them could take weeks, if not months. There are a number of things that could be done by Government or further afield that could help people who are affected now or in future. First, the Government could help to spread awareness of this potential link. There will be men and women with initial symptoms of these cancers that can easily be missed. If the serving personnel and veteran communities, who served with or on these aircraft, are alive to the possible risks, they will know what symptoms to look out for and to raise with medics.

Secondly, GPS should be educated in places where there are clusters of personnel and veterans who have worked with these aircraft, so that they know to look for a military record when assessing symptoms that could indicate blood cancers. Thirdly, as well as signposting for veterans, a screening scheme for blood cancers could be set up for those who may be most at risk.

Fourthly, the MOD can move faster on assembling, analysing and releasing the data on how many service personnel and veterans have subsequently developed these cancers, so that more research can be done on causation, action can be taken and cases can be quickly concluded. The five-year survival rate for multiple myeloma is 50%, so people are dying before their cases are settled and many are still being turned down for compensation.

Fifthly, testing exposure to emissions must be done to take into account and replicate the real-life conditions that personnel were working under while undertaking search and rescue and military combat sorties. Sixthly, crews should still be advised to take sufficient precautions around aircraft, such as not standing directly in exhaust fumes and wearing personal protective equipment. Private companies and other countries that still use these aircraft need to be informed of the potential risks so that they can take steps to modify the aircraft and take other preventive action.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend for bringing us this really important debate. Does she agree that the Ministry of Defence has a duty not just to those people who have already died or those people who are currently suffering but to their family, friends and loved ones? They are the backbone of so much of our armed forces. We need to make sure that this issue is dealt with efficiently and in an open environment so that if there is an ongoing issue, it is dealt with transparently.

[Jayne Kirkham]

I agree that these things should be dealt with as swiftly as possible and that it is not just about current personnel and veterans but people who may be affected in the future.

Military personnel think they know the risks of what they are taking on when they sign up to fly for the military or work as aircrew. What they could not realise is that there were, and possibly still are, other hidden risks. The people who risk their lives in the service of this country are courageous men and women, and they deserve the very best care and the very best chance.

16:11

[The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)]

I thank you for allowing me to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) for securing this debate.

I begin by paying my deepest respects to the families, veterans and friends of all those who have tragically lost their lives to rare cancers in any way, shape or form. My hon. Friend’s great courage in sharing her story and her wider efforts to raise awareness of the issue, about which we have talked many times in the past, are both humbling from my perspective and inspiring to us all.

I also thank Members of the House and of devolved Parliaments who have engaged on this issue, from Scotland to Wales and back again, particularly my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan). Their voices are vital to raising awareness, ensuring that robust debate takes place today and that actions that will come from it. This debate has highlighted the significant contribution of those who serve, and not just those who serve but the whole family who serves with them.

Although in some cases there are differing views, the debate has also been a stark reminder that the health and safety and wellbeing of our personnel must remain at the very heart of everything we do in defence. Our people are the backbone of our armed forces. As an individual who served for 24 years, I can guarantee that. They are the guardians of our national security and the embodiment of all our values. Their health and safety and wellbeing are not just priorities; they are at the heart of all defence work.

I have stood shoulder to shoulder with many colleagues in times of both triumph and sad adversity and have spent thousands of hours on helicopters and on the Sea King when it was in service—yes, I am that old. I know the pride of service but also the weight of its demands. That is why I am personally committed to ensuring that every individual who serves the country is treated as a highly valued member of our defence family.

The Ministry of Defence has made significant strides over the past year to enhance the support we provide to our personnel. We are working tirelessly to modernise and to improve our environment in defence, so that everyone can truly thrive and reach their full potential, but we are certainly not complacent. We know that there is more to do and accept that there is further ground to cover. Defence must continue, however, to do everything it possibly can to prevent, protect and defend our personnel from illness or injury in whatever form. We owe it to our people, their families and their loved ones to do that.

Beyond policies and programmes, our commitment must be reflected in our actions and our attitudes. Hopefully, Members have seen that in the last 12 months. It is about fostering a culture of care and respect where every individual feels valued and supported, and it is about recognising that our people are not just sailors, soldiers or indeed airmen; they are fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, friends and neighbours. That is why in February, after discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth, we launched a comprehensive programme to test the engine exhaust emissions of all our in-service helicopter fleet. That work builds on several sampling surveys—I note they were sampling surveys—conducted on Sea King helicopters between 1999 and 2015. Those previous surveys were part of the Ministry of Defence’s long-standing commitment to our people, and to ensuring their safety at work. The surveys found no conclusive evidence to suggest that aircrew were subject to exposure levels above UK and international safety standards. I must emphasise that in most cases there is no evidence, in any way, shape or form, to suggest that aircraft today are causing issues with safety at work.

[Jim Shannon]

If the Minister does not mind my saying so, does he, and the Government, not have an obligation to ensure that all those who suspect they have blood cancer, or are worried that they may have it, are notified so that they are aware? They could then go and check, if they had not already done so. That at least should be done out of courtesy, good manners and respect, and for the protection of those who have served in uniform.

[Al Carns]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Various programmes reach out to those serving, and those who are ex-serving, to highlight the risks of serving in defence. The lack of evidence linking the two together withholds us from being very specific but, generally, we push really hard for everyone in defence with any indication of an issue caused by service to get it seen to, and make sure that a claim goes forward.

The testing programme that we are putting in place is a proactive measure, reflecting our commitment to the highest standards of health and safety. It involves rigorous analysis of emissions from all operational helicopters, conducted in accordance with approved methodologies, ensuring that we have a clear understanding of any potential risks. We will not hesitate—and I will review this regularly—to take swift action if required, once that data is compiled.

This is about more than compliance: it is about meeting existing safety standards, and about trust. It is about demonstrating to our personnel that their safety is our unwavering priority. As part of that commitment, the independent medical expert group, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth, was asked to review not just the UK but worldwide medical literature on this issue. It concluded that there was no evidence of a medical, causal link between helicopter exhaust fumes and rare blood cancers.

But, as I have mentioned to my hon. Friend, although that provides an element of reassurance, we remain vigilant and committed to monitoring any emerging evidence. That is critical. With the Department, I have been exploring options for a broader holistic review of cancer diagnosis in service personnel, which should give us an iron-clad view of certain groups across defence. Throughout that process, we will keep personnel, their families and this House informed, but that is quite a comprehensive study.

[Ayoub Khan]

As a lawyer, I know there are always complexities around causal links, statistics and experts. There will always be a differing opinion. Does the Minister agree that anyone who has been part of the military should have available to them a legal team, funded by legal aid, to progress a claim—as opposed to a lawyer in a no win, no fee arrangement, which can bite into a substantial chunk of any compensation?

[Al Carns]

I will need to come back to the hon. Member on the specific legalities around that issue; I am not a lawyer. The war pension scheme and armed forces compensation scheme for individuals provide a route for compensation, in any way, shape or form. If there is a cause, as far as I am concerned there will absolutely be a redress or compensation scheme to support that, but I will write to the hon. Member on that issue. I want to be really clear on that last point. Although the IMEG’s findings provide some reassurance, I want to be absolutely clear that I have been exploring options for a broader, holistic review of the cancers. We talk about the simplicity of finding the data, but I want to give hon. Members the scale.

There are 2.1 million veterans in the UK. We do not track cancers post-service for those veterans. In some cases, we do not even know where those veterans are. We do not know where the pockets sit. We can have a rough view, and make a guess, but we do not have the statistical data. The Valour programme, which we launched a while back, should help build up a clear understanding of our veteran demographic and the issues that veterans face, and help address them in the most programmatic way.

At the moment, the data does not exist. We will continue to work with independent experts in both the UK and, importantly, the US, to closely monitor and understand any emerging evidence around aircraft exhaust fumes and cancers. Let me reiterate: we will continue to monitor the data. We will monitor this issue closely and act decisively if concerns are identified.

[Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his incredibly detailed and helpful responses. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) for raising this important topic with such clarity and compassion. She has been such a strong champion for our armed forces and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Her words today carry real weight. Does the Minister agree that there is clearly further vital work to do to ensure that all those who have served can access the care and support that they so need?

[Al Carns]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. That is why we brought the armed forces covenant into law just two weeks ago, which now increases the number of Government Departments that have a responsibility to ensure that no one is disadvantaged because of their service from four to 14. That is fantastic. It also enhances the support that we can give to those serving, their families and loved ones, the bereaved, and our veterans in general.

The safety of our people is non-negotiable. To the families who have campaigned so passionately to raise awareness of this important topic, I say this: “You have sparked a conversation. It has resulted in action. That action and detail will follow through in due course.” But we must make an active move now to collect the data, as broadly as possible.

[Perran Moon]

It is good news that the Minister has identified the requirement to collect data, but data collection can take a long time. Is he able to give any comfort on the timescale for building up the evidence base to determine whether there is a direct link one way or the other?

[Al Carns]

Unfortunately, we do not have a timescale at the moment. The scale of the task is hard to define. In terms of where the records sit, no one keeps records on veterans when they leave, apart from the NHS. Those records are held in different buckets all over the UK. It is going to take some time to pull that together and analyse it, and to work out whether there are pockets of very rare cancers from one part of defence, another part of defence or from other industries. Unfortunately, we just do not know. I will endeavour to get back to my hon. Friend once the scale of the task, which is gigantic, is conceptualised into time.

I come back to some points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth. On spreading awareness of a potential link, we work really hard to ensure that all service personnel have access to national cancer screening programmes. The MOD regularly runs health education campaigns—I hope that answers her earlier question—that encourage participation in national cancer screening programmes and raise awareness about cancers. Any veteran listening to this debate who has a cancer or a suspicion of cancer should please ensure they get it checked out and get the details recorded medically so that, if there may be a claim of any shape or form, that can be processed and they have the evidence, and it can get dealt with in the fastest and most efficient manner.

Educating GPs in places where there are clusters of personnel and veterans also goes back to data. There are clusters of veterans everywhere, ranging from 1,000 to 17,000, to 33,000 in Portsmouth. I will refrain from speaking about healthcare professionals any broader than the MOD in this forum, but I expect every defence medical service doctor to work in accordance with best practice, particularly National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, to identify individuals with symptoms that could be caused by cancer and to arrange the appropriate speedy follow-up for a specialist referral.

As well as signposting for veterans, a screening scheme for blood cancers could be set up for those who may be at most risk; that point was mentioned earlier. The current medical advice from IMEG is clear, but I am mindful that there is also no UK screening programme for multiple myeloma or other rare cancers. I have read some of the medical advice, and it looks like some of those screening processes can cause a percentage of harm—I will need to look at that in a bit more detail. Any harm from screening must be outweighed by the benefits of screening. I go back to causation, and a focus on getting data on who needs to be screened and who does not. This is a deeply complex problem. I am not trying to confuse or confuddle the debate. We need to get to the bottom of this, but we need to do it the right way, and in the speediest, most efficient way.

The real-life replication of testing conditions was also mentioned. I want to reassure hon. Members that the testing we do on aircraft mirrors real life. In some cases, it is on the sampling equipment that is carried on the person, on the air crew and indeed the ground crew as well, because not just the pilots are involved, but the broader group. On whether they should still be advised to take sufficient precautions, I should say that I have spent a large proportion of my career in helicopters and stood in the exhaust fumes, which often used to heat us up in cold environments, which I would not recommend. I can attest to the quality and professionalism of the air crew. Indeed, the air crew as a whole are absolutely prepared with both PPE and understanding.

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank the Minister for his clarification about the testing of helicopters currently in service. But could he clarify something? Are there any provisions to conduct tests or derive data on previous models and those not in service?

[Al Carns]

I thank my hon. Friend for the question. Several studies were conducted on the Sea King. In 2010 a study was conducted during operational flying in Afghanistan—I was out there at the same time and probably on them every now and again. It found notable levels of exposure to carbon monoxide and nitrogen monoxide. However, all exposures were below levels considered to be harmful to health.

In 2013, there was a study on search and rescue Sea Kings that found exhaust gases were below levels considered harmful to health. A 2014 study measured exposure to elements of carbon. That was found to be well below the German exposure standard; unfortunately, no UK standard existed at the time. The highest exposure was found to be at least less than a third of the concentration at which, based on the scientific knowledge, long-term repeated exposure could potentially cause ill health.

On the private companies and countries that still use these aircraft, the previous testing of the Sea King helicopters, which I just mentioned, did not have conclusive evidence that air crew were exposed to substances above UK-wide international limits—those German studies. Third party operators and countries may operate the aircraft differently and for different purposes, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth that they should ensure that they appropriately manage potential risks. I think we can help with that.

Although views differ, some of the evidence is over a long period of time. The subject group is huge, but it could be quite concentrated in some areas. I accept that we differ on some of the points today. I think we are united in our commitment to the health and safety of our armed forces and the protection of our people, our territories, our values, and indeed our interests, both at home and overseas. It is the most fundamental duty of defence. But that duty is only as strong as the people who uphold it. Our armed forces are not just a source of national pride; they are the lifeblood of our security, admired across the globe for their expertise, professionalism and unwavering commitment. Together we will ensure that the Ministry of Defence remains steadfast in its commitment to the health and safety of its people. Their safety is non-negotiable. Their wellbeing is not optional. It is an obligation.

I want to be clear that we are conducting testing now. We have looked at the reviews of previous testing, and there are options for understanding the broader cancer demographic among our veterans population. I have taken that on after the discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth. We will do everything in our power to ensure that everyone who wears the uniform of this country is protected, respected and supported, because they deserve nothing less.

Question put and agreed to.

16:28

Sitting suspended.

Down’s Syndrome Regression Disorder

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Down’s syndrome regression disorder research.

I am honoured to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy.

Down’s syndrome regression in a mild form is not uncommon among people with Down’s syndrome. It represents the loss of previously acquired developmental skills, which can include a slight decline in the ability to speak, reduced interest in social activity, or increased dependency on caregivers. With the right care or behavioural support, people experiencing mild regression often make a complete recovery, and yet in a small proportion of people with Down’s syndrome, there is a much more dramatic and devastating loss of skills.

The regression such people experience is profound and the onset stark. Typically, it occurs in young adults, who almost overnight can retreat into themselves and become uncommunicative, catatonic and uninterested. As more medical professionals have encountered that aspect of Down’s syndrome in the past 20 years, it has become known as Down’s syndrome regression disorder.

[Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. My constituent Ruth’s son has DSRD, which has impacted his mobility, and means that he is prone to outbursts and is struggling to access education. It took a long time for Jude to be diagnosed. In the UK, I understand, no diagnostic or treatment plan is in place. Does my hon. Friend agree that research into the area is critical and that, were a neurotypical person to present with such regression, it would be treated as the medical emergency that it is?

[Jen Craft]

Without wishing to get ahead of myself in my speech, I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I also add my thanks to Ruth for sharing her and Jude’s story. It had a significant impact on me when I heard it.

As I was saying, the condition is truly horrific, and it has been largely under-researched and overlooked. Existing studies of Down’s syndrome regression disorder are few and far between. A study in 2021, “A systematic review” by Walpert, Zaman and Holland, examined the existing body of work. It identified that cases of extreme regression have often been wrongly dismissed as a late diagnosis of autism or early-onset dementia, but the nature of those conditions and the age at which they present are categorically distinct from regression disorder. Symptoms of autism present in early childhood, while dementia typically causes a gradual loss of skills from the age of 40 upwards. Neither of those condition profiles matches the dramatic loss of developmental skills in young adulthood caused by Down’s syndrome regression disorder.

While no single cause has been identified, a clear trend is that significant life events can closely precede the onset of regression disorder. The 2021 review found that the most common example was a change in environment, such as leaving school, moving home or being separated from parents. Other life events, such as a death or serious illness, were also identified in the data. The lack of research presents challenges in diagnosis. There is no consistency in the naming and definition of regression, hindering the clinical recognition and study that is a necessary precursor to evaluating treatment. As a result, no condition-specific care is available in the NHS.

Without proper understanding and in the absence of treatment, the human impacts of the condition are terrifying. Families helplessly watch their child become almost unrecognisable in the space of months, weeks or even days. Young people who have previously held down jobs or voluntary positions, and who led rich lives with interests, hobbies and friends, lose everything.

I will mention the story of Fran, who had just started secondary school when she was involved in an incident when one of her peers hurt and threatened her. As her mum Cristina described, the altercation caused Fran to shut down. Over a few days, she refused to engage in anything. Cristina was alarmed and took her daughter to the GP, who found high thyroid levels. Fran was prescribed thyroxine, but that only made her condition worse. She soon stopped talking altogether, and she only signed. Having been attending a mainstream school, she lost her independence. She wanted to be held the whole time, would not make eye contact, and was vacant behind the eyes. Cristina said she looked lost and sad.

After many more blood tests the thyroxine was stopped, and a referral to Great Ormond Street hospital was made for specialist help. As time went on, Fran slowly began to talk, read and write again, but nowhere near her previous standard. Great Ormond Street has carried out further tests, and the doctors believe that she has suffered trauma, which has caused her regression. Cristina says she just wants the old Fran back.

For Olivia’s story, she was 16 when she began to display symptoms of regression. As her parents Dimitri and Viviana have set out, Down’s syndrome regression disorder transformed their once vibrant, semi-independent daughter into someone they barely recognised. Prior to the onset of symptoms, she was engaged in school, participating in swimming lessons and actively engaging in family life. Now, her parents say it is as if she exists in a parallel world, spending most of her time isolated in bed and disconnected from life. She becomes distressed doing basic daily tasks, with screaming and physical resistance. They said their happy, loving daughter who once thrived has disappeared.

Through research online, Dimitri and Viviana identified Olivia’s condition as potential regression, and found themselves in the unprecedented position of having to educate healthcare professionals about the condition. Since, the paediatrician and neurologists have agreed with that diagnosis. As the mother to a daughter with Down’s syndrome, I cannot begin to imagine the torture of seeing your child’s personality slip away before your eyes, to then be met with only confusion and uncertainty when seeking professional support.

Parents of children with regression disorder often describe being bounced around the system between NHS services and staff, as few practitioners have the expertise to diagnose properly. When they finally manage to speak to the right clinician, some are even told to take their child to A&E. I do not say that to criticise healthcare professionals, but rather to highlight that they need to be given the right tools for the job—the right guidance and training—and to suggest that doctors should be able to say, “I do not know what this is,” when faced with a seemingly unique condition, instead of attempting to rule out every practical possibility.

The challenges faced by parents of children with regression disorder speak to a wider point: people with learning disabilities can be treated differently by our healthcare system, with their needs all too readily overlooked and their symptoms far too often attributed to their disability by clinicians who simply do not know them. As we all know, if a neurotypical child stopped eating and speaking overnight, or if they became incontinent, catatonic and lost all their personality, they would be in an ambulance straight to the hospital and it would be treated as a medical emergency.

I am glad that the Minister is here today to hear these testimonies, and some that my other colleagues will be sharing, because it is important that we understand the terrible effects of this condition. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that Down’s syndrome regression disorder is destroying lives.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. In Birmingham, we certainly have hundreds—I do not have an exact figure. Does she think that those who are suffering from Down’s syndrome should have a letter written to their GP outlining that there is this other condition—one of regression? This is so that, when and if the worst occurs, at least the general practitioner’s notes, which are now shared across the NHS, would reflect that potential scenario.

[Jen Craft]

I will just say with kindness that people do not suffer from Down’s syndrome—I know it was a turn of phrase—but we tend to say they have it. It is a condition; it is a disability and is part of the make-up of what makes a person a person. I think it is fair to say that people do suffer if they have Down’s syndrome regression disorder, and their families do as well.

The hon. Member touches on a wider point—the real need for education of healthcare professionals and those who come in contact with people with Down’s syndrome to be aware that this regression can occur, in order to spot the early signs, because the earlier they intervene, the better the outcomes. They need to understand that it might not be attributable to late autism or early dementia, but is something in and of itself, and we need to look at how we spread that knowledge more widely.

As I have said, Down’s syndrome regression disorder is destroying the lives of those it impacts, but there is hope for those affected. Trials of treatment in the USA have produced positive results: the use of intravenous immunotherapy was shown to help approximately 20% of individuals who are experiencing regression.

I will not wade into the complex debate about the merits or otherwise of specific types of medication or treatment, but what I am calling for, and asking of the Minister, is a commitment to action. We must work towards the creation of a clear assessment pathway, with uniform diagnostic criteria, to improve the identification and awareness of regression. Health and educational practitioners working in the space of special educational needs and disabilities need guidance to fill the current void in knowledge. Anyone who might come in contact with a young person with Down’s syndrome needs to be aware that regression can occur, whether in mild or more severe forms.

We desperately need to research regression further to understand its causes, investigate the mental health dimension of the condition, interrogate the efficacy of potential treatments and roll out treatments where they are determined to be effective. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on how we might work together to achieve that, and I would welcome a determined commitment to meeting those who are already deeply involved in the research, treatment and experience of Down’s syndrome regression disorder.

I thank those who brought the condition to my attention, the Down’s Syndrome Association for its ongoing work in this space, and the Down Syndrome Medical Interest Group. I also thank the clinicians, including Dr Ella Rachamim for her work in this area, and my friends at Upwards with Downs. To the families who have shared such personal accounts of this horrifying condition, I hope that today is a start of a long-overdue and much-needed process of getting recognition of the condition and the treatment pathway that families and people with Down’s syndrome deserve.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I remind all colleagues that they should continue to stand if they wish to be called.

16:41

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for raising the issue, and for how she participates in all debates—with obvious knowledge, compassion and understanding. We thank her for that. Having this debate enables us to contribute.

I am going to give an example of a constituent in Newtownards who went through Down’s syndrome regression and describe the impact that that is having on mum, dad and child. The condition is not always understood—it is only understood by those it directly affects. Down’s syndrome regression disorder is a condition in which individuals with Down’s syndrome experience a sudden loss of previously acquired skills and abilities. I am going to explain that in relation to the couple in Newtownards and their child—she is a young lady now, to be fair. The condition may involve a change in eating patterns, such as not wanting to eat, and extreme slowness and low energy, which may or may not be associated with weight loss. These are things that their child never had before, but all of a sudden they do. There can be enhanced insomnia, obsessive-compulsive behaviours, a loss of independence in activities or a need for significant assistance with activities. Problematically, the person may also be aggressive, not because they are aggressive, but because their frustration sometimes leads to that. They may display anger or frustration, with or without behavioural outbursts. Those are all things that happened.

When I think about this condition, I think of a family I helped last year with their daughter’s disability living allowance renewal. They are in their late 70s and care for their daughter, who has Down’s syndrome. She walks the floors, night and day, in pain. She is in her 50s, and her joints are reacting to the continued walking. Because she is in pain, she has begun to lash out, not because that is her nature—that was never her nature. Her mum and dad have lovingly cared for her for more than 50 years, but their age and the regression mean that they cannot do so in the way that they did. They find it more difficult.

This week, I had the awful news that the father has been diagnosed with cancer. The question for the family is this: how will they cope without their dad? I helped them with the DLA renewal—I understood the issues and tried to put them across as best I could—but I often wonder why someone has to have a DLA or personal independence payment renewal for Down’s syndrome. It is almost inconceivable to me that it happens. But the question is not just about that. What happens while the dad, nearing 80, is battling cancer? What happens if he passes on from this world? Those are questions not simply for that family in Newtownards, but for families throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland who are ageing and wondering what the next step will be for their adult vulnerable child—an adult in so many ways, but also a child in others.

The underlying need for that family, and for so many others like theirs, is support. They do not know how to handle their child who has stopped responding to them, and feel alone with the changes. As a society, we have rightly moved away from institutionalising Down’s syndrome children. But, with great respect, I believe we have also abdicated our responsibility towards adults with Down’s syndrome and their families—and that needs to change.

In Northern Ireland, the incidence of Down’s syndrome is one in 770 births. That shows the level of support needed for families, and for us back home. My gut feeling is that the numbers are probably the same over here on the mainland. It is not acceptable to throw PIP at a family and walk away. They need respite care for weeks, maybe longer, and day support classes to give their child routine and something to live for.

I am involved with an organisation called East Coast Day Opportunities. It is run by two ladies, Janine Patton and Llewellyn McClurg, in Portavogie in the Ards peninsula where I live. They worked for 20 years at the Tor Bank special school and were touched by the fact that after their education ended at the age of 18, vulnerable adults were left at home all day, so they fought for a form of funding. I know it is not the Minister’s responsibility—it is not about that—but they are still fighting to ensure that individual young people receive their funding. There should be no battle. Dedicated support should be available to enable families to keep their child at home with them. I think in particular of that family in Newtownards who are under such pressure.

In conclusion, support and succour are needed, and that is what we look to the Minister to provide. Regression must not necessarily mean the end of home care. The only way around this is to acknowledge that we have a hard obligation that we must do better in fulfilling.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

Three Back Benchers are seeking to speak. I hope it will assist colleagues if I say that I intend to start calling Front Benchers at about 5.08 pm.

16:47

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I declare an interest as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Down syndrome, along with the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds).

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on securing this important and timely debate on Down syndrome regression disorder—a subject on which she always speaks with authority. I thank her for so eloquently explaining the devastating impact it has on families, the difficulties around its diagnosis, and the need for greater awareness and action.

We have already heard that Down syndrome regression disorder is a heartbreaking condition that affects around 1% to 2% of young people with Down syndrome, typically during adolescence and early adulthood. Despite the profound effects it has on many families across the country, it remains largely in the shadows and is widely under-recognised in our healthcare and support systems.

Down syndrome regression disorder is marked by a sudden and often severe loss of previously acquired skills—language, mobility, self-care and social interaction. Imagine a young person who once spoke fluently, dressed themselves and engaged joyfully with others suddenly becoming mute, withdrawn and dependent. For many families, this is not a nightmare: it is their reality. For them, it is like watching their loved one vanish before their eyes.

The emotional and psychological toll on these families is immense. A recent study published in the Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases found that the caregivers of individuals with DSRD experience significantly higher levels of depression, financial strain and social isolation compared with the caregivers of individuals with other neurological conditions. Many parents described the experience as traumatic, grieving the loss of the child they once knew while navigating a healthcare system that often lacks answers. That is because in the UK awareness of DSRD is limited.

We have excellent support networks for individuals with Down syndrome, but DSRD falls into a blind spot. There are no standard diagnostic criteria in current NHS guidelines, research funding is scarce, and few clinicians are trained to recognise or treat the disorder. The referral pathways are often unclear, leaving families in limbo during what may be the most frightening period of their lives.

We must recognise that this is not just a medical issue; it is a human one too. One of the greatest challenges with DSRD is the difficulty in diagnosing it. For many parents, their first concern is dismissal by medical professionals. When a young person with Down syndrome begins to show signs of regression, the common response is often that it is simply part of their developmental journey—a phase that will pass. Concerns are too often brushed aside, leaving families feeling unheard and helpless. This dismissive attitude can delay proper diagnosis and treatment, worsening the young person’s condition.

Medical professionals, although experts in their field, may not be aware of this specific disorder and, as a result, may not recognise the signs when they appear. For parents who already face the complexities of raising a young person with Down syndrome, having their worries minimised is an additional burden. Their instinct is to protect and advocate for their child, yet they find themselves in a constant struggle for acknowledgment.

But there is hope, if we act. We need more research in the UK that investigates how this disorder presents in our healthcare and social environments. We must also push for clinical trials in the UK, because similar trials in other countries, particularly the US, have shown that with the right interventions it is possible to help children with this condition to return to their baseline level of functioning.

We need clear diagnostic and treatment pathways to be developed by the NHS and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, in collaboration with experts in Down syndrome. Doctors and mental health professionals must be trained to identify the early signs of regression and respond with urgency and compassion.

We must listen to parents. When they voice concerns, we need to take them seriously. They are experts on their children, and dismissing their worries can delay crucial intervention. Families deserve real support, not dismissal. They need practical guidance, better access to care and peer networks that they can turn to during moments of crisis.

The public need to hear more about this condition, because the more we talk about it, the closer we get to funding solutions and saving futures. Every person with Down syndrome deserves the chance to thrive without fear of losing the progress they have made, and every family deserves to be believed, supported and empowered when regression strikes. Let us give Down syndrome regression disorder the attention it desperately needs before more voices are silenced, more smiles fade and more potential is lost.

16:52

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

I rise to speak briefly in support of the case put so comprehensively and powerfully by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft).

The APPG on Down syndrome, of which the hon. Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) and I are both members, was given a very striking presentation on Down syndrome regression disorder by Dr Ella Rachamim. We were told of the case of a young person with Down syndrome who went from being socially and physically active, able to get dressed, have a shower and enjoy swimming and playing basketball, to becoming stiff and catatonic, losing the ability to balance and walk upstairs, soiling and wetting himself frequently, and refusing food and drink to the extent that he became so dehydrated as to need hospitalisation.

As colleagues have said, Down syndrome regression disorder is a sudden loss of previously acquired and present social, motor and language skills. It is clearly a devastating development for any family, and it is often compounded by a lack of awareness and misdiagnosis. As the hon. Member for Thurrock said, it is taken for autism or early-onset dementia. We are all very grateful to the hon. Lady for securing this important debate, and to the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I know that she intended to raise awareness of Down syndrome regression disorder in this debate, and she has certainly done so.

Clearly, more research is needed. Dr Rachamim shared with us various treatments, advocated for work-up and treatment plans to be put in place, along with trials and treatment options, and argued that to help this community, increasing professional awareness is key—key to preventing misdiagnosis and to ensuring that patients receive the right care and support. By increasing awareness of Down syndrome regression disorder, more support can be put in place both for the individuals affected and for the parents and carers who are so heavily impacted. This debate is part of that work. Again, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Thurrock, and I hope the Minister will take note.

16:54

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing the debate, and for her opening words on Down’s syndrome regression disorder.

As we have heard, Down’s syndrome regression disorder is a little known but deeply distressing condition that affects between 1% and 2% of young people with Down’s syndrome, typically between the ages of 10 and 30. It is sudden and life altering. Young people who have developed essential social, motor and communication skills can rapidly lose those abilities, sometimes in a matter of weeks or even days.

One of the greatest challenges facing families is the lack of awareness. It is often misdiagnosed as early-onset Alzheimer’s, late-onset autism or schizophrenia. Without accurate diagnosis, access to the right treatment is often delayed, leaving families to navigate a terrifying and bewildering situation on their own.

I would like to share the story of one of my constituents, whose son Ewan experienced not just one but two severe episodes of this regression. Each time, his descent was sudden. He became consumed by paranoia, withdrew from his life, took to his bed and suffered significant mental health distress. His personality changed dramatically: once a happy, sociable young man, he became fearful and was convinced that Government agents were following him. His family described feeling shocked, heartbroken and completely unprepared. Despite persistent efforts, they struggled to get timely support. They battled to ensure that they were included in care decisions, and had to fight hard for regular reviews from the specialist.

While Ewan has since made a remarkable recovery—I pay tribute to him, and I am proud to say that he has just celebrated one year of work experience, part time at Lidl—and he is now once again his warm, bubbly self, his family’s ordeal has left a permanent impact. They now view his happiness as their priority, recognising his enduring vulnerability.

Research into DSRD remains limited. Though the condition has been recognised since as far back as 1946, there is still no national diagnostic pathway, no agreed treatment protocol and very little professional training. However, 80% of those who receive appropriate and timely treatment show significant improvement. To get there, we need to raise awareness. We must improve diagnostic clarity and ensure that support services are properly resourced and accessible, and that families are listened to, because they know their young people best.

Today, along with colleagues, I am calling for greater clinical awareness of DSRD across health and social care; the development of UK-wide diagnostic and treatment guidelines; and investment in further research to better understand this condition and its triggers. For the families affected, timely intervention can mean the difference between recovery and long-term suffering. I hope that this debate will be a step towards giving young people like Ewan and their families the understanding, support and hope that they deserve.

16:54

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

I thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this important debate, and for her ongoing advocacy on behalf of people with Down’s syndrome and those with special educational needs. The hon. Lady was in the Chamber yesterday when the Secretary of State made her statement about Best Start centres, and her contribution was really valued across the House. Her commitment to raising these issues, both in Westminster Hall and in the main Chamber, does not go unnoticed, and the voices of the individuals and families she raises, who are too often overlooked, are heard loud and clear.

I am grateful to Members from across the House for their contributions to this debate, and for shining a light on the often overlooked but deeply distressing reality of Down’s syndrome regression disorder, which is a little known but profoundly distressing condition that affects individuals when they are at a vulnerable point in their life, often during adolescence or early adulthood. As the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) said, it can be sudden and life altering for those with Down’s syndrome and for those who love them. This is not a rare curiosity that can be quietly ignored. It is a heartbreaking and complex condition that strips people of skills, independence and identity, often rapidly and with devastating consequences—and right now, families are being left to navigate it alone.

Regression in this context is the sudden and unexplained loss of previously acquired developmental abilities, including speech, motor skills, self-care and social interaction. It is not autism or dementia—it is entirely different—and it is something that we must understand far better than we currently do. There is currently no single known cause for the regression, which can be triggered by significant life stresses, mental health deterioration, underlying medical issues, infections, nutritional deficiencies, exposure to toxins or, as the hon. Member for Thurrock spoke about, extreme moments of stress. She shared a heartbreaking story about the young person who had a heartbreaking moment in school and did not really recover from it.

Despite its impact, frontline care staff have often never heard of the condition, and when symptoms emerge, diagnosis is often delayed or missed entirely. We need urgent investment in research to better understand the condition and develop evidence-based responses. It is a crisis of unmet need, because 80% of young people can make huge progress if it is caught and supported early enough. Families describe watching their loved ones retreat into silence, lose mobility or withdraw emotionally, often over just weeks or months.

I do not have a child with Down’s syndrome, but I think it is the same for every parent—watching their child change in a way that is indescribable, losing all the things that make them who they are, must be the most distressing thing that they can go through. The impact must be devastating. These families need answers; they need access to specialist assessments, co-ordinated care and, above all, hope that with the right support, their loved one might regain some of what has been lost. Right now, there is no clinical consensus on treatment, no national guidance and very little research funding.

In Chichester, my constituents are very lucky to have an incredible charity, the Chichester and Arun Down Syndrome Support Group, which works tirelessly to fill the gaps left by failings in public service provision. Ahead of this debate, the charity highlighted to me many of the challenges that their young people with Down’s syndrome face, particularly in accessing the support that they need throughout their education. Families have told me that, in hospital, when their Down’s syndrome child was born, they were presented with information from the Down’s syndrome group in Portsmouth, but were unable to access that service because they do not live there. Nationally, there needs to be support for every single child who is born.

The Liberal Democrats are calling for three clear things. First, we would like regression disorder to be embedded in professional training for care workers, supported by new national standards set by a national care agency and a professional framework overseen by a royal college of care workers. The frontline workforce needs to be equipped to recognise and respond to the condition early and effectively. Secondly, we need the Down Syndrome Act to be properly resourced. That means far more than just warm words: it means access to speech and language therapy, occupational therapy, mental health support, physiotherapy and primary care. It means making good on the promise of joined-up, lifelong support, not just at school age but well into adulthood. Thirdly, we need real action on social care. We need bold, cross-party agreement on a long-term settlement now—not in a decade—and we must give unpaid family carers the deal that they deserve, with paid leave, guaranteed respite and long overdue recognition.

Healthcare provision is also lagging. The NHS rightly recommends access to a wide range of specialists for people with Down’s syndrome, from physiotherapists and occupational therapists to speech and language support and mental healthcare, but too often families report waiting lists, postcode lotteries and providers that are simply not equipped to deal with complex needs such as regression. People with Down’s syndrome are often more likely to become seriously unwell from common infections such as flu and pneumonia, yet we are still not doing enough to ensure vaccine uptake. That is why we are calling for everyone with a disability or chronic health condition to have access to a named GP, to ensure early intervention, better diagnosis and ongoing support.

Too many people with Down’s syndrome are being let down by the education system, the care system and the NHS. The regression that some experience in young adulthood is not inevitable; in many cases, it can be managed or even reversed with the right support, but that support needs to be in place for every young person. In my constituency I have seen the strength of local charities such as the Chichester and Arun Down Syndrome Support Group, and organisations such as Together Our Community, but we cannot continue to rely on charitable good will to cover the cracks left by a failing system.

When a young person with Down’s syndrome starts to withdraw, lose speech or motor function or disconnect from their surroundings, their family do not need to be told to wait in a queue. They need a co-ordinated, knowledgeable and compassionate response, and they need it fast, so the question we must answer in this House today is simple: are we content to let families carry the burden alone, or are the Government ready to put in place the policies, funding and professional care that people with Down’s syndrome deserve? What steps will the Government take to drive forward research into Down’s syndrome regression disorder, get stronger training into the hands of those who need it, and guarantee that the joined-up care that people with Down’s syndrome so desperately deserve is finally delivered?

17:05

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this debate. We thought we were going to have it a few weeks ago, and then things moved around, so I am pleased that she has been able to secure this time slot, because the issue is extremely important. I would not normally speak in Westminster Hall as the shadow Secretary of State, but this is a very important issue on which I know she has spoken powerfully since her election to this House.

This is not only an important debate, but one that has been conducted in a tone that does credit to this House, without party politics. Instead it has focused on those who are genuinely impacted by the topic we are debating. This Chamber so often succeeds in giving a voice to those who might not normally have their voice amplified in political debate, or indeed in the main Chamber, to the extent that it should be. In that sense, this is extremely useful. Although Down’s syndrome has been debated in the broadest sense by this House on numerous occasions, Down’s syndrome regression disorder has been debated rather less so. I recall that in March the hon. Member for Thurrock talked about it in a speech. Today’s debate has helped do something that was among her objectives, which is to raise the profile of this very important issue and draw greater attention to it.

Right hon. and hon. Members have already highlighted the nature of Down’s syndrome regression disorder, how it works, and what happens. It is important to note that, according to research, 1% to 2% of young people with Down’s syndrome between the ages of 10 and 30 can experience it. As the hon. Member for Thurrock and others have highlighted, one of the great challenges, and one of the most impactful parts of this, is the speed with which regression can occur, often without warning, or possibly with warning for those who know what to look for, as she touched on. She spoke very movingly about Fran, giving a real life example of how regression can happen, its impacts, and what can bring it about. It is important to remember, as hon. Members have highlighted, the impact on family when regression disorder occurs.

The hon. Member for Thurrock set out clearly the challenges: the speed with which regression can occur; the lack of knowledge among many, including some in the medical and caring professions, of Down’s syndrome regression disorder; and the challenges around getting a diagnosis and treatment. Like others, I pay tribute to the work of the Down’s Syndrome Association for its campaigning on the broader issues, and specifically on this one, and the helpful briefing and advice that it sent to right hon. and hon. Members.

It is a pleasure to serve opposite the Minister for Care. Although we might occasionally tussle on some things, I know he is a very thoughtful Minister who understands his brief. I therefore look forward to his response; I know it will be considered and measured. I have a few questions for him, which will come as no surprise. First, in 2021, the Down’s Syndrome Association supported research undertaken by the University of Cambridge. I would welcome from the Minister his thinking on how that can be built upon, and what further work can be done around that. Having been a Minister in the Department, I know that it is not always directly within the Minister’s gift to do x and y, because often it will be undertaken by arm’s length bodies or different parts of the system, but I would be grateful if the Minister could set out how the Department can drive forward an increased focus on research.

We have heard about some trials—some treatments—in the US that may offer a positive way forward. To echo the words of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), I would be grateful if the Minister could set out what more can be done to create clearer diagnostic and treatment pathways for young people with Down’s syndrome regression disorder. I am conscious that, in 2022, Sir Liam Fox secured the passage into law of his Down Syndrome Act, but the guidance on it is still outstanding. Does the Minister have a timeline for when that will be produced, and might that guidance offer an opportunity to wrap in some of the issues around Down’s syndrome regression disorder, to better inform people and raise awareness?

I am conscious that the Minister needs time to reply, and I suspect the hon. Member for Thurrock will want to have a few minutes at the end. I will therefore conclude here. I hope that today’s debate is one of those in this place in which we can see broad agreement across both sides of the House and, in the Minister’s remarks, the potential way forward. As well as debating this and raising awareness, what we all want to see is progress. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to give me succour in that respect.

17:11

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this important debate. I commend her for the work she is doing to raise such an important issue, and for sharing her personal experiences in a moving and powerful way, as a parent of a child with Down’s syndrome. I also pay tribute to all the hon. Members who have spoken so powerfully and movingly in this debate.

Last week, we launched our 10-year health plan for the NHS, which creates a new model of care, fit for the future. The neighbourhood health service will help to improve life outcomes for disabled people, including people with Down’s syndrome, by providing access to holistic, ongoing support that is closer to home. Through local commissioning, we will ensure that neighbourhood health services work in partnership with family hubs, schools, nurseries and colleges to offer timely support to children, young people and their families, including those with special educational needs and disabilities.

We have heard powerful testimonies about the challenges associated with Down’s syndrome regression disorder, both for people with Down’s syndrome and for their families and carers. As we have heard, regression describes the loss of previously acquired cognitive and developmental skills in an individual. Down’s syndrome regression disorder is a specific, rare type of regression, which usually presents in adolescence or early adulthood.

People with Down’s syndrome can live full lives pursuing their personal interests, taking up employment, and living independently. However, regression can have a devastating impact for people with Down’s syndrome; the loss of developmental skills can affect daily living, language, motor abilities or social interaction. We know that symptoms can often be overlooked, or misdiagnosed as dementia. We have heard that further awareness and understanding of the disorder is needed. Like with other support for people with Down’s syndrome, it is important that care for regression disorder is personalised and takes into account the specific needs of the individual.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock so clearly explained, there is currently limited understanding of Down’s syndrome regression disorder. We know that experts in the field have looked into regression and developed a position statement on regression in adolescence and early adulthood experienced by people who have Down’s syndrome. This includes recommended healthcare actions for people with Down’s syndrome who show signs of loss of skills or cognitive decline.

There has been some academic research into regression, but there is still much to learn about this disorder and why it happens to some people. We understand that many factors may come into play in causing regression, but the specific underlying cause of Down’s syndrome regression disorder is still unclear. Through its research delivery arm, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, the Department of Health and Social Care welcomes high-quality funding applications from researchers seeking to better understand this condition, and to inform enhanced management and care.

More broadly, patients will receive the most cutting-edge treatment years earlier than planned under the Government’s 10-year health plan, which will speed up clinical trials so that the UK becomes a hotbed of innovation. Millions of people will now be able to search for and sign up to life-changing clinical trials via the NIHR Be Part of Research service on the NHS app, allowing patients to browse and find the trials best suited to their interests and needs.

The Government are committed to improving life outcomes for people with Down’s syndrome, including those who have regression disorder. In order to achieve this, it is vital that we raise awareness of the needs of people with Down’s syndrome. We know that despite many positive developments, such as increased life expectancy, people with Down’s syndrome do not always receive the care and support they need to lead the lives they want to lead in their communities.

[Ayoub Khan]

First, I apologise to the hon. Member for Thurrock for using clumsy language—I meant no discourtesy. We have been discussing PIP and how it could impact many people who require care. Regression can happen very suddenly for people with Down’s syndrome, which is concerning because we are still looking at research and the methods for getting a final determination. Will the Government incorporate something, such as financial care packages and so forth, to deal with the additional care required by those individuals?

[Stephen Kinnock]

As the Government have made clear throughout the debate on reforming the welfare system, those who need to be supported and protected will be supported and protected, so I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that point. There is clearly a lot of work to do through the review that will be led by the Minister for Social Security and Disability, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms). This will be an important part of his work.

Through the implementation of the Down Syndrome Act 2022, we will improve awareness and understanding of the needs of people with Down’s syndrome and how to meet them. The Act requires the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to give guidance to relevant authorities, including local authorities, education and housing services, on the appropriate steps they should be taking to meet the needs of people with Down’s syndrome in exercising their relevant functions.

Work to develop the statutory guidance under the Act is being taken forward as a priority, with a view to issuing it for consultation in the autumn. The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), asked about that. We looked at publishing it over the summer, but we received feedback from stakeholder groups that parents in particular are often busy with their kids over the summer, so it is better to wait until the autumn. That is what we are doing, and we will be publishing it as soon as the school holidays are over.

Officials have considered a range of evidence and engaged extensively with sector partners to inform the development of the guidance. This includes a national call for evidence, which received more than 1,500 responses. A summary report of its findings will be published ahead of, or alongside, issuing the draft guidance for consultation. Based on what we were told during the call for evidence and our subsequent engagement with sector partners and experts, a needs profile has been developed setting out the different needs of people with Down’s syndrome, including people with Down’s syndrome regression disorder. We intend to publish the needs profile paper alongside the draft guidance this autumn to ensure full transparency.

The guidance itself will raise awareness of the specific needs of people with Down’s syndrome, including health needs such as unexplained regression. The guidance will also set out practical steps that relevant authorities should take to meet the needs of people with Down’s syndrome.

We have made significant progress in developing the guidance. We are working closely with relevant Government Departments and sector partners to ensure that it is helpful, accurate and fully reflective of the latest developments in Government policy. Crucially, that engagement has involved people with lived experience of Down’s syndrome, as well as organisations that support people with Down’s syndrome, other conditions and/or a learning disability.

On 4 June, I met the all-party parliamentary group on Down syndrome and provided an update on the latest progress on the guidance. We discussed how we can ensure that the guidance is as effective and impactful as possible. The latest version of the draft guidance, which has had input from all relevant Government Departments, was also shared with sector partners in June for their feedback.

Officials are reviewing that feedback ahead of issuing the guidance for consultation this autumn, which will provide a further opportunity for individuals and organisations to share their views. We remain committed to delivering high-quality guidance that supports improved outcomes for people with Down’s syndrome, while bringing wider benefit where possible. To support implementation of the guidance, NHS England published statutory guidance on 9 May 2023 requiring that every integrated care board must have a named leader for Down’s syndrome.

The 10-year health plan will ensure a better health service for everyone, regardless of condition or service area. We want disabled people’s access to and experience of healthcare services to be equitable, effective and responsive to their needs. Significant engagement took place as part of the 10-year health plan’s development, and informed the final plan. That engagement included a roundtable on learning disability, at which we heard directly from people with Down’s syndrome about their experience of the NHS. We also received contributions from organisations that support and advocate for Down’s syndrome across the health and social care sector.

The 10-year health plan sets the vision for what good, joined-up care looks like for people with a combination of health and care needs, including people with Down’s syndrome regression disorder or other disabilities. The neighbourhood health service will support disabled people to be more active in the delivery and management of their own care. That includes increasing uptake of personal health budgets, which provide individuals with greater choice and flexibility on how their assessed wellbeing needs are met. We know that there are many disabled people, including people with Down’s syndrome, who want to work. The 10-year plan will break down barriers to opportunity by delivering the holistic support that people need to access and thrive in employment.

A number of hon. Members raised questions about training. The guidance will raise awareness of the specific needs of people with Down’s syndrome, including people with regression disorder. We understand that training is an important part of that picture. Under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, providers registered with the Care Quality Commission must ensure that staff receive appropriate professional development necessary for them to carry out their duties. Specific training on learning disability and autism, appropriate to the staff member’s role, is also mandated under the Health and Care Act 2022. We expect that providers should consider whether specific training on Down’s syndrome is required for their staff.

Members also raised questions about funding research into regression disorder. The Department funds health and social care research through the NIHR. The NIHR welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health and care, including Down’s syndrome regression disorder. Such applications are subject to peer review and are judged in open competition, with awards made on the basis of the importance of the topic to patients and to health and care services, value for money, and scientific quality. That enables maximum flexibility, both in the amount of research funding that can be awarded to a particular area, and in the type of research that can be funded.

The NIHR works closely with other Government funders—including UK Research and Innovation, which is funded by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and includes the Medical Research Council—to fund research to improve care and prevent poor health outcomes for people with Down’s syndrome.

The shadow Minister asked a couple of specific questions. I think he mentioned Down’s Syndrome Association-supported research by Cambridge University, and the trials in the United States of America. If it is okay, I will write to him on those points. I am not in a position to address them today.

I hope I have addressed the points raised by hon. Members in this debate. I end by thanking all those who have committed so much time and effort to supporting the development of the guidance under the Down Syndrome Act. We are grateful for the invaluable input that individuals and organisations continue to provide on the draft guidance. Their feedback has been, and is, instrumental in helping us to ensure that the final guidance has maximum benefit. Officials will continue to work with sector partners to ensure that the communities they represent are aware of the forthcoming consultation and can share their views.

I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock for securing this important debate, and for all the incredibly important work that she is doing in this area. I also thank all hon. Members for their contributions.

17:26

[Jen Craft]

I thank all colleagues who have taken part in today’s debate. I hope it has been a chance to raise awareness of this much overlooked and under-researched condition. I thank colleagues who shared stories of their individual constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) shared the story of Ewan, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) shared Jude and Ruth’s moving story.

I also appreciate the contribution of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who talked about the wider implications for families of caring for someone with Down’s syndrome, as well as the contribution from the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan), who raised the need for more awareness of Down’s syndrome regression disorder.

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), for her kind words and for talking about the need for co-ordinated care and lifelong support for those with Down’s syndrome. I am also grateful to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for his contribution. He spoke about the need for more research, and for better support and care for the families of people with Down’s syndrome.

My thanks also go to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) for sharing a passionate plea to listen to parents and families, as we are the real experts. That is something I would like the Minister to embed in the guidance under the Down Syndrome Act—listening to those who are experts in the condition. Fairly often, when a person does not receive timely treatment for things like Down’s syndrome regression disorder, it is because those who know them best are not listened to. They are seen the way they have presented on the day, without their entire history being taken into account.

I also thank the shadow Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), for saying that this is very much a cross-party issue. I hope we can move forward in that spirit and see it as something that is beyond the political sphere. We need to act on it so we can come to a resolution for those who are affected by this horrifying condition.

Finally, I thank the Minister for his comments, and particularly on his commitment to publishing the Down Syndrome Act guidance in the autumn, which I am sure will be welcomed by many. I hope there will be specific measures to raise awareness of Down’s syndrome regression disorder, and a pathway so that parents, carers and those with Down’s syndrome regression disorder can get support. Signposting can often be helpful in showing them where to go.

One thing that comes up time and again, when speaking to parents of children or young people with Down’s syndrome regression disorder, is that they are often unaware of it until it happens. It is helpful to understand that what is happening to their child is not unique, and that it is a recognised condition for which treatment is available. That is one of the more helpful things that the Government can do.

Again, I thank everyone for taking part in this debate, and I hope this is the start of real progress on the issue.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I add my thanks to all who participated.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Down’s syndrome regression disorder research.

17:29

Sitting adjourned.