Westminster Hall
Thursday 2nd July 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 2 months, 1 week ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
13:30
13:30
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I beg to move that. The House has considered the matter of reducing levels of premature deaths from heart disease and stroke. Thank you, Dame Siobhan. It's an honour to speak under your chairmanship today. Can I also thank the honourable members who are also attending?Cardiovascular disease remains one of the UK's biggest killers and one of the greatest public health challenges facing our country. It devastates families, communities and livelihoods in every corner of the United Kingdom. It has touched countless families, including my own.
Albeit my challenge is not cardiovascular disease, but our congenital heart defect. A silent killer that was diagnosed last year following a routine health check. I am still not completely sorry. I am still completely symptom free, but we'll have to have open heart surgery to replace my aortic valve at some point in the future. I am, however, in the very safe hands of the NHS. Today. Dame Siobhan is about ensuring that the voices of those living with cardiovascular conditions are heard in this House, but is also about something more fundamental.
For the first time in over half a century, we've seen progress against cardiovascular disease moving in the wrong direction. The question before us today is simple are we willing to accept that, or are we prepared to tackle this?With the right political will and the right action, we can once again make the UK a country where fewer people die young from heart disease and stroke. This debate also comes at a significant moment for the British Heart Foundation, who are here with us today. Founded in the first in July 1961, the charity is marking 65 years of funding life saving research this month and I am pleased that representatives have said.
Are here with us and I wish to publicly thank them all for the crucial support they continue to champion and deliver day after day. Moving on the scale of the challenge, we face, CVD is responsible for around 170,000 deaths each year in the United Kingdom. That's more than a quarter of all recorded annual deaths, with one life lost almost every three minutes. Put simply, whilst we hold this debate this afternoon, around 30 lives could be lost to CVD. Let that sink in.
More than 8 million people across the country are living with CVD, with many waiting for vital care and many more living with conditions that increase their risk of CVD or a cardiac event. Yet much of this burden is not inevitable. It is preventable. Around 70% of CVD cases in the UK are linked to modifiable factors such as obesity and smoking. Alongside manageable risk factors such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol and diabetes. Talking of diabetes, it is great to see one of my closest friends sat here in the public gallery, Mr.
Jared Fox. This is also very personal to Jared, a type one diabetic who suffered three heart attacks back in 2018 linked to his diabetes, resulting in undergoing a triple heart bypass. Of the pudding is in the eating. As the saying goes, as Jared sits now with a smiling away. But the issue is, as a diabetic, I believe he should have been undergoing screening as he is at high risk, not getting to the point where he almost died unaware of the increased risks that he faced.
Despite decades of progress, British Heart Foundation analysis shows that for the first time in over half a century, premature deaths from CVD have been rising again. This should concern every single member in this House. The cost is not just measured in lives. CVD is also a major economic impact, costing the UK an estimated £12 million in direct healthcare costs each year and cost the wider economy around 30 billion. It is also a stark reminder of health inequalities in the UK today as well.
In our most deprived communities, people are still far more likely to die prematurely from CVD than those living in the most affluent areas. This just isn't acceptable.
Albeit my challenge is not cardiovascular disease, but our congenital heart defect. A silent killer that was diagnosed last year following a routine health check. I am still not completely sorry. I am still completely symptom free, but we'll have to have open heart surgery to replace my aortic valve at some point in the future. I am, however, in the very safe hands of the NHS. Today. Dame Siobhan is about ensuring that the voices of those living with cardiovascular conditions are heard in this House, but is also about something more fundamental.
For the first time in over half a century, we've seen progress against cardiovascular disease moving in the wrong direction. The question before us today is simple are we willing to accept that, or are we prepared to tackle this?With the right political will and the right action, we can once again make the UK a country where fewer people die young from heart disease and stroke. This debate also comes at a significant moment for the British Heart Foundation, who are here with us today. Founded in the first in July 1961, the charity is marking 65 years of funding life saving research this month and I am pleased that representatives have said.
Are here with us and I wish to publicly thank them all for the crucial support they continue to champion and deliver day after day. Moving on the scale of the challenge, we face, CVD is responsible for around 170,000 deaths each year in the United Kingdom. That's more than a quarter of all recorded annual deaths, with one life lost almost every three minutes. Put simply, whilst we hold this debate this afternoon, around 30 lives could be lost to CVD. Let that sink in.
More than 8 million people across the country are living with CVD, with many waiting for vital care and many more living with conditions that increase their risk of CVD or a cardiac event. Yet much of this burden is not inevitable. It is preventable. Around 70% of CVD cases in the UK are linked to modifiable factors such as obesity and smoking. Alongside manageable risk factors such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol and diabetes. Talking of diabetes, it is great to see one of my closest friends sat here in the public gallery, Mr.
Jared Fox. This is also very personal to Jared, a type one diabetic who suffered three heart attacks back in 2018 linked to his diabetes, resulting in undergoing a triple heart bypass. Of the pudding is in the eating. As the saying goes, as Jared sits now with a smiling away. But the issue is, as a diabetic, I believe he should have been undergoing screening as he is at high risk, not getting to the point where he almost died unaware of the increased risks that he faced.
Despite decades of progress, British Heart Foundation analysis shows that for the first time in over half a century, premature deaths from CVD have been rising again. This should concern every single member in this House. The cost is not just measured in lives. CVD is also a major economic impact, costing the UK an estimated £12 million in direct healthcare costs each year and cost the wider economy around 30 billion. It is also a stark reminder of health inequalities in the UK today as well.
In our most deprived communities, people are still far more likely to die prematurely from CVD than those living in the most affluent areas. This just isn't acceptable.
13:34
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
It's very generous in giving way, and is making an important and passionate speech, especially given the personal circumstances that he mentioned. I agree with him on the point about deprivation. I wonder if you agree with me that having access to fresh, affordable food in some of the most deprived areas is incredibly important. In my own constituency of Castlemilk is much more easy to get a bottle of vodka than it is to get a banana. And does he agree that fixing that is part of the problem?If part of the solution.
13:35
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you. I absolutely agree with them with what you've just said there. If we could get fresh food to more of our communities and our young people, it would have a massive positive effect on dealing with CVD. I completely agree, and it has to be dealt with. Could not be more timely. The government has rightly identified CVD as one of the UK's biggest killers, and has set a welcome ambition to reduce premature deaths from heart disease and stroke by 25% over the next decade.
Parliament has a responsibility to not just welcome these commitments, but to scrutinise how they will be delivered. The forthcoming modern service framework for CVD in England, which ministers state, will soon be published, presents a rare opportunity to reset our approach to heart health. However, for me, the real question is whether this action will be equal to the scale of the challenge before us. This debate is also an important opportunity to press the government on what the frame framework will contain, how it will be implemented and whether it will deliver significant improvements in prevention, diagnosis, treatment and care.
Although the framework will focus on England, the challenge of CVD knows no borders. This is a UK wide challenge and the lessons, opportunities and ambitions discussed today must resonate across all four of our nations. Moving on to the role of research and innovation. If CVD is one of our greatest challenges challenges, sorry, then research is one of our greatest opportunities. The remarkable progress made over the past six decades did not happen by accident. It happened thanks to charities such as the British Heart Foundation.
Our great universities, researchers, clinicians and patients who all work together to transform outcomes. People like Jared are alive today because of research breakthroughs that were once thought impossible. The Life Sciences Sector Plan recognises the UK's potential to be a world leader in research and innovation. Cardiovascular health must be at the heart of that ambition, from AI and technology that can prevent and enable early diagnosis to the development of cutting edge treatments and medicines. The United Kingdom has an opportunity not only to improve outcomes here at home, but to lead the world in tackling cardiovascular disease.
Drawing to a conclusion, Dame Siobhan, I respectfully ask the minister to not simply restate the government's ambition, but to detail how that ambition will become reality for over 8 million people affected on a daily basis by cardiovascular disease, specifically, number one, when does the minister think the modern service framework for CVD will be published?Number two, how will the government ensure the framework is backed by clear delivery plans, accountability and measurable milestones, especially during a time of great challenge and change for the National Health Service?Number three, what action will be taken to improve prevention, early diagnosis and management of major risk factors such as diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and atrial fibrillation.
Number four, how will the government ensure that the action on CVD reduces reduces health inequalities and. Five how will the government work with devolved administrations, researchers, charities, clinicians and patients to deliver progress across the entire United Kingdom?To formally conclude, the UK has made significant progress against cardiovascular disease before. And we can do it again. But progress is not inevitable. It requires leadership, sustained investment and a laser focus on delivery. This is a pivotal moment and we should all look to support the government in its delivery of its cardiovascular ambition and drive progress in heart health.
Once more. I therefore thank the Minister for setting out for us today how the government will turn its cardiovascular ambition into measurable action, tangible progress and ultimately, thousands of lives being saved.
Parliament has a responsibility to not just welcome these commitments, but to scrutinise how they will be delivered. The forthcoming modern service framework for CVD in England, which ministers state, will soon be published, presents a rare opportunity to reset our approach to heart health. However, for me, the real question is whether this action will be equal to the scale of the challenge before us. This debate is also an important opportunity to press the government on what the frame framework will contain, how it will be implemented and whether it will deliver significant improvements in prevention, diagnosis, treatment and care.
Although the framework will focus on England, the challenge of CVD knows no borders. This is a UK wide challenge and the lessons, opportunities and ambitions discussed today must resonate across all four of our nations. Moving on to the role of research and innovation. If CVD is one of our greatest challenges challenges, sorry, then research is one of our greatest opportunities. The remarkable progress made over the past six decades did not happen by accident. It happened thanks to charities such as the British Heart Foundation.
Our great universities, researchers, clinicians and patients who all work together to transform outcomes. People like Jared are alive today because of research breakthroughs that were once thought impossible. The Life Sciences Sector Plan recognises the UK's potential to be a world leader in research and innovation. Cardiovascular health must be at the heart of that ambition, from AI and technology that can prevent and enable early diagnosis to the development of cutting edge treatments and medicines. The United Kingdom has an opportunity not only to improve outcomes here at home, but to lead the world in tackling cardiovascular disease.
Drawing to a conclusion, Dame Siobhan, I respectfully ask the minister to not simply restate the government's ambition, but to detail how that ambition will become reality for over 8 million people affected on a daily basis by cardiovascular disease, specifically, number one, when does the minister think the modern service framework for CVD will be published?Number two, how will the government ensure the framework is backed by clear delivery plans, accountability and measurable milestones, especially during a time of great challenge and change for the National Health Service?Number three, what action will be taken to improve prevention, early diagnosis and management of major risk factors such as diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and atrial fibrillation.
Number four, how will the government ensure that the action on CVD reduces reduces health inequalities and. Five how will the government work with devolved administrations, researchers, charities, clinicians and patients to deliver progress across the entire United Kingdom?To formally conclude, the UK has made significant progress against cardiovascular disease before. And we can do it again. But progress is not inevitable. It requires leadership, sustained investment and a laser focus on delivery. This is a pivotal moment and we should all look to support the government in its delivery of its cardiovascular ambition and drive progress in heart health.
Once more. I therefore thank the Minister for setting out for us today how the government will turn its cardiovascular ambition into measurable action, tangible progress and ultimately, thousands of lives being saved.
13:39
13:39
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Thank you very much indeed. Dame Siobhan, and it's a pleasure to speak in this very important debate this afternoon about preventing premature death from both heart disease and stroke. If I may, to congratulate the honourable member for South Ribble, for securing this debate, and if I may say so, for introducing it so very ably. And it's courageous of him to talk about some of the medical challenges that he has faced, and I'm sure the whole House wishes him all the very best of luck on his journey.
It's also nice to be with him here, having spent five months on the Armed Forces Bill committee debating with him. I think the Stockholm Syndrome, the Stockholm Syndrome. Began to kick in. Dame Sharon and we even started to like each other by the end. So, um, it's it's, it's doubly pleasurable to be following him today. May I also say it's a great it's great to see the shadow health secretary here. Today, a man I've always respected and also the minister who too I respect and I bumped into in the lifts in portcullis House many times down the years.
And it's wonderful to see her sitting in a ministerial position. So I wish to declare two interests. Firstly, as a long time supporter of the British Heart Foundation, they do great work in researching. Heart disease and hopefully improving the technology and the techniques that we have to combat it. As one of Britain's, sad to say, still greatest killers. So I paid tribute to that wonderful charity today. And I also wish to pay tribute to my wife, Olivia, who has worked in the NHS for some two decades now and who revels in the title of a lead.
Neurointerventional radiographer, which is a bit of a mouthful, but as I'm going to go on to explain, if you have a stroke, she's the girl you need. I say this because she works in the specialist neurointerventional radiography department at Queen's Hospital in east London. As the minister will no doubt know, there are 26 of the specialist units around the country and the team that she works in at Queen's is very ably led by Mr. Tufail Patankar, who is an internationally recognised surgeon and an absolute expert in this field, and he has built up that team over time at Queen's.
And from what I hear, leads it very, very well indeed. So what is the. Technique that they use?It's called mechanical thrombectomy. And it's an emergency procedure used to treat acute onset stroke caused by a blood clot blocking a large artery in the brain. That is effectively what a stroke is. During the procedure, the new the interventionist neuroradiologist the surgeon passes a thin tube through an artery, usually entering the body either through the groin or the wrist.
Going up into the brain to find the blocked blood vessel and then extracting the clot and the clot sometimes can be a couple of millimeters long. It's not an easy target to find. When it's withdrawn, that restores blood flow to the affected area of the brain, and it helps to reduce permanent disability, particularly if it's performed quickly. They have a mnemonic or a saying in the department, which is time means brain. The quicker the operation can be performed. A, the more damage that's averted and B the quicker the likelihood of a recovery without complications.
Admittedly, an exceptional case, but they perform one of these operations on a man in his 20s. Within 90 minutes of the stroke occurring, he lived locally and he basically walked out of the hospital a few hours later, none the worse. So that's what this technique, which is relatively new, can achieve. And what my wife does is as the radiographer, she guides the surgeon to the target. I call her the bomb. The bomb aimer, and they had at Queen's last year a bring your hubby to work day.
And I was brought to work and there is an observation area. They have two operating theatres back to back Minister with a with an observation area in the middle. So you can stand there and actually watch on a large screen. The operation taking place and you can see the instrument going up into the brain. You can see the clot. It attaches itself to the clot and withdraws. I have to say, it's not for the faint hearted.
I was there with the honourable member for Romford, and we, we we stuck it out. We saw the whole thing. Um, but it's a very odd procedure to watch because the patient is lying. Obviously. Anaesthetized on the operating table. And you and you would, you would think that all the activity would be going on around their head, but it's not. The surgeon stands by the groin where they've gone in and then uses a very a fine.
Guiding device, almost like a sort of gaming console in order to control the instrument. Taking the lead from the vision on the screen provided by my wife, the bomb aimer. So that is that is how it works. And, uh, I think last year, the department at Queen's performed something like 300 of these operations and they operate 24 over seven. So over the weekend, they're on a cover rota and on call, as they say in the NHS. And if my wife's at home and the bat phone goes, as I call it, she has an hour to get from home to Queen's, get scrubbed up, fire up all the equipment and be ready to receive the patients, some of whom may be coming from as far as Norwich, some of whom arrive by air ambulance.
So when the bat phone goes, there's no time to grab a cup of tea and a slice of toast in the car and go. And can I just say, the sooner they finally sort out the chronic mess at Gallows Corner?Uh. And the quicker and easier that journey will become. But but I digress. There are, as I say, only 25 other hospitals in the country that do this. And the reach of this department goes out. It covers Essex and.
Goes out to some way into East Anglia, where, as it were, they hand over to Addenbrooke's in Cambridge, and they have friendly rivals who also do this at the Royal London Hospital in Whitechapel, and they tend to cover Kent and. And South London. But they do that on a rota. So when the Royal London are off for that week and Queen's cover all the areas they are responsible for a potential patient population of over 5 million people. So that is a tremendous responsibility to have.
And that's why I'm sure and obviously you need to have 24 over seven cover. Now the service is growing. Uh, anecdotally. I can tell you the bat phone rings more than it used to. And on one level, that's a good thing because the technology is advancing all the time, and they're able to treat patients who perhaps a few years ago, they wouldn't have been able to treat. But obviously that puts pressure on Olivia and, uh, doctor. Patankar and the team.
So I have a I have a plea to the minister, if I may, I understand that the government are in the process of evolving their strategy for stroke. Uh, as part of the ten year plan for the NHS. And obviously, Olivia and her team are keen to see that work evolve and particularly keen to know what role there is for mechanical thrombectomy. As part of that overall strategy. I mean, I've literally seen this at work for myself. It is a wonderful, life saving technology and technique, which we've only really been doing in the NHS barely for a decade, and we're getting better and better at it all the time.
So, um, I just want to pay tribute to, uh. The team at Queen's and all of their other teams around the country that do this wonderful work, including, for the record, the Royal London and I most of all, and I hope the House will forgive my indulgence, like to pay tribute to my wife, uh, being a member of Parliament sometimes can be a time commitment. And but actually being the husband of a woman that does this can be a bit of a time commitment, too. So sometimes when we're trying to plan going to see people for dinner parties, I'm not the long pole in the tent.
So, um, I'm very, very proud of what she does. I'm very proud of what her team do. I'm very proud of what all of the people who work at Queen's do. I'm very proud of the National Health Service, and I'm also proud for the record of the stroke unit at Southend Hospital, who also provide a very good service but don't do mechanical thrombectomy for that. They defer to Queen's. So well done to everyone who works in this area.
I thank the House for its patience and indulgence. Dame Siobhan and God bless all of the people that work to save lives from stroke.
It's also nice to be with him here, having spent five months on the Armed Forces Bill committee debating with him. I think the Stockholm Syndrome, the Stockholm Syndrome. Began to kick in. Dame Sharon and we even started to like each other by the end. So, um, it's it's, it's doubly pleasurable to be following him today. May I also say it's a great it's great to see the shadow health secretary here. Today, a man I've always respected and also the minister who too I respect and I bumped into in the lifts in portcullis House many times down the years.
And it's wonderful to see her sitting in a ministerial position. So I wish to declare two interests. Firstly, as a long time supporter of the British Heart Foundation, they do great work in researching. Heart disease and hopefully improving the technology and the techniques that we have to combat it. As one of Britain's, sad to say, still greatest killers. So I paid tribute to that wonderful charity today. And I also wish to pay tribute to my wife, Olivia, who has worked in the NHS for some two decades now and who revels in the title of a lead.
Neurointerventional radiographer, which is a bit of a mouthful, but as I'm going to go on to explain, if you have a stroke, she's the girl you need. I say this because she works in the specialist neurointerventional radiography department at Queen's Hospital in east London. As the minister will no doubt know, there are 26 of the specialist units around the country and the team that she works in at Queen's is very ably led by Mr. Tufail Patankar, who is an internationally recognised surgeon and an absolute expert in this field, and he has built up that team over time at Queen's.
And from what I hear, leads it very, very well indeed. So what is the. Technique that they use?It's called mechanical thrombectomy. And it's an emergency procedure used to treat acute onset stroke caused by a blood clot blocking a large artery in the brain. That is effectively what a stroke is. During the procedure, the new the interventionist neuroradiologist the surgeon passes a thin tube through an artery, usually entering the body either through the groin or the wrist.
Going up into the brain to find the blocked blood vessel and then extracting the clot and the clot sometimes can be a couple of millimeters long. It's not an easy target to find. When it's withdrawn, that restores blood flow to the affected area of the brain, and it helps to reduce permanent disability, particularly if it's performed quickly. They have a mnemonic or a saying in the department, which is time means brain. The quicker the operation can be performed. A, the more damage that's averted and B the quicker the likelihood of a recovery without complications.
Admittedly, an exceptional case, but they perform one of these operations on a man in his 20s. Within 90 minutes of the stroke occurring, he lived locally and he basically walked out of the hospital a few hours later, none the worse. So that's what this technique, which is relatively new, can achieve. And what my wife does is as the radiographer, she guides the surgeon to the target. I call her the bomb. The bomb aimer, and they had at Queen's last year a bring your hubby to work day.
And I was brought to work and there is an observation area. They have two operating theatres back to back Minister with a with an observation area in the middle. So you can stand there and actually watch on a large screen. The operation taking place and you can see the instrument going up into the brain. You can see the clot. It attaches itself to the clot and withdraws. I have to say, it's not for the faint hearted.
I was there with the honourable member for Romford, and we, we we stuck it out. We saw the whole thing. Um, but it's a very odd procedure to watch because the patient is lying. Obviously. Anaesthetized on the operating table. And you and you would, you would think that all the activity would be going on around their head, but it's not. The surgeon stands by the groin where they've gone in and then uses a very a fine.
Guiding device, almost like a sort of gaming console in order to control the instrument. Taking the lead from the vision on the screen provided by my wife, the bomb aimer. So that is that is how it works. And, uh, I think last year, the department at Queen's performed something like 300 of these operations and they operate 24 over seven. So over the weekend, they're on a cover rota and on call, as they say in the NHS. And if my wife's at home and the bat phone goes, as I call it, she has an hour to get from home to Queen's, get scrubbed up, fire up all the equipment and be ready to receive the patients, some of whom may be coming from as far as Norwich, some of whom arrive by air ambulance.
So when the bat phone goes, there's no time to grab a cup of tea and a slice of toast in the car and go. And can I just say, the sooner they finally sort out the chronic mess at Gallows Corner?Uh. And the quicker and easier that journey will become. But but I digress. There are, as I say, only 25 other hospitals in the country that do this. And the reach of this department goes out. It covers Essex and.
Goes out to some way into East Anglia, where, as it were, they hand over to Addenbrooke's in Cambridge, and they have friendly rivals who also do this at the Royal London Hospital in Whitechapel, and they tend to cover Kent and. And South London. But they do that on a rota. So when the Royal London are off for that week and Queen's cover all the areas they are responsible for a potential patient population of over 5 million people. So that is a tremendous responsibility to have.
And that's why I'm sure and obviously you need to have 24 over seven cover. Now the service is growing. Uh, anecdotally. I can tell you the bat phone rings more than it used to. And on one level, that's a good thing because the technology is advancing all the time, and they're able to treat patients who perhaps a few years ago, they wouldn't have been able to treat. But obviously that puts pressure on Olivia and, uh, doctor. Patankar and the team.
So I have a I have a plea to the minister, if I may, I understand that the government are in the process of evolving their strategy for stroke. Uh, as part of the ten year plan for the NHS. And obviously, Olivia and her team are keen to see that work evolve and particularly keen to know what role there is for mechanical thrombectomy. As part of that overall strategy. I mean, I've literally seen this at work for myself. It is a wonderful, life saving technology and technique, which we've only really been doing in the NHS barely for a decade, and we're getting better and better at it all the time.
So, um, I just want to pay tribute to, uh. The team at Queen's and all of their other teams around the country that do this wonderful work, including, for the record, the Royal London and I most of all, and I hope the House will forgive my indulgence, like to pay tribute to my wife, uh, being a member of Parliament sometimes can be a time commitment. And but actually being the husband of a woman that does this can be a bit of a time commitment, too. So sometimes when we're trying to plan going to see people for dinner parties, I'm not the long pole in the tent.
So, um, I'm very, very proud of what she does. I'm very proud of what her team do. I'm very proud of what all of the people who work at Queen's do. I'm very proud of the National Health Service, and I'm also proud for the record of the stroke unit at Southend Hospital, who also provide a very good service but don't do mechanical thrombectomy for that. They defer to Queen's. So well done to everyone who works in this area.
I thank the House for its patience and indulgence. Dame Siobhan and God bless all of the people that work to save lives from stroke.
13:50
13:50
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
To serve under your chairmanship. Dame McDonough. And I'm grateful to my honourable friend for South Ribble for bringing forward this important debate today and for his opening remarks on his own health. And we all wish him well. Yeah, yeah. I'll be focusing today on heart health in my speech, as the former chair of the Cardiac risk in Young People Appg, this is where unknown heart conditions, particularly among young people, are discussed. Keeping hearts healthy carries such a broad message around preventions, lifestyle and early intervention.
But what are we giving people?Tools, tools to do?Diet is a really key example of this, and it starts in our young people because we cannot talk about reducing premature deaths from heart disease and strokes without talking about the environments that people already live in. As an active member for the School Foods Appg that I was proud to serve alongside with the minister, I know how important that school food meets nutritional standards and starts to build those healthy lifestyles and eating habits from an early age.
As of last year, 34% of our year six children in my constituency are classed as obese. So meeting them where they're at with healthy habits when they're young is so crucial. That's why I'm so pleased to see the free breakfast clubs rolling out across the country, and I have two in my constituency. As well as plans to overhaul the school food standards for the first time in over a decade. Now it's about actually convincing parents that school food is healthy nutritional for their children, particularly when less than 2% of packed lunches already meet the current school food nutritional standards.
So will the minister outline what steps will be taken to change the perception of school food?In line with the valuable work the government has been putting in to change it meeting. People where they're at with lifestyle changes is also crucial. When we look at exercise. The majority of my constituents work in logistics, manufacturing and retail, and those are physically demanding. Jobs often shift based and can therefore make it make it really hard to maintain regular routines such as diet and exercise.
So the minister outlined in her response what steps the department is taking to ensure how infrastructure in semi rural constituencies like mine can support walking, cycling and everyday physical activity, as well as already been mentioned, access to good, nutritious food. An example of this is my constituents, home to the heart of the National Forest, a beautiful green space that encourages physical activity and exploration. But the only way you can get there is by car, which seems counterintuitive to me. But on a positive note, the £8 million investment recently announced to improve community health care and access to weight management services across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland through the Government Obesity Pathways Innovation Programme is greatly welcomed.
After serving on the health scrutiny committee for five years as a county councillor, I have seen firsthand the impact of providing easier access to support can have on improving people's health outcomes and reducing pressure on our NHS later in life. This investment will make it easier for people to access the support they need on in their own communities, whether that's advice on healthy living, behavioural support or clinical support where needed. I also just want to pay tribute as the member for Rayleigh and Wickford did, to the services of our colleagues in the NHS.
Glenfield Hospital is one of the um children heart health facilities in the UK. One we're incredibly proud is still in the East Midlands. I wanted to move briefly on to ambulance times, if I may. The East Midlands Ambulance. Times have improved nationally. The East Midlands is still a little way behind national standards. As of May of this year, we have the second highest average ambulance wait times across England for category two response time, which would include a suspected heart attack or a stroke at 36 minutes.
That's 11 minutes longer than the current national target and twice as long as the pre target set pre-pandemic. For those of you who are aware, and thanks to the British Heart Foundation for their continued support of me and my role here, every minute counts. One minute away that somebody suffering a heart attack is away from crucial health advice. That's that's 10% less chance of survival. It therefore, it shouldn't be a surprise that as of February last year, only 1 in 14 people who have an out of cardiac arrest in the East Midlands will survive that cardiac arrest.
So will the minister set out in her response what further action her department is taking to bring down these wait times?Focusing on regions like the East Midlands?That is, that is far behind the rest of the UK average. In the meantime, as the former chair of the Cardiac risk in Young People, I want to highlight the importance of cardiac health screening, which the minister already knows that I'm an avid champion of. Screening is a crucial way to target premature deaths, and with the National Screening Committee currently consulting on whether to expand the recommendation of screening to people below 39, it's a pressing time to engage that with this.
For those of you who are not aware, Italy introduced such screening in the 80s, and they've seen cardiac deaths from young people drop by 85%. So we know that early detection through cardiac screening allows for timely interventions that can save lives. In addition to in addition to that, we've also within the constituency been trying to build resilience. Rural communities are so much further away from main hospitals and health. So therefore, we've been looking at how we can ensure that people know where their nearest defibs is.
And we will now be doing an annual defib dash to encourage people to to recognise where they are, but have also been increasing the amount of CPR training and access to CPR in my own community. And again, the British Heart Foundation and resources have been key to helping me deliver that. Ultimately, reducing premature deaths from heart disease and stroke is about building a system, building that resilience that supports people at every stage, in every area of our country. And I really look forward to what the minister has to say in response.
But what are we giving people?Tools, tools to do?Diet is a really key example of this, and it starts in our young people because we cannot talk about reducing premature deaths from heart disease and strokes without talking about the environments that people already live in. As an active member for the School Foods Appg that I was proud to serve alongside with the minister, I know how important that school food meets nutritional standards and starts to build those healthy lifestyles and eating habits from an early age.
As of last year, 34% of our year six children in my constituency are classed as obese. So meeting them where they're at with healthy habits when they're young is so crucial. That's why I'm so pleased to see the free breakfast clubs rolling out across the country, and I have two in my constituency. As well as plans to overhaul the school food standards for the first time in over a decade. Now it's about actually convincing parents that school food is healthy nutritional for their children, particularly when less than 2% of packed lunches already meet the current school food nutritional standards.
So will the minister outline what steps will be taken to change the perception of school food?In line with the valuable work the government has been putting in to change it meeting. People where they're at with lifestyle changes is also crucial. When we look at exercise. The majority of my constituents work in logistics, manufacturing and retail, and those are physically demanding. Jobs often shift based and can therefore make it make it really hard to maintain regular routines such as diet and exercise.
So the minister outlined in her response what steps the department is taking to ensure how infrastructure in semi rural constituencies like mine can support walking, cycling and everyday physical activity, as well as already been mentioned, access to good, nutritious food. An example of this is my constituents, home to the heart of the National Forest, a beautiful green space that encourages physical activity and exploration. But the only way you can get there is by car, which seems counterintuitive to me. But on a positive note, the £8 million investment recently announced to improve community health care and access to weight management services across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland through the Government Obesity Pathways Innovation Programme is greatly welcomed.
After serving on the health scrutiny committee for five years as a county councillor, I have seen firsthand the impact of providing easier access to support can have on improving people's health outcomes and reducing pressure on our NHS later in life. This investment will make it easier for people to access the support they need on in their own communities, whether that's advice on healthy living, behavioural support or clinical support where needed. I also just want to pay tribute as the member for Rayleigh and Wickford did, to the services of our colleagues in the NHS.
Glenfield Hospital is one of the um children heart health facilities in the UK. One we're incredibly proud is still in the East Midlands. I wanted to move briefly on to ambulance times, if I may. The East Midlands Ambulance. Times have improved nationally. The East Midlands is still a little way behind national standards. As of May of this year, we have the second highest average ambulance wait times across England for category two response time, which would include a suspected heart attack or a stroke at 36 minutes.
That's 11 minutes longer than the current national target and twice as long as the pre target set pre-pandemic. For those of you who are aware, and thanks to the British Heart Foundation for their continued support of me and my role here, every minute counts. One minute away that somebody suffering a heart attack is away from crucial health advice. That's that's 10% less chance of survival. It therefore, it shouldn't be a surprise that as of February last year, only 1 in 14 people who have an out of cardiac arrest in the East Midlands will survive that cardiac arrest.
So will the minister set out in her response what further action her department is taking to bring down these wait times?Focusing on regions like the East Midlands?That is, that is far behind the rest of the UK average. In the meantime, as the former chair of the Cardiac risk in Young People, I want to highlight the importance of cardiac health screening, which the minister already knows that I'm an avid champion of. Screening is a crucial way to target premature deaths, and with the National Screening Committee currently consulting on whether to expand the recommendation of screening to people below 39, it's a pressing time to engage that with this.
For those of you who are not aware, Italy introduced such screening in the 80s, and they've seen cardiac deaths from young people drop by 85%. So we know that early detection through cardiac screening allows for timely interventions that can save lives. In addition to in addition to that, we've also within the constituency been trying to build resilience. Rural communities are so much further away from main hospitals and health. So therefore, we've been looking at how we can ensure that people know where their nearest defibs is.
And we will now be doing an annual defib dash to encourage people to to recognise where they are, but have also been increasing the amount of CPR training and access to CPR in my own community. And again, the British Heart Foundation and resources have been key to helping me deliver that. Ultimately, reducing premature deaths from heart disease and stroke is about building a system, building that resilience that supports people at every stage, in every area of our country. And I really look forward to what the minister has to say in response.
13:56
13:56
13:56
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Uh, and I wish to thank the honourable gentleman for South Ribble for setting the scene incredibly well on a subject matter that affects all of us. And I'm going to give, as I always do, uh, Madam Chair, some stats for Northern Ireland because Northern Ireland, fortunately, we we seem to have a particular problem with when it comes to, to premature deaths from heart disease and stroke as well. I declare an interest as chair of the Appg for Vascular and venous diseases.
And it's one of the things that we, uh, have looked at at some detail in our, our Appg. It's also a pleasure to see the, the minister in her place again. I, I wish her well, um, she seems to be in Westminster Hall almost as much as I am. Um, I'm not sure, but, but I know with much more authority I have to say, you know, but it is an absolute pleasure. And honourable lady and I have been friends for many years, and I always look forward to her contributions.
And I do the same day before I've heard them. You know, I, I know that the honourable lady will will work incredibly hard to try and, and give us the answers that we wish to have. So thank you for that in advance. Also nice to see the the shadow Minister as a busy man when he was in government, uh, a busy man and shadow. Minister as well. And um, always approachable, always dedicated and always dependable. And we thank him for his commitment to the subject matter as well.
Um, Madam Chair, we can't shy away from what the British Heart Foundation is rightfully called a ticking time bomb on heart health across the United Kingdom, cardiovascular disease claims a life every three minutes. This debate will last for about an hour and a half. So the mathematics on that were quite clear. 20 people will have passed away in the time it takes for this to be at the finish. Or start and to finish. But I must do what I always do in this chamber, and that's to bring a specific perspective from Northern Ireland, where the crisis is acutely felt and which replicates the rest of the United Kingdom in some way, although I think the stats for us, unfortunately, tell us that it's probably worse.
The stats are indeed scary. Madam chair, for Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland, an estimated 225 000 people are currently living with heart and circulatory circulatory diseases. And to put that into context, because it's important we do so for the chamber, our total population is 1.95 million, meaning that 1 in 10 of our citizens are fighting these conditions. The very conditions this debate about right now. So when I walk up the High Street in Newtownards, in my constituency of Strangford, every 10th person I see will be potentially a person with a heart disease and stroke and circulatory diseases.
And, and that makes me and concerns me greatly. The statistics, of course, from the British Heart Foundation Northern Ireland analysis are also deeply alarming. Cardiovascular conditions are responsible for nearly a quarter. That's 24% of all deaths across Northern Ireland. And that's why it concerns me greatly when it comes to the actual figures for those who die because of it. And even more heartbreaking, Madam Chair, is that 1 in 4 of those deaths are premature, which means they could have been saved if they had had their checks or they'd been there earlier.
Um, and sometimes in life and probably in my life because of the age I am, uh, and I can remember many occasions when people just took a stroke or heart right away and died instantly. And that's some of the examples of friends who I've known over the years who aren't here anymore. And it's also heartbreaking that they those deaths, those premature deaths are still in the lives of people under the age of 75 in a single year. We saw some 4227 deaths due to cardiovascular disease.
And that means that every single month, 350 families in Northern Ireland are losing a loved one to a heart attack or a stroke. Not to put that into perspective, for families, that's 350 empty chairs at the dinner table. It's 350 families left grieving. And sometimes when we look at the stats we see or we think of the people who have passed away, but we also must think, uh, as we all do and should do upon the families, that there's having a significant impact upon as well.
Yes.
And it's one of the things that we, uh, have looked at at some detail in our, our Appg. It's also a pleasure to see the, the minister in her place again. I, I wish her well, um, she seems to be in Westminster Hall almost as much as I am. Um, I'm not sure, but, but I know with much more authority I have to say, you know, but it is an absolute pleasure. And honourable lady and I have been friends for many years, and I always look forward to her contributions.
And I do the same day before I've heard them. You know, I, I know that the honourable lady will will work incredibly hard to try and, and give us the answers that we wish to have. So thank you for that in advance. Also nice to see the the shadow Minister as a busy man when he was in government, uh, a busy man and shadow. Minister as well. And um, always approachable, always dedicated and always dependable. And we thank him for his commitment to the subject matter as well.
Um, Madam Chair, we can't shy away from what the British Heart Foundation is rightfully called a ticking time bomb on heart health across the United Kingdom, cardiovascular disease claims a life every three minutes. This debate will last for about an hour and a half. So the mathematics on that were quite clear. 20 people will have passed away in the time it takes for this to be at the finish. Or start and to finish. But I must do what I always do in this chamber, and that's to bring a specific perspective from Northern Ireland, where the crisis is acutely felt and which replicates the rest of the United Kingdom in some way, although I think the stats for us, unfortunately, tell us that it's probably worse.
The stats are indeed scary. Madam chair, for Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland, an estimated 225 000 people are currently living with heart and circulatory circulatory diseases. And to put that into context, because it's important we do so for the chamber, our total population is 1.95 million, meaning that 1 in 10 of our citizens are fighting these conditions. The very conditions this debate about right now. So when I walk up the High Street in Newtownards, in my constituency of Strangford, every 10th person I see will be potentially a person with a heart disease and stroke and circulatory diseases.
And, and that makes me and concerns me greatly. The statistics, of course, from the British Heart Foundation Northern Ireland analysis are also deeply alarming. Cardiovascular conditions are responsible for nearly a quarter. That's 24% of all deaths across Northern Ireland. And that's why it concerns me greatly when it comes to the actual figures for those who die because of it. And even more heartbreaking, Madam Chair, is that 1 in 4 of those deaths are premature, which means they could have been saved if they had had their checks or they'd been there earlier.
Um, and sometimes in life and probably in my life because of the age I am, uh, and I can remember many occasions when people just took a stroke or heart right away and died instantly. And that's some of the examples of friends who I've known over the years who aren't here anymore. And it's also heartbreaking that they those deaths, those premature deaths are still in the lives of people under the age of 75 in a single year. We saw some 4227 deaths due to cardiovascular disease.
And that means that every single month, 350 families in Northern Ireland are losing a loved one to a heart attack or a stroke. Not to put that into perspective, for families, that's 350 empty chairs at the dinner table. It's 350 families left grieving. And sometimes when we look at the stats we see or we think of the people who have passed away, but we also must think, uh, as we all do and should do upon the families, that there's having a significant impact upon as well.
Yes.
14:00
14:01
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
The honourable gentleman for giving way. He is generous with his time, as always. Um, and we fully appreciate his, uh, slant that he brings from Northern Ireland. I wondered if you would agree with me that there's also the issue of regional inequalities within England. And we see in Yorkshire and the north of England some of the worst rates of survival when it comes to cardiovascular disease. Um and I wondered if you might agree with me. We need to do more to close the gap when it comes to people from more deprived backgrounds with poorer health outcomes that they face in relation to heart disease, stroke and other CVD, I.
14:01
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Thank the honourable gentleman for his intervention, and he always sums up the thrust of what the debate is in his interventions, and he has outlined that there is sometimes a postcode when it comes to to having the attention. And he is also right to underline the fact that in in areas where there are deprivation, where their emphasis upon health is probably less, uh, that they, they, they issues and the numbers of those who have heart disease rise as well, madam. Madam chair, I also must declare an interest, as I often do.
I've lived with type two diabetes for over 20 years. Um, to put that into perspective, uh, Madam Chair, I was a. I can call myself a big fat pudding, you know, because I was 17 stone at one time and now, uh, 13.25 stone. And I've done that by maybe a bit of willpower, but also to try and cut out the sweet stuff. I'm not always successful, but I say that now, but I do try very hard. And it's controlled by medication.
And I thank God that every day that we're able to control that by medication. But I know firsthand how closely linked diabetes is. High blood pressure. I take a tablet for blood pressure, and I can't speak for anybody else in here. But you come to a certain age and you probably will do that as well. And cholesterol, cholesterol are two are the risk of a catastrophic stroke or heart attack. Those things are linked. So there's always a bit of pressure on with the they take the diabetes um event yesterday in the Churchill room and, and the lady in charge was telling me that one of the things that she says with diabetes, you must always get a check at least once a year.
You must always have your heart checked, and you must make sure your blood pressure is under control.
I've lived with type two diabetes for over 20 years. Um, to put that into perspective, uh, Madam Chair, I was a. I can call myself a big fat pudding, you know, because I was 17 stone at one time and now, uh, 13.25 stone. And I've done that by maybe a bit of willpower, but also to try and cut out the sweet stuff. I'm not always successful, but I say that now, but I do try very hard. And it's controlled by medication.
And I thank God that every day that we're able to control that by medication. But I know firsthand how closely linked diabetes is. High blood pressure. I take a tablet for blood pressure, and I can't speak for anybody else in here. But you come to a certain age and you probably will do that as well. And cholesterol, cholesterol are two are the risk of a catastrophic stroke or heart attack. Those things are linked. So there's always a bit of pressure on with the they take the diabetes um event yesterday in the Churchill room and, and the lady in charge was telling me that one of the things that she says with diabetes, you must always get a check at least once a year.
You must always have your heart checked, and you must make sure your blood pressure is under control.
14:03
14:03
14:03
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
I really do thank the honourable gentleman for giving way on that point. As the chair of the all party parliamentary Group for diabetes, one of the things that we've been pushing for and calling for is to make sure that when people with diabetes go and have those diabetic care processes, that it's better linked with other comorbidities and other ancillary services. Does he agree with me?We need to see more of that to get better outcomes for when people have those comorbidities, I.
14:03
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
I certainly do, and he and I will agree most definitely on on the very things and the interventions have put forward. Um, the tragedy here is that so much of this premature loss of life is entirely preventable. And if it can be prevented, then we should be doing more to try and stop that. The British Heart Foundation reports that half of all strokes and heart attacks are linked directly to high blood pressure, and the honourable gentleman and his intervention has underlined that. Again, as I've tried to do likewise.
Now, right now in Northern Ireland, Madam Chair, over 42000 diagnosed hypertension patients are not being treated to clinical guidelines. That's unfortunate. And furthermore, 66000 high high risk individuals are missing out on statins to control their cholesterol. So there are things that can be done. There's prevention, uh, strategies and focus that they can do. Uh, and that would be my hope that that would improve. And if we, Madam Chair, optimize, uh, this care, we can save hundreds of lives almost immediately.
And surely if we can do that, then we should be doing just that. Um, and if we can treat blood pressure properly over the next three years, we can prevent 380 strokes and 260 heart attacks in Northern Ireland alone. The place where I'm bringing the stats from. Madam Chair, just to conclude, this isn't just about statistics. Of course. It's about early detection. It's about standardizing care. It's about addressing health inequalities. And so I look to the minister today to outline what direct, coordinated action the government is taking with devolved counterparts the very thing that the honourable gentleman in his introduction referred to and referred to the devolved administrations, and I thank him for that, because this this this is about us all.
And I know the minister is always very responsive to Minister had a chance to talk to with the relevant minister, Mike Nesbitt in Northern Ireland. I'm um that um some of the things that have been done here, uh can good things are done here that there can be exchanged and uh, with the, the health Minister and Northern Ireland and what can be done with devolved counterparts to tackle these missing patients because they are missing patients. Uh, but if they're missing, then it's time to put them on the list and ramp up the diagnostic screenings and diffuse, please diffuse this ticking time bomb before it claims any more of our constituents, all of us in this room and our constituents.
Now, right now in Northern Ireland, Madam Chair, over 42000 diagnosed hypertension patients are not being treated to clinical guidelines. That's unfortunate. And furthermore, 66000 high high risk individuals are missing out on statins to control their cholesterol. So there are things that can be done. There's prevention, uh, strategies and focus that they can do. Uh, and that would be my hope that that would improve. And if we, Madam Chair, optimize, uh, this care, we can save hundreds of lives almost immediately.
And surely if we can do that, then we should be doing just that. Um, and if we can treat blood pressure properly over the next three years, we can prevent 380 strokes and 260 heart attacks in Northern Ireland alone. The place where I'm bringing the stats from. Madam Chair, just to conclude, this isn't just about statistics. Of course. It's about early detection. It's about standardizing care. It's about addressing health inequalities. And so I look to the minister today to outline what direct, coordinated action the government is taking with devolved counterparts the very thing that the honourable gentleman in his introduction referred to and referred to the devolved administrations, and I thank him for that, because this this this is about us all.
And I know the minister is always very responsive to Minister had a chance to talk to with the relevant minister, Mike Nesbitt in Northern Ireland. I'm um that um some of the things that have been done here, uh can good things are done here that there can be exchanged and uh, with the, the health Minister and Northern Ireland and what can be done with devolved counterparts to tackle these missing patients because they are missing patients. Uh, but if they're missing, then it's time to put them on the list and ramp up the diagnostic screenings and diffuse, please diffuse this ticking time bomb before it claims any more of our constituents, all of us in this room and our constituents.
14:06
14:06
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I'd like to congratulate, firstly, my honourable friend and near neighbour, the member for South Ribble, on securing this important debate. I wish him well. Also, I'd like to congratulate the member for Rayleigh and Wickford on achieving a childhood ambition of having his very own bat phone. I am, as they say, well, gel. By all means.
14:06
14:07
14:07
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Very important to place that on the record. I imagine, once he gets home this evening, um, the government's ambition to reduce premature deaths from heart disease and stroke by 25% over the next decade is welcome and ambitious, and it is absolutely necessary. Cardiovascular disease remains one of the biggest public health challenges that this country faces. There's more than 8 million people across the country living with cardiovascular disease, and despite, as has been mentioned, decades of progress, we're now seeing a worrying reversal. There's premature deaths are rising again.
For the first time in over half a century. One of the one of the things I've been doing personally to reverse the chances of succumbing or being a victim myself of cardiovascular disease, is I have been walking more. I was very lucky to be able. During the recent Makerfield by election campaign to not just be part of the wonderful campaign to return a new member to this House, but also to undertake a very punishing, almost half a million steps around the streets of Wigan over the course of 17 punishing days on that campaign.
Um. So not only are we celebrating a new member for Makerfield, I'm also celebrating having lost £4. For the for those of us who represent communities in the North West, the challenges around cardiovascular disease are particularly acute. Health inequalities remain stark. People living in some of our most deprived communities are significantly more likely to develop cardiovascular disease and more than twice as likely to die prematurely from it. And behind every one of those statistics is a family changed forever.
There is good news, though, and that good news is that many of these deaths are preventable. Up to 80% of premature deaths from cardiovascular disease can be prevented, and 70% of cases are linked to modifiable risk factors such as smoking, obesity, poor diet, inactivity. And that's why prevention should be at the heart of the government's approach. We need to continue to drive down smoking rates. We need we need to continue making healthy food more accessible, continue to design our communities and the places that people live around cycling and walking and physical activity.
And we need to recognise it's a cliche, but it's a cliche because it's true that prevention is better and simply cheaper than cure. It keeps people healthier for longer. It keeps people more independent for longer, and it allows people to fully participate in social life equally. Early diagnosis is important. Millions of people are currently living undiagnosed with high blood pressure. We know identifying and treating conditions such as hypertension, high cholesterol and the like can earlier can prevent thousands of heart attacks and strokes.
I particularly welcome the government's commitment to neighborhood health services tackling, taking, screening and checks into communities, making better use of pharmacies, using data more intelligently, using, coming and and increasingly, AI technologies. These are all a real opportunity to narrow the health inequalities that can scar our communities. And we also need to stop treating our conditions in isolation. So many people have got cardiovascular disease, are also living with other long term health conditions. Patients don't just experience heart disease or diabetes, or diabetes, or kidney disease or obesity.
Separately. They experience them together. And our health, our health system must increasingly treat the person rather than the condition. Finally, while prevention is crucial, we can't ignore access to treatment. There are long waits for cardiac care, and there are increasing and continuing pressures on ambulance response times, meaning that too many people are still waiting too long for that emergency response. The forthcoming Modern Service review modern service framework for cardiovascular disease represents a really important and significant opportunity. It's got to be ambitious.
It should be focused on prevention and early intervention. Should tackle inequalities head on and ensure that everyone, regardless of where they live, can access timely, high quality care. If we get this right, we're not just going to save lives, but also reduce pressure on the NHS, will strengthen our economy and we will create a fairer, healthier country. And even without a bat phone of my own, I look forward to supporting the government in delivering their ambition in this regard. Thank you.
For the first time in over half a century. One of the one of the things I've been doing personally to reverse the chances of succumbing or being a victim myself of cardiovascular disease, is I have been walking more. I was very lucky to be able. During the recent Makerfield by election campaign to not just be part of the wonderful campaign to return a new member to this House, but also to undertake a very punishing, almost half a million steps around the streets of Wigan over the course of 17 punishing days on that campaign.
Um. So not only are we celebrating a new member for Makerfield, I'm also celebrating having lost £4. For the for those of us who represent communities in the North West, the challenges around cardiovascular disease are particularly acute. Health inequalities remain stark. People living in some of our most deprived communities are significantly more likely to develop cardiovascular disease and more than twice as likely to die prematurely from it. And behind every one of those statistics is a family changed forever.
There is good news, though, and that good news is that many of these deaths are preventable. Up to 80% of premature deaths from cardiovascular disease can be prevented, and 70% of cases are linked to modifiable risk factors such as smoking, obesity, poor diet, inactivity. And that's why prevention should be at the heart of the government's approach. We need to continue to drive down smoking rates. We need we need to continue making healthy food more accessible, continue to design our communities and the places that people live around cycling and walking and physical activity.
And we need to recognise it's a cliche, but it's a cliche because it's true that prevention is better and simply cheaper than cure. It keeps people healthier for longer. It keeps people more independent for longer, and it allows people to fully participate in social life equally. Early diagnosis is important. Millions of people are currently living undiagnosed with high blood pressure. We know identifying and treating conditions such as hypertension, high cholesterol and the like can earlier can prevent thousands of heart attacks and strokes.
I particularly welcome the government's commitment to neighborhood health services tackling, taking, screening and checks into communities, making better use of pharmacies, using data more intelligently, using, coming and and increasingly, AI technologies. These are all a real opportunity to narrow the health inequalities that can scar our communities. And we also need to stop treating our conditions in isolation. So many people have got cardiovascular disease, are also living with other long term health conditions. Patients don't just experience heart disease or diabetes, or diabetes, or kidney disease or obesity.
Separately. They experience them together. And our health, our health system must increasingly treat the person rather than the condition. Finally, while prevention is crucial, we can't ignore access to treatment. There are long waits for cardiac care, and there are increasing and continuing pressures on ambulance response times, meaning that too many people are still waiting too long for that emergency response. The forthcoming Modern Service review modern service framework for cardiovascular disease represents a really important and significant opportunity. It's got to be ambitious.
It should be focused on prevention and early intervention. Should tackle inequalities head on and ensure that everyone, regardless of where they live, can access timely, high quality care. If we get this right, we're not just going to save lives, but also reduce pressure on the NHS, will strengthen our economy and we will create a fairer, healthier country. And even without a bat phone of my own, I look forward to supporting the government in delivering their ambition in this regard. Thank you.
14:11
14:11
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Thank you, Dame Siobhan. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, and I'd like to congratulate the honourable member for South Ribble for securing this important debate and for sharing his personal story. Like so many families across the country, we have our own history of heart disease impacting members of my family. Um, either with tragic early deaths or for my father, a triple heart bypass in 2012, and he celebrated his 80th birthday this year. So reducing premature deaths from heart disease and stroke is one of the defining public health challenges facing our country.
It's also one of the greatest opportunities. We know what works. We know where the risks lie. The question is whether this government is prepared to invest in preventing illness, rather than simply responding to it. Once people become sick, cardiovascular disease remains the second biggest cause of death in England. Every day, around 390 people die from a heart attack or stroke. Heart and circulatory diseases are responsible for 1 in 4 premature deaths, while more than 6.4 million people in England are living with cardiovascular disease.
What is particularly concerning is that progress has stalled after years of improvement, premature mortality from cardiovascular disease has begun to rise again, the latest figures show rates have returned to around where they were over a decade ago. Behind those statistics are families who have lost loved ones far too early, many of whose deaths could have been prevented. Perhaps the greatest injustice is that these outcomes are not evenly distributed. People living in the most deprived communities are twice as likely to die prematurely from cardiovascular disease as those in the least deprived areas.
And if we are serious about reducing premature deaths, we have to be serious about prevention. Too often, prevention is spoken about warmly but funded poorly. We hear ministers say that they want to shift health care from hospital to community, and from treatment to prevention. Those are welcome ambitions, but ambitions alone do not reduce blood pressure. Identify atrial fibrillation or prevent strokes. The reality is that the NHS and local government continue to struggle to fund many of the programs that are proven to save lives.
Freedom of information data published earlier this year revealed that more than 70 local authorities are limiting the number of NHS health checks that GP practices can carry out because of financial pressures. The very programme designed to identify people at risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes and kidney disease, and credited with saving hundreds of lives every year, is being rationed because councils simply cannot afford it. That is the direct consequence of years of underfunding in public health, a state. First step would be restoring the Public health grant to its 2015 level.
That would give local authorities the resources they need to expand NHS health checks and deliver wider preventative programmes that reduce smoking, improve physical activity and help people manage the risk factors that lead to cardiovascular disease. The Liberal Democrats have also proposed widening access to blood pressure checks by making them available routinely in community settings, such as pharmacies and libraries. Around 7 million people are estimated to be living with undiagnosed high blood pressure. Many of them have no idea that they are at increased risk of suffering a devastating stroke or heart attack, detecting hypertension earlier is one of the simplest and most cost effective interventions available to us.
However, prevention is about much more than screening alone. If we want to tackle heart disease properly, we must also be far more ambitious in addressing obesity and the wider causes of poor health. The evidence is clear that obesity is closely linked to deprivation. Poor diet often begins in childhood, and families facing food insecurity are more likely to rely on cheaper foods that are higher in fat, salt and sugar. That contributes to stark inequalities in health outcomes later in life. That is why we believe more children living in poverty should receive free school meals.
We also would do more to protect children from the relentless marketing of unhealthy food, including supporting councils to restrict outdoor junk food advertising and maintaining stronger protections around television advertising.
It's also one of the greatest opportunities. We know what works. We know where the risks lie. The question is whether this government is prepared to invest in preventing illness, rather than simply responding to it. Once people become sick, cardiovascular disease remains the second biggest cause of death in England. Every day, around 390 people die from a heart attack or stroke. Heart and circulatory diseases are responsible for 1 in 4 premature deaths, while more than 6.4 million people in England are living with cardiovascular disease.
What is particularly concerning is that progress has stalled after years of improvement, premature mortality from cardiovascular disease has begun to rise again, the latest figures show rates have returned to around where they were over a decade ago. Behind those statistics are families who have lost loved ones far too early, many of whose deaths could have been prevented. Perhaps the greatest injustice is that these outcomes are not evenly distributed. People living in the most deprived communities are twice as likely to die prematurely from cardiovascular disease as those in the least deprived areas.
And if we are serious about reducing premature deaths, we have to be serious about prevention. Too often, prevention is spoken about warmly but funded poorly. We hear ministers say that they want to shift health care from hospital to community, and from treatment to prevention. Those are welcome ambitions, but ambitions alone do not reduce blood pressure. Identify atrial fibrillation or prevent strokes. The reality is that the NHS and local government continue to struggle to fund many of the programs that are proven to save lives.
Freedom of information data published earlier this year revealed that more than 70 local authorities are limiting the number of NHS health checks that GP practices can carry out because of financial pressures. The very programme designed to identify people at risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes and kidney disease, and credited with saving hundreds of lives every year, is being rationed because councils simply cannot afford it. That is the direct consequence of years of underfunding in public health, a state. First step would be restoring the Public health grant to its 2015 level.
That would give local authorities the resources they need to expand NHS health checks and deliver wider preventative programmes that reduce smoking, improve physical activity and help people manage the risk factors that lead to cardiovascular disease. The Liberal Democrats have also proposed widening access to blood pressure checks by making them available routinely in community settings, such as pharmacies and libraries. Around 7 million people are estimated to be living with undiagnosed high blood pressure. Many of them have no idea that they are at increased risk of suffering a devastating stroke or heart attack, detecting hypertension earlier is one of the simplest and most cost effective interventions available to us.
However, prevention is about much more than screening alone. If we want to tackle heart disease properly, we must also be far more ambitious in addressing obesity and the wider causes of poor health. The evidence is clear that obesity is closely linked to deprivation. Poor diet often begins in childhood, and families facing food insecurity are more likely to rely on cheaper foods that are higher in fat, salt and sugar. That contributes to stark inequalities in health outcomes later in life. That is why we believe more children living in poverty should receive free school meals.
We also would do more to protect children from the relentless marketing of unhealthy food, including supporting councils to restrict outdoor junk food advertising and maintaining stronger protections around television advertising.
14:16
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
With heart disease or recovering from stroke. Continuity of care is equally important. The Liberal Democrats want everyone living with a long term condition to have a named GP. Continuity improves outcomes, reduces unnecessary admissions and ensures patients receive coordinated care over many years, rather than fragmented treatment from multiple clinicians. Recovery following stroke also deserves much greater attention. Around 60% of stroke survivors leave hospital with a disability. Rehabilitation cannot be treated as an optional extra. Every stroke survivor should have access to personalised, high quality rehabilitation services that help them regain independence and improve their quality of life.
Finally, I want to touch on emergency care. When someone is having a stroke, every minute matters. Rapid assessment and treatment can mean the difference between full recovery and lifelong disability, and I'd like to pay tribute to the Right Honourable member for Raleigh and Whitford's wife, Olivia, for her work and for the work that the rest of the team she works with at Queen's do. And of course, all those practitioners carrying out the same work right across the country. Ambulance. Bays and overcrowded emergency departments continue to place patients at unnecessary risk.
And in my village, we know this too well. Where we lost a dear friend a few years ago. Far too young as a result of a slow ambulance response time. We need action to reduce ambulance handover delays, expand staffed hospital bed capacity, improve social care so patients can be discharged safely and ensure every A&E waiting room has a qualified clinician able to identify patients whose condition is deteriorating while they wait. Preventing premature deaths from heart disease and stroke will require action across the whole health system.
It means investing in prevention rather than allowing it to become the first casualty of financial pressures. It means tackling the inequalities that leave poorer communities carrying the greatest burden of disease. It means strengthening primary care, community services, rehabilitation and social care, rather than focusing solely on elective waiting lists. The Darzi review warned that care for cardiovascular conditions is going in the wrong direction. That warning should not be ignored if the government is serious about achieving their ambition to reduce deaths from heart attacks and strokes, they must match warm words with sustained investment in prevention, public health and community care.
Because the best way to reduce premature deaths is not simply to become better at treating illness. It is to prevent people becoming ill in the first place. I look forward to hearing the minister's response. Thank you.
Finally, I want to touch on emergency care. When someone is having a stroke, every minute matters. Rapid assessment and treatment can mean the difference between full recovery and lifelong disability, and I'd like to pay tribute to the Right Honourable member for Raleigh and Whitford's wife, Olivia, for her work and for the work that the rest of the team she works with at Queen's do. And of course, all those practitioners carrying out the same work right across the country. Ambulance. Bays and overcrowded emergency departments continue to place patients at unnecessary risk.
And in my village, we know this too well. Where we lost a dear friend a few years ago. Far too young as a result of a slow ambulance response time. We need action to reduce ambulance handover delays, expand staffed hospital bed capacity, improve social care so patients can be discharged safely and ensure every A&E waiting room has a qualified clinician able to identify patients whose condition is deteriorating while they wait. Preventing premature deaths from heart disease and stroke will require action across the whole health system.
It means investing in prevention rather than allowing it to become the first casualty of financial pressures. It means tackling the inequalities that leave poorer communities carrying the greatest burden of disease. It means strengthening primary care, community services, rehabilitation and social care, rather than focusing solely on elective waiting lists. The Darzi review warned that care for cardiovascular conditions is going in the wrong direction. That warning should not be ignored if the government is serious about achieving their ambition to reduce deaths from heart attacks and strokes, they must match warm words with sustained investment in prevention, public health and community care.
Because the best way to reduce premature deaths is not simply to become better at treating illness. It is to prevent people becoming ill in the first place. I look forward to hearing the minister's response. Thank you.
14:19
14:19
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Very much. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon. Dame Siobhan and can I also congratulate the honourable member for South Ribble on securing this important debate, but also talking about his own personal circumstances. I think that's always it is always a very moving moment when, when colleagues in this House talk about something that obviously is so very personal to them. I also want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's wife for the work that she does and and all of the team there.
It was fascinating listening to him. Some of the detail might be a bit more than I wanted to hear, but there you go. Certainly tells us a lot about how important that that treatment is. And to the other members who contributed to the honourable member for North West Leicestershire. We share the same ambulance region, so I know exactly what she's talking about and how important that is, and I want to thank her for her work with the Appg and particularly for highlighting the issue for young people.
I think it is important that we remember that this affects all age groups. And to the honourable gentleman for Strangford and for his work on the Appg and his kind words, I actually visited his constituency when I was a minister and. And I have to say, you know, if only I could have as much love as he gets from his constituents. In huge. Respected and to the honourable member for Southport, I feel like we're going to have to all club together to get a batphone for him, but I.
He did raise some incredible points and particularly around smoking and I have to confess that I gave up smoking in February. It was quite a hard thing to do, but I really know how important it is to do it. I also wanted to declare an interest because I too want to pay tribute to the British Heart Foundation. Actually, I worked for the British Heart Foundation. It was the first charity I worked for in my charity career, and I saw first hand back then the incredible work that they did, particularly around research, which is which is incredible.
So I do thank them for that and all the other charities and organisations that are active in this space, because, as we've heard so often today, heart disease and stroke continue to take people from their families far too soon. And I think the honourable member for Strangford, who said in his area is 350 people no longer around the table, says, that's so powerful, so powerfully, because behind every statistic is a life cut short, a family that is left grieving. And in too many cases, the knowledge that earlier action might have changed the outcome.
A person's chances of surviving heart disease or stroke really should not depend on their postcode, their income, their sex, their ethnicity, or their ability to even navigate the health service. If we are serious about reducing premature deaths, the focus must be on prevention, on early diagnosis, timely treatment, reducing that inequality and proper support after the patient leaves hospital. But I think we must begin with prevention because high blood pressure, high cholesterol can exist without obvious symptoms, and people may feel perfectly well while living with a condition that substantially increases their risk of heart attack or stroke.
And by the time somebody comes seriously unwell, an opportunity to intervene may have already been lost. Prevention cannot simply mean advising people to live healthier lives. It means identifying those at risk, ensuring the NHS health checks reach the communities that need them most, and making full use of GPS, primary care teams and community pharmacies. Those services need the workforce, the time and technology to identify, risk and manage it properly, and detecting and treating high blood pressure, raised cholesterol must be regarded as core NHS work.
Now, the government informed us that the NHS Health Check programme prevents around 500 heart attacks and strokes each year, and that really is welcome. But the question, I suppose, is whether it reaches those at greatest risk, including people in deprived areas. We must also recognise the close relationship between cardiovascular and kidney disease. Kidney disease affects an estimated 7 million people in the UK, and around 60% of kidney patients are diagnosed only in the later stages, when their cardiovascular risk is highest and around 20,000 kidney patients die from cardiovascular disease each year.
So early testing for people with diabetes, high blood pressure, and cardiovascular disease can identify kidney damage before it progresses into kidney research. UK suggests that fewer than 1 in 5 chronic kidney disease patients receive Sglt2 inhibitors, despite their potential to reduce major cardiovascular events. So can I ask the minister, will kidney disease be explicitly included in the modern service framework, and what action will the government take to improve early diagnosis and equitable access to proven treatment?Early diagnosis is just as important in heart valve disease, too, with 1.5 million people in the UK are living with the condition yet again.
Symptoms such as breathlessness, fatigue and dizziness are too often mistaken for the ordinary effects of aging, and that can mean diagnosis comes only after the disease has become severe or irreversible and irreversible. Heart damage has begun. Listening to the heart with a stethoscope remains a simple and low cost first step. Where disease is suspected, patients need that timely access and a clear route to specialist services. So again, can I ask the minister, will heart valve disease be explicitly included in the framework, and will the government consider a single point of access for referrals to specialist valve services?I think we also must confront the inequalities.
Experienced by women, cardiovascular disease kills more than 80,000 women in the UK each year, yet women are less likely than men to have their risk factors assessed are slower to receive a diagnosis, are less likely to be referred to a cardiologist, and are less likely to receive cardiovascular medicines or interventions. Their symptoms can be dismissed or attributed to stress hormones or ageing, and women have been consistently underrepresented when it comes to cardiovascular research. Now, the government's renewed women's health Strategy recognises some of those problems, and the commitment that publicly funded research should properly consider sex based differences is really welcome.
But recognition must translate into practice. So again, I ask the minister if the framework will include measurable action to reduce sex based inequalities in prevention, diagnosis, referrals, treatment and outcomes. And will women's specific cardiovascular risk factors, including pregnancy history and gestational diabetes, menopause, and auto immune disease, be considered more consistently in NHS health checks and other assessments. Now, as we've heard for hope for stroke patients, every minute matters. Rapid recognition. Ambulance response, brain scanning and access to thrombolysis.
I can never say this word. Thrombolysis and thrombectomy can profoundly affect a person's chances of survival and recovery. Yet the 24 hour coverage has still not been achieved. As my right hon. Friend mentioned, the government say that progress is being made, but patients need to know when every part of England will have a reliable access to this life changing treatment. So again, can the minister set a firm date for that full 24 over seven coverage and explain how progress will be maintained while NHS, NHS England's responsibilities are being transferred?
It was fascinating listening to him. Some of the detail might be a bit more than I wanted to hear, but there you go. Certainly tells us a lot about how important that that treatment is. And to the other members who contributed to the honourable member for North West Leicestershire. We share the same ambulance region, so I know exactly what she's talking about and how important that is, and I want to thank her for her work with the Appg and particularly for highlighting the issue for young people.
I think it is important that we remember that this affects all age groups. And to the honourable gentleman for Strangford and for his work on the Appg and his kind words, I actually visited his constituency when I was a minister and. And I have to say, you know, if only I could have as much love as he gets from his constituents. In huge. Respected and to the honourable member for Southport, I feel like we're going to have to all club together to get a batphone for him, but I.
He did raise some incredible points and particularly around smoking and I have to confess that I gave up smoking in February. It was quite a hard thing to do, but I really know how important it is to do it. I also wanted to declare an interest because I too want to pay tribute to the British Heart Foundation. Actually, I worked for the British Heart Foundation. It was the first charity I worked for in my charity career, and I saw first hand back then the incredible work that they did, particularly around research, which is which is incredible.
So I do thank them for that and all the other charities and organisations that are active in this space, because, as we've heard so often today, heart disease and stroke continue to take people from their families far too soon. And I think the honourable member for Strangford, who said in his area is 350 people no longer around the table, says, that's so powerful, so powerfully, because behind every statistic is a life cut short, a family that is left grieving. And in too many cases, the knowledge that earlier action might have changed the outcome.
A person's chances of surviving heart disease or stroke really should not depend on their postcode, their income, their sex, their ethnicity, or their ability to even navigate the health service. If we are serious about reducing premature deaths, the focus must be on prevention, on early diagnosis, timely treatment, reducing that inequality and proper support after the patient leaves hospital. But I think we must begin with prevention because high blood pressure, high cholesterol can exist without obvious symptoms, and people may feel perfectly well while living with a condition that substantially increases their risk of heart attack or stroke.
And by the time somebody comes seriously unwell, an opportunity to intervene may have already been lost. Prevention cannot simply mean advising people to live healthier lives. It means identifying those at risk, ensuring the NHS health checks reach the communities that need them most, and making full use of GPS, primary care teams and community pharmacies. Those services need the workforce, the time and technology to identify, risk and manage it properly, and detecting and treating high blood pressure, raised cholesterol must be regarded as core NHS work.
Now, the government informed us that the NHS Health Check programme prevents around 500 heart attacks and strokes each year, and that really is welcome. But the question, I suppose, is whether it reaches those at greatest risk, including people in deprived areas. We must also recognise the close relationship between cardiovascular and kidney disease. Kidney disease affects an estimated 7 million people in the UK, and around 60% of kidney patients are diagnosed only in the later stages, when their cardiovascular risk is highest and around 20,000 kidney patients die from cardiovascular disease each year.
So early testing for people with diabetes, high blood pressure, and cardiovascular disease can identify kidney damage before it progresses into kidney research. UK suggests that fewer than 1 in 5 chronic kidney disease patients receive Sglt2 inhibitors, despite their potential to reduce major cardiovascular events. So can I ask the minister, will kidney disease be explicitly included in the modern service framework, and what action will the government take to improve early diagnosis and equitable access to proven treatment?Early diagnosis is just as important in heart valve disease, too, with 1.5 million people in the UK are living with the condition yet again.
Symptoms such as breathlessness, fatigue and dizziness are too often mistaken for the ordinary effects of aging, and that can mean diagnosis comes only after the disease has become severe or irreversible and irreversible. Heart damage has begun. Listening to the heart with a stethoscope remains a simple and low cost first step. Where disease is suspected, patients need that timely access and a clear route to specialist services. So again, can I ask the minister, will heart valve disease be explicitly included in the framework, and will the government consider a single point of access for referrals to specialist valve services?I think we also must confront the inequalities.
Experienced by women, cardiovascular disease kills more than 80,000 women in the UK each year, yet women are less likely than men to have their risk factors assessed are slower to receive a diagnosis, are less likely to be referred to a cardiologist, and are less likely to receive cardiovascular medicines or interventions. Their symptoms can be dismissed or attributed to stress hormones or ageing, and women have been consistently underrepresented when it comes to cardiovascular research. Now, the government's renewed women's health Strategy recognises some of those problems, and the commitment that publicly funded research should properly consider sex based differences is really welcome.
But recognition must translate into practice. So again, I ask the minister if the framework will include measurable action to reduce sex based inequalities in prevention, diagnosis, referrals, treatment and outcomes. And will women's specific cardiovascular risk factors, including pregnancy history and gestational diabetes, menopause, and auto immune disease, be considered more consistently in NHS health checks and other assessments. Now, as we've heard for hope for stroke patients, every minute matters. Rapid recognition. Ambulance response, brain scanning and access to thrombolysis.
I can never say this word. Thrombolysis and thrombectomy can profoundly affect a person's chances of survival and recovery. Yet the 24 hour coverage has still not been achieved. As my right hon. Friend mentioned, the government say that progress is being made, but patients need to know when every part of England will have a reliable access to this life changing treatment. So again, can the minister set a firm date for that full 24 over seven coverage and explain how progress will be maintained while NHS, NHS England's responsibilities are being transferred?
14:28
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
My hon. Of course. I'm very grateful. For many years stroke units have had access to thrombolysis. The shot, as it's known in the trade. But that's a very, you know, rough way of doing it. And it can have side effects and it can impede a patient's recovery. So mechanical thrombectomy is a far more accurate way of. Solving a stroke problem and with far less risk of subsequent side effects. That's why we're so keen to see it grow.
So can I just commend the. And second, the request that he's made to the Minister on that.
So can I just commend the. And second, the request that he's made to the Minister on that.
14:29
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
I thank him for that intervention. And he's so right. When he was describing how important this was, I was thinking about one of my very dear friends who suffered quite a debilitating stroke, and I was just thinking, if only that had been available for him, how different perhaps his life would be now. So I thank him for raising that. Care cannot end either. When a patient leaves the acute ward, someone who has survived a stroke may need to learn, relearn how to walk, speak, eat and carry out basic daily tasks.
Rehabilitation and continuing community support are support are essential if people are to regain their independence and reduce the risk of another stroke. The same is true after a heart attack, cardiac rehabilitation, medication reviews and support to manage risk factors can prevent further illness and save lives. Yet access to rehabilitation remains uneven, and too many patients experience a cliff edge between hospital and community care. Now, the government have committed to reducing premature deaths from heart disease and stroke by 25% within a decade. That is a serious ambition and where the government are taking those practical actions to achieve it, they will absolutely have our full support, but it is important that ambition is matched by a credible plan.
In a letter dated the 28th of May, the minister said that the framework that we're expecting would be published in the spring. The deadline has now passed. And so if I could ask again like others, when will that be published?And will it will it contain clear milestones against which the 25% commitment can be judged?Um and. I ask whether the minister can commit to regular transparent reporting to Parliament so members can see whether that earlier diagnosis and access to treatment and premature mortality are genuinely improving.
There is much on which members across this House should agree. We all want fewer families to lose someone that they love before their time, and we all want patients to receive help before a manageable risk becomes a medical emergency. We all want the NHS staff to have the tools and capacity to provide the care their patients need, reducing premature deaths from heart disease and stroke is achievable, but only through earlier identification of risk. Faster diagnosis, timely treatment and rehabilitation that is available wherever a patient lives.
Targets matter, but patients will judge success by whether they receive the right care in time. And that must be the measure of genuine success they and their families deserve nothing less. Thank you.
Rehabilitation and continuing community support are support are essential if people are to regain their independence and reduce the risk of another stroke. The same is true after a heart attack, cardiac rehabilitation, medication reviews and support to manage risk factors can prevent further illness and save lives. Yet access to rehabilitation remains uneven, and too many patients experience a cliff edge between hospital and community care. Now, the government have committed to reducing premature deaths from heart disease and stroke by 25% within a decade. That is a serious ambition and where the government are taking those practical actions to achieve it, they will absolutely have our full support, but it is important that ambition is matched by a credible plan.
In a letter dated the 28th of May, the minister said that the framework that we're expecting would be published in the spring. The deadline has now passed. And so if I could ask again like others, when will that be published?And will it will it contain clear milestones against which the 25% commitment can be judged?Um and. I ask whether the minister can commit to regular transparent reporting to Parliament so members can see whether that earlier diagnosis and access to treatment and premature mortality are genuinely improving.
There is much on which members across this House should agree. We all want fewer families to lose someone that they love before their time, and we all want patients to receive help before a manageable risk becomes a medical emergency. We all want the NHS staff to have the tools and capacity to provide the care their patients need, reducing premature deaths from heart disease and stroke is achievable, but only through earlier identification of risk. Faster diagnosis, timely treatment and rehabilitation that is available wherever a patient lives.
Targets matter, but patients will judge success by whether they receive the right care in time. And that must be the measure of genuine success they and their families deserve nothing less. Thank you.
14:31
14:31
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Um, Dame Siobhan, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today. Um, I would like to start by thanking the honourable member for South Ribble for securing this very important debate today on such an important issue, and I want to also commend him for sharing his own personal experience. Uh, after his, um and with his diagnosis of a congenital heart defect. And it, it just goes to show as he, as he was speaking that we should never, um, take.
Into account or solely into account how someone presents on the outside, because we never know what is going on on the inside. I do know he served in the Royal Engineers and he's also very fit and active, and he rightly highlighted, um, why this government is determined to tackle cardiovascular disease head on through earlier prevention and diagnosis, because that is what is really going to make the difference. May I also take the opportunity to thank all honourable members for the valuable, valuable contributions. Um, they have made this afternoon and it is still far too clear that too many lives are still being cut short by cardiovascular disease.
In recent years. Heart disease and stroke caused around 33,000 premature deaths per year, and it's the second leading cause of death in England after cancer. And the honourable member for Strangford gave a very powerful speech, bringing this into stark focus with regard to Northern Ireland. And I have to say, um, Dame Siobhan, I do share his pleasure, um, spending so much time in these very important debates in Westminster Hall. Um, he and I are usually always the common denominator in these debates.
Um, I do want to, um, refer to some of the things he said specifically around, um the ticking time bomb. Um, that, uh, cardiovascular disease can be and he mentioned, um, in Northern Ireland, 225 000 people living with heart and circulatory conditions. So, and that being 1 in 10 and that was very sobering. It, you know, as we are here and this is not a niche condition at all, he said. 24% of deaths in Northern Ireland. So that was 1 in 4 people.
Um and that most of those were premature also. Um so and as always, I will commit to ensuring that key learnings. Um, are, are shared and best practice, um, between both, um, our health services as indeed, um, with the other devolved administrations also, um, I always do learn a lot from his contributions, so I thank him for that. Um, and that is why as part of our ten year health plan for the NHS, we have committed to shifting um, from sickness to prevention and to ensuring that fewer lives are lost to the biggest killers, including from cardiovascular disease.
And the honourable lady who speaks for the Lib Dems. I've made so many notes. The trick is now going to be whether I can find the right note for the right person, and not just forget about them all. Um, trying to be too clever for my own boots here. Um, so the honourable lady speaks for Mid Sussex, speaks for the Lib Dems from Mid Sussex. Um, spoke a lot about prevention um and the shift from treatment to prevention.
Sickness to prevention and asked me about the public health grant um as well. Uh, will it go back to 2010 levels. I can't commit to that. Obviously something did happen in 2010 as much as I do like and admire the shadow Secretary of State, I've got to point out that there was big cuts. I will in a moment. There was big cuts to the public health grant. Um, that happened post. I think the biggest cut was 2015 actually.
But um we have um I can inform the honourable lady we have provided the first three year public health settlement, public health grant settlement and the first three year in over a decade. And that will give, um, surety and confidence to um directors of, and local authorities and director, public health directors in our, all of our areas, um, for that will at least give them surety for the three years. But I'm happy to give way.
Into account or solely into account how someone presents on the outside, because we never know what is going on on the inside. I do know he served in the Royal Engineers and he's also very fit and active, and he rightly highlighted, um, why this government is determined to tackle cardiovascular disease head on through earlier prevention and diagnosis, because that is what is really going to make the difference. May I also take the opportunity to thank all honourable members for the valuable, valuable contributions. Um, they have made this afternoon and it is still far too clear that too many lives are still being cut short by cardiovascular disease.
In recent years. Heart disease and stroke caused around 33,000 premature deaths per year, and it's the second leading cause of death in England after cancer. And the honourable member for Strangford gave a very powerful speech, bringing this into stark focus with regard to Northern Ireland. And I have to say, um, Dame Siobhan, I do share his pleasure, um, spending so much time in these very important debates in Westminster Hall. Um, he and I are usually always the common denominator in these debates.
Um, I do want to, um, refer to some of the things he said specifically around, um the ticking time bomb. Um, that, uh, cardiovascular disease can be and he mentioned, um, in Northern Ireland, 225 000 people living with heart and circulatory conditions. So, and that being 1 in 10 and that was very sobering. It, you know, as we are here and this is not a niche condition at all, he said. 24% of deaths in Northern Ireland. So that was 1 in 4 people.
Um and that most of those were premature also. Um so and as always, I will commit to ensuring that key learnings. Um, are, are shared and best practice, um, between both, um, our health services as indeed, um, with the other devolved administrations also, um, I always do learn a lot from his contributions, so I thank him for that. Um, and that is why as part of our ten year health plan for the NHS, we have committed to shifting um, from sickness to prevention and to ensuring that fewer lives are lost to the biggest killers, including from cardiovascular disease.
And the honourable lady who speaks for the Lib Dems. I've made so many notes. The trick is now going to be whether I can find the right note for the right person, and not just forget about them all. Um, trying to be too clever for my own boots here. Um, so the honourable lady speaks for Mid Sussex, speaks for the Lib Dems from Mid Sussex. Um, spoke a lot about prevention um and the shift from treatment to prevention.
Sickness to prevention and asked me about the public health grant um as well. Uh, will it go back to 2010 levels. I can't commit to that. Obviously something did happen in 2010 as much as I do like and admire the shadow Secretary of State, I've got to point out that there was big cuts. I will in a moment. There was big cuts to the public health grant. Um, that happened post. I think the biggest cut was 2015 actually.
But um we have um I can inform the honourable lady we have provided the first three year public health settlement, public health grant settlement and the first three year in over a decade. And that will give, um, surety and confidence to um directors of, and local authorities and director, public health directors in our, all of our areas, um, for that will at least give them surety for the three years. But I'm happy to give way.
14:36
14:36
14:37
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Right. She said 2015. I am being too clever for my own boots. So I wrote down 2010. But of course it was cut the big cut, as I corrected myself was 2015, so I'm pleased she's corrected the record. Um, for us all. Um, okay. Um, where am I up to?Yeah. So as I say, we've set an ambitious goal to reduce premature mortality from heart disease and stroke in those under 75 by a quarter in the next ten years.
And, um, the, as part of the first wave of the new generation of modern service frameworks, we will publish, um, cardiovascular disease, modern service framework soon. And I know I was asked this by the honourable member from South Ribble, um, who I am now going to find all the things I'm going to respond to his questions, um, about, so he asked me when so soon and also um the department and NHS England have engaged widely to consider a range of conditions that are most likely to drive progress on the government's ambition and um the CVD, MSF, if you don't mind me using the acronym to save words, um we'll set out 12 high impact priority action areas, descriptions of how unwarranted variation should be addressed, and a roadmap for the next ten years.
And the framework will be backed by clear accountability and routine monitoring of progress using existing NHS performance and oversight arrangements, and to support the delivery of CVD. MSF across the system. We will launch a series of ambitions strategic partnerships between government, the NHS industry and voluntary sectors and we thank the British Heart Foundation for their support and participation as a task and finish group member for CVD, MSF. Um, he asked me about type two diabetes. Um, but I also want to pay tribute and thank, um, his friend, uh, Jared, who is with us today, who I'm aware, um, is type one diabetic, but, um, the.
The, you know, the, the issue around diabetes is and specifically in this regard, type two diabetes, um, very, very prevalent with regard to cardiovascular disease also. And we are taking steps to reduce overall prevalence of type two diabetes by supporting programmes such as the NHS health Check and the highly effective Healthier You NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme. I'm going to talk more around prevention, around obesity and the obesity Obesogenic environment. Um, when I have, if I have time to squeeze that in as well. You asked me, the honourable member asked me about cholesterol.
And we know that addressing raised cholesterol is key to preventing CVD. Statins cut CVD risk in just 4 to 6 weeks and are readily available and quite cheap. I understand, um, as interventions go. And as of December 2025, 85% of people with CVD were treated with cholesterol lowering lowering therapy, including statins across England. He also asked me about, um, arterial fibrillation and the government recognises the importance of optimising arterial fibrillation treatment. And as of December 25th, 92% of those with high risk arterial fibrillation were being treated with anticoagulants.
As of December 25th and increase from 87% in March 2020. Um, so. I will.
And, um, the, as part of the first wave of the new generation of modern service frameworks, we will publish, um, cardiovascular disease, modern service framework soon. And I know I was asked this by the honourable member from South Ribble, um, who I am now going to find all the things I'm going to respond to his questions, um, about, so he asked me when so soon and also um the department and NHS England have engaged widely to consider a range of conditions that are most likely to drive progress on the government's ambition and um the CVD, MSF, if you don't mind me using the acronym to save words, um we'll set out 12 high impact priority action areas, descriptions of how unwarranted variation should be addressed, and a roadmap for the next ten years.
And the framework will be backed by clear accountability and routine monitoring of progress using existing NHS performance and oversight arrangements, and to support the delivery of CVD. MSF across the system. We will launch a series of ambitions strategic partnerships between government, the NHS industry and voluntary sectors and we thank the British Heart Foundation for their support and participation as a task and finish group member for CVD, MSF. Um, he asked me about type two diabetes. Um, but I also want to pay tribute and thank, um, his friend, uh, Jared, who is with us today, who I'm aware, um, is type one diabetic, but, um, the.
The, you know, the, the issue around diabetes is and specifically in this regard, type two diabetes, um, very, very prevalent with regard to cardiovascular disease also. And we are taking steps to reduce overall prevalence of type two diabetes by supporting programmes such as the NHS health Check and the highly effective Healthier You NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme. I'm going to talk more around prevention, around obesity and the obesity Obesogenic environment. Um, when I have, if I have time to squeeze that in as well. You asked me, the honourable member asked me about cholesterol.
And we know that addressing raised cholesterol is key to preventing CVD. Statins cut CVD risk in just 4 to 6 weeks and are readily available and quite cheap. I understand, um, as interventions go. And as of December 2025, 85% of people with CVD were treated with cholesterol lowering lowering therapy, including statins across England. He also asked me about, um, arterial fibrillation and the government recognises the importance of optimising arterial fibrillation treatment. And as of December 25th, 92% of those with high risk arterial fibrillation were being treated with anticoagulants.
As of December 25th and increase from 87% in March 2020. Um, so. I will.
14:40
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Diabetes. Madam. Madam chair. Um, there's indications that the weight loss. Drugs and injections and tablets that are available within the NHS are very effective. But there is some concern as well about those weight loss rate reduction programmes that there are side effects. Has the minister ever had an opportunity or her department had an opportunity to look at some of those side effects to see if they if they can be addressed to those who want to lose weight but sometimes find themselves, uh, having other problems to address because of it.
14:41
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
As with all, all medications, obviously it's up to GPS to take side effects. You know, into consideration. Um, when prescribing and some side effects might be apparent sooner rather than later, but they're definitely the conversations that, um, patients need to have, um, closely and quickly with, uh, prescribers and their GP. So I would encourage that, um, you know, all constituents, um, always are cognisant of side effects and look out for them and don't just sort of hope they'll go away or hope it doesn't matter.
That should always be raised with um the GP. So um this modern service framework, um that is coming soon, Dame Siobhan um will identify and set standards for the best evidenced interventions to support consistent high quality and equitable care across the cardiovascular disease pathway. It will set out an ambitious vision for the future, identifying areas where further progress is needed, whether building the evidence base or accelerating innovations to to deliver better outcomes for patients. And we know that there are unacceptable inequalities across CVD prevention, diagnosis, treatment and care.
And that is why the CVD, MSF will set out strategic priorities in a clear direction on where health and care systems should focus on now to drive improvement in outcomes and tackle unwarranted variation. And a number of honourable members have highlighted, um, uh, issues around prevention. And we know that around 70% of the CVD burden is preventable. And due to the risk factors, which can be modified by behaviour changes, early identification and management, and so early detection of risk factors is key. And, um, it at this point, I want to bring in, um, comment a number of, uh, questions from honourable members.
Um, the honourable member for Glasgow South, um, made a very short but colourful and he's not, he's not in his place now around access to fresh food, food deserts and I'm will come on, on to with regard to the um questions from the honourable lady from mid Sussex as well. Um he mentioned it's easier in some parts of the country to get vodka rather than a banana. Um and I've used a similar analogy myself with regard to blueberry vapes versus blueberries, actual blueberries. And we all know this place is like that across all of our, um, constituent constituencies.
Um, the honourable lady, um, for, uh, speaks for the Lib Dems. Um, also mentioned, um. The access to, to healthy food, um, into young. People living in poverty. And one of the things she mentioned free school meals being extended to children living in poverty. And obviously the government has, um, extended free school meals to all children in um, on universal credit and families on universal Credit. And that will be from this September. And that's very welcome.
We've already extended universal breakfast clubs. Um, and that's reaching, um, obviously all children, not all children take advantage of it, but there is um going to eventually be access to that for, for all children in our schools. Um, and one of the things, a lot of the work I've been doing in the department since taking up this post has been around my passion and my honourable friend the member for, um, North West. Leicestershire mentioned, um our work we've done together on the school food all party group, um and I set that group up and I do know this data, I'm not going to get it wrong because I set it up in 2010.
Um, so, uh, and healthy food, you know, is so crucial. And, um, so we need to ensure that as we're rolling out breakfast clubs and, um, to all children on universal credit in families on universal credit, we want that food to be as healthy as can be. And that's why I, we've had the consultation on the school food standards, which just closed in June, and they'll be in force from um, next September, September 27th. And they are going to be um, a lot, a lot better, a lot more stringent than the current standards, I hope, when they are made public, um, all honourable members will be able to buy into them and encourage, um, therefore the perception, I think my honourable friend also spoke about the perception of school food needs to change.
And I totally agree. School food come next year will be so, so much better. It already is in so many of our schools. I'm um, as a local MP, a bit obsessive about going into my schools or whatever school I happen to be in. So much so got a bit embarrassing when um, a quick anecdote if I've got time. Um, I was visiting a school and they said they'd get me some sandwich sandwiches from a well known advertise the store, but pre-packed sandwiches from a nice upmarket supermarket because the my secretary had said, oh, make sure Sharon gets some lunch.
And I had to point out to the headteacher that I didn't want the nice sandwiches from M&S. It was M and S that actually what. What I wanted was to stay for lunch with the children in the canteen and see I was there to visit, you know, to talk about whatever or to meet with the school council. But I would always do it either side of the lunch break in order that I, with my school food, all party group chair hat on, I could stay for lunch.
She hadn't explained that bit. My lovely secretary at the time, and so they'd rushed out on her way into work that day, the headteacher had rushed to a well-known supermarket to buy me a selection of sandwiches. I was mortified, mortified. So, um, if you do want to eat with your on your school visit, please make sure you are clear when that you don't just want any old sandwiches bought that you actually want to sit and eat with the children. But um, so it is important.
And I've seen the good, the bad and the ugly and there's more good and hopefully it's going to continue to improve because those habits need to start early. So the prevention that we all want to see in the healthier, you know, healthier lifestyles that everyone, um, you know, we want for the next generation, it's a manifesto commitment of this government to have the healthiest generation of children ever. And so that starts in our health service, but it starts with prevention and the move away from sickness to prevention.
Um, so the honourable lady from Mid Sussex, um, also, uh, I think she mentioned junk food advertising. And obviously the other thing I've been working on is the new nutrient profile modelling and the consultation on that has just closed. And we are going to be using the new NPM model when it's um, agreed and announced it will be applied to the junk food ad ban, which is already in place. And we will set out next steps with regard to that in due course. Also, um, we are also planning on doing work on monitoring and reporting of the healthy food standards also.
So all of that is in train. Um, and I'm very keen on, um, continuing to do that work, but who knows what might come. Um, right. Other honourable members, the honourable member, um who for Stockport. Um mentioned uh walking and that he'd lost £4 during the recent by election. And seems to me that may be, um what we all need is more by elections, but perhaps not. But maybe the serious point is we all need to be walking more.
And, um, and I will in a moment. I'll finish making the point. But if we are walking more, um, that is good. But also we need to be doing brisk walking. Um, we're supposed to sort of get out of breath and get a bit hot and bothered. So, um, it's important that we walk more, but it's also important that, um, we are eating healthier food or trying to eat healthier food as well. But I'll, I'll sit down for a moment and give way to.
Honourable gentleman.
That should always be raised with um the GP. So um this modern service framework, um that is coming soon, Dame Siobhan um will identify and set standards for the best evidenced interventions to support consistent high quality and equitable care across the cardiovascular disease pathway. It will set out an ambitious vision for the future, identifying areas where further progress is needed, whether building the evidence base or accelerating innovations to to deliver better outcomes for patients. And we know that there are unacceptable inequalities across CVD prevention, diagnosis, treatment and care.
And that is why the CVD, MSF will set out strategic priorities in a clear direction on where health and care systems should focus on now to drive improvement in outcomes and tackle unwarranted variation. And a number of honourable members have highlighted, um, uh, issues around prevention. And we know that around 70% of the CVD burden is preventable. And due to the risk factors, which can be modified by behaviour changes, early identification and management, and so early detection of risk factors is key. And, um, it at this point, I want to bring in, um, comment a number of, uh, questions from honourable members.
Um, the honourable member for Glasgow South, um, made a very short but colourful and he's not, he's not in his place now around access to fresh food, food deserts and I'm will come on, on to with regard to the um questions from the honourable lady from mid Sussex as well. Um he mentioned it's easier in some parts of the country to get vodka rather than a banana. Um and I've used a similar analogy myself with regard to blueberry vapes versus blueberries, actual blueberries. And we all know this place is like that across all of our, um, constituent constituencies.
Um, the honourable lady, um, for, uh, speaks for the Lib Dems. Um, also mentioned, um. The access to, to healthy food, um, into young. People living in poverty. And one of the things she mentioned free school meals being extended to children living in poverty. And obviously the government has, um, extended free school meals to all children in um, on universal credit and families on universal Credit. And that will be from this September. And that's very welcome.
We've already extended universal breakfast clubs. Um, and that's reaching, um, obviously all children, not all children take advantage of it, but there is um going to eventually be access to that for, for all children in our schools. Um, and one of the things, a lot of the work I've been doing in the department since taking up this post has been around my passion and my honourable friend the member for, um, North West. Leicestershire mentioned, um our work we've done together on the school food all party group, um and I set that group up and I do know this data, I'm not going to get it wrong because I set it up in 2010.
Um, so, uh, and healthy food, you know, is so crucial. And, um, so we need to ensure that as we're rolling out breakfast clubs and, um, to all children on universal credit in families on universal credit, we want that food to be as healthy as can be. And that's why I, we've had the consultation on the school food standards, which just closed in June, and they'll be in force from um, next September, September 27th. And they are going to be um, a lot, a lot better, a lot more stringent than the current standards, I hope, when they are made public, um, all honourable members will be able to buy into them and encourage, um, therefore the perception, I think my honourable friend also spoke about the perception of school food needs to change.
And I totally agree. School food come next year will be so, so much better. It already is in so many of our schools. I'm um, as a local MP, a bit obsessive about going into my schools or whatever school I happen to be in. So much so got a bit embarrassing when um, a quick anecdote if I've got time. Um, I was visiting a school and they said they'd get me some sandwich sandwiches from a well known advertise the store, but pre-packed sandwiches from a nice upmarket supermarket because the my secretary had said, oh, make sure Sharon gets some lunch.
And I had to point out to the headteacher that I didn't want the nice sandwiches from M&S. It was M and S that actually what. What I wanted was to stay for lunch with the children in the canteen and see I was there to visit, you know, to talk about whatever or to meet with the school council. But I would always do it either side of the lunch break in order that I, with my school food, all party group chair hat on, I could stay for lunch.
She hadn't explained that bit. My lovely secretary at the time, and so they'd rushed out on her way into work that day, the headteacher had rushed to a well-known supermarket to buy me a selection of sandwiches. I was mortified, mortified. So, um, if you do want to eat with your on your school visit, please make sure you are clear when that you don't just want any old sandwiches bought that you actually want to sit and eat with the children. But um, so it is important.
And I've seen the good, the bad and the ugly and there's more good and hopefully it's going to continue to improve because those habits need to start early. So the prevention that we all want to see in the healthier, you know, healthier lifestyles that everyone, um, you know, we want for the next generation, it's a manifesto commitment of this government to have the healthiest generation of children ever. And so that starts in our health service, but it starts with prevention and the move away from sickness to prevention.
Um, so the honourable lady from Mid Sussex, um, also, uh, I think she mentioned junk food advertising. And obviously the other thing I've been working on is the new nutrient profile modelling and the consultation on that has just closed. And we are going to be using the new NPM model when it's um, agreed and announced it will be applied to the junk food ad ban, which is already in place. And we will set out next steps with regard to that in due course. Also, um, we are also planning on doing work on monitoring and reporting of the healthy food standards also.
So all of that is in train. Um, and I'm very keen on, um, continuing to do that work, but who knows what might come. Um, right. Other honourable members, the honourable member, um who for Stockport. Um mentioned uh walking and that he'd lost £4 during the recent by election. And seems to me that may be, um what we all need is more by elections, but perhaps not. But maybe the serious point is we all need to be walking more.
And, um, and I will in a moment. I'll finish making the point. But if we are walking more, um, that is good. But also we need to be doing brisk walking. Um, we're supposed to sort of get out of breath and get a bit hot and bothered. So, um, it's important that we walk more, but it's also important that, um, we are eating healthier food or trying to eat healthier food as well. But I'll, I'll sit down for a moment and give way to.
Honourable gentleman.
14:50
14:50
14:51
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
You and I must apologise to my honourable friend from Southport. I can't read my own writing. And I wrote a. What looks like Stockport, but obviously Southport. I do know that that is a very different place. Um, so yes, walking is important. But also, as I mentioned earlier, the propensity, the obesogenic environment, the propensity to ultra processed food, the food deserts that I've spoke about in parts of our constituencies, um, the. Sadly, some of the most deprived areas are also the most health unequal communities as well.
And that um, is. Not, that is not a coincidence. One does lead to the other. And that's an area of work that I'm massively focused on currently. Um, in the department. Um, okay. The honourable member for um really in Wickford, um. Spoke about his um, wonderful wife of two decades who's a lead new role radiographer.
And that um, is. Not, that is not a coincidence. One does lead to the other. And that's an area of work that I'm massively focused on currently. Um, in the department. Um, okay. The honourable member for um really in Wickford, um. Spoke about his um, wonderful wife of two decades who's a lead new role radiographer.
14:52
14:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Radiographer. Very good. Um, at Queen's Hospital in East London. Um, and we were very, I was very interested to hear about take her husband to work day. I'm glad she didn't keep you there. Um, but what he described sounded fascinating, if not a little, um, not for the faint hearted, as I think he said so. And I also, on behalf of the NHS and the government, want to thank Olivia and her team for their outstanding work, um, that they do every day.
I mean the service and the skill, it is such such important work. And, um, he asked me about um what role is there for mechanical thrombectomy. Um and he said this has been uh, in train for less than a decade and the NHS, um, is working to increase the delivery of thrombotic thrombectomy rates as a key intervention to support improved patient outcomes. So, um, hopefully she's going to be as busy as ever. Um, and, uh, he is rightly proud of her as I'm sure she is of him also.
I mean the service and the skill, it is such such important work. And, um, he asked me about um what role is there for mechanical thrombectomy. Um and he said this has been uh, in train for less than a decade and the NHS, um, is working to increase the delivery of thrombotic thrombectomy rates as a key intervention to support improved patient outcomes. So, um, hopefully she's going to be as busy as ever. Um, and, uh, he is rightly proud of her as I'm sure she is of him also.
14:54
14:54
14:54
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I yeah, don't tell my wife. Um, um, thank you very much for what you've said about Olivia and her colleagues and all the others who work in that field in the NHS. I'll chance my arm to say they're based about an hour from London. If ever the minister had time to pop along and see what they do in person. I think she'd be both very welcome and incredibly impressed.
14:54
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And if my private office will have made note of that, I would be very happy to pay a visit to the hospital and have a look at the work I. That would be something I would be very interested in, um, doing. Um, okay. I think I was also asked by the honourable member for North West Leicestershire about ambulance wait times. Um NHS England is working with East Midlands Ambulance Service to support improvements in response times. And this will increase front ambulance availability, improve productivity and strengthen performance.
So I can assure her that work is under way. Okay. In England, the NHS health check for individuals aged 40 to 74 is designed to assess the top risk factors for cardiovascular disease and refer people to further support, where appropriate, the NHS health check is wide reaching. It engages over 1.4 million people a year, and through behavioural and clinical interventions, prevents around 500 heart attacks or strokes a year. And we know there is more to do to improve uptake of the health check.
And as part of our efforts to make the shift from analogue to digital, we are developing the NHS health check online, increasing the flexibility of the programme so people can completed at home at a time more convenient to them. Finding and supporting people early with undetected high blood pressure is. A number of colleagues mentioned is critical to preventing heart attacks and strokes. I think we can all remember the former um, the former shadow health secretary Jonathan Ashworth, um, had undiagnosed. He had a, um, a heart attack recently and he had undiagnosed high blood pressure.
So again, you cannot just assume from what someone looks like on the outside what is going on, on the inside. So it is so important that we all take up when we reach the grand old age of 40, which I haven't yet reached myself, that we all, that we all take up those health checks. We have invested heavily in blood pressure checks in community pharmacy to provide more. He's. The honourable gentleman's laughing. He must think I'm over 40.
So that we take up those opportunities for detection in the community. And over the last year in England, 82% of pharmacies were delivering the service with over 3 million blood pressure checks taking place. Um, we are committed also to tackling obesity. And we have made significant progress by restricting junk food advertising targeted to children on TV, which I mentioned earlier and online, and banning volume price reductions on less healthy products. NHS England has expanded access to the NHS digital weight management service, doubling the number of people supported 1 million adults in England with established CVD who are overweight or living with obesity.
Now eligible for the use of the drug. Um uh, the semiglutide. Or wegovy for reducing major cardiovascular events. We have taken firm action on smoking, including the Landmark Tobacco and Vapes Act, which will protect future generations from the harms of smoking and to help people quit smoking. We have ring fenced funding for stop smoking services in the public health grant, protecting at least 150 million per year. But our work does not stop there. Um, I've mentioned the shift from treatment to prevention where incentivising earlier identification and better management, of CVD risk, the elective reform plan committed to modernising cardio cardiology pathways.
And we are working closely with clinicians to implement reforms ensuring that care is delivered in the right place at the right time. Um. So, um. I want, uh, we have an ambitious target to reduce premature mortality from heart disease and stroke by 25%. Um, and the CVD, MSF will provide the tools required to achieve this. In closing, if I can just refer to a couple of points that, um, the shadow secretary of State, uh, raised with me, um, around the women's health strategy, um, he is right to mention the disparity in, um, women's diagnosis and treatment.
And this was in the renewed women's health strategy to redesign services, improve diagnosis, embedding women's voices so that care improves across all conditions. Um. Uh, priority examples are included where women are most poorly served. Um, and progress will be judged um, against three overarching measures of success, the main one being to reduce the amount of time women spend in poor health. Um, I will leave it there. Um Dame Siobhan so there's time for um the honourable member to make some closing remarks, but I can just thank him once again for bringing this important matter to the House.
Thank you.
So I can assure her that work is under way. Okay. In England, the NHS health check for individuals aged 40 to 74 is designed to assess the top risk factors for cardiovascular disease and refer people to further support, where appropriate, the NHS health check is wide reaching. It engages over 1.4 million people a year, and through behavioural and clinical interventions, prevents around 500 heart attacks or strokes a year. And we know there is more to do to improve uptake of the health check.
And as part of our efforts to make the shift from analogue to digital, we are developing the NHS health check online, increasing the flexibility of the programme so people can completed at home at a time more convenient to them. Finding and supporting people early with undetected high blood pressure is. A number of colleagues mentioned is critical to preventing heart attacks and strokes. I think we can all remember the former um, the former shadow health secretary Jonathan Ashworth, um, had undiagnosed. He had a, um, a heart attack recently and he had undiagnosed high blood pressure.
So again, you cannot just assume from what someone looks like on the outside what is going on, on the inside. So it is so important that we all take up when we reach the grand old age of 40, which I haven't yet reached myself, that we all, that we all take up those health checks. We have invested heavily in blood pressure checks in community pharmacy to provide more. He's. The honourable gentleman's laughing. He must think I'm over 40.
So that we take up those opportunities for detection in the community. And over the last year in England, 82% of pharmacies were delivering the service with over 3 million blood pressure checks taking place. Um, we are committed also to tackling obesity. And we have made significant progress by restricting junk food advertising targeted to children on TV, which I mentioned earlier and online, and banning volume price reductions on less healthy products. NHS England has expanded access to the NHS digital weight management service, doubling the number of people supported 1 million adults in England with established CVD who are overweight or living with obesity.
Now eligible for the use of the drug. Um uh, the semiglutide. Or wegovy for reducing major cardiovascular events. We have taken firm action on smoking, including the Landmark Tobacco and Vapes Act, which will protect future generations from the harms of smoking and to help people quit smoking. We have ring fenced funding for stop smoking services in the public health grant, protecting at least 150 million per year. But our work does not stop there. Um, I've mentioned the shift from treatment to prevention where incentivising earlier identification and better management, of CVD risk, the elective reform plan committed to modernising cardio cardiology pathways.
And we are working closely with clinicians to implement reforms ensuring that care is delivered in the right place at the right time. Um. So, um. I want, uh, we have an ambitious target to reduce premature mortality from heart disease and stroke by 25%. Um, and the CVD, MSF will provide the tools required to achieve this. In closing, if I can just refer to a couple of points that, um, the shadow secretary of State, uh, raised with me, um, around the women's health strategy, um, he is right to mention the disparity in, um, women's diagnosis and treatment.
And this was in the renewed women's health strategy to redesign services, improve diagnosis, embedding women's voices so that care improves across all conditions. Um. Uh, priority examples are included where women are most poorly served. Um, and progress will be judged um, against three overarching measures of success, the main one being to reduce the amount of time women spend in poor health. Um, I will leave it there. Um Dame Siobhan so there's time for um the honourable member to make some closing remarks, but I can just thank him once again for bringing this important matter to the House.
Thank you.
14:59
14:59
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Like to thank the Minister for giving me 50s. It's one of those very rare topics where I think we've got cross-party consensus from every party in the in the House that we all want the government to be successful in what it looks to achieve in reducing deaths from stroke and cardiovascular disease by 25%. Can I thank the Minister for very detailed response?Can I thank the Shadow Minister for giving up time and giving a very detailed response?I thank the right hon. Gentleman from Wickford and join with the tributes to his wife, Olivia.
And can I thank all other members. And can I thank Jared for sharing his story with us?You now enhanced Jared. And finally, thank you to the British Heart Foundation. Please keep up your good work and may I thank you for giving up your time chair this afternoon.
And can I thank all other members. And can I thank Jared for sharing his story with us?You now enhanced Jared. And finally, thank you to the British Heart Foundation. Please keep up your good work and may I thank you for giving up your time chair this afternoon.
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:01
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
I. Think we got. There is no safe level of air pollution. I'll say that again. There is no safe level of air pollution. Of course, life's not risk free. Every year, almost 250 people die from knife crime. And rightly, people demand action. Almost every year, 1600 people die in road traffic accidents and rightly people demand action. Every year, approx. 43,000 people die prematurely of air pollution.
And yet there is. Well no more. The public are finding their voice about this silent. This invisible killer. And this morning, in Parliament Square, doctors and nurses, academics and carers. Mothers and babies all came together. They came together with the Healthy Air campaign, the Heart and Lung Foundation, mums for lungs, the trade unions, asthma. And lung. Foundation. They came together to demand that Parliament. Two of them represented the 82 people every day whose lives are cut short by air pollution.
We have a public health emergency on our hands and so far, the response from successive governments. Has simply not been adequate. No coordinated national plan to get key pollutants down to safer levels that are aligned with the World Health Organisation. Limit values and. Sadly, the annual data released just this week shows that things are going in the wrong direction. Two days ago, Defra published new air quality. Note the word air quality. No air pollution statistics dated for 2025.
Annual mean concentrations of PM 2.5 showed an increase of 12% at urban background stations and an increase of 14% for roadside stations compared to 2020. For annual mean, concentrations of Pm10 showed an increase of 12% for urban background stations and an increase of 8% for roadside stations compared to 2024 and annual mean concentrations of nitrogen dioxide increased by 3% at urban background stations, although they did show a 1% decrease at roadside stations. I do hope everyone notices the irony that Defra insists on calling this air quality instead of air pollution.
Let's be very clear about the health impacts of air pollution. Polluted air is linked to up to 43,000 deaths every year in the UK. Imagine the reaction. Just imagine if a new Covid variant was having such an impact. If knife crime was linked to hundreds of deaths every week, if we saw 82 deaths on our roads every single day, air pollution is the second leading risk factor for death in children under five. And it's the largest environmental risk to public health.
Yet it remains the silent killer, the invisible killer, because it's often masked by the other diseases that it has aggravated. We have one, just one case where the coroner's certificate records air pollution as a cause of death. That is the case of Ella Kissi-debrah, where the coroner concluded that Ella had, and I quote, died of asthma, contributed to by the exposure to excessive air pollution, he said. Said it had made a material contribution to her death, and I want to pay tribute to Ella's mother, Rosamund, and all those who have campaigned for clean air as a human right.
They were there. She was there this morning in Parliament Square with all those campaigners. And the work that she has done to bring this to public consciousness should be respected by everyone in Parliament. Scientists have found links between air pollution and almost every organ system in the body, and the major diseases that affect them. This includes the brain, the lungs, the cardiovascular system, kidneys, liver, gastrointestinal tract, bone, skin, reproductive system, and even the central nervous system, increasing the chance of developing dementia current.
Health evidence based on more than 60,000 studies links air pollution to more than 700 illnesses. Whilst the scientific evidence base is growing every year, we know more than enough. More. More than enough to realize that current efforts fall far short of what is needed. Indeed, here's what we do know about the current state of air pollution in the UK. Air quality targets, as well as the legal air pollution limits, are not sufficient to protect public health. There is no government wide action plan to bring down levels of air pollution to.
Below WHO guidelines, funding and resources for local authorities to deliver air quality programmes are inadequate and public awareness of outdoor and indoor air pollution is far too low. 70 years ago this month, when the UK published the very first Clean Air Act, we really were a world leader in tackling air pollution. We can no longer make that claim after that great smog that killed 4000 people in a week. A total death count estimated at 10 to 12,000 in the penumbra. The government passed the Clean Air Act of 1956.
Politicians then rose to the challenge. Today, they must do so again. Other jurisdictions are moving ahead with more ambition, with more urgency. And before we consider what we should, that we should. Sorry. And before we consider that, we should distinguish between a target and a limit value. The government is fond of setting targets. A target is something you aim for. A limit value is a threshold that you should not cross.
In 2021, the WHO updated its guidance for one of the key pollutants PM 2.5. Their guidance is no more than five micrograms per cubic metre. The UK's legal limit value was set out in the Air Quality Standards Regulation in 2010. It remains four times higher than the W.H.O. at 20 micrograms. That is the legal limit. The recent Environment Improvement Plan brought forward a new date for achieving a target of ten micrograms per meter cubed. By 2030, it had been 2040.
Now that sounds like good news a target. That will be achieved ten years earlier. Don't be fooled. Do not be fooled. For PM 2.5, that is the aspiration rather than the legal limit is still double the W.H.O., the World Health Organization guidelines. And it actually represents no progress at all. If you examine Defra's 2024 monitoring data, you find that all but one monitoring site just met the ten microgram target. These are the sorts of targets that Defra loves, ones where you have to do nothing to achieve them and leave everything as bad as it's always been.
Whilst looking like you're taking action. We need not a target, we need a legally binding limit value that is the same as the W.H.O. five micrograms per meter cubed and we need. A wider plan to get PM 2.5 exposure down across the UK to below WHO guidelines in the near future. The same and more can be said of the nitrogen dioxide target on this. The WHO guidelines are ten micrograms per cubic metre, whilst the UK lags behind with a legal limit value set in 2010 at an annual exposure of 40.
When it comes to nitrogen dioxide, the Environment Act didn't even set a long term target and therefore action on this key pollutant is not included in the Environment Act delivery plan. Yet it makes no sense for the government to treat nitrogen dioxide any differently. From PM 2.5, we should have a far tighter limit value and a far more ambitious plan for driving nitrogen dioxide levels down to below WHO guidelines on our current trajectory, some parts of the UK will not be compliant with the current inadequate limit value of 40 until 2045.
The honourable member for Makerfield will be aware that the latest Defra figures show that Manchester has the worst nitrogen dioxide pollution in the country, with a. Drogen dioxide level of 55 micrograms per cubic metre, more than five times the WHO guidelines. As a result, it's thought that air pollution contributes to 1 in 20 deaths in the region each year. Moreover, national level statistics can mask local authority level data as exposed by the work of asthma and Lung UK, their research has found that local authorities are breaching the nitrogen dioxide legal limits, even when national government has determined them to be under such limits.
This is because of the disjointed approach we currently take to air pollution, in which national data weirdly excludes local authority monitors, despite local authorities being mandated by government to collect the data. So we've got a situation, like in my constituency of Brent West, in which three local authority monitors accurately record illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide, despite the government saying that Brent and indeed London as a whole. Supposedly meets legal limits for nitrogen dioxide. Well, at the corner of Wembley High Road and London Road, the annual mean for nitrogen dioxide was 40.92 at the corner of the Wembley High Road and Ealing Road.
The annual mean for nitrogen dioxide was 41.76, and finally, at the junction of 40 Lane and King's Drive, the annual mean for nitrogen dioxide was 43.5 micrograms per cubic meter. Each of these are more than four times the WHO guidelines. Each are right next to or in walking distance of a school. This is toxic. This is toxic. Illegal air pollution, which my constituents are exposed to. If they read what the government says, they wouldn't even realise.
And yet there is. Well no more. The public are finding their voice about this silent. This invisible killer. And this morning, in Parliament Square, doctors and nurses, academics and carers. Mothers and babies all came together. They came together with the Healthy Air campaign, the Heart and Lung Foundation, mums for lungs, the trade unions, asthma. And lung. Foundation. They came together to demand that Parliament. Two of them represented the 82 people every day whose lives are cut short by air pollution.
We have a public health emergency on our hands and so far, the response from successive governments. Has simply not been adequate. No coordinated national plan to get key pollutants down to safer levels that are aligned with the World Health Organisation. Limit values and. Sadly, the annual data released just this week shows that things are going in the wrong direction. Two days ago, Defra published new air quality. Note the word air quality. No air pollution statistics dated for 2025.
Annual mean concentrations of PM 2.5 showed an increase of 12% at urban background stations and an increase of 14% for roadside stations compared to 2020. For annual mean, concentrations of Pm10 showed an increase of 12% for urban background stations and an increase of 8% for roadside stations compared to 2024 and annual mean concentrations of nitrogen dioxide increased by 3% at urban background stations, although they did show a 1% decrease at roadside stations. I do hope everyone notices the irony that Defra insists on calling this air quality instead of air pollution.
Let's be very clear about the health impacts of air pollution. Polluted air is linked to up to 43,000 deaths every year in the UK. Imagine the reaction. Just imagine if a new Covid variant was having such an impact. If knife crime was linked to hundreds of deaths every week, if we saw 82 deaths on our roads every single day, air pollution is the second leading risk factor for death in children under five. And it's the largest environmental risk to public health.
Yet it remains the silent killer, the invisible killer, because it's often masked by the other diseases that it has aggravated. We have one, just one case where the coroner's certificate records air pollution as a cause of death. That is the case of Ella Kissi-debrah, where the coroner concluded that Ella had, and I quote, died of asthma, contributed to by the exposure to excessive air pollution, he said. Said it had made a material contribution to her death, and I want to pay tribute to Ella's mother, Rosamund, and all those who have campaigned for clean air as a human right.
They were there. She was there this morning in Parliament Square with all those campaigners. And the work that she has done to bring this to public consciousness should be respected by everyone in Parliament. Scientists have found links between air pollution and almost every organ system in the body, and the major diseases that affect them. This includes the brain, the lungs, the cardiovascular system, kidneys, liver, gastrointestinal tract, bone, skin, reproductive system, and even the central nervous system, increasing the chance of developing dementia current.
Health evidence based on more than 60,000 studies links air pollution to more than 700 illnesses. Whilst the scientific evidence base is growing every year, we know more than enough. More. More than enough to realize that current efforts fall far short of what is needed. Indeed, here's what we do know about the current state of air pollution in the UK. Air quality targets, as well as the legal air pollution limits, are not sufficient to protect public health. There is no government wide action plan to bring down levels of air pollution to.
Below WHO guidelines, funding and resources for local authorities to deliver air quality programmes are inadequate and public awareness of outdoor and indoor air pollution is far too low. 70 years ago this month, when the UK published the very first Clean Air Act, we really were a world leader in tackling air pollution. We can no longer make that claim after that great smog that killed 4000 people in a week. A total death count estimated at 10 to 12,000 in the penumbra. The government passed the Clean Air Act of 1956.
Politicians then rose to the challenge. Today, they must do so again. Other jurisdictions are moving ahead with more ambition, with more urgency. And before we consider what we should, that we should. Sorry. And before we consider that, we should distinguish between a target and a limit value. The government is fond of setting targets. A target is something you aim for. A limit value is a threshold that you should not cross.
In 2021, the WHO updated its guidance for one of the key pollutants PM 2.5. Their guidance is no more than five micrograms per cubic metre. The UK's legal limit value was set out in the Air Quality Standards Regulation in 2010. It remains four times higher than the W.H.O. at 20 micrograms. That is the legal limit. The recent Environment Improvement Plan brought forward a new date for achieving a target of ten micrograms per meter cubed. By 2030, it had been 2040.
Now that sounds like good news a target. That will be achieved ten years earlier. Don't be fooled. Do not be fooled. For PM 2.5, that is the aspiration rather than the legal limit is still double the W.H.O., the World Health Organization guidelines. And it actually represents no progress at all. If you examine Defra's 2024 monitoring data, you find that all but one monitoring site just met the ten microgram target. These are the sorts of targets that Defra loves, ones where you have to do nothing to achieve them and leave everything as bad as it's always been.
Whilst looking like you're taking action. We need not a target, we need a legally binding limit value that is the same as the W.H.O. five micrograms per meter cubed and we need. A wider plan to get PM 2.5 exposure down across the UK to below WHO guidelines in the near future. The same and more can be said of the nitrogen dioxide target on this. The WHO guidelines are ten micrograms per cubic metre, whilst the UK lags behind with a legal limit value set in 2010 at an annual exposure of 40.
When it comes to nitrogen dioxide, the Environment Act didn't even set a long term target and therefore action on this key pollutant is not included in the Environment Act delivery plan. Yet it makes no sense for the government to treat nitrogen dioxide any differently. From PM 2.5, we should have a far tighter limit value and a far more ambitious plan for driving nitrogen dioxide levels down to below WHO guidelines on our current trajectory, some parts of the UK will not be compliant with the current inadequate limit value of 40 until 2045.
The honourable member for Makerfield will be aware that the latest Defra figures show that Manchester has the worst nitrogen dioxide pollution in the country, with a. Drogen dioxide level of 55 micrograms per cubic metre, more than five times the WHO guidelines. As a result, it's thought that air pollution contributes to 1 in 20 deaths in the region each year. Moreover, national level statistics can mask local authority level data as exposed by the work of asthma and Lung UK, their research has found that local authorities are breaching the nitrogen dioxide legal limits, even when national government has determined them to be under such limits.
This is because of the disjointed approach we currently take to air pollution, in which national data weirdly excludes local authority monitors, despite local authorities being mandated by government to collect the data. So we've got a situation, like in my constituency of Brent West, in which three local authority monitors accurately record illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide, despite the government saying that Brent and indeed London as a whole. Supposedly meets legal limits for nitrogen dioxide. Well, at the corner of Wembley High Road and London Road, the annual mean for nitrogen dioxide was 40.92 at the corner of the Wembley High Road and Ealing Road.
The annual mean for nitrogen dioxide was 41.76, and finally, at the junction of 40 Lane and King's Drive, the annual mean for nitrogen dioxide was 43.5 micrograms per cubic meter. Each of these are more than four times the WHO guidelines. Each are right next to or in walking distance of a school. This is toxic. This is toxic. Illegal air pollution, which my constituents are exposed to. If they read what the government says, they wouldn't even realise.
15:13
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Very much for giving way. This week, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS trust declared a critical incident after prolonged extreme heat, leading to increased demand. More patients suffering dehydration and heat related illnesses. Hot spells, as he will know, often go hand in hand with poor air quality. So does he agree with me that there's an imperative to address poor air quality?And that imperative is growing as a result of the changing climate that we're seeing.
15:13
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
My honourable friend makes an excellent point, and he's absolutely right. If you look at the way in which the sort of heat dome that we've we've been experiencing interacts with with pollution gives you that extra ozone. It causes huge health problems. And I don't know. And perhaps the minister can tell us if his officials are are on the ball on this one. Just when the results from the increase, the excess deaths caused by last week's high, high temperatures will be known at a disaggregated level would be extremely interesting to get those.
But he's absolutely right. Happily give way to the member from Hayes and Home.
But he's absolutely right. Happily give way to the member from Hayes and Home.
15:14
15:14
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Of the honourable member's speech. But now he's been interrupted anyway. I might as well. He's aware. He's aware because he's a West London MP. Heathrow in my constituency, one of the most persistent air pollution hotspots in the government's previous government's assessment, any expansion of Heathrow, they said significant impact on air quality. On the latest Airports National Policy statement, it says, I quote, significant negative effects on air quality. We've. We have one of the worst areas for nitrogen dioxide pollution.
Surely agrees with me. Heathrow expansion can't go ahead on these criteria.
Surely agrees with me. Heathrow expansion can't go ahead on these criteria.
15:15
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
How did I know that?My honourable friend, the Right Honourable friend, would be be introducing that subject?It's why I actually excised it from my speech, because I knew that he would. And look, he's absolutely right. And he will have seen the assessment that came out just, what, ten days ago?That said, everything that he and I have been saying about the pollution caused by the third runway expansion at Heathrow, um, it is a disaster for public health. Whatever you think about the economy, whatever you think about the economy.
And it wasn't too hot on that either, as he will know. Um, it is a disaster for public health. Look, I don't decry the real progress on nitrogen dioxide that's resulted from the Ulez expansion. Um, I think what the mayor has done there has been really significant and the correlated reduction in admissions to hospital has been really huge, really welcome that. But air pollution action must be targeted at hotspots. And even if those hotspots did manage to dip below the 40 microgram legal limit, this would still be four times the World Health Organization guidelines.
Yes of course. The Mayor of London has made substantial strides. Um, but can I. Refer him to the matter of, uh, of emissions from buses and the, the only partial electrification of the fleet in London and elsewhere. So pollutants from diesel buses are continuing problem, especially when these are allowed to idle at bus stands close to residential property. This is of particular concern to my constituent, Kate Hollis, whose 12 year old son Jack tragically died from bone cancer, the spread of which the family believed was caused by pollutants from a bus terminus next to the house in my constituency.
Does my honourable friend, who knows a great deal about these issues as a London MP like me, share my family's concern that electrification is going too slowly with potentially dangerous consequences?Well, first of all, I thank my honourable friend for that intervention. First of all, let me, uh, give my condolences to the family and the tragedy that they've suffered. Um, he's absolutely right. The electrification of the the bus system must go further and faster. But it's not just a London problem, as he knows.
This is across the country, and it's absolutely vital that we roll out the electrification, the electrification of vehicles. But he will know too, and I will come to this later on, that those large vehicles, it's not simply the exhaust that is the problem. It is also the particulate matter that heavier vehicles do produce on the roads. Look, whilst the focus is often on particulate matter and O two, we're falling behind on other pollutants as well on ammonia, which being highly reactive, forms. Secondary PM 2.5.
The UK is projected to miss its 2030 reduction targets until at least 2035. We've made essentially no progress on ammonia reduction in 20 years, but if you look at the Netherlands, regulatory controls and agricultural ammonia contributed to a 64% reduction in ammonia emissions between 1990 and 2016, this is possible. Other people are doing it. The question is, why aren't we on ozone or O3 levels continue to be higher in rural and suburban areas, with long term objectives remaining off track and alongside particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide.
Ozone is the biggest contributor to outdoor air pollution, with higher concentrations on hot summer days. As we've discussed, achieving long term objectives for ozone is not even legally mandatory. And finally, there are two more categories of particulate and growing concern. UltraFine particulate matter, um, which comprised 90% of airborne particles and black carbon or soot formed from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and biomass. There are currently no regulations on safe levels of UFF, despite research linking them with an even wider array of health problems than PM 2.5 and Pm10.
And it wasn't too hot on that either, as he will know. Um, it is a disaster for public health. Look, I don't decry the real progress on nitrogen dioxide that's resulted from the Ulez expansion. Um, I think what the mayor has done there has been really significant and the correlated reduction in admissions to hospital has been really huge, really welcome that. But air pollution action must be targeted at hotspots. And even if those hotspots did manage to dip below the 40 microgram legal limit, this would still be four times the World Health Organization guidelines.
Yes of course. The Mayor of London has made substantial strides. Um, but can I. Refer him to the matter of, uh, of emissions from buses and the, the only partial electrification of the fleet in London and elsewhere. So pollutants from diesel buses are continuing problem, especially when these are allowed to idle at bus stands close to residential property. This is of particular concern to my constituent, Kate Hollis, whose 12 year old son Jack tragically died from bone cancer, the spread of which the family believed was caused by pollutants from a bus terminus next to the house in my constituency.
Does my honourable friend, who knows a great deal about these issues as a London MP like me, share my family's concern that electrification is going too slowly with potentially dangerous consequences?Well, first of all, I thank my honourable friend for that intervention. First of all, let me, uh, give my condolences to the family and the tragedy that they've suffered. Um, he's absolutely right. The electrification of the the bus system must go further and faster. But it's not just a London problem, as he knows.
This is across the country, and it's absolutely vital that we roll out the electrification, the electrification of vehicles. But he will know too, and I will come to this later on, that those large vehicles, it's not simply the exhaust that is the problem. It is also the particulate matter that heavier vehicles do produce on the roads. Look, whilst the focus is often on particulate matter and O two, we're falling behind on other pollutants as well on ammonia, which being highly reactive, forms. Secondary PM 2.5.
The UK is projected to miss its 2030 reduction targets until at least 2035. We've made essentially no progress on ammonia reduction in 20 years, but if you look at the Netherlands, regulatory controls and agricultural ammonia contributed to a 64% reduction in ammonia emissions between 1990 and 2016, this is possible. Other people are doing it. The question is, why aren't we on ozone or O3 levels continue to be higher in rural and suburban areas, with long term objectives remaining off track and alongside particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide.
Ozone is the biggest contributor to outdoor air pollution, with higher concentrations on hot summer days. As we've discussed, achieving long term objectives for ozone is not even legally mandatory. And finally, there are two more categories of particulate and growing concern. UltraFine particulate matter, um, which comprised 90% of airborne particles and black carbon or soot formed from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and biomass. There are currently no regulations on safe levels of UFF, despite research linking them with an even wider array of health problems than PM 2.5 and Pm10.
15:19
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Quality standards. Well, it's simply. Outdated. Black carbon, meanwhile, is a major contributor to climate change and pose a significant health risk as a universal carrier for a wide range of toxic chemicals which find their way into our bloodstream. We need a comprehensive monitoring system and specific targets for UF and black carbon as the evidence of their severe health impacts grows. It's not just what we pollute, however, it's where we pollute. The focus to date has largely been on outdoor pollution, and yet we spend, what, 80% of our time indoors, in our homes, our offices, in our schools, commuting in between them.
Indoor air pollution is poorly regulated, with no legally binding national standards, and its key sources, such as wood burning, are woefully under-addressed. Indoor air pollution is absent from the recently updated Environmental Improvement Plan, and we lack a comprehensive estimate of the health burden from indoor air pollution, poor housing conditions that create damp and mould are deadly, as we know from the tragic death of Awaab Ishak. Far too many children experience prolonged exposure to black mould, and that can kill, in some cases, concentrations of certain pollutants indoor exceed those outdoors.
For example, biological aerosols, carbon monoxide, and many volatile organic compounds, often present at significantly higher concentrations indoors. Whilst nitrogen dioxide levels can spike in homes because of gas cookers and poor ventilation. Approximately 36 million people in the UK are being exposed to dangerous indoor air pollution, from gas hobs and ovens that exceed limits of pollutants permitted outdoors. Of all homes in the UK still use gas hobs for cooking, which for most will be the biggest source of nitrogen dioxide pollution in their home. Yet gas cookers and hobs have been left out of home.
Decarbonisation policy, and they're totally ignored in the Warm homes plan. If we want to protect people's health from air pollution in the home and fully remove people's reliance on fossil fuels, we need a policy pathway to transition to electric cooking in the home, like the one developed by Global Action Plan and Clasp, in partnership with experts and academics. Pollutants such as radon gas are linked to 1000 lung cancer deaths annually, not only in our homes but also in our workplaces. We're exposed to dangerous levels of pollution.
Some of us much more than others. As it stands, the Health and Safety executive's workplace exposure limit for Inhalable dust, which includes Pm10, is 10,000 micrograms per cubic metre for an eight hour exposure. Yeah. That's right, 10,000. The W.H.O. guidelines for Pm10, meanwhile, are 4545 micrograms, not for an eight hour exposure, but for a 24 hour exposure. The Health and Safety Executive limit is more than 650 times higher than the WHO guidelines. This is not just a matter of public health, it's a matter of inequality.
Let's be honest. Who lives on the busiest, most polluted streets?Who works in the dirtiest factories?Who lives in poor quality housing?The answer is those who have no choice. Are trapped. Air pollution is an issue for this Labour government because people who are poor are much more likely to die from it because they don't have the means of escape. That's why it is a fundamental breach of their human right, their human right to breathe clean air.
Air pollution is not just a Defra issue. It should span every aspect of our government and every aspect of our lives as it does our homes, our schools, our travel, our work. We need a co-ordinated national action plan. At present, action on air pollution is structurally skewed towards urban nitrogen dioxide sites because these are where the government has faced the strongest legal pressure. That means progress on other pollutants as well as indoor air has stalled. We must bring forward legislative proposals on clean air that unify and update existing laws in a new Clean Air Act.
That was recommendation 34 of the Joint report, Improving Air Quality from the Efra Select Committee. The Environmental Audit Committee, as well as the Health and Transport committees. That was nine years ago, in 2017. All those select committees recommended it. 2017. If that recommendation had been taken on, imagine how much further we could be tackling this issue. More progress we could have made. That recommendation stands today in the year which marks the 70th anniversary of the very first Clean Air Act.
Just like we have the Climate Change Act, under which the government produces and can be challenged on legally binding carbon budgets, we need a Clean Air Act under which this government sets out detailed, thorough, demonstrably achievable plans for bringing down the levels of pollutants with legally binding pollutant budgets. The government could set a graduated timeline by which the UK would have to meet the WHO guidelines for a comprehensive list of pollutants. Building on the 2030 targets with limit values, perhaps for 20, 35 and 40, our target for meeting WHO guideline levels for most pollutants, it was suggested by the Clean Air Fund to the committee should be 2040.
I don't know whether that's the best. I'd like to see it brought forward. But if we set that as the goal, just as we set net zero by 2050 as the goal, we could at least be making progress towards it. Coordinating a national action plan on air pollution under a new Clear Air Act would ensure that the issue is no longer relegated to being just a Defra issue. In reality, it affects and is affected by every single department. Mr.
Everett. There's so much more I've got here that I could say, but I'm getting exhausted and I can see that there are others in this chamber who would wish to contribute. I just say to. The minister, and look, I welcome the fact that he has stepped in for Mr. Hardy. I know she was unable to to be with us today for for her own very, very good reasons. She's spoken to me and I accept that. So I'm grateful to him for stepping in.
But look, please. Go back into the department. I know you're a new minister, but new ministers come in with new ideas. Right?They come in and they can say to the boss, for God's sake, I've just been in Westminster Hall and I can't believe what it is that we're doing. Try and make the case for us. The case for the 43,000 people whose lives are being cut short every year in our country. Let's do something imaginative, something bold, something worth doing.
Let's pass a clean air act.
Indoor air pollution is poorly regulated, with no legally binding national standards, and its key sources, such as wood burning, are woefully under-addressed. Indoor air pollution is absent from the recently updated Environmental Improvement Plan, and we lack a comprehensive estimate of the health burden from indoor air pollution, poor housing conditions that create damp and mould are deadly, as we know from the tragic death of Awaab Ishak. Far too many children experience prolonged exposure to black mould, and that can kill, in some cases, concentrations of certain pollutants indoor exceed those outdoors.
For example, biological aerosols, carbon monoxide, and many volatile organic compounds, often present at significantly higher concentrations indoors. Whilst nitrogen dioxide levels can spike in homes because of gas cookers and poor ventilation. Approximately 36 million people in the UK are being exposed to dangerous indoor air pollution, from gas hobs and ovens that exceed limits of pollutants permitted outdoors. Of all homes in the UK still use gas hobs for cooking, which for most will be the biggest source of nitrogen dioxide pollution in their home. Yet gas cookers and hobs have been left out of home.
Decarbonisation policy, and they're totally ignored in the Warm homes plan. If we want to protect people's health from air pollution in the home and fully remove people's reliance on fossil fuels, we need a policy pathway to transition to electric cooking in the home, like the one developed by Global Action Plan and Clasp, in partnership with experts and academics. Pollutants such as radon gas are linked to 1000 lung cancer deaths annually, not only in our homes but also in our workplaces. We're exposed to dangerous levels of pollution.
Some of us much more than others. As it stands, the Health and Safety executive's workplace exposure limit for Inhalable dust, which includes Pm10, is 10,000 micrograms per cubic metre for an eight hour exposure. Yeah. That's right, 10,000. The W.H.O. guidelines for Pm10, meanwhile, are 4545 micrograms, not for an eight hour exposure, but for a 24 hour exposure. The Health and Safety Executive limit is more than 650 times higher than the WHO guidelines. This is not just a matter of public health, it's a matter of inequality.
Let's be honest. Who lives on the busiest, most polluted streets?Who works in the dirtiest factories?Who lives in poor quality housing?The answer is those who have no choice. Are trapped. Air pollution is an issue for this Labour government because people who are poor are much more likely to die from it because they don't have the means of escape. That's why it is a fundamental breach of their human right, their human right to breathe clean air.
Air pollution is not just a Defra issue. It should span every aspect of our government and every aspect of our lives as it does our homes, our schools, our travel, our work. We need a co-ordinated national action plan. At present, action on air pollution is structurally skewed towards urban nitrogen dioxide sites because these are where the government has faced the strongest legal pressure. That means progress on other pollutants as well as indoor air has stalled. We must bring forward legislative proposals on clean air that unify and update existing laws in a new Clean Air Act.
That was recommendation 34 of the Joint report, Improving Air Quality from the Efra Select Committee. The Environmental Audit Committee, as well as the Health and Transport committees. That was nine years ago, in 2017. All those select committees recommended it. 2017. If that recommendation had been taken on, imagine how much further we could be tackling this issue. More progress we could have made. That recommendation stands today in the year which marks the 70th anniversary of the very first Clean Air Act.
Just like we have the Climate Change Act, under which the government produces and can be challenged on legally binding carbon budgets, we need a Clean Air Act under which this government sets out detailed, thorough, demonstrably achievable plans for bringing down the levels of pollutants with legally binding pollutant budgets. The government could set a graduated timeline by which the UK would have to meet the WHO guidelines for a comprehensive list of pollutants. Building on the 2030 targets with limit values, perhaps for 20, 35 and 40, our target for meeting WHO guideline levels for most pollutants, it was suggested by the Clean Air Fund to the committee should be 2040.
I don't know whether that's the best. I'd like to see it brought forward. But if we set that as the goal, just as we set net zero by 2050 as the goal, we could at least be making progress towards it. Coordinating a national action plan on air pollution under a new Clear Air Act would ensure that the issue is no longer relegated to being just a Defra issue. In reality, it affects and is affected by every single department. Mr.
Everett. There's so much more I've got here that I could say, but I'm getting exhausted and I can see that there are others in this chamber who would wish to contribute. I just say to. The minister, and look, I welcome the fact that he has stepped in for Mr. Hardy. I know she was unable to to be with us today for for her own very, very good reasons. She's spoken to me and I accept that. So I'm grateful to him for stepping in.
But look, please. Go back into the department. I know you're a new minister, but new ministers come in with new ideas. Right?They come in and they can say to the boss, for God's sake, I've just been in Westminster Hall and I can't believe what it is that we're doing. Try and make the case for us. The case for the 43,000 people whose lives are being cut short every year in our country. Let's do something imaginative, something bold, something worth doing.
Let's pass a clean air act.
15:28
15:28
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Power to serve on your chairmanship. A big thank you to the honourable gentleman for Brent West for raising this issue and for, as always, for his passion for the subject and in particular and well done. As a DUP health spokesperson and most interested in this issue, uh, due to the serious and too often fatal effects that air pollution has on public health. It's also great to see the minister in this place. He was here last night in the fishing debate. He's here again.
Well done. And we thank him for for his perseverance and for his energetic, uh, commitment. The air pollution is associated with some 30,000 deaths a year across the UK. And the question we're all posing and the honourable gentleman proposed when he set the the focus for the debate is what are we doing to prevent those deaths?Both the United Kingdom government and the World Health Organisation have acknowledged that air pollution is the largest environmental threat to our health. It affects.
Do not just stop at the lungs. Of course, the pollutants go on to be absorbed into the bloodstream and then have the potential to harm every organ in the body, so they're greater than just the breath that we that we breathe. The harm can manifest itself as heart diseases, cancers, dementia, as strokes, as diabetes, and declare an interest as one of them and has even been linked to mental health conditions as well. And further adding to the devastating human costs. Treating the effects of air pollution is likely costing the NHS millions or billions, I should say.
With the Royal College of Physicians estimating the cost as much as a a mouth watering £27 billion annually, whilst cars and vans remain amongst the largest sources of harmful air pollution. We must also recognise the impact of indoor air pollution, poor ventilation, damp mould, emissions from domestic heating all contribute to poor health and can be particularly damaging for children, older people and those with existing health, health conditions and indeed complex health conditions in particular. Excuse me. Alongside efforts to reduce emissions, targeted support should be provided to those communities most affected.
It's often those living in the most deprived areas who experience the highest levels of air pollution. The honourable gentleman from Brent West set the scene. He referred to that specifically. They are more likely to live close by busy roads or industrial sites and as a result, face a greater risk of ill health. Clean air is therefore not only an environmental issue, it's also one of health inequality. And quite clearly, across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, there is much inequality.
As a member of Parliament for Strangford, a largely rural constituency, I must further raise concerns about the effects of ammonia, um, a major omission of agricultural production. But we must understand that we need food and farming in which we can reduce emissions. They are often a byproduct of the food production that we must accept. Excuse me. It's essential that the farming community is working with the department in order to reduce these emissions in a sustainable way. So if the minister is able to.
I would like to ask him that question. Have there been discussions with the farming community, uh, to reduce the ammonia emissions in some way, uh, to ensure that all of us in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can reap the benefits, evidence demonstrates taking action can make a difference in London. Deaths to air pollution are linked to air pollution, felt by an estimated 40% over some five years from 2019. So I think I would like to put on record my thanks to the government and to the Mayor of London as well, for that massive reduction over those five years or seven years as it is now.
And with the introduction of ultra low emission zones, there is, of course, no safe level of air pollution. But every improvement in air quality has the potential, I believe, to reduce illness, relieve pressure on the health service, and to save lives. And the honourable gentleman set that scene very clearly when he um, the objective is to save lives. And he and all of us here are greatly perturbed at the loss of death over the over each and every year. I conclude with this, uh, Mr.
Chairman, I know the minister will therefore agree that more should be done to tackle air pollution with particular attention given to those communities in the most deprived areas, where the impact upon their health seems to be greater, where people are at a greater risk of poor health simply because of where they live. The houses that have been, the areas they live in are where pollution is particularly high indoors and outdoors. But this must be done hand in hand. And I say this very gently, not with a boot on the neck of the farming industry.
There is work to be done, from industry to farming to individuals in their homes. And together, I believe we must do the best we can to be good stewards of this and of that in this world that we live in. Thank you very much.
Well done. And we thank him for for his perseverance and for his energetic, uh, commitment. The air pollution is associated with some 30,000 deaths a year across the UK. And the question we're all posing and the honourable gentleman proposed when he set the the focus for the debate is what are we doing to prevent those deaths?Both the United Kingdom government and the World Health Organisation have acknowledged that air pollution is the largest environmental threat to our health. It affects.
Do not just stop at the lungs. Of course, the pollutants go on to be absorbed into the bloodstream and then have the potential to harm every organ in the body, so they're greater than just the breath that we that we breathe. The harm can manifest itself as heart diseases, cancers, dementia, as strokes, as diabetes, and declare an interest as one of them and has even been linked to mental health conditions as well. And further adding to the devastating human costs. Treating the effects of air pollution is likely costing the NHS millions or billions, I should say.
With the Royal College of Physicians estimating the cost as much as a a mouth watering £27 billion annually, whilst cars and vans remain amongst the largest sources of harmful air pollution. We must also recognise the impact of indoor air pollution, poor ventilation, damp mould, emissions from domestic heating all contribute to poor health and can be particularly damaging for children, older people and those with existing health, health conditions and indeed complex health conditions in particular. Excuse me. Alongside efforts to reduce emissions, targeted support should be provided to those communities most affected.
It's often those living in the most deprived areas who experience the highest levels of air pollution. The honourable gentleman from Brent West set the scene. He referred to that specifically. They are more likely to live close by busy roads or industrial sites and as a result, face a greater risk of ill health. Clean air is therefore not only an environmental issue, it's also one of health inequality. And quite clearly, across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, there is much inequality.
As a member of Parliament for Strangford, a largely rural constituency, I must further raise concerns about the effects of ammonia, um, a major omission of agricultural production. But we must understand that we need food and farming in which we can reduce emissions. They are often a byproduct of the food production that we must accept. Excuse me. It's essential that the farming community is working with the department in order to reduce these emissions in a sustainable way. So if the minister is able to.
I would like to ask him that question. Have there been discussions with the farming community, uh, to reduce the ammonia emissions in some way, uh, to ensure that all of us in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can reap the benefits, evidence demonstrates taking action can make a difference in London. Deaths to air pollution are linked to air pollution, felt by an estimated 40% over some five years from 2019. So I think I would like to put on record my thanks to the government and to the Mayor of London as well, for that massive reduction over those five years or seven years as it is now.
And with the introduction of ultra low emission zones, there is, of course, no safe level of air pollution. But every improvement in air quality has the potential, I believe, to reduce illness, relieve pressure on the health service, and to save lives. And the honourable gentleman set that scene very clearly when he um, the objective is to save lives. And he and all of us here are greatly perturbed at the loss of death over the over each and every year. I conclude with this, uh, Mr.
Chairman, I know the minister will therefore agree that more should be done to tackle air pollution with particular attention given to those communities in the most deprived areas, where the impact upon their health seems to be greater, where people are at a greater risk of poor health simply because of where they live. The houses that have been, the areas they live in are where pollution is particularly high indoors and outdoors. But this must be done hand in hand. And I say this very gently, not with a boot on the neck of the farming industry.
There is work to be done, from industry to farming to individuals in their homes. And together, I believe we must do the best we can to be good stewards of this and of that in this world that we live in. Thank you very much.
15:33
15:33
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Your chair. This afternoon. Um, and I'd also like to thank my hon. Friend the member for Brent West for bringing forward this debate today and his powerful, passionate speech. Um, we know we do know the effects of air quality, air pollution. Um, and I will declare, Mr. Efford, that in my in the last Parliament, I was proud to serve my party as the shadow minister responsible for air quality. Um and as a consequence, I remain extremely passionate about this, but also in a previous life, in my useful life before this place, I was a physiotherapist and I treated people with breathing conditions.
I treated miners with pneumoconiosis, silicosis, uh, people with asthma, young and old and COPD as well. Um, very real symptoms of the environments that we live in today. Because we know scientific studies have shown that air pollution is a major cause of disease and premature death. Those exposed to dirty air face increased risk of heart disease, respiratory deterioration, and even dementia. Fine particles can enter deep into the lungs, affecting blood vessels and respiratory function, and the the link between air pollution and poor respiratory health was laid out by my honourable friend for Brentford, Brent West.
Um about Ella Kissi-debrah um back in 2013 when she died just aged nine. Um and I, I was privileged to meet her mum Rosamund, um a couple of days ago and I again after a long break, but it was really good to see her. And I do pay tribute to her and all the campaigning that she does to get this, uh, this silent killer back on the, on the agenda. It's really important that we do that. Um, and I, I know, I appreciate that the minister is, is, is replacing today and that's great, but Defra, we know a lot about water pollution and there's a great deal made about water pollution.
That's fine, but it doesn't kill in the thousands like air quality air pollution does. So air quality is a key social justice issue because it's not uniform, its impacts are often felt most amongst those already vulnerable. It's our most deprived communities who already suffer from the worst social determinants of health, who experienced the worst air quality. Now, if this government is to be one defined by breaking down barriers to opportunity, then tackling social determinants of health such as poor air quality must be a priority.
We know poorer people live near a dual carriageways and busy main roads, thus contributing to poorer health, and the evidence is very clear. And certainly as a shadow Minister, I went on a number of walkabouts, um with a personal a monitor on and you can see the results there. And then and the results were stark. I'm not even going to mention the tube because it was very frightening. Um, we need to know, but we do need to know where the hotspots are in terms of, of pollution, because then we can do something about tackling them because the clear detrimental health impacts of continued exposure to air pollution led the World Health Organisation in 2021 to revise their guidance to say there are no safe levels of air pollution.
And, you know, that's a fact. There are no, no, no safe levels. So this updated guidance now means that UK air pollution limits first adopted in 2010, are significantly out of date, with targets for NOx and PM 2.5 emissions being four times those now adopted by the WHOI. I therefore ask the minister or ask him to ask the Department what consideration he has made of the updated WHO guidelines and what steps his department is taking to align UK regs with these standards. Because this year marks the 70th anniversary of the UK Clean Air Act and given the ongoing and pressing health emergency posed by air pollution, there is a clear need to update this.
We need a new Clean Air Act fit for the present day, and we know that local authorities play a critical role in delivering local improvements in air quality, but they need the funding, enforcement powers and clear national backing to do so effectively. A new Clean Air Act would really help them in in their challenges, and I pay tribute to one of my own councils, Newport City Council, for their fleet of electric buses, because they're doing their bit, but they need help to do even more. So can I ask the minister what steps the Department is taking to bring forward an update to the Clean Air Act, drawing on national and international best practice, and will he also outline what conversations his department has had with the Treasury and CLG colleagues regarding greater financial support for local authorities to tackle action to address air pollution hotspots.
This Labour government is committed to protecting our environment, rebuilding our NHS and breaking down barriers to opportunity. We cannot deliver on these targets. However, if we continue to overlook significant impacts on poor air quality, on people's health, particularly the poor and the young, tackling air pollution is an investment in the next generation. We cannot let our children continue to pay the price for continued inaction. We need a new Clean Air act and we need it now. I look forward to the minister outlining a timetable for its introduction.
I treated miners with pneumoconiosis, silicosis, uh, people with asthma, young and old and COPD as well. Um, very real symptoms of the environments that we live in today. Because we know scientific studies have shown that air pollution is a major cause of disease and premature death. Those exposed to dirty air face increased risk of heart disease, respiratory deterioration, and even dementia. Fine particles can enter deep into the lungs, affecting blood vessels and respiratory function, and the the link between air pollution and poor respiratory health was laid out by my honourable friend for Brentford, Brent West.
Um about Ella Kissi-debrah um back in 2013 when she died just aged nine. Um and I, I was privileged to meet her mum Rosamund, um a couple of days ago and I again after a long break, but it was really good to see her. And I do pay tribute to her and all the campaigning that she does to get this, uh, this silent killer back on the, on the agenda. It's really important that we do that. Um, and I, I know, I appreciate that the minister is, is, is replacing today and that's great, but Defra, we know a lot about water pollution and there's a great deal made about water pollution.
That's fine, but it doesn't kill in the thousands like air quality air pollution does. So air quality is a key social justice issue because it's not uniform, its impacts are often felt most amongst those already vulnerable. It's our most deprived communities who already suffer from the worst social determinants of health, who experienced the worst air quality. Now, if this government is to be one defined by breaking down barriers to opportunity, then tackling social determinants of health such as poor air quality must be a priority.
We know poorer people live near a dual carriageways and busy main roads, thus contributing to poorer health, and the evidence is very clear. And certainly as a shadow Minister, I went on a number of walkabouts, um with a personal a monitor on and you can see the results there. And then and the results were stark. I'm not even going to mention the tube because it was very frightening. Um, we need to know, but we do need to know where the hotspots are in terms of, of pollution, because then we can do something about tackling them because the clear detrimental health impacts of continued exposure to air pollution led the World Health Organisation in 2021 to revise their guidance to say there are no safe levels of air pollution.
And, you know, that's a fact. There are no, no, no safe levels. So this updated guidance now means that UK air pollution limits first adopted in 2010, are significantly out of date, with targets for NOx and PM 2.5 emissions being four times those now adopted by the WHOI. I therefore ask the minister or ask him to ask the Department what consideration he has made of the updated WHO guidelines and what steps his department is taking to align UK regs with these standards. Because this year marks the 70th anniversary of the UK Clean Air Act and given the ongoing and pressing health emergency posed by air pollution, there is a clear need to update this.
We need a new Clean Air Act fit for the present day, and we know that local authorities play a critical role in delivering local improvements in air quality, but they need the funding, enforcement powers and clear national backing to do so effectively. A new Clean Air Act would really help them in in their challenges, and I pay tribute to one of my own councils, Newport City Council, for their fleet of electric buses, because they're doing their bit, but they need help to do even more. So can I ask the minister what steps the Department is taking to bring forward an update to the Clean Air Act, drawing on national and international best practice, and will he also outline what conversations his department has had with the Treasury and CLG colleagues regarding greater financial support for local authorities to tackle action to address air pollution hotspots.
This Labour government is committed to protecting our environment, rebuilding our NHS and breaking down barriers to opportunity. We cannot deliver on these targets. However, if we continue to overlook significant impacts on poor air quality, on people's health, particularly the poor and the young, tackling air pollution is an investment in the next generation. We cannot let our children continue to pay the price for continued inaction. We need a new Clean Air act and we need it now. I look forward to the minister outlining a timetable for its introduction.
15:38
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
Thank you, chairman, sir. Minister, I thank my hon. Friend the member for Brent West for leading this debate. And as ever, his gentle but decisive prose. I'm sure members here will be pleased to know my remarks are a bit shorter. Toxic air is a public health crisis, and it's an environmental crisis, too. But the health crisis is what concerns me today, especially for our children. Air pollution can stunt the growth of children's lungs, hamper fetal development and contribute to cancer, heart disease, dementia and even mental health conditions.
Our air can become an invisible killer. But sadly, because we don't see it, we don't quite understand it. An estimated 30,000 deaths are attributable to long term exposure to dirty air every single year. One of the boroughs I represent Newham at 1.7 in every hundred deaths were because of air pollution. In 2013, one of the 30,000 people on that figure that I mentioned was a nine year old girl. We've heard her name spoken here already. Ella advocacy.
Deborah. She died following an asthma attack. It was thanks to the tireless campaign of Ella's mum, Rosamund, who again. We've also heard about who demanded answers, who pushed for justice for her daughter, I knew her from my time working for our mayor of London. I know Rosamund, tireless work firsthand, and her advocacy has been incredible. Ella became the first person in the UK for whom air pollution is listed as an official cause of death. It's a landmark decision.
Ella was exposed to excessive levels of pollution. The toxic air cut her beautiful life short, robbed a family of their sister, a mother of her daughter, and their lives have never been the same. This is the price our youngest citizens paid for our inaction. If the air in Ella's neighbourhood had been safe, if she hadn't been exposed to toxic gases, Ella would be in her 20s today. Probably a trailblazer in her own right. But we will never know.
This is the human cost of our negligence and no child should suffer as Ella did, and no family and no mother should have to go through. We cannot repeat the mistakes of the past by failing this generation of young people, because it's clear that with political will, creativity and resolve, we can turn the tide. I was there for the inception of Ulez and I'm proud to have worked on it as a team right back from 2016 onwards. But in the five years since it's come in, the mayor of London's bold approach has reduced London's nitrogen oxide oxide levels by over 40%.
That is no small feat. It's reduced fine particulate pollution levels by around 30%. These aren't pie in the sky statistics. It's driving down hospital admissions, protecting the health of children and pensioners alike, and easing the burden on our NHS. I will, on that point.
Our air can become an invisible killer. But sadly, because we don't see it, we don't quite understand it. An estimated 30,000 deaths are attributable to long term exposure to dirty air every single year. One of the boroughs I represent Newham at 1.7 in every hundred deaths were because of air pollution. In 2013, one of the 30,000 people on that figure that I mentioned was a nine year old girl. We've heard her name spoken here already. Ella advocacy.
Deborah. She died following an asthma attack. It was thanks to the tireless campaign of Ella's mum, Rosamund, who again. We've also heard about who demanded answers, who pushed for justice for her daughter, I knew her from my time working for our mayor of London. I know Rosamund, tireless work firsthand, and her advocacy has been incredible. Ella became the first person in the UK for whom air pollution is listed as an official cause of death. It's a landmark decision.
Ella was exposed to excessive levels of pollution. The toxic air cut her beautiful life short, robbed a family of their sister, a mother of her daughter, and their lives have never been the same. This is the price our youngest citizens paid for our inaction. If the air in Ella's neighbourhood had been safe, if she hadn't been exposed to toxic gases, Ella would be in her 20s today. Probably a trailblazer in her own right. But we will never know.
This is the human cost of our negligence and no child should suffer as Ella did, and no family and no mother should have to go through. We cannot repeat the mistakes of the past by failing this generation of young people, because it's clear that with political will, creativity and resolve, we can turn the tide. I was there for the inception of Ulez and I'm proud to have worked on it as a team right back from 2016 onwards. But in the five years since it's come in, the mayor of London's bold approach has reduced London's nitrogen oxide oxide levels by over 40%.
That is no small feat. It's reduced fine particulate pollution levels by around 30%. These aren't pie in the sky statistics. It's driving down hospital admissions, protecting the health of children and pensioners alike, and easing the burden on our NHS. I will, on that point.
15:42
15:42
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
I couldn't I couldn't agree more with my honourable friend. And we know, particularly in the outer London suburbs, how this has become the newest punching bag for some members on the right. And actually, this is not should not be about party politics. This should be about cleaning up our polluted air. In just five years, we've seen the difference here in London. And that is thanks to bold leadership from our mayor, Sadiq Khan. Dirty air is deadly, but the future is in our hands.
We have shown that progress is possible and that we can turn the tide. This shouldn't be a controversial thing. Breathing clean air shouldn't be a privilege reserved for just some children. In some postcodes in leafy suburbs. We'd never expect anyone to drink dirty water. So why are we accepting breathing dirty air?That's a simple premise behind Ella's Law, which I'm very proud to support as a signatory on the bill. It's a bill which has one clear claim that every person has the right to breathe clean air.
So I welcome that the government has identified clean air as a priority for the ten year health plan, and I urge the minister in that spirit, to take a fresh look at both our national targets and our legal pollution limits and commit to introducing Ella's law to tackle the serious challenges to air pollution, cutting down the causes of toxic pollution. Chair, everyone has the right to breathe clean air no matter where they live, no matter who they are. And this should be the thing that unites this whole house.
We have shown that progress is possible and that we can turn the tide. This shouldn't be a controversial thing. Breathing clean air shouldn't be a privilege reserved for just some children. In some postcodes in leafy suburbs. We'd never expect anyone to drink dirty water. So why are we accepting breathing dirty air?That's a simple premise behind Ella's Law, which I'm very proud to support as a signatory on the bill. It's a bill which has one clear claim that every person has the right to breathe clean air.
So I welcome that the government has identified clean air as a priority for the ten year health plan, and I urge the minister in that spirit, to take a fresh look at both our national targets and our legal pollution limits and commit to introducing Ella's law to tackle the serious challenges to air pollution, cutting down the causes of toxic pollution. Chair, everyone has the right to breathe clean air no matter where they live, no matter who they are. And this should be the thing that unites this whole house.
15:44
15:44
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
Under your chairing, and I congratulate the member for Brent West for securing this important debate. Clean air is not simply an issue about health and the environment, but a moral imperative of our time. It is a challenge that requires urgency with current legislation and frameworks lagging behind the science alongside the need for more joined up thinking and action across agencies, government departments and devolved administrations. I hope the minister can say something about the work that his department is doing with others and taking this issue forward for clean air.
Is an environmental, health and social justice issue. Poor air quality is an environmental challenge. Many of our wild plants in our natural environment cannot tolerate high pollution levels. It can devastate grasslands, peatlands, moorlands, leading to a loss of pollinators and significantly harming biodiversity. This matters on the biggest scale. The ecosystems we depend on for air, for water, and for a livable planet are being damaged. Poor air quality is a public health issue. It shortens lives and contributes to over 30 to 40,000 premature deaths every year.
It increases the risk of diseases such as dementia, lung cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes. It affects all of us, but particularly the young and the old. Pregnant women and their unborn children. Which brings me to air quality as a social justice issue. Clean air is an equity issue. Those more likely to have underlying conditions are more likely to live in environments that worsen them. Areas most exposed to pollution are often the poorest, where proximity to traffic and poor housing so often go hand in hand.
That is why tracking root causes is essential. Interventions can make a real difference. Air pollution was once widely associated with transport. But. But strategies have reduced its impact, most notably the shift away from diesel and the uptake of electric vehicles. Alongside national action, local strategies matter to Ulez in London. As has been mentioned, reduced energy levels by 40% before lockdown, while in Bradford since their Clean Air Zone was introduced, it's reported that GP visits for cardiovascular and respiratory problems have reduced by 25%.
But success in one area should not obscure challenges. Elsewhere. Wood burning affects air quality inside homes. There must be a focus on indoor air quality, where we spend up to 80 to 90% of our time as much as outdoor air and how we protect buildings such as schools, hospitals and community facilities. Yes, we need more ambitious targets and a stronger framework, but just as importantly, we must secure buy in from local communities while national targets set direction. Local needs are best addressed locally.
That means empowering not only local authorities, important as that is, but communities themselves. Clean air cannot be delivered from the top down alone. Alongside funding, we need expertise and partnerships so residents, schools and community organisations can lead change. Community led initiatives like local monitoring, clean transport and neighbourhood campaigns would make the pollution issue visible and give people a real stake in improving it. I hope the minister can say something about the involvement of communities in taking forward this important measures that are required.
Public engagement must be at the heart of our efforts. Clean air should be seen as essential to everyday health by raising awareness and giving people the opportunity to shape solutions, we can turn an invisible scourge into a shared priority. And with national ambition and local action, we can become a world leader in air quality again. Thank you.
Is an environmental, health and social justice issue. Poor air quality is an environmental challenge. Many of our wild plants in our natural environment cannot tolerate high pollution levels. It can devastate grasslands, peatlands, moorlands, leading to a loss of pollinators and significantly harming biodiversity. This matters on the biggest scale. The ecosystems we depend on for air, for water, and for a livable planet are being damaged. Poor air quality is a public health issue. It shortens lives and contributes to over 30 to 40,000 premature deaths every year.
It increases the risk of diseases such as dementia, lung cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes. It affects all of us, but particularly the young and the old. Pregnant women and their unborn children. Which brings me to air quality as a social justice issue. Clean air is an equity issue. Those more likely to have underlying conditions are more likely to live in environments that worsen them. Areas most exposed to pollution are often the poorest, where proximity to traffic and poor housing so often go hand in hand.
That is why tracking root causes is essential. Interventions can make a real difference. Air pollution was once widely associated with transport. But. But strategies have reduced its impact, most notably the shift away from diesel and the uptake of electric vehicles. Alongside national action, local strategies matter to Ulez in London. As has been mentioned, reduced energy levels by 40% before lockdown, while in Bradford since their Clean Air Zone was introduced, it's reported that GP visits for cardiovascular and respiratory problems have reduced by 25%.
But success in one area should not obscure challenges. Elsewhere. Wood burning affects air quality inside homes. There must be a focus on indoor air quality, where we spend up to 80 to 90% of our time as much as outdoor air and how we protect buildings such as schools, hospitals and community facilities. Yes, we need more ambitious targets and a stronger framework, but just as importantly, we must secure buy in from local communities while national targets set direction. Local needs are best addressed locally.
That means empowering not only local authorities, important as that is, but communities themselves. Clean air cannot be delivered from the top down alone. Alongside funding, we need expertise and partnerships so residents, schools and community organisations can lead change. Community led initiatives like local monitoring, clean transport and neighbourhood campaigns would make the pollution issue visible and give people a real stake in improving it. I hope the minister can say something about the involvement of communities in taking forward this important measures that are required.
Public engagement must be at the heart of our efforts. Clean air should be seen as essential to everyday health by raising awareness and giving people the opportunity to shape solutions, we can turn an invisible scourge into a shared priority. And with national ambition and local action, we can become a world leader in air quality again. Thank you.
15:48
15:48
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it's a pleasure to serve under your chairship. And I want to thank the honourable member for Brent West for bringing this important debate on the urgency and duty of policymakers to tackle air pollution. The silent killer in our towns and cities. I also want to thank all the members here who contributed so passionately and movingly to the debate. Toxic, poisonous air threatens the community spaces that we all love and the people we care most about. It knows no boundaries.
Reaching workplaces, our homes, schools and other public spaces as. Other honourable members have done. I would like also to pay tribute to Rosamund, Deborah, mum to Ella, Roberta. For over a decade, Rosamund has campaigned tirelessly for cleaner air through Ella's law. I had the privilege to meet Rosamund last month when, as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, we visited communities to understand the physical and mental health impacts of air pollution on their lives. Ella was a happy, playful and bright child.
She lived not far from the South Circular Road in Lewisham with her family. By the age of seven, she was suffering debilitating asthma attacks, which was severe cough and wheeze. So much that she would fall unconscious. A few weeks after her ninth birthday, Ella died. She suffered a fatal asthma attack, a landmark inquest in 2020 ruled that toxic air from traffic emissions contributed to her death, marking the first time air pollution was officially recognised as a cause of death in the UK.
But Ella's death was preventable. Proposes, among other measures, to enshrine a legal right to breathe clean air, requiring the government to meet stricter air quality standards. Based on World Health Organization guidelines. We must not let children like Ella and their families down as we turn our attention to this urgent problem. And yet it is estimated that 500 people per week are dying of air pollution related disease each week in the UK, air pollution is an invisible enemy and an insidious one.
According to a recent report from the Royal College of Physicians, it was linked to 30,000 deaths and as we heard, it costs our economy over £27 billion per year. Long term exposure to emissions can cause heart and lung problems, as well as an increase of the risk of cancers. Fine particulate matter from polluted air penetrates deep into the body setting in our lungs, and recent research has also pointed to the increased risk of cognitive decline, Alzheimer's disease and dementia through long term exposure to fine particulate air pollution, which can affect the heart and blood vessels and.
This public health burden is not equally shared. The most vulnerable in our society the elderly, those already facing deprivation, babies and children are most at risk, and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists stated that there is a growing evidence base linking maternal exposure to air pollution and adverse pregnancy outcomes. That is why the Liberal Democrats have also called for a new Clean Air Act based on World Health Organization guidelines and enforced by a dedicated air quality agency. The scale of the issues is such that we need strong, independent oversight that tackles pollution at its source and protects public health.
We must also transform how people travel, reducing dependence on cars that spew noxious fumes into the air we breathe. Government must work with local authorities to curb transport emissions. We need to invest in affordable, reliable public transport, ensuring fares do not rise above inflation. Restoring the £2 bus fare cap and improving the passenger experience. So that it's cheaper and better travelling by public transport. We must electrify our railways and embrace cleaner technologies and support active travel by creating safe cycling and walking networks across the country.
And for those who have no option but to rely on cars, especially in rural, isolated areas, we must make the transition to electric vehicles easier and most affordable by expanding charging infrastructure and reducing costs. Finally, we must address the inequalities at the heart of all of this by increasing the public health grant and empowering local communities, we can develop targeted solutions like healthier and better insulated housing, reduce traffic exposure or improve local planning. And as some of the members here have also stated, health experts are also recommended.
Stronger controls on household wood burning and effective action to raise awareness of health harms from indoor air pollution, including damp and mould. Children in the UK today have some of the worst asthma outcomes in the developed world, and it is not right that so many lives are shortened by diseases which we can work together to prevent. But most of all, there isn't an effective advice to help avoid air pollution. If that is the only route to work or school. If you live near a busy road, if your care home or schools are sited near air pollutant sources.
If your house is poorly insulated. So we call on the government to recognise in law the human right to breathe clean air and legally enforce air quality standards that meet WHO limits. By 2030. We all. Clean air to the baby born today. To the child coming out of school right now. And every child after them. Thank you.
Reaching workplaces, our homes, schools and other public spaces as. Other honourable members have done. I would like also to pay tribute to Rosamund, Deborah, mum to Ella, Roberta. For over a decade, Rosamund has campaigned tirelessly for cleaner air through Ella's law. I had the privilege to meet Rosamund last month when, as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, we visited communities to understand the physical and mental health impacts of air pollution on their lives. Ella was a happy, playful and bright child.
She lived not far from the South Circular Road in Lewisham with her family. By the age of seven, she was suffering debilitating asthma attacks, which was severe cough and wheeze. So much that she would fall unconscious. A few weeks after her ninth birthday, Ella died. She suffered a fatal asthma attack, a landmark inquest in 2020 ruled that toxic air from traffic emissions contributed to her death, marking the first time air pollution was officially recognised as a cause of death in the UK.
But Ella's death was preventable. Proposes, among other measures, to enshrine a legal right to breathe clean air, requiring the government to meet stricter air quality standards. Based on World Health Organization guidelines. We must not let children like Ella and their families down as we turn our attention to this urgent problem. And yet it is estimated that 500 people per week are dying of air pollution related disease each week in the UK, air pollution is an invisible enemy and an insidious one.
According to a recent report from the Royal College of Physicians, it was linked to 30,000 deaths and as we heard, it costs our economy over £27 billion per year. Long term exposure to emissions can cause heart and lung problems, as well as an increase of the risk of cancers. Fine particulate matter from polluted air penetrates deep into the body setting in our lungs, and recent research has also pointed to the increased risk of cognitive decline, Alzheimer's disease and dementia through long term exposure to fine particulate air pollution, which can affect the heart and blood vessels and.
This public health burden is not equally shared. The most vulnerable in our society the elderly, those already facing deprivation, babies and children are most at risk, and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists stated that there is a growing evidence base linking maternal exposure to air pollution and adverse pregnancy outcomes. That is why the Liberal Democrats have also called for a new Clean Air Act based on World Health Organization guidelines and enforced by a dedicated air quality agency. The scale of the issues is such that we need strong, independent oversight that tackles pollution at its source and protects public health.
We must also transform how people travel, reducing dependence on cars that spew noxious fumes into the air we breathe. Government must work with local authorities to curb transport emissions. We need to invest in affordable, reliable public transport, ensuring fares do not rise above inflation. Restoring the £2 bus fare cap and improving the passenger experience. So that it's cheaper and better travelling by public transport. We must electrify our railways and embrace cleaner technologies and support active travel by creating safe cycling and walking networks across the country.
And for those who have no option but to rely on cars, especially in rural, isolated areas, we must make the transition to electric vehicles easier and most affordable by expanding charging infrastructure and reducing costs. Finally, we must address the inequalities at the heart of all of this by increasing the public health grant and empowering local communities, we can develop targeted solutions like healthier and better insulated housing, reduce traffic exposure or improve local planning. And as some of the members here have also stated, health experts are also recommended.
Stronger controls on household wood burning and effective action to raise awareness of health harms from indoor air pollution, including damp and mould. Children in the UK today have some of the worst asthma outcomes in the developed world, and it is not right that so many lives are shortened by diseases which we can work together to prevent. But most of all, there isn't an effective advice to help avoid air pollution. If that is the only route to work or school. If you live near a busy road, if your care home or schools are sited near air pollutant sources.
If your house is poorly insulated. So we call on the government to recognise in law the human right to breathe clean air and legally enforce air quality standards that meet WHO limits. By 2030. We all. Clean air to the baby born today. To the child coming out of school right now. And every child after them. Thank you.
15:54
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
Thank you. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And can I commend the member for Brent West on securing this important debate?I know it's an issue that he cares deeply about, having spoken about the issue many times in this place, air pollution is one of the greatest public health and environmental challenges facing our country today. It contributes to thousands of premature deaths every year, worsens respiratory diseases, harms our natural environment and places enormous amount of pressure, as has been outlined by many of those contributing in today's debate on our NHS.
All of this reduces productivity and participation in the workplace, costing the UK economy about £27 billion annually. This is a huge sorry. This is due largely to healthcare costs, productivity losses and reduced quality of life when wider impacts such as dementia are accounted for. The economic cost may be as high as £50 billion for air quality not being addressed. It also disproportionately affects the most deprived communities. 13% of people in the most deprived neighbourhoods in the United Kingdom live in the 10% of areas with the highest air pollution, compared with only 7% in the least deprived neighbourhoods.
The health impacts of this are seismic, as exposure to air pollution can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease and cancer, and can cause damage to the reproductive and central nervous system. As also has been mentioned by several members in today's contributions. In particular, exposure to air pollution in childhood can have lifelong lasting effects and can affect cognitive development or increase the risk of developing a chronic disease. Health risks from exposure to air pollution should not be a postcode lottery, and I would therefore be grateful if the minister, in his summing up could inform the House what targeted action the government will be taking to address this gap in terms of exposure to poor air quality?Mr.
chairman, the Conservative Party has stood on a proud record when it comes to improving air quality. But of course there is much more to be done as as outlined in today's contributions, air quality in the UK has continually improved since 2010. All of the key pollutants bar ammonia have fallen over the have fallen by over 70% with PM 2.5 and PM ten falling by 27% and 20% respectively, between 2014 and 2024. The previous government's 2019 Clear Air strategy was described by the World Health Organisation at the time as an example for the rest of the world to follow.
The strategy set out the comprehensive action required to meet the legally binding targets to reduce emissions of the five key pollutants by 2020 and 2030, respectively. The last government also passed the Environment Act of 2021, which introduced statutory targets for PM 2.5 to achieve at least a 35% reduction in. Population exposure by the 31st of December 2040 and. Furthermore, the previous administration's 2023 Environmental Improvement Plan set out a direction to support clean air with measures including reducing the maximum emissions for domestic burning appliances and smoke controlled areas by promoting best practices, challenging local authorities to rightly improve air quality and continuing to support the move away from petrol and diesel cars, and consulting on an extension to the existing North Sea emission control area to cover the Irish Sea, reducing emissions from shipping.
But the roll out of any strategy, any legislation, any guidance, any regulation which focuses on improving air quality must take into account also economic, social and environmental impacts so that the best strategy is adopted and the best buy in from residents and businesses. Happens because without their buy in, air quality is simply not improved at the rate in which we would all like to see. It is no good bringing out legislation which therefore then has a wider detrimental effect. This is why, as the official opposition, we oppose the government's restrictions on wood burning stoves.
So many people living in rural areas. Wood burners are an affordable, reliable and often essential source of heat where gas or mains gas is unavailable and alternatives are impractical and expensive to put in place. We also committed to scrapping the zero emissions vehicle mandate to reinvigorate the car manufacturing industry in Britain. That should still be a transition to cleaner transport, but it must be driven by affordability, practicality and technological progress and should not be dictated by unrealistic mandates or weakening domestic manufacturing. A balance must be struck again if you are to achieve improving air quality, which is why simply having strategies of taxing motorists is not just the right approach.
The. The Mayor of London's expansion of Ulez is having hugely damaging financial consequences. Actually, on some of the poorest and most deprived communities. Many motorists, trade related businesses and of course, some of the poorest residents are most deprived in London. And I would like to explore and maybe the member may be able to indicate this, because I know that she was involved in this, what the Mayor of London is doing for those travelling on the tube, because there has been hardly any little, hardly any focus in that.
In terms of the mayor's strategy.
All of this reduces productivity and participation in the workplace, costing the UK economy about £27 billion annually. This is a huge sorry. This is due largely to healthcare costs, productivity losses and reduced quality of life when wider impacts such as dementia are accounted for. The economic cost may be as high as £50 billion for air quality not being addressed. It also disproportionately affects the most deprived communities. 13% of people in the most deprived neighbourhoods in the United Kingdom live in the 10% of areas with the highest air pollution, compared with only 7% in the least deprived neighbourhoods.
The health impacts of this are seismic, as exposure to air pollution can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease and cancer, and can cause damage to the reproductive and central nervous system. As also has been mentioned by several members in today's contributions. In particular, exposure to air pollution in childhood can have lifelong lasting effects and can affect cognitive development or increase the risk of developing a chronic disease. Health risks from exposure to air pollution should not be a postcode lottery, and I would therefore be grateful if the minister, in his summing up could inform the House what targeted action the government will be taking to address this gap in terms of exposure to poor air quality?Mr.
chairman, the Conservative Party has stood on a proud record when it comes to improving air quality. But of course there is much more to be done as as outlined in today's contributions, air quality in the UK has continually improved since 2010. All of the key pollutants bar ammonia have fallen over the have fallen by over 70% with PM 2.5 and PM ten falling by 27% and 20% respectively, between 2014 and 2024. The previous government's 2019 Clear Air strategy was described by the World Health Organisation at the time as an example for the rest of the world to follow.
The strategy set out the comprehensive action required to meet the legally binding targets to reduce emissions of the five key pollutants by 2020 and 2030, respectively. The last government also passed the Environment Act of 2021, which introduced statutory targets for PM 2.5 to achieve at least a 35% reduction in. Population exposure by the 31st of December 2040 and. Furthermore, the previous administration's 2023 Environmental Improvement Plan set out a direction to support clean air with measures including reducing the maximum emissions for domestic burning appliances and smoke controlled areas by promoting best practices, challenging local authorities to rightly improve air quality and continuing to support the move away from petrol and diesel cars, and consulting on an extension to the existing North Sea emission control area to cover the Irish Sea, reducing emissions from shipping.
But the roll out of any strategy, any legislation, any guidance, any regulation which focuses on improving air quality must take into account also economic, social and environmental impacts so that the best strategy is adopted and the best buy in from residents and businesses. Happens because without their buy in, air quality is simply not improved at the rate in which we would all like to see. It is no good bringing out legislation which therefore then has a wider detrimental effect. This is why, as the official opposition, we oppose the government's restrictions on wood burning stoves.
So many people living in rural areas. Wood burners are an affordable, reliable and often essential source of heat where gas or mains gas is unavailable and alternatives are impractical and expensive to put in place. We also committed to scrapping the zero emissions vehicle mandate to reinvigorate the car manufacturing industry in Britain. That should still be a transition to cleaner transport, but it must be driven by affordability, practicality and technological progress and should not be dictated by unrealistic mandates or weakening domestic manufacturing. A balance must be struck again if you are to achieve improving air quality, which is why simply having strategies of taxing motorists is not just the right approach.
The. The Mayor of London's expansion of Ulez is having hugely damaging financial consequences. Actually, on some of the poorest and most deprived communities. Many motorists, trade related businesses and of course, some of the poorest residents are most deprived in London. And I would like to explore and maybe the member may be able to indicate this, because I know that she was involved in this, what the Mayor of London is doing for those travelling on the tube, because there has been hardly any little, hardly any focus in that.
In terms of the mayor's strategy.
16:00
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
I thank him for giving way. The Conservatives in City Hall actually called the whole of Ulez bewildering, and they've objected at every turn. I've read out the statistics earlier, there's been a 40% reduction and a huge positive impact here in London. The mayor of London has won two decisive elections after that, but London has also been recognized as a global leader by the United Nations. The secretary general himself invited the Mayor of London to the United Nations to speak about Ulez and London's climate action.
So should it not be that you are congratulating London for the Climate action, for the decisive air quality improvements that have been made and actually be supporting this good work?
So should it not be that you are congratulating London for the Climate action, for the decisive air quality improvements that have been made and actually be supporting this good work?
16:00
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
Specifically addressing that point, but I will use one further example before I do, because the same approach applies to the Bradford district, which is within my where my constituency sits. I look briefly at the fact that in Bradford we have had a clean air zone that has been rolled out. But this is again, a strategy which is taxing motorists and some of the most hard working people in our communities. And again, some of the most deprived communities that are simply not able to afford the changes that are mandated to reach the levels of tax that is being posed on them.
And of course, there are other ways of doing it, but I will. Before I come on to that, I just want to address the fact that if you are a resident living or a business living on the outskirts of Bradford and want to travel into Bradford, it costs you now £9 a day to take a light goods vehicle into Bradford, having a detrimental impact on business growth. And again, if you are a coach driver, a heavy goods vehicle driver or a bus driver, it is £50 a day to take that into Bradford and that is therefore having a huge detrimental impact.
Um. Since the scheme was launched in 2023, £26.7 million has been raised, 9.8 million of that was through entry fees, but 16.4 million of that was raised through penalty charge notices, where again, the vast majority of those were from actually people who could not afford to pay and therefore then had to go to court for that money to be extracted from them. The point that I'm making is that you cannot simply have a strategy that is charging, um, people if you're wanting to get complete buy in, which is why I use the example of what is happening or the rollout in Manchester.
And it will be interesting to see what the new member for Makerfield and his strategy will be, because in Manchester, the mayor of Manchester that was opposed, a chargeable clean Air zone tax across the Greater Manchester, and indeed all of the five local authorities that make up Greater Manchester also lobbied heavily. The government at the time that a non charging approach was adopted and therefore it was therefore signed off, which resulted in investment going into electrification, upgrade grants, traffic control measures which all have rolled out in Manchester, again approved by the the previous mayor of Greater Manchester and had buy in at that local level.
And therefore, I would simply say in response, there are other ways of doing it. Um, not just simply having a taxing approach. And before I finish that point, I would like to ask the minister if he could outline before the House. Um, whether he has had discussions with the member for Makerfield, who is likely to be the Prime Minister, on understanding what will the future Clean Air Zone strategy be under the new makeup of the administration?And I would also like to understand if the minister could outline how much it is costing the taxpayer for all of the infrastructure that is being put in place, but not yet, is not being used for the rollout of the Clean Air Zone that did not take place at a taxing a tax to the motorist across the Greater Manchester area.
It is vital, therefore, that when we are considering how to tackle air pollution and improve air quality, the government works across government departments to ensure that there is no unintended adverse impacts on businesses and indeed our rural communities. And I absolutely agree with the point that the member for Brent West made on this. We cannot have a siloed approach across government, and therefore, I would like to ask the Minister to provide an assurance that any forthcoming strategy will not be siloed just within Defra, but will instead take a coordinated approach across government.
Um, Mr. Chairman, communities across the country continue to breathe polluted air every single day, and it is an unfortunate thing to say, but that is the reality of it. We must do much more with buy in from business residents, and that is not detrimental to driving local growth. Parents worry about children walking to school alongside congested roads, elderly residents and those living with asthma or heart disease face unnecessary health risks. Um, that these are not abstract narratives. They are everyday reality for millions of people.
And we must therefore work together to ensure that all of our constituents breathe cleaner, healthier air. And I would just simply make the point that to have a clean air strategy, you have to have buy in from all, not just using a one size fits all approach by taxing those that are the most deprived in our communities and the absolutely are those that need to benefit from the Clean Air Zone strategy simply from where they live. Thank you.
And of course, there are other ways of doing it, but I will. Before I come on to that, I just want to address the fact that if you are a resident living or a business living on the outskirts of Bradford and want to travel into Bradford, it costs you now £9 a day to take a light goods vehicle into Bradford, having a detrimental impact on business growth. And again, if you are a coach driver, a heavy goods vehicle driver or a bus driver, it is £50 a day to take that into Bradford and that is therefore having a huge detrimental impact.
Um. Since the scheme was launched in 2023, £26.7 million has been raised, 9.8 million of that was through entry fees, but 16.4 million of that was raised through penalty charge notices, where again, the vast majority of those were from actually people who could not afford to pay and therefore then had to go to court for that money to be extracted from them. The point that I'm making is that you cannot simply have a strategy that is charging, um, people if you're wanting to get complete buy in, which is why I use the example of what is happening or the rollout in Manchester.
And it will be interesting to see what the new member for Makerfield and his strategy will be, because in Manchester, the mayor of Manchester that was opposed, a chargeable clean Air zone tax across the Greater Manchester, and indeed all of the five local authorities that make up Greater Manchester also lobbied heavily. The government at the time that a non charging approach was adopted and therefore it was therefore signed off, which resulted in investment going into electrification, upgrade grants, traffic control measures which all have rolled out in Manchester, again approved by the the previous mayor of Greater Manchester and had buy in at that local level.
And therefore, I would simply say in response, there are other ways of doing it. Um, not just simply having a taxing approach. And before I finish that point, I would like to ask the minister if he could outline before the House. Um, whether he has had discussions with the member for Makerfield, who is likely to be the Prime Minister, on understanding what will the future Clean Air Zone strategy be under the new makeup of the administration?And I would also like to understand if the minister could outline how much it is costing the taxpayer for all of the infrastructure that is being put in place, but not yet, is not being used for the rollout of the Clean Air Zone that did not take place at a taxing a tax to the motorist across the Greater Manchester area.
It is vital, therefore, that when we are considering how to tackle air pollution and improve air quality, the government works across government departments to ensure that there is no unintended adverse impacts on businesses and indeed our rural communities. And I absolutely agree with the point that the member for Brent West made on this. We cannot have a siloed approach across government, and therefore, I would like to ask the Minister to provide an assurance that any forthcoming strategy will not be siloed just within Defra, but will instead take a coordinated approach across government.
Um, Mr. Chairman, communities across the country continue to breathe polluted air every single day, and it is an unfortunate thing to say, but that is the reality of it. We must do much more with buy in from business residents, and that is not detrimental to driving local growth. Parents worry about children walking to school alongside congested roads, elderly residents and those living with asthma or heart disease face unnecessary health risks. Um, that these are not abstract narratives. They are everyday reality for millions of people.
And we must therefore work together to ensure that all of our constituents breathe cleaner, healthier air. And I would just simply make the point that to have a clean air strategy, you have to have buy in from all, not just using a one size fits all approach by taxing those that are the most deprived in our communities and the absolutely are those that need to benefit from the Clean Air Zone strategy simply from where they live. Thank you.
16:05
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
It's a pleasure to serve with you. In the chair, Mr. Efford. Congratulate all members for their thoughtful and wide ranging contributions. This afternoon. I start by paying tribute to the honourable member. My dear friend, the member for Brent West, for securing this important debate and for speaking so characteristically passionate about these important issues. There is a clear consensus that air pollution remains one of the most significant environmental risks to public health, and I welcome the strength of feeling expressed here today on the need to continue making progress.
I also welcome the ongoing inquiry by the Environmental Audit Committee into air pollution scrutiny of this kind plays an important role in strengthening our approach, and government has been keenly following the evidence received by the Committee with interest. I know that we look forward to engaging further with the committee, including through ministers giving evidence in due course. But, chair, this issue goes beyond environmental policy, as many members have confirmed this afternoon, it is about fairness. The dirtiest air sits over the poorest neighbourhoods black and minority ethnic communities and those on low incomes are far more likely to be exposed while contributing the least.
And this is exactly the kind of injustice the Labour Party and this Labour government exists to tackle. As my hon. Friend for Newport West rightly raised, it is also about the NHS. We are the party that built it and protecting it means preventing illness, not just funding treatment. Dirty air contributes to around 30,000 early deaths each year. It drives asthma, cancer, heart disease and dementia, and an NHS fit for the future requires action not just inside hospital walls but on the air outside their doors.
So I will certainly take the questions. Friend for Newport West has raised with me today. Back to the Department Chair. It is also about pride in place. Clean air underpins better neighborhoods, safer streets, greener spaces and thriving high streets. It is a visible improvement people can feel at the heart of our mission to restore pride in the places that people call home. So, chair, let me be clear. The government recognises both the scale of this challenge and the need for sustained, coordinated action, and we have made substantial progress in recent years.
Air quality in England, improving significantly emissions of key air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide and particulate matter have reduced and are projected to continue to fall. My hon. Friend the member for Brent West mentioned the Defra statistics, which came out this week, and they all show long term improvements, so the trajectory is promising. But as I will go on to say later, there is much more we need to do. This has been driven by major shifts in the United Kingdom.
The transition from coal to natural gas to renewables to electricity generation, tighter vehicle emission standards and improved industrial controls. However, there is, as I say, much more to do to fully unlock the benefits for public health, the environment and the economy. And that is why we are continuing to take action to reduce emissions at source. Working closely with local authorities and partners across the health system. Now, a number of members have made remarks with regard to targets, and in December we set more ambitious interim targets for fine particulate matter, including on concentration target aligned with the level that the EU is required to achieve and overall, our national performance is broadly comparable with the EU for many pollutants.
Areas in England are already meeting levels like those the EU is aiming for by 2030, and we will keep other targets under review. But real world improvements need tangible action, as set out in the Environmental Improvement Plan. We are taking practical action in a range of sectors that delivers real benefits for communities across the country, and, as a number of members have raised in the debate today, we also recognise that nitrogen dioxide remains a challenge in 2024. Five location zones exceeded the annual mean limit and some local hotspots are hotspots persist.
That said, committed policies to tackle nitrogen dioxide, such as increasing the share of zero emission cars and vans by 2030 and moving to all new sales being zero emission by 2035 will make a significant difference. We also continue to work closely with our partners in local government to deliver reductions to nitrogen dioxide. The hon. Friend for Brent West also raised a number of matters with regard to domestic burning, and we recognise that domestic burning is responsible for a significant, significant proportion of fine particulate matter emissions comparable to road transport, and we must act on this source to reduce the impact of burning on the health of those in homes which burn and their neighbours.
However, we must act in a way which does not put disproportionate costs on households or businesses. The policy is consulted on earlier this year focused on reducing emissions from domestic solid fuel burning to ensure cleaner burning in the future, delivering health benefits. We received a significant number of responses, which we are considering currently, and the government response will be published later this year. Setting out next steps we will continue to review our measures to reduce emissions from this source. Chair. A number of members also mentioned the importance of communication and engagement with communities.
Particular points raised by my hon. Friend for Glasgow North. Air pollution is complex and often not a visible issue. This challenge isn't just about reducing emissions, it's about making sure people understand the risks, know what action to take, and feel empowered to act. That is why clear, trusted, accessible communications are so important. And on this we have already taken positive steps, including updating health advice, accompanying the Daily Air Quality Index, which provides the public with current pollution levels, five day forecasts and health advice based on pollution levels through a new air pollution Awareness Coalition, we are working with health and NGO partners to deliver clean, credible messaging on air pollution.
The coalition will deliver practical, trusted communications that improve public understanding of air pollution and support action to reduce harm. We have also commissioned a co-design project working with local authority officers and directors of public health to create a new air quality communications toolkit supporting local authorities to disseminate cleaner, clearer, locally relevant air quality information and new resources are due to be published at the end of this calendar year. I happily give way to my right hon. Friend.
I also welcome the ongoing inquiry by the Environmental Audit Committee into air pollution scrutiny of this kind plays an important role in strengthening our approach, and government has been keenly following the evidence received by the Committee with interest. I know that we look forward to engaging further with the committee, including through ministers giving evidence in due course. But, chair, this issue goes beyond environmental policy, as many members have confirmed this afternoon, it is about fairness. The dirtiest air sits over the poorest neighbourhoods black and minority ethnic communities and those on low incomes are far more likely to be exposed while contributing the least.
And this is exactly the kind of injustice the Labour Party and this Labour government exists to tackle. As my hon. Friend for Newport West rightly raised, it is also about the NHS. We are the party that built it and protecting it means preventing illness, not just funding treatment. Dirty air contributes to around 30,000 early deaths each year. It drives asthma, cancer, heart disease and dementia, and an NHS fit for the future requires action not just inside hospital walls but on the air outside their doors.
So I will certainly take the questions. Friend for Newport West has raised with me today. Back to the Department Chair. It is also about pride in place. Clean air underpins better neighborhoods, safer streets, greener spaces and thriving high streets. It is a visible improvement people can feel at the heart of our mission to restore pride in the places that people call home. So, chair, let me be clear. The government recognises both the scale of this challenge and the need for sustained, coordinated action, and we have made substantial progress in recent years.
Air quality in England, improving significantly emissions of key air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide and particulate matter have reduced and are projected to continue to fall. My hon. Friend the member for Brent West mentioned the Defra statistics, which came out this week, and they all show long term improvements, so the trajectory is promising. But as I will go on to say later, there is much more we need to do. This has been driven by major shifts in the United Kingdom.
The transition from coal to natural gas to renewables to electricity generation, tighter vehicle emission standards and improved industrial controls. However, there is, as I say, much more to do to fully unlock the benefits for public health, the environment and the economy. And that is why we are continuing to take action to reduce emissions at source. Working closely with local authorities and partners across the health system. Now, a number of members have made remarks with regard to targets, and in December we set more ambitious interim targets for fine particulate matter, including on concentration target aligned with the level that the EU is required to achieve and overall, our national performance is broadly comparable with the EU for many pollutants.
Areas in England are already meeting levels like those the EU is aiming for by 2030, and we will keep other targets under review. But real world improvements need tangible action, as set out in the Environmental Improvement Plan. We are taking practical action in a range of sectors that delivers real benefits for communities across the country, and, as a number of members have raised in the debate today, we also recognise that nitrogen dioxide remains a challenge in 2024. Five location zones exceeded the annual mean limit and some local hotspots are hotspots persist.
That said, committed policies to tackle nitrogen dioxide, such as increasing the share of zero emission cars and vans by 2030 and moving to all new sales being zero emission by 2035 will make a significant difference. We also continue to work closely with our partners in local government to deliver reductions to nitrogen dioxide. The hon. Friend for Brent West also raised a number of matters with regard to domestic burning, and we recognise that domestic burning is responsible for a significant, significant proportion of fine particulate matter emissions comparable to road transport, and we must act on this source to reduce the impact of burning on the health of those in homes which burn and their neighbours.
However, we must act in a way which does not put disproportionate costs on households or businesses. The policy is consulted on earlier this year focused on reducing emissions from domestic solid fuel burning to ensure cleaner burning in the future, delivering health benefits. We received a significant number of responses, which we are considering currently, and the government response will be published later this year. Setting out next steps we will continue to review our measures to reduce emissions from this source. Chair. A number of members also mentioned the importance of communication and engagement with communities.
Particular points raised by my hon. Friend for Glasgow North. Air pollution is complex and often not a visible issue. This challenge isn't just about reducing emissions, it's about making sure people understand the risks, know what action to take, and feel empowered to act. That is why clear, trusted, accessible communications are so important. And on this we have already taken positive steps, including updating health advice, accompanying the Daily Air Quality Index, which provides the public with current pollution levels, five day forecasts and health advice based on pollution levels through a new air pollution Awareness Coalition, we are working with health and NGO partners to deliver clean, credible messaging on air pollution.
The coalition will deliver practical, trusted communications that improve public understanding of air pollution and support action to reduce harm. We have also commissioned a co-design project working with local authority officers and directors of public health to create a new air quality communications toolkit supporting local authorities to disseminate cleaner, clearer, locally relevant air quality information and new resources are due to be published at the end of this calendar year. I happily give way to my right hon. Friend.
16:13
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
The issue of messaging, I just wonder if we could take a message back from this debate with regard to Heathrow, and maybe if the ministers could read their own report on the health impact of airport expansion. I am particularly concerned about the loss of life in my constituency. And with regard to the expansion of Heathrow, the government's own own paper has said. For vulnerable groups in our area, there will be significant, major adverse impacts. That means more of my constituents will die.
This is a scheme that actually makes things worse, and therefore I think the message is think again.
This is a scheme that actually makes things worse, and therefore I think the message is think again.
16:13
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention, and he will know the government has launched consultation on the draft Heathrow expansion National Policy Statement, which includes that the development consent must meet measures on climate change and air quality. Likewise, the government has also been clear that any expansion proposals must meet strict environmental requirements on air quality, and I will certainly take his concerns back to my department chair. In May, we launched the first iteration of a new alert system, allowing people to sign up for notifications when air pollution is forecast or measured high in their local community.
A number of members this afternoon have raised points with regards to cross-government working, including points raised by my shadow Minister. Air pollution is not an issue. Any one department can solve in isolation. It requires coordinated action across transport, energy, planning, agriculture and health, and we are working closely with colleagues across government to ensure our approach is aligned. Evidence led and deliverable. I can assure all members today that we recognise the importance of cross-government working, working with our devolved governments and working in partnership with local authorities on these matters.
On the Clean Air Act, government has no plans to implement new primary legislation at this stage, but we are committed to ensuring cleaner air for everyone, backed by strong legal framework that already holds government to account and drives down harmful pollution. Chair is also important to recognise that as progress continues, the choices become more complex. Further reductions often require changes that carry wider financial implications for businesses, households and communities. And looking ahead, we will continue to work with a wide range of stakeholders as we continue to consider the best approach to review our air quality strategy.
So in conclusion, chair, this is a complex challenge, but it's one where progress is both possible and essential.
A number of members this afternoon have raised points with regards to cross-government working, including points raised by my shadow Minister. Air pollution is not an issue. Any one department can solve in isolation. It requires coordinated action across transport, energy, planning, agriculture and health, and we are working closely with colleagues across government to ensure our approach is aligned. Evidence led and deliverable. I can assure all members today that we recognise the importance of cross-government working, working with our devolved governments and working in partnership with local authorities on these matters.
On the Clean Air Act, government has no plans to implement new primary legislation at this stage, but we are committed to ensuring cleaner air for everyone, backed by strong legal framework that already holds government to account and drives down harmful pollution. Chair is also important to recognise that as progress continues, the choices become more complex. Further reductions often require changes that carry wider financial implications for businesses, households and communities. And looking ahead, we will continue to work with a wide range of stakeholders as we continue to consider the best approach to review our air quality strategy.
So in conclusion, chair, this is a complex challenge, but it's one where progress is both possible and essential.
16:15
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
To deliver the commitments made in the Environmental Improvement Plan, including through reforming our industrial emissions regulation, reducing emissions from domestic combustion and improving communications on air quality. And we will continue to keep progress under review. I will briefly give way.
16:16
16:16
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, because my understanding is that there is already a legal framework to deliver on the targets that we are committed to achieve. So in conclusion, I welcome the scrutiny of this House and of the Environmental Audit Committee. I know that the minister responsible for air quality and Defra, has been watching the debate today and looks forward to contributing to discussions in future, so that all of us can work together to deliver cleaner air for communities across our country.
16:17
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
Thank you, Mr. Radford. It's been a pleasure serving with you in the chair. I thank you for giving me the nod earlier to to curtail my remarks. And it only goes to prove that actually, you don't need to say everything. Often you think in this at least I do, that you need to get everything in. But what was lovely about this debate was that I didn't manage to get everything in that I wanted to say. But then my honourable friends all did it for me.
And so I want to thank the honourable member for Strangford. He raised the issue again, had been later on in my speech about the. The 27 billion impact, um, that actually having this Clean Air Act could achieve. That's a huge impact on our economy. He talked about public awareness and, you know, the Royal College of Physicians, um, they got a poll by YouGov, uh, Mr. Everett, you know, 95% of people did not know that there was a link between air pollution and diabetes.
85% of people did not know that there was a link between air pollution and stroke, or heart disease, or poor fetal health. The importance of public awareness is something that he raised absolutely right to do so, and and an important contribution to the debate. Now, my honourable friend from Newport West, she spoke with with deep knowledge, both from her days as a shadow minister and also, of course, as as a medical practitioner, as she told us. And she stressed the social inequality that toxic air brings, the need for a new Clean Air Act with a national framework.
And that was really important that it is a national framework for appropriate support to be delivered to local authorities. The point that she stressed, that was actually reinforced by what the shadow minister was saying about the need to do this and and bring it together. I thank the member for my honourable friend from Stratford and Bow, who spoke of her work for the mayor and the 40% reduction in nitrogen dioxide that has been achieved there. And my honourable friend from Glasgow North, who serves with me on the Environmental Audit Select Committee, so pleased that he spoke of the impacts on wildlife and nature, because that is absolutely fundamental.
He also raised wood burners. Um, but of course the minister will know. And if he doesn't, his officials will, that actually the Defra labelling standards are only by his own lights. What they say it's only going to reduce pollution by 2%. Um I thank the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats who spoke movingly about educator Deborah. Um and the modal shift to public transport that she raised very important local solutions, school streets, things like that. Oh, can I give way in a.
And so I want to thank the honourable member for Strangford. He raised the issue again, had been later on in my speech about the. The 27 billion impact, um, that actually having this Clean Air Act could achieve. That's a huge impact on our economy. He talked about public awareness and, you know, the Royal College of Physicians, um, they got a poll by YouGov, uh, Mr. Everett, you know, 95% of people did not know that there was a link between air pollution and diabetes.
85% of people did not know that there was a link between air pollution and stroke, or heart disease, or poor fetal health. The importance of public awareness is something that he raised absolutely right to do so, and and an important contribution to the debate. Now, my honourable friend from Newport West, she spoke with with deep knowledge, both from her days as a shadow minister and also, of course, as as a medical practitioner, as she told us. And she stressed the social inequality that toxic air brings, the need for a new Clean Air Act with a national framework.
And that was really important that it is a national framework for appropriate support to be delivered to local authorities. The point that she stressed, that was actually reinforced by what the shadow minister was saying about the need to do this and and bring it together. I thank the member for my honourable friend from Stratford and Bow, who spoke of her work for the mayor and the 40% reduction in nitrogen dioxide that has been achieved there. And my honourable friend from Glasgow North, who serves with me on the Environmental Audit Select Committee, so pleased that he spoke of the impacts on wildlife and nature, because that is absolutely fundamental.
He also raised wood burners. Um, but of course the minister will know. And if he doesn't, his officials will, that actually the Defra labelling standards are only by his own lights. What they say it's only going to reduce pollution by 2%. Um I thank the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats who spoke movingly about educator Deborah. Um and the modal shift to public transport that she raised very important local solutions, school streets, things like that. Oh, can I give way in a.
16:20
16:20
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
Okay. Well look, I'll, I'll be very brief and I won't give way to my honourable friend, but but um, look, I, I really enjoyed, um, when the shadow spokesperson was on the environmental audit select committee with us, he made a very valuable contribution then, but he's lost his way. When he went over to the frontbench. He really has. I mean, how can you at the same time extol the 27 billion that this is going to bring to the economy and then say, but actually we can't afford to do it in the way that he did the 35% reduction in population exposure that he talked about.
Great. But you had no baseline when you did that. So you didn't know what you were reducing the 35% from. It was no use. Um, and look, as for the minister thanks him very much for, for, um, you know, standing in the Secretary of State may have failed and be continuing to fail to comply with relevant duties under the Air Quality Standards regulations and ensure that such plans are drawn up and implemented. Not me, Mr. Efford, that was the Office of Environmental Protection in January of this year.
What's not to like?Clean air, less congested, safer, quieter roads, more active travel, better public transport. Better insulated, less mouldy homes while running on cheaper energy, healthier workplaces, less cost to the NHS and £27 billion to the environment. For God's sake, let's just do it.
Great. But you had no baseline when you did that. So you didn't know what you were reducing the 35% from. It was no use. Um, and look, as for the minister thanks him very much for, for, um, you know, standing in the Secretary of State may have failed and be continuing to fail to comply with relevant duties under the Air Quality Standards regulations and ensure that such plans are drawn up and implemented. Not me, Mr. Efford, that was the Office of Environmental Protection in January of this year.
What's not to like?Clean air, less congested, safer, quieter roads, more active travel, better public transport. Better insulated, less mouldy homes while running on cheaper energy, healthier workplaces, less cost to the NHS and £27 billion to the environment. For God's sake, let's just do it.
16:21
16:22