NHS Corridor Care

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Allin-Khan]

I am heartbroken to hear about the hon. Member’s relative. This is the point: anyone who works in a hospital understands that, just by being in an emergency department waiting room and accessing people who are unwell, it is possible to catch other illnesses.

One thing we try to do is prevent unnecessary admission, because we know that a vulnerable elderly person who comes to hospital and is admitted to a ward with people who are unwell is more at risk of catching illnesses. As in the case of the relative of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance), people can be vulnerable and not in an appropriate bed. There may not be enough staff able to check on them appropriately. Without tackling social care, we will never get on top of that issue. I am truly sorry to hear about the hon. Member’s relative. Simply put, we cannot dither or delay; we need answers to the social care crisis, and we need them quickly.

Another group of people who are very often overlooked are mental health patients. They continue to spend extraordinary amounts of time waiting in A&E. People experiencing a mental health crisis are two-and-a-half times more likely to face long delays in A&E. Just for a moment, let me paint a picture of what that looks like. The patient could be somebody with auditory or visual hallucinations who feels extremely scared and vulnerable. They may need security to ensure that they do not leave their room. They may be wondering what they have done to deserve this. They may not have staff there who know about their usual medication. Very often, they are shouting very loudly, and other patients will be concerned, not understanding that they have a mental health issue.

As doctors and nurses, we are not allowed to talk about somebody else in the hospital, so we can have a very loud A&E department, with someone who is very vulnerable—screaming and shouting and really suffering—being completely in the wrong place for so long and with everyone confused about why they are there. That is not appropriate, safe or dignified for mental health patients.

We are as far away as ever from parity between mental and physical health in the NHS. As I have just outlined, we witness that daily in emergency departments across the country. We need to create more partnerships between our emergency departments and mental health trusts, where mental health patients can be triaged and seen by a mental health team in a more dignified and appropriate manner.

St George’s hospital, where all hon. Members will know by now that I work my A&E shifts, is exploring a partnership with South West London and St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust, which would set up an assessment unit to triage mental health patients outside the emergency department. That would be safer, more appropriate and more dignified, and a calmer and more pleasant environment in which those patients could be assessed by mental health professionals.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that often this is compounded when somebody has been arrested and police officers are sitting for hours? I was recently in A&E, and there were two police officers there for the duration that a member of the public was there. They may also need somewhere else to deal with that situation.

[Dr Allin-Khan]

I think my hon. Friend has been on most of my last A&E shifts with me. [Laughter.] That is absolutely a common occurrence, and that is not the best, safest or most efficient place for any of our incredible teams of police officers and mental health nurses, who are trying to get on with their job. It is incredibly distressing. In parts of hospitals, colleagues tell me that they are waiting in relatives’ rooms with police officers and mentally unwell patients next to the resus area of an A&E department with bereaved families. None of that should be happening for anyone involved.

I am sure the Minister will agree that the best solution to this crisis will involve a holistic, multi-agency approach involving councils, social care providers and NHS trusts. As I have just outlined, this unacceptable and dangerous situation is shared not just by patients, but by their families and NHS staff, who are trying to do their best in a difficult situation.

Moving on to the professional bodies, corridor care has rightly been condemned by the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Emergency Medicine—my royal college—the British Medical Association, and other professional bodies and trade unions. Some 65% of respondents to the Royal College of Emergency Medicine’s violence and aggression survey, which is due to be published later this year, said that care in inappropriate and non-clinical spaces contributes to the increase in violence and aggression towards staff and other patients. The impact of corridor care is clearly much more wide-reaching than we realise. It results in violence against our own NHS heroes—the very best of humanity—who, in a fractured and dangerous world, exemplify compassion, decency and selfless care for strangers. I can tell the House beyond a shadow of a doubt that staff in emergency settings are upset, traumatised and driven to tears of rage, and we know that NHS staff have to take a disproportionately large number of days off for the sake of their mental health.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) for her service and for securing this debate.

There is no clearer sign of the failure of the NHS under the Conservatives than the fact that corridor care was allowed to become normal. Only a few weeks ago, I was in the Queen Alexandra hospital in my constituency watching my dad being cared for in a corridor. It brought home just how far standards have fallen and no family should have to experience that. Corridor care has real consequences. As we have heard, the Royal College of Emergency Medicine estimates that in 2025 alone there were more than 15,000 excess deaths associated with long waits in emergency departments. It is not just the physical impact on patients that is damaging, but the emotional impact on patients, loved ones and the NHS staff who come to work every day wanting to provide the care that their patients deserve, yet are too often forced to do so in impossible conditions. It is degrading, undignified and should never have become an acceptable norm.

Before I go further, I want to thank the incredible staff across Portsmouth’s NHS and care services. From those working at the Queen Alexandra hospital, to our ambulance crews, GPs, pharmacists, community teams and carers, they continue to deliver outstanding care despite extraordinary pressures. Last winter, it was an absolute privilege to spend a night shift with Nigel and Sam from our local ambulance service. Seeing at first hand their professionalism, compassion and resilience only strengthened my admiration for everything they do, often in incredibly difficult circumstances.

I recognise the work already being done across Portsmouth to help people access the right care. Strengthening general practice and supporting people who arrive at A&E with non-emergency conditions to receive care elsewhere helps to ensure our emergency department is there for those who need it most. That work matters and deserves recognition, so I thank Linda Stead and her team at the Portsmouth Primary Care Alliance Ltd, and the team at the Southern Hampshire Primary Care Alliance.

I welcome the decision of the previous Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), to ensure NHS England has finally introduced a clear definition of corridor care and begun publishing trust-level data. We cannot solve a problem if we refuse to see it and measure it. Sadly, the first set of figures makes difficult reading for Portsmouth. In May this year, Portsmouth hospitals university NHS trust ranked eighth worst for corridor care on hospital wards and ninth worst in emergency departments. That is simply not good enough.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to shift more care into communities. Preventing unnecessary admissions is essential if we are to reduce pressure on our hospitals, because corridor care starts with a lack of community services. However, I remain deeply concerned by my integrated care board’s approach and its failure to engage meaningfully with me. The initial discussions on health hubs focused on potential sites, yet astonishingly, although not surprisingly, the proposed locations were all in Portsmouth South. That is simply unacceptable. If we are serious about reducing health inequalities and improving access to care, these services must be available across the whole city. Yet, as with so many decisions affecting Portsmouth, residents in Portsmouth North are neglected and overlooked. To help me change that, will the Minister outline what expectations have been placed on integrated care boards to work constructively with local MPs?

Of course, reducing admissions is only one part of the answer. We must also improve patient flow through our hospitals, so I welcome today’s announcement about a 10-year capital plan for health and social care. Buildings and modern facilities are important if we are to move people from corridors to beds and from A&E to GPs, but too many people remain in hospital because the social care support they need is simply not available or because the pharmaceutical system is not fit for purpose. Will the Minister update the House on what further action is being taken to improve hospital discharge and tackle the pressures in social care and pharmaceutical services?

I am proud that this Government have already begun to turn our NHS around. We have seen the fastest ambulance response times in five years, the shortest A&E wait for four years, and the biggest fall in dissatisfaction in the NHS since 1998, but none of us should be satisfied while patients are still receiving treatment in corridors. People in Portsmouth deserve dignity when they need care, NHS staff deserve the resources and conditions to do their jobs, and together we must ensure that corridor care becomes not the accepted reality of our NHS, but a thing of the past.

NHS Breast Screening

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing this debate. I also thank all those who signed the petition and who have campaigned to raise awareness of this issue.

Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers in women in the UK. While there may be a lot of talk of statistics today, the impact of breast cancer is not a number on a chart or in a table; it is real life, and it is heartbreaking. It is a mother, daughter, sister, friend or colleague—almost every one of us knows someone whose life has been touched by this terrible disease. We know that the earlier breast cancer is detected, the greater the chance of successful treatment, and screening remains the route most likely to find breast cancer early. As we have heard, the 2012 Marmot review found that our screening programmes prevent 1,300 deaths from breast cancer every year, so I understand where the petitioners are coming from. Even one misdiagnosis feels like one too many. That concern is real, and it deserves to be taken seriously.

The stories of my friends Laura Turnbull, mum of Louis, Josh, Alfie and Zac and wife of Richard, and Anne Wise, mum of Louis and Lauren, have brought this home to me all too painfully. Both were under 50 and had reached remission at least once, but both sadly saw their cancer return in different forms, tragically cutting their lives short. I send love to their families—especially to Anne’s, because it is her funeral on Saturday. Sadly, Laura and Anne are not alone. More than a decade ago, I lost another friend, Fiona Bennett. Her breast cancer also reached her before she was 50. These stories are powerful reminders that breast cancer does not only affect older women, and explain why so many people are asking what more can be done.

That is why we should follow the science. As new evidence emerges, technology improves and we learn more about detecting breast cancer earlier and more accurately, our screening programme should continue to evolve to ensure that it delivers the very best benefits to our patients. Alongside that, we must not lose sight of the opportunity we already have. In 2025, only 70% of Portsmouth women aged 53 to 70 had attended a breast screening in the last 36 months. That is more than 4% behind the average of local authority districts in the south-east, and the gap has been widening in recent years. Whatever changes may come in the future, we must also make sure that every woman who is currently eligible takes up the opportunity to be screened.

Improving the uptake of screening among those already eligible must be an absolute priority, so I would like to ask the Minister how we are identifying barriers and what we are doing to break them down. Sadly, we know that levels of deprivation directly affect screening attendance. That is why I welcome the Government’s new cancer plan, which will include targeted campaigns to improve screening uptake in deprived and underserved communities, helping to ensure that where people live or what they earn does not determine their chance of cancer diagnosis. Can the Minister say more about that?

Unfortunately, after 14 years of Conservative mismanagement, the NHS has not met its cancer target since 2014. England’s cancer survival rates have slipped behind those of many comparable countries. That is not good enough. It is so important that, as we discuss expanding access to breast screening, we also recognise that the quickest way to undermine that principle would be to move towards an insurance-based healthcare system, as advocated by Reform UK, which could alienate even more people and stop them taking up that screening opportunity for fear of what it would cost.

Labour has set out ambitious reforms to cancer diagnosis and treatment, which are expected to save more 320,000 lives over the plan’s lifetime. More scanners and advances in diagnostic technology mean that we will have a real opportunity to diagnose cancers early and improve outcomes by shifting more healthcare into our communities and neighbourhoods. We can make screening more accessible and less daunting so that Portsmouth women will attend, whether through health hubs on the high street or having opening hours at weekends, in the early morning or evening, which would widen access. I would welcome working with the Minister on how we can get these diagnosis centres open in Portsmouth North, so that we can raise attendance from 70% to 100%.

This debate is not about choosing between improving today’s screening programme and preparing for tomorrow —we must do both. We should continue to listen to clinicians, researchers and campaigners, and be prepared to strengthen and adapt programmes as the evidence develops. At the same time, we must ensure that every woman entitled to screening because of age, family history or symptoms is encouraged and supported to attend. The screening programme works only if people use it. Every invitation accepted is another chance to detect cancer early, another opportunity for less invasive treatment, and another family spared devastating news.

If we continue to improve the science, widen access where the evidence supports it and ensure that more eligible women come forward, we will save more lives and spare many more families the heartbreak of Laura’s, Anne’s and Fiona’s.

Nottingham Maternity and Neonatal Services

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and for telling us what happened to his constituent. He asked about some of the wider changes that we are making in the NHS modernisation Bill. The aim is to bring the patient experience across the NHS into the heart of the new organisation that will arise from the merging of NHS England into the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that the patient experience drives the decisions being taken about how NHS care is delivered, and is at the heart of what we do as a Department and a national health service.

However, as the report makes clear, the level of failure in maternity and neonatal services is truly devastating. It demands a specific response, which is why the work of the taskforce will begin and it will report by the end of the year. As my hon. Friend has said, this is not just a case of individual cases going wrong or individual members of staff making the wrong decision. It is endemic, and shows the incuriosity of leaders in maternity services about what is going on and what is going wrong in their services. It is a failure of regulators, it is systemic, and the response to it must step up accordingly.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to those families, whistleblowers and campaigners who simply kept going, and to Donna Ockenden for her report and her approach. The report is damning, and my heart goes out to all the families who are having to relive their awful experiences as they see, in black and white, that their suffering and that of their loved ones was not only horrific and harrowing, but entirely avoidable, if only the leaders had been responsible and accountable, and had just listened. As we heard from my brave hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh), this is a national disgrace that must not be repeated.

I welcome Martha’s rule, which gives patients the right to an independent second opinion. I also welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to using the Hillsborough law to ensure that those who avoid scrutiny are compelled to give evidence and are held accountable in the future, but may I ask him two questions? First, can he confirm that he is working across Government to ensure swift implementation of this law, with clear and transparent timelines, so that these families, who have already waited far too long, can finally see justice? Secondly, what will happen to those who shockingly avoided giving evidence and avoided accountability in respect of this review?

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is right to emphasise quite how shocking it is that people in senior leadership positions refused to take part in Donna Ockenden’s review. I cannot understand how they could make that decision and think it acceptable. That is exactly why the law needs to change. It shows why the Hillsborough law is so important and why it was important to put it on the statute book, and also why it was important for us to decide now to apply that duty of candour to future reviews of the failures of maternity services so that never again can NHS staff, current or past, decide not to take part in the search for justice and accountability that it is so crucial for us to deliver.

Spinal Muscular Atrophy: Newborn Screening Test

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lewis Atkinson]

The hon. Lady is entirely right and I have heard a number of those heart-wrenching stories; she does well to speak so movingly on behalf of her constituent. That is a testament to the key intervention of getting a diagnosis as soon after birth as possible. Today, a baby with type 1 SMA is typically not diagnosed until around six months of age. By then, for many the window when treatment would have had the most impact has closed.

There is an alternative; screening at birth through the existing NHS heel-prick test, which is routinely done on day five of a baby’s life. That already screens for 10 different serious conditions.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Mundell, for your chairmanship. I, too, pay tribute to the determination of Jesy Nelson and all the parents and young people who have been campaigning for this. I was alarmed to discover from parents this weekend that Portsmouth will not be included in the roll-out of the SMA screening this October. That means that babies born in my city will miss that early diagnosis and will face potentially devastating conditions that early treatment might well have saved them from. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) and I have written to our integrated care board to find out why Portsmouth is not included and whether it will change its mind.

[Lewis Atkinson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I will come on to talk about the potential postcode lottery. I do not believe it is a decision for individual ICBs to make, but a national decision that includes the UK National Screening Committee, which I will come on to.

The screening that I have described is already in place in dozens of countries. Across Europe, 75% of children are screened at birth and since 2024, every newborn in the United States and Canada has been screened. Ukraine managed to begin newborn screening for SMA in the midst of a full-scale Russian invasion. Given that, the petitioners simply ask, “Why is this screening not in place universally here too?”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Atkinson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a matter of pace and of asking, “When?” not “If?” or “How?” because both those questions have already been answered.

I turn to the Government’s response. The previous Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), met Jesy Nelson, the petitioner, in January. The Government accepted the case for an in-service evaluation and brought the date for that live NHS trial forward from January 2027 to October this year, when screening will begin to be rolled out. I, the petitioners and others welcome that, though there is a sadness that it has taken so long to get to that point.

We must, however, be honest about where that decision leaves us. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) alludes to, the real argument now is about pace and fairness. The evaluation is funded. It will run at seven of England’s 13 screening laboratories, covering around 72% of births. The remaining six sites, which include the site that covers the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), and which account for the remaining 28% of babies born in the UK every year, are not at present in the plan. That does not seem to be an accident but the design.

Put in human terms, of the 48 babies born with SMA in England each year around 35 would be diagnosed by the introduction of SMA screening in this evaluation but 13 would not: there would be 13 babies a year born with the same condition but on the wrong side of an arbitrary line that they did not choose who will go undiagnosed until damage is done. A baby born in one postcode will be screened, treated early and may walk, but a baby born in another postcode in the same week will not, and by the time anyone knows it may be too late. That is the postcode lottery that Jesy told me about, and which deeply concerns her, in its starkest form.

It is not about a difference in waiting times but about whether a child walks, breathes unaided or feeds normally for life. That is why Professor Muntoni’s assessment needs to be heard. He asked me specifically to put this on the record: he described a trial that deliberately leaves some babies unscreened to serve as a comparison group as—his word—“unethical”. We are withholding from some children a diagnosis that we are fully capable of making and that we know will help to shape their lives in order to gather data on something that Professor Muntoni considers already internationally proven. That is the view of not just one eminent clinician, I am told, but the wider SMA clinical community.

[Amanda Martin]

rose—

[Munira Wilson]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Twist]

I certainly do agree. The test should be made available to everyone to prevent people from living with the effects of SMA that could have been diagnosed and treated.

As I was saying, it is important that we now have testing, but we must expand it to the whole of the UK very quickly.

[Amanda Martin]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to ask the Government why babies born in Portsmouth matter less than babies born in other parts of the country? If we are one of the six areas that will not have testing or screening, the babies born in my city have less chance and are therefore less valued.

[Liz Twist]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend’s point, which was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central. All babies should have access to treatment. We know the clinical consensus is absolute.

In February 2025, leading clinicians published a letter in The Lancet contrasting the UK with countries that have screening programmes. In Belgium, babies born with SMA are ambulant. In the UK, babies with the exact same condition are still dying or remaining permanently reliant on ventilatory support and tube feeding. On the wider issue of newborn screening, a range of conditions could be the subject of testing, but we are behind the world on testing. Genetic Alliance UK and the APPG on rare, genetic and undiagnosed conditions are asking for a clear timeline for a systematic review of the NHS newborn screening programme from each of the four Governments across the UK to ensure that we do not miss the opportunity to give more children a better and a healthier life.

Returning to the issue of SMA screening, the UK National Screening Committee’s updated model from August 2025 confirms that introducing screening would prevent three early deaths and stop two babies from requiring permanent ventilation every single year. Crucially, it would also prevent about 30 babies from being confined to sitting and enable 37 babies annually to live largely normal lives.

There is a rigorous financial case for acting now. Treating SMA pre-symptomatically reduces the need for lifelong mechanical ventilation and round-the-clock care. Introducing newborn screening would result in lifetime savings to the public purse of over £62 million and 529 quality-adjusted life years for each annual cohort of newborns diagnosed.

I was relieved by the Government’s announcement last month that the in-service evaluation for SMA screening will finally begin in England this October. However, the Government confirmed on 16 June that the evaluation will cover only part of the country. Specifically, it will launch in only the seven newborn screening laboratories that already have the required equipment. There must be a way of getting around that problem so that all our babies can be tested and receive appropriate treatment if necessary. The Scottish Government began a national screening pilot for all newborns earlier this year, and Ireland announced the introduction of its own screening programme in April.

We cannot accept a health system in which a baby’s chance of typical neuromuscular development depends entirely on the hospital in which they happen to be born. Will the Minister confirm whether the evaluation will be extended immediately to cover all of England, as well as Wales and Northern Ireland, for the sake of those children? We have the treatment, economic case and diagnostic tools; we must stop denying babies the chance of a healthier future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Hodgson]

I was going to come to the point about labs, but let me address it now. My hon. Friends the Members for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) and for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin); the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore); the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew); and others have made that very point. The trials will be rolled out to seven of the 13 labs, which leaves six labs outside the trial. I am told that the reason is that, as it is such a rare condition, the trial has to be broad enough to ensure a robust evidence base. The six not included do not currently have the requisite equipment. If that changes, more labs could be included.

[Amanda Martin]

I thank the Minister, who I respect her massively, for her comments. Portsmouth hospital is part of the generation study, so it is already able to test for the condition and could have rolled out the evaluation had it been included in the trials. It seems very strange that we are able to test babies in the generation study but not across the board.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central also mentioned the generation study. There are lots of questions around this, and, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North is aware, in preparing for this debate, I have been asking lots of those questions. I will take that point away and get back to her.

As we have heard, spinal muscular atrophy affects every part of daily life for the children and families involved: their routines, milestones, plans and the hopes that families hold for their children. Any progress against it matters deeply. At the same time, NICE has been clear that important questions remain, including around longevity and how long the benefits of these relatively new treatments may last. Those questions, alongside important issues of feasibility, must be answered before a national screening decision can be made.

That is why my Department has worked with the National Institute for Health and Care Research and NHS England to establish an in-service evaluation. That evaluation will run within the routine newborn blood spot screening programme to gather the evidence that we need, help answer difficult questions and fill the gaps that stand between us and a confident national decision. Crucially, the Department has worked alongside patient advocate groups, including the SMA NBS Alliance and SMA UK. I commend both groups for their excellent support and advocacy. They help to ensure that families’ voices are not an afterthought but are at the heart of decisions.

I acknowledge that, as we have heard, many have been frustrated by the pace of planning for this large-scale scientific evaluation. I hear that frustration—I really do—but we must get this right, because only a strong evaluation will give us the answers that families deserve and the evidence that a national programme requires.

Isle of Wight Dementia Patients: Discharge to Mainland Care Homes

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

I am grateful to have secured my first Adjournment debate as an MP on an issue that has resonated so deeply with many residents across the Isle of Wight, whether they are directly touched by dementia or not. I put on record my thanks to those across the island who have contacted me and are passionately fighting for their family member or friend during their time of need. It really shows the best of our island, and it makes me even more proud to represent Isle of Wight West in this place.

I also thank the Minister for her engagement to date with me and my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), on the wider issue of patient discharges off the island. I will continue to do all that I can to work across the island and with Government to help find a solution.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for securing this debate, and I strongly support him on this issue. People living with dementia and their families deserve care close to home, and should not have to cross oceans or seas and get trains to get the support that they need. I want to recognise the dedicated workers across Portsmouth North who support those people’s families. In my constituency, cuts to dementia nursing have led to some of my constituents—and my team—visiting the Isle of Wight, where we saw the Parklands Dementia Resource Centre, which is an excellent example of what can be done. Will my hon. Friend expand on Parklands’ work, and join me in urging the Minister to consider more dementia hubs in under-served communities?

[Richard Quigley]

I thank my hon. Friend for that timely intervention. Before I get into the deeply troubling accounts that have been brought to me, I pay tribute to Maggie Bennett and her team who run the Parklands Alzheimer’s café. While the café cannot offer overnight accommodation, it offers vital respite for carers. Loved ones can spend a great day at the café, doing activities, chatting over tea and cake and even getting their hair cut. However, for island dementia sufferers, that is where the happy story ends.

The issue of mainland discharges has struck a chord across the island because it goes to the heart of many of the other inequalities my constituents have been expected simply to accept as part island life. We are the only English island where the sole means of transport on and off is entirely privately operated. Coupled with that, we have only a small specialist dementia in-patient ward, and no dedicated long-term NHS dementia provision. There is a very real fear that when someone is at their most vulnerable, where they live will determine how they are treated and whether they are afforded the dignity they deserve: the dignity of being close to family, of continuity in care, and of remaining in the place they call home.

For those unfamiliar with the situation, the recent closure of three care homes on the Isle of Wight, including one in Freshwater in my constituency, has led to 44 residents being displaced, with 10 already placed in care homes on the mainland. The niece of one resident living with dementia contacted my office to say that she is terrified that her uncle will die in his proposed placement in Horsham, 70 miles away,

“alone, confused and feeling that no one cares.”

Worse still, his family have been told that if they do not accept the placement, they will be liable to pay £500 a day for the hospital bed he will need to occupy.

Other than a few brief periods away, the Isle of Wight is the only home that Phyllis, Adam and Rob Snow’s 87-year-old island-born mother, has ever known. Phyllis now requires round-the-clock care due to a brutal combination of dementia and Parkinson’s, and her family are absolutely terrified by reports of patients like her being relocated to the mainland. With Phyllis already having been stuck on a hospital ward for months, her family are in a lose-lose situation: they either watch her become more vulnerable to infection the longer she spends in hospital, or push for a care home release only for her to be relocated miles away from the only home she has ever known.

It is important to understand how dementia care is currently funded on the Isle of Wight. Much of our provision relies on a limited number of block-booked beds commissioned by the local authority, layered on to an adult social care budget that is already under severe strain.

Health Bill

Amanda Martin Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 1st June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I do not think there is a single person who thinks the current recording system is working. Navigating this system, whether as a patient, a family member or indeed an MP on behalf of constituents, is a nightmare. When it comes to safety and accountability, it is not transparent, and the experience is made harder for people who regularly move, so I would like to speak about the single patient record and what it will mean for the tens of thousands of people in my city who serve or have served in the armed forces.

Thousands of serving personnel, veterans and their families call Portsmouth home, and many more pass through it at various points in their careers, because one of the defining features of military life is mobility. Serving men and women move regularly at short notice, sometimes across the country and sometimes overseas and back again, and often their families move too. Every new posting means a new GP practice—starting from scratch with a folder of letters and a bag of medication boxes, hoping that the new surgery can piece together a medical history from scraps of paper or that the patient themselves can remember every diagnosis, allergy and procedure. For young families, those expecting a baby or those waiting for a diagnosis or tests, it is stressful, but for someone managing complex or chronic conditions, it is dangerous.

Veterans in Portsmouth have also described to me the exhaustion of having to re-explain their medical history every time they register with a practice, including mental health histories that are deeply personal and difficult to revisit. That is not good enough, and this Bill will help to put it right. The single patient record will mean that when a family moves from Norfolk or Plymouth to somewhere near Portsmouth, their medical records will move too. However, it will not work for those who move from Scotland to Portsmouth, so I urge the Government to work cross-border to rectify that situation.

I also want to acknowledge what the single patient record means for mental health. The mental health needs of veterans are well documented and often unmet. Continuity of care is critical for those managing post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and other service-related conditions. Losing that thread every time a file fails to transfer or a referral gets lost between trusts could cost lives, and the single patient record can hold that thread together.

Military personnel already sacrifice an enormous amount in service to this country. The least we can do is ensure that their health service keeps pace with their demands and those of their families. I am proud to say that this Labour Government are delivering a Bill for our armed forces, and I am proud to say to those people: we see you and we see your family, and your health matters to us.

Domestic Abuse-related Deaths: NHS Prevention

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the role of the NHS in preventing domestic homicides and domestic abuse-related deaths.

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Sir John. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for giving me the opportunity to open a debate on the role of the NHS in preventing domestic abuse and dealing with it when it presents to the NHS. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato), who, since we secured this debate, has been appointed as the violence against women and girls adviser to the Department of Health and Social Care. I think we shall hear from her later. I also place on the record my thanks to Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse, IRISi, Respect and, from my own constituency, Stroud Women’s Refuge, which have really helped me with this speech. I declare an interest: I am a working GP and sometimes need to deal with these issues.

On average, five people a week die as a result of domestic abuse in this country. Now, there are actually more suicides related to domestic abuse than homicides. Behind each of those statistics is a life lost and a family devastated. In far too many cases, there has been repeated contact with health services and there have been moments when the health service could have intervened. The NHS is the most consistent point of contact for people living with abuse. Each year, about half a million people seek support from the NHS in relation to domestic abuse and 85% of them ask at least five times before they receive effective support. That is not because clinicians do not care. It is really about recognition of domestic abuse and getting referral services that are easy to understand and well known in practice. If we are serious about preventing domestic abuse, we must be serious about the role of the NHS—not just in primary care, but across all mental health services, across maternity services, through emergency departments and through community care. It has to go right across the NHS and not just primary care. This is really a debate about making sure that we do not miss chances and that we provide meaningful intervention when people present with signs of domestic abuse.

The Government have committed to delivering on our promise to halve violence against women and girls by 2029, and I welcome the comprehensive strategy to tackle that. For too long, support services have been unable to support victims and survivors effectively. They have been without sufficient resources and, in too many cases, women and girls have not been able to access the support they need. Therefore I welcome the Government’s supporting victims through the largest ever investment of £550 million in victim support over the next three years and an additional £5 million each year from the Department of Health and Social Care.

I would like to say a few things about how GPs specifically are often the first port of call, and how presentation to GPs is incredibly important for recognition of this issue. I shall quote from Killed Women, an organisation for bereaved families of women who have been killed by men in the UK. It says about one woman:

“She had gone to the GP a few days before her death as she couldn’t take any more. She was only offered antidepressants. On the day of her murder when I spoke to her, she said they are not helping and she had had enough. She said the GP knew her situation but yet again she was failed there.”

That shows that simply giving out antidepressants is not the right strategy. We need to build support around women subjected to domestic abuse. Often, they present with mental health issues and will not give any details of their abuse. One thing that I teach GPs in training is that there is something called a hidden agenda. Women particularly will present to the GP but they will not say that they are being abused; they will have other symptoms. We must recognise that presentation straightaway, and there are ways we can recognise it. Sometimes the woman in question will present with a partner and not feel comfortable talking about the situation. I often ask the partner to leave the consultation and I speak to the woman individually, which can be an effective way to find out exactly what is happening. We need to be aware that women in this situation are often nervous and walking on eggshells. We also have to recognise that often there are physical injuries, often of different ages. We sometimes see women presenting in sunglasses to cover up a black eye, for example. The health profession must recognise all those symptoms.

As I have said before, there are very high rates of mental health problems. Women who are being abused often present with symptoms of depression caused by domestic abuse, so we need to ask those women whether anything is going on at home. Female survivors of domestic abuse are three times more likely to develop mental illness. There are also other high risk periods, such as when women are pregnant and they often have poor outcomes in those situations. We must also be aware, across the health service, that women might disclose domestic abuse. Health visitors are in an ideal situation to hear about that type of thing and must be aware of that potentiality.

In A&E, women often present with overdose, and underneath that there is domestic abuse. Midwives are often presented with this, as are mental health workers, and even gynaecology services as well as social services. Often women present to the health service with different symptoms, but that is a cry for help, which we must recognise.

What do we need to do to support those women? One thing I am delighted about is the concept of steps to safety. The Department of Health and Social Care will roll out a domestic abuse and sexual violence referral service across integrated care boards, giving GPs the tools and ability to identify and refer victim-survivors to support. What is important is that it is a simple service with one number. If it is not simple, it will not be used by health services, and that is incredibly important. It is also important that we make use of existing resources. I visited the sexual abuse centre at Gloucestershire Royal hospital recently. It is a fantastic resource with really well-trained staff who are available 24/7.

It is really important, particularly in practices, to have a safeguarding or domestic abuse lead who is totally up to date with what is available, because quite often services change and GPs themselves are not on top of that. So that is important as well. Can I also stress the importance of women’s refuges? In Stroud we have a fantastic refuge. It does not advertise itself, for obvious reasons, and the people working there are simply amazing, supporting women who have difficulties, and often their children as well. It is inspiring to see the work they do, and it is important that those services are available immediately if women feel in danger.

Can I also make a plea for support for the perpetrators of abuse? It is usually men that perpetrate abuse and they often abuse at least five times, so it is important to catch them the first time and institute really good treatment and management for them. There are often drugs, alcohol or mental health issues behind their problems, so we must deal with that before they continue to abuse. Although that is controversial, I think that is incredibly important as well.

What do we need for the whole of our health strategy? We need things to be co-ordinated. There is a suggestion that we have domestic abuse co-ordinators for a group of GP practices. As I said, I think we need to have leads in general practice, with one person leading who can keep up to date and keep reminding the other members of staff that that is really important. When we are training in primary care, it is important to train everyone. For example, the receptionists in primary care are often aware of the people coming in. They need training to detect domestic abuse so that they can inform the doctors. It is a whole team approach, with pharmacists, nurses and physiotherapists also needing to be trained and aware of the signs and symptoms of domestic abuse.

That training should be essential for everyone, but I want to step back from mandatory training. Many people in the health service find that irksome and a tick-box exercise. I do not want domestic abuse training to simply be a tick box where someone goes on an hour-long course every year and that is it. We need a more integrated approach and it needs to be part of an appraisal process so that every doctor, nurse and healthcare worker is aware and trained in domestic abuse—but without it being made mandatory so that it does not simply become a course that people must go on, but is instead properly integrated into the service.

Last of all—and this seems incredible in this day and age—we need to share data between all of the health services, for example, A&E, GPs and mental health. We often do not get any information from mental health. It is important that we get that data sharing up to speed because domestic abuse can present in many different situations in the NHS and it is important that everyone is aware of the risks. In terms of funding, the £5 million a year from the Department of Health and Social Care is a good first step, but we need quite a lot more than that to bring this service to the fore.

In conclusion, if we are serious about preventing domestic abuse and the deaths that so often follow it, then the NHS must be properly equipped to play its full role. There are three points that I would like to make. The first is on funding, and around training and investing in services that will really help in domestic abuse. Those steps to safety are key because it must be simple for women to access those services. It is also important that wherever a woman presents to the NHS, that the person they present to is trained to detect domestic abuse and aware of what is available for that woman. Finally, we must have a comprehensive whole-health plan for the NHS and tackling domestic abuse and violence against women and girls. That must cover primary care, mental health, maternity and accident and emergency services—and I would like it to be published by 2027 at the latest.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. At the beginning of this debate my hon. Friend mentioned suicide. As we are talking about NHS services, and when we have women trying to take their own lives, I wanted to highlight the devastating impact of the deaths of two people from Portsmouth who took their own lives because of coercive control. Does my hon. Friend agree that all of the agencies across the NHS, our wider health service and our police need to be joined up to stop the loss of lives and that that is a public health issue?

[Dr Opher]

I know that my hon. Friend is invested in trying to help women subject to domestic abuse. Coercive control is very important as it often stops women presenting to healthcare workers. As I have said before, one key thing as a clinician is that we have to be brave and ask the man to step out so that it is possible to have a proper conversation. They can often resist that and can get violent as well. It is important that we take a brave view on this to protect women in general.

To conclude, if we get those three things right—funding, recognition, and a comprehensive and integrated care service—we can move forward to a service that repeatedly sees and recognises abuse and immediately steps in to stop it. That is the shift I am calling for in this debate, and it is one that could save many lives.

Resident Doctors: Industrial Action

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on all his campaigning to secure investment in his constituency. One thing I can assure everyone in our country is that NHS leaders, frontline staff and I will do everything we can to mitigate harm during these strikes; I am afraid what I cannot do is guarantee that there will be no harm. That is the thing that keeps me awake at night at the moment, and that is the thing that the BMA should keep foremost in their minds when deciding whether or not, even at this late stage, to take up the offer to postpone strikes until January and take the mandate extension.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

As a proud trade unionist, I know that trade unions are there to represent their members’ interests and views, yet by pushing ahead with this strike action, the BMA appears set to ignore its members. The offer on the table is real and comes from a Government who are listening and making positive change. Would the Secretary of State urge the BMA to take stock, think again about patients and its colleagues, and pause action while its members are consulted on the new terms? It has nothing to lose from pausing, yet the NHS and the population have so much to lose.

[Wes Streeting]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The BMA has put the offer to its members in neutral terms, but the fact is that it is now going to run a hasty survey over the next few days in order to give us what will still be less than 48 hours’ notice of whether or not these strikes will go ahead. If it took up the mandate extension, it could run a referendum properly and give its members more time to consider and discuss the offer in the workplace and with their families and reps. I do not see how more participation in the conversation and in the ballot could possibly be a bad thing.

As I have made clear to resident doctors, there are no downsides for the BMA in this. In fact, the only person who risks having a downside is me if, even after accepting the mandate extension, the deal is rejected and the doctors go out on strike again in January. This is not even a win-win scenario; this is a potential win-lose scenario, so I do not know why the BMA would not take it up.

This is a great offer for doctors. I know there will still be more to do, whether that is the implementation of the 10-point plan that Jim Mackey has come up with, my offer to work with the BMA trust by trust and employer by employer to see progress, or any of the other things we can do together. If we work together, we can get more done together. If we are working as partners rather than adversaries, we will all enjoy it a lot more and we will make more progress, and that is the opportunity that is available.

International Men’s Day

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) on securing this important debate and on his eloquent and brave words to open the conversation.

As he said, today is a chance to celebrate the men and boys in our lives, acknowledge the challenges that many face, and recognise the positive roles they play in our families, workplaces and communities, so let me begin with my own. I want to celebrate my dad, Terry, my brother, Lee, and my partner, Robin, who are all fantastic role models, brilliant men and hugely important to me, our family and friends. I also want to celebrate my fabulous nephews, the young dad, Luke, and Frankie who turned 10 this month, as well as my male friends and colleagues in this place. Finally, I want to take a moment to celebrate my three beautiful sons. I say to them, “As you make your way in this changing world, you make me proud every day with your openness, your kindness, your humour, and your love and respect for each other and for those around you. I love you boys.”

Every man in my life has faced challenges, be it school or workplace bullying, health conditions, disability, bereavement from illness or suicide, or loneliness. The difference is that they had each other and, crucially, they felt able to talk and to ask for help, but too many men do not. The statistics are stark: one in five men does not live to 65, more than 5,000 men die by suicide each year, nearly 1 million men are unemployed, and paternity leave is a class issue and works against the self-employed.

These numbers are not abstract. They are real lives: young men lost in education, and fathers struggling to balance work and family, including some going through break-ups and separation from their kids. They are veterans adjusting to civil life, older men being pushed out of the labour market, and men of all ages wrestling with health worries but determined not to be a burden.

It is partly because of these realities that colleagues, partners and I have established a Labour group for men and boys. Our purpose is simple: to ensure that this Government build policies and politics that better represent men and boys and, in doing so, to improve outcomes for everyone. We believe in a modern, positive vision of masculinity that strengthens rather than undermines gender equality.

Men feel that their identity has been shaken by rapid change and feel that so much of life is out of their control. They mistrust politics and politicians, and in that vacuum toxic, dominance-based narratives can gain ground, so it is important that we as a Government have their back. We need to offer hope, be inclusive and offer a story of what British manhood should be built on: pride, purpose, belonging and trust.

Supporting men and boys is not a zero-sum game. It is about listening, acting and rebuilding trust. This Labour Government are already taking action. We have abolished exploitative zero-hours contracts, raised the minimum wage and launched England’s first ever men’s health strategy. We are reforming apprenticeships, delivering pride in place investments and strengthening communities. The Government must take responsibility—

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent speech. I have heard her talk glowingly about her boys to me and to others, and she is doing them real justice in her speech. I believe she is absolutely right to welcome the men’s health strategy, which was published yesterday; it is a fantastic document and road map for us.

Does my hon. Friend agree—especially given that her boys are still growing up and in early manhood—that young men are particularly prey to the problems of gambling, particularly online gambling and rapid turnover gambling, and that it is really welcome that the men’s health strategy contains proposals to tackle the real problem of men and gambling from the grassroots upwards?

[Amanda Martin]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Online safety is also crucial in protecting boys from harmful content, misogyny and gambling promotions, which he mentions.

The measures that this Government have taken are a start. We know that we need to do more to restore trust, dignity, opportunity and a sense of belonging, where too many men have been forgotten and ignored, so that men see and feel the changes in their everyday lives.

I want to highlight the work I have been doing with tradespeople through my tool theft campaign—Members may have heard of it! Tool theft disproportionately affects male workers, many of them self-employed or running small businesses. Losing tools is not an inconvenience; it can mean lost wages, contracts, reputations, and indeed lives. I launched the campaign after hearing countless stories of livelihoods being destroyed, and I thank everyone who has shared their experience. Their voices matter, and they are part of what we celebrate today.

When it comes to fatherhood, let me give a small nod to every tired dad out there, with a dad joke. Madam Deputy Speaker, what do you call a woman who sets fire to all her bills? Bernadette! Yeah, my boys will probably roll their eyes at that, but beneath the joke lies something very serious. The Dad Shift campaign is showing how many fathers want to be present in the first precious weeks but simply cannot afford it. Strengthening paternity leave is not just about fairness for dads; it is about giving the best starts, helping families to build resilience and shaping the kind of society we want to be here in Britain.

I want to leave Members with a quote from a brilliant book, “The Boy, the Mole, the Fox and the Horse”, which captures the courage I see in so many men every day:

“‘What is the bravest thing you’ve ever said?’ asked the boy.

‘Help,’ said the horse.

‘Asking for help isn’t giving up,’ said the horse. ‘It’s refusing to give up.’”

That is the bravery we celebrate today.

Baby Loss

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I rise to speak about baby loss on behalf of those affected—those who I know and love, and those who I do not know. This tragedy touches far too many families in Portsmouth North and across our country. We have heard today how each year in England and Wales, tragically, around 2,500 babies are stillborn and a further 1,600 die within their first year of life. Behind every statistic is a grieving family—mother, father, grandparents, aunties, uncles, cousins and siblings—whose world is changed for ever.

Around 2,000 babies are born in Portsmouth each year. While outcomes have improved, we still see the deep inequalities that drive baby loss, and babies born in our most deprived communities are twice as likely to die before their first birthday than those in our wealthiest communities. Many of our maternity teams are working tirelessly to change that. At my hospital, the Queen Alexandra hospital, the maternity service has earned a UNICEF baby-friendly gold award, a national HSJ digital award and an NHS parliamentary award for innovation and compassionate care—proof that the possibility of dedication and excellence can and does exist.

However, such excellence should not be a postcode lottery; it should be national and available for all. We have the knowledge to prevent many of these tragedies. We have had inquiries that have produced recommendations and actions about early, informed and accessible antenatal care, tackling health in pregnancy, supporting maternal mental health, accountability, transparency, openness and addressing inequalities, and listening to women and families about their experiences, to ensure that their birth choice is right for mum and baby, free from pressure and prejudice. Services must be properly funded, staffed and joined up.

When nothing can be done and a loss occurs, compassionate bereavement support is vital. Parents tell me that small acts of care, including a quiet room, a midwife who listens, a support group for all the family, the use of language—that it is a baby loss, not a miscarriage —and the opportunity to talk and be heard, can all make a difference. However, like maternity provision, bereavement support varies widely and too many families are left to cope alone, often in silence.

This week, as we mark Baby Loss Awareness Week, we must stand with every parent who lights a candle, remembers a name or holds in their heart the baby they never got to take home or who was not physically in their lives forever, but who will always be a part of their family. To those families, I know we all say, “You are not alone, your babies are not forgotten and your courage gives meaning to this work and to our debate.”

As a Government, we must work with local NHS leaders, public health teams and charities. We cannot talk about breaking down barriers to opportunity if we do not do that in our maternity services. Baby loss is not inevitable, but it is a challenge that we, as a Government, can and must meet. With compassion, we must have action.