Puberty Blockers

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I am absolutely appalled by the Government’s decision to press ahead with the Pathways puberty blockers trial. When I look at the decision, I genuinely find myself asking: what lessons have this Government learnt from the last number of years? Parents have raised concerns, families have raised concerns, clinicians have raised concerns, campaigners have raised concerns, and many in this House have raised concerns. This is not a concern that has appeared overnight. The petition on this issue, which was debated some time ago, attracted significant support, and I must note that my constituency of Upper Bann was one of the leading constituencies in raising concerns about puberty blockers and their impact.

Ministers have been warned time and again. We had the Cass review, the closure of the Tavistock clinic and the decision to stop the routine prescribing of puberty blockers to children. All those developments pointed in one direction: greater caution, greater scrutiny and greater protection for vulnerable children. Yet somehow this Labour Government have looked at all of that and reached the conclusion that will harm more children, not less. They have decided that the answer to this difficult issue is to recommence a trial using the very drugs that are considered unsuitable for routine use, the very drugs that children cannot routinely be prescribed, and the very drugs that Ministers themselves acknowledge raise serious unanswered questions. That is the contradiction at the heart of the announcement to recommence the puberty blockers trial. If these drugs are not considered sufficiently safe, sufficiently evidenced or sufficiently understood to be routinely prescribed to children, why are the Government prepared to recruit children into a trial involving the same drugs?

What troubles me in particular is the age of the children involved: children as young as 11. When I think of an 11-year-old, I think of a child at the very beginning of secondary school, maybe even in primary school; I think of a child still trying to work out who they are; I think of a child whose views, interests and outlooks on life can change dramatically in the space of a few months—indeed, even in the space of a few days; I think of a child who still needs adults to guide them, protect them and make decisions in their best interests. I do not think of somebody who should be carrying the burden of unresolved questions about fertility, bone development, neurological development and long-term health outcomes. The Government tell us that more evidence is needed, but on whose shoulders are they placing that burden? The shoulders of children: children are being asked to participate because adults still do not have the answers. That cannot be right.

I have had the honour of meeting Keira Bell—one of the bravest campaigners I have encountered in public life, because she has been willing to speak publicly about consequences that she will carry for the rest of her life. When people discuss the issue, they often hide behind clinical language and advice. Clinical advice can be wrong. I queried clinical negligence and malpractice in Northern Ireland through a recent freedom of information request; in one year, £9 million was paid out. That shows that clinicians can be wrong. Yes, we need them and we depend on them, and I have so much respect for them, but they are not always right.

Keira Bell has spoken openly about the loss of her healthy breasts, concerns about her future fertility and the permanent changes that she lives with because of the pathway she was placed on as a vulnerable young person. Perhaps the most heartbreaking thing she has said is, “I was a vulnerable teenager who needed help”—not drugs, but help. She has also said, “I believe I should have been challenged on my views.” Let us think about that: a young woman looking back and saying that the adults around her should have asked harder questions, exercised greater caution and protected her.

We are all called to this place to do the right thing. The right thing is to look at the data that is already there and the young people who have been on this pathway, and to stop the puberty blockers trial with immediate effect.

Access to Dental Services: West Sussex

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for shining a light on this important subject, which causes such distress for residents of West Sussex.

The Department for Health, like many Government Departments, has promised a consultation, as well as extensive reform of the dental contract. I appreciate that the Minister wants to get this right. He has said that the dental system is complex. He has also made it clear in the past that these changes will not be rushed. Speaking to dentists across my constituency and beyond, very few people would say that taking two years just to start a consultation could be called rushing.

The Government need to be clear with both dentists and patients. Dentists were told that the consultation would come last year; then they were told that it would come before the start of summer—but summer is more or less upon us, and we are still waiting. At this rate, the Government risk making no meaningful reforms to dentistry within this Parliament. This sense of political inertia is, of course, not confined to one Department, and we do not have to look far to imagine the reason for that.

Alongside those delays sits an equally serious issue: funding. The Government have been clear that no new funding is available for dental reform; I imagine that the Minister himself finds that deeply frustrating. Only about 40% of adults are effectively provided for within the current NHS dental budget, and even that is propped up by an estimated £1 billion cross-subsidy from private provision. The Public Accounts Committee was clear in its assessment: without frontloaded investment, meaningful reform has no chance of success.

What does this mean for residents in my constituency of Horsham? The honest answer is that we do not fully know, which is frustrating to say the least. Under the previous Conservative administration, West Sussex county council had not carried out a comprehensive oral health survey since before 2019. I have written to the new Lib Dem-led council asking it to ensure that West Sussex is included in the next survey, because without reliable data, we simply cannot design effective or targeted reforms.

The data that we do have is deeply concerning. A quarter of children in West Sussex are at high risk of tooth decay compared with a national average of roughly half that level. From an early age, we are sending out the message that oral health is not a priority. At the same time, we are seeing a growing reliance on urgent dental care, but as a substitute for routine check-ups. Preventive dentistry—the very foundation of a sustainable system—simply cannot function under those conditions. We risk raising a generation that engages with dental services only at a moment of crisis, and that will have profound long-term health consequences.

I am very much seeing the impact of this in my Horsham casework. One of my constituents, Gail, was recently removed, along with her daughter, from the dental register. It was not from any fault of her own, but simply because there are not enough dentists left who are willing to operate on NHS contracts. That is distressing enough for patients, but it is also deeply frustrating for dental professionals, who find themselves forced to turn away patients who they can see are in urgent need.

Another constituent, Medi, does have access to a dentist, but not locally, and we have heard the same from other Members. She has to travel three hours for her appointments in another part of the country completely. She suffers from arthritis, so the journey is not just inconvenient, but very painful. However, she cannot find anyone closer, and even the waiting lists are vague about when a place may eventually be available.

I have also heard directly from dentists in Horsham. One practitioner, who has worked in the NHS for over 15 years and has trained NHS dental graduates, told me that, each year, funding has become more constrained and the administrative burden continues to grow. Without proper support for preventive care, he warned, dentists simply “don’t stand a chance”.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The hon. Member is making a powerful point for his constituents. Similarly, in Northern Ireland only 50% of adults are registered with NHS dentists. Almost 400,000 registrations have been lost since 2023, and ultimately practices are leaving NHS dentistry because it is financially unsustainable. Would he agree with me that there needs to be a UK-wide look at this? While health is a devolved issue in Northern Ireland, there needs to be learning from the UK, because this is not just about waiting times, but about people finding a dentist who will actually take them on. Does he agree with me that we need a UK-wide resolution?

[John Milne]

I very much agree that this is a national crisis. Some local authorities or local ICBs are better than others, but this is basically a national problem and needs national action.

The dentist I mentioned has told me that many of his peers have already stopped offering NHS services, and the ones left are increasingly considering doing exactly the same. That tells us that the entire dental system is slipping into freefall. The broader figures reinforce the local picture. Only 40% of adults in West Sussex have seen a dentist in the past two years, which is a fall of 7%. Among children, the figure has dropped from 63% to 58%. Over the past five years, the number of residents per dentist in West Sussex has increased by a fifth. That is a huge jump, and further evidence that the system is heading for collapse.

From my conversations with the chief executive officer of the newly merged Surrey and Sussex ICB, I know that dentistry is a priority area for her and that the team are doing their best to introduce flexibility where possible. However, they face cuts of up 50% in budgets and staffing, which are enormous challenges not just for the leadership, but for the NHS teams on the ground. There is real concern that, unless we change now, dentistry risks becoming an expensive luxury, rather than a universally accessible service.

To conclude, the combination of delayed reforms and reduced funding is leaving patients without access to care and professionals without the support they need to provide it. Oral health inequalities continue to widen. I appreciate that this Government are once again picking up the pieces from their Conservative predecessors, but the obligation now falls on today’s Ministers. Unless we see a change in trajectory, we will be left with exactly what the Public Accounts Committee warned us about—no money, no reform, no teeth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Lockhart]

I apologise for intervening again, but I want to make a point about cancer patients, similar to the one made by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths). The teeth of cancer patients are heavily impacted by the strength of the drugs, so does the hon. Lady agree that the Government need specifically to consider how they can support cancer patients post-treatment and that cancer patients should be able to access free dental care quickly and efficiently?

[Alison Bennett]

The hon. Lady makes a really good point. We know that cancer treatment is a real priority for this Government and it certainly makes sense that her suggestion is considered.

I hear from parents who are worried about finding appointments for their children; I hear from pensioners who are living with pain while waiting for treatment; and I hear from families who are forced to choose between paying for private dental care and paying for other essentials. There is currently only one dental practice in Burgess Hill accepting under-17s and the same is true in Haywards Heath; they are the two main towns in my constituency. For too many people in Mid Sussex, access to an NHS dentist feels less like a right and more like a lottery.

When discussing this crisis, we often hear the phrase “DIY dentistry”. Its use has become so commonplace that we risk forgetting what it actually means. It means people pulling out their own teeth with pliers, or gluing crowns back into place. It means people attempting to treat serious dental problems themselves, because they cannot access professional care. A recent survey found that around 7% of UK adults had attempted some form of DIY dentistry. Over a third of those had tried to extract a painful tooth themselves; others had attempted to drain abscesses or repair fillings at home. People are doing these things because they are in pain and because they feel that they simply have no alternative.

The scale of the challenge to turn that situation around is enormous. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester noted, recent NHS figures show that around 60% of adults have not seen a dentist in the last two years, and over 5 million children did not see a dentist at all in the year to June 2025. Tooth decay remains the most common reason for hospital admission among children aged six to 10. That is truly shameful.

The previous Conservative Government left NHS dentistry in a deeply fragile state. Years of neglect and a fundamentally flawed dental contract drove dentists away from NHS provision, leaving patients to pay the price. Although the current Government inherited this crisis, they simply cannot inherit the excuses. The public were promised 700,000 additional urgent dental appointments, yet only around 100,000 have been delivered so far. Ministers might point to commissioning figures, but patients judge success by whether they can get an appointment when they need one. Far too many people across West Sussex still cannot do so.

I welcome any increase in dental places, and the Government have made moves in that respect. However, I am sure that we all accept that there will be a long pipeline before the trainees of today become the fully fledged dentists who are able to carry out work doing NHS contracts.

More importantly, training more dentists alone will not solve the problem. The dental contract remains broken, as we have already heard today. Dentists continue to tell us that the current system discourages them from doing NHS work and fails to reflect the complexity of the treatment that they provide. Unless the Government are prepared to commission and fund more NHS dentistry, increasing the number of dentists will not automatically increase access for patients. That is why contract change is so important.

In April, Ministers announced a consultation on changing the contract, with proposals expected before the summer. Midsummer’s day is next week. Patients waiting in pain cannot afford further delays, and dentists who are considering their future in the NHS cannot afford further uncertainty. The Government must set out a clear timetable for reform and ensure that implementation is not kicked into the long grass.

The Liberal Democrats believe that there is a better way forward. We have proposed a £750 million dental rescue package to end dental deserts and restore access to NHS dentistry. We would guarantee access to an NHS dentist for everyone requiring urgent or emergency care. We would fix the broken dental contract, expand training places, continue recognition of EU-qualified dentists and put proper workforce planning into law. We would also guarantee free dental check-ups for children, pregnant women, new mothers and those on low incomes while investing in prevention and oral public health, because if we are serious about solving this crisis, we must stop treating dentistry as an afterthought.

This debate is about real people in Mid Sussex and across West Sussex and the country. It is about the parent in Haywards Heath who cannot find an NHS dentist for their child, and the older resident in Burgess Hill who is living with pain while waiting for treatment. It is about families who are doing everything right, but finding that accessing basic NHS dental care is increasingly impossible. No one in Mid Sussex should ever be forced into DIY dentistry, and no child should end up in hospital because routine dental care was unavailable.

I would be grateful if the Minister could address three points. First, when will the Government publish and implement proposals for dental contract changes? Secondly, how will Ministers ensure that additional training places result in greater NHS capacity, rather than simply increasing the number of dentists working outside the NHS? Thirdly, what specific action is being taken to tackle unmet dental need and dental deserts in areas such as West Sussex? People in Mid Sussex and across our region deserve access to timely, affordable NHS dental care. I hope the Government will respond to this crisis with the urgency it demands.

Wheelchair Provision: Independent Review Body

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

He is trying to catch up. I look forward to his response and that of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans). I tapped him on the shoulder and said, “Luke, you’re back again!” It is a real pleasure.

When Members use phrases such as “postcode lottery”, it brings a smile to my face, but not in a humorous way; due to our legislation, my constituents do not have the ability to participate in the postcode lottery and benefit for their street, and yet when it comes to provision for disabled people, we seem to be right in the heart of that painful reality. Whether someone is in Newtownards or Newcastle, their ability to live an independent life should not depend on which trust’s boundaries they live within. I concur with the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford that the current situation is not acceptable, and the changes we seek from the Minister must be transformative.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Recently, I was listening to the radio and heard the story of Phil Eaglesham, a former Royal Marine who served in Afghanistan and, as a result, needed a wheelchair. He founded a company, Conquering Horizons, which designs all-terrain wheelchairs for indoor and outdoor use. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to get beyond the basic needs and look towards the real-life needs of those who need wheelchairs? Does he agree that it would be beneficial for the Minister to meet Phil, hear his story, and hear how he is transforming the lives of those who need wheelchairs?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention; she underlines the point. I was going to give the example of a young fella from Newtownards. He lives in Dundonald, but he is more seen in Newtownards. He has severe, complex mobility needs, but he is the brightest wee boy you ever met in all your life, and he always encourages and lifts me when I meet him. He is a Chelsea supporter, so he needs some help at the minute, because they are not doing too good. I am a Leicester City supporter, and we are not doing too good either, so we have something in common.

There was just no way in the world that the NHS could give him the wheelchair that he needed for his special needs—similarly to the example that my hon. Friend mentioned in respect of those who have served in the forces. The only way that wee boy could obtain the wheelchair that he needed was through fundraising. Dessie Coffey in Newtownards has been fantastic. He raises money for all charities, but he did so especially for this wee boy. Over a period of time, we raised about £6,000 to help him with his wheelchair, and today that wee boy has some independence.

I wrote to one of the Manchester United stars—my mind just went blank and I cannot remember who it was, but he no longer plays for them—and he sent me a signed autograph, so I gave it to the wee boy and he sold it for £100. Again, if it was not for individual fundraisers, he just would not have had the money. I very much believe that we need an independent national review body to oversee wheelchair provision, and I support the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford in his call for one.

Some might ask why we need another body in an already complex system. The answer is quite simple: because the current system is failing the very people it was built to serve. Northern Ireland has the longest health waiting lists in the United Kingdom. People are waiting years for orthopaedic surgery, and while they wait, their mobility needs change, often without the system keeping pace. Just last year, we saw the collapse of NRS Healthcare, which was the main provider of repairs for our regional service. The Business Services Organisation stepped in to steady the ship, but that moment of crisis exposed the fundamental truth that out wheelchair services are fragile.

Sudden Unexpected Death in Childhood

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Andy MacNae]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which again focuses on the need for co-ordination in the effort to meet the scale of this challenge.

One of the most compelling issues requiring investigation is the association between SUDC and febrile seizures. National and international data show that 30% of SUDC cases involve a history of febrile seizures—10 times higher than in the general population. Frankie Grogan had 12 seizures before he died, but he was never reviewed by a specialist. At this point, it is really important to stress that febrile seizures are very common and SUDC is rare, but the persistence of this correlation—known before the last debate—demands investigation. A national plan must accelerate understanding of the link and determine whether children who have repeated febrile seizures, or a particular subset of affected children, need different pathways of care.

We must also improve public information. Information for families is inconsistent and, at times, invisible. Leaflets on febrile seizures vary significantly across NHS trusts; some fail to mention that seizures can occur during sleep or that monitoring options exist. SUDC itself—including the 60% of cases with no seizure history—is missing from the NHS website. After the 2023 debate, a token reference was added to the SIDS page, but then removed. Imagine a family receiving a post-mortem conclusion of SUDC but finding nothing when they search the NHS website. That is clearly unacceptable, but something that the Government can easily fix.

There has been welcome progress in other areas. The national child mortality database is a world-leading resource. Since the previous debate, the NCMD has created SUDC-specific forms and launched pathways for genomics and cardiac screening. SUDC UK, a charity founded only in 2017, has helped to ensure that families have access to whole genome sequencing through the R441 pathway. That advocacy was born out of what Nikki Speed, chief executive of SUDC UK, describes as the “paralysing fear” that she and many families carry every day. She explained to me that for years after her loss, she got little sleep, because she was constantly having to have a hand on her surviving children to be sure they were alive and well.

That fear leads families to delay trying for another child, even though a new life could be a source of hope and healing amid loss. It is completely rational for a parent to fear, if one of their seemingly healthy children has died without explanation, that their other seemingly healthy children could also be at risk. That is why genomic and cardiac screening is so important: it not only informs research but protects surviving siblings. For some families, genetic analysis has revealed risks requiring vital preventive treatment, yet those crucial tests are currently available only after the post-mortem process concludes, which brings me to the next point.

Paediatric pathology is in crisis, as summarised in a recent report by the Royal College of Pathologists. Families experiencing SUDC routinely wait nine to 12 months, or sometimes longer, for a post-mortem conclusion. During that time, they live in fear—fear for their surviving children, fear of future pregnancies, fear of the unknown. Their grief is suspended and their lives are on hold. Only after that traumatic wait can they finally access genomic testing or cardiac screening to safeguard their children.

After speaking with Brian and with Nikki, I would like to outline the typical timeline for a family affected by SUDC. Your child is fine. Then they die, leaving you traumatised and in shock. The child is taken away from you, and you have no control over what is happening. The ensuing process is statutory, but the response is based on evidence from infant death and so is suboptimal. After scary interactions with the police and in deep shock, you return home to deafening silence or to the child’s siblings, to whom you must tell the very worst news. Then you wait. You do not wait one week or two. You do not wait a month or even six. You most likely wait nine to 12 months. If the pathology is complex, you wait even longer. Throughout the whole wait, you are scared for your other children and scared to get pregnant again. You put your life and your grief on hold. Only then, often about a year later, do you receive the post-mortem report. You have been desperately waiting for this moment, but now it is here it brings back all the trauma of losing your child, and only now are you eligible to see whether anything hereditary is putting other family members at risk.

This is inhumane. When we lost our daughter, we had the answers right away, yet the trauma is still with us. I cannot fathom what it would be like to sit in deafening silence for months, and the long-term damage that that could do. This must change. A national plan should establish faster pathways for cases in which timely information directly affects vulnerable bereaved families and child safety.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The hon. Member is certainly making a very powerful speech on this issue. On 7 January 2024, Teddy Jason Williamson, aged just seven weeks and from my constituency, died of sudden infant death syndrome. Does the hon. Member agree that more practical support is required? Yes, we need research, but we also need there to be practical support: bereavement nurses, dedicated suites in hospitals, and counselling support post the death of the child.

[Andy MacNae]

Yes. I will touch on that in a moment. It is part of a wider picture of bereavement support and bereavement pathways nationally. From baby or infant loss to unexplained death in childhood, bereavement services are patchy and in many cases far below the standards that we need to see. We need to make that service universal.

Let us move on to another cause of trauma: child death investigations. This issue is wider than SUDC but has profound impacts. Current national guidelines—the statutory guidance and joint agency guidelines—are built on historical evidence from infant deaths and have not been updated since the new pathways for genetics and cardiology were launched. That is important as it may affect inequity of care and access to these important tests. Guidelines should be updated to reflect new evidence and current pathology timeframes, and any consultation on those updates should include charities such as SUDC UK, which supports families of children up to 18 years old.

From investigation to family support, NCMD data tells us that 30% of all child deaths are sudden and unexpected, and a fifth of families leave A&E with no understanding of why their child has died. While consistency has improved since the last debate, the quality of bereavement support remains deeply uneven, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) has raised. Families affected by SUDC often experience complicated grief with severe and long-lasting consequences for parents and siblings, and this requires specialist support. The NIHR-funded Quintet project and the wider strategic partnership for sudden child death will soon provide evidence-based recommendations for supporting those families. These should be incorporated into a national plan.

To conclude, what is lacking is not expertise nor compassion; rather, it is co-ordination and leadership. I am calling for a Government-led national plan for sudden unexplained death in childhood. That would turn the issues that I have raised into strategic objectives with clear timelines, milestones and measurable outcomes. It should be developed alongside families, clinicians and researchers, and report back to Parliament every two years. Such a plan would send a powerful message: these children matter, their deaths are not footnotes, and unexplained does not mean unimportant. My thanks to Brian Topping, Nikki Speed, the courageous families here today and all those who have worked tirelessly for progress and understanding. I hope that this debate can play a part in delivering that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for raising this issue and pay tribute to him for his bravery in exposing his own devastating grief at the loss of his precious daughter to try to bring about the change in research and support that is so desperately needed.

This is an incredibly difficult subject; indeed, it is often whispered about, if it is spoken of at all. SUDC is a tragedy that strikes without warning, leaving families across our communities in a state of profound, unanswered grief. Over the years, I have met too many families whose joy has gone, and my heart aches for them as well.

In Northern Ireland, we pride ourselves on our close-knit communities, our resilience and our ability to respond to things in a family way. However, when a family faces SUDC, that resilience is tested by the unique pain caused by having no answers. Unlike sudden infant death syndrome, which affects babies under one year old, SUDC claims the lives of children aged from one to 18.

I will look at the reality at home and, as I always do, give a Northern Ireland perspective. According to recent data from the Lullaby Trust, although the number of children who die is small, the impact is immeasurable and is felt not only by the parents and siblings but by the extended family, in schools and churches, and throughout the community. When that stone hits the water, the ripples go far.

In 2023, 16 unexpected deaths of babies and young children were recorded in Northern Ireland. While thorough investigations may eventually find explanations for many of those, those that remain unexplained leave a permanent void. Northern Ireland has historically seen the highest infant mortality rate in the United Kingdom, and it is currently at 4.2 deaths per 1,000 live births. The trends are quite worrying. Although SUDC is distinct from infant mortality, those figures highlight the broader, urgent need to prioritise child health and research in Northern Ireland.

For children aged one to four, SUDC is one of the leading causes of death across the United Kingdom, often ranking higher than traffic accidents or fire, yet it remains one of the most under-recognised medical tragedies of our time. When we ask the Minister for help, that is what we are asking about.

[Carla Lockhart]

Will my hon. Friend join me in commending Dr Julie Rankin, a consultant in emergency medicine, who has been instrumental in working with the Williamson family from my constituency to create a bereavement suite in Craigavon Area hospital in memory of those little children who have died suddenly in unexplained circumstances? As we speak today, they are actually at a research event at Queen’s University Belfast, which demonstrates that Northern Ireland is advancing these things for families who are impacted.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She and I, and probably everyone else in the Chamber, would recognise the importance of parents having someone there to comfort them when such an awful tragedy takes place, and it is vital that my hon. Friend underlined that. One of my three asks of the Minister—which I will come to shortly—will be for research, and Queen’s University is to the fore on that.

For a child aged one to four, SUDC is one of the leading causes of death across the United Kingdom, yet it remains one of the most under-recognised medical tragedies. That is really the point I want to make: this is a medical tragedy and we are not doing enough, so we need to do more, as I think everybody has said.

The unexplained nature of these deaths is perhaps the cruellest part. Families go to wake their child for school or for a day of play, only to find the unthinkable. The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency continues to track these tragedies, noting that they can affect any family, regardless of background.

But we are not here today simply to acknowledge or indeed to remember; we are here to advocate for change. When he set the scene, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen was very clear about what he wanted, which is probably what we all want. First, we need more research, and that is one of my three asks of the Minister. I am very pleased to see her in her place; it has been a pleasure to work alongside her on many subjects over the years we have been here, and I wish her well—I wished her well last time and I wish her well again—in the role she plays. We need more research in order to move beyond the unexplained and find the “why” of the problem. Secondly, we need better support for families navigating the complex joint agency response that follows a sudden death. Thirdly, we need something that today’s debate will help to raise: awareness.

Those are my three asks, so that no parent in Glasgow, Newtownards, Swansea or Somerset feels that they are the only one in the world that this has happened to. We owe it to the children we have lost and to the families they have left behind—[Interruption.]

Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Children deserve protection, not experimentation. In Upper Bann alone, 1,300 people signed the petition—more than twice the number of signatories in any other constituency. Their message is clear and I stand with them.

Animal testing on mice and monkeys shows that puberty blockers cause irreversible damage to brain development. If these hormones are unfit for animals, why on earth are we about to inject them into our children? Children are once again being used as lab rats for a dangerous medical experiment. It is wrong. We should not be experimenting on a fresh cohort. Instead, we should be prioritising a data-linkage study of the hundreds of children who were given puberty blockers at the now discredited and closed Tavistock clinic.

It is reckless to allow minors to take certain risks while they are still maturing. All trial participants will be under 16. We do not allow teenagers to drive, get married, buy alcohol or own a gun. We should not put them on a medical pathway with such life-altering consequences. In fact, for most children who are questioning their gender, going through puberty will naturally resolve their gender dysphoria. We should offer vulnerable young people support and stability, not give them life-altering drugs.

It should send a shiver down our spines when we look at the documentation relating to safeguarding. Participants are warned against getting pregnant while taking puberty blockers; there is no mention of the fact that the legal age of consent is 16. Even more concerningly, girls will be advised to consider getting their eggs harvested, which is normally a procedure for in vitro fertilisation or cancer treatment. Complications include ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, which can cause severe abdominal pain and even death. There is no mention of those risks in the document.

I have met Keira Bell. She is sounding the alarm for anyone who will listen. Doctors did not give her holistic care; instead, they affirmed her false belief that hasty medical intervention was the answer. My constituents and I need a total ban, not just a temporary pause to this dystopian medical trial.

Meningitis Outbreak

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I am not sure about the point of prevalence, but we will look carefully at the genesis of this outbreak. Of course, in common with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser), we will think about what advice ought to be offered. As ever when it comes to travel advice, we rely on the evidence available, and with our partners at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, we regularly offer good travel advice to British citizens travelling abroad where there may be exposure to greater health risks.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Given that we are nearing the Easter holidays, what discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Minister of Health in Northern Ireland about ensuring that students travelling home are aware of the situation and the need to take precautions?

Hughes Report: Second Anniversary

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for giving us the opportunity to contribute, and allowing me to mention Northern Ireland and what is happening there. It is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place, and I thank her for all she does.

The Hughes report was for England only, but the ripple effect is UK-wide. As of February 2026, Northern Ireland victims remain in limbo. The Northern Ireland Department of Health has stated that its approach will be informed by the final position of the UK Government—right here—but their final position has not been determined. Because nothing has been done here, nothing happens in Northern Ireland, so we are being affected. I know that the Minister will be responsive, but I ask her to give us some indication of the timescale.

Patients continue to contact me and Members of the Legislative Assembly in an attempt to see the adoption of the report’s recommendation, and the phrasing is that families feel abandoned by the lack of progress and financial compensation. I can understand that the Department of Health (NI) needs guidance from Westminster; the UK as a whole is waiting to see what implementation and redress will look like. While financial payments are stalled, some progress has been made on the non-financial report, with the continued operation of specialist mesh centres and improved clinical guidelines for prescribing valproates. That is welcome but—to put it simply—it is not enough.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Women have been left in lifelong pain; children have been born with preventable disabilities; families have endured financial and emotional stress; many women have lost their jobs, their homes and even their marriages. Does my hon. Friend agree that, although financial and non-financial support are important, to prevent such issues in the future it is also important that the dots are joined up early and that early warning signs are not buried in bureaucracy?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. A specially accredited unit operates at Belfast city hospital, featuring a multidisciplinary team to treat mesh-related problems. If complex removal surgery is required, there is also the option to perform it locally, so we are doing our best in Northern Ireland to address the issue. Even so, advocacy groups such as Sling the Mesh Northern Ireland have expressed concerns over the conflict of interest in requiring the original implanting surgeon to sign off on referrals for outside treatment. All those factors must be taken into consideration, which was the very point my hon. Friend made.

Between 1998 and 2018, some 11,000 vaginal mesh implants were performed in Northern Ireland. Other Department of Health figures indicate that nearly 7,000 procedures occurred between 2005 and 2015 alone. With conservative estimates suggesting that between 5% and 10% of those patients experienced significant problems, the scale of the issue is clear.

For children affected, while the UK-wide estimate is roughly 20,000, specific Northern Ireland figures often have to be extrapolated. Reports for the Republic of Ireland, for instance, estimate that there are some 1,250 children affected there; those significant numbers down south are separate from Northern Ireland figures, but based on similar prescribing patterns. As of 2023, the Patient Safety Commissioner noted that even now, across the UK, an average of three babies a month are born having been exposed to the drug.

I will not take an extra minute for the intervention, Dr Allin-Khan, because I recognise that others need time to speak.

All those people, including the 600 members of Sling the Mesh NI, are awaiting action. On this, the second anniversary of the report, the stagnation of action is not acceptable. I take this opportunity to speak on their behalf, as well as on behalf of my and my hon. Friend’s constituents in Northern Ireland: I ask that we stop waiting and start moving on the compensation, providing help for those who are suffering this very minute, even as this debate takes place.

My request for the Minister is that we hurry the process, so that we in Northern Ireland can fall in behind what happens here in Westminster. Let us not see a third anniversary without fulfilment of the recommendations and of our word in this place.

Puberty Suppressants Trial

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I am very happy to receive further clinical representations on this issue and to hear from experts on it. I hope the public will understand why, on this particular issue, I am not simply led by opinion polling. I have to follow the clinical advice and evidence, particularly given the enormous risks that surround these children and young people, including the risks that weighed on my shoulders and conscience when I denied access to puberty blockers by upholding the temporary ban and then making it permanent.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

It is nigh-on child abuse to give children puberty blockers. This trial will take confused little minds and vulnerable children and place them on a medical pathway with profound, life-altering consequences. Childhood is a time of uncertainty, yet the state is intervening with drugs that many former patients now say they were never even capable of consenting to. How can this Government justify experimenting on children, rather than prioritising safeguarding, evidence and psychological support?

[Wes Streeting]

The hon. Lady has offered a political opinion, not a clinical judgment. By that logic, we would not have any medicine for children and young people; we would never have undertaken clinical trials or studies, because we would have judged that children and young people could not take part in them. That is objectively not a sensible position.

I understand the sensitivity surrounding this issue, and the hon. Lady is right to say that people in our country have received life-changing clinical interventions that they later regretted. As part of that regret, they have shared that they did not feel, at the time, that they were making or could have made an informed decision. That is why this trial is set up in such a way that it has such strong clinical oversight locally as well as nationally. It cannot happen without not just the assent of a young person but the consent of their parent or guardian. Those are important protections and safeguards. I do not share the hon. Lady’s characterisation of the trial.

Sudden Cardiac Death in Young People

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for securing this debate. I believe I saw him with a little person—a little man—in the corridor, so I congratulate him and welcome him to parenthood. When he spoke of Clarissa, as parents we could not help but be moved.

I know this may be a slightly different direction, but many out there are concerned about the increase in the numbers of particularly young people dying from sudden death syndrome, and the potential link to vaccination and covid vaccination. This is not to get controversial, but can the Minister just assure the House that data is being looked at and assessed? The Minister has spoken of labs and technology. Can she give some information to the general public about the Government’s interest in this subject, and assure them that this is being looked at?

[Ashley Dalton]

The hon. Member will know that all vaccines are assessed and are not issued unless they are considered safe. We collect data on conditions and potential impacts right across the medical estate. I have not seen any data that would suggest there is a link to any particular vaccine, but if there is, the data would show us that and it would be considered.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow and I stood on a manifesto to tackle the biggest killers, including cardiovascular disease, to halve the gap in healthy life expectancy between the richest and poorest regions in England, and to reverse the legacy left to us by the previous Government. Through his work with the CRY campaign and everything he said in the Chamber this evening, it is evident that he is staying true to those promises. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) for further highlighting the work of CRY. Any MP who campaigns on prevention is pushing at an open door with this Government. We are shifting the focus of our NHS from sickness to prevention. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow rightly points out, it is a tragedy when young lives are lost to preventable illness. He and others make a powerful case for a national screening programme, so let me address that point head-on.

I fully support a national screening programme, as long as the experts agree that it would do more good than harm. Our National Screening Committee gives advice based on a range of factors and while balancing the pros and cons of screening population level groups, the committee has previously given evidence that introducing mass screening for sudden cardiac death could cause harm by misdiagnosing some people. For example, receiving a false diagnosis could lead to people being prescribed medication they do not need; people undergoing medical procedures they do not need, such as having an implantable defibrillator fitted; and people living in fear of sudden cardiac death when they are not genuinely at risk. However, the committee is currently reviewing the evidence for sudden cardiac death screening and will open a public consultation in early 2026. We will look carefully at the findings of the consultation and I know that the CRY campaign will make its voice heard.

Several Members discussed defibrillators, and their training and use. NHS England runs training sessions on first aid, CPR and the use of defibrillators both in the community and in schools under the Restart a Heart programme. NHS England has trained over 35,800 adults and children in CPR and defibrillator use in the past 13 years, and 2,134 so far this year. NHS England delivers the sessions via its resuscitation team and via its community first responders, and also runs lifesaving skills workshops for harder to reach communities and ethnically diverse groups. It has trained 407 people in lifesaving skills in that group so far this year.

It is important to remember the care and support that loved ones receive when they lose a loved one to sudden cardiac arrest, or when they find out that a family member has an inherited heart condition. NHS England’s service specification sets out how that care should be provided by specialist teams in a way that is tailored to meet the needs of families.

Budget Resolutions

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Despite all the “lines to take” that the Labour Whips have handed their MPs in an attempt to sell the Budget as something positive, the reality is very different. The content of this Budget is deeply damaging to pensioners, employees, employers and the wider economy. This is a Government who, it appears, are making up reasons to take back double or treble. While the rise in pension is welcome, it is not a new policy. Yes, the protection for pensioners’ ISA savings is welcome, but it penalises those who have not yet reached pension age and limits their ability to save. Where do hard-pressed workers get the benefit to invest their money? At the same time, saving into pension schemes has become yet another tax grab.

We have been consistently told of a £20 billion black hole, and for weeks we have been fed the line that it has ballooned into a £50 billion crisis in just one year, but now we hear that there is no black hole at all. The OBR has been keeping both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor updated on a bi-weekly basis in respect of their forecasts. We now know that when the Chancellor and other Labour Ministers were out in the media painting their stories of doom and talking down the situation, creating volatility in the stock market, the Government knew all along that their briefings were inaccurate.

What we have in this Budget penalises those who work. I noted a quote yesterday from the Leader of the Opposition about how a working family needs to earn £71,000 per year to be as well-off as a family of three on benefits. This Budget is a burden on workers, and it is clear that Labour Members are not the friends of workers. For years in opposition, they made great promises to the nation that they would lead, but the reality has been very different, with broken promises and broken manifesto pledges, and they are slowly breaking our country’s workers, who cannot give any more.

Looking closer at the Budget, the increase in the minimum wage is positive in principle, but it will mean little in practice when employers are hit with the double blow of the national insurance rise and higher wage costs. Retailers and other businesses will inevitably raise prices to cover these additional burdens, and perhaps have to make redundancies, wiping out the benefit for many workers.

[Blake Stephenson]

Does the hon. Lady agree that while Labour in government pretends that it is the party of fairness, this Budget is deeply unfair to both her constituents and my own constituents?

[Carla Lockhart]

I thank the hon. Member for his point.

The poorest will become poorer while workers are asked to pay more to support people who come here from overseas and go straight on to benefits, with little incentive to work. The system means it is more lucrative not to work than actually to contribute. It is time that this Government put British citizens, British workers and British employers first. It is time for the Chancellor to get tough on tax avoidance and offer genuine support to the hard-pressed workers who are doing the right thing and paying their way.

Perhaps the most appalling tax grab in this Budget is the attack on our family farms. The announcement making business property relief and agricultural property relief transferable is a meaningless gesture and an insult. The family farm death tax remains fully intact—farmers gain nothing. Across the UK, the picture is grim. The Government seem intent on taxing family farms beyond profitability. It is a tax on death and a tax on tragedy. What can be more immoral? This path will damage agriculture at its core. Farming is the backbone of our nation. Food security is national security. Undermine it, and food prices will rise and we will rely on lower-quality imports at higher cost. There is no good news for farmers in this Budget, and when we vote on that resolution later, I urge Members to do the right thing.

Furthermore, the Budget does nothing to remove the trade barrier separating Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom. The £16.6 million package does not change the reality that businesses still face checks, paperwork, delays and extra costs when trading with Great Britain. If the Government remove the checks, they will save the £16.6 million immediately. We look with some envy at the Department of Government Efficiency in the United States, and wonder why the UK cannot match that level of waste reduction. There are quick, real-time savings available such as to cut excess immigration spending, make work genuinely rewarding, ensure everyone pays the tax they owe, pulp the costly madness of net zero and tackle waste across Government.

This Budget offers presentation rather than substance. It fails workers, employers, farmers, policing, health, hospitality and our taxpayers. There is a clear solution: get tough on immigration, tough on crime and tough on tax evasion, and get our country back to being the envy of the world. That is where we belong.