Infants, Parents and Carers Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Desmond Swayne and Rachael Maskell

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure and a privilege to address the Chair, but particularly so when you are in it, Dame Siobhain. With your permission, I will make one contribution dealing with both groups.

Clause 1 sets out the statutory powers available to the Minister to secure services and functions with respect to

“pregnancy or childbirth…the health and development needs of infants, or…the relationship between parent or carer and infant.”

Although the amendment would amend clause 2, it clearly has implications for clause 1. In substance, it would require consideration of

“the well-being of infants, parents, carers and prospective parents and carers, and…inequalities between infants, parents, carers and prospective parents and carers.”

“Well-being” is defined in the amendment as

“physical, mental and emotional health, and…in respect of infants, protection from harm and neglect.”

My reading of the powers in clause 1 is that they are clearly inclusive of the wellbeing of infants and parents. The wellbeing of infants and parents must fall within

“pregnancy or childbirth…the health and development needs of infants, or…the relationship between parent or carer and infant.”

In that respect, I am confident that the amendment would be consistent with the powers granted in clause 1.

I am not so sure that equalities comes within those three powers set out in clause 1. I fear that the amendment would leave Ministers making an assessment that included health and wellbeing and inequalities, but with no power to address the issue of inequalities in statutory instruments under clause 1. It is a technical matter on which I defer to the Minister, but that is my take on it.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I bring greater clarity? Discussion of the wellbeing of prospective parents or carers could include their wellbeing pre-conception, as I will argue later. In that case, a technical amendment may be needed to the definition in clause 1(2).

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

That is a fair point and undoubtedly a matter for debate. The clause sets out that regulatory powers are to be made by a statutory instrument under the affirmative procedure.

Clause 2 sets out the requirement for an assessment and a consultation within that assessment. Amendment 1 would explicitly add the need for health and wellbeing and inequalities to be included in the assessment. I believe that the assessment of need implicitly includes those things—as it should; these are important matters. My argument is that they are implicitly there already. However, it is important that the Minister, when making her assessment, should look beyond demand to how babies and families are faring, especially those that are at risk of doing poorly.

I can entirely understand the desire to make explicit that which is implicit in the Bill. After all, if the Bill is doing it anyway, what danger is there of adding an explicit requirement—belt and braces? The difficulty as I see it is that that opens it up to danger on Report, when Members might seek to explicitly add other things that are implicit in the Bill. I have received a number of suggested amendments from organisations representing different aspects of childcare in infancy and pregnancy, which state things that could be added explicitly but that I believe are clearly implicit in the powers the Bill gives to Ministers. That is why I resist the amendment.

Clause 3 covers the exercise of functions that ensure the appropriate level of provision. Having made an assessment, the Minister must then make appropriate levels of provision to meet those needs. That concludes my assessment of the first group.

Clause 4 concerns the annual reporting power and the laying of a report on provisions and outcomes before Parliament. Clause 5 is about the interpretation of various terms—what we mean by “infant”, “parent”, or “prospective parent or carer”. Clause 6 defines the short title of the Act and sets out the rules for commencement.

I commend these clauses to the Committee, but ask that amendment 1 be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

We are indebted to the right hon. Member for New Forest West for introducing the Bill, and for all the work he has done on this issue. I will start by focusing my contribution on clause 4(2)(b), on which this debate hinges. It looks at inputs into the services and then outcomes with respect to matters mentioned earlier in the Bill. We are talking about fine lines and distinctions, but they are incredibly important.

In my intervention, I talked about the need for outcomes. If we are serious about achieving equality in outcomes, we cannot simply start at the point of pregnancy or childbirth, as set out in the Bill, or the point at which someone becomes a prospective parent, as set out in the amendment. A prospective parent means someone who expects to become a parent as a result of a current pregnancy or someone who expects to become the parent or carer of an infant already born.

I raise this issue because taking a public health approach to pregnancy means acknowledging that many of the factors that impact on outcomes are determined preconception. One clear example is the exposure of infants to fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Around 77% of parents at the point of conception have used alcohol, exposing the foetus to risk of developing FASD. The trajectory through pregnancy and beyond of that infant has therefore been impacted by what happened in preconception.

If we are serious about the outcomes as set out and addressing the inequalities, we cannot simply start at the point of conception because we would miss a huge opportunity to change the outcomes for those infants and address these issues. Given that children with FASD are now more prevalent than children on the autism spectrum, we must recognise the impact that focusing on preconception can have in ensuring that parents have support.

I spoke to my local director of public health just yesterday. As one might expect, he raised issues around smoking cessation, mental health, exercise and diet. Ensuring that women are healthy at the point at which they conceive means that their pregnancy will carry in a safer environment. If we are serious about addressing the inequalities, we must consider the opportunity provided by this amendment. There is some conflict, and that is why it is important to consider that through the earliest of years.

I also want to raise the factors that can have a real impact. Can the right hon. Member for New Forest West assure me that we are talking not just about physical, mental and emotional health, but environmental health? That would be an important public health intervention. I cannot count the times I have had to support pregnant women because they are in appalling housing conditions, which can cause real stress and anxiety throughout the pregnancy. That can lead to poorer outcomes.

It is important, when considering the Bill, that we are look holistically at women’s surroundings and make sure they have the support they need.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

I am confident that the needs of infants, parents and babies, from conception onwards, would clearly include healthy housing and all those provisions. In my view, that will be implicit in the Minister’s assessment of the needs. If we start being explicit about all these things, the danger is that we would have a very long Bill and a prolonged Report stage.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for his clarity. I hope that airing the issue in this debate will ensure that we measure the elements and secure the right environments.

A further issue that is particularly important to me, as chair of the APPG on adoption and permanence, is that of children at risk. We know that if early interventions are made to support parents through a pregnancy, we can diminish the risk of a child being taken into the care system. I spoke to our director of midwifery about the distress caused to midwives by trying to support a distressed mother as her child is removed. Reducing the risk of that happening is important.

Information sharing between health services and local authorities is absolutely crucial for interventions to be made to try to secure the relationship between the child and their parents, and for reducing the risk of a child being removed at birth or in the early days after it. I recognise that, in the lone local authority in my constituency, much is done to secure family bonds at the point the baby is born, but it is important that interventions are made during pregnancy to reduce the risk of a child being removed. The issue often stems from inequalities, so being able to measure them is incredibly important.

My final two key points look at input under clause 4(2). We know that the issue of workforce has been incredibly difficult to address at times, because we do not have a comprehensive workforce plan for the multi-agency teams involved in work around an infant. I therefore propose that the Minister consider creating an integrated, multi-agency workforce plan for the 1,001 critical day period to ensure real integration of service. That would also ensure that we do not see a workforce deficit, because clearly, not having the workforce there would have a huge impact on outcomes, particularly for more vulnerable families.

On how the report will be produced under clause 4, we need a pathway within the measurement, as it is important that parents and carers with lived experience have agency and voice in its formulation. I would appreciate the Minister commenting on that in her remarks, because we have demonstrated in York that when parents and carers are involved in providing feedback, services improve.

Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

Debate between Desmond Swayne and Rachael Maskell

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure and a privilege to address the Chair, but particularly so when you are in it, Dame Siobhain. With your permission, I will make one contribution dealing with both groups.

Clause 1 sets out the statutory powers available to the Minister to secure services and functions with respect to

“pregnancy or childbirth…the health and development needs of infants, or…the relationship between parent or carer and infant.”

Although the amendment would amend clause 2, it clearly has implications for clause 1. In substance, it would require consideration of

“the well-being of infants, parents, carers and prospective parents and carers, and…inequalities between infants, parents, carers and prospective parents and carers.”

“Well-being” is defined in the amendment as

“physical, mental and emotional health, and…in respect of infants, protection from harm and neglect.”

My reading of the powers in clause 1 is that they are clearly inclusive of the wellbeing of infants and parents. The wellbeing of infants and parents must fall within

“pregnancy or childbirth…the health and development needs of infants, or…the relationship between parent or carer and infant.”

In that respect, I am confident that the amendment would be consistent with the powers granted in clause 1.

I am not so sure that equalities comes within those three powers set out in clause 1. I fear that the amendment would leave Ministers making an assessment that included health and wellbeing and inequalities, but with no power to address the issue of inequalities in statutory instruments under clause 1. It is a technical matter on which I defer to the Minister, but that is my take on it.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I bring greater clarity? Discussion of the wellbeing of prospective parents or carers could include their wellbeing pre-conception, as I will argue later. In that case, a technical amendment may be needed to the definition in clause 1(2).

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

That is a fair point and undoubtedly a matter for debate. The clause sets out that regulatory powers are to be made by a statutory instrument under the affirmative procedure.

Clause 2 sets out the requirement for an assessment and a consultation within that assessment. Amendment 1 would explicitly add the need for health and wellbeing and inequalities to be included in the assessment. I believe that the assessment of need implicitly includes those things—as it should; these are important matters. My argument is that they are implicitly there already. However, it is important that the Minister, when making her assessment, should look beyond demand to how babies and families are faring, especially those that are at risk of doing poorly.

I can entirely understand the desire to make explicit that which is implicit in the Bill. After all, if the Bill is doing it anyway, what danger is there of adding an explicit requirement—belt and braces? The difficulty as I see it is that that opens it up to danger on Report, when Members might seek to explicitly add other things that are implicit in the Bill. I have received a number of suggested amendments from organisations representing different aspects of childcare in infancy and pregnancy, which state things that could be added explicitly but that I believe are clearly implicit in the powers the Bill gives to Ministers. That is why I resist the amendment.

Clause 3 covers the exercise of functions that ensure the appropriate level of provision. Having made an assessment, the Minister must then make appropriate levels of provision to meet those needs. That concludes my assessment of the first group.

Clause 4 concerns the annual reporting power and the laying of a report on provisions and outcomes before Parliament. Clause 5 is about the interpretation of various terms—what we mean by “infant”, “parent”, or “prospective parent or carer”. Clause 6 defines the short title of the Act and sets out the rules for commencement.

I commend these clauses to the Committee, but ask that amendment 1 be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

We are indebted to the right hon. Member for New Forest West for introducing the Bill, and for all the work he has done on this issue. I will start by focusing my contribution on clause 4(2)(b), on which this debate hinges. It looks at inputs into the services and then outcomes with respect to matters mentioned earlier in the Bill. We are talking about fine lines and distinctions, but they are incredibly important.

In my intervention, I talked about the need for outcomes. If we are serious about achieving equality in outcomes, we cannot simply start at the point of pregnancy or childbirth, as set out in the Bill, or the point at which someone becomes a prospective parent, as set out in the amendment. A prospective parent means someone who expects to become a parent as a result of a current pregnancy or someone who expects to become the parent or carer of an infant already born.

I raise this issue because taking a public health approach to pregnancy means acknowledging that many of the factors that impact on outcomes are determined preconception. One clear example is the exposure of infants to fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Around 77% of parents at the point of conception have used alcohol, exposing the foetus to risk of developing FASD. The trajectory through pregnancy and beyond of that infant has therefore been impacted by what happened in preconception.

If we are serious about the outcomes as set out and addressing the inequalities, we cannot simply start at the point of conception because we would miss a huge opportunity to change the outcomes for those infants and address these issues. Given that children with FASD are now more prevalent than children on the autism spectrum, we must recognise the impact that focusing on preconception can have in ensuring that parents have support.

I spoke to my local director of public health just yesterday. As one might expect, he raised issues around smoking cessation, mental health, exercise and diet. Ensuring that women are healthy at the point at which they conceive means that their pregnancy will carry in a safer environment. If we are serious about addressing the inequalities, we must consider the opportunity provided by this amendment. There is some conflict, and that is why it is important to consider that through the earliest of years.

I also want to raise the factors that can have a real impact. Can the right hon. Member for New Forest West assure me that we are talking not just about physical, mental and emotional health, but environmental health? That would be an important public health intervention. I cannot count the times I have had to support pregnant women because they are in appalling housing conditions, which can cause real stress and anxiety throughout the pregnancy. That can lead to poorer outcomes.

It is important, when considering the Bill, that we are look holistically at women’s surroundings and make sure they have the support they need.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

I am confident that the needs of infants, parents and babies, from conception onwards, would clearly include healthy housing and all those provisions. In my view, that will be implicit in the Minister’s assessment of the needs. If we start being explicit about all these things, the danger is that we would have a very long Bill and a prolonged Report stage.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for his clarity. I hope that airing the issue in this debate will ensure that we measure the elements and secure the right environments.

A further issue that is particularly important to me, as chair of the APPG on adoption and permanence, is that of children at risk. We know that if early interventions are made to support parents through a pregnancy, we can diminish the risk of a child being taken into the care system. I spoke to our director of midwifery about the distress caused to midwives by trying to support a distressed mother as her child is removed. Reducing the risk of that happening is important.

Information sharing between health services and local authorities is absolutely crucial for interventions to be made to try to secure the relationship between the child and their parents, and for reducing the risk of a child being removed at birth or in the early days after it. I recognise that, in the lone local authority in my constituency, much is done to secure family bonds at the point the baby is born, but it is important that interventions are made during pregnancy to reduce the risk of a child being removed. The issue often stems from inequalities, so being able to measure them is incredibly important.

My final two key points look at input under clause 4(2). We know that the issue of workforce has been incredibly difficult to address at times, because we do not have a comprehensive workforce plan for the multi-agency teams involved in work around an infant. I therefore propose that the Minister consider creating an integrated, multi-agency workforce plan for the 1,001 critical day period to ensure real integration of service. That would also ensure that we do not see a workforce deficit, because clearly, not having the workforce there would have a huge impact on outcomes, particularly for more vulnerable families.

On how the report will be produced under clause 4, we need a pathway within the measurement, as it is important that parents and carers with lived experience have agency and voice in its formulation. I would appreciate the Minister commenting on that in her remarks, because we have demonstrated in York that when parents and carers are involved in providing feedback, services improve.