NHS Corridor Care

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I thank the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) for securing this incredibly important debate.

I have heard from literally dozens of my constituents about why this issue is so important. They have told me their individual stories about elderly relatives stuck in corridors and the terrible effect that has had on their treatment, care and health outcomes. I have heard from staff in my local hospitals, who have shared exactly the same concerns about the conditions in which they are forced to work.

Patients tell me universally how proud they are of the NHS and how much they value the incredible care they get at the hands of the people who keep it going, but they also tell me universally that corridor care is shameful and should not continue. I recently raised this matter directly with the chief executive of my local hospital, Hereford hospital, in our regular catch-up, and was delighted to hear that Hereford is not just aiming to meet the Government’s target of ending corridor care by 2029, but that locally, we have a target of ending corridor care by this autumn. I am really pleased that this is being prioritised so much locally, and I will be keeping a careful eye out to ensure that that happens.

I want to raise a particular issue that has been touched on by many colleagues across the House this afternoon, which is the integral relationship between the NHS—what happens in our hospitals—and the social care system. We simply cannot fix the problem of corridor care unless we fix the problem of social care. For too many years—for decades, in fact—social care has been a political football kicked down the road by Governments of all stripes because it is difficult, but we have to grasp this nettle. We simply cannot fix the NHS unless we fix social care. Lord Darzi said exactly that himself.

Sadly, however, we have not given the necessary attention to fixing social care. Yes, we have the Casey commission, which I value very much. I am very pleased with the work that has been done by Baroness Casey, but insufficient political effort is being put into this issue. It took nine months for us to have the first cross-party meeting that the previous Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said he was going to call, and we have only recently had the second. We must put our shoulders to the wheel collectively to fix the challenges of social care and to have the difficult conversations about how we will fund it, because it does need funding; we do need those political conversations, and we need to find consensus. Unless we address the issues at the back door, too many people will be stuck in hospital when they would be better cared for elsewhere—better for them and their health; better for the national budget, because it would be cheaper; and better for our overall outcomes. It is shocking to learn that the Royal College of Emergency Medicine calculates that there were 15,000 excess deaths last year because of corridor care. That should not happen in our country today.

I urge the Minister and her colleagues as strongly as possible to give the same attention to fixing social care as to fixing the NHS. Let every Member put in that effort too. It is notable that at Health and Social Care questions there is usually one question on social care and 19 on health. We must redress the balance collectively, put in the focus to fix social care, and thereby fix corridor care.

National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is an incredibly powerful advocate on the issue of the discrimination that disabled mothers face in the health service, but particularly in maternity services. She has spoken about both the discrimination and the barriers to accessing care; she is right to say that those barriers are wide and systemic, and that needs to be addressed as part of the comprehensive action plan. I would be very happy for myself or a member of my ministerial team to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this issue in more detail.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I welcome Baroness Amos’s investigation, which has shone a light on the fact that these failings in maternity services are not isolated to one hospital or another, but exist across the piece. The Secretary of State rightly identifies that culture is at the centre of this issue, and that we must listen to the voices of women and of whistleblowers. That applies not just to maternity services, but across the NHS and, indeed, in public life more widely.

The Secretary of State has spoken about accountability starting from the top, but I noticed that he swerved the question about whether he would come back to the House to report on progress against the goals he has set himself. It is shocking and shameful that black women are three times more likely than white women to die in maternity. Will he commit to coming back to the Chamber, reporting and holding himself to account on changing those racial disparities and ensuring true equity in healthcare?

[James Murray]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady that I, as Secretary of State, must be held to account, and that is the role of this House. I will take that away and work out the best way of making sure that that happens, on a basis and to a timetable that people can understand, because I would like to make sure that I am held to account for delivering the whole action plan in the right way. I will take that point away and come back to the hon. Lady with an update.

Diethylstilbestrol: Intergenerational Impact

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jessica Toale]

It was a pleasure to meet Heather today, along with all the other campaigners. I thank them all for having shown such strength in coming forward to share their stories.

One of the cruellest impacts of DES, which sets it apart from other medical scandals, is that its consequences do not stop with the women who were prescribed it or their immediate children. There is growing evidence of intergenerational impacts affecting grandchildren, and possibly beyond. We do not yet know how far those consequences reach. That uncertainty is part of the harm that the families face.

Research suggests that women who took DES during pregnancy—the DES mothers—may face around a 30% higher chance of breast cancer. Female babies exposed in the womb—DES daughters—have around 40 times the risk of developing clear cell adenocarcinoma of the vagina and cervix. They also face increased risks of reproductive complications, including infertility, ectopic pregnancies, premature births and a range of other conditions and complications that we are learning about all the time.

Clare, who is in the Gallery today, described being robbed of her fertility and suffering ovarian failure, and later developing an autoimmune inflammatory condition. At the age of 18, Juliette, who is also with us, was rushed to A&E with severe haemorrhaging after a reaction to the contraceptive pill, and she has stage 4 endometriosis. Anne-Marie, who is also with us, was taken off the pill due to stroke risk and has described being housebound due to the gynaecological issues she has faced. Many of them describe managing complex hormonal challenges and, later in life, debilitating menopausal symptoms. That is a common experience for a lot of these women.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this really important debate. One of my constituents, who is a DES daughter, came to see me, and she reported that her mother’s health records were lost when her GP moved back in the 1970s. Does the hon. Member share my concern that a key issue here is that the lack of effective recordkeeping and the loss or destruction of records over time make it harder and harder to trace causal effects? Does she agree that we want to hear from the Minister what allowances will be made for this record-keeping issue in addressing the long-term impacts of DES on those daughters and grandchildren?

[Jessica Toale]

Of course. Recordkeeping is one of the issues we face as a campaign group. I know the Department of Health and Social Care is looking at that, and I will come on to that issue later in my remarks.

Limited studies have been done on DES sons, but they suggest that these men face an increased risk of genital abnormalities and infertility. In May 2026, Maxwell Samuda became the first man to speak out openly about the effects of the scandal on him and his family, and I pay tribute to him. There are serious, unresolved questions about the second and third generations—the grandchildren. That is important, because this is not history or a scandal of the past; it is live and a continuing injustice to these women and their families.

People affected by DES are still living with the consequences today. Some are discovering later in life that health problems they have endured for decades may be connected to a drug that their mother took and was prescribed before they were born. Those who suspect DES exposure often find that doctors, clinicians and the wider health system have little or no awareness of it. That really matters, because for too many DES survivors, the harm has been compounded by the disbelief that they face. They have been told that their symptoms are unrelated and not to worry. They have been sent away, ignored, dismissed or left to piece the evidence together for themselves. Anne-Marie, who is here today, said that she had to buy her own medical encyclopaedia just to find out what was wrong with her.

Sadly, that is part of a much wider pattern that we see in women’s health, which has been poorly understood for generations and continues to be poorly understood today. Women’s pain is too often minimised. Their symptoms are normalised or ignored. Reproductive health is often treated as something that is niche, too complicated, embarrassing or somehow secondary, and it is not given the seriousness that it deserves. Women are not listened to and their concerns are dismissed until the evidence is too impossible to ignore. The history and present experience of DES is part of that wider system and failure, and, even now, we do not have the systems in place to properly support those affected.

One of the most worrying examples of that is in screening. Current routine smear testing for cervical cancer is designed primarily to deal with and detect changes linked to HPV. It does not reliably detect clear cell adenocarcinoma—the rare cancer associated with DES exposure. That means many DES daughters may believe that they are being adequately screened, but in fact the very cancers for which they have an increased risk will not be picked up through the standard process. Crucially, they need access to advanced screening for a much longer span of years than most women do.

A truly heartbreaking experience of that was the experience of Charly, who is in the Gallery today. She is a DES daughter and was diagnosed with clear cell adenocarcinoma in her cervix and uterus at the age of eight; she was given a hysterectomy at the age of nine. We know that standard breast cancer screening does not pick things up and is not adequate for women who face DES exposure.

Many women bear not only the emotional burden of uncertainty because of DES, but a financial burden, self-funding annual scans as a precautionary measure and undertaking fertility treatments. Today, in the meeting with the Minister, Juliette described the range of tests she undergoes every year at large personal expense and the lack of fairness for people who cannot afford to do so. That is unacceptable, which is why targeted screening and specialist monitoring for those at risk is so important. People who are affected need accurate information, proper care, and the chance of early diagnosis.

When I first heard Jan’s story, I had to act, and as a nation, we have a unique responsibility to act.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has submitted that expression of interest. We are now assessing proposals against criteria that include: a fit with our national neighbourhood health strategy; sound estate planning; deliverability; sustainability; and, critically, local need. We will be prioritising areas where there is low life expectancy and higher deprivation. I would be delighted to meet him to talk about his expression of interest and about our programme for revolutionising care in our country through the shift from hospital to community.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Unpaid carers play a crucial role in supporting so many people who need to draw on social care, thereby supporting our health service and our formal social care system, but they tell me that they are under immense strain and need more support. They are, of course, more likely to be women and to be older. Does the Minister recognise the urgent need for more respite care for unpaid carers, and will he take action to provide it now, rather than waiting a few years for the Casey commission?

[Stephen Kinnock]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that unpaid carers are the lifeblood of our care system, and we pay tribute to them for the compassion that they show. I was very pleased yesterday to accompany the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), to the launch of the new paid carer’s leave consultation document. I am also pleased to chair the cross-ministerial group that will produce an action plan for unpaid carers, addressing exactly the issues that the hon. Lady mentioned about respite care.

Unpaid Carers: Inequalities

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I warmly thank the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) for securing this vital debate to mark Carers Rights Day, and indeed everybody else who has spoken from the heart and made such important points. We all recognise that the care system is in crisis, and that unpaid carers play an essential role in supporting people who need care.

I welcome the fact that the Casey Commission, which has been mentioned already, is working—although, I suggest, perhaps not as fast as it needs to be. I am deeply concerned by the Government’s proposal that it should not report for another few years, because resolving the care crisis is a matter of urgency and political will. I am honoured to be the Green party representative on the cross-party talks; I would like those talks to be convened more frequently and to operate much faster, but in the meantime I look forward to welcoming the Casey Commission to my constituency next month as part of its evidence-gathering process.

I am currently engaged in a wide public consultation exercise, running a survey and holding listening exercises in my constituency. My team are visiting various care settings to gather people’s input. I will share the story of one constituent who contacted me a few days ago. She moved to North Herefordshire in 2022 from more than 100 miles away to care for her mother, who was elderly and declining. She left her entire life, moved in with her mum and got a part-time job at a much lower salary than she was used to in order to support her mother, who earlier this year was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s and vascular dementia.

My constituent was put in the position of going out to earn £12.21 per hour while paying £20 an hour for somebody to come and look after her mother. She put in an application in early April for carer’s allowance to support the costs of a paid carer, who enables her to keep doing her part-time job, but it was refused. She contacted the DWP in July: the Department said that a mistake might have been made and she was due a mandatory reconsideration. She chased the matter up again but, seven months after her initial request, she has still not had a response. She says that carer’s allowance is too little and takes too long, and that the criteria are far too limited—I could not agree more.

I leave the Minister with my constituent’s words:

“I don’t want to financially benefit from caring for my mum. I just don’t want to be pushed into poverty while I keep her out of hospital and out of a care home.”

She cares for her mum 24/7. When worked out by the number of hours, carer’s allowance is about 55p per hour, because it covers nighttime care as well as daytime care. Surely the least that unpaid carers deserve from us is a benefit system—a carer’s allowance system—that supports, recognises and works with them, enabling them to provide the vital care that keeps those people who need it out of hospital and care homes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Bennett]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s excellent point. It is regrettable that there seems to be only one person that the Government like to call on to do very important work across a number of different areas.

[Dr Chowns]

The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) make very good points. I gently point out to the Government that it is not Baroness Casey’s job to convene cross-party talks. Political leadership is needed, and it should come from the Health Secretary himself. We do not need to wait for Baroness Casey to bring all the parties together—the Government need to do that.

[Alison Bennett]

I agree with the hon. Lady’s comments.

Unpaid carers, who are the focus of Carers Rights Day, do remarkable, difficult and emotionally demanding work every single day. They do it out of love, without recognition and, too often, without the support or rights that they deserve or should have access to.

As the spokesperson on care and carers for my party, this is something I say a lot, but it bears repeating: unpaid carers are the backbone of Britain’s care system. There are 5.7 million carers across the UK, and together they provide care worth an estimated £162 billion every year—almost the size of the entire NHS budget. For that to be the case, however, they make huge sacrifices. Every single day, 600 people leave their job to care for someone they love. If carers are expected to shoulder that vast responsibility, they must have rights. Those rights must be well known and easy to access, and must make a meaningful difference to carers’ lives. Today is about making sure people know and use their rights.

I am proud that my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife changed the law with her Carer’s Leave Act 2023, which secured the right to unpaid time off work for carers. That legislation was an enormous step forward for the almost 2 million employees who balance work and caring responsibilities. I am also proud that Liberal Democrat campaigning helped to secure an increase in the carer’s allowance earnings limit in last year’s Budget, easing pressure on people who want to remain in work while caring. I recently tabled the Unpaid Carers (Respite and Support) Bill, which would guarantee regular respite breaks for unpaid carers—something that is not readily accessible across the country.

There is much more to do, however, and unpaid carers face inequalities on all fronts. On gender, women become carers earlier and more frequently than men, are more likely to provide care and more likely to work in part-time and lower-paid roles. On employment, carers face barriers to remaining in paid work, with large numbers reducing their hours or leaving their jobs. On health and wellbeing, caring drives significant and preventable health inequalities, with high rates of long-term conditions, worsening physical and mental health, difficulty accessing support, and greater impacts for women and those providing the most hours.

On poverty, there are currently 1.2 million unpaid carers in poverty and 400,000 in deep poverty, who struggle financially due to low carer’s allowance, a reduced ability to work and a complex benefits system. Young carers face substantial disadvantages in terms of education and future opportunities. Those spending more than 35 hours a week caring are far less likely to gain a degree or enter employment. That is why the Liberal Democrats want unpaid carers to have real financial support, including an increase of £20 a week in the carer’s allowance to bring it to £103.30. In next week’s Budget, should the Chancellor be minded to increase the minimum wage, I sincerely hope that carer’s allowance will be pegged to that increase.

We also want a review of the requirement of 35 hours’ care per week, which too often forces carers to make impossible choices. Critically, we want a taper on the earnings limit so that, if a carer’s earnings go above the limit even by a few pence, they do not immediately lose all their carer’s allowance. That is plain common sense. It is precisely because there is no such taper that the carer’s allowance overpayment scandal has been allowed to happen, with horrendous consequences for thousands of carers.

Carers deserve better. They deserve respect, they deserve support and they deserve rights that they can rely on and easily exercise. Carers Rights Day reminds us that rights are powerful only if people know they have them and feel able to use them. Too many carers do not know what they are entitled to; too many assume that support is not for them and too many are simply too overwhelmed to navigate unnecessarily complicated systems. That is why fantastic organisations such as Carers UK and Carers Trust are vital. They look out and speak up for these extraordinary carers to whom we owe so much.

On this Carers Rights Day, I close by echoing the words of the Princess of Wales, who urged us this week to restore

“the dignity to the quiet, often invisible work of caring…as we look to build a happier, healthier society.”

NHS 10-Year Plan

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support. Given his expertise, it means a lot. I am especially grateful to the GPs in his constituency with whom he and I spent time; that experience really had an impact on my thinking about neighbourhood health.

On cancer, I am happy to look at the issue he raises with the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton). We want to get this right. Cancer alliances have played a valuable role, and we want to see that approach to joined-up working between research, diagnostics and treatment go from strength to strength, so I will happily pick that up.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

In the constructive spirit that has characterised much of this discussion, I welcome much of what the Secretary of State has announced today: bringing care closer to people in their homes, investing more in prevention—it is all good stuff. But there seems to be a missed opportunity here. In the 143 pages of this document, there is virtually no mention of social care. Lord Darzi told us last year that we cannot fix the NHS without fixing social care. Six months ago today, the Secretary of State promised cross-party talks and urgent work on the Casey commission, but the commission is delayed and the cross-party talks have never materialised. Will the Secretary of State please treat the care crisis with the urgency it deserves and bring forward that work, so that we can build the necessary cross-party consensus to fix the care crisis?

[Wes Streeting]

First, I thank the hon. Member for the Green party’s support for so much of the 10-year plan. She is right to highlight the importance of social care to resolving the NHS crisis. Let me reassure her that we are acting urgently as we await the first report of the Casey commission. The Chancellor did that with the Budget and the spending review, providing £4 billion more of investment. We have done that with the biggest increase in carer’s allowance since the 1970s, and with the disabled facilities grant, which does not just mean more ramps and home adaptations but more freedom, more dignity and more independence for disabled people. The Deputy Prime Minister and I will shortly set out how we will deliver fair pay agreements, and social care will absolutely be part of the neighbourhood health team. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member.

Let me also reassure parties across the House that we will wait for the Casey commission to launch. I would like to be able to proceed with the actions we will be taking in this Parliament and, crucially, with the long-term plan for social care in a cross-party way, to build that genuine national consensus—I would be delighted to achieve that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. The role that midwives play, alongside other community health services such as district nurses, has been chronically underfunded and neglected over the past 14 years. She will be pleased to know that the role of community healthcare is front and centre in our 10-year plan, and I think she will be interested in and pleased with what she sees when that plan is published.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

The Darzi report pointed out that 13% of hospital beds are occupied by people who are fit for discharge but who cannot get out because social care is broken. Lord Darzi said that we cannot fix the NHS until we fix social care. It is nearly six months since the Secretary of State promised cross-party talks and a commission, but the talks were cancelled and never rescheduled and the commission is delayed. Please, when will the Government stop going slow on social care? Please, when can we all get around the table to talk about fixing social care so that everyone gets the care they deserve?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I have to correct the hon. Lady: the commission is up and running, Baroness Casey has started meetings and she had a roundtable just a few weeks ago with people who have lived experience. The hon. Lady is therefore not correct on that point and I am sure that she will want to correct the record.

On the point about delayed discharge, the hon. Lady is absolutely right. We are reforming the better care fund to get much better interface between hospitals, care and local authorities. That system and those relationships can and should work much better, but there are pressing, long-term challenges. We are conscious of that and are working at pace with Baroness Casey to ensure that those reforms are delivered.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 13th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I rise to speak in support of new clauses 13 to 15, tabled by the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), to support amendments 94 and 95, and to oppose amendment 42. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Spen Valley for her compassionate leadership and immense hard work, to the Members of all views who served on the Bill Committee for their thoughtful and hard work, and to those who have worked behind the scenes to scrutinise the Bill and contribute to the debate.

I thank all the constituents who have been in touch with all of us. I am sure that, like me, hon. Members have carefully reflected on those contributions and taken them into account. It is clear that the status quo is not acceptable. That is why it is right that we have this legislation before us, and that we are scrutinising it so carefully and looking at it in such immense detail.

Turning to new clause 13, regarding the regulation of substances for use in assisted dying, those substances obviously have to be properly regulated, although it is equally obvious that they cannot be subject to conventional clinical trials in the same way as other medicines, which is why the proposal to make that process go through the MHRA is inappropriate. The regulations provided for in new clause 13 will ensure that that critical part of the process is carried out with the highest possible level of scrutiny and harm prevention. It is essential that there is transparency and assurance of the process, from manufacture all the way through to administration, which is what new clause 13 does.

[Ms Billington]

I am interested in what the hon. Lady says about the safety of those drugs. Does any adverse event data exist globally to quantify how much harm and suffering could be caused while inducing the dying process?

[Ellie Chowns]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that issue and giving me the opportunity to speak about the detailed evidence given by my constituent Emeritus Professor Sam Ahmedzai, with whom I spoke at length yesterday about precisely this detail. I have reviewed a number of tables of data about this. Any substance has side effects but, as the comments made today have indicated, in reality those substances are being held to a far higher standard than substances routinely used in palliative care.

We have to recognise that there is a huge amount of evidence about the efficacy of the substances that are talked about in relation to assisted dying. There is a huge amount of published, peer-reviewed evidence about the effectiveness of those substances, and people like Professor Ahmedzai, who has 40 years of experience and is a global expert in this area, point out that we know how to assist people to have a peaceful, compassionate death effectively, and that is what the Bill is about: helping people who are terminally ill to die with dignity and to face those final moments with the support, love and care of their family around them; not in agony, but in whatever degree of peace is possible when facing death.

As the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) said, new clause 14, which relates to advertising, has been developed in consultation, as a result of concerns raised by opponents to the Bill, to try to ensure the crucial fact that assisted dying is not an advertised service. There is a crucial distinction between advertising and information, and this new clause will ensure that assisted dying remains a careful, clinical process and not something that would be promoted commercially. It is a balanced, cross-party safeguard supported by people on all sides of this debate.

[Jonathan Davies]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ellie Chowns]

I am very short of time, so I think I had better continue.

Turning to new clause 15, which relates to the role of coroners, if the Bill is passed, assisted dying would be a very strictly regulated process—the choice of an individual; not a death caused by others, but by the individual themselves. As Aneez Esmail has pointed out, this would be the most scrutinised type of death in the country, and it therefore makes no sense to require another legal process at the end when there have already been multiple layers of scrutiny before the death.

[Dr Opher]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ellie Chowns]

I am so sorry, but we are very short of time.

New clause 15 is a compassionate and practical clause. There are strong safeguards already in place, and requiring a coroner’s inquest would go against the spirit of compassion that should be driving us all.

I will briefly turn to amendment 42, tabled by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), which would remove the backstop commencement. Essentially, the amendment would leave it in the hands of the Secretary of State to decide when, or if, the Bill comes into effect. That would go against the will of the House. If the House passes this Bill, it is perfectly reasonable and workable for the detail of it to be worked out within the next four years. We have already doubled the length of time allowed for that to happen. Amendment 42 is effectively a wrecking amendment that seeks to kick the Bill into the long grass. [Interruption.] That would be its effect.

To conclude, I will briefly address the misconception that seems to have informed some of the comments I have heard in today’s debate, which is the assumption that families would want to pressure family members to die quicker. My mum is a specialist palliative care social worker, and she has told me that in all her years of practice she has never experienced that happening. It is the other way around.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Ellie Chowns]

I am sorry, but I am concluding. We are each speaking from our own experience and from the heart.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The hon. Lady has made it clear that she is not taking interventions at this time.

[Ellie Chowns]

The evidence shows that it is dying people themselves, facing the end of life, who wish to have the choice. Only small numbers of them will take up that choice, but it is crucial, humane and compassionate for us to offer them the choice. Assisted dying is complementary to palliative care, not contradictory, and this Bill has been through a huge amount of scrutiny—far more than any other Bill in this Session. Therefore, I deeply hope that the House will pass this compassionate, humane, clearly drafted and tightly structured Bill, to offer a dignified death to those who are facing death.

[Patricia Ferguson]

I rise to speak to my amendment 13, which concerns the appointment of the voluntary assisted dying commissioner. In Committee, it was decided that the Prime Minister would appoint the voluntary assisted dying commissioner, and that the appointee would serve for five years and be responsible for appointing the assisted dying review panels. The commissioner would also oversee the training of panel members, give them guidance on the procedures to be used and, crucially, decide when a case that a panel has refused should be referred to another panel for reconsideration. According to the Bill, the commissioner will not be acting as a judge, but they must be a current or former senior judge of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal or High Court. However, they are not required to have any expertise in medicine or healthcare.

Importantly, following our considerations in Committee, the Bill no longer requires that the chief medical officer be responsible for monitoring whether or not the assisted dying regime complies with the law. That responsibility has now been transferred to the voluntary assisted dying commissioner, so the person in charge of overseeing the process and setting up the panels will also be the person deciding whether the Act is being administered correctly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

I give way to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire as I cited her.

[Ellie Chowns]

I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has misrepresented what I said. I was contributing an observation from somebody who has been deeply involved in palliative care practice, who reports that it is far more frequent that the dying person wishes to die, while it is their family who are pressuring them and encouraging them to stay alive as long as possible. The fears about coercion appear to be worry about something that is not actually the case in these cases of dying people.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am afraid that I disagree. There are numerous cases where people will be encouraged, and perhaps even forced, to take a decision, when they are coping with illness and at their most vulnerable—when they are frightened, doubtful and distressed, and may be unbalanced. Of course we have to protect against that eventuality if the Bill is to be passed.

Spending Review: Health and Social Care

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming the Government’s investment in the health service. She has been such a strong campaigner for Shotley Bridge, and it has been a pleasure to work with her; I know she has continued to advocate strongly on behalf of her local population. The hospital is needed, but as she knows, in her community—and all our communities—patients should not always be expected to travel to hospital for care that can be delivered closer to home. We see massive improvements in virtual care and technology, which is why we have announced a £10 billion increase for technology over the spending review period. We are improving the NHS app and ensuring that people are enabled to do more digitally, but I recognise that does not suit everybody, so we will ensure that parallel processes are available for everybody. Our constituents deserve and need care closer to home, and want more of it.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

More money for the NHS is of course welcome, although if we in the Green party had our way, it would be raised by taxing extreme wealth fairly, rather than by taxing work. The small amounts of money for social care announced in the spending review are nowhere close to the funding needed to tackle the social care crisis, and the burden is put on local authorities. In the Minister’s Department, there is a reduction in the revenue budget for social care and public health. When will her Government stop going slow on social care? When will they hold the long-promised and much-delayed cross-party talks? When will they recognise, as Lord Darzi has said, that we cannot fix the NHS without fixing social care? A truly joined-up approach to health and social care is long overdue.

[Karin Smyth]

The economics of the Green party are even more fantastical than the economics of the Conservatives and Reform; we all dread to think what things might be like under that party. We see that in the local council in my city of Bristol, and it is an absolute disaster. If the council could just get on with building council houses and social homes, it would help more people to live a better life, and would aid prevention. We are getting on with tackling social care. That was announced in the spending review, and that is what the Casey review will do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ashley Dalton]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We are making great strides in developing our cancer plans. We will be launching a national cancer plan later this year, and the targeted lung cancer screening programme has been particularly effective. The SNP has had a record settlement for Holyrood, and we expect the Scottish Government to deliver. If they cannot, I am sure that Anas Sarwar and Jackie Baillie would be willing to take over.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Yesterday’s report from the Health and Social Care Committee is explicit that we cannot build an NHS fit for the future without effectively reforming social care. Back in January, the Secretary of State promised cross-party talks as well as Baroness Casey’s commission. He cannot outsource political leadership to Baroness Casey. Political will is the sticking point with the reform of social care. Will he show that leadership and bring the parties together to find the solutions to unblock this crisis?

[Wes Streeting]

Since we came into government, we have already taken action on social care with the investment we have put in—the biggest expansion of carer’s allowance and the funding for home adaptations through the disabled facilities grant. Now that the commission is up and running, there will be cross-party engagement, but it is an independent commission and for Baroness Casey to decide how to engage.