Sudden Cardiac Death in Young People

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Speaker’s Office for finding time for this important Adjournment debate, and my hon. Friend the Minister for being in her place to hear it. I look forward to her response. I know that many Members feel passionate about this issue and look forward to taking as many interventions as I can.

There have been plenty of high-profile examples of sudden cardiac arrest in young people, but I want to speak about a case brought to my attention by one of my constituents, Maureen, who was the aunt of Clarissa Nicholls. Clarissa was studying French and Italian at the University of Cambridge. She was a keen runner and hockey player. Just days before her 21st birthday in May 2023, she collapsed and died while hiking in France with friends. It was later found that she had an undiagnosed life-threatening condition: arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy. In June 2024, Clarissa was posthumously awarded a first-class honours degree from the University of Cambridge.

I have had the honour of meeting Clarissa’s mum Hilary, both privately and at a recent event in Westminster held by the Cardiac Risk in the Young campaign. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) for organising that event. Hilary said:

“Despite a journey cut tragically short we want to celebrate her achievements alongside her cohort, as it should have been. We know that we would have been very proud of her today and we remain proud of her dedication, determination and resilience as she set out to be the very best she could be.”

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I have also met Hilary, Clarissa’s mum, and heard about her death and the fact that a simple electrocardiogram test can save lives. It is chilling to think that my daughters could face this. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is shocking that exercise can triple the risk of sudden cardiac death, but 80% of cases show no symptoms at all? The Government could act now to issue clear guidance, as we have done on concussion, and encourage and enable more young people to have the simple test that could save so many lives.

[Chris Vince]

I do agree with my hon. Friend. Clarissa was a young girl who was very involved in sport. There is no reason why young people with these conditions cannot continue to take part in sport, as long as they are aware of their condition and able to take the necessary precautions.

Hilary said that her daughter

“put everything into her studies, the friends she made here and the staff that supported her along the way including while she was on her year abroad. We are grateful for the happy times she clearly took away with her to the next life.”

When I applied for and secured this Adjournment debate, what really struck me was the number of people who came up to me and shared their personal experiences. In fact, only this morning, two Doorkeepers shared their experiences of this condition. I pay tribute to one of those Doorkeepers, Kieron, whose son Connor—who was born on 13 January 1994—died in 1995 at only 14 months old. When the post-mortem was conducted, it was found that he died of sudden cardiac death through a thickening of a heart muscle. That was over 30 years ago, but I know from talking to Kieron the huge impact it has had on his life; he will always carry that loss with him. It is important that we recognise how long we have been aware of these issues, and that it is time to talk about what action we can take.

This morning, I was in my constituency of Harlow, talking to one of our headteachers, Vic Goddard, who is the head of the Passmores co-operative learning community. He spoke about a young boy dying of cardiac arrest during his time as a PE teacher, and feeling so strongly that every school he works in should have a defibrillator. Again, having spoken to some of the staff in this place, I want to emphasise the huge difference that access to a defib can make to survival chances.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank the Minister for giving way and for the good news about looking into the possibility of rolling out screening across the whole country, especially bearing in mind the evidence from Italy, where the good has been shown to outweigh the potential downsides. I look forward to getting involved in that consultation. The amount of training on CPR and the use of defibrillators has been extensive. The choice of song to sing along to, to get the rhythm right, is really important. Will the Minister share with us whether she would use “Stayin’ Alive” or “Pink Pony Club” as her defibrillator singalong song?

[Ashley Dalton]

I think “Stayin’ Alive” is a bit of a sharp one, really, isn’t it? Given that once “Pink Pony Club” is in my head I cannot get rid of it for weeks, I think I will probably opt for that one! My hon. Friend makes a really important point, which is that learning CPR and how to use a defibrillator properly is a crucial life skill. I am really pleased and proud that NHS England is continuing to roll that out in our schools and communities.

NHS England is also keeping under review the specialist service specification for providing care to families, working closely with the Association for Inherited Cardiac Conditions, Cardiomyopathy UK, Heart Valve Voice and the British Heart Foundation. We are also working with the NHS genomics programme to align the service specification with genomics resources. I will talk briefly about our vision of genomics.

We are going through a revolution in medical science that means we can transform the NHS over the coming decade from a service that diagnoses and treats ill health to one that can predict and prevent it. If we can harness the power of life sciences to the health service, we can achieve many of the aims my hon. Friends and others have set out today. Within a decade, every newborn will undergo whole genome sequencing, which assesses future risk of hundreds of diseases, including cardiovascular conditions. Every baby will have their DNA mapped, allowing people to receive tailored healthcare, long before symptoms begin.

Those advances could one day put an end to blanket screening and rudimentary health MOTs. Instead of mass screening, increasingly patients will be offered personalised health checks and targeted medicines far earlier, and adverse drug reactions will be avoided. That will help to transform the NHS from a reactive healthcare system into a proactive one. This ambition will be funded by a £650 million boost to genomics as part of the Government’s life sciences sector plan. We are just scratching the surface of what genomics, gene editing and life sciences can do.

Under this Government, NHS waiting lists are falling, ambulances are arriving faster, and we are lifting hundreds of thousands of kids out of poverty. Our 10-year plan is building on the founding principle of the NHS so that it provides healthcare free at the point of risk, not just at the point of need, and now we are shifting the focus of our NHS from sickness to prevention. Wherever we can go further on prevention, we will.

I have heard the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow this evening. He is a powerful advocate for those who have lost loved ones to sudden cardiac death, and we are listening to him and others who are pushing us to go further. I shall update him and, of course, the House next year, following the review of evidence and the public consultation.

Question put and agreed to.

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ashley Dalton]

I will come later in my remarks to the training that is being rolled out as part of the delivery plan.

Myalgic encephalomyelitis—better known as ME—and chronic fatigue syndrome, which I will refer to from now on as ME/CFS, is a condition that affects an estimated 390,000 people in the UK. Its symptoms can be profoundly debilitating, impacting every aspect of daily life, from work and education to family and social life. For those with severe or very severe ME/CFS, even basic tasks such as sitting up, eating or speaking can become impossible. We recognise the devastating impact this condition has on individuals and families. For too long, people with ME/CFS have faced stigma, misunderstanding, disbelief and inconsistent care.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

The Minister is a passionate advocate for women’s health. Does she agree that the reason for this disease often being overlooked and for the stigma she has talked about is that women are five times more likely than men to get it? Will she support clear funding, accountability and deadlines within the welcome plan that has been delivered, and a service for very severe ME for all ICBs?

[Ashley Dalton]

I recognise my hon. Friend’s points, and I will cover some of them in my remarks. She will be aware that the women’s health strategy is currently being refreshed, so we hope to dovetail wherever possible.

I want to set out the steps that this Government are taking to change the misunderstanding, stigma and inconsistent care that patients have experienced. Through our ME/CFS final delivery plan, we will deliver better care, boost research and ensure that every person living with ME/CFS is treated with dignity and compassion.

First, let us acknowledge the reality. ME/CFS is a complex multi-system condition. Its fluctuating nature makes diagnosis and management challenging. Historically, services have been extremely varied, and in some cases patients have felt dismissed or rejected by the healthcare system. That is unacceptable. We have heard those concerns loud and clear through our extensive consultation on the interim delivery plan and through ongoing engagement with patients, carers, clinicians, researchers and charities. Last year’s prevention of future deaths report following the tragic death of Maeve Boothby O’Neill further highlighted the urgent need for reform, pointing to a lack of specialist beds and inadequate training for clinicians. We cannot and will not allow such failings to continue.

In July, we published the ME/CFS final delivery plan, marking a significant milestone in our commitment to improving lives. The plan is built around three core themes: boosting research, improving attitudes and education, and enhancing care and support. With a clear commitment to ensure that people with ME/CFS can live as independently as possible and see their overall quality of life enhanced, that plan will help us to take an important step towards achieving that, but we acknowledge that there is more to do. We will continue to build on the foundation of those actions well beyond the publication of the plan. It is the springboard—the beginning, not the end.

Although the final delivery plan does not include every suggestion received through the consultation responses or through the task and finish group, it does not mean that those proposals will not be considered in the future, subject to resource and funding. We look forward to continuing those conversations.

Baby Loss

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I welcome this important debate, and I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) and for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae), and the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), for bringing to the House, during Baby Loss Awareness Week, this debate on a grief that touches thousands, who often grieve in silence.

I will use this debate to call for a UK-wide perinatal death reduction programme, and will talk about foetal growth restriction monitoring. I am really glad that the Secretary of State for Health is in the Chamber; that shows his commitment. This debate is well timed to inform the rapid review of maternity and neonatal safety in England.

For many, baby loss is invisible and misunderstood. This week breaks that silence, honours lives cut short and stands with families who carry their babies’ memory every day. Like other Members, I pay tribute to charities like Sands, Tommy’s and the Miscarriage Association. Their work must be supported and recognised.

I speak with a heavy heart to share the story of Maia Devlin Corfield, a beautiful baby girl who should be here today. Her parents Sherena and Jack came to my advice surgery to tell me about Maia’s stillbirth at Kingston hospital. Though Sherena’s pregnancy was low risk, Maia showed signs of growth restriction. Staff reassured Sherena but failed to act. Maia was born still on 29 November 2024. The autopsy showed she was healthy, but died due to a placental condition that halted her growth and breathing.

Babies with growth issues like Maia are eight times more likely to die, and it was Kingston’s foetal growth monitoring system that failed her. It diverged from national standards and, despite early warnings, many unsafe practices like that remain. The Government’s own maternity and neonatal safety investigation into Maia’s death made nine recommendations, yet risks still persist and are not listened to. Sherena and Jack often feel that they are not being listened to, but bereaved parents need to be heard because by listening to them, we can identify those areas that need to change. It is that culture and the regulation and standards that all need to work together to see real change.

Freedom of information requests by Sherena and Jack have revealed that at least 27 trusts cannot properly identify babies with growth issues. The issue is that many hospitals use a global growth monitoring system that under-detects small babies in high-income countries like the UK because it uses data from across the world. Safer UK-developed systems based on NHS data do exist and are used by many units, but Maia was failed by outdated growth charts still in use at Kingston and St George’s and at many other hospitals. A key part of the system is those growth charts. Donald Peebles, NHS England’s clinical director for maternity, has confirmed that a national safety alert will soon advise trusts to stop using these intergrowth charts, but is there a system to track which hospitals still use them, and how can we update foetal growth monitoring systems urgently?

I have also talked to the chief nurse for the South West London integrated care board, who highlighted issues of midwife retention and recruitment and, in particular, maternity triage, which needs reform with a universal standard that would ensure consistency of safety and access—those early warning systems that failed Maia and are failing others. Just as we have a mental health investment standard, we should consider a similar maternity services standard as well.

I turn to the demands for change. The “Saving Babies’ Lives Care Bundle” published by NHS England in June 2023 outlines three key elements for foetal growth monitoring, but they are not consistently adopted and then monitored to ensure that they are implemented. There are too few of those deaths in each trust to rely on the trust to take the action; it has to be done at a national level. In fact, it has to be done across every nation—Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England—otherwise there will be inconsistencies as there already are between the different nations. Will the Minister work with counterparts across the UK to ensure that no nation falls behind? Will the Minister meet Sherena and Jack to discuss how to improve maternity care and look at the findings they have? We owe it to Maia. We owe it to every family shattered by preventable baby loss to demand accountability, enforce standards and ensure that no parent is ever told that everything is fine when it is not.

Non-surgical Aesthetic and Cosmetic Treatments

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Sir Desmond. I welcome this debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on securing it. I agree with much of what he said, especially the issues about negative body image and the harm being done. I welcome the Government action that was announced recently. The announcement on 5 August of the forthcoming consultation and crackdown on unsafe cosmetic procedures is very welcome. The last Government did not do enough in this area, despite my pushing on one particular area of it, so I am glad that this Government are taking action. I look forward to hearing more about those actions from the Minister.

I am here because in 2022 my constituent, Jan Spivey, came to my surgery with a lot to say. She was one of those surgery appointments where someone bursts into the room. She had so much to say that I had to encourage her to take a moment to sit down. She had been campaigning for a very long time on the Poly Implant Prothèse breast implant scandal, something that I have been raising ever since on behalf of Jan, who has been so affected by this personally, and on behalf of all the women across the UK. Up to 47,000 women have been affected by the scandal. It has really opened up to me the dreadful issues of surgical and non-surgical cosmetic treatments that need to be addressed. I welcome the comments from the hon. Member for Bromsgrove about how this is about cosmetic and non-cosmetic surgery. If we do not tackle one and get the regulation right for one side of it, we will not get it right for both sides, and they are really important.

The company Poly Implant Prothèse, or PIP, was founded in France. It began distributing breast implants made from non-medical silicone, and it was later found that what had been put into the breast implants was basically mattress filler. The implants were far more likely to rupture and lead to long-term health conditions: they were found to have a 500% higher risk of rupturing or leaking and a direct link to a rare form of cancer.

In 2010, PIP pre-emptively liquidated, but between 2001 and 2010, 400,000 people globally and 47,000 people in the UK received PIP breast implants. Many of those in the UK probably received them through implant surgery in another country. In 2011, following the death of a woman from the rare cancer, the French Government recommended that 30,000 women in France seek the removal of their breast implants, and removals were carried out. A criminal trial was held, and the founder of PIP was sent to prison for four years.

In 2022, my constituent Jan came to talk to me about the health issues that she had faced as a result of these implants. She said that doctors were not listening to her. That is a pattern for both non-cosmetic and cosmetic treatments: going to the doctor, being told, “You’re an older woman; it’s menopause”—for younger women it might be ME or something else—and being written off. That is why we are discussing this matter today: for a long time women with these issues have not been listened to.

There is an accountability gap. Many of the private healthcare providers that implanted those breast implants declared themselves bankrupt but then restarted, in the same premises under a similar name. There is also a data gap, because there is no good register of who received these implants. That is also the case with many other non-cosmetic treatments. Who is receiving these treatments and who is doing them? We need to know.

In 2023, I secured a debate in the House to discuss this matter, but I felt that it was pushed aside by the responding Minister. The Minister agreed to produce implant cards with more information about the risks of having an implant put in, but did not agree to tell all the affected women what might be happening in their own bodies and why they were experiencing so many health issues—that it might be because of breast implants—or to remove them and solve the issue.

The PIP scandal is not an isolated event; it is part of a broader, systemic failure in the regulation of medical devices. Both the UK and global systems have long-standing structural weaknesses that create recurring cycles. That is why I am glad that this debate has been secured and the matter brought to the attention of the Minister. There is inadequate pre-market oversight, excessive commercial secrecy, under-researched women’s health impacts, regulatory capture, financial conflicts and poor post-market surveillance. Who are the women affected? Where are they? What is happening to them? Patient compensation mechanisms are weak, and as I have said, women are routinely not taken seriously when they raise these issues.

The key asks from the PIP campaigners are for the Minister to work with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, which has absolutely failed them in this instance, and the NHS to recognise and publicise the risks associated with PIP breast implants. If there is a link between breast implants and health issues, the data should be easy to find. The Minister should urge the NHS to collect data to establish how many people have received these implants and how many have had them removed, and to proactively contact everyone affected through their GPs to give them advice. The Government should also conduct a review into the risks associated with PIP breast implants.

I welcome the fact that the Women and Equalities Committee has begun an inquiry into this matter. I hope that the Minister will look closely at the outcomes of that inquiry—I am sure she will. I would welcome the Minister meeting me and PIP campaigners—I am sure that she will find Jan as inspiring and informative as I have—to discuss what actions can be taken to right this injustice and improve the health of thousands of women.