Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Last year, research by the Royal College of Radiologists found that 76% of English cancer centres had patient safety concerns due to workforce shortages. While we welcome the Government’s recent commitment to ending the postcode lottery of cancer care, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to publish an assessment of the Bill’s impact on doctor numbers, broken down by speciality, to ensure that cancer treatment is not delayed because of staff shortages?

[Helen Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend for her point, which I agree with fully. That is why we have tabled new clause 1. It will require the Government to publish a report on the Bill’s impact on the number of applicants to foundation and speciality training programmes and, crucially, to break that down by speciality. If applications fall as a result of these changes, the Government would be required to assess the impact on the total number of fully qualified doctors entering the NHS. This report would be produced annually after three years, allowing time for a full training cycle to complete. It is a sensible safeguard, one that ensures that we do not inadvertently exacerbate the very workforce shortages that we are trying to address. To return to the core principle that is at stake, we are not opposed to the Bill’s objective. We support the principle of prioritising those who have trained in the UK, but that principle must be implemented fairly, transparently and with proper oversight.

Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill

Helen Maguire Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

It is a pleasure to close on behalf of the Government. I welcome the support of the Opposition spokespeople and the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran). I put on record my thanks to them for meeting me in advance of the Bill and for airing their concerns.

From the many contributions this afternoon, there is clearly a broad base of sympathy and support right across the House for the measures in the Bill to support our NHS staff, who have been at the sharp end of every ill-conceived policy of the past 14 years—not least since the previous Government lifted the visa restrictions in 2020, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale). The last Government’s failure to do any proper workforce planning has also led to patients struggling to find a GP appointment while GPs struggle to get a job, bottlenecks for resident doctors and an over-reliance on overseas workers and a refusal to foster our own home-grown talent.

Although I welcome the support, I find it slightly ironic that some of the Opposition speeches were around the need for clear and consistent routes and for clarity. That is exactly what we intend to provide to fix the mess. We will bring forward wider issues in the workforce plan, which, as the boss said earlier, will be in the spring. That is as a result of the concerns around training from the Royal Colleges and other stakeholders and making sure that we do that properly. We will bring that forward in due course.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

rose—

[Karin Smyth]

I am going to make some progress. Time is of the essence, I am afraid, but we can pick up more in Committee.

When I was a manager in the NHS, I worked alongside many overseas doctors, and I want to make it clear from this Dispatch Box this afternoon that they are, of course, welcome here. The NHS is and always will be one of the most diverse employers in the world. This Bill is about bringing future generations into the health service and giving them the secure future that we all know they need. It is about sustainable workforce planning so that patients are no longer at the mercy of the market. Crucially, it is also about fairness. How is it fair that every year the taxpayer picks up a £4 billion bill to train medics who cannot then get jobs? Those taxpayers deserve a return on their investment. How is it fair that medics in this country put themselves forward to train, make sacrifices, get into debt and work long hours only to find themselves trapped in bottlenecks?

I am going to try to address a number of colleagues’ points. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), for his experience and for outlining the capacity and demand issues that people like him have to face as managers, and also for his important point about our workforce needing to reflect our society. He talked about the great work being done in Sunderland, and I was pleased to meet the leaders there, including Dr Wilkes, to see the work they are doing so that we can take that elsewhere. That is exactly what we want to do.

I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns)—the mum of a nurse, as she told us—for putting on the record the work of the Pears Cumbria School of Medicine and the intention of growing doctors who are steeped in Cumbria. She also mentioned health inequalities, and I would be pleased to meet my hon. Friend to discuss those issues further. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) was right to highlight the soaring numbers of people we are losing and to recognise that it was all going back to front.

Why do we need emergency legislation? We need Royal Assent by 5 March at the latest to ensure that the change happens this year. We do not want medics to face another year of bottlenecks. Specialty training offers will be made from March, and any delay will risk vacancies in August. This emergency legislation gives the NHS the certainty and stability it needs to carry on bringing down waiting lists and to keep us on the road to recovery. The people applying for those posts need enough time to make decisions about their lives, including deciding where they will move, finding accommodation and sorting childcare, and they deserve enough time to get on with that.

A number of colleagues have raised the definition of prioritisation for training posts. Let us be clear that, for specialty training posts starting this year, we will prioritise UK medical graduates and others, using their immigration status as a proxy for having significant experience of working in the health service. Colleagues might wonder whether there has been some pulling of strings to include Irish doctors in that prioritisation, but I can assure them that that is not the case. Ireland is included because of our special and long-standing relationship with Ireland and very similar epidemiology. I thank the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) for the important points he raised about Magee College and working with the devolved institutions. I can assure him that officials have worked closely with officials in Northern Ireland on this. If there are any other issues, he should please raise them, but we have worked closely on that point.

From next year, 2027, immigration status will no longer automatically determine priority. I accept some of the points from my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) . He perhaps suggested that the proposal was crude, but it is a proxy for this year. Next year we will bring forward regulations to prioritise whether someone has significant experience as a doctor in the health service or by reference to their immigration status. This point was raised by the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, and many others. We will continue to work with all partners and the devolved Governments to agree those criteria in time for the autumn application round.

On international staff, my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), the Chair of the Select Committee and others raised the issue of foreign doctors. Let us be clear that international staff play an important role in our NHS and they always will. The NHS might be the most diverse public body in the world, and we would not have it any other way, but we are recruiting doctors from abroad—sometimes even from countries that are short of medical staff—when there is already a pool of applicants at home.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) said, we are not about nicking other people’s workforces. Home-grown doctors are more likely to work in the NHS for longer, and be better equipped to deliver healthcare tailored to the UK’s population, because having been trained in the UK’s epidemiology, they better understand it. It is not fair for British taxpayers to spend over £4 billion training medics every year, as my hon. Friends the Members for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) and for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) said. Nor is it fair for doctors who struggled to get into specialty training places. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston said, a responsible Government get a grip on this.

I will refer to the amendments when we move into Committee of the whole House. We are seeing the green shoots of recovery as we repair the NHS following the damage done over the past 14 years. We are turning another page on that decline. However, the decision in 2020 to lift visa restrictions has done untold damage to the system and to staff morale, and contributed to a national mood of cynicism and pessimism, especially among the young, so we need to act. Those points were articulated well by the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), and expertly, as always, by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley).

Let me end my remarks by talking about the many young people who will be affected by the changes that we are setting out. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) said, these are not abstract statistics but personal costs. When I speak to those in my family, my constituency and even my parliamentary office who have breached the first barrier of getting to a medical school from a state school, I am disheartened to hear how many of them feel that their careers would be better served by moving abroad. In the 1970s, James Callaghan said that if he were a young man, he would emigrate. I do not want young people to take that path; I would rather say to them, “By all means, travel, see the world and enjoy that time, but there are great opportunities for you all in this country, and we want you to rebuild the NHS with us.” My niece is currently in Australia, and we sometimes call this the “bring Talia home Bill”.

The NHS must play its part in training our young people and keeping top talent in the UK. If colleagues agree that that is worth doing, and if they want to keep our people here, they should join us in voting for the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).

ADHD Diagnosis

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered ADHD diagnosis.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. This debate is about how pathways to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder diagnosis might be improved, including by offering screening in schools, so that people can access the right support in good time.

We all have a pretty good idea of what ADHD means, but I am here because a 19-year-old constituent of mine, Matty Lock, took his own life in September 2023. He was diagnosed with autism at the age of 14, but he and his parents, Christine and Richard, who are here this afternoon, did not know about his ADHD until much later. In Matty’s memory, Christine and Richard have set up the Matthew Lock ADHD Charity, and they have been part of the independent taskforce. One of the things that the taskforce has done—this has been accepted by the NHS—is to highlight the proven link between suicide and ADHD. The prevalence of ADHD is 10 times higher among men attempting to take their own lives.

Let me say a few words about Matty. I knew him because he was very interested in politics. He had become a town and parish councillor, and he had campaigned hard with me for some time. Those of us who knew him through politics believed that he would be in this place before much longer. It is very, very sad that that was not to be.

Matty was known on television as “The Vac Mat” for his repairs of vacuum cleaners and his advocacy of domestic appliances on “This Morning”. He was everywhere in the community of Maghull—clearing up and playing his part. He was a real, strong advocate of the community that he grew up and lived in.

Matty’s ADHD was linked to how hyperactive he was. We know that people with ADHD are restless, lack concentration, are impulsive, act without thinking and always talk over others—actually, as I go through the list, I can think of nearly 650 people in this place who have a lot in common with that description.

What is the impact of having ADHD? We know that it leads to a significant number of school exclusions and very high drop-out rates. We know about the link with addiction, and that the prevalence of ADHD among people in prison is five to 10 times higher than among people outside. Sadly, we also know about the link with suicide.

NHS figures suggest that about 700,000 people are waiting for a diagnosis, and that many of them have waited for several years. Nearly two thirds of those people have been waiting for more than a year. The economic cost is estimated to be about £17 billion a year.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech that has affected us all. In November 2025, NHS Surrey Heartlands integrated care board in my constituency paused assessments on the Right to Choose pathway until April 2026, which has caused major disruption. My constituent’s daughter does not know when she will be seen or if she will be seen at all. I have talked to the ICB and I know that there has been a massive increase in referrals for ADHD, so does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must set out plans to improve local NHS provision of ADHD assessments?

[Bill Esterson]

The example of the hon. Member’s ICB is typical of ICBs around the country. The purpose of this debate is to raise the issue with the Minister and highlight how important it is to improve diagnosis and speed up how quickly people can get access to treatment and medication.

Domestic Abuse-related Deaths: NHS Prevention

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this vital debate.

In November 2025, Surrey police recorded 45 incidents of domestic abuse in my constituency, an average of 1.5 incidents every day. Let us be clear, those are not just statistics. Those numbers represent real people: mothers, daughters, sisters and children, experiencing some of the most harrowing abuses imaginable. I have met local organisations such as North Surrey Domestic Abuse Service, the Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Centre in Guildford and East Surrey Domestic Abuse Services to understand the support available to survivors.

What I learned is deeply troubling. The overwhelming number of women whose lives have been shattered by domestic abuse is staggering. Many victims face financial hardship, debt and isolation. Children grow up in fear, forced to endure violence in silence, their innocence stolen. Yet for some escape never comes. Gemma Devonish, a much-loved teacher at a local girls’ school in Epsom, was found with 54 stab wounds in her home in December 2024. Her boyfriend was due to stand trial for her murder but justice remains delayed, as the trial is yet to begin.

Aliny Godinho, a mother of four, was stabbed to death by her estranged husband in front of her three-year-old daughter while picking up her children from school in Ewell. Despite emergency accommodation having been arranged for Aliny in Streatham, her children remained at a school in Surrey. An examination of her husband’s computer revealed that he tracked her phone, accessed her emails and knew her new secret address.

Those tragedies are not isolated incidents; they are symptoms of systemic failure. Recorded incidents are only the tip of the iceberg, because less than 24% of domestic abuse crimes are reported to the police. The NHS, however, has more contact with victims and perpetrators than any other agency. That places healthcare professionals on the frontline of the domestic abuse epidemic, not just for identifying and supporting victims but for monitoring potential abusers.

Let us consider the case of Emma Pattison, the beloved headteacher at Epsom college, and her seven-year-old daughter, Lettie. Both were shot and murdered by Emma’s husband and Lettie’s father, George Pattison. George legally owned a shotgun and held a valid licence. Before his last licence renewal, which requires a letter from a GP, he used an online consultation service to obtain antidepressants. The online doctor had access to his medical records but they were unaware that he held a gun licence, and the medication was never declared to his GP.

If medical professionals are a line of defence against abuse, it is unacceptable for them to be left in the dark about who owns a firearm. Mandatory medical markers would ensure that any health professional with access to a patient’s records could see if the patient held a gun licence. If necessary, the health professional could immediately notify the police.

That measure is overwhelmingly supported. A survey by the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners found that 70% of existing certificate holders in England and Wales believe that a marker should be placed on the medical records of gun holders. Among the wider public, support rises to 86%. Will the Minister commit to exploring the benefits of mandatory medical markers with colleagues in the Home Office?

The previous Government’s guidance for health professionals states:

“Domestic violence and abuse is so prevalent in our society that NHS…staff will be in contact with adult and child victims…across the full range of health services.”

Too often, however, staff feel ill equipped to support victims, and training opportunities vary widely across the country.

Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse looked at all domestic homicide and abuse-related death reviews published in 2024 and found that 89% had at least one recommendation for health professionals or the health system. Its analysis also revealed that delivering training for healthcare workers at scale could cost as little as £2.66 million per year. Will the Minister review those recommendations and consider including them in the long-delayed workforce plan?

I welcome the Government’s announcement of the Steps to Safety initiative, which aims to better equip GP surgeries to identify and respond to domestic abuse and sexual violence. However, any initiative must be grounded in lived experience. The IRIS programme, a specialist domestic abuse training support and referral programme for general practices, has shown remarkable success; practices with IRIS are 30 times more likely to recognise and refer domestic abuse victims to specialist support than those without. Will the Minister review the IRIS programme to ensure that Step to Safety mirrors its success?

Finally, it is clear that we are missing a critical opportunity to use the NHS to detect and help victims of abuse earlier. Will the Minister set out a national plan to ensure that NHS staff across the country are sufficiently trained to spot the signs of domestic abuse? For Emma, Lettie, Gemma, Aliny and all other victims of domestic abuse, it is time to tackle this national crisis once and for all.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I look forward to the keys being handed in.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Last night, Surrey Heartlands ICB and two hospital trusts in Surrey declared a critical incident, which means that some hospitals cannot guarantee that patients will be treated safely and operations could be cancelled to make urgent care a priority. Will the Secretary of State confirm what action the Government are taking to support those trusts and what funding will be made available to ensure that such incidents do not recur?

[Wes Streeting]

A number of critical incidents have been running across the country this week. To be clear, a critical incident does not mean that there is unsafe care or that we are unable to provide care. A critical incident means that there is a challenge, and the system mobilises in response to help meet that challenge so that people do receive safe care. As I have said, we are investing more in our urgent and emergency care services and we are seeing the impact of that through year-on-year improvements to date. We are not out of winter yet; we still have lots of hard yards ahead. I am confident that when we emerge from winter, we will be able to tell a story of year-on-year improvement. However, while the NHS is on the road to recovery, I would not want anyone watching—not least the hon. Member’s constituents—to think that the Government believe that what we have seen this winter is acceptable every day, in every case everywhere. Until that is the case, we will continue to strive for further improvement day by day, week by week, month by month, and year on year.

Advanced Brain Cancer: Tissue Freezing

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) for securing this very important debate on equitable access to tissue freezing for brain cancer patients.

My constituent’s son was first diagnosed at the age of 10 with a very rare brain tumour. When he should have been playing with friends and going to school, he underwent surgery and intense radiotherapy. After treatment, he returned to normality, but 13 years later the tumour recurred and he received the same treatment. Earlier this year, when he was 28 years old, and just three and a half years after his last treatment, the tumour was back again. Further radiotherapy was not safe, so he underwent six months of chemotherapy. His mum told me about the devastation of undergoing chemotherapy, knowing that it was never going to be a cure and that the tumour is expected to recur. In the 18 years that he has been living with the diagnosis and undergoing treatment, there has been no progress in treatment options, and a cure has not been found. Sadly, my constituent’s son is not alone; every year, 13,000 people are diagnosed with this brutal condition.

Like many people, I was struck by the story of Owain, who was diagnosed with a 14 cm grade 4 brain tumour in his right frontal lobe. Similar to my constituent’s son, Owain was told that the standard treatment of radiotherapy and chemotherapy could only hold the tumour back for a period of time, until he sadly died.

Owain’s campaign is now run in his memory by his brilliant wife Ellie, who is here today in the Public Gallery. The campaign has exposed the lack of communication, clarity and consistency in brain tissue freezing. Fresh tissue freezing can help to deliver personalised treatment, research and diagnostics, but across the country there is unequal access to it. Brain cancers are difficult enough to tackle. Even when tumours are surgically removed, cancer cells have already infiltrated the brain, often causing a tumour to regrow, sometimes within just a few months.

We know that current drug treatments struggle to have an impact on tumour mass and that radiotherapy can only delay recurrence. Consistent access to brain tumour storage across the country could help to save future lives and improve outcomes for existing patients. A recent study by specialists from the department of neurosurgery at King’s College hospital and Guy’s cancer centre aims to implement a robust pathway whereby tumour tissue can be stored as a fresh frozen sample. Their report concluded that although the implementation of this pathway appeared to be straightforward, the limiting factor was the need for a fridge. There were also difficulties in liaising with the multiple teams involved, which was very time consuming, and disagreements about who should fund the freezer.

Such concerns have been reflected by the charity Brain Tumour Research, which highlighted the variations in the basic infrastructure needed to support brain tissue freezing. The Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission has also noted the numerous barriers to genome sequencing, which requires tissue freezing to enable precise diagnosis, prognosis and tailored treatments.

Therefore, we are not struggling with unknown barriers. The solutions are right in front of us. When battling brain cancer, every day counts. Because of the lack of communication with Owain, there was not enough tissue frozen appropriately to create the vaccines needed to help tackle his tumour. Now his young daughter Amelia must grapple with life without dad.

The Government have an opportunity to finally make a real difference to the thousands of people affected by brain cancer, by ending the postcode lottery of cancer treatments. The Conservatives spent 14 years failing to make any progress on improving cancer outcomes, and now it is time for action. The Liberal Democrats urge the Government to pay close attention to the specific difficulties facing brain cancer patients in the delayed national cancer plan. This includes setting out tangible improvements for brain cancer patients and equitable access to tissue freezing. We also cannot ignore that quick access to treatment saves lives, which is why I once again call on the Government to make sure that 100% of patients start treatment within 62 days of urgent referral.

There can be no more families torn apart, left in the dark or blocked from possible treatments. With the UK lagging severely behind our peers on cancer outcomes, it is time for this Government to turn around the Conservative Government’s failure to improve cancer outcomes, and finally to place the UK as a global leader in cancer research and outcomes.

Less Survivable Cancers

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) both for securing this debate and for his tireless advocacy on this subject.

In Epsom and Ewell, there are around 650 new cancer cases every year and around 240 cancer deaths, and the local integrated care board missed the 62-day treatment target as recently as October 2025. The Lib Dems have called for a guarantee that 100% of patients can start treatment within 62 days of urgent referral.

It is easy to get lost in the numbers—those who have been diagnosed with cancer, those who have not survived, the waiting times for treatment and the performance of hospitals—but behind each number is a person with a story that must be told. A constituent wrote to me about her husband, who battled pancreatic cancer. Only one in four people diagnosed with pancreatic cancer survives beyond a year. As happens in so many cases, her husband’s cancer was not diagnosed until it had become terminal. He died within six weeks of diagnosis.

A recent story shared with me by the British Liver Trust about Jane’s husband also powerfully highlights the importance of early diagnosis of liver cancer. He was known to be at high risk because of an underlying liver condition and was meant to receive regular surveillance scans. These scans were meant to detect cancer early, when treatment options are greater and outcomes can be better. However, delays and disruption to his regular surveillance scans meant that his cancer was not diagnosed until it was already advanced.

Jane believes that had her husband’s monitoring continued as planned, his cancer could have been diagnosed at an earlier stage, when potentially lifesaving treatment and interventions were still possible. Her husband’s experience is a clear reminder of the importance of regular surveillance of people who are at risk, so that liver cancer can be detected at the earliest possible stage, when lives can still be saved.

Such stories paint a stark picture of the shockingly poor outcomes for individuals diagnosed with less survivable cancers. The UK has the highest rate of oesophageal cancer in the world, and only 15% of adult patients with oesophageal cancer survive for five years or more. A mere 15% of stomach cancer patients in the UK will survive for more than 10 years. Liver cancer survival rates have hardly changed in the last decade. And despite the work to tackle smoking, lung cancer still claims the lives of around 91 people every day.

Today, on average, the chance of someone surviving for five years after being diagnosed with one of the six least survivable cancers is only 16%. For the country that discovered penicillin, designed the world’s first insulin infusion device and uncovered the structure of DNA, we are dangerously behind. OECD research shows that the UK ranks a dismal 31st out of 43 countries for how many people survive at least five years after being diagnosed with lung cancer. Across lung cancer survival rates, the UK is below the EU and OECD averages, as well as below the US, Germany and France. For all the less survivable cancers, survival rates have increased by only a small amount over the last 50 years, and all remain below 20%.

In my role as Liberal Democrat primary care and cancer spokesperson, I have spent time meeting charities to try to understand why the outcomes for patients with the six least survivable cancers are not improving. One resounding reason is research. A response to a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) revealed that the Department of Health and Social Care’s funding for research into each of the less survivable cancers since 2022 is as follows: for lung cancer, £16 million; for oesophageal cancer, £9.4 million; bladder and stomach cancer, £3 million each; liver cancer, £2 million; pancreatic cancer, £0.9 million; and brain cancer, £0.6 million. That funding is pitifully low, considering that UK survival rates for many of those cancers are devastatingly behind our international counterparts. What adds to that frustration is that even after a successful innovation is found, thanks to the tireless work of researchers, implementation is simply far too slow.

The less survivable cancers taskforce told me that senior surgeons are reporting the start of a golden time for approaches to cancer, but that the UK takes too long to implement any innovations and the later stages of clinical trials drag on for too long. For example, a diagnostic test—the capsule sponge—that allows cell changes associated with oesophageal cancer to be identified has spent 20 years in the research phase. Only last year did the test enter its next trial in certain parts of the country. Although that is welcome, progress overall is far too slow.

International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership data shows that in the 1990s Denmark and the UK were two of the worst performers for cancer care. While the UK has made some progress, Denmark has surged ahead. In fact, since 1995, Denmark has seen some of the biggest improvements of any ICBP member, with survival across all seven ICBP-measured cancer types increasing by more than it has in the UK. A key factor has been Denmark’s focus on using consistent cancer plans to co-ordinate investment, drive reform and develop strong clinical leadership.

That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a cancer survival research Act to require the Government to co-ordinate and ensure funding for research into cancers with the lowest survival rates. Alongside that, expanding the capacity of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency would halve the time it takes for new treatments to reach patients.

Before Christmas, I visited the Shooting Star hospice in Guildford and stood in the room where families can grieve next to their children. Many of those children receive palliative care for cancer. Every death is a tragedy, but that visit was a harrowing reminder of how quickly and devastatingly cancer takes even the youngest lives. As we enter the new year, I ask that the Minister makes it her resolution to tackle the black hole of research funding for less survivable cancers and to speed up the snail’s-pace implementation of lifesaving treatments.

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for securing this vital debate on such an important issue as myalgic encephalomyelitis. This chronic condition completely changes people’s lives, as we have heard today.

My constituent, who loved her job as a nurse, was diagnosed with ME in 2019. She has been left unable to work, relies on a mobility scooter to get around and is often confined to her bed for days on end. Since her official diagnosis, she has experienced constant muscle pain all over and severe headaches that frequently prevent her from sleeping. Despite her battle with myriad health challenges, one GP asked her, “What do you expect me to do about it?” Reading that stopped me in my tracks but—even worse—that reaction is not isolated. I contacted the local NHS trust on behalf of my constituent, and its locally commissioned NHS chronic fatigue services, which include ME, have been suspended as they cannot cope with the number of referrals.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

The experience of the hon. Lady’s constituent mirrors that of my constituent Emily in Edinburgh. Even though health is devolved, we face the same situation. Does the hon. Lady agree that even though Edinburgh is leading the way in research—as the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) said—we need to look into people’s experience of dealing with health services?

[Helen Maguire]

I absolutely agree.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Order. I should say that interventions on the spokespeople will not lead to them having any additional time.

[Helen Maguire]

My constituent’s experience builds into the bigger picture of a healthcare system that is simply not set up to support those with the most complex and devastating conditions. People with ME who rightly rely on health professionals for advice, support and solutions cannot be abandoned just because their diagnosis does not fit into a one-size-fits-all treatment plan.

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

We have heard just how little money is being spent on research, comparatively speaking. As has already been mentioned, the DecodeME study is identifying genetic signals linked to immune and neurological pathways, offering real clues to the biological mechanisms of this disease. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must finally adopt a strategic and properly funded research programme?

[Helen Maguire]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.

Although I welcome the Government’s final delivery plan for ME and chronic fatigue syndrome, and I recognise the contribution of the ME community in shaping it, I remain deeply concerned that the plan falls short of delivering the meaningful change that is urgently needed by people living with those conditions. I therefore reaffirm the calls rightly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills. In particular, the plan fails to set out dedicated funding to encourage early career researchers to specialise in ME research, or strategies to keep established researchers in the field. Those things are vital to develop new pathways that enable people to better cope with their diagnosis and, most importantly, improve their quality of life.

Funding is also needed to step up education and training to improve understanding of the condition across the public sector and to pilot new approaches that strengthen the quality of care. Recent figures estimate that over 400,000 people in the UK have ME, and around 50% of the 1.9 million people in the UK with long covid are thought to have symptoms that are similar to ME. Those figures make it clear that there is a desperate need for research to develop better treatment options and training for doctors, carers and wider healthcare workers.

We cannot ignore the fact that making those changes is a big task. Under the previous Conservative Government, cuts only made supporting people harder—from slashing health services to letting wait times pile up and overseeing a horrifying breakdown of community services—so it is no wonder that more people are suffering without support. That is why I urge this Government to make sure that the final delivery plan delivers real change for people living with ME and invests properly in research to change the course of diagnosis and treatment for good. For my constituent and for people living with ME across the country, we must take serious action to ensure that their experience with the healthcare system is rooted in dignity and care.

Ageing and End-of-life Care

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this important debate.

It is well known that our population is ageing, with the latest census showing that people aged 65 and over account for 19.1% of the total population in Surrey. That figure is predicted to increase to 25% by 2047. In my constituency of Epsom and Ewell, there are brilliant charities working to support the older population, including Age Concern, which empowers older people to live the most fulfilling lives they can while providing services, including advice, medical transport, social support and befriending. Organisations such as Age Concern are a vital lifeline for many, especially following the Conservatives’ failure to fix social care and invest in preventive measures that support older people to stay in good health.

Our older and ageing communities also need to be able to access public services, including GP provision. According to Age UK, the number of full-time equivalent GPs, including trainees, increased by just 2.5% between 2023 and 2024, which is not keeping pace with the population growth of older people aged 75 and over. Many GPs are heading towards retirement, leaving an even bigger gap, so the Government must go further with plans for recruitment. There needs to be a concerted effort to build a strong, resilient GP workforce that prioritises retention and delivers services that stop older people from ending up in hospital due to delays in primary care.

Along with GP provision, access to social care services is vital. With an ageing population, we are seeing more and more older and frail carers supporting their spouses, putting a further strain on the carer’s own health. We need to do more to support, protect and empower older people, so will the Minister commit to reversing the Conservatives’ cuts to public health funding and facilitate a social care system that is accessible to older people, encourages preventive care, and tackles key issues such as loneliness and frailty?

As our population ages, more people will be living with—and dying with—multiple complex conditions. Marie Curie reports that by 2050, the number of people in need of palliative and end-of-life care will rise to over 745,000 people per year, which is 147,000 more than at present. One local family in Epsom and Ewell have shared their experience of struggling to access hospice care for a loved one with a terminal illness. Despite their efforts, no hospice place was available, and delays in pain relief made their loved one’s final days distressing, something that could have been alleviated by better funding and co-ordination of end-of-life services.

Funding cuts and years of neglect under the previous Conservative Government have led to reduced services, which has a direct impact on patients and their families, who deserve dignity and support in their final days. The Liberal Democrats have proposed exempting health and care providers from increases in employer’s national insurance contributions, yet the Government have ignored that proposal and have not provided much-needed support to the social care sector. In a further damning development, a report released just this week by the National Audit Office revealed that nearly two thirds of independent hospices in England reported a deficit in 2023-24. As a result, services have been slashed and hospices have been forced to cut the number of beds available, due to a lack of Government funding.

With hospices and care services under strain, people desperately need support, and families often have no place to turn. There have been a number of successful and ongoing pilots by local NHS trusts of dedicated phone lines for palliative and end-of-life care needs. The Thames Valley pilot advice line led to a reduction in ambulance conveyances, a 35% reduction in referrals to out-of-hours primary care, and a fourfold increase in calls closed with no further intervention required. NHS 111 is a brilliant service, but it is not always appropriate. Access to a specialised palliative care expert can alleviate patient anxiety, streamline support and facilitate better care. That is something that I urge the Minister to investigate.

Will the Minister commit to ending the postcode lottery of funding for palliative care, create a dedicated hospice workforce plan, expand carer’s allowance, and provide guaranteed respite care before end-of-life care eligibility begins? As we manage the ageing population and navigate end-of-life care, this Government must put patients first and prevent a devastating erosion of public services, tackle dangerous understaffing, and support people to age well in their community.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

World Stroke Day

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for securing this important and timely debate and for her personal and emotive speech. I send her mum my best wishes. I thank all other Members for their speeches and for their personal stories.

Over the summer, a constituent wrote to tell me that, after having a stroke, he was looking for a support group to aid in his recovery. He reached out to the closest group he could find, but they informed him that the council services were drastically cut about 12 years ago under the Conservatives, leaving only volunteer-led groups. The stroke left him with limited mobility, so he is unable to travel the distance from his house to the nearest volunteer-run group and he is therefore unable to access a vital support network.

We have heard just how quickly lives can change following a stroke. They leave people to navigate a whole new reality, which has been made even harder by the stripping of local services under the Tories. That is why I urge the Government to invest in prevention, community care and rehabilitation, including by restoring the public health grant to 2015 levels, and to empower local communities to co-design health initiatives that address their specific needs.

More must also be done to support social prescribing and community projects that tackle loneliness and improve mental and physical wellbeing—key factors in stroke recovery and prevention that would make a direct difference to people in my constituency and across the country. We know that preventive action and early intervention are key to increasing survival rates and improving outcomes for those affected. The Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme at King’s College London found that 57% of people believe that they should have two to three symptoms of a stroke before calling 999, despite just one being a sign of a medical emergency. Furthermore, nearly two thirds of respondents said that they would not call 999 as their first course of action if they noticed that someone was suddenly struggling to smile.

Although I welcomed the launch of a new NHS stroke awareness campaign last year and this Government’s preventive policies, including regulations on the advertising of less healthy food and drink and the measures in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, far more needs to be done. The most common risk factors for cardiovascular diseases, including strokes, are environmental and behavioural. They include smoking, diet and weight, physical inactivity, excessive alcohol consumption and air pollution. That is why it is imperative that we get more people moving and encourage healthy eating, including by closing loopholes in the soft drinks levy by extending it to milk and juice drinks that are high in sugar. There is also scope to go further by requiring better labelling of junk food and restricting the advertising of products that are high in fat, salt and sugar.

Furthermore, encouraging some form of exercise throughout people’s lives improves not only their physical outcomes but their mental health. To make a real difference, the Government must invest more in public health budgets to enable active travel, supporting local clubs and making cycling and walking routes more accessible. We also cannot ignore the social differences that dictate stroke survival outcomes. People in the most deprived 10% of the population are almost twice as likely as those in the least deprived 10% to die prematurely. No one in this country should be subject to poorer health outcomes just because of where they live or how much money they make.

For the 240 people who wake up every day in the UK to the life-changing impact of a stroke, and the 60% of survivors who leave hospital with a disability, we must go further to reduce the environmental and health risk factors of strokes, to educate people on the signs of a stroke and empower them to act immediately, and to provide easy, accessible rehabilitation and support services for survivors and families. We cannot leave more people, such as my constituent, alone to navigate the complexities of post-stroke life. The Government must invest in prevention, community care and rehabilitation, and undo the Conservatives’ devastating cuts to public health funding.