Gender Incongruence: Puberty Suppressing Hormones

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve again under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I think this is the third time this afternoon, and it is always a pleasure. I commend the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) for raising this imperative issue, which we talked about yesterday, and for setting the scene so well, with detail and knowledge. She and I are on the same page on this one—I share her concerns, as others will.

Medical professionals have raised with me their concern about the lack of knowledge and the impact on the most vulnerable people; they recognise and welcome the recent developments in Great Britain that have led to a significant policy shift, effectively banning access to puberty blockers for the purpose of transitioning young children. That decision has been driven by comprehensive reviews, scientific fact, and emerging evidence that questions the long-term safety and efficacy of such drastic treatment for minors. It is the right thing to do. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) spoke about having time to look at these things and to understand and explore them in the necessary detail, and that we are right to do that. That is the way I feel as well.

No long-term studies have been carried out on the long-term administration of puberty blockers to children, because puberty blockers have historically been used only for specific reasons regarding rare conditions in the short term—never for what is primarily a lifetime choice. Given those concerns, and indeed the potential implications for the health and wellbeing of children, I wrote to the Health Minister in Northern Ireland to understand what steps were being taken by the Department of Health, and the Executive, to prevent Northern Ireland from being used by gender ideologists as a back door to those drugs, and to bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom.

I looked back at the statement that the Minister, Mike Nesbitt, made on 11 December 2024. He said:

“Following recommendations from the Commission on Human Medicines (CHM), it is now intended that we”—

that is the Northern Ireland Assembly and Department for Health—

“will replace the UK’s existing temporary restrictions with an indefinite ban, subject to review in 2027.”

The Northern Ireland Assembly has made its choice. I represent Northern Ireland in Westminster, and I want to represent the viewpoints of my constituency—by the way, Mike Nesbitt represents the same constituency as me: he is the Member of the Legislative Assembly for Strangford, and I am its Member of Parliament.

The welfare of children is of the utmost importance, particularly those in the age category approaching puberty, so those age 12 and under. It is crucial that Northern Ireland maintains high standards of medical practice that prioritise safety and wellbeing. Aligning our policies with evidence-based practices will help to ensure that we provide the best possible care for our young children, and protect them from decisions being made “for them and about them” by adults, when they are at such a vulnerable time and age in their lives. It is important that those in the Northern Ireland Assembly back home follow the same logic as there has been here. I know that the Minister has a particular interest in Northern Ireland and she travels there regularly. She will be aware of all these things, so I just want to put that on the record.

In conclusion, concerns have been expressed to me by medical professionals who want to solidify our position and ensure that no backward steps are taken. I look to the Minister for that confirmation. Our children—I say this with great respect—are not test dummies, and no risk should be taken with their health and future. We must have this locked down in legislation.

Westminster did the right thing. The Northern Ireland Assembly has followed that solution, and the arrow is pointing in that direction—we are doing the same. We must have all the information in front of us. We must be able to make these decisions and most of all we need to protect our children. I am a grandfather of six young children, so the issue is really important to me. I have a role to play on behalf of my grandchildren, and as an MP I have a role to play for my constituents, who feel the same way as I do.

Community Health: Manchester Rusholme

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to raise an issue that is incredibly important to me and increasingly pressing for my constituents. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for being here to respond to the debate.

The Government inherited a dire set of economic circumstances. Years of Tory funding cuts to local authorities and public services have been detrimental to communities, so I am pleased that the Labour Government have committed to handing power back to communities, as well as making commitments to reducing health inequalities. Disparities in community health and access to vital services are causing difficulties across the country, but they have had a disproportionate impact on my constituents.

My constituency of Manchester Rusholme is urban and incredibly diverse. I am proud to represent so many different communities. We also have many students and young people living in the constituency. Although we are discussing health inequalities, the issue goes far beyond health services. We need a wider debate about the many aspects that contribute towards our mental and physical health. As well as accessible and equal healthcare, that includes access to safe and clean local environments, stable work and income and secure and affordable housing. I will discuss the importance of those elements throughout the debate.

As Members know, I am passionate about protecting our local natural environments. We all know how beneficial fresh air and green spaces are to our health and wellbeing, but in Manchester, research shows that many have just 1 square metre of garden space. That means that turning parks and community green spaces into attractive outdoor environments is even more crucial. My constituency celebrates its diversity, and our parks are often where different cultures meet in exercise, play and enjoyment. We are lucky to have beautiful and historic parks such as Alexandra Park and Platt Fields Park.

Parks are also a space for those living in a city to escape high air pollution by acting as a carbon sink, absorbing and storing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. In Manchester, more than 1,200 people die a year as a direct result of toxic air, with babies, pregnant women, elderly people and people with respiratory illnesses most at risk. More than 54,000 children in Greater Manchester also suffer from asthma. We therefore must improve air quality in cities, including utilising public transport and making it easier and safer to travel by walking, wheeling or cycling. Without that, we risk isolating many people from society.

However, even parks are not safe from air pollution. While community green spaces should be an escape from damaging air pollution, evidence from Asthma and Lung UK suggests that less than 1% of the 43,000 public playgrounds in the UK meet guidelines set by the World Health Organisation. I have heard from young people in Ardwick about the air pollution near their school. In Ardwick Green Park, which is bordered by two main roads, children are at constant risk from the emissions just by playing outside. While we must improve access to local parks, we also need to improve air quality more broadly to create truly safe and clean natural spaces.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

May I commend the hon. Gentleman on bringing this debate forward? I spoke to him beforehand to get his thoughts. Does he agree that one of the great things that has happened is that the Minister in government has set aside planning for spaces where people can age well and live in an area designed for them to grow old? That is accelerating, including in Manchester Rusholme, to which he is referring, with some £1.5 billion of funding. That is welcome. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for healthy homes and buildings, does he agree that along with the 1.5 million houses that the Government are committed to ensuring will be built, environmental areas must be set aside? Trees are the lungs of the world, and trees have to be part of this, and they need to be planted for the future.

[Afzal Khan]

I could not agree more with the hon. Member. We need to do more to ensure that there is clean air for everyone, because it is essential for each of us to survive.

Another significant obstruction to community health is extensive waste, fly-tipping and litter. Wards in my constituency are plagued by high levels of fly-tipping and a lack of awareness of how to dispose of waste safely and legally. Fly-tipping and litter are an eyesore for residents and cause problems within communities. Countless constituents have written to me about them.

Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to the brilliant work done by locally led groups in my constituency to target these issues, including the Friends of Park groups, Moss Side Eco Squad, Upping It, and all those who individually “green” their alleyways and litter-pick. However, while being hugely beneficial to us all, their work should not be necessary. I have also been pleased to support the initiatives that the Government are already taking, such as the drink container deposit scheme, to encourage recycling. I thank my own local authority, Manchester City Council, for putting even more funds into dealing with fly-tipping this year to get to the root cause. We know that tackling this problem systematically is vital.

As well as being clean, green and tidy, our local environments must be safe, but high levels of knife violence have caused problems in Manchester for many years. Over the last three years, Greater Manchester police has recorded more than 2,000 crimes of possessing an

“article with a blade or point”.

Knife crime has also led to the tragic deaths of numerous young people in recent years, sadly including some of my own constituents. We cannot continue to let our young people down by allowing them to fall into violence. I am relieved that the Home Secretary is taking this issue seriously, and has already banned the ownership of certain dangerous knives. I am also grateful for the work of community groups in my constituency such as Mero’s World, the Hideaway Youth Project, Youth on Solid Ground and Moss Side Millennium Powerhouse to raise awareness of the terrible reality of knife violence,make bleed packs more accessible for responsive action, and give young people a safe place to go. We must work on preventive measures to stop knife violence devastating our communities: that must remain a top priority.

Poor standards of work, poor pay and job insecurity also contribute to low levels of community health. Job stability determines everything from a financial safety net to housing conditions, heating and eating nutritional food, but more than 13,000 people in my constituency are not in employment, which is more than the UK average. Nearly 14% of people rely on out-of-work benefits in Manchester, the eighth highest percentage in the country. As for those who are in work, more than 11% of people in Manchester are in low-paid employment, which is significantly higher than the national average. As we all know, low-paid work can damage both physical and mental health, increasing stress and anxiety levels, which are made worse by external factors such as the cost of living crisis. We also know that people from communities that experience racial inequality often have higher levels of unemployment than others. Those higher levels of unemployment and low-paid work in our area are detrimental to the general wellbeing of the community, and contribute to higher levels of poverty.

Furthermore, it is shocking that more than 47% of children in Manchester are living in poverty. That is the third highest proportion in the country. Growing up in poverty has an impact on childhood development, and plays a significant role in education and early-years experience. For example, children in the most disadvantaged areas are less likely to pass key GCSEs. Health Equals has found that children growing up in poverty are four times more likely than those from wealthier families to struggle with mental health issues by the time they are 11. This creates a worrying future for young people growing up in my constituency, who will be disproportionately affected by poor economic conditions. I am pleased that the Government are committed to breaking down those barriers that exist for young people. Children and young people cannot be forgotten in conversations about our local community, because they form a key group in our community who desperately need support that has previously been lacking.

A further issue that is fundamental to the health of our community is housing. Affordable, warm and safe housing should be a fundamental right, yet so many people are living without this necessity. In Manchester Rusholme, up to 40% of households privately rent—double the national average—yet over one in four privately rented homes across Manchester are non-decent. I am grateful for the Government’s efforts to deliver on our promise to transform the rented sector through the Renters’ Rights Bill, which will provide much-needed security for renters across the country.

I am proud to have such a diverse community living in my constituency, but no one should suffer due to their identity or background. For example, research shows that mixed-ethnicity households are more likely to live in houses with damp. Exposure to damp and mould can cause serious illnesses or worse, as we saw with the tragic death of Awaab Ishak. Given these inequalities, my constituents are disproportionately impacted by poor housing. Housing is a critical issue for my constituents, and takes up nearly 30% of all casework sent to me.

Housing in our area has become unaffordable and inaccessible, and is in poor condition. Outside the private rented sector, 28.5% of households in Manchester live in social rented homes—one of the highest rates for authorities outside London. I will continue to work with housing associations to ensure that all my constituents are in good-quality social housing. Being on the waiting list for social housing can take years, denying access to families and individuals in desperate need. I thank Manchester city council for being proactive in investing in even more social housing across my constituency so that everyone can live a healthier life.

I have outlined the disparities in local environments, employment and housing, and their impacts on both individual health and community health. On the back of that, I know my colleagues will agree that where someone lives should not determine how long they live, but in Manchester Rusholme we have the 19th lowest life expectancy of all constituencies, at 77.2 years—seven years lower than the figure for the healthiest communities. This large disparity is unacceptable and truly highlights the problem facing the constituency. It acts as a motivator for me to improve community health in any way possible.

The wider health inequalities seen across the UK are also detrimental for my constituents in Manchester Rusholme. For example, women in my constituency are suffering due to regional inequalities; women in the north-west are less likely to be treated for mental health conditions than those in other regions, as there is a gap in treatment based on where people live. In Manchester, black, Asian and minority ethnic communities were disproportionately impacted by the covid pandemic. We know that many mental and physical health impacts have been proven to be caused by discrimination.

We cannot deny the increasing pressure of the mental health crisis in Manchester. Hospital admissions for mental health conditions have increased among those aged under 18, as have mental health absences from work. Looking at the health of our communities should first involve looking at the health of residents. Addressing health inequalities is crucial to wider community health, and I thank the Caribbean and African Health Network and the neighbourhood health champions for their hard work in this area. As the Darzi review outlined, vital health disparities exist in almost all aspects of care due to the impact of poverty and homelessness, and disparities between ethnicities and for those with learning disabilities. We must act urgently to ensure that no one is left behind, and that our health service and the factors contributing to our health are equitable.

Our local community greatly determines our overall health and wellbeing, as well as that of wider society, but poor standards in health, the environment, work and housing detract from that wellbeing. The impact of these issues on households cannot be overstated, and quality of life cannot remain a postcode lottery. I thank all the charities, organisations and volunteers in my constituency for working to improve our community health, but the weight of improving wellbeing for the constituents of Manchester Rusholme cannot rest solely on their shoulders. I am therefore calling for a cross-governmental community health strategy to tackle the unequal access to a good quality of life through health, local environments, housing and standards of work. I am interested to hear the Labour Government long-term plans to ensure that everyone can live happier and healthier lives. We have an opportunity and a duty to protect our local communities, and to encourage them to prosper and flourish, as they have so much to offer.

Hospitals

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Morgan]

I will make some progress.

At North Devon district hospital, the ducting of the ventilation system that serves the operating theatres has not been changed since it was installed in 1979, and cannot be replaced because of ceiling height and asbestos. As a result, all operating theatres have been non-compliant with NHS England buildings guidance since 2007. The good people of Devon clearly need a new hospital, and they were promised that they would have one by 2030, only for the Labour Government to take it away and decide that the change those people need will not be delivered for another decade.

Even hospitals with comparatively few maintenance problems, such as the Royal Shrewsbury hospital, which serves my constituents and has a £35 million backlog, are clearly a long way short of being up to standard. I will not go into detail again about the catalogue of issues in Shropshire—the ambulance delays and station closures, the waiting times for check-ups, scans and surgeries, or the substandard state of cancer care—but they all combine to put huge pressure on hospitals, where staff and buildings are straining under the load.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady and the Liberal Democrats for securing this debate. One issue that they have not mentioned in their motion is car parking at hospitals, which is an ongoing problem for disabled people and patients who miss or delay their appointments as a result of a lack of spaces. Does she agree that car parking is central to addressing the issues that she is setting out?

[Helen Morgan]

Car parking is a real problem, particularly where public transport is poor—it plagues my constituents—and when it is unrealistically expensive for people who need to use hospital facilities. I thank the hon. Member for that point.

The NHS crisis impacts on patient outcomes. My constituent Emma was left in the “fit to sit” area for 48 hours despite having been diagnosed with suspected sepsis, 96-year-old Mary waited outside in an ambulance for 11 hours, and 82-year-old Paula spent 24 hours on a trolley in a corridor. That is the reality in hospitals up and down the country. I think we all agree that that is a disgrace and it must be rectified.

Hospice Funding

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

May I start by wishing you a very happy Easter, Madam Deputy Speaker, and by thanking the Clerks, the Doorkeepers and the House staff who have drawn the short straw and have to be here for the Adjournment debate at the end of the day?

I am pleased to have secured this debate on hospice funding, a topic that I know is of concern to Members from across this House. Even on the last day of term, the subject still gives pause to so many. A hospice provides a beacon of hope to so many people in their darkest times. It provides the comfort and knowledge needed at a very difficult time, and without hospice support, many would be lost. That is why, across the country, we see volunteers giving up their time and their finances to support local hospices—because, primarily, many of them are charities, although they receive some funding from the NHS. Members from across this House, from every party, believe that hospices matter.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this debate forward. She is absolutely right to highlight the work of hospices, but also all those groups that raise money for hospices, so that they can do their work. For instance, the Elim church, which has a cancer group that holds a dinner or breakfast every month, recently gave £5,000 from a coffee morning, as well as its monthly offering. Again we see charitable organisations, particularly when they are supported by churches, making the difference in this nation. Does she agree that while they are admirable, we cannot expect coffee mornings and fun runs to raise the funding that the Government have an obligation to provide? Rather than seeking to end life, the Government must seek to ensure that people’s last days in palliative care are dignified and pain-free. That will only come with fully funded end-of-life palliative care.

[Joy Morrissey]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, and I pay tribute to all the volunteers who organise the fun runs, and to volunteers in my constituency, such as Sharon Williams, who does the Thames hospice walk in Denham village every year. These are the people who support our local hospices, and we should all pay tribute to them.

Hospices matter because each year they support 310,000 people and 92,000 family members. Hospices matter because they are vital holistic care services for people and their loved ones at the end of life. Hospices matter because they provide crucial end-of-life and overall healthcare, relieving the pressure on the NHS. They provide both community specialist and acute care. However, I suspect that the Minister and the Government already know this, and I am sure that they agree that hospices matter, so let me turn to why this debate matters.

The hospice sector is under enormous pressure, and it faces an unprecedented challenge. The sector is caught in the triple squeeze of increased demand, increased cost and uncertain funding. Only the Government have the power to change that squeeze. Only the Government can eliminate the increased cost or create more certain funding. In this House, recent months have been consumed by a debate about assisted dying, while the real scandal of the lack of support for end-of-life care through hospices goes below the radar. It is estimated that the demand for palliative care in the UK will increase by 25% in the next 25 years, but as hospices face this increased demand, the Government have decided to saddle them with increased cost, and have failed to provide a long-term settlement.

Let me speak about the excellent Thames hospice that supports many families in my constituency and the constituencies of my neighbours. I would not be here today were it not for Baroness May of Maidenhead. As a long-term champion of Thames hospice, she asked me to have a word with the hospice, as it was so concerned about its funding, which I did, and that led to this debate. Again, Members of Parliament from both Houses continue to champion this important cause.

I recently met Dr Rachel de Caux, the chief executive officer of Thames Hospice. Like many other hospices, Thames hospice represents the very best of our communities: people who believe in providing quality of life at end of life, for everyone; passionate people who care, like the Thames hospice Denham support group, and the volunteers who make donations and support those who go into the hospice. Through their excellent work, they enable 80% of the people they support to receive dignified end-of-life care at home, and the rest to get specialised in-patient service. I visited the service recently, and when I visited the call centre, I was moved to see volunteers and staff working around the clock to help those who had just received a terminal diagnosis, or families who could not cope. They were going to people’s homes and working all hours of the day and night to ensure that people had the pain support and palliative care that they needed, at home or in the centre.

Thames hospice, like many hospices, faces a critical moment. Less than one third of its income comes from the NHS. Like many hospices, it raises the rest through its charity shops, fundraising efforts and the generosity of private donors. The Chancellor’s Budget was like a hammer blow to its finances, and it faces a deficit of up to £1 million, largely as a result of the Government’s choices. The national insurance tax raid, from which this Government recently voted not to spare hospices, will add £300,000 to its costs for the next financial year, while changes to the national minimum wage will add another £200,000, both through the direct impact and the need to maintain pay differentials. Meeting the NHS pay settlement, which the hospice needs to do to keep clinical staff—but which, again, it needs to do without Government support—will add a further £100,000. Finally, Thames hospice’s suppliers face the same cost pressures, and are passing those on to the hospice through higher prices.

I know the Minister will talk about the £1 million settlement of additional funding for hospices that was announced in December, but let us set out the detail of that money: it was for capital expenditure, and is welcomed, I am sure, by hospices, but it was not money for meeting operational cost pressures. It was also split across 170 hospices, so it became a drop in the ocean for individual hospices and their needs.

Congenital Hyperinsulinism

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of congenital hyperinsulinism on patients and their families.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I dedicate my remarks to my constituents Joanne and Gavin and their daughter Ibbie, who is two years old. Ibbie lives with a rare and serious condition called congenital hyperinsulinism. This is a term many will not have come across, but one that has come to define every part of life for the families that it touches. CHI affects around 95 babies born in the UK each year, with just over 2,000 people currently living with the condition. It causes the body to produce too much insulin, leading to dangerously low blood sugar levels. Left undiagnosed or unmanaged, the consequences can be life altering, increasing the risk of long-term neurological complications and impaired neurodevelopment.

The clinical challenges are complex and the emotional toll on families enormous. When I recently met Ibbie at one of my constituency surgeries, I met a bright, smiling two-year-old, full of life, but behind that smile is the reality her parents face every single day of managing risk, navigating a system that too often does not understand their daughter’s condition, and fighting for basic support. While the challenges Ibbie faces in living her life are many, her parents Gavin and Joanne are doing everything they can to help navigate them.

Joanne and Gavin are both teachers—a maths teacher and an English teacher—but they cannot work. Ibbie’s needs mean they must always be close by. They must always have access to a car, and theirs cannot be a one-car household. Every family decision, no matter how small, is shaped by proximity to emergency care. Their other children have also been drawn into the experience. They have learned how to spot signs of danger and been taught how to perform heel pricks. The whole family has stepped up to help keep their baby sister safe and well. It is clear that congenital hyperinsulinism is not just a medical diagnosis; it is a whole-life diagnosis.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this forward. I declare an interest as a type 2 diabetic—a condition that is not as bad, I have to say, but still has to be managed. Northern Ireland has a high prevalence of diabetes, with almost 115,000 people living with the condition, and the number is increasing annually. Does the hon. Lady agree that early intervention for those who are pre-diabetic is essential and that consideration must be given to widening the ability for Ozempic, Mounjaro and other glucagon-like peptide-1 drugs to be prescribed more widely to help in the prevention of full-blown type 2 diabetes? That needs to be done not just in my constituency or the hon. Lady’s but across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[Sarah Hall]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point.

As I was saying, it is clear that congenital hyperinsulinism is not just a medical diagnosis; it is a whole-life diagnosis. It affects emotional health, finances, education, work, family life and more. Far too often, families say they feel invisible, left to navigate this journey alone. Ibbie’s family have had to personally teach staff how to carry out a heel prick and spot signs that she might be unwell. What should have been a joyful milestone becomes a period of anxiety and worry.

Even basic medical information is hard to access. After Ibbie was diagnosed, her parents were not given guidance on how to manage the condition—no education, no tools, no support. Even their GP and health visitor were unfamiliar with CHI. They had to travel from Warrington to Alder Hey in Liverpool just to ask whether Ibbie could take Calpol. Disability living allowance forms have been difficult to complete. There is no easily accessible support, and little knowledge of the condition. All of this compounds what is already an extremely worrying situation for families, and results in many feeling isolated and lonely.

That kind of gap in care is not just inconvenient: it is dangerous. It speaks to a wider failure to provide families with the knowledge and resources that they need. I thank the Children’s Hyperinsulinism Charity for helping to bring these issues to the fore. It is a small charity, run by dedicated parents who are doing the work that should be supported—and, in many cases, delivered—by public bodies. We know that the financial burden on the NHS is considerable. A 2018 study found that congenital hyperinsulinism costs the NHS over £3.4 million a year. That is why early diagnosis, consistent care and good support systems are not just good practice; they are essential and cost-effective. Yet, across the country, parents tell us the same story: late diagnosis, poor awareness, postcode lotteries in care, and a lack of access to vital medication and monitoring technology.

Gavin and Joanne had to fight to get a continuous glucose monitor for Ibbie, a tool that allows real-time blood sugar readings and could prevent neurological damage. They succeeded, but the funding lasts for only a year. After that, they are back to square one. While some hospitals such as Alder Hey, Royal Manchester Children’s hospital and Great Ormond Street offer specialised support, families who live outside those areas are left with fewer options. Geography should not determine the quality of healthcare that a child receives. As it stands, congenital hyperinsulinism is not even listed on the NHS website. That is a small but symbolic gap, and it makes a difficult diagnosis even more isolating.

There are misconceptions about the condition; comments from health professionals to my constituent when they are told about Ibbie suffering from hyperinsulinism include, “Is that like diabetes?” Improving clinical understanding of CHI is essential. At present, no routine test for the condition is carried out in newborns. The standard heel-prick screening, familiar to most parents, does not check for hyperinsulinism. For families like Gavin and Joanne’s, early diagnosis comes not through systemic checks but chance; their daughter Ibbie was seriously unwell at birth, which prompted further testing and led to the diagnosis. Others are not so fortunate. Many children with the condition show few symptoms initially, and diagnosis only follows a serious health episode. In too many cases, it is not clinical vigilance that identifies the issue but emergency.

That unpredictability is compounded by geography. Families describe a postcode lottery in access to timely treatment and care. In Ibbie’s case, even medication is not easily obtained in Warrington. Her parents must travel to Alder Hey, where she is able to receive the specific brand that she requires. For a family already managing a complex health condition, that adds further pressure and strain.

I have some specific asks, drawn directly from the lived experiences of families in my constituency and beyond. The first is to ensure that congenital hyperinsulinism is added to the NHS website as a priority, to raise awareness with healthcare professionals, caregivers and the general public; the second is to work with families, charities and health professionals to create an information campaign and resource pack for parents and other frontline health professionals; and the third is to guarantee equitable access to treatment, medication and monitoring technology, including CGMs, regardless of geography or condition type.

My fourth ask is to provide more consistent support with benefits processes, such as DLA, where families currently face a wall of bureaucracy and misunderstanding; my fifth ask is to address disparities in access to key medications, such as diazoxide, and work to prevent supply shortages; and my sixth is to fund ongoing research into treatments to reduce the need for invasive procedures such as pancreatectomies. Finally, will the Minister meet the families affected by hyperinsulinism, including Gavin and Joanne, to hear directly from them and explore how the Government can close the health and care gap?

In closing, let me return to the heart of this debate: not just the medical condition, but the families whose lives are shaped by it—people like Gavin and Joanne, and their daughter Ibbie, whose story reminds us that behind the terminology and statistics are children who deserve the chance to thrive, and parents who deserve to feel supported and not abandoned. We must not accept a healthcare system where someone’s postcode determines the standard of care their child receives, nor should we tolerate a lack of basic awareness among professionals about a condition with such serious implications. When families are educating their GPs and nursery staff on how to manage their child’s condition, something is wrong.

Every child deserves the same level of care, and every parent deserves the reassurance that the system is there to support them. Families like Ibbie’s are not asking for the world. They are asking for recognition, understanding and a system that helps them to do what they already do so well: love and care for their children. We owe them that, and more.

Access to Dentistry: Somerset

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Anna Sabine]

Yes, I absolutely agree, and I will talk later about how poor access to dentistry impacts other parts of the health sector.

Yesterday, I was lucky enough to visit a local primary school in Frome, along with a friend who is a dentist. We started with an assembly about the many superpowers the mouth has, in which I was delighted to be given the leading role of saliva. Then we moved on to taking two reception classes through a supervised toothbrushing session. The school is part of the Government’s supervised toothbrushing scheme, an initiative I welcome. Sadly, of the 30 children in the room, 10 did not have consent for the toothbrushing—some because forms had not been returned, and some because there was a parental objection to the activity or to the use of fluoride. To ensure that they did not feel left out, my dentist friend played a game where they counted their teeth instead. She said that, based on what she could see from that game, that group of 10 children had 50 obviously decayed teeth, and one child had at least 10 teeth that would need to be removed under general anaesthetic. Those children were four and five years old. Although the scheme overall is to be welcomed, I hope consideration will be given to having an opt-out rather than an opt-in, to ensure that the children who most need the scheme are actually benefiting.

Somerset used to be well above the national average on access to dentistry. As recently as 2018, 55% of adults were seen by an NHS dentist in a two-year period, compared with 50% nationally.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate, and she is right to highlight the issue affecting children but also adults. Does she agree that the news that some pensioners are carrying out their own barbaric dentistry should send shockwaves about the affordability and accessibility of NHS dentistry? Does she also agree that there is a need for immediate intervention in each trust area, whether in Somerset, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland?

[Anna Sabine]

Yes, there are certainly some horror stories about tooth removal. It does beg the question as to why NHS dental services in Somerset and the wider south-west have deteriorated in the last seven years. It seems to me that that is symptomatic of a lack of investment in the region, in terms of not only health and social care but withdrawn levelling-up funding and diverted rural England prosperity funding.

Eating Disorder Awareness

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

May I wish you well in your first debate in your new role as Chair, Mr Stuart? It is your first debate, and I am sure you will keep us all in order. You are always in order in the Chamber, so that sets an example. I jest, of course.

I commend the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for leading today’s debate. She is greatly to be commended for having spoken about the issue in Westminster Hall and the main Chamber for so many years. I am grateful to be able to contribute to the debate; as the DUP health spokesperson, I have dealt with many issues on which people who have been suffering with eating disorders have sought help and support that will benefit them in the long term. As I always do in these debates, I will give some background on the situation in Northern Ireland, which replicates what other Members have said and will say.

Eating disorders present a significant health concern that affects all age groups back home. A study has found that some 16.2% of 11 to 19-year-olds in Northern Ireland met the criteria for a probable eating disorder. We are quite worried about that in Northern Ireland; I certainly am in Strangford, because it is absolutely shocking.

Between April 2022 and March 2023, the charity Beat delivered 603 helpline sessions to individuals aged 18 to 22 in Northern Ireland—a massive 225% increase, which is very worrying. Action Mental Health has revealed that between 50 and 120 people in Northern Ireland develop anorexia every year, and around 107 develop bulimia, which are worrying figures. There are approximately 100 admissions to hospital for eating disorders every year. I know that the Minister does not have responsibility for Northern Ireland, but I add that information because it shows how things are back home. I will give an example of how we have managed to overcome the problem.

There are many risk factors for eating disorders, including genetics, psychology, trauma, abuse and—a large one for young people today—social media, to which the hon. Member for Bath referred. It is important to remember that eating disorders can affect anyone, not just young people and not just women. It has been said that early intervention is essential for improving outcomes and for reducing the duration of the disorder. There is commonly a stigma around eating disorders; more often than not, people suffering with an eating disorder feel extreme shame.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the shame that sufferers sometimes feel is an issue that wider society needs to grapple with? There is often self-denial about the problem, even when others can see it. As well as having data and support, we need to show empathy to overcome the problem.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his wise words, as always. He reminds us of the pressure that is on everyone.

It is important that our schools have the tools. They need to support young people who may be suffering or on the verge of suffering with a serious eating disorder. Beat’s SPOT—school professionals online training—was introduced to enhance teachers’ ability to identify and respond to potential signs. There is potential for further teaching within our local schools to promote awareness of the dangers of social media and of how it is often not a positive reflection of reality. Young people do not have to look a certain way and are often unaware of the health dangers of eating disorders, which are completely distorted by social media and the internet.

Back in 2012, a constituent came to see me. I know the mum and dad very well; they both served in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. They were extremely worried about their daughter. It would be no exaggeration to say that she was probably on the point of death. The mother went to the then Health Minister in Northern Ireland, Edwin Poots; they approached me and I spoke to the Minister over here. We were able to get her transferred from Northern Ireland to St Thomas’ hospital, just across Westminster bridge. Today, that young lady has been cured; she is a mother to two children; she has a business. All those things happened because of the co-ordination between Northern Ireland and the Health Minister here, so there was good news at the end.

The funding for mental health and for the services that deal directly with eating disorders must be improved to ensure that people who need it have access to behavioural therapy, nutrition education, monitoring and, in some cases, in-patient care and hospitalisation. I look to the Minister for his commitment to ensuring that those are a priority and that he will engage further with the Education Minister and the devolved nations to ensure that schools are equipped to protect young people and have the knowledge of the early signs that they may require help.

NHS Pensions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

As I said in my statement, we have confidence in the business authority to undertake the actions that I have outlined.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her answers to the questions. Waiting lists are clearly beyond the pale. If the Government were able to address the remedial pension savings statement, we might be in better position to entice our doctors to take on additional hours. Will the Minister confirm that this is a Government priority, and that there is an understanding that a functioning NHS requires straightforward paths to working overtime, and payment at every level?

[Karin Smyth]

One of our major priorities is ensuring that the entire NHS workforce are doing the work that they are trained and committed to do, so that they can get down those waiting lists and deliver an NHS that is fit for the future. The staff, as Lord Darzi has outlined, have felt very severely the detriment caused by the previous Government. They are working under really difficult conditions, and we want to make sure that, through the 10-year plan and the NHS Long Term Workforce Plan, we offer them hope, so that they are ready to deliver the services that they have been trained to deliver.

Hughes Report: First Anniversary

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for leading the debate, as she always does, in such an expert fashion. This issue has impacted thousands of people, including many in my constituency. It is something I have spoken on many times. It is crucial that it is given recognition and time. I look forward to giving my constituents a voice and explaining how this has impacted them. As the DUP’s Westminster health spokesperson, I am here to join the call for justice, because that is what the hon. Lady asked for, and that is what I wish to see as well.

Between 2007 and 2015, 5,255 women in Northern Ireland underwent vaginal tape procedures for stress urinary incontinence. In June 2017, the media reported the challenges and difficulties faced by women in Northern Ireland, leading to a pause in the use of mesh there. In addition to mesh being used for women, men have also been affected by it—it is important to add that to the debate—and it has been used particularly for hernia repairs. Research has shown that some 10% to 15% of men experience chronic pain post surgery.

I was contacted by a male constituent in 2020 who told me his experience of excruciating pain. His GP denied that it was due to the mesh, and he faced many infections, numerous antibiotics and extremely limited day-to-day life. He informed me that, for many years, his problems got worse, and he contemplated taking his life, not because he wanted to die, but because he did not want to struggle with the pain. The sad reality is that that will be the case for many people, not only across Northern Ireland but across the whole nation. Both men and women have been directly affected by something that was supposed to do good. It clearly did not, so people deserve some form of redress and, more importantly, an acknowledgment of wrongdoing by the NHS and Government Departments.

Similarly, the Hughes report highlights the need for redress for women who were prescribed sodium valproate during pregnancy, even though it had long been known to pose risks to unborn children. A conversation must be had around compensation and better regulation of the use of drugs that are known to have impacts on women, especially during pregnancy. It is said that some 20,000 children were exposed to the drug in the womb, leading to many living today with neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism.

I have spoken to many parents—many constituents—who have said that their ultimate feeling is guilt. There is something seriously wrong when a mother feels guilty for taking something she was told would do no harm, for not asking enough questions and for taking medication for which due diligence should have been done. More research and double-checking should have been done to make sure that the medication was suitable for pregnant women. Many find it difficult to cope both mentally and physically with the long-lasting pain, along with the trauma, anxiety and guilt that rack them over what they have done.

On the first anniversary of this report, I look to the Minister on behalf of my constituents for a commitment to put things right. These matters must not disappear, and we must not forget the thousands of people suffering to this very day. From Primodos to thalidomide, from pelvic mesh to sodium valproate, we must do better by all our people so that they know they are not forgotten. I await the Minister’s response. I will be grateful if she can provide an update on any compensation scheme in relation to this matter. I hope she will do all she can to ensure that due compensation is awarded. My constituents and those who suffer as a result of pelvic mesh want that, and I want that today on their behalf.

Prevention of Drug Deaths

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the prevention of drug deaths.

I thank all Members for being here at this well-subscribed debate. With that in mind, I will try to work to a certain timescale to ensure that everyone gets in, as I understand that there are nine speakers. Preventing drug-related deaths is an issue that touches communities across all four nations of this United Kingdom.

It is a pleasure to see the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) in her place, and I look forward to her response. I said to her beforehand that there is another debate in the main Chamber, but even I cannot be in two places at the one time; it is impossible. This is the priority, and that is why I am here.

Over the last decade, drug deaths have increased by 85% in England and Wales, 122% in Scotland and 42% in Northern Ireland. It is an unacceptable situation by any measure. Northern Ireland has the second highest drug-related death rate in the UK, nearly five times the European average. Each one of those deaths represents a profound tragedy. The tragedy is not just the person who dies; it is also the families who are affected.

I stress that each and every one of those deaths is preventable, and the situation demands urgent action. Recent data from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency paints a deeply concerning picture. Drug-related deaths in Northern Ireland have risen again, albeit after a slight decrease in previous years. Behind the numbers are human beings—fathers, sons, mothers, sisters, daughters. Those are the people affected. Most alarmingly, young adults aged between 25 and 34 are dying at the highest rate. Even more stark is the fact that people in our most deprived communities are five and a half times more likely to die from drug-related causes than those in our least deprived areas.

My constituency of Strangford has not been immune to this crisis, but we have managed to stay resilient in the face of it by maintaining lower drug-related death rates compared with any other area in Northern Ireland. That is no accident; it reflects the dedication and compassion of local drug treatment service providers who, despite limited resources, tirelessly support our most vulnerable citizens. I put on the record my sincere thanks to them for their perseverance and expertise. Without their dedicated efforts, countless more lives would have been lost.

Frontline drug treatment providers in Strangford speak passionately about the daily challenges they face, and there are three key areas I wish to highlight as priorities for action. First, drug treatment service workers in Strangford stress the urgent need to integrate mental health support with drug treatment services. Drug misuse often masks deeper issues of trauma, anxiety or depression. In Northern Ireland, with our 30-year conflict, history has left a lasting impact on the current generation.

The problem is pervasive across the United Kingdom, however. Research indicates that 70% of people in community drug treatment have reoccurring and co-occurring mental health needs. An investigation into coroners’ records of people who died from drug poisoning found that a mental health condition was noted in at least two thirds of those cases, yet only 14% of the individuals were in contact with mental health services. A quarter had a history of suicide attempts, rising to 50% among those whose deaths were classified as suicide. Mental health is the No. 1 issue when it comes to drug deaths across this great United Kingdom.

The healthcare system and local authorities share a clear responsibility to provide comprehensive support. Far too many who suffer from both mental health issues and substance misuse are excluded from vital services. It is deeply concerning that mental health services often turn away individuals because of their substance use— I put it on the record that I think that is wrong—while drug and alcohol treatment services cannot accommodate those who are deemed to have mental health conditions that are considered too severe.

The cycle of exclusion disproportionately impacts people with serious mental illnesses, leaving some of the most vulnerable trapped between providers and unable to access the care they desperately need. The hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) made a similar point three years ago in a Westminster Hall debate that I attended. I am pleased to see the Minister in her place, and I understand it is her third Westminster Hall debate as responding Minister. What progress has been made since that debate was held three years ago?

The other critical barrier is stigma. Stigma surrounding drug use isolates people, silences their cries for help and deters them from engaging with essential services and reintegrating into society. That compounds mental health struggles and prolongs their suffering. Let us not stigmatise drug users; let us help them—that is my big request. It is crucial that we challenge harmful attitudes in our communities, in our health services and, indeed, in the Houses of Parliament, among hon. Members and the Government, who have a responsibility. Addressing stigma means recognising that addiction is a health issue and not, as some people might think, a moral failing. I am not being disrespectful to anyone, but that is how I look at it and I hope that others will too.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing the debate. The last Government published a paper on this subject, “From harm to hope”, but it fell short of the vision set out by Dame Carol Black for how we get on top of the significant harm that people experience. Does he agree that alongside a public health approach to substance misuse, we need harm reduction units so that people who are drug users can access the care and support that they need to make their first contact with professional services?

[Jim Shannon]

I suspect that the hon. Lady and I agree on many things, and on this point we are also on the same page. I will come to Carol Black’s report and some of its recommendations. The hon. Lady has pre-empted me, but I thank her for setting the scene.

A 2022 YouGov poll found that two thirds of Britons believe that Government do too little to address addiction in our society. I respectfully believe that the Minister and the Government have an obligation to do something about this, because 66% of the nation want something to happen. Perhaps more tellingly, 49% of Britons—almost half—see addiction as a mental health issue that calls for compassionate, health-centred responses. That is very clear. In contrast, only 19% think that addiction should be treated as a criminal matter. That is something to think about. Without addressing the stigma underlying mental health conditions, we cannot hope to tackle drug dependency and its harms effectively. We must end harmful practices; we must ensure that integrated support is available to everyone who requires it; and we must ensure that our mental health care and drug treatment service systems are properly equipped and working with a joined-up approach.

That brings me to my second point, which will be quick, because I am conscious of time. Current practice is ineffective. It prevents services from planning ahead, denies them the security necessary to retain their staff and undermines the long-term progress of their clients. I am not being disrespectful to anyone—that is never my way of doing things—but before this Government came into power, the previous Government took an approach that involved short-term stop-gap budgets. We need something long term, with the continuity necessary to recruit and plan strategically. That is what we should focus on.

An National Audit Office report notes that short-term funding causes

“delays in commissioning services and recruiting new staff”,

leading to service gaps and workforce instability. Those workforces are on the frontline—on the coal quay, as we call it back home—the first person you meet, the first person you see and the first person you need help from. This instability, described by the NAO as a

“de-professionalisation of the treatment workforce”,

damages the quality of care. The NAO identified under- spending of £22 million, with 15% across the treatment and recovery stream. We really have to fix that.

Dame Carol Black’s review called for improved funding and rebuilding of the decimated drug treatment workforce, following the 40% real-terms reduction in funding that we witnessed from 2012 to 2020. She referred to disjointed approaches, struggling staff, increasing costs and decreased funding. Given those challenges, it is no wonder that services are unable to provide the quality that is needed. We must shift to a model in which people feel welcomed and cared for in drug treatment services; in which interventions foster engagement and trust between clients and key workers; and in which we uphold promises to reduce harm, lessen pressure on the health and justice system and ultimately strengthen our communities, helping those whom we represent.

Harm reduction is an essential lifeline for individuals and communities across Northern Ireland, and indeed across this whole great United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, it is evidence-based and compassionate, and it places people at its very heart, meeting them exactly where they are by providing accessible, low-barrier support services. Harm reduction saves lives by preventing overdoses, reduces the spread of infectious diseases—that happens with those who use needles—and significantly improves both physical and mental health outcomes. Harm reduction does not enable drug use; it enables the saving of lives, the restoration of dignity and the reconnection of people to their communities. That has to be our goal, through the Minister.

The harrowing statistics that I have laid out demand that we revisit the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which is now more than 50 years old and has never been formally reviewed. It is time we had a long, hard look at where we are and where we need to be, and moved forward with professional and compassionate methods. The Act restricts many harm reduction interventions that international evidence has shown to be effective, but that we cannot fully implement here. We must ask, in the face of an ongoing and real rise in drug deaths and the undeniable potential for more, whether this legislation remains fit for purpose.

Before the election—I say this respectfully for the record, because hon. Members will know it is not my form to attack anyone—the Prime Minister indicated on the campaign trail that he would not make changes to the drug policy. The point I want to make is that I think it is time we did. I have the utmost respect for the Prime Minister, but I think it is time we had more flexibility and meaningful change to adapt to a changing drug market.

In recent years, the UK has seen a surge in synthetic opioids, a dangerous and highly potent substance peddled by unscrupulous organisations that rob families of fathers, brothers and children. They must be stopped, and we need a drugs policy in place to do just that. It has become clear that simply classifying substances in higher categories or imposing longer sentences is not enough. If it is not enough, we must look at a different way.

Nitazenes, which are up to a thousand times more potent than morphine, have already claimed the lives of hundreds in the UK, and their presence in the illicit drug supply is rising. According to the latest drug-related death statistics, opioids were the most common drug associated with drug-related deaths in Northern Ireland, and I believe those figures are replicated on the mainland as well. If we do not act now, the statistics will only become more devastating.

Dame Carol Black’s review on drugs made some progress, so let us not be churlish. There have been advances and steps in the right direction, but have they gone far enough? I do not believe they have, and others will probably confirm that. The Government recently legislated to expand the provision of the lifesaving drug naloxone, which is used to reverse opioid overdoses. I welcome those changes and understand the need for them, but they are not enough. I am sorry to say that, but we really need to have a new look at the issue. We are falling behind our international partners in tackling the crisis, failing to safeguard our constituents and allowing criminal organisations to profit immensely from their illegal drug trade.

Harm reduction should not be controversial. It is simply about saving lives and mitigating the harms associated with drug use. Historically, the UK led the world in harm reduction, with Liverpool being the birthplace of efforts to reduce drug-related deaths and infectious disease. Every 90 minutes in the UK, someone dies a drug-related death, meaning that during this debate, at least one life will be lost. Only 10 years ago, the figure was one death every two and a half hours. The situation is becoming incredibly serious. We must act now if we are truly committed to ending the crisis, and we must go beyond the medical and behavioural solutions that some have suggested.

Another related issue is the serious concern of death by suicide. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), who had an Adjournment debate on Monday night, referred to suicide in his constituency. In Northern Ireland, 70% of the suicides are by men, and the majority of them occur in deprived areas. The very thing that the hon. Gentleman talked about in his Adjournment debate is happening in my constituency and across the whole of Northern Ireland. A new standard, BS 9988, has been drafted by people with expertise in the policy area, and comprehensive guidelines will be brought forward to support organisations in developing an effective suicide prevention strategy.

Those are some of the things that I wish to say. I am coming to the end of my speech; I am conscious that nine people wish to speak, and I want to give every one of them the chance to make their contribution.

In Strangford, a local drug treatment service and prevention programme has been designed specifically for the friends and families of people who use drugs. It provides a vital space in which they can support each other, learn from each other and realise that they are not alone—it is important that people are not alone, thinking that the whole world is against them and that they have to try to get through it themselves. It also trains the loved ones in naloxone administration so that they can save a life if necessary, and discusses the risks of drug use and how to mitigate them. Most importantly, it brings the community together in a team effort so that they can put their arms around people. That shared purpose enables them to care for those they hold dear and support them through the challenging journey of addiction. I am told that the response has been overwhelmingly positive.

I tell that story because, despite the darkness of what this debate is about, we also have to see that a light can shine and take us to somewhere we can be better. That is what I want to do. As a country, we must do the same and act collectively with compassion and purpose.

Drug-related deaths are not inevitable; they result from choices made—I say this with respect—in this House. The United Kingdom has the expertise and evidence, domestic and international, to act decisively. We have a moral obligation to safeguard our communities, reduce pressure on our strained healthcare system and spend money responsibly.

I call on the Government and the Minister—the responsibility for responding to this debate is on her shoulders, but I know she will not be found wanting—to prioritise the lives of our most vulnerable citizens, protect the healthcare system, act preventatively against drug-related deaths and commit to a fully funded, evidence-based harm reduction approach. This debate can be the first step in moving us forward, and if we do that I believe we will have done an honourable job on behalf of our constituents.

We must discuss the very difficult issue of drug deaths across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They are too high, and they have to come down. We need a new strategy and a new way of looking at it. I have suggested some things from my constituency that we can do in Northern Ireland, and I very much look forward to hearing other hon. Members’ contributions.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I have secured numerous Westminster Hall debates, but I have never had as many people at a debate as I have had at this one, and that illustrates the deep interest that there is from all Members. Some of the ideas that they have put forward could be replicated, such as the centres where people can come with an addiction and they can be weaned off, supported and given the help that they need. Most of those examples have been from Scotland, although we did do something similar in my constituency back home.

I also thank the Minister, in particular for her reply. I genuinely think none of us could fail to be impressed by her response. It certainly encapsulated the feeling of us all in this Chamber and what we are trying to achieve. The Minister referred to Paddy, who lost his life just a few steps away from this place—an example of just how real this issue is for people—and she also mentioned Stephen, a relative who is suffering problems as well. She also referred to the public health issue, and recognised it in her response, along with tackling the blight of drugs. I welcome her commitment to having discussions with devolved Governments and bringing us all together—Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—and getting a strategy.

Drug addictions should be directed to treatment rather than criminalisation. That is the thrust of what I was trying to put over, and everybody put over the same idea as well. I welcome the £250 million commitment for drug treatment pathways that the Minister mentioned; she also spoke about £12 million for research on drug-related deaths in the UK. The Minister reminded us about children, as did another hon. Member; sometimes when we look at the addict, we do not see the child. Forgive me; I do not remember which hon. Member said that, but it is really important for us all to remember there are sometimes children left when parents go astray, and the Minister committed herself to addressing and giving support on that as well. I thank all hon. Members for their significant contributions to a debate that needed to be had in Westminster Hall, for the questions asked and the answers given.

The Minister said that this is a mission-led Government, and I am really impressed: well done. We will look to keep an eye on her and make sure that they will be mission-led, but we look forward to helping and supporting her in the pathway that she has chosen to take us forward on. Thank you so much.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the prevention of drug deaths.