Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome and Craniocervical Instability

Josh Newbury Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered outcomes for patients with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and craniocervical instability.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furness. Before I start my speech, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting us the time for this debate. I also thank Members from across the House who supported our application, and the clinicians, the charities and, most importantly, the patients who have shared their experiences in order to inform the debate.

Let me also take this opportunity to warmly welcome the Minister to what is still her fairly new role. I know that throughout her time in Parliament she has been a staunch advocate for people with conditions such as less survivable cancers and other rare conditions, and for people who have suffered from medical failings, such as those with pelvic mesh. Throughout those campaigns, she has above all given voice to people who feel let down and forgotten by our healthcare system, so I know that she will empathise with much of what will be said in today’s debate.

In April last year, I had an email from my constituent Connor Edwards. Connor opened his email by telling me that he was in “sheer desperation.” He explained that he was living with two conditions, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and craniocervical instability—having pronounced them correctly, I will now refer to them as EDS and CCI.

I will be honest with the House: until that point, I had never heard of these conditions. I did not know how profoundly they affect people such as Connor, or the extent to which they are unseen in our NHS. Six years ago, Connor was 25 and living a very active life. He was a keen fisherman and mountain biker and, like many people in my constituency of Cannock Chase, he loved to spend his time outdoors, surrounded by the natural beauty that we are so fortunate to have on our doorstep.

Connor’s story with EDS and CCI began when he was bitten by a tick while he was out on the Chase and subsequently developed Lyme disease. However, it turned out that that was only the start. In seeking explanations for his worsening health, Connor had to do so much research himself. Then, after finally seeing many specialists, he was diagnosed with EDS, a connective tissue disorder that affects the collagen responsible for supporting the skin, joints, blood vessels and internal organs.

Some people living with EDS experience chronic joint dislocations, severe and persistent pain, and significant neurological complications. One of those complications in cases like Connor’s is CCI, whereby the skull no longer sits safely on the spine, placing pressure on the brain stem and spinal cord.

I am conscious that I can get quite technical when I discuss Connor’s case, so I will put it in his words. He says that his head is quite literally falling off his body. Chillingly, that is not something that is picked up on a scan but not felt; rather, Connor feels his head shifting around dangerously every day, with all the pain that goes with that. He is also acutely aware that his symptoms continue to worsen.

It is the intersection between EDS and CCI that I will focus on today, and I know that many other hon. Members will make important contributions about the broader challenges faced by people living with EDS.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on a topic that, like him, I must confess I had not heard much about until I spoke to two of my constituents about it. Having heard from Sarah and Mark, who both suffer from craniocervical instability, I know that it is impossible for those suffering from it not to be left devastated by its impact. It not only limits and narrows their lives and what they can do, but crushes their family finances, as they are forced to seek expensive private treatment due to inadequate access to treatment via the NHS. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is really important to put that right and that we should start to consider what a better clinical pathway for this condition might look like, so that everyone suffering from it can access the treatment they deserve in their community?

[Josh Newbury]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. In this country, we are incredibly proud of our NHS and the care that it can give people who have very common or very rare conditions. However, as I will set out further, and as he has just said, so many people with these two conditions feel very unseen, and we absolutely need to correct that. People should not have to fundraise to seek private treatment to be seen by doctors.

I will ensure in my speech that the experiences of patients who develop these two conditions and serious neurological complications are heard. When I speak to Connor now, the reality of what he is living with is incredibly difficult to hear. He has told me how much he is struggling, not just with the physical symptoms of his conditions but with his battle to be recognised in our health system. He feels that his conditions are not seen, not properly assessed and too often misunderstood. Like many other people, he has been left feeling that he is not even believed.

Connor told me that at one point he was barely eating, in order to try to save enough money to see a specialist neurosurgeon abroad. He does not come from a privileged background, so he has had to set up a crowdfunding page in the hope of raising enough money to get the specialist surgery and treatment that he needs. However, like so many patients in a similar situation, he is falling short. Even if he is able to reach his target and go abroad, he will be left asking the very simple question: “What happens when I come home?” He has described feeling as though he has been “gaslit” by the system, with his symptoms attributed elsewhere and his concerns not taken seriously.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

rose—

[Josh Newbury]

I give way to my hon. Friend.

[Douglas McAllister]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. In Scotland, one third of those living with EDS or hypermobility spectrum disorder are living with at least one long-term, serious condition. A number of my constituents contacted me in the lead-up to this debate to share their stories. They all repeated the same experience of delayed or overlooked diagnosis, which led to unnecessary pain and distress. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a UK-wide issue that requires earlier diagnosis, better awareness and integrated care to improve people’s outcomes and their lives?

[Josh Newbury]

I absolutely agree with both my hon. Friends. They echo what I have heard from many of my constituents. This issue is often overlooked, and we need to do so much better for many thousands of people across the country, so I thank them for sharing their constituents’ experiences.

So many people are in a similar situation to Connor’s, which is not unusual. Many people have told me that they have been diagnosed with Munchausen syndrome, so they are not just dismissed but told that their condition is fictitious.

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

The point about being dismissed is one I have heard time and time again from my constituents. They are being passed from pillar to post, repeating the same stories again and again, and not being believed or heard. When someone is living with a chronic and lifelong condition, that further adds to their distress. The rare diseases action plan, published earlier this month, sets out the importance of increasing awareness of rare diseases among professionals. Does my hon. Friend agree that we can only shift health services towards prevention through early diagnosis if healthcare teams are equipped with that knowledge from the beginning, and that underdiagnosed diseases like Ehlers-Danlos should be at the heart of that?

[Josh Newbury]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The exhaustion and exasperation that she refers to occurs, as we have heard from other hon. Members, time and time again. I agree that the work being done on rare diseases is incredibly important, and at the end of my speech I will come to how I hope that we can build on that work for people who suffer from these conditions.

The impact on Connor’s mental health has been immense. He told me that he feels as though he is “rotting in bed”, watching his condition deteriorate without any clear route to help. He has spoken openly about how low he has felt and the thoughts that he has had because of that, including considering whether he has any options left at all. While all that is happening, his condition continues to worsen. In recent days, he has experienced seizures and episodes affecting his swallowing and breathing. These symptoms are deeply concerning and underline the urgency of his situation. In response to inquiries about what support might be available, I have been told that there is currently no established or commissioned NHS service for investigation, multidisciplinary discussion or surgery for CCI in patients with hypermobile EDS. Connor is seriously unwell and is getting worse, and he knows that there is no clear pathway for him to access the care he needs anywhere in this country.

Late last year, Connor and I had the opportunity to meet with the then Minister for Public Health and Prevention, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton). We discussed the challenges faced by people living with these complex conditions, including the lack of support in the NHS, the shortage of trained specialists and the fact that there is no way for anybody to get an upright MRI scan in the UK, which is crucial for diagnosing CCI. I was very grateful to my hon. Friend for her time and her compassion, and I would like to take this opportunity to wish her all the best with her treatment.

We were joined at that meeting by representatives from the brilliant charity Ehlers-Danlos Support UK, as well as Connor’s advocate, Natasha, all of whom are in the Public Gallery with us today and have worked closely with my team to help us to better understand the link between EDS and CCI and what that means for people with those conditions. I sincerely thank them for that.

What I have heard from Natasha, and from people across the UK who have contacted me, is that Connor’s is not an isolated case. I will share a few more experiences with the House to reveal the true scale and seriousness of the issue. I have heard from patients who, in 2017, were assessed for surgery here in the UK as part of a planned programme involving international specialist experience. At that point, there was not only recognition of this condition but a clear intention to treat it in the NHS. Yet those procedures were cancelled shortly before they were due to take place, leaving those people without care and without a pathway forward. What is most concerning is that, in the years since, we have not moved forward; in many ways, we have moved backwards.

I have heard from people who were told that their condition was life-threatening, yet were left to face that reality alone, without support and without options. From there, the trajectory becomes all too familiar: people return again and again to NHS services, searching for answers, only to be told that nothing more can be done. I have heard from people who have had to raise extraordinary sums of money in a matter of weeks—while seriously unwell—and from families who have had to leave the UK altogether to access care, only to find themselves stranded overseas as conditions worsen and costs escalate.

Even when people do receive treatment—often at enormous cost—they return home to a system that is still unable to support them, with no clear route for aftercare, rehab or specialist oversight. What is striking is not just the severity of these stories but their consistency —different people, in different parts of the country, seeing the same gaps, barriers and outcomes.

Natasha has also shared her own experience with me. Like many, she spent years seeking answers within the NHS as her condition deteriorated, only to have her symptoms dismissed. At her most unwell, she lost the ability to stand, walk and even swallow properly. When she was upright, sitting or standing, even briefly, her arms became paralysed, she lost her speech and the ability to swallow, and was also losing her vision. These are absolutely horrific symptoms.

Natasha was eventually forced to seek specialist care abroad, having travelled by air ambulance to get there, where she underwent lifesaving surgery at significant personal cost. Since returning to the UK, she has continued to face challenges in accessing the specialist follow-up and rehab that she needs. Despite everything she has been through, Natasha has worked tirelessly to support patients like her and to bring this issue to light. I place on record my thanks to her, not only for sharing her experience but for the work she is doing as an advocate for other people, such as Connor, in the same position.

One reason why patients are passed between multiple specialists, and why diagnosis is so challenging, is the lack of access to appropriate diagnostics. Current NHS pathways are designed for CCI caused by trauma, such as road-traffic collisions, but not for EDS. In cases of traumatic instability, the problem is usually visible on standard scans performed lying down, and can be assessed through established neurological pathways—including the very fusion surgery that Connor is seeking. But in EDS, the instability comes from ligament laxity and is often positional, so that when someone is upright, the head is not adequately supported by the neck. That is often not visible when patients are lying flat in a standard MRI scanner, so their scans might appear normal despite ongoing neurological symptoms. One can see how, in cases like that, diagnoses such as Munchausen can come up. That means that many patients find themselves going back and forth within the system, often ending up in A&E with chronic symptoms and then being discharged because clinicians just do not know what to do.

Symptoms can overlap with other recognised conditions, resulting in delays due to misdiagnoses and therefore missed opportunities to prevent further deterioration. There are also risks in how patients are managed during the period of instability. If instability is not recognised as a possibility, patients might be directed towards physiotherapy or exercise-based rehab, which, although well intentioned, can in some cases make things worse.

At the same time, we know that CCI surgery is already performed in the NHS, yet there is no equivalent for patients with EDS. Imagine someone with a broken arm going to A&E, but being told, “I’m sorry, we only X-ray legs.” They point to their arm, the doctor can see it is broken and they can feel it is broken, but they cannot scan it, so they have to go home—over and over. Even worse, imagine if, instead of being provided with a plaster cast, they were referred to counselling. That might seem far-fetched, but that is what patients with EDS and CCI are facing.

In the absence of an NHS route, patients are forced to take matters into their own hands, as I have said. In some cases, they might even require specialist medical transport to get abroad. Devastatingly, some find that their condition is too advanced for them to even make the journey. As I have said, there is then no aftercare, no consistent access to specialist imaging reviews and no co-ordinated rehab; many people are refused any of the care that would normally follow complex neurosurgery.

Before I conclude, I would like to reflect on what has struck me since I began working on this issue on behalf of Connor. I have lost count of the number of people who have been in touch with me from across the country, and of the conversations with hon. Members who hear similar stories from their own constituents. I have just been told that an appeal from EDS Support UK has reached almost all MPs—over 98%. That is how many of our constituents are getting in touch with us about this issue.

The conditions are often described as rare, but the truth is that for many patients they are simply rarely diagnosed. Without a pathway to diagnosis or treatment, patients with EDS and CCI are effectively invisible in NHS data. Behind every email, message and conversation is somebody trying to be heard—trying to access the care they need and live a life that many of us take for granted. I should stress that it is not easy for people living with these conditions to even do that. Many people are forced to become campaigners and lobbyists, but their energy should not be spent fighting to prove that their illness is real or to get access to basic care. They should be able to focus, as anybody should, on being believed, supported and treated.

The last time EDS was debated in this Chamber was May 2024. With the general election called within days of that debate, the follow-ups on the issues raised by Members then were not possible. My ask of the Government is simple, and it comes not from me alone, but from patients, clinicians and organisations such as EDS Support UK, and from Connor. Patients are not asking for predetermined clinical outcomes or for routine surgical intervention; they are asking for recognition that suspected CCI in EDS requires a clear, defined process for assessment in the health service.

In the short term, that means taking proportionate, practical steps to reduce avoidable harm, and making sure that access is appropriate, that diagnostic assessment happens and that a specialist opinion is given. It means being honest about where no pathway exists and providing clear guidance to avoid potentially harmful management when instability has not been ruled out. Finally, it means creating defined escalation routes with funding mechanisms where clinically necessary.

In the longer term, we clearly need an NHS diagnostic and care pathway with proper clinical governance, referral routes, specialist input and continuity of care so that access to diagnosis and treatment is based on clinical need, not the ability to pay.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I apologise; this is one of those days when multiple debates are going on, on each of which I have received representations from constituents, so I will have to speak and leave. The point my constituents have made to me is exactly as my hon. Friend sets out, which is that we want a comprehensive strategy. We know wonders cannot be worked overnight, but we want a timed and programmed strategy that addresses the agenda of issues that he has raised, and to give hope to people as well. Where the Government develop strategies—for example, on cancer—we are having breakthroughs and success in terms of diagnosis and treatment. I hope that this debate will confirm that the Government are willing to develop a strategy, and of course resource it.

[Josh Newbury]

I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. He mentioned a key word in this debate—“hope”, which is something that so many people with the conditions do not have at the moment. That is what we absolutely need to give them. I share his hope that there is a way forward, but we need to make sure that this group of patients is included in that.

I am told that the rare diseases pathway could be one route forward. I would love to have the chance to explore that further with the Department alongside the people who clearly have an interest in this. The Government have rightly placed health at the centre of their agenda, and through the NHS 10-year plan we have an opportunity to build a system that is more joined up, fairer and more responsive to complex conditions like the ones I have mentioned. But patients like Connor cannot wait for long-term reform. Without action now, many will continue to face avoidable harm, worsening disability and, in some cases, irreversible deterioration. Let this be the Parliament where we turn the tide, recognise the people who are being let down, and act to ensure that no patient is left without a pathway to care simply because their condition does not yet fit the system.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Hodgson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman on behalf of his constituent, Natasha, and I will make sure that I include her name later when I come on to name everyone referred to during the debate. I also thank him for managing to juggle and spin all the plates that we have to deal with as Members by making time to come along to this debate.

I also thank all the other hon. Members who managed to make it to this very important debate. We heard contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern), for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister), and for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran); from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell); from my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham); from the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Ashfield (Lee Anderson); from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist); from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour); from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley); from the hon. Members for Winchester (Dr Chambers) and for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson); and from the spokesperson for the Conservatives, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden).

I also thank the hon. Member for Fylde for sharing his learnings from the experience of his sister, Kimberley, on her journey in treatment for epilepsy. As he explained, epilepsy is a well-known condition, especially in comparison with the conditions that we are discussing today. That was a very strong point, which I thank him for making.

I will not repeat the detailed clinical descriptions of Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and craniocervical instability that other hon. Members have already set out very clearly, but I do want to recognise the real and often profound challenges that people living with these conditions, and their families, face every day. I want those individuals to know that I hear them, and that I recognise the challenges they face and the uncertainty and distress that many describe. Their experiences will shape the Department’s ongoing work as we consider how services can better meet the needs of people living with these complex conditions.

NHS England continues to strengthen clinically led pathways for people with hypermobility-related disorders, with an emphasis on non-surgical management, co-ordinated physiotherapy, and pain management and rehabilitation, as is consistent with the best available evidence.

In response to the question from the hon. Member for Strangford about the number of people affected by these conditions, the Getting It Right First Time programme is supporting more consistent assessment and management of complex joint and spine conditions, and assessment of the number of people affected, helping to reduce the unwarranted variation in treatment that particularly affects people with EDS. The programme has a strong emphasis on robust, evidence-based and personalised pathways. Through RightCare, integrated care systems are supported to commission evidence-based pathways for long-term and complex conditions, including improved access to community-based musculoskeletal care, which many people with EDS rely upon.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett mentioned some numbers in her contribution, quoting a ratio of one in 250 and saying that between 1% and 4% of the population are affected. I would imagine that those are the ballpark figures, but the Getting It Right First Time and RightCare programmes, which I have just mentioned, will look into that in more detail.

How can we facilitate better care and support? We need better clinical education, clearer referral routes and a stronger emphasis on shared decision making. We also need to recognise the burden of chronic pain and fatigue that comes with these conditions, and ensure that people can access appropriate services, even when a definitive single diagnosis may still be evolving. Where the evidence is established, the NHS should provide timely, appropriate care. Where evidence is uncertain, we have a responsibility to be transparent about what is known, what is not known and what options are supported by clinical consensus.

Patient safety must always be paramount, and decisions about invasive treatments must be made within appropriate specialist teams, with robust clinical governance, multidisciplinary review and clear plans to follow up. EDS illustrates why integrated care matters. Pathways must connect primary care, community therapy services and specialist support so that patients do not have to tell their story over and over again, or navigate multiple disconnected services.

Stronger evidence is also imperative. The Government support health research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and we want to see well-designed studies that can inform future guidance and reduce unwarranted variation.

[Josh Newbury]

One thing that we have come across consistently is that a huge amount of research has been done internationally and, as many hon. Members have outlined, constituents are funding themselves to go abroad for treatment and surgery. As part of that work with the NIHR, would the Minister be willing to look at international best practice in this area, so that we can draw on the experiences of many other countries as they work out how best to treat this group of patients?

[Mrs Hodgson]

I am happy to recommend that international best practice is looked at, and I will take that on board. I will also come to the suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett about the international best practice that we can learn from in Wales.

Guidance matters too, and clinical guidelines and service specifications help reduce variation and improve quality. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett asked about NICE guidance. Where NICE guidance exists, the NHS is expected to take it into account, and where it does not, we should consider what other guidance can support clinicians and patients in the interim. I commit to asking the NICE prioritisation board, chaired by its chief medical officer, if it will look at the Wales pathways that she suggested when it considers updating NICE guidance.

My hon. Friend also asked about multidisciplinary teams. NHS England, along with the neurosurgery and spinal surgery clinical reference group, has not currently identified a need for an MDT. NHS England has established clinical networks for spinal surgery and neurosurgery, and we expect those networks to work closely to ensure that both cranial and spinal pathways are optimised.

I was also asked about a pathway by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth. There is currently no separate national diagnostic or treatment pathway for CCI because it is not recognised as a distinct NHS diagnosis, and there is no agreed national definition, validated imaging criteria or robust evidence base to support creating one. However, the Department recognises the concerns that patients have raised, and we are working with NHS England, clinical networks and patients’ organisations to improve pathway consistency by strengthening the existing framework, so we will look further into that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Newbury]

I thank the Minister for her words, but I would add one point to her list, if I may, which is aftercare for people who have travelled abroad to have surgery. I understand that that is a tricky issue for the NHS, but we have heard consistently from several hon. Members today that their constituents have been rejected for any meaningful aftercare once they have come home, despite having a clear clinical need for it. Could she add that to her list to take back her officials?

[Mrs Hodgson]

I will commit to looking into that for my hon. Friend. Obviously, aftercare for surgery abroad is tricky—not for conditions such as this, but often for beauty related purposes—but I will take that on board and take it back to the Department.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Newbury]

I am grateful for the opportunity to briefly wind up; the fact that it must be brief shows the incredibly rich, emotive and deep debate we have had. Obviously, I will not be able to go through everybody’s contributions, but I thank all hon. Members who contributed. They raised the hugely complex issues that people with these conditions face, including mental distress, the need for joined-up care, the difficulties for people under the age of 18, the need to get wheelchair services and other provisions in order, the desperate need to be independent, the want to get back to work and to be able to live a fulfilling life, and the long delays to diagnosis. Members also raised the hope that we can draw from best practice in our own nation as well as overseas.

I also thank Members for highlighting issues including the lack of awareness and the postcode lottery that we have in this country, which hampers our ability to get to where we need to be. I am really encouraged, however, by the speeches we heard today, the Minister’s response, and the things that we can go away and work on together. The whole community will feel far more seen and heard as a result of this debate. I very much look forward to taking that well beyond today, as we hopefully do far better for this incredibly important group of people.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered outcomes for patients with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and craniocervical instability.

Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial

Josh Newbury Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. At the outset, I want to acknowledge the strength of feeling on all sides of this debate, and our responsibility in this House to provide clarity that is grounded in evidence and centred on the wellbeing of the young people we are talking about.

The petition calls for the cancellation of the planned clinical trial of puberty-suppressing hormones, describing them as unsafe and inconsistent with safeguarding. However, the reality is that Dr Cass was clear in her review that we are lacking evidence, and that one of the scenarios where she believed that puberty blockers should be prescribed for gender incongruence is a clinical trial. A trial is a response to uncertainty, focused on ensuring that clinical decisions are made on a foundation of robust evidence.

I find it a little more than ironic that, when the Cass review was published, many of the voices now telling us that a trial should not go ahead were saying that the Cass review should be accepted and implemented in full. They have gone from saying, “We need the evidence,” to, “This trial should be stopped.” If someone can show me another way of properly gathering clinical evidence other than a full clinical trial, then I am all ears, but, in reality, we are talking about shutting down options for trans people. With waiting times for a first appointment for a gender identity service currently standing, in many cases, at more than five years, it is not as if there are copious alternatives out there for this group of young people. Many are waiting the entirety of their adolescence just to start treatment. Would we tolerate that for any other group of patients? I doubt it.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Josh Newbury]

In the interest of time, I will not.

Although I respect the concerns that have led many to sign the petition, I urge colleagues to reflect on the consequences of the course of action it proposes. Cancelling research does not resolve uncertainty, but entrenches it. In doing so, it risks leaving vulnerable young people without the evidence base needed to support safe, informed and compassionate care. As someone who is proud to be an ally of the trans community, I believe that we have a duty to ensure that trans young people hear a clear message from this House: they are supported, respected, cared for and never alone.

Type 1 Diabetes: Infant Testing

Josh Newbury Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I warmly welcome the Minister to her new role.

Earlier this year, I was contacted by Michelle, the mum of a bright little boy called Toby who was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes when he was just 20 months old. Michelle told me that when she was a child, she happened to overhear a conversation between her mum and the mum of her best friend who had just been diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. That meant that Michelle recognised Toby’s symptoms, but, if she had not heard that conversation, she might never have made the connection.

Michelle took Toby to Cannock Chase hospital and raised her concerns about some of his symptoms, such as thirst and heavy nappies, with the doctor. He said that Toby just had an ear infection, but Michelle trusted her gut and insisted on a test. She was then told to take him to A&E due to his extremely high blood glucose and ketone levels, and it was there that he was diagnosed with type 1. Not all parents will have that knowledge. Not all parents will know what to look out for, nor should they. Michelle told me that, in many ways, they had been one of the lucky families. It was because she had recognised the symptoms and pushed for a test that Toby avoided going into diabetic ketoacidosis.

I want to pay tribute to Lyla and her parents, as others have, for campaigning tirelessly in their daughter’s name. As a dad myself, I cannot begin to imagine the pain that they must have been through, and I hope that through raising awareness of stories such as Lyla’s and Toby’s, we can bring about change.

A single finger-prick blood glucose test is cheap and takes seconds. In fact, when I met three-year-old Toby, he showed me that he can already do it himself. Toby has thankfully had excellent care from the team at New Cross hospital, who are helping his family navigate their new way of life, but sadly, that was not the case for Lyla, or for so many families. That is exactly why we in this House need to fix this.

Palliative Care

Josh Newbury Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for securing this debate and, more importantly, for her work and advocacy on palliative care throughout her time in the House. Last August, I visited St Giles hospice in Whittington, just over the border in the Lichfield constituency; I am hugely grateful for that visit. The hospice is so well loved by my constituents, not least by the thousands of people who fundraise for it every year.

We often judge our health services by how they treat illness, but the test of a good health service is also how it supports people when treatment is no longer the answer. The people I met at St Giles were doing extraordinary, skilled work. Their day-to-day is managing complex symptoms, while turning to steady a husband or reassure a daughter. That balance of clinical excellence and guiding family and friends as their loved one’s life nears its end showcases the immense skill that those nurses, doctors and support staff possess.

At St Giles, I met the chief executive officer, Elinor Eustace, and saw the fruits of recent funding that they have had from the Government, and from the Francis and Eric Ford Charity Trust, which enabled them to create a new family lounge. The space gives people the chance to spend time with their loved ones away from their room, including cooking up a storm in the kitchen, nattering over a brew, or playing in the children’s area—because, heartbreakingly, St Giles is seeing more and more terminally ill people who have young children.

Like all hospices, St Giles faces stark financial challenges. With only around a third of hospice funding coming from the NHS, the vast majority must be raised from donations, sponsorships and legacies. Though hospices fiercely defend their charitable mission and independence from the NHS, it is clear that the NHS and hospices have a close relationship, and always will, so public funding is critical.

Having listened to hospices and the families who have relied on their world-class care, it is clear to me that the funding model for palliative care, and the recognition of the costs that hospices face, need a major shake-up. At St Giles, Elinor told me that although hospices are not bound by NHS pay scales, terms and conditions, they have to keep up with them, or they will lose many of their staff. They want to recognise the outstanding care that their highly skilled workforce provide, but the reality is that the payments they receive from the NHS often do not keep pace with increasing costs; the squeeze is tighter every year. It is the same story for many other hospices that serve my constituency, such as Acorns and the Dougie Mac.

A stark example of this pressure can be seen at St Giles, where a third of beds are closed due to funding constraints—most definitely not because of a lack of demand or need. In previous years, that spare capacity has been given over to the NHS to help with winter pressures. Any hon. Members who have worked in the NHS will know that extra capacity is essential in the cold winter months; however, the amount paid for lower-level care than St Giles typically offers meant that the hospice made a loss on those beds. Donations were effectively subsidising NHS care, so, sadly, that arrangement had to be stopped.

We Labour Members have to be honest that chief among the cost pressures faced by hospices in the last year has been the increase in employer national insurance contributions, which has cost St Giles £400,000. I continue to believe that given the vital role that hospices play for people at a critical time in life, and the pressures that they take off the NHS, hospices should be exempted from that increase. Not exempting them will continue to restrict the availability of end-of-life care, and will cost the NHS more in the long run.

Like many in the Chamber, I devoted lots of time to the assisted dying debate, poring over heart-wrenching letters, and speaking with constituents and professionals on both sides of the argument. That debate showed me that, whatever views people hold, we need far more focus, discussion and funding for care at the end of life. When hospices have to cut their services, the people who need them do not just disappear; instead, they go to the NHS, or they are among the quarter of people who could benefit from specialist end-of-life care but never receive it.

With stable long-term funding that reflects the full costs of specialist services, hospices could not only maintain their services, but expand their role to meet growing demand and the various challenges ahead of us. We all deserve a good death, but many of us do not get that. That must and can change, and I look forward to working with everyone in this Chamber, and with the incredible people who provide palliative care, to ensure that it does.

National Cancer Plan

Josh Newbury Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ashley Dalton]

Yes, we are aware of that. We are looking at the existing metrics and at what we can do to improve them to ensure that they are actually making a difference to people’s outcomes.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

In welcoming the national cancer plan, I want to pay tribute to my phenomenal Auntie Hillary, who passed away in September 2020. A GP practice manager, her selfless focus on ensuring that her elderly and vulnerable patients were okay during the first lockdown meant that she put off getting the early symptoms of her own cancer checked out; she got rapid treatment, but sadly it was too late. Will my incredible hon. Friend confirm that the direction and investment set out in this plan will ensure that hundreds of thousands of families a year will be celebrating all-clears, not mourning losses?

[Ashley Dalton]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and offer my condolences on the loss of his Auntie Hillary. Yes, this plan is designed to ensure that an extra 320,000 people at the end of the course of the plan will have had their lives saved or be living well with cancer after their five-year diagnosis. We want to make sure that everybody gets that opportunity, regardless of where they live.

Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill

Josh Newbury Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

At its heart, this Bill is about fairness—fairness for the doctors who train in this country, and fairness for the patients who rely on the care provided by our fantastic NHS workforce. Before Brexit, graduates from our British medical schools predominantly competed among themselves for foundation and specialty training posts, but since Boris Johnson’s disastrous visa and immigration changes made under the previous Conservative Government, that picture has changed completely. Doctors trained here are facing huge barriers to progressing their career and caring for patients up and down the country, and many are turning to jobs abroad or within the private sector. That is not because they lack the ability or the commitment, but because of how the system was left to drift by the previous Government until it has got to this point of being set up against our graduates.

We hear a lot about the doctors who train here but then end up going abroad, but we hear a lot less about the concerns of the doctors who remain here in the UK. They are passionate about our NHS and want to dedicate their careers to it. They want to build their lives here, but all too often they find that they simply cannot secure a training post. This is not a new problem; it is a reality that has been behind the flight of doctors overseas for many years. But only now do we have a Government who are committed to tackling it. I commend the Health Secretary not only for bringing forward the Bill, but for committing to bring in changes as swiftly as possible.

Our NHS and our constituents are missing out on our home-grown talent because of the previous Government’s changes to immigration, which led to the so-called Boriswave. As we have heard, international medical graduates contribute hugely and are welcome, but visa changes have had a destabilising effect on British-trained doctors who now face double the competition for every single post. We are training more doctors now than ever before, but we have failed until now to match that ambition with a system that supports them. As we have heard, we spend around £4 billion a year training doctors in the UK, a huge investment of public money, and it is only right that taxpayers see that investment translating into doctors building their careers in our NHS.

The prioritisation to which the Secretary of State referred is about sustainability and keeping things fair for our UK-trained graduates, not about shutting out international talent. The NHS is rightly proud to be a major international employer and people from around the world will continue to bring vital skills to our health service. Of course, anyone who can apply now will still be able to apply. But many countries from which we are recruiting also desperately need their own doctors. We should be proud that people want to come and work here, but it is morally unacceptable to pinch doctors from other countries that need them, meanwhile leaving our brilliant and willing resident doctors unable to get training places.

The Bill builds on action that the Government have already taken to boost the NHS workforce. When the Government came into office, we heard concerns from GPs and patients alike about a dire need for more GP surgery capacity, while many qualified GPs were out of work. Labour removed the red tape around the additional roles reimbursement scheme and more than 1,000 additional GPs have since joined our primary care workforce. When the Government heard from nurses who were just about to qualify and struggling to find work, despite a clear and chronic need for more nurses, they brought in the graduate guarantee. Now the Government are acting again.

Following the Secretary of State’s constructive approach to negotiations with the BMA, he offered a package of support, including quadrupling the number of specialist training posts being created in the coming three years and funding resident doctors’ Royal College exam and membership fees. Despite a rejection of that deal, he is making good on his commitment to put British graduates back on a level playing field, giving them a fair shot at taking the next step in their careers, with competition ratios that are reasonable and workable.

The Bill will ensure that the NHS retains the talent it has developed through excellent medical schools such as Keele University in Staffordshire, rather than losing that talent to overseas recruitment or forcing doctors out of the profession altogether. The BMA has welcomed extending prioritisation to the foundation programme, which the Government expect will significantly reduce the number of placeholder offers faced by final-year medical students. I hope that as their members vote on whether to take further strike action, they will see that the Government do not make pie-crust promises. We are taking the steps we said we would take to fix the issues that they have raised.

I know that the Bill will not fix every workforce challenge overnight, but it is certainly a big step in the right direction. It will reduce competition for training places and, most importantly, send a clear message to resident doctors who trained in this country: if you want to progress your career here, the Government will back you. For those reasons, I am proud to support the Bill.

NHS Urgent Care: Staffordshire

Josh Newbury Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to lead this debate on NHS urgent care in my brilliant county of Staffordshire, and particularly on what that means for my constituents in the towns and villages of Cannock Chase. I start by paying immense tribute to the dedicated staff who work in our NHS and in social care. From district nurses and general practice, through to care homes and A&E departments, the passion and expertise that they bring enriches and saves lives.

When I was elected, I knew that there were many local issues that I would need to get to grips with quickly, but among many priorities, I knew that I had to campaign on urgent healthcare first. It is a subject that my constituents have raised with me frequently, on doorsteps, in emails, at surgeries and in conversations with local clinicians. It goes right to the heart of whether people feel confident that our NHS will be there for them when they need it, and that our area is well served.

Before being elected to serve Cannock Chase, I worked in the NHS, not in a clinical role but in communications, and that experience has very much stayed with me. It means that I approach debates like this with a great deal of respect for the people working in the system, and with an understanding of just how complex it is. I know how difficult decisions can be, how stretched staff are and how long it can take to move from strategy to delivery, but I also know that delay and uncertainty have consequences for patients, staff morale and public trust.

For my constituents, uncertainty around access to urgent care has become an all too familiar experience. The minor injuries unit at Cannock Chase hospital was temporarily closed in March 2020, so that staff could be redeployed to the covid wards at New Cross hospital. At the time that decision was entirely understandable and widely supported locally. The NHS was facing an unprecedented emergency and staff stepped up in extraordinary ways to protect lives.

At the same time, it was said that the closure was temporary and that the Royal Wolverhampton NHS trust planned to reopen the MIU once pandemic-related workforce pressures eased, but, nearly six years on, that temporary closure feels anything but temporary. In fact, two years after the closure, in March 2022, there was significant fanfare around the possibility of a reopening that summer. Many residents understandably took that as a sign of progress, but ultimately nothing came of it.

After more than two years of radio silence, in August 2024 the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent integrated care board announced a wholesale review of urgent care services across the county, in the light of new national standards for urgent treatment centres. Although the proposals are to upgrade urgent care facilities in other hospitals in Stafford, Burton-upon-Trent, Lichfield, Tamworth and Stoke-on-Trent to meet those UTC standards, they included the permanent closure of Cannock’s minor injuries unit, which would effectively end the remaining hope among my constituents and others in neighbouring constituencies that urgent care will come back to our area. The reasons given included a belief that need from the Cannock Chase area was already being met by other nearby hospitals and, above all, a refusal from the Royal Wolverhampton NHS trust to support urgent care provision at Cannock Chase hospital. A comment made to me by a member of the ICB’s staff was, “They just aren’t interested”.

The way that these proposals were communicated locally was very poor, and I have been very frank with the ICB about that. The reaction of the people who saw the ICB’s document was understandably one of huge concern, particularly among older residents, people with chronic conditions and those who cannot drive. The ICB planned only one public engagement event in my constituency, which was in the afternoon on a weekday, and even that attracted far more people than it had planned for. Although many did not get to hear about the event, the room was still packed, and very frank views were given. At my request, the ICB held a second event, which was on an evening, and I am told that that was well attended too.

We were told that the ICB expected to take its final proposals to health scrutiny at Staffordshire county council in the spring of last year, with a full public consultation in the summer if the committee deemed it necessary, yet months passed without any update, adding to the uncertainty and frustration locally. Let me be clear that I am not standing here to criticise the ICB for the sake of it; I meet it regularly, and at those meetings we have serious, detailed discussions about patient flow, demand, workforce and outcomes.

I understand that good decision making in the NHS takes time, but I believe that prolonged uncertainty comes at a cost. Every month that passes without clarity leaves patients unsure where to go when they need care, staff unsure what the future holds for their workplace, and communities feeling that decisions are being made far away, rather than with an understanding of local reality.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I note what my hon. Friend says about his integrated care board. I have very positive meetings with my ICB, but a similar situation is affecting the town of Rugby, which I represent. The urgent treatment centre is nurse-led, and we very much want there to be a doctor-led treatment centre. A review is under way, but my constituents and I are simply not aware of its end date. That causes the kind of concern around services that you talk about—

[John Slinger]

That my hon. Friend talks about.

[Josh Newbury]

I saw a post from my hon. Friend on Facebook earlier today about this very matter. I know that he is fighting very hard on that on behalf of his constituents. I hope that my integrated care board listens to the concerns of my constituents, and I hope that that is reflected in Coventry and Warwickshire and that he can get some progress on a doctor-led unit.

For the past six years, people in Cannock Chase have had to travel to Stafford, Lichfield, Walsall or Wolverhampton for care that they would once have accessed locally. That is not simply an inconvenience; it undermines the objectives of urgent care reform, increases pressure on neighbouring hospitals and pushes more people into A&E. That is exactly the opposite of what the urgent care review is supposed to achieve.

Most worrying of all are those who are not seeking care at all. Not everybody can drive and not everyone has access to reliable public transport, particularly in places such as Staffordshire. When patients are faced with long, complicated journeys for what should be straightforward local treatment, many simply put it off; conditions then worsen, complications develop and people ultimately end up needing an ambulance for something that could have been treated earlier, more cheaply and closer to home.

At the engagement events and in conversations with me since, constituents have told me that the MIU was a lifeline when they did not need A&E but their GP felt they needed to go to hospital. Cannock Chase hospital is very close to a bus station, and most people locally can catch a single bus to reach it; in contrast, travelling by bus to MIUs in Lichfield, Stafford, Walsall or Wolverhampton can be difficult, often involving multiple changes and long journey times. As a result, many of my constituents are paying for taxis instead, which is a significant financial burden.

The issue becomes even clearer when we look at the demographics of my constituency. It has a slightly older population than the national average, with more than 19,500 residents aged 65 and over—around a fifth of our population. Almost half of those older residents—more than 9,300 people—are living with a long-term health condition, a higher proportion than we see nationally. These are the residents who are most likely to need timely urgent care, who are more vulnerable to deterioration if treatment is delayed, and who often face the greatest barriers when services are not available locally. The NHS’s own data shows higher attendances at both surrounding MIUs since ours closed, but not by the total amount of previous activity at Cannock Chase hospital, backing up what residents have been telling us about not always seeking care.

We can also see how these pressures play out in practice at nearby hospitals that many of my constituents rely on when local urgent care is not available. Although Royal Stoke University hospital is not in my constituency, it is a key part of the wider system and serves residents right across our county. In the final quarter of last year alone, that hospital saw more than 33,000 A&E attendances, and over 6,800 patients waited more than 12 hours to be admitted or discharged. That is more than one in five attendances—double the national average—placing the hospital among the most pressured in the country.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Royal Stoke hospital is in my constituency, and one of the things its staff tell me is that if it were not for the Haywood walk-in unit up in Stoke-on-Trent, Leek Moorland hospital or Stafford MIU, the A&E would simply fall over. Naturally, people in Staffordshire gravitate to the A&E when they want help, and the fact that my hon. Friend’s constituency is without an urgent treatment centre has a ripple effect across the county. Will he join me in asking the Minister to say when she winds up whether she has any data demonstrating the impact that the lack of a facility in Cannock is having on neighbouring hospitals, and therefore on the services that are experienced by my constituents and those in constituencies across the county?

[Josh Newbury]

I thank my hon. Friend and fellow Staffordshire MP for his intervention. He has highlighted a critical point: every part of our NHS can have a knock-on effect on the others, so the system needs to work as a whole. We cannot just focus on individual services; we have to see how it works in the round. That is what the review is trying to do, but of course, many of us feel it is not hitting on what it needs to.

I do not raise these figures to criticise staff, who are working under immense strain, or the Government, who are making strong progress on addressing the pressures I have described. I raise them to underline a simple point: as we have heard, when local urgent care is unavailable, demand does not disappear, it is concentrated elsewhere. Making sure patients get the right care in the right place is critical—too many people end up in A&E not because they need to be there, but because there is nowhere else for them to go. Perhaps in the past, our MIU was not always used for its intended purpose, but even that was often a symptom of failings in community care.

Urgent treatment centres will be a vital part of the fabric of our NHS, sitting between primary care and emergency departments. Not having that service for a population of over 100,000 people is a real challenge, and it weakens the wider system. In the 17 months since the review of urgent care was unveiled, I have had many conversations with our ICB about urgent care more broadly, as have GPs, councillors and campaigners. I know that they are putting in place services that make good on the Government’s commitment to shift care from hospitals out into the community. I welcome the introduction of a wound care local enhanced service, which recognises that wound care was previously a key reason for patients to access the MIU, even though their homes are a better place for that care to take place. This shows that sustained conversations about our local health needs and inequalities are starting to translate into results.

I hope that building on this, Cannock Chase can be a forerunner in the roll-out of multidisciplinary neighbourhood teams. The health inequalities we sadly have locally, coupled with the distance to many secondary care services that I have referred to, means that we would benefit hugely from that model of supercharged community care. Better than having to catch a bus to Lichfield or Stafford would be heading to Cannock Chase hospital, but better still would be getting that care at home. That is what I am calling for, and will continue to fight for, on behalf of my constituents.

There are areas where Staffordshire is performing strongly. Urgent community response services are exceeding national targets, winter planning has helped to stabilise hospital stays during periods of peak demand, and vaccination programmes are having an impact on admissions. This is not an argument against reform; it is an argument for consistency and fairness. If urgent care reform is about reducing avoidable A&E attendance, improving patient flow and ensuring equitable access across the system, then Cannock Chase cannot continue to remain an outlier.

Crucially, this is not just about rhetoric. The Government are making huge strides in the NHS nationally, backed by reform, investment and a determination to ensure that people get the right care in the right place at the right time. That is why I welcome the investment already being made in the Chadsmoor medical practice, the Rawnsley surgery and the Red Lion surgery in my constituency. That will make a huge difference to people’s everyday experience of the NHS that they can see and feel. Strengthening primary care does not remove the need for local urgent care—one cannot simply replace the other.

My ask today is simple and constructive. I am not asking the Minister to pre-empt the outcome of the ICB’s review—I know that she cannot do that—and I am certainly not arguing against the reform of urgent care that prompted this review. I am calling for clarity, fairness and alignment between national ambition and local delivery. If we believe in shifting care out of hospitals and into communities, if we believe in reducing avoidable A&E attendance and if we believe in equitable access to urgent care, then Cannock Chase must have that as part of its future.

I hope that 2026 can be the year that sees an expansion of urgent care back into my part of the world, and I urge the Royal Wolverhampton NHS trust to make better use of Cannock Chase hospital, which many residents feel remains underutilised compared with how things were under the former Mid Staffordshire NHS trust. I would welcome the Minister’s assurance that local voices will continue to be properly heard, that decisions will be communicated clearly and promptly, and that the Government will work with the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent ICB to ensure that communities such as mine are not left without urgent care provision.

Urgent care, at its simplest, is about whether someone with a broken wrist, a deep cut or a worsening infection knows where to go and can actually get there. I look forward to continuing to work constructively with the ICB, the Minister and colleagues across the House to ensure that urgent care in Staffordshire truly works for the communities that we all serve.

Puberty Suppressants Trial

Josh Newbury Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

The Conservative party welcomed the Cass review on its publication, including its clear recommendation that this trial take place. Eight years ago, the then leader of the Conservative party supported self-ID and declared that trans women are women; now, we have dog-whistle statements such as, “If we leave these children alone, many will get over it,” which the shadow Minister said just yesterday in Westminster Hall. Does the Secretary of State agree that a rigorous clinical trial is the only way we will get the impartial evidence he needs to make informed decisions on gender-affirming care for trans young people?

[Wes Streeting]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that we need a strong evidence base, that we need to conduct these conversations with great care, consideration and compassion, and that we need to recognise the vulnerability of this particular group of children and young people, and the fear that so many trans people in our country feel about whether this is a country that accepts and respects them. The political climate has changed since we made all the progress we have made on LGBT equality over the last 20 or 30 years, but do I think the character of this country has changed? Do I think we are less inclusive, less respectful, less loving or less caring? Absolutely not—those are the hallmarks of this country and of the British people. We might be having a debate about the efficacy of this trial, but I think the overwhelming majority of people in this House are doing so in the spirit of wanting trans people to live healthy, happy lives in which they feel safe, included and respected in our country.

Transgender People: Provision of Healthcare

Josh Newbury Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

Something that I hear from concerned parents of trans children and young people, who are often such powerful advocates for them, is that they feel powerless to help their children, so does my hon. Friend agree that support and guidance for families and friends must absolutely be embedded in gender-affirming care, as we hopefully expand and invest in that?

[Oliver Ryan]

I thank my hon. Friend for that very relevant point. He took the words right out of my mouth, to quote Meat Loaf. We must also recognise that the wider picture, though, is that transgender people face questioning or even denial of their very existence as people. They face barriers not just in specialist gender and transitioning services, but across society as well as our healthcare system, including GP surgeries, maternity care, cancer screenings and mental health support. Too many avoid seeking help altogether not because they are disengaged, but because they fear being misunderstood, judged and discriminated against, or turned away, as unfortunately they are, as the evidence tells us.

Taking this away from silly social media debates, evidence-led medicine, properly funded services and clear clinical guidance do not harm patients; they protect patients. In a world where there is still so much hostility, we have a responsibility and a duty to work harder to ensure that everyone has a place. I know that this Labour Government, at their core, believe that. This House has a responsibility to speak up for those individuals who are too often drowned out by fear and misinformation and by the madness of the online space because we owe it to the sort of country we want to be, where we consider everyone in a mature, dignified and rational way to be worthy of healthcare.

I am not transgender, but I believe in fairness and the principle of good, timely, effective, universal access to healthcare, which applies to transgender people as much as anyone else, because at its core, this is about whether we meet people at their most vulnerable moments with care or with closed doors, and I know which side of that choice I stand on. I hope to hear the Minister take up the points my hon. Friend has made, and I hope to see a more dignified approach to this debate from all concerned in future.

Resident Doctors: Industrial Action

Josh Newbury Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I thank my hon. Friend for what he says and for the experience he brings to bear. I hope his urging is heeded by the BMA. I can give him that assurance. I think its operational leaders will face some fiendish choices in the coming days and weeks if strike action goes ahead. They will have my full backing. Myself, the Minister for Health and the Minister for Care are working closely with both the NHS and the social care sector, but this will be extremely challenging, and that is why I urge the BMA to adopt that “one team, one NHS” approach that he urges them to adopt.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

I too thank the Secretary of State for the lengths he is going to for resident doctors. As somebody who worked in our NHS before coming to this place, I know what a pressured time winter is for staff and patients alike. With strikes at this time of year, NHS staff will this week be taking calls from harried managers and cancelling plans to be with their families at Christmas to cover shifts, and of course patients will have their operations cancelled. Does he share my concern about the human impact of this planned strike?

[Wes Streeting]

That is the only thing I have been thinking about in recent days, and it is why I have offered to extend a strike mandate for the first time, even though the BMA has asked me to do that on previous occasions in different contexts. I think it is a sensible compromise, and it avoids that dreaded phone call to the NHS staff member who has to cancel their holiday plans for Christmas and go back to work. Most importantly of all, it avoids that dreaded phone call to the patient who has been gearing themselves up for that test or scan that they are worried about, or that operation or procedure that they have waited far too long for. Indeed, it avoids the dreaded situation of someone having to call 999 in an emergency uncertain about whether the ambulance is going to arrive on time and anxious about whether they will be waiting in a car park, in a queue, in the back of an ambulance or, indeed, on a trolley in a corridor.

It gives me no pleasure at all to acknowledge that the bleak situations I have described are in play today in the NHS. Activity is already being stood down, but even if this strike action were not looming, the NHS is not in a state that I would want myself, the people I love, the people I represent or anyone in our country to be treated in, because of the enormous pressures that it is under.

With that in mind, and after listening to the contributions we have heard from across the House from Members on both sides who are not anti-doctor or even anti-BMA, I urge the BMA to do the right thing—not just to adopt this deal, but even at this late stage to adopt the offer of mandate extension in order to put off till January the spectre of strike action, and to give their members time to think, vote and make a decision on whether to accept a deal that would make a meaningful material difference to their job prospects, to their careers and to the future of our national health service. It is not too late to change course. It is not too late for the BMA to change its mind, and there is never any shame in doing so for those who think that is right.

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving us so much time on such an important issue.