Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 13th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

I rise to speak to amendment (a) to new clause 15, tabled in my name, which I hope hon. Members will support. Although it may seem technical, it is in fact a simple amendment with a significant impact. It will ensure that there is genuine protection against abuse, proper detection of coercion, and effective scrutiny of how the law works in practice. Simply put, it will ensure that deaths from assisted dying under the Bill will still fall within the coroner’s duty to investigate deaths under section 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. I will explain why that is important.

Like many hon. Members, I have been deeply concerned from the outset about how the Bill is drafted, its workability, and its impact on the NHS and on the lives of vulnerable people up and down the country. To be clear, my view is that one unintended death as a result of the Bill becoming law is one too many. I humbly ask hon. Members who are still considering their position, or who are minded to support the Bill, to consider this point about my amendment carefully: what is an acceptable error rate?

Based on the figures in the Government’s impact assessment, which I think underestimates the impact, even a 1% error rate would see a minimum of 13 wrongful deaths in year 1, with 45 per year by year 10. A 5% error rate would see 65 deaths in year 1 and 227 in year 10. A 10% error rate would see 131 deaths in year 1 and 455 in year 10. As I say, I think those are low-ball estimates, but they are nevertheless chilling. If this law is passed, it will be exceptionally difficult to say whether there have been errors or instances of abuse; or, at the very least, any errors picked up will be but a fraction of the true picture, as tragically those who would testify to the fact will already be dead. My amendment (a) to new clause 15 directly addresses that issue.

In England and Wales, a coroner will investigate a death when certain legal conditions are met. This duty is primarily governed by section 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Judge Thomas Teague KC, who served until 2024 as the chief coroner of England and Wales, notes:

“any death arising as a consequence of the ingestion or administration of a lethal substance constitutes an unnatural death which the local coroner is under a statutory duty to investigate”.

Clearly, assisted dying meets that definition, and it is right that such deaths be afforded the best possible posthumous judicial scrutiny.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady not feel that the provisions in the Bill already have safeguards? Also, and most importantly, does she not feel that putting a family through a coronial process when the death is expected is unfair, unjust and completely beyond the bounds of what coroners are meant to do?

[Rebecca Smith]

On the first point, I do not believe that the Bill is strong enough as it stands. On the second point, we are already dealing with the fact that families are not even guaranteed knowledge of their loved one having an assisted death, so I do not think the hon. Lady’s point is entirely to be considered.

As it stands, the Bill would disapply the duty of the coroner to investigate in the case of an assisted death that has been carried out in accordance with the Bill’s provisions. New clause 15, specifically, would amend the Coroners and Justice Act to clarify that assisted death does not constitute “unnatural death” for the purposes of the Act. I think it takes an extraordinary leap of imagination not to conceive of deliberately self-administering lethal drugs as anything but an unnatural death.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadik Al-Hassan]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lizzi Collinge]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Johnson]

I do not have much time and I do not want Madam Deputy Speaker’s cough to return. [Laughter.]

If one examines the litany of drugs involved in other jurisdictions where assisted dying is legal, it makes for troubling reading. It is often an ad hoc cocktail of lethal substances, including sedatives, analgesics, cardiotoxic agents, neuromuscular blockers and antiemetics. There is no internationally agreed drug regime. Jurisdictions such as Oregon, Canada and the Netherlands use varying combinations of barbiturates, sedatives, opioids and antiemetics. In 2020, the official Oregon report stated that, compared with single barbiturates,

“All drug combinations have shown longer median times until death”.

As the Bill currently stands, doctors will have to consider prescribing untested drugs or drug combinations, which could potentially breach the General Medical Council prescribing guidance that a doctor must be satisfied that the drug serves the patient’s needs. To address some of those concerns, I have tabled several amendments.

Amendments 96 and 97 ensure that no drug can be approved under the Act unless there is a scientific consensus that it is effective and does not cause undue pain or side effects, and that it has been specifically licensed for that purpose by the MHRA. I cannot really understand why anyone would disagree with that.

Amendment 98 clarifies that the Secretary of State is not compelled to approve any drug if, after consultation, it is concluded that no substance is appropriate or safe enough to meet the standard.

Amendment 99, alongside amendment 100, mandates that before any regulations are laid before Parliament, a comprehensive report must be provided. That report must include time to death, possible complications including pain, and any likely side effect of the proposed substances. Again, I cannot see why that would be controversial, because surely we all want everybody to be fully informed and make fully informed decisions, and that is part of making an informed decision.

Amendment (b) to new clause 13 requires any medical devices for self-administration be approved by the MHRA and that the Secretary of State consult the MHRA before making any regulations. That is a basic safeguard that we would expect in any medical intervention, and it should be a non-negotiable condition here.

Finally, amendment 42 removes a time limit and therefore the pressure on the Secretary of State. I understand other people’s concerns about that. There is often a narrative that it will lead to patients being able to die at a time and in a place of their choosing. However, the regulations in the Bill require the doctor to stay with the patient from the moment the drug is given until they are dead. We have heard that that could take quite a long time. Do we really have enough doctors to do this at people’s homes at a time of their choosing? At the moment, I do not think we do, and I do not see how, in a short period of time, that will be achievable either.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huq]

I totally agree. We know that Esther Rantzen and Jonathan Dimbleby want the Bill to be implemented, but our role is to be voices for the voiceless, so I totally agree with her.

As opposed to the vague, ever-changing qualifying criteria that are held up as safeguards, at least these amendments would put ethnic minority people on the board: new clause 6 says that if they are on the ward, they should be on the board as well. The Bill seems to have neglected them altogether, so the new clause would provide real protections.

We know that in a cost of living crisis, assisted dying could be quite attractive. BAME communities have lower disposable household incomes than standard households, and during a cost of living and housing crisis, it is possible to imagine relatives wanting to speed up granny or grandad’s probate—or naani maa or dadima, even—to get a foot on the ladder.

[Lizzi Collinge]

On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Huq]

No, because I will not get any more time.

Given the cost of care, people could convince themselves that elderly relatives would be better off out of the way, in order to get the younger generation on the ladder.

We know from the experience of other places that once assisted dying is allowed, the scope broadens—depressed 12-year-olds in Holland can get it—and the incentive to fix palliative care will lessen. Why now, with the state of the NHS? What of Suicide Prevention Week? Yes, we know that public opinion is in favour of assisted dying, but public opinion also supports bringing back hanging.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Lockhart]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. On a constitutional basis alone, amendment (a) to amendment 77 is necessary, and I hope that hon. Members will feel they can support it.

Moving on to factors beyond the constitution, I am concerned that there is a dangerous absence of an adequate regulatory framework for lethal drugs under the Bill. At present, clause 25 gives the Secretary of State powers to approve lethal drugs, while clause 34 mandates the Secretary of State to make provision for prescribing, dispensing, transportation, storage, handling, disposal and record keeping, as well as enforcement and civil penalties. However, the fundamental issue of how these approved substances are actually approved remains alarmingly weak. The Bill defines “approved substances” simply as

“a drug or other substance specified”

by the Secretary of State in regulations. There is no explicit requirement for those substances to undergo specific, rigorous testing for their use in assisted dying.

When this issue was debated in Committee, I was disappointed to see good-faith amendments to engage, such as amendment 443, being dismissed.

[Lizzi Collinge]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Carla Lockhart]

No, I will not.

Amendment 443 sought to mandate that those substances be approved through the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and either the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence or the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group processes. I therefore strongly support amendment 96, tabled by the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), which

“ensures that drugs can only be approved if the Secretary of State is reasonably of the opinion that there is a scientific consensus that the drug is effective at ending someone’s life without causing pain or other significant adverse side effects.”

That is a common-sense approach that should attract support from across the House.

This week, more than 1,000 doctors wrote a powerful letter to all MPs to outline their deep concerns about this Bill, calling it a

“real threat to both patients and the medical workforce”.

I strongly urge this House and colleagues to read that letter before Third Reading. The Government’s own impact assessment does not provide any comfort with regard to the use of lethal drugs under the terms of the Bill, which the doctors’ letter picks up on, saying that

“there is no requirement for…[the drugs]…to undergo rigorous testing and approval that would be required of any other prescribed medication, nor indeed for them to be regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency”.

They go on to say that that is

“contrary to all good medical practice”.

This matters not just for regulation, but with regard to patient safety and complications. There is no requirement in the Bill to inform patients about how risks—including a prolonged death, rather than the promised peaceful and dignified death—will be managed. Complications do occur, and this is not scaremongering. In Oregon, when complications have been recorded, patients have experienced difficulty swallowing, drug regurgitation and seizures, and they have even regained consciousness. In Canada, a Canadian association has noted that patients have experienced regurgitation, burning and vomiting.

I draw Members’ attention to the written evidence submitted to the Bill Committee by a group of expert senior pharmacists and pharmacologists. In their submission, they warn that the approach of the Bill puts the cart before the horse. Specifically, they caution against proceeding without

“a comprehensive review of the evidence for efficacy and safety”,

and note that that review

“should be scrutinised by MPs before…consideration of legalising assisted suicide”.

These are not small details or incidental matters, yet, even at this late stage in the Bill’s passage through the Commons, we are still being asked to pass legislation without satisfactory answers to basic questions from experts in the field. That is simply not good enough.

I am grateful to have had the opportunity to speak, and I will close by saying simply that whatever mitigating amendments may be passed, this Bill remains morally and ethically wrong. It is flawed and should not be passed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

I rise to speak to my amendment 27. The insufficiencies of clause 25 and new clause 13, and the mechanisms for substance approval, have attracted much criticism as they defy safe process. I have therefore undertaken extensive research with leading academics, toxicologists, anaesthetists, pharmacists and others to understand the safety concerns over pharmacology, prescribing and dispensing.

Normally, the MHRA would undertake research and trials to secure safety, quality and licensing. The British National Formulary focuses on dosage and side effects, and NICE or the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group focuses on showing that drugs work and are cost-effective. That safety regime underpins the reputation of UK pharmacology. So can this House assure itself that without due process, someone will have a safe and peaceful death? Let us look at the evidence.

First, the data is poor. The Health and Social Care Committee visited Oregon. We know there are varying times for how long it takes for someone to die—up to 137 hours. The research cites nausea and vomiting in 10% of cases, seizure, oral muscular burning, regurgitation and regaining consciousness.

[Lizzi Collinge]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Rachael Maskell]

No time.

There is a lack of consistency of approach and data across jurisdictions on the substances used, how they are titrated and the dosages administered. While ingestion can be a factor, absorption varies according to frailty, metabolism, diagnosis, body mass index and drug reactions. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics are complex.

However, it has been my discussions with toxicologists that have been most alarming. They highlight the high risk of acute pulmonary oedema. This is backed by research showing that 84% of cases using pentobarbital on death row have flash pulmonary oedema. The drug disintegrates the membranes in the lung tissue, filling them with fluid, causing shortness of breath and a sense of drowning. As a clinician, I have supported many people on intensive therapy units with such a diagnosis. High concentrations of the drug cause an acute assault to the cardiopulmonary function. If paralysed and conscious, a patient may look peaceful but is anything but.

Such physiological distress needs research. It is unclear how the Government will identify data, process and safety. The risk to those handling toxic substances also needs to be examined, and in the light of the Government identifying that a pregnant woman could opt for an assisted death, that clearly needs examination.

There is no formulation for safe titration or dosage. If pentobarbital is to be used, as it is in Australia, the Government’s impact assessment did not examine it, so it needs revision. Also, the drug is not an approved substance for humans in the UK, licensed or unlicensed. The MHRA and NICE have a role to play. We are increasingly hearing that professional bodies are withdrawing their support from the Bill, because they know that the regimes that have been set out are just not safe, so it is our duty to examine the evidence.

Access to NHS Dentistry

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

NHS dentistry has been a recurring theme for me both before the election and since, as I know is true for most colleagues, which is why this Labour Government have made it a priority. However, we are starting from a very difficult place.

Let me set out just how bad the situation is in Morecambe and Lunesdale. Last year, I knocked on the door of a man in Morecambe who had lost most of his teeth because he did not have access to dental care. Just yesterday, a constituent wrote to me asking me to speak in this debate. She and her husband travel more than 80 miles four times a year just to see their NHS dentist. They are retired and cannot afford to go private, and, like many older people, they need regular and more complex care. We do not have to look far to see the root of the problem—so to speak. Dentists have been telling us for years that the NHS dental contract is not fit for purpose. The contract creates perverse incentives. Dentists are discouraged from treating the patients who need them the most. I appreciate that this is partly because in the ’90s and early ’00s, the contract incentivised the over-treating of patients, but now the pendulum has swung back too far the other way, and we have to find a balanced approach.

Dental decay is one of the leading causes of hospital admissions in children. In 2023, over 30,000 children ended up in hospital needing their teeth removed.

[Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)]

The Government have an historic commitment to prevention. Birmingham Erdington is one of the youngest constituencies in the country. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must continue to build on supervised brushing and targeted fluoride applications in early years settings to protect the youngsters?

[Lizzi Collinge]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Prevention is always better than cure. When I sat on Lancashire county council’s health scrutiny committee, we took evidence that showed that things such as supervised brushing and help with fluoride were some of the most cost-effective interventions, and they could prevent the horror of 30,000 children going into hospital for preventable tooth removal.

Dental health has become a stark marker of inequality. Without ongoing care and access to that preventive care, children in less well-off families are more likely to suffer worsening dental problems.

The contract was a major problem. It locked in those perverse incentives, but the situation was then worsened by over a decade of neglect of all areas of public health under the previous Government. Too many families do not go to the dentist until it is too late and it is very expensive, so we need those preventive measures that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington spoke about and we need access to NHS dentists. We know that if people are not able to go to the dentist, it means they turn up at A&E, but they are sent away with painkillers and antibiotics, and that does not fulfil their needs.

I am pleased that our Government are taking this issue seriously. I am pleased that we recognise the scale of the problem, and I am pleased that we are taking action not only on NHS dentistry, but on preventive care. We owe it to families in Morecambe and Lunesdale and across the country to fix this broken system. We need a dental contract that actually works, fair funding for local services and access to care that is available when people need it.

Winter Preparedness

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The questions seem to be getting longer and longer, as do the responses. Let us try to keep the questions on point, and no doubt the answers will be the same.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

When I started working in public health, winter pressures were just that: seasonal flu and extra hip fractures. Under the Conservatives, winters started getting longer and longer. How will our 10-year plan ensure that seasonal pressures actually become seasonal and manageable again?

[Karin Smyth]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We need to get back to normal and we need to recognise that there are different things happening to the system at different times of the year, much of which is predictable. We need to ensure that the system is strong enough to be able to cope with those differences.

Musculoskeletal Conditions

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

I was told that I would not be able to speak today, and that I could merely intervene, but I am happy to speak if you allow it, Mr Efford.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

I was told that it had been arranged for you to speak.

[Lizzi Collinge]

Excellent news. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I apologise for the confusion.

Musculoskeletal conditions are very serious, particularly when looked at through the lens of the health and social care workforce. In Morecambe and Lunesdale, 27% of the sickness rate in the health and social care workforce is caused by musculoskeletal conditions. It is clear that if we want to fix our health and social care workforce, we must fix the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of musculoskeletal conditions.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) pointed out, the conditions do not just have a physical impact, affecting mobility and the ability to work, but can have a particularly serious effect on people’s mental health, relationships and ability to live their life to the full. I believe that health and social care and public health should be framed around allowing people to live their absolute best lives. They need to focus on enabling individuals, whether or not they have long-term health conditions, to work, socialise and have a good family life.

I am passionate about preventing ill health as much as possible. We must prevent musculoskeletal conditions, which can cause a lot of pain and discomfort. I welcome the proposals set out by my hon. Friend, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the Government’s plans.

Income Tax (Charge)

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

I will make a bit of progress, if I may.

There were no plans for social care reform after the Chancellor broke Labour’s promise to deliver the cap on social care costs. I hear what the Secretary of State says about a willingness to work on what is a challenge facing our whole country and society: with an ageing population, how do we address the challenge of social care? There were no further detailed plans for NHS dentistry, despite the election pledge to deliver more dental appointments. There was no support for pharmacies or for the day-to-day running of general practice, and there were still no additional resources for the NHS this winter—or, indeed, the details of reform to go with them.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman speaks about the investment that the last Conservative Government put into the NHS. Can he tell me what the outcome of that investment was? From my point of view, the outcome was longer waiting lists, poorer health and bad patient care.

[Edward Argar]

We increased investment significantly, not only to tackle the inevitable consequence of a global covid pandemic—which, as we all know, hit our NHS hard—but to build back better subsequently, which is the task that we began to perform. We have always said that investment in the NHS must be married to reform in order to deliver better patient outcomes and value for money, building on the reforms that we introduced in the Health and Care Act 2022 and ensuring that the NHS will be there to look after us for decades to come. The Secretary of State has worked with me before, and we will work with any party, including his.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

No, not just now.

The truth is that what we are seeing is a level of short-termism. That is completely clear in agriculture and industry, but the tragedy is that it is also clear in education. A great privilege of being the MP for Tonbridge is that I represent some of the finest schools in this country—others may claim that title, but I know that I speak the truth when I say that. Many of those schools are grant-maintained in different ways; others are private. They are, in many ways, a web of education that works extremely well together in our community. Some, such as Hillview School for Girls—a fantastic school at which I was privileged to be on the governing board—are state schools, while others, such as the Judd school, are grammar schools, and one, Tonbridge school, is private.

The truth is that the 20% plus business rates—I think the extra cost that will now fall on private schools comes to about 40%—means that every single kid in my constituency will have to pay for the VAT in some way. Either they will have to pay for it because fees go up, or they will pay for it because class sizes are larger. I am afraid that the schools will not be able to swallow the costs, so we will see pressure all the way through.

[Lizzi Collinge]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I will not, because I have been asked to be quick.

That is not just a burden on those kids, but a rejection of the relationship between family members in their willingness and desire to invest in the future.

I know that the Labour Government claim that the only way for investment to be done is by the state, that the only thing that really matters is when that is done by a bureaucrat and a civil servant, that the only thing that really counts is when the Government pay for it. But we know that is simply not true. We know that business and the freedom to invest, plan and forecast are what make an economy grow. Sadly, the Government have tried to nationalise the future, shorten the time horizon and make us all pay for it. That is why growth is falling, taxes are rising and the future is made worse again and again under Labour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

I have been sat here gobsmacked by Conservative Members’ lack of comprehension of what has happened over the last 14 years to our public services. I see that the priority of the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) is quoting billionaires who are worried about paying a bit more tax. Those are the Conservatives’ priorities.

Last month, I held a constituency surgery in one of my large villages, and people told me about the difficulty they had getting appointments there. When people have to travel between villages, and there is one bus an hour at most, it really makes a difference where an appointment is. The lack of home village appointments leaves my constituents at risk of their conditions worsening, and goes against everything that we know to be best for patients and the NHS—early help, at the right place and at the right time. Down in Morecambe and Heysham, even though transport is a bit better, getting an appointment can feel like a lottery, because services are having to triage patients to find which cases are the most urgent. Our residents are travelling too far, waiting too long and getting more poorly as they wait.

Last week’s Budget gave me hope, not only that the NHS will get the investment it needs, but that finally the people in charge have the integrity and the skills to dig us out of the mess; they are unafraid of listening to experts, unafraid of making long-term decisions and unafraid to stand up for patients—the people who matter.

The Budget also showed us that the Government will invest wisely in the NHS. Some people say, “You can’t just throw money at it,” and they are right—look at what happened with the investment from the last Government: nothing. That is because the people in charge were fundamentally unable to organise, at either a strategic or practical level. They were unable to join the dots. Local safety initiatives, while very welcome, were brought in to try to tackle what were fundamentally national issues. Those issues included the vacancy rates, the sickness rates, and the increasing complexity of patients’ issues, caused by our being a nation in poorer health as a direct result of austerity. So no, it is not just a case of more money, but sometimes it is about money. Money invested wisely can make a difference. If creaking digital infrastructure means that medics spend more time rebooting computers than treating patients, investment is needed, and that is what the Budget provides.

The Budget also fulfils our commitment to accessing the latest diagnostics and treatments. Through my health scrutiny role in Lancashire, I know that thrombectomy, a life and brain saving treatment suitable for about 10% of people who have strokes, is not available 24/7 in all areas. When I was scrutinising that care pathway, people needed to be lucky enough to have a stroke on a weekday morning to get a thrombectomy. In February 2022, my grandma had a devastating stroke on a Friday night, and I sat with the knowledge that she would not have access to that treatment, even if she could benefit from it. I cannot describe the pain that caused me, and it is pain that my constituents and people across the country feel every day. We have a health system that has been systematically undermined for 14 years. A recent national report showed that fewer than half of the people who could benefit from a thrombectomy get one, and that is not good enough.

Preventable Baby Loss

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson). As a woman who has lost two very much wanted pregnancies, baby and pregnancy loss is very close to my heart. I also represent an area that, in the past, has seen poor maternity care cause the death of babies. I want to speak about the importance of local support for parents and families, and to give those support organisations a voice here in Parliament. I also want to highlight the absolute necessity of rigorous investigations and true candour when babies die. My constituency hosts two excellent support groups for people affected by pregnancy and baby loss: Matilda’s Mission, set up by Chelsie and Matt after the death of their baby Matilda, and the Tigerlily Trust, set up by Val in memory of her daughter Lily.

Matilda’s Mission and the Tigerlily Trust work with local bereaved families. They provide a whole host of support, including remembrance boxes for bereaved parents to make and collect as many memories as possible in the short time they have with their babies, and to give them resources when they return home. There are sibling memory boxes for bereaved living siblings, sibling play sessions, and support groups, which in particular can combat the loneliness and isolation often felt with this sort of grief. They provide a place where people can come and heal together. There are dad drop-ins, one-to-one catch-ups, grandparent events, older sibling events, whole family events at holidays such as Christmas, and of course events around Mother’s and Father’s day. The two groups also work with hospitals and universities on maternity bereavement care and host Baby Loss Awareness Week events.

I asked Chelsie, Matt and Val what they wanted me to say today, and they told me that funding is an issue. For example, the bereavement suite at the Royal Lancaster infirmary, co-designed with bereaved parents, has been closed for some time due to safety concerns. While the trust continues to work on that, maternity bereavement does not seem high on the agenda when it comes to budgets. As Chelsie said in her beautifully blunt way, “Dead babies and their families matter too.” Funding for support groups is also extremely difficult, with some groups struggling to get support for funds to continue. Support for families is currently a postcode lottery, often involving lengthy referral times for NHS services or support from charities. When families are in the depths of grief, 12 weeks’ wait for a referral is tough going. Families need consistent and timely care.

Matt, Chelsie and Val also wanted me to mention bereaved dads and non-birthing parents. The lack of support again is apparent, and their role can often be seen as merely supportive to the mother or birthing parent, rather than as a grieving parent themselves. Something important to me—this was mentioned by the hon. Member for Ashfield—is tackling the idea that natural childbirth is somehow superior to medically assisted childbirth. At its worst, that belief—and it is no more than a belief—has killed babies.

Finally, I want to mention something that touches all aspects of health and social care, and that I am sure our new Government will take very seriously. When things go wrong, it is the duty of all organisations involved to be fully truthful, transparent and willing to learn. When adverse outcomes are potentially due to failures in care, too often families experience insufficient and prolonged investigations that add to the trauma. We owe it to the babies lost—baby Matilda, baby Lily, baby Theo, baby Olivia, the baby daughter lost to placental abruption and Hayley’s baby—not only to find out what happened to them, but to ensure that we prevent every single future death we possibly can through a rigorous commitment to investigations at pace, a culture of safety, and the best possible patient care.