Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

Natasha Irons Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 4th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

I remember with respect to my own children the importance of a visit by the midwife, even after birth, and that is essentially the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings was making about the importance of district nurses. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady.

Clause 1 lays a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations to define these services, and the functions that the Secretary of State will carry out. Their primary duty is to work out what those services actually contain.

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

The idea of ringfencing and ensuring that we protect this time is the reason why the Bill is so important. Where councils did not ringfence in the past, they kind of lumped together youth services with this period of time. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that having a separate pot and protection for this time is valuable, even if we later have to look again at youth services for people as they get a bit older?

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

Yes, essentially today we are putting these services on a statutory footing. Of course subsequent Governments can change statutes, but this Bill makes it an explicit decision of this House and Parliament, rather than a fiat by Government decision.

Clause 2 places a duty on the Secretary of State to assess the need for these services, and that includes a duty to take into account the opinions of parents, prospective parents and carers, as far as reasonably possible. The first duty is to define what services and functions we are talking about, and the second is to make an assessment of need. The period in which to make that assessment must be no longer than three years before another period of assessment begins.

Clause 3 lays a duty on the Secretary of State to then make provision for the services that she has assessed are needed. To address one of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, that takes account of the fact that there may be different levels of need in different areas.

Clause 4 lays a duty on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament annually on the provision of those services and the outcomes that arise from them. Clause 5 is largely an interpretation of terms used within the Bill, be it “infant”, “prospective parent” or “prospective carer”. Clause 6 determines the short title of the Bill and provisions for its coming into force.

Effectively, this Bill lays a series of duties to make regulations on the Secretary of State: first, to specify services and functions; secondly, to assess the needs for them; thirdly, to provide for those services; and, fourthly, to report accordingly to Parliament. I commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Hayes]

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend says. The role of fathers is so important, and they must have the opportunity to connect with each other and share their experiences. I will later talk about some powerful work on reading that involves fathers. Parenting support should be presented as something that absolutely everybody needs, not as something that people need only if they have a problem, because that is where the stigma creeps in. As well as making these services as normal as possible, we need to make them as accessible as possible. My hon. Friend also makes some important points about paternity leave.

[Natasha Irons]

My own experiences as a new parent were as my hon. Friend described: it was this terrifying thing, “How do I keep this bundle of lovely joy alive and get some sleep at the same time?”

Universality is so important but, as these services have lost funding, they have become more and more targeted. One of the good things about a universal service is meeting other parents from different backgrounds and children growing up in a community rather than in silos. Does my hon. Friend agree that any way forward has to be a one-stop shop model—a drop-in service, like a stay and play, not something highly targeted and specialised? It should be the sort of thing where parents can drop in, get some support, and meet other parents who are going through the same thing.

[Helen Hayes]

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend says. It is important that Best Start family hubs are, like Sure Start centres, anchor institutions—anchor places in local communities—as well as places where individual services are delivered; then the whole will be more than the sum of its parts.

The second principle I want to mention is the importance of the availability of SEND expertise in early years settings. The earlier that a special educational need or disability is identified, the sooner that appropriate support can be put in place. Early identification also enables parents and carers to understand their child’s needs and provide the support they need as they grow. Early intervention is not only the best for the child and the family, but much more cost-effective for the public purse. I therefore strongly welcome the Government’s commitment to put SEND specialists in every Best Start family hub.

The third principle is the opportunity to participate in a range of activities together. My Committee recently published a report on reading for pleasure, which delivers such significant benefits for children’s development, educational attainment, empathy and mental health and wellbeing. Reading for pleasure should start as early as possible in a child’s life, with parents and carers reading to their babies.

My Committee recommended a national reading guarantee that will embed opportunities to read for pleasure throughout every child’s life, from birth to the age of 18. This should start in Best Start family hubs. I pay tribute to the brilliant work of BookTrust and former Waterstones children’s laureate Frank Cottrell-Boyce in this area. They have modelled inclusive approaches to early years reading that engage and build the confidence of parents and carers, who themselves had negative experiences of reading at school and lack the confidence to read with their own children, by making reading together a fun and joyous experience for everyone. We heard some wonderful testimony about groups who do this work with fathers, grandparents, parents and carers, building the confidence back to do something that delivers such benefits both for children and for parents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Smith]

I thank the hon. Lady. I mentioned to one of my colleagues the other day how this entire debate is catnip for Labour Members, because it is an opportunity for them to highlight that they have cared more about families and children than the Conservatives. I do not believe that; I believe that we have always cared about the vulnerable and ensuring that the right thing is done.

To bring the House back to the point and bring down the temperature in the Chamber, I want to talk about what is good about family hubs and why they are different. The key point is that they are not just Sure Start rebranded. Sure Start did good things, but we felt at the time that it was not necessarily targeted in the right way.

I pay significant tribute to Lord Farmer. If it were not for his work and his personal commitment in all sorts of ways—he effectively trailblazed the family hubs policy—we would not be here today. Family hubs have provided a model that we can replicate. That is not to say that Sure Start did not provide the opportunity to do something similar, but the distinctive thing about what Lord Farmer set up and that we put into practice in government—he is seeking to work with the Government to continue it—is that it is not just for the early years but for people right up to the age of 19. Regardless of what we think about what happened in the past, what family hubs are called and what they do, I think we all agree that we need to provide support right through to when a child is 19 and to give families that opportunity. We have heard many people speaking about the challenges in teenage life if we do not get it right at the beginning.

[Natasha Irons]

To bring us back to the Bill and to take the temperature down—to be fair, nobody on the Government Benches sent it up—the point is that this particular time, the first 1,001 days, has not been protected. I agree that of course we need to take support through to 19, but the challenge when Sure Start was rolled back was that councils found themselves with one pot of funding for the journey from conception to the teenage years, which meant that the youth services that help with later intervention were competing with the early intervention we are talking about today. Protecting this time means that we can invest properly in and hopefully bring down the cost of those youth services later on. I hope the hon. Member can agree on that point.

[Rebecca Smith]

I thank the hon. Member for that contribution. Of course, if we are going to do this properly, we have to make sure that the funding is there, which I think is the entire point of the Bill. I agree with that, but the great thing about family hubs is that they set out an intention right from the start that it is not okay to just ringfence the money until the age of five; we need to ensure that we provide support all the way through. There is a lot more work to be done on both sides of the House to develop what that looks like. I think we are in pretty good agreement on this, whether it is support up to five or beyond. At the end of the day, we want families and young people to have the best start, as the name suggests.

It is worth pointing out that family hubs are required to provide support for children up to the age of 19, or 25 for those with special educational needs and disabilities. There is clearly a lot more thinking to be done. I appreciate that the Bill will specifically ringfence provision for under-fives, but ultimately we do not want there to be a cliff edge—we do not want all this support to suddenly drop off when children get to five because that would not maintain and make the most of the family hub model as it was established.

When I visited the Rees centre family and wellbeing hub in Plympton in my constituency, I was very impressed with what is going on there. It is a brilliant community asset that has been there since the ’60s. There is breastfeeding support, but what is also amazing is that it has a time bank, so there are all these mums bringing in their babies to see the health visitor or to be weighed—all the things that a family hub does for under-fives—but there are also older people from the community coming to meet, socialise and do things together.

When a family hub or a Best Start centre is truly embedded in a community, it has the opportunity to be a place where all sorts of things are delivered, and that combined delivery makes them even better. We do not want them to become centres where only people with children and those who have families go; we should open them up, to do as much as possible within the community, because that is at the heart of what they can do. It is really important that we look at the whole picture, as well as focusing on the first 1,001 days, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to deliver family hubs right up to the age of 19.

As we discuss earlier support, there is a little elephant in the room. Evidence consistently shows that children under the age of two need to be nurtured by their parents primarily, and I think we are all saying the same thing today, but it is my personal view that parental presence requires childcare choice. More than two thirds of working mothers with pre-school children say that they would work fewer hours if they could afford it, according to the Department for Education, but too often parents feel pushed towards a one-size-fits-all model of formal childcare. We need to explore where we can offer parents more options in the earliest years and free them up to do what they feel is best for them and their family. It is not about telling parents what to do; it is about trusting them to make the right decisions for their family. We must never forget who matters the most to the baby: it is their parents. We should do everything we can to help mums, dads and carers be present as much as possible.

This Bill must be the start of a wholesale reframing of family support. Every stage of childhood matters, and we must back families every step of the way. That is why I am very keen to support the Bill today.

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) on the wonderful Bill he has brought forward and on the debate, and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for her tireless work on this issue.

Up and down the country, it is a bittersweet time for parents. We have enjoyed spending the summer with our children, creating lasting memories, but we are also celebrating not having been asked to provide a snack for the last 10 minutes, or worrying if someone has fallen down the stairs, like in my house. In our household, we are celebrating my eldest putting on a blazer for the first time and heading off to high school—[Hon. Members: “Aww!”] Yeah, it’s a bit much. It has been an interesting time, and as we have reached this new milestone in my son’s life, I could not help but reflect, in the context of this debate, on what it was like in those early days of parenthood, because no matter how scary it is to see my son becoming his own person and having his own views on things, nothing compares to that first initial fear when you become a parent, not knowing what to do and where to go, when you are a little bit dazed, terrified and wondering if you will ever sleep again.

I think back to the services I leant on: the antenatal classes, the health visitor who came to my home—we have heard how important that is—and the stay and play that I took my son to and met other parents, where we were able to swap notes. We have remained lifelong friends, and they have helped raise my son, creating that sense of community and village around him. That network meant that I had the right diet during my pregnancy, that my son was surrounded by the things that helped him to learn, and that our new family had the support we needed to get the best possible start.

We often talk in this place about policy being routed not in ideology but in evidence, focusing on what works and investing in that. Well, we know what works for the early years of a child’s life because the evidence is overwhelming. The first 1,001 days from pregnancy to a child’s second birthday are among the most important in human development. As the Government describe in their “Best start in life” review, these critical 1,001 days are the

“foundations for lifelong emotional and physical wellbeing”,

as many have mentioned today.

Research shows that during these critical days, a baby’s brain develops at an extraordinary rate—doubling in size during their first year, with around 1 million neuro connections forming every second. These precious days have the potential to shape our health and resilience and who we are later to become. This Bill matters so much because it protects those critical days with legislation. It requires the Government to assess need, listen to parents and carers, ensure that appropriate support services are available, and report transparently to Parliament on the impact of that support. The reality is that too many children growing up are without the services they need in those most critical moments. If those neural pathways are developing every second, then every second counts, doesn’t it?

In my constituency of Croydon East, around 30% of children are growing up in poverty. Croydon’s public health data suggests that girls growing up in the most affluent parts of our borough can expect to live around six years longer than the girls growing up in the least affluent parts. For boys, that gap is nine years. In a borough like Croydon, where a child’s postcode can still have a profound impact on their health and life expectancy, we cannot afford to treat early intervention as an optional extra. It is not a luxury; it is the most effective tool we have to break the cycles of disadvantage and create genuine equality of opportunity.

That is why I cannot speak on this debate today without acknowledging the impact of Sure Start, which many colleagues have mentioned. Sure Start was the most successful early intervention programme this country has ever seen. Independent research from the Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that access to Sure Start improved educational outcomes for disadvantaged children, with benefits lasting way up to their GCSEs. It found that the positive effects of Sure Start came with significant financial benefits, including reduced costs for Government services at later stages in life and increased tax revenue from higher earnings. In fact, it estimated that at its peak, Sure Start generated over £2 for every £1 of Government spending. Yet despite that evidence, funding for Sure Start fell by more than two thirds between 2010 and 2022, and over 1,000 children’s centres closed across England.

I wholeheartedly welcome this Government’s commitment to giving every child the best possible start in life, for their investment in Best Start family hubs and the steps they have taken to eliminate child poverty by lifting the two-child benefit cap. But if history can teach us anything, it is that priorities change, spending changes and even Governments change, and when support at this critical time is scaled back, it is the most vulnerable who suffer. Just think about where we would be if we had kept that investment in those Sure Start centres, if they had not closed—if families, regardless of their shape, size or background, had continued to have the support and investment they needed, how much better off would we be?

It is important that we do not make the same mistakes. The Bill means that for the first time, we legally give the first 1,000 days the recognition, protection and visibility that they deserve. We set out that no matter what or who is in charge, we choose to invest in our children. If we are serious about reducing inequality, improving mental and physical health, strengthening families, and giving every child the best possible start, then we must act when it matters the most: at the very beginning. I welcome the Bill and give it my full support. I am so proud to take part in this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. It is very much my opinion that mothers should all have the right to choose how we want to feed our babies, and that choice should be based on information. If parents are not given the information they need before making those choices, they do not have a choice—it has been taken away from them.

[Natasha Irons]

Anyone who has been a new mother will understand that for some women breastfeeding is very easy, and for some women it is not. Does the hon. Member agree that research into the difference between an easy breastfeeding experience and a harder one is not particularly good? If all a struggling mother wants to do is feed her baby, because she has been told that she needs to feed her baby and that if she goes below a point on a chart, she is not doing a good job, perhaps we need more investment and research into how we can make it easier for mothers to breastfeed, so that they can make informed and supported choices as they go forward.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

The hon. Lady is right. Just as every pregnancy is different, every breastfeeding journey is also different. We do not want to put mothers in a position where all they have is Google at their fingertips at 2 o’clock in the morning, when the baby is devastated and will not feed, and they are worried that they are dehydrated. The National Breastfeeding Helpline, a 24/7 service funded by the Department of Health and Social Care, is an important resource and a lifeline for so many mothers—33,000 mothers call every month. It is also helpful to have peer support. If someone is in a room with other mothers who are saying, “I experience mastitis,” or “I experience thrush, and this is what I did to get past it. Keep going and come back next week and see if things are better,” that support can mean so much to a mother who feels like they are on their own in that journey.

Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Natasha Irons Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Sojan Joseph]

It is good to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I strongly believe that public health is very important to our health system because it focuses on prevention, so that people do not end up in A&E or in hospital beds. Unfortunately, over the last 10 or 15 years we have seen the opposite. If we are serious about improving the nation’s health, prevention must sit at the heart of every decision we make.

Public health professionals bring a vital perspective—one that looks beyond treating illness to understanding and tackling its root causes. They consider the wider determinants of health, from housing and education to inequality and the environment, and they help us design services that keep people well, rather than responding only when they become unwell. We need to identify our priorities, ensure resources are allocated appropriately and develop a long-term strategy.

New clause 79 proposes to create a new committee. As somebody who worked in the NHS for many years, I have seen that there is no shortage of committees, senior leaders, management or meetings in our healthcare system. In fact, there are too many. What is missing are people to work on the frontline; that is what we saw over the 14 years under the Conservatives—and the Lib Dems were part of that.

One reason why I became active in politics was that I saw the frontline struggling. I worked as a nurse on the frontline in mental health services, and what we saw was money being diverted to create more senior leadership, more groups, more meetings and more management, while we were missing the people who actually did the work on the frontline. The new clause asks us to create a new committee, but we have enough committees and managers. In fact, through the Bill, we are trying to modernise the system by getting rid of some of those managers—that is the most important thing I can identify in the Bill. However, lots of the new clauses I have seen today and in the last Committee sitting have proposed creating more committees and directors. We are missing a point here. The Committee has an opportunity to reform our health system. If Members speak to a nurse or doctor who works in a hospital in our system, they will say, “We need more nurses, healthcare assistants and doctors, not more managers or directors.”

Not only in this new clause, but in many of the new clauses we are talking about, we need to think about embedding the public health voice within integrated care boards. Stronger integrated care boards will enable us to act early, reduce health inequalities and deliver care closer to home.

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making powerful comments. I was struck by his argument that we need to focus more on what we do in communities. In Croydon East, a community diagnostic centre has opened, which is important because people in my community have a healthy life expectancy 10 years lower than that of people living a mile down the road. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should be focusing on those real, tangible interventions at the heart of the communities that need help the most? That is what this Government are trying to do.

[Sojan Joseph]

I absolutely agree, and I can give an example. Last week, as part of the ICB’s new independent neighbourhood health centre, one of the GP practices in my constituency started to proactively go and see all elderly patients. It is not just giving those patients appointments when they fall ill; it is proactively visiting them. We need that kind of support so that we can prevent illnesses and prevent people from needing to go to hospital.

Oral Answers to Questions

Natasha Irons Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

On the hon. Lady’s first point, this Government, unlike the previous Government, do believe in experts, and we follow the clinical advice that we are given. On her second point, as she is so keen on reading our manifesto commitments, the commitment was to do that by 2030. It is currently 2025. Our reforms to ICBs and providers, bringing NHS England inside the Department of Health and Social Care to make it more democratically accountable for taxpayers, will reverse the shocking increase in funding that the previous Government put into a leaky bucket. We are fixing the foundations of the NHS. We are targeting resources at people in line with our 10-year plan.

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

7. What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of NHS online on waiting times.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)]

The NHS online hospital will connect patients with clinicians anywhere in England through the NHS app. It will deliver up to 8.5 million appointments in its first three years—four times more than the average NHS trust—finally bringing the NHS into the digital age. We are cutting waiting times and providing patients with more choice and convenience.

[Natasha Irons]

The wellbeing of our nation’s young people remains in crisis, with one in five having a probable mental health condition and the number being referred to emergency mental health care continuing to rise. In communities like mine in Croydon East, where young people are waiting months and sometimes even years for help, families are desperate for support. How will NHS online help young people access the mental health support they need, and what impact will it have on reducing the waiting times for children and adolescent mental health services?

[Dr Ahmed]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this crucial issue to light. Early access to high-quality support is critical for young people struggling with their mental health. That is backed by us with an extra £688 million this year. We are hiring more staff, expanding support teams in schools and boosting support in new Young Futures hubs so that children can get the best possible start in life. Although initially not focused on CAMHS, the scope of the NHS online hospital is a personal priority for the Prime Minister and has the capacity to grow, and we will consider incorporating it when safely able to alongside other services.

Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)

Natasha Irons Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause seeks to ensure that if a patient dies while in detention under the Mental Health Act, an independent inquiry into their death will be required. Unlike deaths in prison or police-related deaths, deaths while a person is detained under the Mental Health Act are not automatically investigated independently. Currently, if a person dies while detained under the Act, the trust responsible for their care should carry out an internal investigation into their death to find out what happened and whether lessons can be learned. Those investigations, known as serious incident investigations or root cause analysis, do not have any independent oversight and can vary a lot from trust to trust.

Inquest, the only charity in England and Wales providing expertise on state-related deaths and their investigation, has found that the current system for investigating such deaths is not fit for purpose. In its statement to the Lampard inquiry, it outlined an anonymised case from 2010 in which there was a stark contrast between the findings of the NHS trust that investigated the death of a patient detained under its care and the inquest that took place two years later. The trust found very few failings in care, whereas the jury at the later inquest were critical of the patient’s treatment, which directly led to their death. The question we must ask ourselves is why we would allow deaths while in detention under the Mental Health Act to be investigated by those in charge of custody, when deaths in any other setting would not be. We do not allow the police to judge their own actions if a death occurs in custody, so why should it be any different for those detained under the Mental Health Act?

[Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. In the really dire circumstances of a death in detention, we are dealing with the most difficult and, for family members and loved ones, the most devastating circumstances. Given that, does she agree that it is important to make sure that the circumstances are reviewed thoroughly and independently?

[Natasha Irons]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is about transparency and providing answers for the families of patients when the very worst happens.

Independence has allowed investigations into deaths in places of custody to improve significantly. As outlined by the independent advisory panel on deaths in custody, patients detained under the Mental Health Act now have the highest mortality rate across all places of custody. Indeed, the rate is three times higher than in prisons, when taking into account estimates of time in custody and the number of people in each setting. Behind each of these tragedies are families who have unanswered questions and who have had to fight to find out what happened to their loved ones, and vulnerable people who should have received better care.

In my constituency, there is the story of Catherine Horton, who died in 2017 while in the care of the South London and Maudsley NHS trust. The inquest into her death found that the risk assessment was not properly updated, with no formal risk assessment conducted, and no care plan on her arrival or while at the facility. There is also the story of Tia Wilson, who died in 2021 in the care of the same trust. The inquest into her death found that there were multiple failures in managing her risk, which contributed to her death. Then there is the story of the brother of one of my constituents, who absconded from his care, went missing, and was later found dead in a wooded area a stone’s throw from her home.

For each of those cases, we know that internal reviews will have taken place and assurances of improvements will have been made, and yet issues with risk assessments remain and families are left pushing for answers. This is not unique to south London; the internal review process is failing to deliver the necessary improvements across the country. Without embedding independence into the process, we risk undoing a lot of the good work that the Bill seeks to achieve. Adding independence into the investigation of these incidents where the very worst things happen gives trusts a genuine space to learn the lessons. It would improve patient safety and provide families with the transparency they need.

Although we must all acknowledge the incredible work that trusts do across our country to provide care for people at their most vulnerable, we must also provide a proper framework for challenge and improvement. The new clause is an opportunity to treat the deaths of people detained under the Mental Health Act with the same seriousness and care as deaths in other custody settings, to embed transparency, and to make the meaningful improvements that all patients deserve.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this issue to the Committee. I thank her for her powerful speech, which drew on specific experiences of people who have been through very terrible and tragic processes. I have discussed some work on the broader issue of quality of care, but this is a vital issue, and I reiterate how grateful I am to her for enabling us to discuss it on the public record. We recognise that there have been too many incidents of poor-quality and unsafe care, which sometimes result in tragedy. I hope my hon. Friend is reassured by the measures we are taking to support providers of mental health care to improve the quality of their services. We have carefully considered her new clause, and I am afraid that we do not think this needs to be addressed through the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

In regard to the creation of a new body to investigate deaths under the Act, we are concerned that the patient quality and oversight landscape is already overly cluttered and fragmented. That is why we have asked Dr Penny Dash to make recommendations on whether greater value could be achieved through a different delivery model. We will shortly be seeing the results of her review. I once again thank my hon. Friend for this important discussion, and I hope she is content to withdraw her new clause.

[Natasha Irons]

I thank the Minister for his comments. The cluttered and chaotic way in which we investigate these things is part of the problem, so I am glad to hear that there is a wider review of how we streamline the process better for patients, because we are seeing mistakes repeated over and over again. I am content to withdraw the new clause, but I would be grateful if the Minister would meet me to discuss the wider plans in this area and how I can support that work and take it forward.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I would be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend. It is also worth mentioning the independent advisory panel on deaths in custody report, which she mentioned. We are considering that carefully, so we should include it in our discussions.

[Natasha Irons]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 26

Use of restraint and restrictive intervention

“(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows.

(2) In Part II (Compulsory Admission to Hospital and Guardianship), after section 7, insert—

‘7A Use of force in connection with admission for assessment or treatment

(1) A relevant organisation that operates a hospital must appoint a responsible person for the purposes of this section.

(2) The responsible person must—

(a) be employed by the relevant health organisation, and

(b) be of an appropriate level of seniority.

(3) The responsible person must keep a record of any use of force by staff who work in that hospital against a person (“P”) who—

(a) has been admitted for assessment or treatment under sections 2 to 5 of this Act; or

(b) is on the hospital premises and is at risk of detention under this Act.

(4) The Secretary of State must by regulations provide for the risk factors to be considered under subsection (3)(b).

(5) A record kept under this section must include—

(a) the reason for the use of force

(b) the place, date and duration of the use of force

(c) whether the type or types of force used on the patient formed part of the patient's care plan;

(d) the name of the patient on whom force was used;

(e) a description of how force was used;

(f) the patient's consistent identifier;

(g) the name and job title of any member of staff who used force on the patient;

(h) the reason any person who was not a member of staff in the hospital was involved in the use of force on the patient;

(i) the patient's mental disorder (if known);

(j) the relevant characteristics of the patient (if known);

(k) whether the patient has a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorders;

(l) a description of the outcome of the use of force;

(m) whether the patient died or suffered any serious injury as a result of the use of force;

(n) any efforts made to avoid the need to use force on the patient; and

(o) whether a notification regarding the use of force was sent to the person or persons (if any) to be notified under the patient's care plan.

(6) The responsible person must keep the record for three years from the date on which it was made.

(7) The Secretary of State must ensure that, at the end of each year, statistics are published regarding the use of force by staff who work in hospitals under the conditions set out in this section.’”—(Jen Craft.)

This new clause would require hospitals to record information on all incidents in which force is used against patients with mental disorders, in line with the reporting currently required in mental health units, including force against those at risk of detention for assessment or treatment. It would also require the Government to publish annual figures on the same topic.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I will speak briefly to the new clause, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake). Its aim is to close a loophole in the current framework by which use of restraint is recorded. Currently, the use of restraint is governed by the Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Act 2018, which mandates that where force or restraint is used in a mental health unit, that must be recorded and reported. There are, however, a number of patients who are treated outside mental health units and therefore do not fall within the scope of the Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam has spoken about the issue, to which her attention was particularly drawn in the context of the treatment of patients with eating disorders. This happens quite often, either where there is a shortage of beds in a mental health unit or where the patient in question has co-occurring physical health conditions that require treatment outside such a unit.

Restraint is used regularly and often on patients with eating disorders, by which I mean restraining them to force them to eat, but there is currently no mechanism by which its use must be recorded. If a patient, particularly a young person, who is in hospital but is not in a mental health unit is subject to this restraint, which may be deemed necessary to preserve life and in their best interests, there is currently no mechanism by which that is recorded.

Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)

Natasha Irons Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. We all know, from our casework or personal experiences outside of this place, about the pressures on the Courts and Tribunals Service. Mental health tribunals are not exempt from that pressure. Changing the timeframe on which tribunals operate, and the frequency with which reviews take place, will inevitably increase the burden on the service. Therefore, although these changes are broadly welcome, it is important that we are cognisant of their impact on the resources that will be required, the number of judges and wing members that will be needed, and of course the hard standing of the court and tribunal infrastructure that will need to be made available. Other issues, such as those around the digitalisation of the service, will also need to be addressed.

Clause 31 will recast the regime for automatic tribunal referrals, replacing the prior six-month structure with the concept of “a relevant period”. For detained patients, referrals will now occur at three months, then 12 months, and annually thereafter. For community patients, they will occur at six months, then 12 months, then annually. Most significantly, hospital managers will be under a new duty to refer a case when no review has occurred in 12 months, regardless of whether an application has been made. That is a sound reform.

The clause will introduce coherence to a previously fragmented system, and establishes a minimum standard of legal oversight. The inclusion of a backstop provision—that no individual should go more than 12 months without review—is essential. In a system in which patients may not always have the means or capacity to apply for a review themselves, it offers a critical safety net. Clause 31 will also repeal section 68A of the 1983 Act, which has become unwieldy and duplicative. By streamlining the referral process, the Bill enhances legal clarity and administrative efficiency, but I would caution that the increased complexity of the new timeframes may require significant training of those responsible for their implementation.

Clause 32 will provide for restricted patients who are subject to deprivation of liberty conditions. It goes further than clause 30 by imposing mandatory referral duties on the Secretary of State. Under the clause, a tribunal must be convened after 12 months, every two years thereafter, and at four years if no review has occurred. Crucially, the clause also codifies the tribunal’s powers. It may now vary or impose conditions, including those that constitute a deprivation of liberty, provided that they are necessary to protect the public from serious harm and are no more restrictive than hospital detention. That clause introduces a principled, proportionate framework for balancing public protection with patient liberty, and avoids vague or discretionary use of such powers.

Finally, clause 33 will apply the same principles to restricted patients not subject to deprivation of liberty orders. Such individuals, although under fewer constraints, are none the less subject to significant legal orders. The new requirement for a tribunal review at two years, and every four years thereafter, ensures that oversight is regular and non-discriminatory.

All four clauses are united by a clear objective to rationalise tribunal access, enhance procedural safeguards and bring the Mental Health Act into alignment with modern standards of fairness and proportionality. However, I will close with a caveat: rights without resourcing are hollow. If we are to place greater demand on the tribunals service, and to rely on it as the guardian of liberty for thousands of individuals, it must be adequately funded, staffed and supported. Legal representation must be accessible. Tribunal members must be properly trained. Hospital managers must be equipped to meet their new responsibilities.

With those reservations, I broadly welcome clauses 30 to 33 as a necessary recalibration of our mental health law. They reflect the dignity of the individual, the demands of public safety, and the enduring principle that no one should be deprived of liberty without fair or timely review.

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I rise to speak in support of clauses 30 to 33. I echo many of the remarks of the gallant and learned hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley, but I will try not to go over too much of the same ground.

These clauses seek to provide clarity and improvement in access to the tribunal process, both for patients detained under the Mental Health Act and for those on conditional discharge, and seek to implement key recommendations from the independent review. Section 66 of the Act is amended to extend the period in which a patient detained under section 2 can apply to the tribunal from 14 days to 21 days. Clause 30 also allows for auto-enrolment in a hearing, reducing that time from six months to three months. It clarifies that conditional discharge patients are included in this package, so they also have the right to have their treatment reviewed at a tribunal. Providing for auto-enrolment simplifies the system for people who, as the hon. Member mentioned, are perhaps not in the best position to make administrative decisions and fill in the paperwork to apply to a tribunal.

Although this framework and these changes are necessary to bring clarity and autonomy back into people’s healthcare, it would be good to hear from the Minister about how we will support patients throughout these processes as we learn about the different timelines. How will we ensure people can access this change in the system and understand what they are entitled to under this new provision?

[Dr Evans]

Clauses 30 to 33 deal with the tribunal access and automatic referrals of patients detained or conditionally discharged under the Mental Health Act. Let me begin, again, by welcoming these provisions, which seek to improve safeguards, ensure timely oversight, and extend the rights of individuals, particularly those under deprivation of liberty conditions in the community. These are serious matters of liberty and I acknowledge the Government’s intention to modernise and strengthen protection. Nevertheless, it is important that we look carefully at how the clauses operate in practice. I will take each in turn.

Clause 30, on tribunal application periods, will make important changes to when patients can apply for the tribunal. First, it will extend the time that patients detained under section 2 of the Act have to apply from 14 to 21 days. This is a welcome change. We know that the first few days in hospital are incredibly disorientating, so allowing patients a bit more time to seek legal advice is entirely sensible.

Secondly, the clause will reduce the period for patients detained under section 3 to apply from six months to three. I can understand the logic of that, given that clause 29 also shortens the initial detention period, but is there any reason for choosing that mark? Is there any evidence that the three-month window will still allow patients to have sufficient time and support to exercise their rights?

Thirdly, the clause will introduce new provisions for conditionally discharged restricted patients, setting out different application timeframes depending on whether the patient is subject to conditions amounting to deprivation of liberty. Those under the deprivation of liberty safeguards will be able to apply between six and 12 months after discharge and then every two years. For those not under such conditions, the window begins at 12 months. That reflects the impact of conditions on a person’s liberty, and I recognise that distinction, but can the Minister clarify how patients will be informed about which track they are on? That will be fundamental to exerting their rights. Will any guidance be issued to ensure consistency? Will patients have access to advocacy or legal advice at this point?

On clause 31, automatic tribunal referrals are a crucial safety net for those who for whatever reason do not exercise their right to apply. The clause introduces a new framework of relevant periods after which the hospital managers must refer, as we have heard. For section 2 patients, it will be three months. For section 3 and CTO patients it will be three months, then 12 months and every year thereafter. Significantly, the current three-year review period for many detained patients is reduced to one year.

The clause marks a substantial increase in oversight, which I support, but it also raises practical questions. Given that we have put these backstops in place, have the Government made any estimate of how many extra tribunals will be needed and how much extra work they will generate? The Minister was kind enough to say that there were four hours of clinical work involved in doing the plans, but I do not think we have yet heard how much work the Government estimate that the tribunals will take.

More importantly, what support is being provided to ensure that the tribunal system can meet that increased demand? I am particularly concerned that the benefits of these reforms may not be felt if backlogs or delays undermine the safeguards they are intended to deliver.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I understand and recognise my hon. Friend’s concerns, but we can rattle through all the different forums where feedback can be captured: the CQC, the trust boards, the patient and carer race equality framework, Healthwatch England and all the other informal channels in the mental health ecosystem. Our view is that adding another layer into all that would in the end be counterproductive. That is the Government’s position.

[Natasha Irons]

The Minister mentioned the complex network of ways in which patients can give their feedback; perhaps the aim of the clause is to try to simplify that and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock mentioned, make it a bit more direct and immediate after treatment. Are there any plans to simplify the process in another way? The complex cobweb that the Minister described is perhaps the reason why the patient voice is not always captured and utilised in a way that we would want if the services that people rely on are to be improved.

[Stephen Kinnock]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. I do worry about the list of different organisations and agencies throughout the system, and not just in mental health—so many parts of the system have had layer upon layer of bureaucracy added in. That is one of the reasons why we are abolishing NHS England: we want to try to find greater simplicity and clearer channels of communication.

Through the development of the code of practice and the consultation process, simplifying and clarifying the system will be a key objective. Adding another layer would have the opposite effect. But my hon. Friend makes an important point, which will definitely be a part of the process of consultation and development of the guidelines and code of practice. On the basis of those answers, I recommend that we do not adopt the clause.

Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

Natasha Irons Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

I welcome the thinking behind the new clause, and I share the concern that young people need strong and clear safeguards, but I gently suggest that the best way forward would be to enhance guidance, clinical standards and meaningful consultation, rather than to introduce a new statutory requirement. I hope that my comments to the Liberal Democrats are clear, and that I have adequately set out my concerns about clause 20 to the Government. We will not divide the Committee.

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I will speak briefly in support of clause 20 and comment on some of the issues surrounding new clause 5. Clause 20 aims to update wording in the Mental Health Act 1983 in regard to a patient’s capacity and competence to consent to treatment. That is in line with terms that clinicians use in practice across the piece. It provides consistency with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Although the clause is not expected to create practical change in clinical care, it does something vital that I would like to draw out. These changes bring forward the recognised and well-established ways that we give people the power to inform their future care and treatment if they get ill in the future. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock so eloquently put it earlier, the ability to plan ahead for one’s care speaks to the heart of what we are trying to do with the Bill, namely to put people at the centre of it, but allow dignity in treatment and authority over one’s own healthcare. That is an important point to draw out in this clause.

Let me turn to new clause 5. The shadow Minister teased out a lot of detail around the Gillick competence test, which is used not just in one setting, but across multiple settings. I completely understand the need to ensure that our young people are empowered to make decisions, but the new clause may have the unintended consequence of making it harder for young people to be involved in their own treatment and have control over what they want to do with their health. We are not quite in the place where we need that statutory test.

It would be helpful to tease out from the Minister a little more about the plans to review the code of practice, which he mentioned in his opening remarks. What does he hope to see when we consult with clinicians on this? How can we be confident that clinicians will feel empowered to allow young people to take some control in their healthcare?

[Zöe Franklin]

I rise to speak in favour of new clause 5, which would require the Secretary of State to undertake a review into whether the statutory competency test for under-16s would be expedited under the Mental Health Act. It has been great to hear so many contributions from colleagues on the Committee about the challenges that young people face when discussing their mental health and wellbeing and being involved in decision making around their health.

As my colleague Baroness Tyler noted in the Lords, and as the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth noted in his early comments, the consistency with which Gillick competency is interpreted in the case of young people is a bit of a grey area. That is the key reason why we have tabled this new clause. We want young people to be empowered to be involved with decisions around their mental health. It is not hard to imagine how traumatic it must be for an under-16 to refuse treatment when they fully understand and object to it, yet be overridden because no one is quite sure how to assess their competency robustly. We believe that, at the very least, we owe it to young people to ensure that our legal framework is coherent, fair and protective of their rights.

The new clause would allow the Government to lead that conversation in a measured and consultative way. A statutory review would bring much-needed evidence and direction to a complex but critical issue. I am disappointed that the Minister will not consider the new clause, but I will withdraw it for expediency. However, it has been good to hear the commitment from the Minister to consulting on and reviewing this issue. The Liberal Democrats look forward to hearing more detail on it in the future and to being part of that conversation.

Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Natasha Irons Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jen Craft]

I rise to share a few brief reflections. I appreciate that the intent behind amendment 25 is to make sure that the relevant training is in place. I assume that the hon. Member for Guildford has in mind something similar to the Oliver McGowan training provided across hospital trusts, which mandates that all healthcare providers spend a certain amount of time training with someone who has lived experience of autism and of learning disabilities, in order to make sure that the very different ways in which people with autism or learning disabilities might present do not overshadow what they are attending hospital to demonstrate. Particularly for mental health, we all know that diagnostic overshadowing can be fairly significant. In a locked setting, someone with a learning disability or autism may be unable to demonstrate behaviours that show they are improving or getting better, which can undermine the care they receive.

I would just question whether primary legislation is the best vehicle by which to provide for this. We have spoken at length about how the NHS workforce plan and the 10-year plan are coming forward. I wonder whether this would be better placed within that wider framework. Training could be taken forward either as part of continual professional development, or for medical professionals at the start of their career.

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

On the point about training in the round for NHS staff, or any staff dealing with someone in crisis, might it be about taking a more contextual safeguarding approach that relates to not just the one setting? I agree with the point about looking at the 10-year plan, and making sure that mental health training is provided for all staff, because we know that people can present in very different ways, in many different contexts across the health system.

[Jen Craft]

I think there is a concern about having a prescriptive mandate in primary legislation, rather than using a vehicle that could implement real change. Again, I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how to ensure that those working in a mental health environment have sufficient training on learning disabilities and autism. We need to make sure that those with a specialism in learning disabilities and/or autism are present and people have access to them, so that things like diagnostic overshadowing do not continue to occur.

Oral Answers to Questions

Natasha Irons Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

My hon. Friend is right to campaign on behalf of her constituents to make sure that more services are delivered in communities. We want to see services brought out of hospital and into local communities. It is up to the ICB to decide how those are commissioned, but we will certainly make sure that, as part of our commitments under our 10-year plan, we see more of those sorts of services working together in neighbourhoods.

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

6. What plans he has to reform NHS health and social care services.

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)]

People deserve the very best health and care. Our plan for change is already bringing waiting lists down. Our 10-year plan for health will set out how we improve access and make the three shifts that I described earlier, so that the NHS is fit for the future. At the same time, we are rebuilding adult social care now and for the future. Baroness Casey’s independent commission has launched, and it will set out through its work how we will create a national care service. All that is made possible thanks to the investment decisions taken by the Chancellor in her Budget. That investment was opposed by the Conservative party, which shows that only Labour can be trusted to invest in and modernise our NHS.

[Natasha Irons]

Last week, the Centre for Young Lives published a report on the state of mental health support for children and young people across England. It outlines that despite an ongoing crisis in mental health among young people,

“There remains a 55% treatment gap”

between adult and children’s mental health, and that

“fewer than 10%...of ICBs have a dedicated strategy”

for supporting children’s mental health. Will the Secretary of State consider strengthening statutory guidance for ICBs to ensure they assess the local need of children and young people, publish treatment gap data on an ongoing basis, and create joined-up, community-based mental health support for our young people?

[Wes Streeting]

Young people’s mental health is a priority for this Government. That is why we set out in our manifesto our commitment to making sure that mental health support is available in every primary and secondary school in the country. We have walk-in mental health services in every community, and we invest in the mental health workforce, so that we can cut waiting times. I am also working closely with the Secretary of State for Education to make sure that our education and health services work together, so that children get the very best start in life, and so that we look after mind, body, soul, aspiration and futures.

Black Maternal Health Awareness Week

Natasha Irons Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; he is absolutely right. I re-emphasise the point that black, Asian and minority ethnic women are more likely to suffer from common mental health disorders, yet are less likely to access treatment. According to MBRRACE-UK’s “Saving Lives, Improving Mothers’ Care” report from last October, deaths from mental health-related causes accounted for 34% of deaths occurring between six weeks and a year after the end of pregnancy. It is vital that all those who experience pregnancy and childbirth receive mental health support, even if they do not necessarily present as struggling with their mental health; but that is especially true of black, Asian and minority ethnic women, who are more likely to have a negative experience during pregnancy and childbirth. Some of these women’s experiences are deeply traumatic and scarring, and can lead to several mental health problems. Despite that, they are less likely to access mental health support, so they are left to try to recover mentally from the experience on their own.

That disparity exists beyond pregnancy and childbirth, and even before conception. According to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, black women are 25 times less likely to access fertility treatment, and NHS-funded in vitro fertilisation cycles among black patients decreased from 60% in 2019 to 41% in 2021. Black and Asian patients aged 18 to 37 had the lowest IVF success rates compared with white patients in 2020-21, and non-white groups also struggled to access donor eggs, with 89% of egg donors being white, 4% Asian, 3% of mixed heritage and only 3% black.

During the International Women’s Day debate, I highlighted the latest MBRRACE-UK data, which showed a statistically significant increase in the UK’s maternal death rate in the years 2020 to 2022, even when excluding deaths caused by covid-19. Put plainly, more women and babies of all races are dying in the UK now than in the past two decades. This is incredibly worrying, and it means that black women, who often face the worst care, are likely to experience even further deterioration.

When I was researching the latest statistics and figures for this debate, it became increasingly apparent that the data on racial disparities in maternity care is limited and scattered. The data I have cited comes from a collection of reports by various medical bodies and advocacy organisations. Racial disparities are often identified as part of broader studies but, as far as I know, to date there has been no comprehensive medical study dedicated exclusively to racial disparities in maternity care and outcomes, despite the statistics consistently showing how bad things are becoming.

The Lancet’s recent study on maternal mortality and MBRRACE-UK’s reports do include racial breakdowns, but they are based on the data that they have, not the data that they need. A single, dedicated study is yet to be conducted. The lack of comprehensive research makes it incredibly difficult to see a full picture of what is happening, so I hope that the Minister will address that point and highlight what the Government are doing to get a clearer picture of the state of maternity care.

There is no one driver of the racial disparities in maternity care and outcomes. The causes are multifaceted, but overwhelmingly they are the result of a combination of structural racism, unconscious bias, gaps in culturally competent care and socioeconomic inequalities. The first two are incredibly important to highlight. Without acknowledging that the NHS has an issue with institutional racism and unconscious bias, we cannot address the problem. Those issues feed into the quality of care being delivered for black mothers and their babies. The inaccurate and dog-whistle assumptions around black women’s pain tolerance, for example, can lead to women being denied pain medication during childbirth, or misbelieved when raising concerns about pain felt that signals a severe medical condition. Those beliefs are not taught in medical school or during training, yet so many black women have come across a nurse, midwife or doctor who holds them. They are a direct result of institutional racism in the NHS and have a direct impact on the care that women receive.

It is important to note that, although racial disparities in maternity care are experienced regardless of class, occupation, education or geography, socioeconomic inequalities are still a very important factor in determining health outcomes and experiences. Women living in the most deprived areas have a maternal mortality rate more than twice that of women living in the least deprived areas. Black and minority ethnic people are 2.5 times more likely to be in relative poverty and 2.2 times more likely to live in deep poverty.

The combination of socioeconomic inequalities and institutional racism in the NHS is having a dual impact on black mothers’ experiences of maternity care and health outcomes. Much of the previous Government’s work to improve maternity care was focused on co-morbidities and socioeconomic drivers of poor health. Indeed, it is crucial that those areas are addressed, but without looking at the structural racism and unconscious bias in the NHS, the problems will persist.

I want to recognise the campaign groups that are pushing the issue up the political agenda. In the absence of concrete Government or NHS action, advocacy groups have stepped in to offer their solutions and recommendations. Where they can, they also offer alternative care and training. First—always first—I commend Five X More, which established Black Maternal Health Awareness Week in 2019. Its work empowers black women to make informed decisions during pregnancy, and it advocates for systemic change. It is currently conducting its second national survey, building on its impactful 2022 research.

Five X More is calling for a measurable Government target to end racial disparities in maternal death, a commitment that the Labour Government support but have yet to implement. I hope that the Minister will confirm today whether such a target will be set, how it will be measured and when we can expect it. Five X More also advocates for mandatory annual maternity surveys focused on black women’s experiences, compulsory anti-racism and cultural competence training for all maternity professionals, and improved data collection on ethnicity and outcomes.

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Given the complexities and interchangeable disparities that affect maternal health for black women, does she agree that without a national target or framework we are doomed to make the same mistakes again and again? This travesty needs to end, because no mother or child’s health outcome should be determined by the colour of their skin.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These figures have been circulating for decades, but it was only after a successful parliamentary petition launched by Five X More that we first debated them in the House. We are now five or six years on and we are still in the same situation. Things have to change.

I will continue to pay tribute to the amazing groups that have been pushing for decades to put the issue on the agenda. Mimosa Midwives is another remarkable group that offers culturally safe, continuous maternity care. It campaigns for a culturally appropriate care model in the NHS and for inclusive training in midwifery education to reflect diverse maternal experiences, because much of our medical training remains centred on white women.

The Motherhood Group is a social enterprise supporting black mothers with peer-led services, training workshops and national campaigns. Its annual black maternal health conference brings together researchers, clinicians and service users to tackle disparities. It also launched the Blackmums app to connect mothers navigating similar challenges.

Other charities such as Bliss, Tommy’s, Birthrights and the Royal College of Midwives also highlight racial disparities in their broader efforts to improve maternity care. Where the Government and the NHS have fallen short, they have taken the time to campaign and to step in.

I will, however, acknowledge the positive steps that the new Government and the NHS have taken. In response to my written parliamentary questions last month, the Government outlined some ongoing measures. Every local maternity system must now publish an equity and equality action plan that sets out tailored actions to reduce disparities, especially for ethnic minority women and those in deprived areas. I welcome the roll-out of version 3 of the Saving Babies’ Lives care bundle, which aims to reduce stillbirth, neonatal death, pre-term birth and brain injury.

Maternal medicine networks are being established to ensure equitable access to specialist care for women at heightened risk. Those efforts are supported by the NHS equality, diversity and inclusion improvement plan, which was launched in 2023. That plan requires NHS organisations to tackle workforce discrimination, improve leadership accountability and foster an inclusive, harassment-free environment. I am also pleased to note that NHS England is developing a respectful and inclusive maternity care toolkit to support inclusive and culturally competent practice. Those are all really welcome developments, but much more is needed.

I will close with four questions for the Minister. First, will the Government commit to a statutory inquiry into racial disparities in maternity care, including testimony from affected families and frontline providers? Secondly, will the Government fund dedicated research into the medical complications disproportionately affecting black women during pregnancy and childbirth? Thirdly, will the Government commission a review of maternity training across all medical professions, to better equip practitioners in recognising complications and symptoms in black women and babies? Finally, do the Government acknowledge the presence of systemic racism within the NHS? If so, what steps are being taken to confront and eliminate it? It is good that in the past few years, the House has taken the time to acknowledge these issues and allow us to debate them, but even though the Government stated in their manifesto that a target will be set, we now need to see action. We cannot continue to see gaping inequalities in maternal outcomes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Natasha Irons Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

Yes, I or the Minister of State for Health would be delighted to meet the hon. Member. She is right to describe the scale of challenge in urgent and emergency care. Of course, there are other challenges in east Kent, particularly in maternity services, which I am acutely aware of too, and I would be delighted to work with her to help solve some of those challenges in her community.

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

T7. The Family Dental Practice in my constituency has faced significant challenges caused by dental contracts introduced by the previous Government. The pilot scheme it took part in caused long-lasting operational financial damages to the practice. How will the Secretary of State support such practices, and will he consider measures such as rebasing the unit of dental activity targets to help them overcome these challenges?

[Stephen Kinnock]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the NHS dental contract simply is not working. We are working with the sector to reform the contract, with a shift to focusing on prevention and the retention of NHS dentists. We will deliver on our pledge to provide 700,000 more urgent dental appointments at the earliest possible opportunity, targeting areas that need them most.