Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I inform the House that Lords amendments 21, 22, 29, 32 to 34, 37, 38, 43 to 48, 51 to 59, 62, 77 and 78 engage the Commons’ financial privilege. If any of these Lords amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving the Commons’ financial privilege to be entered in the Journal. I call the Minister to move the motion. I believe it is her debut, so congratulations and welcome—enjoy.

Clause 1

Sale of tobacco etc

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendments 2 to 27.

Lords amendment 28, and Government amendments (a) to (c) consequential on Lords amendment 28.

Lords amendment 29, and Government amendments (a) to (c) consequential on Lords amendment 29.

Lords amendments 30 to 123.

[Mrs Hodgson]

Before I address Lords amendment 1, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), for her work on the Bill and the wider prevention agenda. I also extend my thanks to Baroness Merron for her work in the other place, ensuring that the Bill was expertly steered through the legislative process.

This is a landmark Bill, and I am honoured to have taken on responsibility for it as the House considers the amendments made in the other place. Creating a smoke-free generation is the most significant public health intervention since the ban on smoking in public places in 2007, under the last Labour Government. Tobacco claims around 80,000 lives every year, and in England it is responsible for a quarter of all cancer deaths. Someone is admitted to hospital almost every minute as a result of smoking, and up to two-thirds of deaths among current smokers can be attributed directly to smoking. Those are not abstract figures; they represent lives cut short by an entirely preventable harm.

The Bill also takes decisive action to tackle the rapid rise in the use of vapes and other nicotine products, particularly among young people, protecting a new generation from nicotine addiction. All the amendments to be considered today have been accepted by the Government, starting with Lords amendments 1, 2, 39 and 40, which change the parliamentary procedure for age verification regulations from negative to affirmative in England and Wales, and in Northern Ireland. The regulations will set out how retailers may ensure compliance when verifying a customer’s age. The changes were made as a result of a recommendation from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which the Government accept.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Hodgson]

We are content that the measures in the Bill, which are intended to apply to Northern Ireland, are compatible with the obligations under the Windsor framework. I hope that answers the hon. and learned Gentleman’s concern.

We hope that the review will be a clear demonstration of the Government’s commitment to monitoring progress against our smokefree ambition. Finally, Lords amendments 5, 8, 36, 41, 60 and 61, 63 to 76, 79, and 81 to 88 are technical amendments, some of which are consequential to the commencement of several other Acts. They also improve consistency in drafting across the Bill.

I encourage all Members to support all the amendments. These are meaningful changes that strengthen the Bill and respond to concerns raised by Members across the House and in the other place. The Government amendments tabled today will return to the other place for consideration, and I look forward to their timely agreement, and to the Bill completing its final stages.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

I welcome the new Minister to her place; she is stepping in and taking the Bill through this stage, like a technical finishing substitute. I, too, have been substituted for my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), who spent a huge amount of time going through the Bill in Committee. I place my thanks to her on the record. Because of what she did, I have not had to do it, which has been a relief.

Eradicating smoking among young people is a public health priority. There may be differences in how we would achieve that, but the objective is shared by Members across the House, and we will not divide the House on the Bill tonight. There has been important common ground. As my colleague Lord Kamall said in the other place, smoking is harmful, vaping is less harmful than smoking, and not vaping is better than vaping. I think we can all agree that those principles should guide this legislation.

Those principles underpinned the Bill introduced by the previous Government. Since then, it has expanded, and at times it risks losing focus on its central aim of reducing smoking, particularly among young people. The Opposition have been concerned, for example, about measures that have placed additional burdens on hospitality and retail, and about restrictions on vaping that could undermine its role as a quitting tool for adult smokers. I therefore welcome the changes made in the House of Lords and the Government’s acceptance of them.

Further, the exemption of the adult mental health in-patient setting from the ban on vapes vending machines is a sensible and compassionate decision. Ministers were right to respond to concerns raised by peers, including my colleague Lord Moylan, and mental health charities, and we welcome the changes to clause 12. It is also right that local authorities will be able to retain proceeds from fixed penalty notices to support enforcement under the amendments to clause 39.

However, the Bill marks not the end of the process, but simply the end of the beginning. Key questions remain, including about the regulation of flavours and descriptors, advertising, and the designation of vape-free places. Those decisions will pretty much determine whether the Bill works in practice. It is therefore essential that the Government proceed in a way that is proportionate, enforceable and sustainable. We have already seen the importance of that balance. I welcome the decision to drop proposals to extend restrictions in pub gardens, which would have placed further strain on the hospitality sector. However, Ministers should take note. Restrictions should be targeted at areas where there is a clear and significant risk to public health. Possible considerations include restrictions outside schools and playgrounds, and I gently ask the Minister to reflect that approach as further regulations are developed.

The Lords also strengthened the Secretary of State’s powers in relation to cigarette filters, enabling more effective regulation of components that contribute to environmental harm. In addition, a series of technical amendments were agreed to, aimed at clarifying definitions, improving compliance mechanisms and ensuring that secondary legislation is subject to the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. For example, Lords amendment 1, relating to age verification regulations under clause 1, requires the affirmative procedure to be used, increasing oversight of a core part of the Bill. Those are sensible improvements that reflect the spirit of constructive scrutiny.

A key and central issue raised throughout the passage of the Bill has been the risk of unintended consequences, and particularly the growth of the illicit market. Whether we are for the Bill or against it, one concern unites us all: the black market. If regulation is too restrictive or poorly enforced, it will drive consumers away from the legal market and into illegal supply, which would undermine both public health and enforcement. The Opposition proposed an annual report on illicit tobacco and vaping activity, which the Government rejected. Given the concerns raised throughout the passage of the Bill, I would be grateful if the Minister could set out clearly how the Government will monitor and respond to changes in the illicit market.

We support the broad objectives of the Bill, but we will be watching closely. Its success depends not on its intentions, but on its delivery. When it was first introduced, I spoke about my experience as a junior doctor on a respiratory ward—my first hospital job. I saw patients struggling for breath, families in distress, and moments when, despite everything, there was little more that could be done. The true test of the Bill is simple: in years ahead, fewer families should have to experience the same pain, suffering and despair. Let us hope this works.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Kelly Foy]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. We must keep in mind the fact that it is smoking that causes harm and death, not vaping, which can be a very successful cessation tool. I hope that the Bill will continue to push that.

Powers in the Bill cover marketing, display, packaging and product design, as well as flavours and their descriptions. However, there is a crucial balance to strike: reducing youth appeal without limiting access or effectiveness for those using the products to quit smoking. We must keep the harms of smoking firmly at the forefront of our minds.

A review after four to seven years feels appropriate to assess how the regulations are affecting usage and the market, and whether we are striking the right balance. This should be considered alongside the disposable vape ban and the forthcoming vape excise tax. I would welcome reassurance today that the review will place the harms of smoking and the needs of smokers at its centre.

Many of the other amendments are technical in nature. I welcome the comprehensive definition of tobacco coming into force on Royal Assent, through Lords amendments 89, 90 and 91, as there is no need for a transition period. The exemption for vape-vending machines in Lords amendments 3 and 4 is also welcome, as others have noted, because we must ensure that vulnerable smokers are supported as much as possible to quit.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) has recently taken up her role, I welcome her to her position as Minister for Public Health. I look forward to working with her as this Bill, soon to be an Act, progresses, so that we can continue our work, and hopefully set out a road map for a totally smokefree country and to look again at introducing a polluter pays levy.

Finally, as someone who has spent many years advocating for a smokefree future, free of death and disease from tobacco, I know from speaking and listening to many people affected by smoking just how much the public want and need this action. We have already shifted the social norms around smoking and now, thanks to the work of organisations such as Action on Smoking and Health and Fresh, and the work of colleagues across the two Houses, a smokefree future is now possible. That is truly something to celebrate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I also welcome the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) to her position as Minister for Public Health. I had the privilege to serve on the Bill Committee, as other hon. Members did—indeed, I see some familiar faces in the Chamber. One of the things that struck me most was when the chief medical officer gave his evidence: he said that the Bill was not only the most significant piece of public health legislation in 30 years, but probably the single of piece of legislation that will most help to address inequality. Inequality is multifactorial, but one of the main factors in the difference in life expectancy between certain wealthier areas and certain more deprived areas is the rate of smoking. This Bill will have a huge impact, especially on the communities for which we are really trying to improve life expectancy.

I am very pleased that the Government accepted so many amendments in the Lords. Some of the amendments that the Liberal Democrats are really keen on are regarding fixed penalty notices and require all the money from those fines to go to local public health initiatives, as directed by local authorities. We know that public health is so important, yet funding for such organisations is usually extremely limited, given the pressures on local authorities. Without the Lords amendments on fixed penalty notices, the money would go straight back to the Exchequer. We fundamentally believe that if we are serious about making a meaningful difference to people’s lives, that money must be used in local smoking-cessation initiatives.

As the mental health spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, I am acutely aware of the benefits of the Lords amendments that support those with long-term mental health conditions, who have higher rates of smoking than the general public. We know that going cold turkey is simply unrealistic and can even be dangerous. The exemption on vape vending machines in secure mental health hospitals ensures that people are supported professionally in quitting in a sustainable and maintained way that will not further damage their mental health.

I welcome the Lords amendments on regulating filters, which have cross-party support. Not only are filters an environmental issue, but they provide a false perception of safety to smokers. Ensuring that there is awareness of the lack of protection that these filters provide and of smoking as a whole is imperative if we are to ensure that people can make informed decisions about their health and wellbeing.

I am very pleased to support this Bill as it goes through Parliament; it is momentous and significant. We really appreciate the Government’s accepting the Liberal Democrat Lords amendments, which will slightly improve how the Bill will be delivered. We are very pleased that this will be a strong and impactful Bill. We hope that it will deliver meaningful change on public health for generations to come and that we will have a smokefree generation growing up.

Palliative Care

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful and moving contributions this afternoon. The hon. Members for Worcester (Tom Collins) and for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) spoke so movingly about their own very personal loss. Of course, we would not be holding the debate were it not for the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who set out the frame of this debate so brilliantly and has done so much outside the Chamber to strive for better palliative care.

The hon. Member for York Central concluded her remarks by talking about bereavement support, and that is where I will begin mine. Last week, I was out in Burgess Hill. I saw an elderly gentleman who was standing by the edge of the pavement holding on to a walking frame. I got talking to him, and it turned out that he was waiting for a lift to St Peter and St James hospice, where he was going to a bereavement café. He told me that he had lost his wife two and a half years ago, but he had no recollection of the first two years following her loss—I think it had been a blur for him. For the past six months, he has been going back to St Peter and St James for the bereavement café, and he is beginning to feel a little better with that support each week. My thanks go to St Peter and St James, and to all the hospices that support our constituents, for what they do.

Our palliative care system is at tipping point, with a funding cliff edge approaching. Some 75% of hospices are running a deficit, two in five are planning reductions in clinical services in the year ahead, and 380 hospice beds across England lie empty, not because there is no need for them, but because there is no funding to staff hospices, as many hon. Members have said. Around 300,000 people are cared for by hospices every year, yet around 100,000 more need it. One in three of those who need hospice care miss out, and demand is rising sharply.

Over the next decade in England, just over 5.75 million people will die. Around 90% of them—an estimated 5.18 million people—will have palliative care needs. New research commissioned by Marie Curie and published earlier this month showed that nearly one in three dying people have both unaddressed symptoms and concerns and insufficient access to GP services at the end of life. That equates to nearly one person dying with unmet needs every three minutes. Without intervention, around 44,400 more people are projected to have unmet palliative care needs in 2050 compared with 2025. That is the scale of the challenge before us.

Hospices are essential pillars of our health and care system, especially at a time when the NHS is under such immense strain. The economic case for funding them properly is overwhelming. Approximately 15% of all emergency hospital admissions in England involve people in their last year of life—nearly 1 million admissions in 2023 alone. Those patients account for around 30% of all emergency hospital bed days. In the last six months of life, around 360,000 people spent a total of 8.4 million days in hospital. With the average acute bed day costing around £500, and with roughly 40% to 50% of the NHS budget concentrated in acute settings, the potential for a more appropriate allocation of resources is obvious.

Around 69% of people are admitted as in-patients in the final six months, with a median stay of 13 days, and 80% of those who die in hospital had an emergency admission in their final month of life. These are real people—people who, with better planning and properly resourced hospice, community nursing, GP, pharmacy and paramedic services, might have experienced a calmer, more dignified end of life and spared the NHS considerable cost. But the very sector that relieves this pressure is itself under extraordinary strain. Between 2022 and 2024, there was a £47 million real-terms cut in hospice funding. As the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) noted, the disastrous rise in employer national insurance contributions alone is costing hospices in England an estimated £34 million a year.

Hospices collectively raise about £1.4 billion themselves. Government funding amounts to just over £500 million—barely a quarter of the income—and in some areas, hospices receive as little as 8% of their funding from NHS grants. There is no robust national methodology underpinning these variations. It is a postcode lottery and, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) noted, the variation in funding for children’s hospices is even more acute than that in the adult hospice sector. Access to compassionate end-of-life care should not depend on geography, the strength of an area’s ability to raise funds or whether someone is an adult or a child.

Hospices, of course, welcome the capital funding from the Government, but it quite simply does not pay nurses’ salaries. Staff account for around 70% of hospice costs. Without revenue funding for core services, capital investment does not keep beds open or prevent service reductions. This is a national, structural problem, but it is also a very real one for all our areas across the country, particularly for my area in Sussex, where the Southern Hospice Group is consulting on how to cut its costs.

Marie Curie and others have warmly welcomed the Government’s commitment to developing a palliative care and end-of-life care modern service framework, with an interim report expected in the spring and a final report in the autumn. It will be the first national plan for palliative and end-of-life care since 2008. That is, of course, good news. The Government have rightly identified five core challenges: delays in early identification, inconsistent commissioning, workforce shortages, gaps in 24/7 provision, and limited uptake of personalised and advance care planning. But those are not new problems that need solving—we have known about them for some time—and if this framework is to succeed, it must go further.

My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are campaigning to double the funding for bereavement support payments, reversing the last Conservative Government’s cuts since 2017. We would also reduce isolation following a bereavement, by improving access to social prescribing and through the work of a dedicated Minister for tackling loneliness. We would improve support for children who have lost a parent by appointing a Cabinet member for children and young children, and extend pupil premium plus funding to children in kinship care. The Government must provide stronger national leadership and oversight, and they must place palliative and end-of-life care at the heart of plans for a neighbourhood health service, looking beyond hospices. They must deliver a new funding and commissioning model that ends the postcode lottery. They must invest properly in the workforce, and scale up proven models of care that shift support from hospital to community, improving patient experience and delivering better value for taxpayers.

The Government seem happy to talk about moving care from hospitals to the community, but we need a material change. The Liberal Democrats believe that the Government have a choice: they can allow hospices to drift from crisis to crisis, with beds closed, staff lost, and unmet need rising year after year, all while still struggling to plug gaps left by the struggling NHS; or, they can seize the moment, through the modern service framework, to build a sustainable system that matches funding to need and delivers dignity for all. No one should face death in avoidable pain, no family should be left unsupported, and no responsible Government should ignore the evidence that properly funded palliative care is both the compassionate and the economically responsible choice.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The Minister has finished speaking, but the hon. Member does get to wind up the debate.

Brain Tumour Survival Rates

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Dame Siobhain McDonagh, who will speak for up to 15 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

It is an honour to speak in this debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) and the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for securing it. We have heard many fine and very heartfelt speeches this evening, particularly those recounting personal stories about Members’ families.

Our new cancer strategy was announced last week. Sadly, political events of the past few days have somewhat submerged its importance, but we should be talking about it, as it is much the most important political development as far as I am concerned. We have seen little progress in brain tumour care—that is the truth of the matter. Those tumours are devastating; they rob victims of years of life, and wreck families. I have seen such patients over the years, and I can say that diagnosis may be very difficult, even with the help of hindsight.

An average general practitioner will see a new brain tumour once every seven years, but they will see thousands of patients in that time, so it is not surprising that the tumours are difficult to diagnose. I hear that a patient with a brain tumour will often have visited their general practitioner five or six times before a diagnosis is made. We must do what we can to raise awareness. In ear, nose, and throat care—which, as Members may know, is my specialty—we see a condition called acoustic neuroma. It is a brain tumour on the nerves that lie between the ear and the brain—the balance nerves. Such tumours are rare, even in ear, nose and throat clinics. I would see only a handful of them each year. Sometimes they present with a little hearing loss in one ear, or with just a little ringing. Sometimes they present incidentally.

Some of the other brain tumours we see in the ENT world are very rare. One that sits in the roof of the nose —an olfactory neuroblastoma—is so rare that I probably saw fewer than six or seven cases throughout my career, yet it presents with a loss of sense of smell, which is a very common problem for people who come to see ear, nose and throat surgeons or general practitioners. We must not deceive ourselves that we are dealing with an easy condition, for this is a difficult one.

I believe that we must support research into these mysterious diseases. As I have said before in this Chamber, this country is desperately short of medical researchers and clinical academics. Many of our clinical academics are getting towards the end of their careers, and we are not doing enough to recruit new academics in the early part of theirs. I would like us to think about what policies we might develop to encourage that—this is a political problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden said that given we have made so little progress, we must be content with the status quo. I beg to differ; we are not content with the status quo, and that is why we are all here this evening to discuss this matter.

We know that this is a promising time for some areas of medical research. Genetic research, for instance, is now becoming very important. I am not sure that whole genome sequencing, if that were available for everybody, would solve the problem, but it is the way we are going. Before I came to this place, I was involved in research into a rare ear disease called cholesteatoma. We did genetic research on that—genome sequencing—and we were able to identify some of the genes that probably cause the condition, but that does not make it any easier for us to prevent it, for we cannot choose our genetic code.

The problem with brain tumours is that they are deep-seated and inaccessible. We cannot see them or feel them, which is why curative approaches are so elusive. We can debate this in the Chamber until the cows come home, but that debate will not bring the cure, so we must decide what politically we can do to help. I welcome the £32 million boost to brain cancer research, and our new approach to clinical trials. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for his Rare Cancers Bill, and I congratulate him on getting it to advance so far. Like me, he is a new Member of Parliament, and I am in awe that you have managed—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

He has managed—not “you”.

[Peter Prinsley]

Yes, I am in awe that my hon. Friend has managed to achieve so much; you see, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am a new Member of Parliament!

Let us encourage clinical trials, for as Lord Vallance has said:

“Clinical trials are the route by which promising research can be turned into treatments”,

which will save lives.

NHS Dentists

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Easton]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing that funding. I totally agree with all her sentiments. Maybe you can give me a clue how to get that funding as well for Northern Ireland.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Not “you”, Mr Easton—it was not me that you were referring to. You have lots of time, so enjoy it.

[Alex Easton]

Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. We all understand that there are regional differences in how dental contracts work across our UK nations. However, a common theme is identified: many of our NHS dentists feel that they are being asked to do more to address complex needs with resources that simply do not match the reality on the ground. My research indicates that in some parts of the United Kingdom, the very way that dentists are paid actively works against the long-term interests of patients. The current system rewards quick, high-volume work rather than the kind of long-term, preventive care that is essential if we are serious about keeping mouths in Britain healthy.

Many of our newly qualified dentists tell me that the NHS contracts are inflexible, overly bureaucratic and in many cases financially unsustainable for anything beyond the most basic level of service.

Puberty Suppressants Trial

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

The shadow Minister asks, “Why?” There is a simple answer. It is because this was recommended by Dr Cass in the Cass review, which was commissioned by my predecessor, Sir Sajid Javid. I think that was the right thing to do, and it is why, when my predecessor brought forward the Cass review, I supported it in opposition. I certainly did not try to play politics with an extremely vulnerable group of children and young people.

I will tell the hon. Lady why. It is because, under the previous Government, those puberty-suppressing hormones were prescribed without proper oversight, supervision or safety, yet we did not hear a peep about that fact for years until Dr Cass, commissioned by Sir Sajid Javid—who deserves enormous credit—did the study, which was published and widely supported and which contained this recommendation. The Conservatives may have changed their tune in opposition, but I remember what they said in government when they published the Cass review and supported its recommendations, so I think their response now is a real shame.

The shadow Minister accuses me of inconsistency, so let me be clear. Am I comfortable that this clinical trial has undergone the proper process and ethical approval to ensure the highest standards and supervision? Yes, I am comfortable about that. Am I uncomfortable about puberty-suppressing hormones for this group of young people for this particular condition? Yes, I am—because of risks. It is why I was also uncomfortable when I upheld the temporary ban by my predecessor and then put in place a permanent ban. The reason I was uncomfortable with that, too, is because I had to look children and young people, and their parents, in the eye when they told me in no uncertain terms that that decision was harmful to them, as have many other clinicians who have opposed that decision.

Whatever my discomfort in this extremely sensitive area, the reason that I have made this decision is that I am following clinical advice and, as Health Secretary, it is my responsibility to follow expert advice. Had the Tavistock clinic faced such challenge and scrutiny a decade ago, we would not be in this mess. The Conservatives were right to commission the Cass review and they were right to accept its recommendations. I accept that there is now a difference on this particular recommendation, but I would urge Members not to walk away from the cross-party consensus we built behind that approach but to build on the work that Dr Cass has done.

Let me turn to the important questions raised by shadow Minister. There will be two groups within the trial, as well as a further control group of children and young people with gender incongruence who do not receive puberty-suppressing hormones. At least 226 participants are required in order to detect a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups. However, this is not a target and no young person will find themselves on this trial because there is a drive to make sure that a certain number of young people are participating. In order for anyone to participate in this trial, it has to have the most robust clinical oversight from clinicians within the service, as well as national oversight and the consent of parents. It is only where young people will be deemed to benefit that they will be on this programme.

The shadow Minister asks about the data linkage study. That is important. The data linkage study will be undertaken, but when it is completed it will not provide us with the same evidence as this clinical trial. That is why Dr Cass made a distinction between this trial and the data linkage study.

The hon. Lady also asks about the motivations of those who withheld data. That is an extremely important question. It is utterly appalling that anyone in a position of responsibility in the NHS withheld data on a very vulnerable group of children and young people. I accept that there were many well-meaning people involved in these services at the Tavistock clinic, but the fact that Dr Cass found such a lack of rigour, such a lack of standards and such a lack of proper oversight is disgraceful. It is the clinicians who are well meaning and ideologically driven who have given me the most cause for concern in this whole debacle and who have done more harm to children, young people and the trans community than most other people who have taken part in this debate.

I appreciate the work that Dr Cass has done, and I am glad that she is in the other place, bringing welcome scrutiny. Were she not supportive of this approach, I might think again, but she has made her recommendation and given her support. I am following clinical advice. It is not comfortable, but I do believe it is the right thing to do, on balance.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Health and Social Care Committee member Danny Beales.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) asks, “Why?” Well, it is because trans people exist and their health needs exist. As the Secretary of State has clearly outlined, an independent review made a series of recommendations. There were clearly failures of healthcare, and a further recommendation was that a clinical trial should address this issue. I believe that the Conservatives supported the Cass review, but when it comes to implementing this part of it, they suddenly have collective amnesia about what Dr Cass recommended. Does the Secretary State agree that, in the absence of a trial, there will still be access to these drugs? We know that young people are seeking out private provision. They are seeking unregulated providers of these drugs, so is not a clinical trial both appropriate and the best and safest way of managing any potential risks?

[Wes Streeting]

The risk that my hon. Friend sets out was one of the considerations that I had to when weigh up—first when upholding the temporary ban, and then when making the ban permanent. I do worry that, outside of a trial, we may continue to see unsafe or unethical practice. I think we will be doing a service to medicine in this country as well as internationally if we have a high-quality trial with the highest standards of ethics, approvals, oversight and research from some of our country’s leading universities and healthcare providers to ensure that, for this particular vulnerable group of children and young people, we are taking an evidence-based approach to health and care.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson; you have one minute.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I hope that everyone in this House can agree that medical treatment should always follow the evidence on safety and effectiveness. It is right that expert clinicians are building this evidence base and therefore right that the Government are seeking to run this trial, because it should be led by evidence and not by ideology.

Given that the numbers on the trial will be very small and the waiting list for talking therapies, which are so important for children and their parents, is very long, with hundreds of thousands waiting, can the Secretary of State explain how he will increase access to NHS talking therapies so people can get the help they need and deserve? In a field with so little research, will he confirm if the pathways trial will look at international best practice in order to take learnings from abroad?

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

Let me reassure my hon. Friend and the House that I am absolutely open to receiving representations and evidence from clinicians involved in the care of children and young people, with insight, expertise and data, including those who might be critical of the approach that the trial team is setting out or, indeed, critical that the Cass review included this recommendation. That is important because the many things that have gone horribly wrong in this area have included the silencing of whistleblowers and the silencing of rigorous debate and discussion.

We have to have this debate with due care and sensitivity for young people in this vulnerable group in particular and for the wider trans community, who feel extremely vulnerable in this country at the moment, including as a result of decisions I have taken as the Health and Social Care Secretary. We have to consider all of that in the round, but we must make sure that at all times we are following the evidence, that we are open to scrutiny and challenge, and that where we are making these finely balanced judgments, we are doing so with rigorous debate, testing the arguments, the evidence and the data. That is why I welcome the urgent question and this discussion.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Health and Social Care Committee member Joe Robertson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

I certainly do not need to be told what my responsibilities are on this. I always take responsibility for the decisions I take. I acknowledge the extent to which the hon. Gentleman and members of his party seek to weaponise this issue, and to personalise it. [Interruption.] We can simply refer back to his question and to the shadow Minister’s reference to the “Streeting trial”—if that is not personalising, I do not know what is.

I’ll tell you what: I will take an evidence-based approach. I have done that on this issue from day one. Had the Conservatives done so, we would never have seen the Tavistock scandal. We would never have seen puberty blockers dished out willy-nilly to children and young people in this vulnerable patient group. I have sought at all times, including when I sat on the Opposition Benches, to treat this debate with the care, sensitivity and humility it deserves, and not to be tribal in my interactions. I only wish this Conservative Opposition would take the same approach.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

We are only at the start of this urgent question, so I ask Members to reduce the temperature in the Chamber.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the care and sensitivity he has taken to this subject all along. It has been an undeniably difficult year for transgender people in Britain. I have spoken to young trans people who have been pushed to the brink of suicide by what they hear—that they do not have a right to exist, that they do not deserve rights, that they are legitimate targets for ridicule. We all in this House have a responsibility to lower the temperature and focus on their welfare, health and dignity.

King’s College operates the highest standards of safety. Does the Secretary of State agree that its expertise and rigour will support the wellbeing of participants and ensure that we get the robust evidence we need and that vulnerable children are no longer treated as political punchbags?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I ask colleagues to keep their questions short and the Secretary of State to keep his responses on point. I call Health and Social Care Committee member, Josh Fenton-Glynn.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

I hope we can all agree that the young people involved should not be used by anyone as a political football. Can my right hon. Friend please assure me that the process and trial will be clinically led, not defined by rhetoric—in this place or anywhere else?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. If hon. Members do not keep their questions short, I will not get everybody in. The answers need to be just as short.

[Wes Streeting]

I will try to do that, Madam Deputy Speaker.

We will ensure that young people get good access to wider evidence-led support. I have had to wrestle with the fact that some trans people enter adulthood without ever receiving any sort of healthcare, and I have been heavily criticised by those people in particular for some of the decisions that I have taken. We are working to reduce waiting times, as I have described.

My hon. Friend says that puberty blockers are reversible. We hear contrary views about that from Members across the House, some of whom say that puberty blockers are irreversible. The truth is that the evidence in this area is mixed, which is why we need to build a stronger evidence base.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We need a short question. I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

May I thank the Secretary of State for all that he does? He deserves credit. A mother from my constituency phoned me this morning and said:

“Why is money being spent on this pathway when my child has been waiting for clinical support for 3 years and the waiting list is so long she may be moved to adult treatment? Why is Government prioritising the tiny few over the many? With our children’s mental health services at breaking point and parents at their wits end trying to get their child diagnosed”,

how do the Government look in the eyes of the parents with rare diseases whose drugs are not funded by the NHS when they are funding this trial?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Samantha Niblett for a short question.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Trans people do not wake up at 18 suddenly trans; it starts before then. When we talk about protecting children, it means protecting trans children so that they can transition into adulthood knowing that they had parents and doctors who advocated for their needs. But this trial is not a prison sentence, so will the Secretary of State talk about whether people are entitled to withdraw from it if they change their mind?

NHS: Winter Preparedness

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the urgent question, the Health Secretary suggested that Reform UK were vaccine sceptics—that is not the case. I have had all my vaccines since being born, and I will continue to have vaccinations, including the flu jab. Is there anything you can do to encourage the Health Secretary to be a little bit more accurate with the facts?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Unfortunately, I am not responsible for the content of speeches made by Front Benchers or by Back Benchers. That is not a matter for the Chair, but the hon. Member has most definitely got his point on the record.

[Wes Streeting]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Does the Secretary of State wish to respond? Hopefully, we are not going to prolong the debate.

[Wes Streeting]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just wanted to welcome the hon. Gentleman’s endorsement of vaccination. It is by far the most sensible thing he has ever said—that is a low bar, but he has cleared it, and I am very grateful to him. He might want to have a closer look at who his party platforms at its conferences, but that is not a matter for this urgent question.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

We do not wish to prolong the urgent question.

Budget Resolutions

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. As so many Members wish to contribute, the speaking limit has now dropped to three minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I welcome the Government’s abolition of the two-child benefit cap, but it should not have taken 16 months—it should have been the first act of a Labour Government.

I will speak first about the national health service. It is the jewel in the UK crown, but under consecutive Governments, millions of pounds of public money has gone to waste on interest payments for PFI schemes—that is money that should have been spent on frontline care or paying for doctors and nurses. PFI was a costly failure that lined the pockets of private consultants and contractors at the expense of NHS patients and staff. Now, it appears that the Government are planning to do the same again but expect different results.

Failed PFI schemes from the noughties, for three Leicestershire hospitals, saw the NHS sued for almost £30 million by the favoured consortium despite work not being taken and not a single hospital being built. Leicester’s three hospitals are still without any new buildings, as Ministers have pushed their development into wave 2, way beyond the original 2030 target, more than 30 years after the need was first identified. Coventry hospital, which was built, costs £1 million a week alone. The law was even changed to ensure that private contractors were paid before our NHS staff. Since the inception of PFI, around £60 billion of private money has gone into 700 PFI projects. In return, the Government will pay £306 billion. Those escalating costs eat into the NHS budget and leave less for frontline services.

Secondly, I will speak about private providers. As an optometrist, I have referred people for cataracts surgery because the waiting time is much shorter and it makes sense to do so, but unfortunately the transfer of taxpayer money to the private sector reduces resources for NHS services and ultimately limits its ability to treat patients effectively. The Government have apparently set aside £2.5 billion—and that is set to rise to £16 billion—for private services That is disappointing, as they could have used the Budget to expand NHS capacity by building new facilities, rather than buying out private sector clinics, but they did not. They could support local authorities and not-for-profit organisations to take over social care, but they have not. These are political decisions that have consequences in the long run.

Thirdly, I would like to speak about the deal with Palantir on data sharing that the Health Secretary is pressing ahead with. I have had patients contact me who are really concerned about data sharing. In fact, two of them wrote to me in the last week because they are really frightened that they have to opt out of this. It seems that our data is a commodity that is going to the highest bidder.

I would also quickly like to touch on hospices. I am running out of time, but LOROS hospice in my constituency is serving 1.2 million people in Leicester with only 18 beds—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

To make the final Back-Bench speech, I call Jo Platt.

[Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)]

The autumn Budget shapes the choices we make and the kind of society we want to build together. After 14 years of mismanagement, this Budget is about turning the page. It is about moving from uncertainty to opportunity, and about giving people the confidence that the Government are on their side. That is why I welcome the Chancellor’s autumn Budget. It marks the start of a series of measures that will make a real difference, such as helping with the cost of living, supporting our NHS and giving our communities the opportunities they need to reach their potential.

From our proud coalfield communities involved in the BCSSS scheme, who will finally receive the justice they deserve, to the 2,840 families in Leigh and Atherton who will benefit from lifting the two-child benefit cap, this Budget demonstrates that the Government are listening to communities like mine. It shows that the voices of ordinary people and the concerns raised in towns like Leigh and Atherton are being heard. I want to give special thanks to William Hancock, a local mineworker who fought tirelessly to support his fellow workers in getting the justice they deserve.

I was delighted when the Chancellor announced measures to tackle illicit activity on our high streets. For too long, fake shops and rogue traders have undermined confidence and damaged local pride. That ends now. Backed by £45 million over four years, the new crackdown will create a cross-Government taskforce, strengthen trading standards and give law enforcement the tools it needs to protect honest businesses. This is a direct response to the campaign I have led, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), to shut down dodgy shops and restore pride to our high streets. We do need to go further, but this is a huge step forward. It is the start of the change that our communities have demanded for so long.

This Budget is not the end; it is the beginning. Together we will rebuild trust, restore pride and create the kind of society that reflects the best of who we are. That is the future we promised, and that is the future we will deliver.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jessica Toale]

I am sure that the Chancellor appreciates the hon. Gentleman’s input into the Budget, given that the public roundly rejected your approach to our economy just a year and a half ago.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The terms “you” and “yours” should not be used, and interventions need to be short, so quickly get to the point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The Minister is clearly not giving way to you, Mr Hoare, and the rest of us want to hear what he has to say.

[James Murray]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, Madam Deputy Speaker, I give way to him week in, week out in this place, so I know pretty much what he is going to say. I do not have much time, so I am going to make some progress. [Interruption.] The Opposition are very loud at the moment, but time and again there is deafening silence when they are asked to defend their record in government. They simply refuse to own up and face up to the damage they caused to our economy by slashing investment.

Our decision not to slash investment and to reject uncontrolled borrowing means that we have had to take fair and necessary choices on tax. We are being up front that those choices will mean everyone contributes more, but, as we promised last year, we are keeping taxes on working people as low as possible. We are doing that by reforming the tax system, increasing the rate of tax on property income and on those with £2 million-plus homes, increasing tax rates for online gambling while removing bingo duty, and ensuring that HMRC has the right technology for a modern, effective tax system. We are making the changes that the Conservatives always ducked, and we are keeping taxes on working people as low as possible.

When it comes to growth, the Chancellor has already beaten the forecasts once, with improved growth reported this year. We are determined to beat the forecasts in future years too, because we will not let the previous Government’s record hold Britain back in the future. We are backing entrepreneurs with tax breaks for businesses to scale and stay in the UK. We have secured hundreds of billions of pounds of private investment, and we are making sure that investment goes to every region and nation of the UK, so that everyone across the country feels the benefits of growth.

Families across the country plan how much to spend week in, week out. They budget, save and economise to stay on top of their household finances. We will hold ourselves to the same, and higher, standards when it comes to taxpayers’ money. We will always make sure that the Government live within their means and make every penny count. We have already begun to improve the efficiency of Government, saving £14 billion a year by 2029 through greater use of AI and automation, as well as reducing unnecessary bureaucracy and duplication through the abolition of NHS England.

At last week’s Budget, we set out our plan to make a further £4.9 billion of efficiencies by 2031, beginning by getting rid of police and crime commissioners, cutting the cost of politics and selling Government assets that we no longer need. This means we can make sure that taxpayers’ money—

--- Later in debate ---

19:52

Division 374

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ayes: 327

---

Labour: 315
Independent: 5
Green Party: 1
Your Party: 1

Noes: 182

---

Conservative: 90
Liberal Democrat: 59
Scottish National Party: 8
Independent: 5
Reform UK: 5
Democratic Unionist Party: 5
Plaid Cymru: 4
Green Party: 2
Traditional Unionist Voice: 1
Labour: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Before I come to the next motion, I have been informed that certain Members are taking photographs in the Lobby while we are in session. Members know that taking photographs is strictly prohibited. The Members names have been given to me. I expect them to come and apologise before the evening is out. If any of those photos is published, there will be severe repercussions.

51. Inheritance tax (pension interests)

Question put,

That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters which may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made taking effect in a future year about the charging of inheritance tax by reference to benefits payable under a pension scheme on the death of a member of the scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have to confess a sin. Earlier today, in the debate on the Budget, I referenced the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and did not notify him in advance. This was particularly egregious because I was not very nice about him. With that in mind, and out of respect for the customs and conventions of this House, I would like to apologise to the hon. Member and put this note on the record. I have, of course, written to him in similar terms.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving me advance notice of his putting this point on the record. I am not sure that it is a sin, or whether he will be absolved of it, but it has been noted.

Uckfield Community Hospital Surgical Unit

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call my constituency neighbour, Mims Davies.

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

I start by thanking, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker for granting me this Adjournment debate. I know that it is unusual to allocate Adjournment debates to members of the shadow Cabinet, so I am grateful. I am delighted to be raising this important matter on behalf of my constituents. I appreciate it, and I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as my constituency neighbour, will appreciate it too.

Since July 2024, Uckfield community hospital has been entrusted to me as part of my changed constituency. It is one of two small but vital community hospitals in my area, the other being the award-winning Queen Victoria hospital in East Grinstead, which is going from strength to strength. We look forward to the completion of the community diagnostic centre in 2026. It is a buzzing, specialist community facility with great ratings and a vibrantly bright future. I thank all NHS staff in the various hospitals that cover my area, and the wider frontline staff who are there for us in times of need. As we approach the festive season, we are especially grateful to them.

So why do we have what feels like a fragile moment for the Uckfield community hospital? It has the same caring NHS staff and high ratings, but services have been taken from the site, including the formal site manager. Those removals give a sense of great unease. I will give a little history of the site, which, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will already know. A local benefactor back in the 1980s—Mr Arthur Hughes, a generous local farmer—gave the land and £1 million. The League of Friends then raised a further £1 million, which was matched by the NHS, for the people of Uckfield and the surrounding villages to see the facility delivered. The hospital was officially opened in 1993 by Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret. The bequest has the vital inclusion of an operating theatre. This can be found in the associated covenants, and it was especially for the small surgical aspects of local day care.

I have visited this fairly new, fresh-feeling, beautifully set and well-maintained community hospital on several occasions, and the welcome has always been warm and caring—local NHS staff taking great pride in their roles to support and administer to the local community. The League of Friends has long played an active part, and frankly a huge financial part, and has been a practical supporter of Uckfield hospital and the resident trust over the past years. Two examples recently include funding X-ray equipment to the tune of £186,000, and ultrasound machines at £60,000. It has not only supported the hospital, but offered extra funding to local GP surgeries, as it is the League of Friends’ philosophy that such funding benefits all local people.

The League of Friends has delivered plans to help upgrade the busy minor injuries unit on site. However, with the surgical unit now mothballed—in reality, it feels like it is closing—the uncertainty is just too much for the Friends. That is reflected in the emails that I have received in the past few weeks and months—even today, ahead of this debate. Local people are worried about the site. I hope that their fears will be allayed tonight.

The wonderful Linda Kenwood, the secretary of the League of Friends, has said poignantly:

“To be treated in this way is very upsetting.”

[Mims Davies]

It is a pleasure to receive an intervention from the hon. Gentleman in an Adjournment debate, and I completely agree. That is exactly what tonight’s debate is about, and I thank him for adding to it.

Without a dedicated Uckfield hospital manager to pull it all together, the site has become fragmented—that is the feedback that I receive continually. I have repeatedly heard that none of the individual trusts seems to interact for the wider good of the hospital site and its patients. I have previously written to the Secretary of State for Health on this matter, as I am concerned that if any fire or substantial incident was found at the site, who ultimately would be responsible for the site as a whole and for ensuring health and safety for all?

Let me take you back, Madam Deputy Speaker. I visited the hospital on 4 October 2024 to meet Danielle Gearing, a staff nurse, to see for myself the services offered at the hospital and to find out what was actually happening on behalf of my constituents. Along with the minor injuries unit, there was a full and varied range of out-patient clinics, including oncology, rheumatology, chemical pathology, dermatology, vascular, oral and maxillofacial and neurology, to name a few. Most of these clinics did include the consultant, registrar and quite often a clinical nurse specialist.

Yet that list does not include the other service providers and facilities on the site, such as the health visiting team, diabetes nurses, diabetic eye screening, heart failure nurses, dietitians, cardiac rehab, Parkinson’s nurses and MS nurses. Macmillan is there. Bowel screening is there. There is hospice outreach and the AAA clinic—providing abdominal aortic aneurysm screening—and the list at Uckfield community hospital goes on.

Danielle confirmed that it is a very busy out-patient department, which we hope will continue. We should not forget that at that point the hospital also had a GP surgery, a pharmacy and a mental health facility on the site. The ambulance service also runs a site close to this facility, as you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will say more on the pharmacy situation shortly.

Out of the blue, in August 2024, the League of Friends received the following in a letter from Dr James Evans, a consultant in critical care and anaesthetics and medical examiner at East Sussex Healthcare NHS trust:

“I am writing to yourselves as a Consultant within East Sussex Healthcare Trust, and Deputy Divisional director of DAS, and as a Clinical Lead for Day Surgery.

I am hoping you will be able to help, and would be grateful if you could take some time to consider this email.

One of my roles is Clinical Lead responsible for the newly built Sussex Surgical Centre (SSC), which is looking to be functional in March 2025. This will be a surgical Hub aiming to improve day case surgery provision across the whole region and hopefully benefiting patients and staff in East Sussex.

Part of my role is related to equipment for the SSC, both ensuring we have the right stuff in place, and sourcing any essential items within a tight budget. Whilst engaged in this task, I have been made aware of some equipment within Uckfield Hospital that was kindly purchased by yourselves over the years. Some of this equipment is expensive and specialist, and extremely useful for the surgeons and whole…surgery team.

I know that equipment purchased by The Friends is intended for use solely within their Hospital, but I was hoping you may be able to consider making an exception at this time.

All of the equipment you have purchased (including a microscope, ultrasound machine and ECG machine) are incredibly expensive, but vital for the successful running of a DSU, and we are struggling within the constraints of our budget to purchase all of the equipment. As you know, the trust is in a dire financial position, and any help would be greatly appreciated.

The items in Uckfield would go a long way to facilitating the above and would be used on a daily basis within the SSC.

I am aware that I am asking a great deal from yourselves at this time but wonder if you may be open to further discussion on the subject.”

This, Madam Deputy Speaker, is literally taking the family jewels in plain sight. Chris Macve, chairman of the League of Friends of Uckfield community hospital, said of their concerns about the possible removal of services from our day surgery unit that they “as yet have had no official communication from East Sussex healthcare NHS trust.” There are still various unhelpful rumours and deep concerns about what was received in this letter from James Evans, and frankly there is still no clarity for the staff, the Friends and my constituents—and your constituents, Madam Deputy Speaker. For clarity, the Friends have said—this is what they know—that they “have not been told that this unit is fully closing, but you can understand our disbelief at the insensitivity and the lack of respect at receiving the news in this way. We have a perfectly good operating theatre at Uckfield, fully equipped and staffed, just sitting there doing virtually nothing.”

After a number of rumours increased on 7 October 2024, the hospital staff in the surgical day unit were told unofficially that the integrated care board had agreed to a six-month closure and that they should expect a meeting at the end of October or early November in 2024. As Members can imagine, this was a real shock and morale took a massive tumble. The pilot—the mothballing—began on 2 December 2024, just before Christmas last year, and I brought to the House my worries and concerns for my constituents at that time.

As Joe Chadwick-Bell, chief executive officer of East Sussex healthcare NHS trust, wrote at the time of the announcement:

“Uckfield DSU cannot safely support general anaesthetic or overnight care, and does not carry out surgical procedures on patients with a higher risk of complications, such as those with complex needs, certain disabilities, significant frailty and/or certain concurrent illnesses. In those cases, even day case procedures must be carried out in an acute hospital environment where the full scope of supporting clinical services is on site. Uckfield theatre sessions are not currently well used. The reason is partly due to the safety criteria mentioned above, but also partly because some of the procedures that we previously carried out at Uckfield are no longer commissioned by the NHS. It is also because advances in care mean many of those procedures no longer need day theatres, so are delivered in normal treatment rooms.

Over the course of the pilot, we will evaluate the impact of the changes and consider options for the future of day surgery at Uckfield. It is in all our interests to make the best use possible of what is a valued asset for the NHS in Sussex.”

This pilot is so unfair. Frankly, the surgical unit in Uckfield was condemned to not stand a chance—with no staff, no anaesthetists and treatment figures already manoeuvred by the East Sussex healthcare trust. That is the view of staff. Another blow to the staff at the unit came at the start of 2025, when Kamsons Pharmacy closed—and left, I understand, with some clouds over the terms of its departure. Frankly, why has this happened?

One year on, my residents are not taking this lying down. They have got together a local petition, which at present stands at 6,366 signatures. But it is the uncertainty that is causing local residents a great deal of stress and panic. I will be building on this petition after this debate. People need local services. They need family and friends nearby to help with operations, getting to the hospital and out of hospital, and they need care in the community—all of which this Government are committed to. My residents need answers.

I have had meetings, after much pleading, with three recent chief executive officers of the integrated care board: Adam Doyle, who personally promised me and my casework team updates in early August; Mark Smith; and the newly appointed chief executive officer of NHS Sussex, Karen McDowell, who I had the most recent meeting with last week. NHS England reorganisation and staff changes have left me and my casework team in the dark, just like my constituents under this Government, who I know are committed to local community services just as I am.

I stress again how important the day surgery unit is to providing local care. Uckfield hospital is a vital facility. It must not slip through our fingers. Its staff—some of whom have now retired or left in upset, anger and frustration—are worried. The CEO has kindly written to me since we met and said:

“I clearly heard the commitment of you and the local people for Uckfield community hospital, and am speaking to our commissioning teams who have been working with East Sussex healthcare NHS trust around their pilot specifically on day surgery but also—and likely more importantly—our terms working to develop neighbourhood care, and the potential for this asset within its work.”

I thank her for this letter and share it gratefully.

To recap for the Minister, a thriving surgical day unit has been mothballed. The manager of the hospital has been taken away and not replaced. Anaesthetists have been moved elsewhere and are not accessible. Patients are now directed to other surgical sites. Staff heard out of the blue of a six-month mothballing and were given roles miles away from Uckfield. The League of Friends’ assets have been stripped from the site. A year later, we are still in the dark, with no decision taken and no ICB head willing to put their head above the parapet. We need to know what comes next.

My well-loved hospital is a vital community service. Our town and area are growing at a rapid rate, with a significant amount of housing being built and due to be built. There is difficulty involved in getting around a rural area and there is an impact from the public having to get to Eastbourne.

Lots of people have moved from the coast and from London and have taken the opportunity to work locally, and they expect NHS services on the doorstep. That is why I am grateful to be in the Chamber this evening to ask the Minister to look at this vital matter for me and my constituents and to do all that she can. We need this facility to thrive, with the community hospital and its wide-ranging services backed to the hilt. Crucially, we want the Uckfield day surgery back doing what it should: operating.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) is a strong campaigner on behalf of Uckfield community hospital and its services, which my constituents in Sussex Weald will have used and would want to use, so I too look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Children with Serious Neurological Conditions

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ashley Dalton]

I am more than happy to do that. All too often, we have seen that the transition is a really difficult time, and as he points out, where services are perhaps not as joined up and cohesive for adults as they are for children, that is hugely jarring—a huge problem for families to navigate. We are committed to making sure that transition plans start early, involve families and ensure that continuity of care. Our goal is to make the process smooth and supportive, not stressful and fragmented.

Health is only one part of the picture. Children with serious neurological conditions often have special educational needs and disabilities, and their success depends on a joined-up approach across sectors. That is why the SEND reforms that the Government are working on are so important. We are moving towards earlier intervention, stronger inclusion in mainstream education, and better collaboration between health, education and social care. These changes will ensure that support is needs-led rather than diagnosis-driven, with clear accountability across integrated care boards and schools. By embedding mental health provision, improving workforce expertise and planning smooth transitions into adulthood care, we aim to deliver consistent, high-quality support that helps children to thrive and restores confidence in the system.

Caring for a child with a serious neurological condition can place enormous financial strain on families. The welfare system is designed to provide a crucial lifeline, ensuring that no family is crushed by the additional, often substantial, costs associated with their child’s condition. The Government provide support through a range of benefits, including disability living allowance, carer’s allowance, personal health budgets and local authority support, including respite care and equipment provision. Financial support is not just about money; it is about giving families the stability and security they need to focus on what matters most—their child’s wellbeing.

Our commitment to children with serious neurological conditions reflects the core values of our society: compassion, fairness and the belief that every child deserves the chance to reach their full potential. By improving healthcare access and providing comprehensive support systems, we are building a more inclusive and resilient future for all. We will ensure that no child or family feels abandoned, and that compassion and co-ordination define the care that they receive.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We have just checked the pronunciation of dorsal rhizotomy—hopefully I have not got it wrong either!

Question put and agreed to.

International Men’s Day

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

What a pleasure to follow the spokespeople for the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Members for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) and for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray), whose contributions were very much in the spirit of what we have heard this afternoon. I can reassure both of them that the suicide prevention funding is not gone; it is devolved. This will be a challenge that we have to work through during this Parliament as we embrace devolution and set local authorities and health trusts free to spend as they choose. We will need to keep a focus to ensure that the emphasis on suicide prevention is not lost. I really welcome the challenge the hon. Members have brought and the spirit of it. I can confirm that we will be appointing a new men’s health ambassador, and I will keep the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield updated on that.

It is customary when beginning these debates to thank the Backbench Business Committee, as well as the hon. Member who opened the debate for their outstanding contribution, whether the speech was any good or not. I can honestly say, though, having been in this House for 10 years, that it is a rare moment to hear such a courageous speech as the one we heard opening this debate. We can be truly proud of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury). I hope his constituents know how diligently he fights for them every single day here. He is a conviction politician; he is prepared to speak truth to power and use his influence to get things done for his community. Just through his words today, he will have had such an impact on so many people he will never meet, but who will none the less draw strength from his courage.

I do not think anyone listening to the powerful contributions from right hon. and hon. Members today could fail to be moved by what we have heard—nor could they be anything but truly appalled by all the terrible dad jokes. I think the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) was truly the worst. I would like to get involved, Madam Deputy Speaker, but as is well known, I have absolutely no sense of humour—less sense of humour than Downing Street has for tolerating my jokes. I am not a fan of political jokes anyway, as too many end up getting elected. However, I did once hear of a Canadian politician who was popular with everyone—it’s probably not Trudeau. [Laughter.]

As I listened to the debate, two broad themes emerged. The first is how every day, many boys and men make wonderful contributions to our families, schools, communities and workplaces, and not just in jobs, roles and behaviours that are associated traditionally with masculinity and men, but in roles such as nurses, carers and primary school teachers. They have embraced a genuine commitment to equality—that no matter who someone is and where they are from, and whatever their background, sex or gender, they can grow up to be whoever they want to be.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) said so powerfully, the role of men and boys as allies, advocates, mentors and role models and their capacity for love, laughter and empathy inspire others, lift up our society, change lives and bring joy to those around them. I pay tribute particularly to two of the most important men in my life: my dad and his father, my grandad. For those who follow my family history, that is not the armed robber; it is the working-class east end Tory. I have to say that I have that in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore), with his family heritage and political leanings.

Without those two men, I would not be standing here today. They have been a rock of stability and inspiration in life. My grandad was my closest friend and moral compass; my dad has been the rock of stability I needed, particularly when things were hardest in my childhood. I am lucky that both of my parents have always been in my life, but I must say that when I talk about being brought up by a single parent, the shorthand too often used in newspapers is “single mum”. As my dad often points out, he was the one who got the terrible teenage years and had to move out of the area to get me to move out before I hit the age of 30. I am very grateful to my dad, whom I love and admire very much.

We have heard powerful contributions today. I could not help but notice that almost everyone endorsed the Dad Shift campaign for greater paternity rights and leave. This Government are legislating for day one rights, but I know that the advocacy and representation that we have heard across the House will have been heard by my colleagues in Government. There will be a consultation, and I am sure that we have not heard the last of that.

None the less, for all the positivity, the second theme we have heard about today is an altogether less positive one. It is a startling reality that being and growing up as a man in today’s society can be very tough, especially for those from working-class backgrounds such as mine. My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) spoke powerfully about the economic injustice in our society, the poverty and inequality that add up to the pressures and strains, the educational disadvantage and the lack of security and opportunity that too often hold back people, and especially men and boys from backgrounds such as mine. Though I am proud to stand here today, proud of my working-class roots and proud of having beaten the odds that were stacked against me, the object of this Government—the object of the Labour party—has always been to change the odds for everyone and not just to have the exceptional few beat the odds. That is at the heart of this Government’s agenda.

I want to pay tribute to those who have brought this agenda to the mainstream. This debate is 10 years old, but I must remember and recall, back when it started, an awful lot of eye-rolling about whether it was necessary—including, I suspect, by me and others who wondered whether this was truly relevant. How wrong that sentiment was and how much of a brilliant riposte we have heard.

I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) who spoke so powerfully at Prime Minister’s questions about the “dark cloud” that hung over him following the difficult birth of his and his wife’s first child. As he said, the strength of a man is about being open about his emotions. Sometimes, as we have heard so painfully today, those struggles become so overwhelming that men feel that the only way out is to take their own lives. When that happens, it is not just an individual, personal tragedy; it is like a nuclear bomb and the fallout hits everyone around them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) spoke of so powerfully.

We know that that impacts men in different ways, from different backgrounds and in different sectors. During an interview on Fix Radio: The Builders Station yesterday, I was told that men in the construction industry are four times more likely to die by suicide. One of the biggest causes of stress and anxiety for tradesmen is tool theft. That is why I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), who has been like a dog with a bone on that issue, with her campaign already delivering tougher punishments for the perpetrators of tool theft. Indeed, I promised Clive Holland, the host of Fix Radio, that I would pass on this message to the House. He said:

“I would love to stand up at that Dispatch Box and speak to all the people in Parliament…and I would grab them by the lapels and say, ‘Get it through…Just get it through. It’s crucial. We all need this industry. We’d still be living in caves without the skills of our industry’.”

He is absolutely right and that is why we are lucky to have my hon. Friend championing that issue on behalf of that industry.

The Government’s response to many of the issues raised in today’s debate is the country’s first ever men’s health strategy. It covers physical and mental health, and I am most proud that it was drawn up in partnership with men themselves, experts, men’s groups, charities and campaigners. We are all aware that politicians today are about as popular as tax collectors and traffic wardens, so we need wider allies and advocates, groups such as Movember, Men’s Sheds and Everton in the Community, which I had the pleasure of visiting last week. There are also campaigners such as Stephen Manderson, better known as Professor Green, and Clarke Carlisle, the premier league footballer, who use their own experiences with suicide and mental ill health to spread awareness and prevent that from happening to others. I also pay tribute to the journalists, such as the LBC philosopher king Tom Swarbrick, for talking about modern masculinity, the importance of male friendship and keeping the ties that bind us.

There are a number of ways in which we will act. First, by expanding access to support services; secondly, by helping men to take better care of ourselves; and thirdly, by ensuring that stigma is challenged and every man feels empowered to reach out for help. This is not just a plan; it is a call to action. It is not just about changing services and laws; it is about changing hearts and minds and culture, particularly in an online world of harms and radicalisation, as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine), as well as many positives, as identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis).

Half the battle for men and boys is to have the conversation in the first place, opening up the space to utter what are often the most challenging words: “I need help.” That is why our strategy meets men on their own terms and their own turf—partnering with the Premier League’s “Together Against Suicide” initiative; investing £3 million in community-based men’s health programmes; workplace pilots with EDF to support workers in male-dominated industries; support for minors; and new research to help us tackle the biggest killers of men, including rising cocaine and alcohol-related deaths, as well as taking action on gambling, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) exhorted us to. On prostate cancer, I will keep the House updated as we await the recommendations of the National Screening Committee. I heard the representations today, particularly from the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey).

Our aim is to create a society where men and boys are supported to live longer, healthier and happier lives, where stigma is replaced by understanding and where every man knows that his health matters. As we heard so powerfully, including from some of this House’s most outstanding feminist campaigners, like my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), this is not an either/or. This is not a choice between men and women; it is the recognition that while women’s health inequalities have sexism and misogyny layered on top of them—something that we as men must take responsibility for tackling, too—men and boys do face challenges when it comes to our education, employment, health, wellbeing, life chances and opportunities.

As we heard so powerfully, especially from my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North, it is not as if the women out there do not care about their sons, dads or brothers—quite the opposite. Similarly, we care about our mums, sisters, daughters, nieces, friends and colleagues. There are differences between the sexes—there are differences in how we are impacted by and contribute to the society around us—but we are born equal, and we have a responsibility to stand together to make sure that we create a rising tide that lifts all ships. A healthier, happier, more equal and more just society is what this strategy will help to bring about, and it is why this debate has been so wonderfully powerful.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

As the Secretary of State mentioned brothers, it would be remiss of me not to mention my five brothers—this will give Hansard a run for its money—Basharat, Nasim, Rasalat, Nazir and Imran, and obviously my husband David. Those wonderful men in my life have enabled me to be in this Chair today. I call Josh Newbury to wind up.