National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation

Rosie Duffield Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend asks about the timing, and the process for establishing a commissioner. As a first step, in the next two weeks, I will meet members of the taskforce to agree the scope, and a detailed role for the commissioner, because I want that scope and role to be agreed with them, given that they will be developing the national action plan. We then need to get the commissioner on a statutory basis, and I want to do that as quickly as possible. I am keen to look for options to do that through the Health Bill, but that will obviously be subject to discussions with the usual channels. Once that is in place, we can appoint the commissioner as quickly as possible.

It is worth emphasising that the role of the commissioner will be to implement the national action plan, so work on developing the plan and on establishing the commissioner will begin immediately. When the commissioner is appointed, they will have a role in implementing the national action plan. The issue is not simply about developing a national plan; it is about ensuring that it gets implemented, and that we hold trusts and other organisations across the system to account.

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)]

Our APPG on birth trauma report in 2024 was the first in Parliament on that subject. We heard from more than 1,300 women and families. The report was titled, “Listen to Mums”. I am glad that an independent maternity commissioner will finally be implemented, after our years of calls for one. Bill Kirkup’s headline finding in his 2023 review of east Kent was also that we should listen to women. The Health Secretary has repeated the importance of listening to women—the mothers, midwives, and experts, and even the MPs who have worked for years on this issue. Why does he think that we have not been listened to, and are often not even invited into the room? How will he work to demonstrably change that in his time in the Department?

[James Murray]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to draw further attention to the issue of women being ignored in health services generally, but specifically when it comes to maternity services. That goes back to the culture in maternity services. It is a devastating conclusion to come to, but we see a culture there of misogyny, of women being ignored, and of their concerns not being listened to and acted on. We need to change that culture, and one of the first actions that we can take to do so is to have accountability. We must ensure accountability, through the duty of candour that we have discussed, and through other actions that we can take to enhance accountability throughout the system. That is a critical first step in ensuring that we change the culture.

Nottingham Maternity and Neonatal Services

Rosie Duffield Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend asks about the immediate actions that the Government are taking in response to Donna Ockenden’s review. For me, above all else—above all the shocking, harrowing detail—the review highlights the fact that women simply were not listened to. That comes up time and again. I know that it comes up in other aspects of healthcare as well, but it came up so strongly in this report and underlined so many of the shocking failures that have occurred.

As a first step, extending Martha’s rule to all maternity services across the country means that when women or their family members are concerned that they are not getting the treatment or care they need, they can get a second opinion—an urgent, independent review. That is an important first step, but this must be a watershed moment that does not rely simply on one action or a small handful of actions. There must be a comprehensive plan to tackle this issue from every angle and to ensure that we have the systemic change that so many Members today have said is crucial.

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)]

In the 25 months since Theo Clarke and I produced the first ever parliamentary report on birth trauma, and nearly four years since we discussed the East Kent Kirkup report in this place, we have seen more and more reports, more and more scandals, more and more heartbreaking stories, and several Health Secretaries. Campaigners are grateful to the brilliant Donna Ockenden but, frankly, expectations are pretty low about ending this crisis in maternity care all these years later. Does the Secretary of State agree that as well as training, we have to end this patchwork postcode lottery of care, and introduce basic, nationwide standards and accountability across all NHS trusts?

[James Murray]

The hon. Lady makes an important point about the fatigue, weariness and exhaustion of families at so many recommendations being made and accepted but not put into action. To pick up on the point made earlier by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), we must now break that cycle to ensure that the recommendations do not simply get accepted and sit on a shelf gathering dust, but that they feed into the plan of action, which will then produce the change that we need to see.

As the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) said, the change must be nationwide. Although we are today rightly talking about what happened in Nottingham, we know that it is far from the only place where such failures in maternity and neonatal services have been seen. We know this is a national problem that needs a national solution.

Puberty Blockers

Rosie Duffield Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)]

Last autumn, on the announcement of the trial of puberty blockers on children, a cross-party coalition of Members and peers assembled who have serious concerns and are campaigning together for the Government to reverse this terrible decision. These are Members from across the political spectrum—as diverse as the independent group, the Lib Dems, the DUP, Tories, Reform, Labour and Restore, who are not usually in agreement on most political issues—working together on something that we believe is about the fundamental safeguarding and protection of children.

The previous Secretary of State held a meeting for Members and peers that allowed us to directly question those responsible for overseeing the trial. I had one main question: is there a lower age limit? I was told no—categorically no—so a child presenting with possible gender dysphoria pre puberty could actually have been as young as eight years old. Thankfully in this latest evolution, the trial seems to have now excluded those younger children, and we are told that it is for those aged 11 and over, but an 11-year-old child also has no possible way of envisaging life-changing pathways, future, possibly serious, health issues, regret, infertility or damaged sexual function.

The Health Secretary talked yesterday of “consent or assent” being given by those children. We are told that at least one parent must consent, but you do not have to be a genius to work out that is a future nuclear missile aimed directly at the family courts. Separated parents, many of whom will not agree with each other about whether to affirm their child’s chosen gender identity, how to treat their gender distress or what, if any, social transition to accommodate at home or school, will be potentially battling each other over whether or not their child should be participating in this or future trials, all while their pre-pubescent son or daughter begs for the medical treatment that they believe with all their heart will save all of their discomfort and distress.

Many expert clinicians who worked at the Tavistock and who informed journalist Hannah Barnes’ award-winning investigations for “Newsnight”, and subsequent book “Time to Think”, are totally opposed to this trial. We have had meetings with several of them, including Marcus Evans and Susan Evans. Marcus is a former Tavistock consultant, psychotherapist and psychoanalyst, employed by the Portman NHS trust for 35 years, including as the head of nursing. Sue is also a psychoanalytic psychotherapist and mental health nurse, formerly of the Gender Identity Development Service. They both argue against the affirmative-only model of treatment, such as the use of puberty-blocking drugs, as it masks underlying issues, such as childhood trauma or autism. Along with psychologists Stella O’Malley and James Esses, both with years of experience of treating children and young people experiencing gender dysphoria, they are completely against the Pathways trial and the treatment pathway it puts very young people on.

Detransitioners often experience years of extreme distress and choose not to speak publicly about their own personal stories, but some would willingly engage with Ministers and Members. Keira Bell, Ritchie Herron, Philippa Roberts and Jonni Skinner, to name a few, have bravely shared their heartbreaking experiences of severe treatments, irreversible surgeries, mental health battles and years of painful regret. Although we have had nine Health Secretaries in just nine years, anyone in this post, however briefly, given the power to sign off such an enormously consequential trial, with huge potential for future investigations, must at the very least engage with those who have treated and been treated for this condition. I cannot think of any valid arguments against doing so and hearing from both sides of the argument.

There are many other reasons for stopping the plans for this trial—most important of all is proper analysis of the data that already exists, along with the Conservative Government’s previous decision to ban the use of these drugs on children. The data linkage study completion is the strongest reason, along with the social, psychological and physical reasons already heard.

The cross-party coalition and I will not stop campaigning until this dangerous experiment on children is cancelled for good. Puberty is a natural, necessary life stage—a right. We should be able to help and support young people through it, until they are old enough to make life-changing decisions with certainty and the maturity they lack as young children.

Pathways Study: Puberty Suppression

Rosie Duffield Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I share my hon. Friend’s disappointment that the cross-party consensus that was in place about the way to approach the issue does not currently seem to be holding. I urge Opposition Members who are not aligned with that cross-party consensus to reconsider their position, because that is the best way forward for our country.

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)]

The Secretary of State mentioned following the advice of clinical experts, but has he sought any meetings with whistleblowers, former clinicians at the now closed Tavistock clinic, detransitioners and psychologists such as James Esses and Marcus and Sue Evans, who are all campaigning to stop this trial and the testing of children as young as 11 years old, who are too young to access social media and certainly too young to give meaningful consent to taking banned drugs?

[James Murray]

I reassure the hon. Lady, as I set out in my responses to earlier questions, that while my starting point is that clinical evidence should be the basis for our way forward, I have taken the responsibility to interrogate that with the highest level of scrutiny in order to ensure that the conclusions are as robust as possible. That has involved my ensuring that my clinical advisers at the Department for Health and Social Care and the other bodies associated with the Department have provided me with the highest level of detail and reassurance about the safeguards in place. Although I stand behind the principle of following clinical advice and basing conclusions on clinical evidence, I feel that it is important for me, as Health Secretary, to have an extremely high bar for a decision of this magnitude.

Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial

Rosie Duffield Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. First, I should acknowledge that, having been steeped in this issue for many years, I know James Esses, the therapist who organised this petition. He, the formidable Keira Bell and the Bayswater Support Group have managed to halt this trial, so no children are to be recruited until the High Court makes its decision, until at least July.

It is clear that we are talking about an extremely vulnerable cohort of children. Recently, James told MPs and peers that, first and foremost, most of his patients—almost all of them, in fact—are autistic. As recognised by the Cass review, children or adolescents on the autism spectrum experience difficulties with social belonging and can be particularly sensitive to seeking affirmation from others. James explained to us that many of his patients rely on rigid and regressive stereotypes, including the trope that a preference for activities or even friendships associated with the opposite sex must mean that they actually are that sex. That is the basic foundation for the so-called gender critical movement: a rejection of labelling, and the pigeonholing or aggressive stereotyping of what constitutes boy or girl behaviours, clothes preferences or activities.

For over 20 years, medical professionals voicing their sound judgment and concern about ethics and child safeguarding at the Tavistock were ignored, their concerns buried and they themselves punished, sidelined and vilified for challenging an entirely ideological project. It is thanks to medical professionals such as Sue and Marcus Evans, Dr David Taylor, Dr David Bell and Sonia Appleby, to name just a few brave medics, and the committed reporting of journalists such as Hannah Barnes and Julie Bindel that we are having this debate today. In all the years I have been actively campaigning against the impossible notion that anyone is born in the wrong body, I have been labelled far-right, bigoted, transphobic and all kinds of other ridiculous slurs that would be unparliamentary to repeat here. We must stop this trial because of the incredibly vulnerable cohort of children as young as 12 who cannot possibly give consent.

Meningitis Outbreak

Rosie Duffield Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. I did not respond to a linked question from the shadow Secretary of State earlier, so let me let me respond to both questions now.

All cases are currently being treated as being connected with the Club Chemistry incident and cluster, but we are not taking that for granted: we remain open-minded and assess it continually as information comes in from patients and their families, which can take time because they are often very sick. Via the UKHSA, we are providing the opening times and locations of the four hubs. If people fear that they have been in close contact and are worried about the risk to themselves, they can come forward for antibiotics, which will be made available to them.

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)]

I thank the Secretary of State and his team for their engagement with this awful situation in Canterbury. As he can imagine, all in my constituency have been devastated by the tragic death of Juliette Kenny and another student from this cruel disease, and I thank my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), for her lovely tribute to my constituent.

We have been inundated by questions from extremely worried constituents, and the Secretary of State has answered some of them in his statement. The main question has been about the roll-out of the vaccine, and I was really pleased to hear that that will happen soon. Worried parents and vulnerable students are telling me that communications from their education settings are not consistently clear, and one school has been closed to those in year 13. What is the Secretary of State’s message about attendance in person?

There are reports from medics on the frontline in the hubs that the service has been overwhelmed by requests for antibiotics, with people presenting with mild colds and coughs. Will the Secretary of State make very clear once again exactly why and when people should turn up? The time for addressing the concerns about the roll-out of information is not now, but hopefully we can drill down on that when this horrible event is over.

[Wes Streeting]

I thank the hon. Member for her proactive approach over the weekend and in recent days, given the impact that this is having on her constituency and the devastating impact on her constituents. Let me reassure her about two things.

First, we are not advising that there should be school closures. I think it important once again to underscore the nature of the transmission of this disease, which is close personal contact, such as kissing, sharing vapes—which I am concerned about in the context of young people—and sharing drinks. Obviously, if people live together in a household, some of those things are even more likely to occur, but the general risk is low. I want people to think carefully about their own situation, but they should not be unnecessarily worried or anxious.

Secondly, on antibiotics access, students at schools who have had close contact with those who were at Club Chemistry can attend the sites that provide antibiotics. That message went out to all Kent schools this morning, so hopefully there will be an improvement in the flow and accuracy of information going to schools.

The hon. Member was absolutely right to say that once this incident has passed we will need to look back and reflect on what was done and when, and what we can learn from that. At the same time, I am keen to ensure that we are listening, getting active feedback from Members across the House, and improving in real time as well. We will keep these channels open, not just through questions today but through briefings with Members, so that we can get feedback from local elected representatives, which in the hon. Member’s case and others has been extremely valuable.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rosie Duffield Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

The hon. Gentleman should absolutely make representations to his local ICB if he has concerns about service reconfigurations. We are investing more in the NHS, but I recognise that there are none the less big challenges for ICBs to face. I am sure that the ICB would be happy to meet him to hear his concerns.

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)]

3. What discussions he has had with King’s College London on the compliance of the PATHWAYS puberty blocker trial with the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004.

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

The PATHWAYS trial has undergone a thorough independent review and has received all the regulatory and ethical approvals. The sponsors of the study, King’s College London and South London and Maudsley NHS foundation trust, are working to ensure that it is conducted in compliance with the relevant regulations.

[Rosie Duffield]

The United States Department of Health and Human Services’ peer-reviewed report found that harms from paediatric medical transition are significant, long term and too often ignored and inadequately tracked, as testified by Keira Bell, who is here in Parliament today. What is the Government’s rationale behind medicalising yet more vulnerable children, given that we have no evidence of any benefit to this approach and, in fact, plenty of evidence of harm?

[Karin Smyth]

As the hon. Lady knows, the Government are acting on the recommendations of the excellent report from Hilary Cass, which I think she would agree is world-leading evidence, and moving the model away from medical intervention towards a more holistic approach to care. The Government will continue to be guided by that evidence, as the whole House will appreciate. The hon. Lady referenced Keira Bell, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) has asked the Secretary of State to meet clinicians and others who disagree with the trial. That meeting is being arranged, and we will continue to work under the guidelines for clinical evidence.

Women’s Health

Rosie Duffield Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) on securing this debate, which is one of only a handful to tackle women’s health in general. Since I came to this place, a big focus for me has been women’s health, whether it is the devastating and shocking findings of the Kirkup review of East Kent Hospitals maternity care; the setting up of the APPG for birth trauma; the plight of women who now have no recourse to any healthcare or medical treatment in Afghanistan; the women whose health and wellbeing means precisely nothing to the warring factions in places such as Tigray; the tenacious mothers who have tirelessly fought for changes to sodium valproate labelling; female cancers; vaginal mesh; menopause; the mental stress and health toll on WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality —or 1950s women; female genital mutilation; or domestic abuse survivors. All of those and so many more are health issues that affect the majority of the population, who are female. And for the avoidance of doubt, let me be clear: by female I mean women, adult human females, the kind who have a cervix and who definitely do not have a penis.

Despite women being 51% of the population, women’s health services are frequently deprioritised, with the healthcare model based on a default male, and women existing within a system built around men. The inequalities in health outcomes between men and women are scandalous. Compared with men, women are more likely to experience common mental health conditions, more likely to be misdiagnosed, more likely to receive less pain medication after identical procedures and more likely to be undertreated for pain by doctors.

A perfect example of how women must exist within a healthcare system built for men is that of heart attacks. I have recent experience of this, with my dear friend Nicky Clark experiencing a heart attack in January. She is now tirelessly campaigning, because compared with men, women are less likely to be admitted to hospital when they complain of chest pain and they have more than double the rate of death within 30 days following a heart attack. Medical professionals know that heart attacks present very differently in women, compared with men, and yet the classic symptoms listed in campaigns are specific to men only.

Recent trends in the collection of data highlight how vital the accurate recording of this is in a medical context. Women’s health issues all arise from our specific biology. A man cannot get ovarian cancer and a woman cannot get prostate cancer, for example. It may be considered good manners, kind and courteous to refer to those who identify as a different gender in the way they prefer, but for the specific purposes of recording vital and potentially lifesaving data, we must accurately record patients’ biological sex. Otherwise, trans patients may miss being called for screening for sex-specific conditions, and that has potentially fatal consequences. That has been highlighted by Professor Alice Sullivan, who was commissioned by the last Government to tackle the issue of recording sex data, including in the NHS. Her review is due to be published, and I would be grateful if the Government could confirm the date for that as soon as possible.

In the last seven years, we have had seven Secretaries of State for Health and Social Care. It is very hard to get even on the second rung of a ladder when we have to start all over again with explanations, evidence and examples relating to a campaign or specific health issue every few months because the departmental personnel and teams change so often, so women here will keep campaigning and holding debates to push women’s health further up the agenda. I will keep working with the Birth Trauma Association, the MASIC Foundation and others to help to end the postcode lottery and extreme inequalities for black and south Asian mothers experiencing what should be straightforward and perfectly safe childbirth. I again thank all those parliamentarians, campaigners and activists who just will not take no for an answer and who fight every day to bring about better experiences for other women.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rosie Duffield Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the issue is key, and that the results are worrying. I know how proud my friends and family members were to become nurses, and what a great career nursing offered them. We have to deliver on the promise of a good career, and build on that pride in being a nurse. We absolutely recognise that we cannot rebuild the NHS without their skills and their high-quality critical and compassionate care.

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)]

Does the Minister believe that the NHS should expect biologically female nursing staff to get changed in front of biologically male colleagues who identify as female?

[Karin Smyth]

No.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rosie Duffield Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend raises a really important point. NHS England is due to complete a stocktake of long covid services throughout England at the end of this month. That will provide an accurate in-depth overview of not only long covid services but ME/CFS—myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome—services. The stocktake will provide a comprehensive and accurate national picture, identify key challenges and make strategic recommendations for future service improvement, development and assurance.

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)]

T4. Since 2017 I have been raising the crisis facing East Kent hospitals university NHS foundation trust. Seven different Health Secretaries across those seven years have promised much but delivered nothing at all. Patients continue to face unacceptably long waits on trolleys in corridors, and last month the Kent Online paper compared these conditions to a war zone, with an average of 40 very ill patients a day facing more than 12-hour waits. Will the Secretary of State meet me and the CEO of our trust, who is desperate for even the most basic diagnostic equipment, to ensure that this does not continue to be the case for another seven years?

[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.