Cancer (Reporting and Strategy) Bill

Rosie Wrighting Excerpts

Friday 13th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Clive Jones]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right; early diagnosis is so important.

I know that from my own experience. I went to see a doctor and he said, “Men cannot get breast cancer, so off you go. Come back if anything changes.” Seven or eight months later I went back and I saw a different GP. He sent me for a test straightaway. The test happened very quickly—I was very lucky—but unfortunately in those six or seven months the cancer had spread from my breast to my lymph glands. I ended up having to have two operations and radiotherapy and chemotherapy. If I had gotten an earlier diagnosis, I might not have had to go through all that. That is true for an awful lot of people. I was lucky that the second GP sent me for a test. If I had waited another six months, I would not be taking part in this debate.

Accountability really matters. The national cancer plan contains important ambitions and commitments. The Government have committed to monitoring delivery through national oversight structures, including the National Cancer Board, and tackling progress against the plan’s objectives and performance measures. However, there is currently no clear commitment to publish a dedicated annual report to Parliament, no formal assessment of progress against every commitment within the plan, and no requirement to explain what action will be taken when progress falls behind schedule.

My Bill addresses those gaps. It would require annual reporting to Parliament on progress in preventing, diagnosing and treating cancer. It would require the Government to publish and maintain the strategy for improving cancer outcomes—nothing more, nothing radical; simply transparency, scrutiny and accountability.

The Bill is supported by 64 cancer charities, with millions of supporters. Those 64 cancer charities have written to the Secretary of State urging her to support the Bill. Their message is clear:

“The Bill is practical, proportionate and uncontroversial. It creates no new rights or entitlements but instead provides a clear means for reporting progress and maintaining focus on delivery.”

The charities go on to say that it

“represents an invaluable opportunity to underpin the ambitions of the national cancer plan and demonstrate a long-term commitment to improving outcomes for cancer patients.”

When organisations representing patients, clinicians, researchers and families all speak with one voice, the House should listen. The need for greater accountability is informed by experience. We have learned that, without transparency and scrutiny, commitments made today can disappear tomorrow. Cancer patients deserve better than that.

Many Members will remember the work undertaken in 2022 on the Conservatives’ proposed 10-year cancer plan, when their Secretary of State declared war on cancer. Thousands of people contributed to that process, including patients, charities, NHS staff and researchers. Then, less than a year later, following yet another change of Secretary of State, the plan was abandoned. Time, momentum and years of engagement were lost and hope was wasted. Many people affected by cancer were left wondering what had happened to the promises that had been made to them. We cannot allow that to happen again.

People affected by cancer need confidence that commitments made today will survive the political changes of tomorrow. Perhaps this is a good point to remind the House that we have had seven Prime Ministers and nine Health Secretaries since 2015. This Bill would help provide that confidence.

[Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)]

Do you share my delight to see—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Ms Wrighting, it is not “you”, which means me; it is “the hon. Member”.

[Rosie Wrighting]

Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does the hon. Member share my delight to see the former Minister who wrote the national cancer plan appointed as the national cancer plan adviser? That shows how seriously this Government take progress in this area.

[Clive Jones]

The hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) did a fantastic job in producing the national cancer plan, and I am pleased that she has been appointed to the National Cancer Board, but I still think the Government should support this Bill.

I know that some people have questioned whether legislation is necessary, but I respectfully disagree. Action 21 of the national cancer plan already commits the Government to report on delivery. The Government already intend to monitor progress and track performance. This Bill does not create new bureaucracy, require extensive new structures or create significant additional work for civil servants. The Government already intend to collect the information; the Bill simply requires that the Secretary of State reports that information to Parliament, so that Members of this House can scrutinise progress on behalf of the people we represent.

If the Government are confident in their plans and the delivery of those plans, why would they object to the transparency of reporting on that progress? Cancer affects every constituency in this country. It affects families in Wokingham just as it affects families across England. Those affected by cancer often feel that they do not have a voice. This Bill would give Parliament the opportunity to speak for them.

I raised the Bill with the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions on 21 October. In response, he told me that he would ask the National Cancer Board to consider the accountability and reporting measures contained within the legislation. I welcomed that response, but we have heard nothing from the National Cancer Board. The Prime Minister has also said:

“I’ve always been somebody who puts my shoulder behind the fight against cancer”.

A few weeks ago, he sat down on “Gogglebox” to support cancer patients. Today was an opportunity for him to stand up for cancer patients and support my Bill. This legislation provides an opportunity to demonstrate that commitment in practice.

There is another important reason why accountability matters: the national cancer plan is the first cancer plan to contain a dedicated chapter on children and young people’s cancer. That is a really important step forward, but progress must be measured if those commitments are to endure. The plan recognises that its wider ambitions will only be achieved if meaningful progress is made for children and young people with cancer, yet teenagers and young adults are too often hidden within broader datasets, despite facing distinct challenges around diagnosis, treatment, long-term side effects and psychological support.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rosie Wrighting Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)]

3. What steps she is taking to improve maternity and neonatal care.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

19. What proportion of Best Start family hubs provide Healthy Babies support.

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Yvette Cooper)]

The Government are determined to give every child the best start in life. We will appoint an independent maternity and neonatal commissioner and publish an action plan covering every area identified for improvement from pregnancy to post-natal care. We will also go further, rolling out Sure Start health services for parents and babies into every family centre across the country, reaching up to 1,000 family hubs over the next two years.

[Rosie Wrighting]

The maternity ward at Kettering general hospital faces significant challenges such as reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, overheating during the summer and flooding during the winter. We urgently need to see the maternity ward rebuilt and the money raised by families for a bereavement suite put towards a safe space for families in the most difficult of times. I thank the Secretary of State for all the work she has done on national maternity services. Will she meet me to discuss those specific challenges and ensure that my constituents get the maternity service they deserve?

[Yvette Cooper]

I will happily meet my hon. Friend to talk about maternity services. I pay tribute to her as well, because she has been a tireless campaigner for improving maternity services and, in particular, bereavement suites for families at the most sensitive times. I also pay tribute to all the families in her constituency who have been involved in those campaigns. Work is under way for a new maternity and neonatal facility in Kettering general, which will include a bereavement suite. We want to work with the hospital and the community on that.

Summer Health and Resilience

Rosie Wrighting Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The better care fund is hugely important—I think it has £9 billion that is being jointly allocated. It is for the NHS and local authorities to work together on ensuring that we help to prevent people from entering hospital when they do not need to and that we have the proper services and co-ordination in place. We are also looking at the neighbourhood health programme, as that is another area in which we should look place by place at better co-ordination and ways of working. Those things are really important and will continue. As part of the response to Louise Casey’s review, we also want to look at how we can better bring together all these different approaches, because there is the same fundamental, core issue: whatever we have tried at different times, we are still not effectively co-ordinating health and social care, and we have to do that.

[Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State to her place. I also thank all staff across the NHS, particularly those at Kettering general hospital, who worked throughout the summer in very tough conditions. Under this Government, we have seen investment in Kettering general hospital, with new solar panels and construction starting on a new energy centre, but we still await construction on the main building, particularly the maternity ward. One local midwife told me:

“The building is deteriorating badly, we are worried about the safety of everyone who relies on this service. As midwives we come to work every day to provide safe, compassionate care but it is becoming difficult to do so in a building falling into disrepair.”

Will the Secretary of State meet me and my constituent to discuss the building’s urgent challenges?

[Yvette Cooper]

I am very happy to talk to my hon. Friend further about this issue, as I know other Health Ministers will be. She is rightly standing up for the patients—particularly new mums—and staff in her constituency who are affected by the facilities. It is hugely welcome that we managed to include Kettering hospital in wave 2 of the new hospital programme, given the new facilities it needs. Obviously, there is a lot of work to be done, and there will need to be discussions about prioritisation locally—about what can be done and when. I also welcome my hon. Friend prioritising maternity issues, which are an important personal priority for me; I think we have not taken them seriously enough, across the health service, for too long.

Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)

Rosie Wrighting Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 19th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

There is also the issue of consent and confidentiality. New clause 21 refers to consent and capacity in proposed new subsection (3)(b), but might we need further clarification of the information sharing between families, as it may be complex and already cross existing confidentiality frameworks? Finally, there is a possibility of duplication. The Care Act 2014 already includes carers assessments and right to support. How does the hon. Member for Winchester see that interacting with his new clause? I will be grateful if he addresses those points, and if the Minister addresses my points about clauses 46 and 47.

[Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I rise to speak in support of clauses 46 and 47, two vital reforms that place people instead of process at the heart of mental health care.

Clause 46 will empower mental health tribunals to do more than simply decide on discharge. It will give them the ability to recommend aftercare planning even when a patient is not yet ready to leave hospital. As the Minister says, this is so important for the co-ordination of local services. In a previous sitting, I spoke about my constituent who was sectioned and then discharged from hospital in the middle of the night, in winter. The clause is vitally forward-thinking and will ensure that for people like my constituent, the necessary support structures—housing, therapy and community services—are in place early, smoothing the path to recovery and reducing the risk of relapse. It is about planning with people in mind, instead of reacting when it is too late.

Clause 47 will strengthen the legal framework around aftercare itself. It will clarify when aftercare ends and, crucially, who is responsible for providing it. By aligning the rules of ordinary residence with existing social care legislation, it will remove ambiguity and ensure that patients receive care even when they have moved between areas. The impact of care continuity cannot be overstated, especially for people up and down the country who do not have stable housing or support networks, like many of my constituents in Kettering.

My local council used to be Northamptonshire county council, but it then split into North Northamptonshire council and West Northamptonshire council. Some services are separated between the two, but others still operate across Northamptonshire as a whole. Having a local authority that is clearly responsible will be really important to my constituents and will offer a clear, accountable council for their care.

Together, these clauses will reduce delays, improve accountability and, importantly, give people the best chance of rebuilding their lives, preventing them from relapsing or having to be sectioned again. They will promote a more compassionate, co-ordinated and consistent approach to mental health recovery. I am happy to support them.

Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

Rosie Wrighting Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Chambers]

My apologies, Sir Desmond. I thought amendment 49 was included in the debate on clause 24.

[Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to clauses 24 to 28 and the Government amendments to them. They cover an important and long overdue reform, which introduces a new statutory role: the nominated person, replacing the outdated concept of the nearest relative. I think, cross party, we all agree that this is about protecting some of the most vulnerable people in society and children.

The clauses and amendments make important changes to the current Act, which too often forces an individual to rely on someone they may not trust or even have contact with, just because of their family relationship. As the Minister said, the White Paper found that the vast majority would choose their parents, but we must have legislation that reflects the diversity of society and families. Growing up in a single parent family, it would have been inappropriate for my other parent—who is one of my nearest relatives, but who I did not live with, know or particularly trust—to be my representative or make decisions on my treatment and care. In my upbringing, the people who knew me best were not always my closest blood relatives.

The nominated person model gives individuals the right to decide who should speak for them when they are at their most vulnerable. That might seem like a small change, but it is a powerful one and aligns with the Bill’s overall goal of placing patient voices at the heart of mental healthcare. Having someone a person trusts—someone who knows them and can advocate for them—is vital. I was contacted by a constituent whose brother was sectioned and assessed at hospital as needing ongoing support in sheltered accommodation. His social worker challenged the decision and recommended private accommodation. That confusion, despite his sister continually challenging the recommendation, meant he was discharged, with nowhere to go, in the middle of the night.

It is crucial that safeguards will remain. Where an individual cannot nominate someone themselves, a person can still be appointed on their behalf, but with far clearer guidelines and recourse if concerns arise. It is not about removing protection; it is about modernising it to reflect the society we represent. Mental health legislation must reflect the value and diversity of the society it serves, and the clauses and amendments before us bring us a step closer to that.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I rise to support amendments 54 and 55, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, but I will first briefly speak to clause 24, which is an important and long-overdue step towards modernising the Mental Health Act 1983, crucially strengthening the rights, dignity and autonomy of individuals subject to it.

The reform of the existing nearest relative provisions, replacing them with a new system that allows for the appointment of a nominated person, is an important part of ensuring that individuals get the right support, and modernises an outdated system. The current model is based on a rigid and outdated hierarchy in which the role of the “nearest relative” is determined by law, not by the wishes of the patient. This one-size-fits-all approach fails to account for the complexities and nuances of individual relationships. It can result in someone unsuitable, or even actively harmful, being placed in a central role in a person’s care and treatment journey. Indeed, the limitations of the system have been acknowledged by practitioners, patients and policymakers alike. It is too often disempowering, and the patient can lose agency at a time when they need to be empowered to feel in control of the situation as much as possible.

As the shadow Minister says, clause 24 is the cornerstone of the reforms. It is an important change to the current legislation to reaffirm the commitment to patient-centred care, to dignity and to the principle that those receiving treatment under the Mental Health Act should have a voice in decisions about their support network. The aim of the clause—to put the patient first—is important. It acknowledges that the person best placed to advocate for the patient may not be their closest relative. In some cases, family dynamics are fraught. In others, the designated relative may hold views about treatment that conflict with the patient’s wishes or medical advice. We have seen real-world examples in which the imposition of the “nearest relative” role has led to tension, distress and, ultimately, a breakdown in trust. That is not the kind of environment in which recovery is fostered.

Amendments 54 and 55 would address the specific issue of nominated persons and those with parental responsibility for children under the age of 16. It is important that we consider situations in which a young person may be in a vulnerable position and their decision on who their nominated person should be may not be in their best interests. We have a particular duty to ensure that children are safeguarded. Clause 24 as it stands will allow under-16s to choose someone who is not the parent to have significant power, including the ability to discharge the child from hospital.

We must listen to and actively try to support any young person who needs that kind of intervention—it is not that their views should not be considered. However, there is a very real risk that a vulnerable child or teenager might be coerced by or under the control of an older partner, for example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth pointed out. Perhaps they might choose an older friend. We need to consider that a decision made by the nominated person, such as an older friend, may have implications for those with parental responsibility. For example, that older friend may decide to discharge a child from hospital and into the care of the parents, who would not provide advocacy or be part of that decision making.

The Minister said that safeguards will be put in place, but can he expand on that? There are some real concerns here. Let us consider a situation in which there has been a decision by a court to determine which parent has responsibility for the child. If complex family issues have already been considered by the family court, it is right that the decision be followed. I respectfully ask the Minister to reconsider this point. We must respect the fact that parents of those under 16 are best placed to advocate for, support and act for their children. This is about capacity, consent and, ultimately, safeguarding.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rosie Wrighting Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising the need for investment in the accident and emergency at Queen’s hospital in Romford. As she alluded to, that department serves my constituents, too, so this will be a rare occasion at the Dispatch Box where I urge and encourage her to lobby the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), because in such decisions I must recuse myself. However, she will know where my sympathies lie.

[Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)]

2. What assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of access to NHS dental services.

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

9. What assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of access to NHS dental services.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

Rebuilding our broken dentistry system is a priority for this Government. We are already rolling out 700,000 extra urgent dental appointments a year, as promised in our manifesto; we have launched a supervised toothbrushing scheme for three to five-year-olds; and we are committed to reforming the dental contract and making NHS dentistry fit for the future in the long term.

[Rosie Wrighting]

In Kettering, we know the scale of the challenge facing NHS dentistry after 14 years of Tory failure. My constituents regularly tell me how impossible it is to get an appointment. Some are driving tens of miles to see a dentist, and it is simply a scandal how many children are admitted to hospital with tooth decay. While it cannot be rebuilt overnight, in Kettering we welcome the extra 17,000 urgent appointments, which are a vital first step. Can the Minister confirm that it is this Government who will make NHS dentistry fit for the future?

[Stephen Kinnock]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. After 14 years of Tory neglect and incompetence, far too many people are still struggling to find an NHS appointment. This Government are tackling the challenges for patients trying to access NHS dental care by delivering 700,000 more urgent dental appointments a year and by recruiting new dentists to areas that need them. My hon. Friend’s local integrated care board has been asked to deliver nearly 17,000 of the additional urgent appointments. I am in no doubt that she will continue to campaign tirelessly on behalf of her constituents.

New Hospital Programme Review

Rosie Wrighting Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I plan to run this statement until 6 o’clock, so I ask Members to please help each other out by keeping their questions and answers short.

[Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)]

My predecessor told my constituents that the work on Kettering general hospital was ready to go. It is shameful that, in reality, the Conservatives had no credible plan, and the money was going to run out in March this year. Does the Secretary of State agree that people in Kettering are right to be angry at the previous Government for breaking their promises, and can he reassure my constituents that they will see a realistic, deliverable timeframe for the rebuild of our hospital?

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has raised this issue consistently and persistently with me since she was elected. I can reassure her and her constituents that pre-construction work will begin from 2028 to 2030, with construction starting in 2031 and lasting until 2032. I am extremely sorry that my hon. Friend’s constituents were led up the garden path; I rather feel that they have already rumbled the Conservatives by sending her to Parliament, but for as long as there is a Labour Government, we will deliver for the people of Kettering.