Smoke-free UK

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) for securing this important debate.

I will start by declaring a lifelong professional interest in this vital issue. As a physiotherapist for more than 30 years, I have seen at first hand the effect of smoking on initiating and exacerbating things such as asthma and chronic obstructive airways disease. Passive smoking will hopefully decelerate now, but people who have never smoked do get lung cancer as a result. I am extremely passionate about the importance of smoking cessation to public health, and the critical role that physiotherapists can play in supporting such interventions.

As we have already heard from the hon. Members who opened the debate, smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death in the UK, killing an estimated 80,000 people every year, including almost 4,000 people in Wales. One in every 10 deaths in Wales among those over the age of 35 continues to be as a result of smoking. Although that is profound for the families of the people who have died, it also has a major impact on our NHS. Public Health Wales estimates that every year in Wales more than 17,000 hospital admissions are attributable to smoking, and smoking-related costs to the Welsh NHS and social care system are estimated at over £650 million a year. That is for a country with a population of about 3 million, so Members can see just how expensive the problem is. However, the full estimated costs are so much greater, because smoking remains a major drag on productivity and our environment.

As we have also heard today already, the costs of smoking are not borne equally; individuals from deprived backgrounds are the worst affected and smoking is a persistent driver of health inequalities. Consequently, smoking cessation must be understood as a social justice issue. Almost a quarter of adults in the most deprived communities in Wales smoke, a figure that is four times higher than that for the least deprived areas. As we have already heard clearly today, that is not fair; it is a social justice issue.

No Government who are committed to social justice, whether they are in Cardiff Bay or Westminster, can ignore this problem. I am therefore very pleased that the UK Labour Government are leading the way internationally through the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026. That landmark piece of legislation will see the UK deliver the world’s first smoke-free generation, ensuring that today’s children will be protected from the cycle of addiction and disadvantage that has plagued our communities for decades.

Another major achievement of the Act was to take major steps to combat the challenges of youth vaping and to protect future generations from the risks of nicotine addiction. I will concentrate mainly on vaping from now on, because although vaping is an important means of smoking cessation, I remain concerned about the number of people, especially children, who are vaping and consuming nicotine without ever having been smokers. Earlier this year, the Office for National Statistics confirmed that over a million people across England, Scotland and Wales are in that category, and the figure has doubled since 2021. Overall, the number of people using vapes and e-cigarettes daily or occasionally has quickly overtaken the number of people who smoke, and the number continues to rise, especially among young people, even while smoking rates decline.

Public health analysis from last year found that 5% of children between year 7 and year 11 reported vaping at least weekly, with the proportion for year 11s rising to 13%. Similar fieldwork undertaken by ASH Wales in 2023 found that 92% of secondary school-aged vapers were using products containing nicotine and that almost half of them could not go through the whole school day without vaping. Moreover, 55% of the vaping products being used were identified as being highly likely to be illegal.

These patterns are extremely concerning, and we need to go further and faster to bear down on the illegal and immoral parts of this industry that is preying on our young people. Last month, I was pleased to be able to host a roundtable here in Parliament to consider how the provisions of the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 can be further strengthened to bear down on those trends. Attendees noted that, as we have heard, there is a wide spectrum of vape shops, ranging from corner shops to specialist retailers. There is a considerable discrepancy between the two ends of the spectrum. Currently, customers should be able to expect clear and consistent retail standards, with a focus on smoking cessation at their heart. I ask the Minister to outline what steps she is taking to level up retail standards for vape shops so that customers know what to expect.

At that roundtable, we also discussed imported vape products, particularly the high-capacity “big puff” devices. They should be held to the same standard as vape products manufactured in the UK. Consequently, will the Minister say what conversations she has had with the Treasury to ensure that our UK Border Force and local trading standards teams are effectively resourced to perform effective spot-checks at the borders and in retail establishments? The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency also needs to be sufficiently financed to provide effective safety assurances. Proposals by the Government to regulate the appearance or operation of physical shops will have limited effect if unsafe or non-compliant products can still enter the market through online sales, direct imports or other routes.

I could go on and on, but I dare not, because I am conscious of time. We need to get a grip on this problem and I look forward to the Minister answering my questions.

Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I commend my friend, the right hon. Member for New Forest West, for introducing this excellent Bill. I am so pleased that, as No. 1 in the ballot, he chose this issue and to build on the work of Dame Andrea Leadsom in the other place. So many people in this Parliament, including my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South, have done so much good work to make sure that the Bill comes to fruition.

I spoke in support of the Bill on Second Reading, which was a real honour, and I would like to speak today in support of amendment 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft. I take on board what the right hon. Member for New Forest West said about the Bill’s intricacies—I defer to his abundant knowledge of intricacies, because he knows far more in this place than I do—but I support the amendment because it is all about the inequalities. We also know that a number of charities and NGOs support the amendment.

There are currently stark and stubborn inequalities in outcomes in the UK, and factors including ethnicity, family income, geography and disability are all associated with differences in the likelihood of parents and babies surviving pregnancy and the first parts of life. It is also so important to ensure that they are healthy and developing well as they go forward.

The amendment would not prescribe which services the Government must provide, nor would it require them to achieve specific outcomes through any single service. Instead, it would require the Government to understand and report on whether babies and their parents are doing well, where inequalities exist, and whether they change over time. Putting those requirements on the face of the Bill would ensure that outcomes and inequalities remain a consistent part of the Government’s assessment and reporting, regardless of future changes in policy, Parliament or personnel. Those were the important points for me.

Obviously, I defer to the right hon. Gentleman’s interpretation, but it is important to recognise that we cannot go forward with a Bill unless we know what it is measuring. We need a baseline, and we then need to be able to return to the data, year after year, and ask whether we are making progress. It is an issue if we cannot do that, because we cannot then adequately amend services to make sure that they work in the future.

I declare an interest as a physiotherapist for 32 years, many of which I spent as a paediatric physio, so I know how important the Bill is for pre-term babies, when they are in the womb. My physiotherapy colleagues now treat babies in the womb, which is amazing stuff, and surgeons also operate in the womb. The first 1,000 days are really important, as the right hon. Gentleman said, and this is about conception through to the first couple of years, as well as pre-conception planning.

Once the baby is born, whether or not they are born pre-term and go to a neonatal intensive care unit—in my day we called it a special care baby unit—we know that those first 1,000 days are so important for every baby across the UK. I say that as a Welsh MP, because Flying Start in Wales never went away—it is a bit shaky, but it never went away, compared with Sure Start in England. It is really important to make sure we have a level playing field for all mums and babies. The evidence is clear that a brain needs stimulation from day one, because its neuroplasticity becomes so much less after the age of five. That is really important.

Whether or not the amendment is accepted, I believe this is an excellent Bill. It is a good start that allows us to go forward united and make sure that we do the best we possibly can for parents and babies in the future. I pay tribute to the hard work undertaken by all the right hon. and hon. Members who have been here much longer than I have, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

[Rachael Maskell]

We are indebted to the right hon. Member for New Forest West for introducing the Bill, and for all the work he has done on this issue. I will start by focusing my contribution on clause 4(2)(b), on which this debate hinges. It looks at inputs into the services and then outcomes with respect to matters mentioned earlier in the Bill. We are talking about fine lines and distinctions, but they are incredibly important.

In my intervention, I talked about the need for outcomes. If we are serious about achieving equality in outcomes, we cannot simply start at the point of pregnancy or childbirth, as set out in the Bill, or the point at which someone becomes a prospective parent, as set out in the amendment. A prospective parent means someone who expects to become a parent as a result of a current pregnancy or someone who expects to become the parent or carer of an infant already born.

I raise this issue because taking a public health approach to pregnancy means acknowledging that many of the factors that impact on outcomes are determined preconception. One clear example is the exposure of infants to fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Around 77% of parents at the point of conception have used alcohol, exposing the foetus to risk of developing FASD. The trajectory through pregnancy and beyond of that infant has therefore been impacted by what happened in preconception.

If we are serious about the outcomes as set out and addressing the inequalities, we cannot simply start at the point of conception because we would miss a huge opportunity to change the outcomes for those infants and address these issues. Given that children with FASD are now more prevalent than children on the autism spectrum, we must recognise the impact that focusing on preconception can have in ensuring that parents have support.

I spoke to my local director of public health just yesterday. As one might expect, he raised issues around smoking cessation, mental health, exercise and diet. Ensuring that women are healthy at the point at which they conceive means that their pregnancy will carry in a safer environment. If we are serious about addressing the inequalities, we must consider the opportunity provided by this amendment. There is some conflict, and that is why it is important to consider that through the earliest of years.

I also want to raise the factors that can have a real impact. Can the right hon. Member for New Forest West assure me that we are talking not just about physical, mental and emotional health, but environmental health? That would be an important public health intervention. I cannot count the times I have had to support pregnant women because they are in appalling housing conditions, which can cause real stress and anxiety throughout the pregnancy. That can lead to poorer outcomes.

It is important, when considering the Bill, that we are look holistically at women’s surroundings and make sure they have the support they need.

Infants, Parents and Carers Bill (First sitting)

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I commend my friend, the right hon. Member for New Forest West, for introducing this excellent Bill. I am so pleased that, as No. 1 in the ballot, he chose this issue and to build on the work of Dame Andrea Leadsom in the other place. So many people in this Parliament, including my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South, have done so much good work to make sure that the Bill comes to fruition.

I spoke in support of the Bill on Second Reading, which was a real honour, and I would like to speak today in support of amendment 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft. I take on board what the right hon. Member for New Forest West said about the Bill’s intricacies—I defer to his abundant knowledge of intricacies, because he knows far more in this place than I do—but I support the amendment because it is all about the inequalities. We also know that a number of charities and NGOs support the amendment.

There are currently stark and stubborn inequalities in outcomes in the UK, and factors including ethnicity, family income, geography and disability are all associated with differences in the likelihood of parents and babies surviving pregnancy and the first parts of life. It is also so important to ensure that they are healthy and developing well as they go forward.

The amendment would not prescribe which services the Government must provide, nor would it require them to achieve specific outcomes through any single service. Instead, it would require the Government to understand and report on whether babies and their parents are doing well, where inequalities exist, and whether they change over time. Putting those requirements on the face of the Bill would ensure that outcomes and inequalities remain a consistent part of the Government’s assessment and reporting, regardless of future changes in policy, Parliament or personnel. Those were the important points for me.

Obviously, I defer to the right hon. Gentleman’s interpretation, but it is important to recognise that we cannot go forward with a Bill unless we know what it is measuring. We need a baseline, and we then need to be able to return to the data, year after year, and ask whether we are making progress. It is an issue if we cannot do that, because we cannot then adequately amend services to make sure that they work in the future.

I declare an interest as a physiotherapist for 32 years, many of which I spent as a paediatric physio, so I know how important the Bill is for pre-term babies, when they are in the womb. My physiotherapy colleagues now treat babies in the womb, which is amazing stuff, and surgeons also operate in the womb. The first 1,000 days are really important, as the right hon. Gentleman said, and this is about conception through to the first couple of years, as well as pre-conception planning.

Once the baby is born, whether or not they are born pre-term and go to a neonatal intensive care unit—in my day we called it a special care baby unit—we know that those first 1,000 days are so important for every baby across the UK. I say that as a Welsh MP, because Flying Start in Wales never went away—it is a bit shaky, but it never went away, compared with Sure Start in England. It is really important to make sure we have a level playing field for all mums and babies. The evidence is clear that a brain needs stimulation from day one, because its neuroplasticity becomes so much less after the age of five. That is really important.

Whether or not the amendment is accepted, I believe this is an excellent Bill. It is a good start that allows us to go forward united and make sure that we do the best we possibly can for parents and babies in the future. I pay tribute to the hard work undertaken by all the right hon. and hon. Members who have been here much longer than I have, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

[Rachael Maskell]

We are indebted to the right hon. Member for New Forest West for introducing the Bill, and for all the work he has done on this issue. I will start by focusing my contribution on clause 4(2)(b), on which this debate hinges. It looks at inputs into the services and then outcomes with respect to matters mentioned earlier in the Bill. We are talking about fine lines and distinctions, but they are incredibly important.

In my intervention, I talked about the need for outcomes. If we are serious about achieving equality in outcomes, we cannot simply start at the point of pregnancy or childbirth, as set out in the Bill, or the point at which someone becomes a prospective parent, as set out in the amendment. A prospective parent means someone who expects to become a parent as a result of a current pregnancy or someone who expects to become the parent or carer of an infant already born.

I raise this issue because taking a public health approach to pregnancy means acknowledging that many of the factors that impact on outcomes are determined preconception. One clear example is the exposure of infants to fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Around 77% of parents at the point of conception have used alcohol, exposing the foetus to risk of developing FASD. The trajectory through pregnancy and beyond of that infant has therefore been impacted by what happened in preconception.

If we are serious about the outcomes as set out and addressing the inequalities, we cannot simply start at the point of conception because we would miss a huge opportunity to change the outcomes for those infants and address these issues. Given that children with FASD are now more prevalent than children on the autism spectrum, we must recognise the impact that focusing on preconception can have in ensuring that parents have support.

I spoke to my local director of public health just yesterday. As one might expect, he raised issues around smoking cessation, mental health, exercise and diet. Ensuring that women are healthy at the point at which they conceive means that their pregnancy will carry in a safer environment. If we are serious about addressing the inequalities, we must consider the opportunity provided by this amendment. There is some conflict, and that is why it is important to consider that through the earliest of years.

I also want to raise the factors that can have a real impact. Can the right hon. Member for New Forest West assure me that we are talking not just about physical, mental and emotional health, but environmental health? That would be an important public health intervention. I cannot count the times I have had to support pregnant women because they are in appalling housing conditions, which can cause real stress and anxiety throughout the pregnancy. That can lead to poorer outcomes.

It is important, when considering the Bill, that we are look holistically at women’s surroundings and make sure they have the support they need.

Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

Ruth Jones Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 4th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) for her emotional contribution, and I hope baby Chloe’s mum feels that her case has been aired here today. I thank the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) for introducing the Bill. It is a really important one. Infants, parents and carers—it covers it all. He has paid tribute to all those whose work he is building on, such as Dame Andrea Leadsom, Tessa Jowell and my good friend and previous office buddy, the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson).

What does this Bill do? It proposes a legislative framework focused on three linked elements in infant support services: assessment of need, provision of services and reporting. We cannot get anything right until we know what is happening, so assessment is critical. As the right hon. Member for New Forest West said, it is a short Bill, but it is a high-level one. I am sure that in Committee the Bill will be gone through with a fine-toothed comb and that the Minister will have a lot to work on from it.

Why 1,001 days? We have already heard clearly the evidence about the 1,001 days from conception to two years old. From my 30 years’ experience as a paediatric physiotherapist, I know just how important that period is. I could see how important the care was that the mum received during pregnancy. I have seen babies born with foetal alcohol syndrome and babies who are six hours old going through heroin withdrawal. We must not see these things again. We must do what we can to stop this, and that is why the Bill is so important.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you may be asking why a Welsh MP is talking about a Bill that applies only to England, but my experience in the Welsh services, as well as the English services, showed me just how important the early days are. That is why Sure Start was so important, and in Wales we have Flying Start. We know that if a mum goes to regular antenatal checks and has the scans, things can now be picked up very early. We can actually treat children in the womb. That is fantastic news and can ensure a great start for any baby who has problems that are discovered before birth. Obviously, after birth, the use of health visitors is vital.

We have already talked about home visits. It is not enough to have an online visit. Baby P was a clear example of what can go wrong. Professionals can be hoodwinked, and that is not right—we need face-to-face visits. When I was a physiotherapist, home visits told me so much about the family. By just walking through the door I could tell what level of money they had or what it smelled like. I would know what was going on in that family and intuitively how much more help they might need. We have heard clearly today about the history of the erosion of Sure Start. It is important that services are set out in statute, so that they cannot be eroded. The evidence is clear that 1 million neuropathways are set up every second, as my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South said. We also know from the terrible evidence of children who have been isolated in orphanages with a lack of stimulation and the problems that they had that that ground can never be made up. That is why this Bill is so important.

We need a level playing field in order to bring everybody up to a suitable level. I could go on and on, but I will not. I am proud of what has been achieved by Labour Governments in the past, but I am equally proud of what this Bill will do in the future, and I thank the right hon. Member for New Forest West for bringing it forward today.

Spinal Muscular Atrophy: Newborn Screening Test

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for leading this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and I thank the 306 residents of Newport West and Islwyn who signed the petition. I am delighted to have spoken with the chief executive of SMA UK, Giles Lomax, a number of times, and I pay tribute to his tireless advocacy. I also thank Jesy Nelson for her work raising awareness of SMA following the diagnosis of her twin daughters.

SMA is a serious but rare genetic decision that causes progressive muscle weakness and deterioration, as we have heard. I should declare that, in my previous life, as a paediatric physiotherapist, I treated a number of children and babies with SMA, so I know a bit about the struggles that families go through in coming to terms with the diagnosis, the treatment, the child’s ongoing needs and the aids and adaptation that are required throughout their life.

Currently there is no cure but, thanks to transformative research, treatment can slow symptoms and even stop progression. As a result, early detection and treatment of SMA due to newborn screening can dramatically improve the wellbeing of patients. That includes the significant benefits that have already been highlighted to respiratory health, motor function and, critically, life expectancy.

To be totally hard-hearted about it, catching SMA early via screening saves not only lives, but taxpayers’ money. Without presymptomatic treatment, The Lancet estimates the annual health cost for a single child at about £75,000—not including the wider mental health issues, equipment, carer costs, housing adaptations or disability benefits. Those costs can run into hundreds of thousands of pounds per family. It is therefore not only morally right to roll out the screening to all children straight away; it is also financially prudent.

I am pleased that the Scottish Government have recognised the public case for newborn screening, becoming the first nation in the UK to add SMA to their universal screening programme. If they can do it, why can the rest of us not? It is really important. I am pushing for all constituent nations of the UK to learn from that example and urgently explore how we roll out universal screening for SMA. We cannot risk the postcode lottery mentioned in this debate. Children with SMA should not have their life chances determined by which part of the UK they live in.

I welcome the progress made in England to extend access to newborn screening, although we know it does not go far enough. Around 72% of babies born in England will be screened, but we obviously must go further. The previous Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), committed to expanding the ISE to ensure that more children could be screened, so I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on the progress on delivering that.

While significant progress has been made in England, Wales still has no plans for a screening roll-out, despite being uniquely well positioned to participate in the ISE. Screening facilities at the Cardiff and Vale University health board are currently being upgraded and have the capacity to facilitate newborn blood spot screening for every child born in Wales. A single, one-off and modest investment of around £1.5 million could therefore deliver 100% coverage and certainty for the parents of the 27,000 children born in Wales every year.

Given that unique opportunity, the decision thus far by the Welsh Government not to participate in the ISE is extremely frustrating. I wrote multiple times to the previous Welsh Cabinet Secretary for Health and Care, urging him to reconsider that short-sighted decision. Although the NHS in Wales faces many challenges and competing demands for future investment, I will continue to press the new Welsh Government to participate in the ISE. Waiting until the ISE concludes risks no babies being screened until the National Screening Committee makes its formal recommendations in 2030—four years more of missed opportunities for Welsh babies.

Given the clear benefits of cross-border working across our Union, could the Minister outline what conversations she and her colleagues have had with their Welsh Government counterparts about the ISE and how Wales could participate in it? If she cannot answer tonight, I would be grateful if she would write to me.

To conclude, although the effects of SMA can be dramatic, screening and early treatment offer us the opportunity to transform these children’s lives. We need to ensure that all babies across every nation of the UK receive blood spot screening for SMA, so that no child’s future is determined by their postcode.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Our final Back-Bench contribution will be from Chris Vince.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. It is very heartening to see so many Members in the Chamber and so many families in the Public Gallery, all united by a shared concern for children and families affected by spinal muscular atrophy.

SMA is a cruel and devastating condition. It can steal from a family the carefree future they had imagined for their child. It can take away a child’s mobility and, far too often, it can take away a child’s life far too soon. I pay tribute to children living with SMA for their courage, to their families for their strength, and to campaigners for working tirelessly to ensure that their voices are heard. Their message to us is clear: where there is a chance to identify affected babies earlier, and where treatment may have its greatest effect, we must pursue that chance with urgency, care and resolve.

I particularly thank Jesy Nelson, who is in the Public Gallery and is very welcome. She is so brave to share her experience of the condition, which affects her twins, Ocean and Story. She has given a public voice to all those going through a similar experience. This petition has rightly gained significant support—150,000 signatures —in such a short space of time. I am so pleased that we can take the time to have this debate and raise awareness of SMA.

I assure everyone that this conversation will not stop today. I will continue to listen to the voices of those speaking for children with SMA. Tomorrow, for example, I am due to meet with members of Muscular Dystrophy UK to continue this very conversation. I know that many families and advocates feel that the Government have moved too slowly towards a decision on screening for SMA. I understand that frustration, but decisions about national screening programmes must be made with great care.

We must be confident that screening will do more good than harm, that it can be delivered safely and fairly, and that we are making the best possible use of NHS resources for the babies and families who depend on them. There remain many unanswered questions about the benefits and practical delivery of screening for SMA. That matters because the answer we seek must be robust enough to support a lasting national programme.

We were pleased that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence published final guidance earlier this year accepting both nusinersen and risdiplam as treatments that could be routinely offered to SMA patients for whom gene therapy has not worked. The finding that those treatments can improve survival rates and slow the progression of disease is welcome and significant. For families living with SMA, even slowing that progression can mean more time, more independence, more moments together and more hope.

[Ruth Jones]

The Minister says that screening must be safe and fair. We know the benefits of screening—the people in the Public Gallery have articulated it so clearly. The benefits are undeniable, so is it fair that the whole of Wales and a third of England does not have such screening?

[Mrs Hodgson]

I was going to come to the point about labs, but let me address it now. My hon. Friends the Members for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) and for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin); the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore); the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew); and others have made that very point. The trials will be rolled out to seven of the 13 labs, which leaves six labs outside the trial. I am told that the reason is that, as it is such a rare condition, the trial has to be broad enough to ensure a robust evidence base. The six not included do not currently have the requisite equipment. If that changes, more labs could be included.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central also mentioned the generation study. There are lots of questions around this, and, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North is aware, in preparing for this debate, I have been asking lots of those questions. I will take that point away and get back to her.

As we have heard, spinal muscular atrophy affects every part of daily life for the children and families involved: their routines, milestones, plans and the hopes that families hold for their children. Any progress against it matters deeply. At the same time, NICE has been clear that important questions remain, including around longevity and how long the benefits of these relatively new treatments may last. Those questions, alongside important issues of feasibility, must be answered before a national screening decision can be made.

That is why my Department has worked with the National Institute for Health and Care Research and NHS England to establish an in-service evaluation. That evaluation will run within the routine newborn blood spot screening programme to gather the evidence that we need, help answer difficult questions and fill the gaps that stand between us and a confident national decision. Crucially, the Department has worked alongside patient advocate groups, including the SMA NBS Alliance and SMA UK. I commend both groups for their excellent support and advocacy. They help to ensure that families’ voices are not an afterthought but are at the heart of decisions.

I acknowledge that, as we have heard, many have been frustrated by the pace of planning for this large-scale scientific evaluation. I hear that frustration—I really do—but we must get this right, because only a strong evaluation will give us the answers that families deserve and the evidence that a national programme requires.

[Ruth Jones]

I appreciate what the Minister says about getting evaluation right, but Ukraine can install such an evaluation across the whole country during a war, and Ireland is doing it, too, so why aren’t we?

[Mrs Hodgson]

Again, I have heard my hon. Friend’s remarks. They are not falling on deaf ears, as I am sure she is aware.

The previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), met Jesy Nelson, along with Giles Lomax from SMA UK, and I know that that had a massive impact on him. They spoke at length about what is needed; he listened and we acted. That is why I was very happy to announce just last month that the planned start date of January 2027 would be brought forward by three months. The new start date for the in-service evaluation will be October 2026. From that date, babies will begin to be screened for SMA, and we will begin collecting the essential information needed to help many more children in the years ahead.

Type 1 Diabetes: Infant Testing

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Alec. I welcome the Minister to her place; it is great to see her. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing this e-petition debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and the 240 of my constituents who signed it. I also thank the Story family for submitting the e-petition and for all the work that they do to raise awareness of the importance of early diagnosis and type 1 diabetes in memory of Lyla.

Prior to this debate, I was honoured to speak with Welsh campaigners Beth Baldwin and Emma Hopkins from Rewrite Peter’s Story—and Beth is here today in the Public Gallery. Beth’s son Peter suddenly and unexpectedly died aged 13 in 2015 from diabetic ketoacidosis as a result of undiagnosed type 1 diabetes. Beth had taken Peter to the GP with flu-like symptoms. After being diagnosed with a chest infection, Peter was prescribed antibiotics and sent home. Less than 24 hours later, Peter was fighting for his life. The first responder who was called to the house by Beth, on seeing Peter, gave him oxygen and performed a finger-prick test. His blood sugar was extremely high, and he was rushed to A&E. Unfortunately, he was already in diabetic ketoacidosis, and died a few days later.

Peter’s death was preventable. Instant blood glucose finger-prick tests are easily available and take seconds, but each year hundreds of children are hospitalised with diabetic ketoacidosis because of delays in diagnosis. Each year, 10 of those children end up dying. Concerningly, 40% of all child diagnoses occurred only once they reached critical care.

I am very pleased to hear about the campaigning of Lyla’s family and Peter’s family, and once again I want to thank them all for their work in drawing attention to these important issues. We must move swiftly to extend awareness and training on type 1 diabetes, and to ensure medical guidance is robust and that all primary care sites have the necessary testing equipment. We cannot afford to lose any more lives.

Budget Resolutions

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)]

This Budget is a good Budget, and as a proud Welsh MP I am pleased to say that this Budget delivers for the people of Wales. It cuts the cost of living, invests in frontline public services and strengthens our plan for growth. Wales’s frontline public services will be the big beneficiaries of the Labour choices at the heart of the Budget. By asking those with the broadest shoulders to bear their fair share of tax, getting debt falling and restoring stability to the national finances, the Welsh Government will benefit from the largest financial settlement in the history of devolution.

While the Conservatives chose to impose real-term cuts on Wales, this Labour Government choose to invest in Wales. I greatly welcome the additional £505 million in funding for Welsh schools, hospitals and other public services delivered through the Budget. I also welcome reforms to the Welsh fiscal framework, as committed to in our manifesto, which will provide £425 million in additional spending power, with borrowing limits for capital projects increasing every year.

These are important steps to righting the historic wrongs of how Wales has been funded. After 14 years of Conservative failure, Wales has the highest child poverty of any devolved nation in the UK, with almost a third of Welsh children growing up in poverty. That is a stain on our national history, but this Budget reverses the trend. Decisions made by this Labour Government will see child poverty in Wales falling once again. The scrapping of the two-child benefit cap is one of the biggest steps we will take in our mission to end the injustice of child poverty.

Labour choices will see 69,000 children in Wales—more than one in every 10—lifted out of poverty and benefiting from greater financial security. Scrapping the cap is not only the right thing to do; it is economically essential. Poverty and inequality remain a massive drain on our economy and our national potential. People in Wales know this instinctively. Fairness is a key national value. It is who we are. The Conservatives and Reform do not get this. That is why they do not understand Wales.

This Budget also rights another historic wrong, as we have heard already from my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare (Gerald Jones). I am thankful to the Chancellor for listening to him and to other coalfield MPs, like myself, and returning the investment reserve of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme to its members. Having recently met BCSSS members at the Newbridge Memo, I know how significant this £2.3 billion change will be. One of the people I met there was Alan Watkins, who worked at Oakdale colliery in my constituency for 24 years. He started when he was just 16 years old, working at the pit until it closed in 1989. He is now 76. People like Alan have had to wait far too long for justice, but thanks to the change by this Labour Government, that wrong will finally be righted. My thanks go to all the scheme’s members and trustees, and especially to Bleddyn Hancock for his persistence and for never giving up over decades of work.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for semiconductors, I am proud that this Budget will see an additional £10 million being invested to strengthen skills in the Welsh semiconductor cluster. It is the world’s first compound semiconductor cluster and a real success story for Wales and my constituency of Newport West and Islwyn.

In addition to the two Governments at each end of the M4 working together, I hope to see more joint working between Network Rail and Transport for Wales. The additional £445 million of investment that the Labour Government have already announced in Wales’s rail infrastructure, including five new stations in south Wales, will be beneficial to all across south Wales, but I urge Network Rail and Transport for Wales to go further in working to deliver those ambitions.

This Budget follows a long Labour tradition of being prudent with a purpose. It is based on Labour choices, with Labour values running through it, and our purpose is clear: action on the cost of living, investment in our public services and the delivery of future growth. I commend it to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

As Lord Darzi outlined, capital development in the NHS is shocking, with a backlog of £11 billion in maintenance. I would be happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss his problem.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)]

T5. Alan Petersen is a senior pharmacist in my constituency. He tells me that pharmacies have experienced high volatility in drugs pricing and big increases in bills in recent years. At the same time, they are expected to do far more in direct consultation with the public. Given the UK Government’s jurisdiction over funding dispensing services in England and Wales, when do they plan to review pharmacy funding?

[Stephen Kinnock]

Obviously, health is a devolved matter and funding for pharmacies in Wales is the responsibility of the Welsh Government. Nevertheless, I pay tribute to the Welsh Government for securing a deal with pharmacies in Wales in line with DDRB—the review body on doctors’ and dentists’ remuneration—pay recommendations. I know that arrangements in England affect matters in Wales and I am working as a matter of urgency to conclude the consultation on the community pharmacy contractual framework.

Vaping: Under-18s

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd May 2023 Westminster Hall

[Dr Hudson]

I totally concur. My hon. Friend has read my mind: I am about to talk about the advertising, the colourful labelling, the fruit flavours and so on, which draw in young people.

I have asked a number of parliamentary questions about vaping, and the recurrent theme in the Government’s answers is that they acknowledge that vapes are not risk free, and that nicotine is highly addictive and can be harmful. Some studies suggest that vaping among young people can be a gateway to risky behaviour such as drinking and tobacco smoking, which would be a perverse thing to happen. Vaping is supposed to get adults off smoking, but if it is leading young people into smoking, that is not a good thing.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech about the detriment to health of vaping for under-18s. He mentioned a study, but does he agree that there is not sufficient research on under-18s, so we do not know exactly how safe or unsafe these products are?

[Dr Hudson]

I agree. That is exactly right: there is a paucity of data. I will ask the Government and the Department of Health and Social Care to create the datasets so that we can make evidence-based decisions.

Concerningly, ASH Scotland suggests that children with mental health issues including mood disorders and eating disorders, who are among the most vulnerable people in society, are potentially more likely to use vapes. That is a real concern. I am passionate about mental health, especially among our young people, and I urge the Government to continue to protect the most vulnerable. That has been the hallmark of this compassionate Conservative Government.

Anecdotally, we hear much about the impact of these products. We hear reports of children’s sleep patterns being disrupted. They set their alarms for 2 o’clock or 3 o’clock in the morning so that they can vape in the middle of the night to avoid withdrawal symptoms the next day. At school, there have been reports of students leaving lessons and even walking out of examinations because they simply cannot last without the use of a vape. If vaping is having a detrimental impact on our young children’s life chances, this is a matter not merely of health but of social and educational development. One teacher in my constituency noted that the issue is so widespread that vapes are being illicitly traded in the school playground.

I want to touch on the marketing of vapes to under-18s, as colleagues have done. A particular issue with the vaping market is the flagrant targeting of under-18s as potential consumers through trendy advertising on social media. Products are promoted with bright colours and inviting fruit flavours—sweet flavours such as mango, bubblegum and cherry ice.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O'Brien)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) for securing this very important and timely debate on youth vaping, and for his excellent speech. Lots of Members have made important contributions to policy in this area, and I pay tribute to them for that, as well as for their contributions today.

Until recently, our regulations—including on the minimum age of sale, advertising restrictions and the cap on nicotine levels—have been reasonably effective at keeping the rate of vaping among under-18s low. However, over the last 18 months we have seen a surge in the use and promotion of cheap, colourful products that do not always comply with our regulations, and there has been a sharp increase in the number of children vaping. NHS figures show that 9% of 11 to 15-year-old children used e-cigarettes in 2021—up from 6% in 2018. That is a big concern, because there is every reason to think that the rate has continued to go up.

We know that vapes are not risk-free. Nicotine is highly addictive and can be harmful, and there are unanswered questions about the effects of long-term use, as the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) pointed out. Our message is very clear: vapes should not be used by people under the age of 18, or by non-smokers. That is why I announced on 11 April that we are stepping up our efforts to stop kids getting hooked on vaping. First, we launched a call for evidence on youth vaping to identify opportunities to reduce the number of children accessing and using vape products, and to explore where the Government can go further. That call for evidence explores a range of issues, including how we ensure regulatory compliance, the appearance and characteristics of vapes, the marketing and promotion of them, and the role of social media. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) rightly talked about them being stacked up like sweeties, and that concerns me, too. On the other hand, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) warned that this is not a straightforward matter to regulate, and pointed out the need to avoid counterproductive changes that stop people swapping from smoking to vaping.

Our call for evidence will also seek to ensure that we understand the vaping market better. It will look at such issues as the price of low-cost products. The call for evidence also considers the environmental impact of vapes, particularly the disposable ones that have become so appealing to young people.

[Ruth Jones]

The Minister is talking about the environmental impact. How closely is he working with Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs colleagues to ensure recycling, and to ensure a circular economy in the precious metals mentioned, which must be brought back into the economy?

[Neil O'Brien]

Closely. I am also listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), who has led discussion on the subject through her ten-minute rule Bill. She is right to be concerned about the environmental impact of disposable products. The proportion of young people using those disposable products has gone up from 8% in 2021 to 52% by 2022. Clearly, they are an important part of youth vaping.

Down Syndrome Bill

Ruth Jones Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 4th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

May I begin by thanking Members on both sides of the House for the support that they have given the Bill from the very outset? There are not many things that justify the downsides of being a Member of Parliament, but this is certainly one of the upsides—when we can see what will inevitably be a crisis emerging and do something about it in due time. That is one of the privileges given to us, and I am grateful to Members for their support in taking the Bill forward. They have not only supported it here in the House but advocated for it outside the House, where it has become one of the best-known private Members’ Bills in recent times in terms of public awareness of what is happening. That matters a great deal, because the Bill is not exactly the same as it was when we considered it on Second Reading—a subject that I will come to in a moment.

The most common question that I am asked is, “Why have you been so concerned with this issue?” I explained on Second Reading that when I was growing up, the boy next door to me had Down syndrome. As a GP, I saw a number of those with Down syndrome and their families, and I saw the difficulties that they encountered. We regularly see one of my friends in my constituency, where I live, whose son Freddie has Down syndrome. As Members of Parliament, we have all recognised that having someone in the family with Down syndrome is not just a single problem to be dealt with; it is a conglomeration of problems. Families find themselves fighting on a number of fronts to get the quality of care that, frankly, they already have a right to. For me, that was why we needed a separate Bill.

All Members will have had letters asking why the Bill could not have been wider—why we could not have included more conditions in it. I suppose there are two answers to that. The first is that private Members’ Bills have to be short and concise if we are going to get them through. Let me be very frank: getting a foot on the ladder of legislation in areas such as this is crucial. If we reach for too much in a private Member’s Bill, we can end up with zero. I think we have set the appropriate level of ambition in this Bill.

We also have to recognise the complications that come with an extended Bill when it comes to the view of the Treasury. Many years ago, I was in the place of the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris). It is definitely a case of gamekeeper turned poacher, but you learn a great deal as the gamekeeper for when you have to be the poacher later on when it comes to private Members’ Bills. I put on the record my thanks to her for her help. The role of the Friday Whip is not well understood outside Parliament, but when they are on your side, they can be very powerful allies indeed, and her support is very much appreciated.

We also wanted the Bill to be separate because it is about a definable group in the population. Down syndrome is not something where there is any dubiety about the diagnosis and, as I said, there are complex identifiable needs. For example, we know that those with Down syndrome have a higher level of issues such as congenital heart disease, they have a higher instance of leukaemia, they have myriad ear, nose and throat problems, and the earlier they are dealt with, the better. It is difficult enough for parents to be fighting waiting lists and fighting to be regarded with sufficient urgency; if they are also dealing with the education system and trying to get help for a learning disability, that is an additional problem.

The successes in medical care are the main driver for the Bill. When I was growing up, that boy next door had a life expectancy of 15 years. When I became a doctor in 1983, the life expectancy was about 30. Now, it is about 60. We should all be extremely grateful for that, but, as ever with advances in medical science, it brings its own problems. The problem, if we want to see it as such, is that parents will have this extra worry: “What will happen when I’m not there?” That is why I referred at the very beginning to a perfectly identifiable crisis that is on its way to us. If we actually take measures now, we can prevent individual tragedies. If there is a real justification for Members of Parliament having their own constituencies and dealing with real people, rather than being creatures only of a political party, it is that constituency link, which tells us about problems that need to be addressed and gives us the early warning sign to pass legislation to be able to deal with them. The complexity of the issues is one reason why we need separate legislation and why we had to bring different provisions into the Bill as it comes back for Third Reading from when it left the House after Second Reading.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

The right hon. Member is making such a powerful point. He and many other Members have had numerous letters questioning the narrowness of the Bill. Will he reassure us that this is only the beginning and most definitely not the end of the process?

[Dr Fox]

Indeed. I would not even say it is the end of the beginning. It is on the way to being the end of the beginning, but this will be a perpetual battle. So long as medical science is able to make advances in genetics and immunology, this process will continue into the future and we will need to look at it. It is worth pointing out, to answer the hon. Lady’s question more directly, that we considered this in Committee. The Minister for Care and Mental Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), made it clear that in the guidance that will be issued, which I will come to in a moment, it is entirely possible to deal with the effects of other conditions that may have the same effects as those emanating from Down syndrome. In a way, yes, we are starting the process, and the way in which we change the Bill is absolutely key to that.

On Second Reading, I think it is fair to say, because we can be a little self-critical, that this was a well-meaning Bill that went as far as we could. However, I made it clear that one big issue was missing—the enforcement of rights. It is all very well to make available new provisions and rights in law, but if an individual or parent does not have the ability to enforce those rights, if there are no mechanisms or levels to pull to enable them to get the full benefit of what the legislation supposedly gives them, ultimately we are failing to achieve what we want. We discussed two major issues. I purposely left them out of the Bill on Second Reading because we were not ready. There is nothing worse than poorly-thought-out legislation that we have to come back and amend. It is far better to think the process through, get agreement on both sides of the House and with the Government, and then proceed on the basis of unanimity, as happened in Committee.

The changes were essentially twofold. The first was getting agreement from Ministers that they would issue guidance to local health and education bodies and planning authorities to ensure that healthcare, education and long-term care issues would be properly taken into account. That was a major step forward. Again, it answers the question of how we can broaden the effects of the Bill, even with measures that are not in the Bill. That means looking at other conditions that will face the same problems as created by Down’s syndrome. However, that agreement created its own parliamentary problem for us, because as those who listen to debates in the other place will know, guidance issued by Ministers that is not laid before Parliament creates a potential democratic deficit. That is why I think it was the first major step forward for the Bill in Committee when the Government agreed not simply that the Minister would issue guidance, or that that guidance could apply directly to the various bodies concerned—another important step in itself—but that that guidance would be laid before Parliament.

Up to that point, I had considered whether we needed to put a sunset clause in the Bill, to have it completely reviewed to see whether it worked in practice. The fact that the guidance will be laid before Parliament enables us to look in real time at what is happening, including parliamentary Committees looking at how the guidance actually works. That is a huge step forward. I think it is actually precedent-setting and turns this from a nice Bill into a cutting-edge and meaningful Bill. That is a huge achievement and one thing for which the Bill will be most remembered.