Lobular Breast Cancer: Moon Shot Project

Sarah Hall Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for securing this hugely important debate and for his powerful speech.

Just a few weeks ago, I stood outside Downing Street alongside women living with invasive lobular breast cancer, their families and campaigners for the Lobular Moon Shot Project’s 22-minute silence. Those 22 minutes represented the 22 women who lose their lives to lobular breast cancer every day. It was a deeply moving experience. Standing in silence with women who are living with the disease alongside those who have lost loved ones brought home why today’s debate really matters. They were not asking for sympathy; they were asking to be seen. They were asking for better research, earlier diagnosis and better outcomes for women diagnosed in the future.

Today, I want to share the story of my constituent, Trish. She has kindly given me permission to share her story because she hopes that by doing so, another woman may recognise the signs of lobular breast cancer sooner. Trish did everything that we ask women to do. Between 2014 and 2025, she attended six mammograms—six opportunities for cancer to be found, and six occasions when she believed that if something was wrong, it would be detected. But none of those mammograms picked up any signs.

Like many women, Trish believed that cancer meant finding a lump. It was not a lump that led to her diagnosis; it was a shadow. After getting out of the shower one morning, while putting her hair up, she noticed a shadow underneath her breast. She took a photograph and could clearly see dimpling in her skin. Thankfully, her GP listened and referred her urgently under the two-week-wait pathway. I place on the record my thanks to that GP, because despite there being no obvious lump, they recognised that something was not right.

At the breast clinic, Trish underwent mammograms, ultrasounds and biopsies. Initially, she was reassured that there was no lump to feel. She was then told that there was a small area of concern. The plan was for a lumpectomy and a short course of radiotherapy, and she recalls being told that she would likely be back at work in a month. She underwent an MRI, which is when everything changed. It showed that the tumour measured approximately 72 millimetres. Following surgery, it was confirmed to be 75 millimetres. Trish’s treatment changed completely: she needed a mastectomy with immediate reconstruction, followed by 15 rounds of radiotherapy. She is currently undergoing 10 years of hormone therapy. She certainly was not back at work after a month.

Trish’s experience raises important questions. Lobular breast cancer is the second most common type of breast cancer, yet many women have never even heard of it. Unlike the breast cancers many of us are more familiar with, lobular breast cancer often does not form a distinct lump. Instead, it grows in strand-like tumours, making it much harder to detect on mammograms and feel during examination. That is why women with lobular breast cancer are so often diagnosed later, when tumours are much larger and treatment becomes far more extensive. For Trish, six mammograms over more than a decade failed to detect her cancer.

That is why the work of the Lobular Moon Shot Project matters. Campaigners are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for research into lobular breast cancer that reflects the scale of the challenge. They are asking for earlier diagnosis, better understanding of how the disease behaves, improved imaging and more effective treatments. Above all, they are asking that women with lobular breast cancer are no longer overlooked because their cancer behaves differently. Awareness of lobular breast cancer must improve. For many years, the message has quite rightly been, “Check for lumps,” but breast cancer is not always a lump; women also need to know about dimpling, puckering, changes in breast shape, thickening of the breast tissue and changes to the skin. As Trish said to me,

“You should know your breasts as well as you know your face.”

I welcome the engagement that Ministers have already had with campaigners and researchers, and I hope that today’s debate marks another step forward.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend and other colleagues are making some very powerful points today. Is she going to come on to the important issue of medical training and education for doctors and other medical professionals, and the possible benefits of greater public awareness? The Department of Health and Social Care has historically done very important work leading on public awareness campaigns on illnesses and other issues in the health world. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to highlight that as well.

[Sarah Hall]

Trish is a phenomenal campaigner—a lot like Susan—and she wants to work together to create an awareness campaign so that women understand that there is a difference between types of breast cancer. We are looking to establish a support group for women who have lobular breast cancer; that is in the works. On training, my hon. Friend is absolutely right: recognition and training forms part of research, understanding and detection—what it is and what causes it—but also what we need to do in the training required by people in the profession.

I hope that the Government will continue working with researchers, clinicians and the Lobular Moon Shot Project to improve understanding of lobular breast cancer, support further research and ensure that women receive the earliest and most accurate diagnosis possible. Behind every statistic is someone like Trish, a woman who did everything that she was supposed to and who wants her experience to help somebody else. Next week, many of the women I stood with outside Downing Street will gather once again. My hope is that one day, they will no longer need to, and that through better research, greater awareness and earlier diagnosis, fewer women will hear the words that Trish heard. I hope that colleagues from across will continue to stand with those women until that becomes a reality.

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Order. I encourage Members to speak into their microphones; it is quite difficult even for me to hear the debate, so it must be even more difficult for the people sitting in the Public Gallery. Please direct your remarks into the Chamber. I know there is a great temptation to direct it to our guests—we know they are here and we acknowledge them. I ask Members to speak up and speak into their microphones so that everybody can hear.

NHS Corridor Care

Sarah Hall Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Let us be clear from the beginning: corridor care is unacceptable. No patient should be treated in a corridor. No family should watch a loved one receive care without the privacy and dignity that they deserve. No member of our brilliant NHS staff should be put in the impossible position of delivering care in an environment that they know is not right. I know how deeply my constituents feel about this, and hardly a week goes by without someone contacting me about their experience of Warrington hospital. They tell me about the kindness of the staff despite incredibly difficult circumstances; others tell me about the length of time that their loved ones have waited to be seen, and those experiences are reflected in the figures.

In May this year, Warrington hospital recorded the second-worst 12-hour A&E performance in the entire country. Those figures are deeply concerning, and it would be wrong of me to pretend otherwise, but if we only talk about A&E waiting times, we miss the bigger picture. Corridor care does not begin in a corridor: it begins when patients are medically fit to leave hospital but the care or support that they need at home is not yet in place. It begins when patient flow slows down, leaving emergency departments carrying pressures that they were never designed to absorb. It begins when a town like Warrington grows significantly without its infrastructure keeping up.

[Anna Dixon]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that it is not about fixing the problem at the front door; it is about fixing the problem at the back door. Does she agree that closer integration of health and social care is part of the answer to enable that flow through hospitals out into the community? During the summing up, I hope the Minister might carefully consider my amendment to the Health Bill on health and care integration—my hon. Friend might also look at that.

[Sarah Hall]

I absolutely agree; the NHS system as a whole is very fragmented, and the lack of connectivity is a big issue. Social care is a core component and it needs to be a priority going forward.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

Of course, we must fix the back door and help people get out of hospital quicker, but there is also a challenge at the front door, with too many people feeling that they need to go to secondary care for health treatment. Is it not so important that we fix the foundations of the NHS by having a shift to community treatment, so that fewer people feel that they have to go to a hospital in the first place?

[Sarah Hall]

I agree with my hon. Friend and will touch on that point in a second, using Warrington as an example.

I am pleased that our local trust has already taken steps and is rightly treating corridor care and waiting times as a priority, but there is more to do. That is why I have been working closely with our local NHS, Ministers, and Cheshire and Merseyside ICB to move beyond talking about the problem, and to start changing how urgent and emergency care works in Warrington. Together with our local trust, I have developed a three-part pragmatic plan to improve health services for our town.

Given the pressure on A&E and waiting times, the first priority is clear: a new urgent treatment centre for Warrington. In April, I was pleased to announce that proposals had moved forwards, with architects beginning the initial design work. Since then, the proposal has moved forward again, and detailed design and site survey work is now under way.

An urgent treatment centre in Warrington means that families would not have to travel out of borough for things like minor injuries, sprains, cuts, burns or infections, or for a child with a fever who needs checking over. Such conditions can still be serious, but they do not need the full resources of an emergency department set up for life-threatening situations like heart attacks, strokes and major trauma. An urgent treatment centre would help to free up space in A&E for the sickest patients and improve the experience for others by helping them to get the right care in the right place.

Easing pressure in A&E is the first step, but it is not the whole answer. Part 2 of my plan is about moving routine appointments, diagnostics and planned care into the community so that people can be treated closer to home, and the hospital can focus on the patients who need the most specialist care.

However, there is one issue that none of us can ignore, and that is the hospital itself. People back home know that we need a new hospital. They see it when they go to A&E and when they visit relatives in hospital, and staff feel it every day. Much of the site was built in a different century for a different population and a very different NHS. We urgently need a new hospital—there is absolutely no question about that.

Much to our deep disappointment, Warrington was never included in the previous Government’s so-called new hospital programme, despite warm words hinting to the contrary. That brings me on to the third part of my plan: modernising and replacing outdated hospital facilities, built in phases while vital services continue to run.

When I was elected, I said that I would be honest about the challenges before us. Yes, Warrington needs a new hospital, but it also needs a proper plan and funding behind it, not just empty promises. My approach is a pragmatic one: we must ease the immediate pressures today, build better services around the hospital tomorrow, and put Warrington in the strongest possible position for investment in the years ahead. That is what I am fighting for. I will keep challenging where challenge is needed, keep working with our local NHS where partnership is needed, and keep putting Warrington South first until we get this right, because my residents in their time of need and our excellent NHS staff deserve better.

Sudden Unexpected Death in Childhood

Sarah Hall Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John.

The death of a child is something that no parent should ever have to endure. It is every parent’s worst nightmare. There are no words that can make sense of it, and no pain more unimaginable. For many families, understanding why their child died is an important part of beginning to process their grief. It does not take the pain away, but it can bring some sense of clarity. For families affected by sudden unexplained death in childhood, the answers never come, and that absence—that not knowing; that lack of clarity—brings its own trauma.

SUDC is the sudden and unexpected death of a child between the ages of one and 18, where no cause can be found, even after investigation. It is one of the leading categories of death for children aged one to four in England and Wales. Yet despite that, we still do not know why it happens. We cannot predict it, we cannot prevent it and we do not understand it.

I first came to this issue through a family in my constituency. At one of my surgeries, I met a grandmother whose 13-month-old grandson had died suddenly. The family asked me to share their story in the hope that no other family would have to go through what they have gone through. I pay tribute to the grandmother and her daughter for that courage. At their request, I will not use their names today.

It was an ordinary morning like any other day. Mum put her toddler down for his nap. He was well, and there were no signs of illness—no warning—but he never woke up. That is the reality of SUDC: there is no build-up or explanation, just a moment that changes everything. The impact on that family has been devastating. Alongside the shock and grief came something else: the cruelty of not knowing why. That uncertainty compounded their trauma, and the emotional toll became so overwhelming that it caused severe mental health challenges.

At the very point the family needed care, clarity and compassion, the system repeatedly let them down. They endured 13 months of pain awaiting a post-mortem. They received phone calls from medical professionals without warning, the day after their child died. Professionals used insensitive language, causing further harm. They were given inconsistent and incorrect information. At one stage, they were told the post-mortem had been completed while the child was still in the hospital’s care.

This is not just about delay; it is about dignity. Sadly, that family’s experience is far from unique. Families across the country report similar patterns: long periods of silence followed by a sudden, distressing and poorly timed communication. They find themselves chasing answers when they should be supported, and in some cases having to explain SUDC to professionals. At a time of profound trauma, families are left to carry the burden alone. As is so often the case, those with less financial resources face even greater barriers, whether in accessing counselling, navigating systems or challenging poor care.

Traumatic grief demands trauma-informed care, but too often it is missing. Organisations such as SUDC UK are stepping in to support families, raise awareness and push for answers, but the reality is that they are doing so in the absence of a clear, co-ordinated national approach. That gap should concern us all.

At its heart, this points to a wider issue. SUDC remains one of the most unrecognised medical tragedies we face. Awareness is low, research is limited, and without understanding there can be no prevention. We cannot accept that. Families deserve answers, consistency and to be treated with care at every step. That means a system that is joined up, where knowledge is shared, professionals are trained and support is not dependent on postcode or circumstance.

It also means addressing the workforce challenges we face. There is a severe shortage of paediatric pathologists in this country, and in some regions there are none at all. That is a key reason why families are waiting for months, and sometimes more than a year, for answers. After hearing about my constituent’s experience, I met with the Royal College of Pathologists, and I continue to support its work on recruitment, training and retention.

The truth is that families should not face further trauma because the system does not have the capacity to respond, so I ask the Minister to take four steps: to develop a national plan for SUDC, formulated by Ministers working with officials and scientific experts, as a matter of urgency; to commit to regular reporting at a minimum of every two years, so that we can track progress and hold ourselves accountable; to ensure that clear, accessible information for families is available through the NHS website and other portals, including the NHS knowledge and library hub for professionals; and to move quickly on implementing the recommendations of the paediatric and perinatal pathology workforce report, so that we can achieve quicker post-mortem times and safeguard genetic information and other data to support further research.

This is about every family, in Warrington South and across the country, who are living with unimaginable loss and deserve better from the system around them. We cannot change what has happened to them, but we can change what happens next. On behalf of my constituents, and on behalf of every family who has endured the unimaginable agony of losing a child suddenly and without explanation, I urge the Minister to act now.

ADHD Diagnosis

Sarah Hall Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Ms Vaz, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. Too many people in Warrington South are being failed by the system that is meant to help them. Demand for ADHD assessments has risen sharply, with waits of up to six years. As someone whose ADHD was diagnosed when I was an adult, I know at first hand how difficult it can be to navigate a system that often does not join up or listen properly.

Ahead of this debate, I asked constituents to share their experiences of seeking an ADHD diagnosis. Adults told me that they waited years for assessment, only to be pushed through mental health pathways that did not fit and prescribed medication that made things worse. While waiting, some self-medicated with alcohol or drugs, not to escape but simply to cope. Years of masking, burnout and misdiagnosis have taken their toll. Parents told me that their children were identified early in nursery or reception, but support stalled because schools are restricted in what they can do without a diagnosis. By the time the referrals are finally made, children are already struggling, falling behind or believing they are lazy or stupid.

I heard from women diagnosed in their 40s, 50s and 60s, after a lifetime of being treated for anxiety or depression that never quite made sense. Teachers contacted me too—experienced, committed professionals who want to help but are trying to meet complex needs in classes of 30 or more children, with limited support and resources. They told me that diagnosis means very little if there is no capacity to act on it. In Warrington, concerns about waiting times came up again and again. Misdiagnosis, problems in education, workplace breakdowns, mental health crises and families forced into private care, if they can afford it, while others are simply forced to cope until they cannot cope any more.

When Ministers point to frameworks and data improvements, I say that those things matter but do not help the child struggling in school today or the adult in crisis being told to wait until the next decade. This is not about ADHD being over-diagnosed; it is about a system that consistently under-treats and under-supports those who have it. We desperately need more specialists, more appointments, more assessments, and waiting lists that are measured in months not years.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry, but time is up.

Children’s Health

Sarah Hall Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)]

If we want to raise a generation of healthy, thriving children, we must stop treating children’s health as an afterthought. This week, I launched a new survey asking constituents to feed into my work, and I thank everyone who has responded. The responses have helped to shape my contribution to this debate today, along with my work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on inclusion and nurture in education.

The focus of the survey was children, their education and wellbeing. I heard from parents, carers and guardians about their child’s experiences in schools and in accessing health services; about their child’s mental health, and the anxiety and stress caused by an outdated education system; and about barriers to accessing education because of their child’s neurodiversity or disabilities. Families tell me that there are long waiting lists for CAMHS, and gaps in speech and language therapy and school-based special educational needs co-ordinator support. They tell me about narrow criteria that are limiting health and care support, and how those criteria do not reflect their child’s unique needs, resulting in families feeling lost in the system.

The NHS was founded on the promise that care would be there when we need it, no matter our income or postcode, but for too many children and families, that promise is fraying. Infant mortality remains stubbornly high. Conditions such as asthma, obesity and dental decay are sending more children into hospital, and mental health needs are rising, with longer waiting lists for specialist services. Sadly, health inequalities remain stubbornly persistent and are undeniably linked to the unacceptable levels of child poverty and deprivation.

Children’s health outcomes have been allowed to decline for too long. We know that the children’s health workforce is working incredibly hard, but over the last 14 years it has been underfunded and undervalued. Children and young people are waiting significantly longer than adults for access to health services, with 21.5% waiting for more than 52 weeks, compared with 1.3% of adults. Those numbers represent a gap in provision. In my own integrated health board area of Cheshire and Merseyside, more than 11,000 children are waiting for the care they need. Some 44% of children are waiting between 18 and 52 weeks, and 25% of children have been waiting more than 52 weeks for treatment.

The Royal College has given Ministers a road map, including shifting care closer to home to transform children’s community services, introducing a dedicated waiting times target for children’s services and establishing a children’s health investment standard. However, we cannot talk about children’s health in isolation from poverty. We know that poverty increases the risk of poor mental and physical health, missed developmental milestones and poorer outcomes in school. Without real investment in family incomes, housing and food security, we are simply papering over the cracks.

If we are serious about giving every child a fair start, tackling poverty must be at the front and centre. That is why I was pleased to hear that Warrington will benefit from the Government’s new plans to fund the new family hub model in our town. It is one thing to fund services, but it is another to ensure that they truly reach and uplift the children who need them the most.

Congenital Hyperinsulinism

Sarah Hall Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dawn Butler (in the Chair)]

I will call Sarah Hall to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of congenital hyperinsulinism on patients and their families.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I dedicate my remarks to my constituents Joanne and Gavin and their daughter Ibbie, who is two years old. Ibbie lives with a rare and serious condition called congenital hyperinsulinism. This is a term many will not have come across, but one that has come to define every part of life for the families that it touches. CHI affects around 95 babies born in the UK each year, with just over 2,000 people currently living with the condition. It causes the body to produce too much insulin, leading to dangerously low blood sugar levels. Left undiagnosed or unmanaged, the consequences can be life altering, increasing the risk of long-term neurological complications and impaired neurodevelopment.

The clinical challenges are complex and the emotional toll on families enormous. When I recently met Ibbie at one of my constituency surgeries, I met a bright, smiling two-year-old, full of life, but behind that smile is the reality her parents face every single day of managing risk, navigating a system that too often does not understand their daughter’s condition, and fighting for basic support. While the challenges Ibbie faces in living her life are many, her parents Gavin and Joanne are doing everything they can to help navigate them.

Joanne and Gavin are both teachers—a maths teacher and an English teacher—but they cannot work. Ibbie’s needs mean they must always be close by. They must always have access to a car, and theirs cannot be a one-car household. Every family decision, no matter how small, is shaped by proximity to emergency care. Their other children have also been drawn into the experience. They have learned how to spot signs of danger and been taught how to perform heel pricks. The whole family has stepped up to help keep their baby sister safe and well. It is clear that congenital hyperinsulinism is not just a medical diagnosis; it is a whole-life diagnosis.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this forward. I declare an interest as a type 2 diabetic—a condition that is not as bad, I have to say, but still has to be managed. Northern Ireland has a high prevalence of diabetes, with almost 115,000 people living with the condition, and the number is increasing annually. Does the hon. Lady agree that early intervention for those who are pre-diabetic is essential and that consideration must be given to widening the ability for Ozempic, Mounjaro and other glucagon-like peptide-1 drugs to be prescribed more widely to help in the prevention of full-blown type 2 diabetes? That needs to be done not just in my constituency or the hon. Lady’s but across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[Sarah Hall]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point.

As I was saying, it is clear that congenital hyperinsulinism is not just a medical diagnosis; it is a whole-life diagnosis. It affects emotional health, finances, education, work, family life and more. Far too often, families say they feel invisible, left to navigate this journey alone. Ibbie’s family have had to personally teach staff how to carry out a heel prick and spot signs that she might be unwell. What should have been a joyful milestone becomes a period of anxiety and worry.

Even basic medical information is hard to access. After Ibbie was diagnosed, her parents were not given guidance on how to manage the condition—no education, no tools, no support. Even their GP and health visitor were unfamiliar with CHI. They had to travel from Warrington to Alder Hey in Liverpool just to ask whether Ibbie could take Calpol. Disability living allowance forms have been difficult to complete. There is no easily accessible support, and little knowledge of the condition. All of this compounds what is already an extremely worrying situation for families, and results in many feeling isolated and lonely.

That kind of gap in care is not just inconvenient: it is dangerous. It speaks to a wider failure to provide families with the knowledge and resources that they need. I thank the Children’s Hyperinsulinism Charity for helping to bring these issues to the fore. It is a small charity, run by dedicated parents who are doing the work that should be supported—and, in many cases, delivered—by public bodies. We know that the financial burden on the NHS is considerable. A 2018 study found that congenital hyperinsulinism costs the NHS over £3.4 million a year. That is why early diagnosis, consistent care and good support systems are not just good practice; they are essential and cost-effective. Yet, across the country, parents tell us the same story: late diagnosis, poor awareness, postcode lotteries in care, and a lack of access to vital medication and monitoring technology.

Gavin and Joanne had to fight to get a continuous glucose monitor for Ibbie, a tool that allows real-time blood sugar readings and could prevent neurological damage. They succeeded, but the funding lasts for only a year. After that, they are back to square one. While some hospitals such as Alder Hey, Royal Manchester Children’s hospital and Great Ormond Street offer specialised support, families who live outside those areas are left with fewer options. Geography should not determine the quality of healthcare that a child receives. As it stands, congenital hyperinsulinism is not even listed on the NHS website. That is a small but symbolic gap, and it makes a difficult diagnosis even more isolating.

There are misconceptions about the condition; comments from health professionals to my constituent when they are told about Ibbie suffering from hyperinsulinism include, “Is that like diabetes?” Improving clinical understanding of CHI is essential. At present, no routine test for the condition is carried out in newborns. The standard heel-prick screening, familiar to most parents, does not check for hyperinsulinism. For families like Gavin and Joanne’s, early diagnosis comes not through systemic checks but chance; their daughter Ibbie was seriously unwell at birth, which prompted further testing and led to the diagnosis. Others are not so fortunate. Many children with the condition show few symptoms initially, and diagnosis only follows a serious health episode. In too many cases, it is not clinical vigilance that identifies the issue but emergency.

That unpredictability is compounded by geography. Families describe a postcode lottery in access to timely treatment and care. In Ibbie’s case, even medication is not easily obtained in Warrington. Her parents must travel to Alder Hey, where she is able to receive the specific brand that she requires. For a family already managing a complex health condition, that adds further pressure and strain.

I have some specific asks, drawn directly from the lived experiences of families in my constituency and beyond. The first is to ensure that congenital hyperinsulinism is added to the NHS website as a priority, to raise awareness with healthcare professionals, caregivers and the general public; the second is to work with families, charities and health professionals to create an information campaign and resource pack for parents and other frontline health professionals; and the third is to guarantee equitable access to treatment, medication and monitoring technology, including CGMs, regardless of geography or condition type.

My fourth ask is to provide more consistent support with benefits processes, such as DLA, where families currently face a wall of bureaucracy and misunderstanding; my fifth ask is to address disparities in access to key medications, such as diazoxide, and work to prevent supply shortages; and my sixth is to fund ongoing research into treatments to reduce the need for invasive procedures such as pancreatectomies. Finally, will the Minister meet the families affected by hyperinsulinism, including Gavin and Joanne, to hear directly from them and explore how the Government can close the health and care gap?

In closing, let me return to the heart of this debate: not just the medical condition, but the families whose lives are shaped by it—people like Gavin and Joanne, and their daughter Ibbie, whose story reminds us that behind the terminology and statistics are children who deserve the chance to thrive, and parents who deserve to feel supported and not abandoned. We must not accept a healthcare system where someone’s postcode determines the standard of care their child receives, nor should we tolerate a lack of basic awareness among professionals about a condition with such serious implications. When families are educating their GPs and nursery staff on how to manage their child’s condition, something is wrong.

Every child deserves the same level of care, and every parent deserves the reassurance that the system is there to support them. Families like Ibbie’s are not asking for the world. They are asking for recognition, understanding and a system that helps them to do what they already do so well: love and care for their children. We owe them that, and more.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Hall Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

Yes is the short answer. Removing the duplication, waste and efficiency that came with having two head offices for the NHS will lead to better, more effective and streamlined decision making, but that will not in any way detract from the support that the hon. Member describes. In fact, we should see more support and, crucially, more investment going to the frontline as a result of the savings, efficiencies and improvements that we are making.

[Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)]

8. What recent progress his Department has made on implementing the hub and spoke model for community pharmacy.

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

This Government recognise the vital role that community pharmacies play as an integral part of our health system and local community. We are working with Community Pharmacy England on the pharmacy contract, which will start to stabilise the sector and make it fit for the future, and we will announce the outcome very shortly. On hub and spoke dispensing, we intend to lay draft secondary legislation in the coming weeks to come into force later this year.

[Sarah Hall]

Community pharmacy funding is at a critical juncture, with many pharmacies in my constituency facing financial challenges. With running costs increasing and uncertainty around the date of the upcoming settlement, community pharmacies are concerned that there may be disruption to their business. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that input from community pharmacies is considered, and prior to any further legislative or regulatory changes relating to the hub and spoke model?