Andy MacNae MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2026 · Culture, Media And Sport · Hansard source

  More

  As we have this debate about budgets and the figures being spent on sport, one key question keeps leaping out. As has been said by colleagues, we know that sport and physical activity is one of the things that can best maintain good health and prevent ill health. However, when we look at the numbers—hundreds of millions spent on sport, and hundreds of billions on the costs of ill health and welfare—we realise that we are stuck in a cycle of spending billions on ill health and worklessness and hardly anything to prevent it. The points set out in the “Game On” report and by the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), are well made, so I will leap past the questions on the quantum of spend and instead ask about the barriers that prevent us from doing what we know we should. First, I have a question for the Treasury. We seem to be stuck in our approach and attitude towards prevention spending. It is time to ask some fundamental questions about how we address that, looking at the mechanisms that the Office for Budget Responsibility uses to measure spend and how it scores those initiatives, and how we think about prevention within the fiscal rules. Fragmentation has been mentioned. We spend £3.8 billion across Government on sport and physical activity, but that is across the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department of Health, the Department for Education, local government and so on. Surely we need to bring this together and co-ordinate it through one single, accountable body. The NHS is currently unable to pay for social prescribing and physical activity courses in the same way that it pays for pills. Surely we need to have parity between pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions. Hon. Members have also mentioned schools. Physical education plays a crucial role in schools—the White Paper is very clear about that. Yet within the Ofsted measures, do we actually properly judge schools on the quality and quantity of their physical education? We do not. It is a huge opportunity that we are missing out on. Sport and physical activity can clearly play a massive role in the prevention of ill health. We know that that can save a lot of money, not just from the health budget but from welfare as a whole. We know that that is an imperative, and yet we are not grasping the opportunity. We need to recognise there are systematic, structural barriers that too often put prevention into the “too hard to do” pile, as has been said. We cannot continue to accept that. We must recognise the absolute imperative of reducing demand on health and welfare budgets through effective prevention. The only way we can do that is by committing to investment to deliver sport, physical activity and other prevention measures at true scale, while ensuring that we break down the very barriers that stop us delivering that across Government.

• 30 Jun 2026 · National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation · Hansard source

  More

  I hugely welcome the report and join in the thanks to all those who made it possible, but most fundamentally the families who shared their experiences and showed extraordinary courage through the whole process. Many of those stories were shared with us in the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss, and I assure those families that we will carry on listening to and being a voice for them through this process. The reports makes many powerful recommendations—I welcome the action plan and the maternity commissioner—but the Government must retain responsibility for the ultimate outcomes. Following the expiration of the national maternity safety ambitions in 2025, will the Secretary of State recommit to meaningful targets to reduce stillbirths and neonatal deaths and introduce a target to finally fully eliminate inequalities in baby loss?

• 25 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  One key to creating opportunities in places like Rossendale and Darwen is reindustrialisation—making more things in more places, and creating good jobs close to home. To make this real, we need economic policy that truly understands the particular constraints facing our small towns and rural communities. We need to be connected, and to have a policy that works for all parts of the country, not just places with a mayor. That will require a truly ambitious industrial strategy that gets behind every business, and a Government fully committed to buying British. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on how we can make that happen?

• 4 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  As we look forward to the Railways Bill, it is worth reminding the House that Rossendale remains the only local authority area in the north without any sort of commuter rail link, despite being only 15 miles from central Manchester. The line exists; it just needs reinstating as a commuter line. That would be a game changer for Rossendale and east Lancashire, and it is exactly the sort of project that would maximise the economic impact of Northern Powerhouse Rail, yet when Lancashire combined county authority published its transport implementation plan last month, the project was missing from the list. I find it incomprehensible. No explanation was offered. It feels like, once again, the leadership in Preston have forgotten us in Rossendale. Will the Leader of the House join me in calling on Lancashire combined county authority to think again, and agree to a debate on this specific topic?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Small Towns: Transport Links · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely—there is rural isolation, and I will be talking about a large village in my constituency in a moment. When it comes to small towns and villages, it is a spectrum. These are communities that have been left behind for far too long, and they are the ones we now need to prioritise. The lack of buses limits access to essential services such as healthcare, education and employment, exacerbates social isolation and forces people into higher-cost alternatives.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Small Towns: Transport Links · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a crucial point, and I will touch on this issue. Thinking of things as a whole, not as individual, isolated projects, is crucial for the transport systems that we actually need. Rossendale has put forward its plan. Surveys show that the public overwhelming support it, because communities in Rossendale understand exactly what a rail link would mean. By opening up the valley, we could become a much more attractive destination for businesses looking to relocate to lower-cost areas. Existing businesses would have access to bigger skills pools and reduced supply costs. Jobs in central Manchester would become more viable, and footfall in our town centres would significantly grow. This is pretty much the definition of a growth no-brainer, yet like so many small-town infrastructure projects, the proposal has got nowhere. It has been consistently overlooked or rejected through a narrow use of old Green Book guidance, whereas just down the road we see multibillion-pound projects, which we cannot even connect to, being given the green light. To add insult to injury, Lancashire combined county authority did not even include the City Valley link in its recent transport infrastructure plan, despite Rossendale being clearly identified as suffering from transport isolation. I hope that is just a simple mistake, and I call on the combined authority to ensure that this vital link is included in the final version of the plan. I hope the Minister will support me in this endeavour. Similarly, I have been calling for the restoration of Lower Darwen station, which I am pleased to say is now in the implementation plan. This represents an opportunity to finally reconnect a community that has been cut off for too long. By providing easy access to the Manchester-Clitheroe line, the station would unlock new jobs and opportunities in the whole community. In both Rossendale and Lower Darwen, it is not just about a railway line; it is about finally giving our towns the infrastructure they need to thrive. Outside the south-east, our small towns have felt left behind for far too long, and persistent poor connectivity is a stark indicator of this. We need to be honest: this has not just been an accident of fate; historical Government policy and practice have been key factors. The Green Book has been consistently misused, with assessors simply relying on benefit-cost ratios, which inevitably favour better-off urban areas. Alongside that, our economic policy has defaulted to the city-focused, trickle-down approach. Although the 2024 Green Book review and Government initiatives have put us in a potentially better place, issues do remain. We need a clear focus from Ministers to ensure that civil servants are genuinely implementing the Green Book recommendations and that local authorities—particularly non-mayoral areas—have the capacity and capability to develop robust business cases. We also need to move beyond the city-centric economic model and towards one that values all places. In that regard, we have a long way to go. If we look at the list of investment programmes, infrastructure projects and policy pathfinders—

• 3 Jun 2026 · Small Towns: Transport Links · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Sir Roger. The lack of buses disproportionately impacts people in small towns and villages, so it is crucial that we get this right. Fundamentally, we need to recognise that buses are a public service, not a commercial enterprise. I am pleased and proud that this Government have fully recognised that right from the start. The retention of the £3 bus fare cap and investment of £1 billion a year to support bus routes will benefit thousands of my constituents. Looking forward, the Government’s commitment to empower local communities to take control of bus services, along with the requirement on local government to identify “socially necessary” routes, has the potential to deliver the joined-up services we need. But our reforms will only succeed if we address the practical barriers to delivering the day-to-day changes that our communities require. To give one example, in Edgworth near Darwen in my constituency, residents rely on healthcare, shops and schools in Bolton, yet over the years, bus services have been occasional and short-lived. This transport isolation is the single biggest issue raised with me by the community. When I spoke to a group of teenagers, they were clear that the best thing we could do to improve things for them would be simply to offer a bus into Bolton. Older residents say the same, so why have we not got one? While there is a need for a subsidy, the fundamental issue seems to be that Bolton is in Greater Manchester, so the route would cross local authority boundaries. For years, no one seemed to want to take responsibility. Greater Manchester said it could not fund the route because residents of Blackburn with Darwen would be the beneficiaries, and Blackburn was unwilling to fund it because residents were going to spend their money in Greater Manchester—not exactly a joined-up system. Things are changing, and I am pleased to say that a study commissioned by Blackburn with Darwen has finally recommended that the council get behind a new bus route. That is exactly the sort of thing that Government bus funding is supposed to enable; we just need to make it actually happen. This cross-border issue is one that we face across Rossendale and Darwen. Its impact is compounded by the fact that so many of our crucial services are in other local authority areas, and that is true of so many other small towns. Solving this is a crucial test for the implementation of bus improvement policy, and I argue that it should be incumbent on existing mayoral authorities to work proactively with neighbouring councils to eliminate cross-border transport inequity. Thirdly, I want to touch briefly on roads. Roads are an obvious and crucial connector. Many small towns are built around one or two key roads. Unlike in a city, where there are lots of options, when these roads are closed or disrupted by street works, the entire community feels it. For instance, in both Rossendale and Darwen, we have one main road that runs through the whole valley. When it is blocked or the traffic is severe, it is not just an inconvenience; it has serious impacts on local businesses and residents. Indeed, several well-established local businesses have told me they are considering leaving the area unless action is taken on congestion. Unco-ordinated, overrunning roadworks are a constraint on small towns and must be treated as such. Councils need the powers to properly police contractors and incentivise quick completion. I welcome the Government’s support for continuing the roll-out of lane rental schemes, which are proven to reduce congestion on the busiest roads. I will call on all local authorities, including Lancashire county council, to work with the Government and act with urgency to tackle this blight on our towns. Finally, we come to rail. For so many small towns this is a crucial connection, yet services are often patchy and unreliable—if they exist at all. There are still far too many towns without an accessible rail link, leaving them on the edges of opportunity, not through a lack of ambition but through a lack of connection.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Small Towns: Transport Links · Hansard source

  More

  That is a real inequity within regions now, and I will cover that in my conclusion. It is a fundamental that we have to address. We must begin with empowering people to actively travel by walking, wheeling or cycling to work or school or to see friends. True connectivity is not just about how we get from one place to another; it is about having real choice in how we do so. At present, too many people in our small towns feel that they have to rely on a car even for the shortest journeys. For many, it is not that they are unwilling to walk or ride; it is just that they do not feel they have the option. What they need is not persuasion but safe, accessible, well-designed environments to make active travel the obvious and practical choice. That means getting the basics right, from ensuring our pavements are usable for everyone—including those with disabilities or parents with prams—to safer crossings, better lighting and dedicated routes that give people the confidence to walk, wheel or cycle as part of their daily routine. Within this context I would like to focus on travel to school. We can all recognise the benefits of more children walking or riding to school on health and on reducing congestion. It is generally a more relaxed start to the day. Parents know that, but far too many concerns over safety are a key barrier: speeding heavy goods vehicles, narrow and blocked pavements and a lack of safe crossings present challenges. It is no surprise that in small towns and villages, only 30% of children walk or ride to school. For cities the figures are much higher at around 60%, showing how much room there is for improvement, and that inequity can be addressed. Living Streets, working with forward-thinking councils like Blackburn with Darwen, has shown a way forward: local authorities working proactively with schools to deliver evidence-based travel initiatives and infrastructure. But this sort of best practice is still far too patchy. Last year in Lancashire, my 11-year-old constituent William Cartwright collected 1,400 signatures for a petition asking the county council to simply install a safe crossing, to allow him and his fellow pupils to walk safely to school. Despite this clear public support, Lancashire county council said no, citing the tired old excuse that not enough people have been killed or injured—yet—on the road in question. The idea of working with the school proactively to enable safe travel seemed entirely alien to it. We need to do better. I call on the county council to think again and work with me on this, and I call on the Government to clearly lay down best practice in their road safety and active travel guidance. More broadly, active travel must be seen as integral to the wider transport system, not separate from it. Walking and cycling are what connect people to buses, trains and trams. When these modes work together, we create a system that is not only more efficient but healthier, more affordable and more sustainable for the communities it serves. I turn to buses, which are a crucial part of the transport mix that we have to get right. They are vital for the more vulnerable in our society—the elderly, the young and the disabled—yet 56% of county and unitary council areas still lack adequate provision. For small towns, a lack of buses limits access to essential services.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Small Towns: Transport Links · Hansard source

  More

  I thank everyone who has contributed. I was pleased that so many colleagues were able to cover areas that I was not able to address in my speech. I will not deal with every aspect, but it made me reflect that when we talk about growth, we sometimes default to the idea that it is just about a GDP number, but good growth has to matter and be felt in every single community. Transport is a crucial part of that. I was pleased that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) mentioned youth detachment, which is a fundamental indicator of how transport connectivity connects to growth opportunities and the good society we want to create where everyone feels a sense of opportunity. Although I thank the Minister for all he said and all the positive moves that are being made, I respectfully say that there is still a disconnection between what we are doing in mayoral strategic authorities and non-mayoral areas, where so much is left to whether a given non-mayoral authority has the capacity and capability to bring forward these schemes. The Government may be doing great things and bringing forward great opportunities, but if a local authority does not have the capacity, capability, or indeed desire, to grasp these opportunities on behalf of their communities, we are left behind, as in Lancashire, Shropshire, Cheshire and so many other places. We need to do more to make that connection and finally recognise that the big infrastructure projects have to impact our small towns. That requires proactivity in the project design and spending envelopes. We have £46 billion allocated for Northern Powerhouse Rail—surely some of that needs to go to connecting our small towns. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered transport links for small towns.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Small Towns: Transport Links · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered transport links for small towns. It is a pleasure, Sir Roger, to serve under your firm chairship. I thank the Minister for attending today. He has been a keen advocate for small towns, and I am sure a lot of the issues we will talk about today will be familiar to him. Connectivity is not a luxury; it is a necessity. It underpins economic growth, but it also shapes something far more immediate and personal: our health, our independence and a sense of belonging. For our small towns, the quality of connection sends a powerful message about whether we are seen, valued and included in our national story. It would be a mistake to think of this as a question simply of how towns connect to cities. It is about the everyday journeys that define people’s lives: how they get from their front door to work, to school, to the shop or to the doctor.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Small Towns: Transport Links · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Sir Roger. There will be an extensive section on buses—pages 75 to 300—so I am sure we will cover a lot of that sort of ground. Connectivity really matters for connecting communities. Ultimately, it is about how easily and affordably we can move through the place that we call home.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Small Towns: Transport Links · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely, and I know that several colleagues here have been great champions of accessibility to rail links. It is absolutely fundamental. On the lack of connection, Rossendale remains the only local authority in the north without a direct rail link, despite thousands of residents commuting into Manchester every week—it is only 15 miles away. The old railway line still exists; all we need to do is reinstate it as a commuter line. Rossendale borough council has fully explored the costs and benefits in its City Valley link proposal. It is not a speculative idea, but a credible, carefully developed proposal with a strong business case behind it.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Small Towns: Transport Links · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady raises a range of complex points, which the Minister will probably deal with in detail. I do not agree with her about buses, because there is plenty of local flexibility to allow that. When it comes to the Green Book, it is the misuse of the financial case—its prioritisation over the strategic case—that is the fundamental issue. The strategic case should always take priority. The investment projects that the Government have brought forward—infrastructure projects and policy pathfinders—overwhelmingly focus on mayoral strategic authorities, which are big-city-focused. That needs to change. We need to recognise the moral, economic, social and political imperative of joined-up policy that enables all our towns to reach their potential, with connectivity at the heart of that ambition. That means not just one solution but a joined-up approach, with better rail links, bus services, roads that can be relied upon and safe, reliable access routes for cycling and walking. It is not an either/or. As my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) said, we should not see the big transport infrastructure projects in the pipeline in isolation or just as city connectors; rather, they are enablers of connectivity and growth along the whole route. In the north, we have Northern Powerhouse Rail, which is a huge opportunity for our region, but if small town connectivity is not addressed, places such as Rossendale and Darwen will feel little benefit and the opportunity will be missed. With that in mind, I ask the Minister to meet me and colleagues to discuss how to make big infrastructure projects such as Northern Powerhouse Rail a catalyst in delivering connectivity and opportunity to the small towns and communities that need it most.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I very much welcome the Bill and the modernisation it will bring. To deliver the change needed requires a fundamental redesign of NHS structures and practices. Without a willingness to make the big changes, we will never deliver on the aspirations of the NHS 10-year plan. At the same time, patients and NHS staff need to see change now. We cannot reasonably expect our residents and frontline workers to buy into this long-term vision of the NHS when they face so many issues with services right now. How will the Bill and the ongoing change process impact on some of the areas of most concern to my residents in Rossendale and Darwen? Top of the list for us is Blackburn A&E, which is one of the busiest in the country. I fully recognise the work being done by brilliant doctors and nurses to try to manage demand. None the less, the indignity of corridor care remains a blight. Almost every week I hear of patients spending hours and hours in the corridor, not knowing when they will be seen, often in discomfort, feeling exposed, anxious and unsupported. Ending that sort of experience is a crucial test for NHS modernisation. Only when we see the end of corridor care at Blackburn A&E and others will the residents of east Lancashire feel that something has really changed for the better. As we have heard, the Bill is also about improving patient safety. It includes some significant steps, but, again, what about the practicalities? For years now we have been stuck in a vicious cycle of investigating shocking cases of patient harm and system failure, making numerous recommendations to improve safety and yet failing to implement them, and repeating the same mistakes. We must break the cycle. This cannot only be about simplification; it requires bold action as well. For example, as we have heard many times in this place, we have a crisis in maternity safety and soon Baroness Amos will deliver the report on her national investigation, which is likely to identify a requirement for some really fundamental systemic and cultural change. There will also be areas outside her remit that need to be addressed, such as the role of the regulators in a fit-for-purpose patient safety landscape. I therefore wonder if the Bill goes far enough and if there will be a need for amendment after Baroness Amos reports. Perhaps the Minister will share some thoughts on that. Finally, I will touch on prevention. The move from sickness to prevention is one of the three big shifts in the NHS 10-year plan. It is surely the key to a health service that is sustainable in the long term. Although the Bill makes some reference to prevention, frankly, a lot of it feels pretty peripheral and leaves some key questions unanswered. For instance, how—in a practical sense—are we enabling ICBs to support prevention at a local level and at a scale that will make a difference? How are we driving the prevention agenda across Government Departments? Are we doing enough to ensure healthy lifestyle habits are developed in early years and at school? Why are we not putting the social prescribing of proven interventions, such as exercise programmes, on the same financial footing as pharmaceutical interventions? And so on and so on. I suspect the Committee stage will be crucial in ensuring the Bill matches its aspirations. I look forward to the Minister’s thoughts on how we can balance long-term modernisations with delivering change today.

• 14 May 2026 · Getting Britain Working Again · Hansard source

  More

  His Majesty’s Gracious Speech announced a wide range of economic measures and fully recognised the vital importance of economic security, but I think we all understand that for that security to be meaningful, it must reach into every part of our country and every community. With that in mind, I make my comments from the perspective of Rossendale and Darwen, recognising that we have much in common with many other post-industrial towns and rural areas—places characterised by small towns and villages with close-knit communities, which have too often felt ignored and left behind. This Government have consistently put growth at the heart of their agenda and have rightly identified many of the actions that we need to see. We have heard announcements on Green Book reform, £113 billion of infrastructure investment pipelines, youth job guarantees, Pathways to Work, the industrial strategy, pothole funds, Pride in Place, and many more measures, yet when I knock on doors in Rossendale and Darwen, people are still asking, “Where is the change that we were promised?” When writing this speech, I looked back at others I have made over the last two years on this subject. In those speeches, I called for more to be done to address issues that are specific to small towns like mine: a move away from the orthodoxy that favours cities and mayoral authorities, where growth is easiest to define; a procurement strategy that insists on buying British; an industrial strategy that understands small and medium-sized businesses; and policies that reward grafters, entrepreneurs and risk takers. Frankly, I could have used the same text today, because the issues remain. We have not moved nearly far enough or fast enough to meet the needs of communities like mine. Last week’s local election results show us that starkly. There has been much talk about the changes that this Government need to make. We must grasp this moment to fundamentally rethink our approach to growth strategy; incremental will just not cut it, nor will being city-centric. We cannot justify Government investment flowing into the likes of Manchester while the towns of Lancashire do not even appear in the picture. We need to learn the lessons of the last two years and do better. If we are going to deliver growth and jobs for places like Rossendale and Darwen with the urgency our electorate demands, we must commit to a scale of action that matches the challenge. That means being willing to take risks, to demand joined-up action across Government and to do the hard things on a scale that impacts every community. What does that mean in practical terms? First, on infrastructure, we have to recognise that on its own, a city-centric approach will do little for communities like mine. Consider Northern Powerhouse Rail. It is a great project that will transform connectivity between cities and major towns across the region, and it is being presented in some quarters as a transformational project for the whole north-west, but when I ask the question, “What will this do for Rossendale and Darwen or any small towns along the route?”, the answer is, “Not much.” Rossendale will remain the only local authority area in the north with no commuter rail link, despite being only 15 miles from Manchester. Darwen will continue to have a patchy and unreliable occasional service. That is why we need to change the way in which we think about such projects, and be far more ambitious in our goals—for instance by thinking in terms of growth corridors, with the requirement that these big projects bring a positive impact to every community. That would include physical infrastructure and connections for small towns as an integral part of the projects, as well as an insistence on buying locally. We need a similar approach to industrial strategy. In Rossendale and Darwen, we have many great businesses, including creative and innovative manufacturers, but none employs more than 500 people and few fall into what have been identified as national priority sectors. That is entirely typical of many places across our country, where such businesses employ the bulk of the local workforce. We need to get behind those businesses, and have a much more comprehensive and urgent industrial strategy that truly understands their challenges and opportunities. First and foremost, the strategy must embed “buy British” at its heart, using the full power of Government procurement to support our businesses. Frankly, the lack of a procurement Bill in the King’s Speech is a concern that I hope we can address. We need to bring down business costs, particularly energy, and open up access to risk-tolerant finance, and we need a tax and regulatory system that encourages employment, enterprise, risk and productivity. Alongside that, we need to restore our town centres and community spaces. Pride in Place is a great programme, and I am proud to have brought this investment to Rossendale, Rawtenstall and Darwen. That £20 million over 10 years will enable us to make significant changes, but for every town that has this support, there are many others that do not. Surely the case for investment in Bacup, Stacksteads and Whitworth is just as strong. In any case, we will enjoy the full value of this investment only if it is aligned with improvements in transport, skills and infrastructure that address the underlying constraints on our local economies. We should build on what works, and go bigger and wider with Pride in Place. We should front-load investment to increase the speed and scale of change, while ensuring that we are delivering the infrastructure that can release the full potential of places such as Rossendale and Darwen. I could list lots of other areas for action, but fundamentally, we need a change in mindset. For too long, geography has meant destiny. Small towns such as Bacup, Whitworth, Rawtenstall and Darwen have been at the back of the queue, left behind as big towns and cities shout louder and offer seemingly easy solutions. We need to break that cycle and ask, “What does this do for our towns?” That question should be embedded in every investment strategy and decision process. We must be willing to commit to strategies that insist on doing the hard things while providing the procurement policy, fiscal flexibility, regulatory framework and sustained leadership to drive delivery. We must learn the lessons of the past, and not allow established orthodoxies and a desire for easy wins to stand in the way. We simply cannot afford to fail the communities that need us most.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I wish you a splendid St George’s day, Mr Speaker. My constituent Milly Mulcahy is a wheelchair user who is entirely reliant on a lift maintained by Lancashire county council to enter and leave her home. Since being installed six years ago, this lift has broken down constantly; every time it breaks down, Milly is trapped in her own home. It was completely broken for two months over Christmas, with the county council failing to respond to multiple requests. Engineers have confirmed that the lift will never work reliably and simply needs replacing, but the county council has refused to engage in a long-term solution. This flies in the face of common sense—thousands of pounds have been spent on engineer call-outs with nothing to show for it. Will the Leader of the House agree with me on calling on the Reform leadership at Lancashire county council to stop dodging the issue, do the job properly and give Milly the freedom she deserves?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Maternity Commissioner · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I will make some comments as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss, but also as a bereaved parent: we lost our daughter Mallorie at the age of five days. First, I want to thank everyone who responded to the petition. It shows the massive extent of concern about this issue. So many of us share that concern as something that is personal and requires immediate and comprehensive action. For the past two years, my all-party group has been listening to families, parents and professionals. We have heard about a litany of failures across the whole sector. I am sure that colleagues will refer to many of the issues and incidents, so I will not repeat them, but we have to recognise that these systemic failures often go very deep within the culture of the health service. We need to recognise that that results in fundamental inequalities in terms of ethnicity and deprivation, with families not being listened to and suffering outcomes that are truly unacceptable. We also have to recognise that there are islands of very good practice. There are trusts and professionals who continue to do an amazing job. I can cite the birth centre at Burnley that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) and I visited recently, where we saw how things can be done and what “good” actually looks like. There is an undeniable case for urgent and immediate action, as I think we all agree. I think we also agree that we cannot repeat the cycle of reports, reviews and recommendations. As the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) said, there have been 700 recommendations, and in many cases they were exactly the same, time after time. We cannot repeat that cycle, which is why it is so important that Baroness Amos’s maternity services investigation is different. I believe that she is entirely committed to addressing the underlying systemic issues across the sector and to bringing forward a report that focuses on the underlying systems and cultures that need to change, rather than just repeating the litany of what has gone before. Crucially, we also have the Secretary of State’s commitment to establishing a taskforce following the work of that review, to deliver on its recommendations, with an immediate overlap and focus on action. That is why I believe we have a fundamentally different opportunity, right now, to get this right. The focus on systemic changes must be accompanied by a real commitment to fixed and firm targets to reduce the harm and inequalities that we see today. Oversight and accountability will be a fundamental part of that. We recognise that we currently have an alphabet soup of organisations, with the CQC, NMC and GMC: the Care Quality Commission, the Nursing and Midwifery Council and the General Medical Council. The trusts themselves are essentially autonomous in choosing whether they follow guidelines, so introducing accountability and oversight must be a fundamental outcome of the review. I am absolutely sure that we will see clear recommendations on that point. Having a maternity commissioner is not a magic sticking-plaster that can address this fundamental, systemic problem. Let us not fool ourselves that any single measure or recommendation will solve this problem. We need to see maternity safety rebuilt from the ground up, with a culture that listens to every single family and every single mother. We need to treat them all as individuals who have their own risk factors, concerns and challenges. We need to learn from the best practice that we see across the country. When bereavements occur, we need parents to be treated with the empathy and individualisation that they require, recognising that trauma does not just affect someone in the days or weeks after birth; it can have lifelong effects. We need to rebuild the regulators, as well as all the mechanisms that hold individual trusts to account, so that they are fit for purpose. It is only when we get the foundations right—rebuilt from the ground up, with best practices embedded across the board—that a maternity commissioner might possibly be able to deliver the outcomes we want. Let us focus on listening to what Baroness Amos comes forward with, so we can deliver her recommendations and rebuild the culture from its base. Let us concentrate on listening to individual parents and families, so that we can respond to their personal risk factors. Let us make sure that we have a maternity safety system that we can all be proud of in the years to come.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Sudden Unexplained Death in Childhood · Hansard source

  More

  Yes. I will touch on that in a moment. It is part of a wider picture of bereavement support and bereavement pathways nationally. From baby or infant loss to unexplained death in childhood, bereavement services are patchy and in many cases far below the standards that we need to see. We need to make that service universal. Let us move on to another cause of trauma: child death investigations. This issue is wider than SUDC but has profound impacts. Current national guidelines—the statutory guidance and joint agency guidelines—are built on historical evidence from infant deaths and have not been updated since the new pathways for genetics and cardiology were launched. That is important as it may affect inequity of care and access to these important tests. Guidelines should be updated to reflect new evidence and current pathology timeframes, and any consultation on those updates should include charities such as SUDC UK, which supports families of children up to 18 years old. From investigation to family support, NCMD data tells us that 30% of all child deaths are sudden and unexpected, and a fifth of families leave A&E with no understanding of why their child has died. While consistency has improved since the last debate, the quality of bereavement support remains deeply uneven, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) has raised. Families affected by SUDC often experience complicated grief with severe and long-lasting consequences for parents and siblings, and this requires specialist support. The NIHR-funded Quintet project and the wider strategic partnership for sudden child death will soon provide evidence-based recommendations for supporting those families. These should be incorporated into a national plan. To conclude, what is lacking is not expertise nor compassion; rather, it is co-ordination and leadership. I am calling for a Government-led national plan for sudden unexplained death in childhood. That would turn the issues that I have raised into strategic objectives with clear timelines, milestones and measurable outcomes. It should be developed alongside families, clinicians and researchers, and report back to Parliament every two years. Such a plan would send a powerful message: these children matter, their deaths are not footnotes, and unexplained does not mean unimportant. My thanks to Brian Topping, Nikki Speed, the courageous families here today and all those who have worked tirelessly for progress and understanding. I hope that this debate can play a part in delivering that.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Sudden Unexplained Death in Childhood · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, of course I agree, and I am coming on to the research. We simply owe families answers and our best efforts to find those answers. As I was saying, we know that research and awareness raising, backed up by national leadership, can make a profound difference, as it has in other areas. When priorities are clear, progress does follow. For example, research and safer sleep campaigns have significantly reduced unexplained infant deaths—known as sudden infant death syndrome, formerly cot death. About 200 babies die from SIDS each year compared with 40 older children from SUDC, yet there has been 100 times more research into SIDS than SUDC, which receives only a fraction of the attention. Peter Fleming CBE, the clinical lead for the SIDS Back to Sleep campaign and a scientific adviser to SUDC UK, has said: “Research into unexpected deaths in infancy has led to an 80% reduction in such deaths over the past 30 years in the UK. Unexpected deaths in older children are less common, much less well understood, and to date little research has been conducted in the UK to try to understand or prevent such deaths… I am convinced that with the right research we will soon be able to prevent many deaths” of older children. The families here today are not asking for guarantees—they understand that science takes time—but simply asking for this issue to be treated with the urgency it deserves.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Sudden Unexplained Death in Childhood · Hansard source

  More

  I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), for bringing her depth of professional experience. I also thank the Minister for her comprehensive response to the points raised. I want to reflect on a couple of the issues that were raised. First, I thank the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) for taking me to task on describing SUDC as a cause of death. He is absolutely right: it is not; it is simply a category of the unknown. That is worth reflecting on, because it puts into context the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) that we focus on understanding, predicting and preventing. When we combine that great unknown with that appeal to simply understand, we recognise the challenge, but also the imperative to make progress in this area. It is clear that there is an absolute consensus across both sides of the House in calling for a plan and the prioritisation of this issue. It was good to hear the Minister recognising the importance of that. Bereavement support came up several times. We have so much terminology: bereavement support, bereavement care and longer-term mental health support. The moment at which a family needs support to deal with the trauma of loss can vary greatly. It can be a day, week or year after the loss and having the right support at the right time remains absolutely vital. I very much hope and believe that it is something that the parent services and maternity safety investigation and the ongoing taskforce will grasp as a priority in their work. To reflect on some of the commitments made by the Minister, I think she has recognised that some things can be done quickly and effectively—simply getting good information about SUDC up on the website seems to be an obvious imperative that we can be acting on. However, Members have raised a range of opportunities, in particular the opportunity to build on the charity-funded research done so far and move it into Government-funded research. I would be grateful if the Minister agreed to meet with me and SUDC UK to discuss how we can take this debate forward, because as hon. Members have said, it cannot stop here. This must be the start of an ongoing process where we build understanding, take action and get real change to create a genuine legacy—a legacy for Frankie and all the families affected. Again, I finish by thanking everyone in the Public Gallery for being here. It really matters, and I am so grateful for your presence. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Sudden Unexplained Death in Childhood.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Sudden Unexplained Death in Childhood · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which again focuses on the need for co-ordination in the effort to meet the scale of this challenge. One of the most compelling issues requiring investigation is the association between SUDC and febrile seizures. National and international data show that 30% of SUDC cases involve a history of febrile seizures—10 times higher than in the general population. Frankie Grogan had 12 seizures before he died, but he was never reviewed by a specialist. At this point, it is really important to stress that febrile seizures are very common and SUDC is rare, but the persistence of this correlation—known before the last debate—demands investigation. A national plan must accelerate understanding of the link and determine whether children who have repeated febrile seizures, or a particular subset of affected children, need different pathways of care. We must also improve public information. Information for families is inconsistent and, at times, invisible. Leaflets on febrile seizures vary significantly across NHS trusts; some fail to mention that seizures can occur during sleep or that monitoring options exist. SUDC itself—including the 60% of cases with no seizure history—is missing from the NHS website. After the 2023 debate, a token reference was added to the SIDS page, but then removed. Imagine a family receiving a post-mortem conclusion of SUDC but finding nothing when they search the NHS website. That is clearly unacceptable, but something that the Government can easily fix. There has been welcome progress in other areas. The national child mortality database is a world-leading resource. Since the previous debate, the NCMD has created SUDC-specific forms and launched pathways for genomics and cardiac screening. SUDC UK, a charity founded only in 2017, has helped to ensure that families have access to whole genome sequencing through the R441 pathway. That advocacy was born out of what Nikki Speed, chief executive of SUDC UK, describes as the “paralysing fear” that she and many families carry every day. She explained to me that for years after her loss, she got little sleep, because she was constantly having to have a hand on her surviving children to be sure they were alive and well. That fear leads families to delay trying for another child, even though a new life could be a source of hope and healing amid loss. It is completely rational for a parent to fear, if one of their seemingly healthy children has died without explanation, that their other seemingly healthy children could also be at risk. That is why genomic and cardiac screening is so important: it not only informs research but protects surviving siblings. For some families, genetic analysis has revealed risks requiring vital preventive treatment, yet those crucial tests are currently available only after the post-mortem process concludes, which brings me to the next point. Paediatric pathology is in crisis, as summarised in a recent report by the Royal College of Pathologists. Families experiencing SUDC routinely wait nine to 12 months, or sometimes longer, for a post-mortem conclusion. During that time, they live in fear—fear for their surviving children, fear of future pregnancies, fear of the unknown. Their grief is suspended and their lives are on hold. Only after that traumatic wait can they finally access genomic testing or cardiac screening to safeguard their children. After speaking with Brian and with Nikki, I would like to outline the typical timeline for a family affected by SUDC. Your child is fine. Then they die, leaving you traumatised and in shock. The child is taken away from you, and you have no control over what is happening. The ensuing process is statutory, but the response is based on evidence from infant death and so is suboptimal. After scary interactions with the police and in deep shock, you return home to deafening silence or to the child’s siblings, to whom you must tell the very worst news. Then you wait. You do not wait one week or two. You do not wait a month or even six. You most likely wait nine to 12 months. If the pathology is complex, you wait even longer. Throughout the whole wait, you are scared for your other children and scared to get pregnant again. You put your life and your grief on hold. Only then, often about a year later, do you receive the post-mortem report. You have been desperately waiting for this moment, but now it is here it brings back all the trauma of losing your child, and only now are you eligible to see whether anything hereditary is putting other family members at risk. This is inhumane. When we lost our daughter, we had the answers right away, yet the trauma is still with us. I cannot fathom what it would be like to sit in deafening silence for months, and the long-term damage that that could do. This must change. A national plan should establish faster pathways for cases in which timely information directly affects vulnerable bereaved families and child safety.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Sudden Unexplained Death in Childhood · Hansard source

  More

  Precisely, and that would be to treat this issue with the importance, urgency and focus that it deserves. The very fact that most research is now charity-led is quite revealing. This research includes the Pioneer study—a population-based investigation to reduce sudden unexplained deaths in childhood—at the University of Bristol, which is beginning to analyse national mortality data and incorporate family-led research priorities. Science has advanced: genomics, cardiology, neuropathology and data science now offer real hope that the causes that were once thought unknowable may finally be within reach. However, scientific possibility alone is not enough. Findings from the UK’s Pioneer study, alongside the growing body of global evidence on SUDC, must be properly considered and applied. They should inform linked datasets and guide action by organisations such as Genomics England, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS. The opportunity is there, but right now we rely far too much on this limited charity-funded research. If we are ever to shift the dial, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) said, we need a national plan delivering co-ordinated, planned actions that enable and accelerate meaningful projects.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Sudden Unexplained Death in Childhood · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Sudden Unexplained Death in Childhood. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John, and to open this important debate. Today we are discussing a category of child death that has previously been described in this room as “one of the most serious medical phenomena in our country”. —[ Official Report, 17 January 2023; Vol. 726, c. 88WH.] Sudden unexplained death in childhood is the fourth leading cause of death in children aged one to 18. Since Parliament last debated this issue in 2023, in the UK around 120 children who appeared perfectly healthy have died suddenly. That is the equivalent of four full classrooms of pre-school and school-aged children—four classrooms of lives cut short without explanation. For families, the devastation after a child dies is immediate and lifelong. What makes SUDC uniquely cruel is not only the loss, but the absence of answers. Why did those children die? I can only imagine the pain of that. When we lost our daughter Mallorie to Edwards’ syndrome, we at least had the comfort of knowing why and what was coming. We knew there was nothing more we could do. Families experiencing SUDC have none of that. It is brutal. We cannot continue to tell grieving parents, “I am sorry; we simply don’t know why your child died.” As a society we have a responsibility to do all we can to find the answers to prevent future deaths. That is why today we ask the Government to lead the search for answers through a co-ordinated national plan. First, let us be clear about what SUDC is and what it is not. Sudden unexplained death in childhood is the sudden unexpected death of a child over one year old that remains unexplained after a full investigation. Cases do not involve crime, terminal illness, diagnosed epilepsy, cardiac conditions or tragic accidents. The children appear healthy. They fall suddenly ill or go to sleep and never wake up. Parents, grandparents and siblings are left asking, “Why did this happen? Could it happen again? Is there a genetic risk? Will my other children die? Should we risk another pregnancy?” Those are questions that currently no one can answer. At the heart of today’s debate and our discussion is a little boy named Frankie Grogan. Frankie was three years old: bright, curious and full of energy with a particular love of giraffes. His family had every reason to believe that they would watch him grow and thrive. Instead, he went to sleep and did not wake up. The night before, Frankie was excited that his father would be running the Manchester 10k the next day. He briefly woke at 4.30 am asking for water. A few hours later, he was found to be still and unresponsive. Despite a thorough investigation, no cause of death could be identified. That happened in 2019 and Frankie’s family, who are here today, still do not know why. In the midst of unimaginable grief, Frankie’s grandfather, Brian Topping, came to see me. He did not ask for sympathy; he asked for structure, leadership, co-ordination and a plan. Frankie’s story reminds us that behind every statistic is a child with a name, a personality and a future that should have been. It is because of Frankie and the determination of his family that the debate is taking place today. Through SUDC UK, families, clinicians and researchers have united around the conviction that unexplained should never mean unexamined. We know that research and awareness raising, backed up by national leadership, can make a profound difference. In other areas of childhood death, when priorities are clear, progress follows.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Ministry of Defence · Hansard source

  More

  Current events are once again showing the vital importance of an agile and independent fast jet defence capability, and the UK is one of the few countries with a sovereign ability to manufacture these world-leading fast jets. The UK’s Typhoons are made in Lancashire, where over 20,000 jobs are reliant on maintaining that production. However, right now, assembly facilities lie empty. Last year, the Government secured a very important £8 billion deal with Turkey, which gives temporary protection for those jobs and will restart assembly, but the job is absolutely not done. We now need to look at how we take the next step and secure our production base and competitive position for the next decade and more. This is all about the UK committing to its own order of Typhoon jets, which is what we need to ensure our world-leading position and keep the skills and experience that were so crucial in securing the Turkey deal and will be crucial for other, future deals. A UK order means that the maximum value is retained here, with sections made at Samlesbury and full assembly at Warton. The UK ordering the latest Typhoon also indicates full confidence in the jet and allows us to stockpile, making further sales to other countries more likely. In any case, we need more fast jets. We had 137 Typhoons, but the 30 original tranche 1s are already being withdrawn from service and will be retired by 2027. This will leave 107 tranche 2 and 3 fighters, which are also ageing and are due for retirement in 2040, and lack the range of capabilities that can be delivered in the latest tranche 5 version. We can all get excited about the long-term potential of the global combat air programme, but it will be the late 2030s before those jets ever enter into service, leaving a capability gap. Part of that gap is being addressed by the purchase of the F-35s. These are exceptional aircraft, but they are a very different beast from the Typhoon. The F-35 is primarily a stealthy, ground-attack, precision-strike aircraft able to penetrate heavily defended airspace; the Typhoon is an air dominance fighter, with higher top speed, faster acceleration, better climb rate and superior sustained turn performance. It is also compatible with the full range of British-made missiles, such as the Meteor and the Spear 3, whereas the F-35 currently is not.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Ministry of Defence · Hansard source

  More

  Precisely, and of course the upgrade in the radar systems gives it the very latest capability to suppress at a distance. The Typhoon is a powerful beast and works so well within a blended capability, alongside F-35s and other craft. Other European countries have voted for their domestic production bases by ordering their own Typhoons. Spain, Italy and Germany have all done so; only the UK is left out. Of course, there is a wider perspective. Lancashire is home to world-class defence industries, which every growth plan in Lancashire has at its heart. The fact that I can go into schools in places such as Bacup, Whitworth and Darwen and talk about some of the best engineering and technical jobs in the world being just down the road is so vital for aspiration. The apprenticeships and career opportunities at not just BAE, but the many innovative companies in the supply chain, show that the north-west is the best place for anyone who wants to be at the cutting edge of the manufacturing industries of the future. We should not be happy with merely sustaining this jewel in the crown; rather, we should be seeking to strengthen and continually build skills, scale and competitive advantage. Turkey chose to order Typhoons from us because the experience and skills of workers at Samlesbury and Warton cannot be matched. We now have the opportunity to build on this and give the ultimate vote of confidence by ordering UK fighters that will maintain our balanced and multi-functional fast jet capability for this decade and beyond. Frankly, it feels like a no-brainer, and I hope the defence investment plan will reflect this.