partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michelle Welsh

   Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

   That is exactly what it was all about. When that approach began to change—and it did change—I did not want to sit on the sidelines and complain about it; I wanted to do something. That journey eventually brought me to this place. I believe the principles behind Sure Start should never be consigned to history. We should learn from them and build on them, and whatever name we put above the door today, the fundamental principle must remain services built around the child and the family. That begins before a baby is born; it begins with maternity, and through my campaign on maternity safety, and—most importantly—through listening to families, those on the frontline, charities and organisations, I have become absolutely convinced that maternity policy cannot sit in a silo, separate from children’s policy. Safe maternity care, maternal physical health and mental health, supporting fathers and parents, and making sure that women are listened to are all early years policy. We cannot talk seriously about giving every baby the best start in life without talking about the care their mothers receive. I believe we need fundamental reform. That is why one of the most central proposals I have argued for is an independent maternity commissioner—someone whose sole focus is women, babies and families, with the independence and authority to change and challenge the system. When something goes catastrophically wrong, families should not have to become investigators, they should not have to understand every layer of the NHS, and they should not have to fight organisation after organisation simply to get the truth about what happened to the woman or the baby they love. We also need better national data, proper national standards and a culture where staff can speak up. Good midwives, obstetricians, maternity support workers and other staff who raise concerns should be listened to and protected, because a safe culture is one where people can say something is wrong before another family is harmed. There is another part of maternity reform that I believe is fundamental, which is continuity of care. I want us to be much more ambitious about what we mean by continuity. I do not believe that continuity should mean a good handover from one professional to another—I believe the same person should stay. A woman should be able to build a relationship with someone throughout their maternity journey. That relationship should not simply end because her baby has been born; every woman should leave hospital following birth with a full debrief, not simple discharge paperwork. That is part of prevention. Continuity also gives us an opportunity to address the appalling inequalities we see in maternity care. The latest MBRRACE-UK data shows that black women still face nearly three times the maternal mortality risk of white women, and women living in the most deprived areas have around twice the maternal mortality rate of women in the least deprived communities. These inequalities are unacceptable, and we cannot simply publish those statistics year after year and call it action; we have to design services that actively confront inequality and discrimination. Continuity can be part of that. If somebody actually knows the woman—knows her history and her circumstances—and is responsible for staying with her, it becomes much harder for her concerns to disappear between appointments, or for her to be forced to tell her story over and over again. All of this connects directly to the wider health and development of the baby. After maternity comes health visiting, then perhaps a family hub, early years provision, nursery and eventually school. Governments see these as separate services, separate budgets, and sometimes separate Departments; a parent sees none of that. They see their child—one child, one family, one continuous journey. That is how Governments should see them, too. A health visitor may identify a developmental concern, a mother may need breastfeeding or feeding support, or parents may notice speech and language difficulties. There may be early indications of SEND, housing conditions affecting a child’s health, financial pressure or difficulty in the parents’ relationship. A mother may be experiencing depression. None of those things exists neatly on its own. The worst possible system is one that waits until a family has deteriorated sufficiently to meet a threshold for help. We should not wait for a crisis; early intervention works. If we can support the mother earlier, we should. If we can help a family earlier, we should. If we can identify a child’s need earlier, we should. If we can prevent someone from reaching crisis, we should. That is not wasteful public spending; it is intelligent public spending, and it brings us directly to education. Education can transform a person’s life. I know that personally, as I was the first person in my family to go to university. I defeated the odds, but it does not and should not have to be that way. If we are serious about closing the achievement gap, we have to be honest about when it begins. It does not suddenly appear when a child starts secondary school. For some children, inequality begins to take hold before they ever walk through the school gates. Children arrive in reception having had very different starts in life. Every child deserves the opportunity to fulfil their potential. That should be not an aspiration reserved for the lucky few; it should be a promise that we make to every child born in this country. I know the Opposition do not think that we should talk about the 1980s, but I do, because I know what happens when hope is taken away. Growing up on a council estate in Notts in the 1980s, I lived and breathed it, and now I serve those very communities, which are still up against it. I came into public service and eventually into politics because I believe that government can put hope back. That is what Sure Start represented to me. That is what safe maternity care should represent. That is what good health services, early years support and education should represent—not charity or a favour, but opportunity: the opportunity for a mother to be safe and heard, the opportunity for a family to be supported before they reach crisis, the opportunity for a baby to be given the very best start in life, and the opportunity for every child, whatever street they are born in and whatever their parents earn, to look at their future and believe it belongs to them. Ultimately, that is the test of everything we do here—not whether we can write another strategy or create another pathway, but whether the child born tonight in the poorest household in the country has the same right to dream, to thrive and to succeed as the child born into the richest. Where someone is born should never determine their future, but what we choose to do in this House can.

   Hansard source
2. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Maya Ellis

   Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

   I am delighted to wholeheartedly support the private Member’s Bill of the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), which pushes for vital provision to support infants and families, and would finally put into legislation the requirement for the Government to report to Parliament annually on how this country supports children and families from pregnancy to age two. I am very proud to be the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on babies (pregnancy to age two). Over the past two years, I have seen through that role that the evidence on this subject is there a hundred times over. We know that there are 3.5 million children under the age of four, all of whom will grow into UK citizens whom we need to thrive. We know that some of the most significant brain development happens before the age of two. We know that Sure Start centres were directly linked to a reduction in special educational needs. We know that the Department of Health’s own research says that early intervention could save £45 billion a year. As I always say, though, to many of the people in this sector and to my own constituents, even though the evidence is there a million times over, sometimes getting the political will is even harder. That is why I think we are in a really lucky position right now: 41% of MPs are women, and I am really glad that feminism has developed to a point where this is finally coming before the House. We also have the maternity taskforce, for which I am proud to be a member of the parliamentary expert advisory panel. I think we have a moment now where these things are coming together, and finally there is the political will and momentum. Women particularly are finding their voice, alongside all the incredible dads, and parents and carers across households, who are really standing up, but we have to keep shouting about this. I am delighted that the Bill finally puts the first steps into legislation, but it is important that we build on it. One of the powerful arguments for the Bill is that no Government would now question the funding for free entitlement to schooling at age five. No Government would change that. I think this is about putting the same assumptions on to care from pregnancy and birth, and making sure that no future Government could change those basic principles, with which I think we all now agree, without a lot of difficulty. I want to pay a few tributes to those who have got us to this point, because there are people who have been banging the drum on this issue for decades. Dame Tessa Jowell, who has already been mentioned, along with Lord David Blunkett and Naomi Eisenstadt, who was the civil servant who led on Sure Start, all put so much of the framework in place. Lord Frank Field, who went on to develop partnerships during the Cameron Government, was an incredible force in this space. Dame Andrea Leadsom has worked really hard to bring the Bill forward and made sure family hubs continued under previous Governments. And most recently, this Government, driven in particular by our hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), are bringing in Best Start family hubs to really start to rebuild the Sure Start legacy. I also want to pay tribute to the wonderful Nicholas Peacey MBE, who passed away this summer after a lifetime of work with young people, which included leading the Foundation Years Information and Research charity, which I am honoured to chair. Nick was relentless in his positive support for early years and for stakeholders like myself, with a conviction that nothing was more important than babies. I believe he knew that the Bill was coming through Parliament, but there was so much more that he was excited to do and we will miss him. The Bill is deliberately simple. Organisations have lobbied me, and I am sure others, about the fact that they wish it did more. I have been very grateful to Dame Andrea Leadsom and the wonderful Will Quince for educating me on how important it is to keep a Bill simple. It is important that the public know that this Bill is about creating a basis and making sure something gets through and on to the statute book, but it is absolutely only a start and we will all in this House, I am sure, be committed to building on it. The Bill will serve as a foundation. If it becomes law, there are a few things the Government could do to ensure a glowing first report. Too often, mothers, babies and parents are treated as an afterthought in policymaking. The Bill recognises a simple truth: if we want healthier families, greater equality and better outcomes for children, we have to pay more attention to the early stages of life. Maternity care is one of those areas that currently gets shamefully low focus. Around 84% of women will become mothers, and maternity care is often the first time a healthy adult really interacts with a publicly funded institution. Her experience and the experience of her family around her of what her taxes have been paying for is currently woeful. The state of maternity care should concern every one of us. The Care Quality Commission found that 65% of inspected maternity units required improvement or were inadequate for safety. The fact that two thirds of maternity services have been rated unsafe should be treated as a national emergency. The consequences are not felt equally either. Black women are nearly three times more likely to die during pregnancy or in the year after birth than white women. Babies born in the most deprived parts of our country are more than twice as likely to die around the time of birth than those born in the least-deprived areas. We have had more than 700 recommendations on maternity care over the past decade. We do not need another list of recommendations; we need investment in staff, workforce stability, continuity of care and time for professionals to build trusting relationships with women and families. How women experience pregnancy and birth is not a nice to have; it has profound consequences for mental health, family wellbeing and long-term outcomes. Women deserve to feel safe, listened to and empowered through pregnancy and childbirth, and as they take their first steps in feeding and caring for their baby. The Bill is also about what happens after birth. We know that the first 1,001 days of a child’s life are among the most important in determining future outcomes, yet they receive remarkably little attention. Currently, only around 55% of infants develop secure attachments, despite overwhelming evidence that early relationships shape future health, wellbeing and life chances. Recent research has shown that expanding parent-infant relationship support in the most deprived communities could save the Government £1.2 billion annually. The Bill also speaks to a challenge that sits at the heart of gender inequality. Becoming a parent remains one of the biggest drivers of inequality between men and women. Mothers still carry a disproportionate share of caring responsibilities and the result is the motherhood penalty: lower earnings, reduced career progression and less financial security for many women. Evidence shows that when fathers take meaningful leave in a child’s life, mothers are more likely to return to work, more likely to progress in their careers and more likely to share caring responsibilities on a lasting basis. Many of us here are campaigning for the Government’s parental leave review, which concludes in December, to fund six weeks of paternity leave paid at 90% of pay. As a mother to two young children, I have seen at first hand among my peers, alongside all the overwhelming evidence, the life-changing difference it makes to a child’s early years, and to equality, when parents are enabled to take equal responsibility from the very start. For me, the Bill is a foundation not just for how we support babies, but for how we support families to support their babies, because it is families who are at the coal face, families who get up in the night, who do not get to clock-off, and families who get the criticism when things go less well with their children. I would like to make a point in support of targeted universalism, as some of my colleagues have made, with early years support. It feels like it strays outside my political home in some ways, but not in others. The Labour movement was founded in working-class families and ensuring opportunity for all, but the movement has been upheld and sustained by other groups, particularly feminists—and feminists of all backgrounds. While we must ensure that financial disadvantage does not become a barrier—and I will always defend that as the first goal of a Labour Government—we cannot ignore the strain that women from all backgrounds are under with caring responsibilities, especially at the earliest stages of a child’s life. I wanted to be a politician because I have felt for the last 20 years how relentlessly hard it is for women, even from a more supported background, to do everything expected of them. We need earlier services for all women—for all families—because currently even wealthier women hold a hugely disproportionate amount of the responsibility for physical caring and the mental load of working out what is the right thing to do for their child. We need to support those women, because it is against our Labour values to still be enabling such inequality of care. We also need to support them because it is often those women—if they have the right support and balance, equality with their partner, and confidence in the balance they establish between work and family—who get to stand up in this place and fight for everyone else. Most women I know do not think they could be in this place because of the things they would have to juggle. The Bill does not just enable healthy babies; it enables the systems for women to thrive. I have been incredibly lucky to have a largely positive journey with my two gorgeous children, but it should not be luck that made that happen, and it should not be luck that enabled me to stand in this place because of that equality. The Bill recognises something that every parent knows: raising children is not a private issue to be solved behind closed doors; it is a public good. When we support parents, we support children’s development, strengthen families, improve health outcomes and reduce inequalities. Unlike what most economic theory would have us believe, human capital does not just appear like magic at age 18; endless unseen effort goes into creating those productive, mentally healthy members of society. The Infants, Parents and Carers Bill asks us to take those realities seriously. It asks us to invest earlier, think longer term and put parents, babies and carers at the centre of policy rather than taking them for granted. For those reasons, I am frankly emotional that this Bill might actually become legislation, and I am beyond delighted to support it.

   Hansard source
3. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Maya Ellis

   Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

   As much as we know the damage that screentime can do, a good majority of parents use screens not because they think that that is the best thing for their child; they are often used as childcare or as a way to get the tea made. Does the hon. Member agree that it will be critical for this Government to research why parents rely so much on screentime, and how we can support parents not to have to do so?

   Hansard source
4. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Laura Kyrke-Smith

   Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

   This is such an important Bill, and I am pleased to support it. He is not in his place, but I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) for bringing it forward. What a credit it will be to him if the Bill proceeds. We would also not be here without the work of Dame Andrea Leadsom and all the team at the 1001 Critical Days Foundation, and I put on record my thanks and appreciation to them. I also take the opportunity to wish the most important baby in my life, my little niece Hallie, a very happy first birthday which is coming up next week. The Bill does vital work putting into law the requirement to ensure that infants, parents, carers and prospective parents receive the support that they need at this vital time in life: the start of a baby’s life. We have heard many examples of how this would be transformative for the babies and families who lie at the heart of the Bill, and rightly so, because evidence is compelling that the care that a baby receives in those first 1,001 days from pregnancy to aged two, when those vital neural connections are forming in their brains, can affect their life chances in so many ways, from education to health to earnings potential. My contribution will focus not on the babies, but on their parents and carers, specifically pregnant and new mums and their partners, and the mental health challenges that they can face at this time of life. I believe the Bill will improve the support available to them. However, babies and their parents are connected, of course, because we cannot separate a baby’s wellbeing from the wellbeing of those caring for them. When parents are struggling with their mental health, the effects can be felt throughout the family. As compelling evidence from the Maternal Mental Health Alliance and others shows, perinatal mental illness is associated with increased risk of poor emotional, intellectual, social and physical development in children. It can disrupt attachment and bonding during the period when secure relationships are laying the foundations for a child’s future health and wellbeing, but when parents and carers are supported, and when babies experience that secure attachment as a result, babies go on to thrive. Perinatal mental health is an issue close to my heart, as I have said in the Chamber before. I lost my close friend Sophie to suicide after the birth of her third daughter, when her little girl was just 10 weeks old. I have introduced my own Bill to stop more people suffering in the way that she did. My Bill would require that every pregnant and new mum has a mental health check-in, and I am continuing to push that forward. No matter how many times I speak about it, the sadness and shock of losing Sophie does not lessen, because she struggled more than anyone should have to at that time of life, but too many people are still struggling in the way that she did. For many families, a new baby is time for excitement and joy, and I am so glad when that is the case, but for many others, it is time that can be marked by anxiety, depression, trauma, isolation and, in some cases, severe mental illness. Across the UK, about one in four women experience a mental health challenge during that time. That means that families in every community and every constituency are living with the realities of perinatal mental illness. This can include post-natal depression, anxiety disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder and, in some cases, severe illnesses, such as post-partum psychosis. These challenges can affect first-time parents, as well as experienced parents—for Sophie, it was her third time as a new mum. They can come quite unexpectedly, including for those with no history of severe mental illness. We have spoken about how babies’ brains are forming in those 1,001 days, but a lot is happening for a mum at that point too. There is a brilliant book by Lucy Jones called “Matrescence”, which I recommend to everyone. It sets out the profound hormonal, neural and cognitive changes that occur during motherhood, which have consequences for people’s sense of identity and self in much the same way as happens to teenagers during adolescence. There have been some brilliant advocates for the idea of matrescence, including Maggie Gordon-Walker, who I want to acknowledge. All of that creates challenges to mental health, which can have incredibly serious consequences. There is a great report by MBRRACE-UK—Mothers and Babies: Reducing Risk through Audits and Confidential Enquiries across the UK—called “Saving Lives, Improving Mothers’ Care” that shows that suicide remains the leading cause of death among women between six weeks and year after birth. That is a life lost, but it is also a family broken. That is the shocking and sobering reality of families not getting the recognition, understanding and support that they need at this time. That has consequences, not just for the people at the heart of the situation, but way beyond that, for the economy and society. The London School of Economics estimates the long-term cost of untreated perinatal mental health problems to be about £8.1 billion every year. Significantly, about three quarters of that cost—72%—arises from the long-term impact on the children’s ability to learn, earn, be healthy and care for themselves later in life. Correcting all that has to start with raising awareness. Despite a lot of great advocacy and awareness-raising work from many organisations, including the Maternal Mental Health Alliance, Jo Cruse at Delivering Better, and the Hearts and Minds Partnership, we still recognise and understand perinatal mental health poorly. As a result, people continue to suffer in silence. They are afraid of being judged and fear that admitting that they are struggling could somehow be seen as a failure, or they might recognise that something is not right but they simply do not know where to turn for help. Awareness alone is not enough; we need support too, and that is where the Bill comes in. I will touch briefly on four ways that it could make a real difference. First, the principle behind it is that everyone in England—regardless of who they are, where they are from and what their background is—is equally deserving of support at that time in life in the eyes of the law. The reality today is that not all pregnant and new mums get the same support. The evidence shows that mums from black and minority ethnic communities face much poorer outcomes and greater barriers to accessing care. Younger mothers, families in poverty and deprivation, and those living with the effects of domestic abuse or other past trauma encounter additional obstacles and worse outcomes, and that is simply not acceptable. The aim of the Bill is to enable every family to access high-quality support. That important principle is supported by many experts, including the Royal College of Midwives and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The second important point about the Bill is the period that it focuses on. For someone struggling with their mental health, it is vital that the support kicks in at the very early stages of the 1,001 days. As others have said, the systems too often kick in when people are at crisis point, but for support to be effective it has to kick in early. It is about identifying the vulnerability early; building trusted relationships with the midwives, GPs and health visitors providing care; providing continuity of care; and ensuring that mums feel seen, heard and supported long before the difficulties become overwhelming. There must be the possibility of being referred to specialist services if necessary. Once the baby gets to the age of two, it can be too late. They have already formed their early understanding of the world, and the family has had to get through that really tough first phase, so that time period is critical. Thirdly, it is absolutely right that the Bill extends the statutory support in a wide-ranging way across infants, parents and carers. It is not enough to focus on just one member or one part of the family. On mental health, my speech has obviously focused on pregnant and new mums, but it is equally vital to consider the needs of fathers, partners and other carers at that time. There was a very worrying Samaritans study from Wales recently, which showed for the first time, in an evidence-based way, the really high rates of suicide among new dads and the many barriers to support that they face. That should compel us to act. There are good examples out there of good support to dads. I was talking to the mental health midwives at my local hospital, Stoke Mandeville in Aylesbury, and they use something called the DadPad, which has a book that comes alongside it. It has easily accessible information and advice about how dads can look after themselves and give their child the best start in life. That good advice is out there, but it is not routinely available, so I see the potential of the Bill ensuring that everyone who needs that guidance can access it. Fourthly, it is right that the nature of the support in the Bill is very broadly defined. It is obviously for the Government to work further on. A model of broad, cross-cutting, joined-up support is embedded in the Government’s Best Start family hubs programme. I am proud that they have introduced it and are driving it forward. It is already benefiting my constituents, and the Best Start family hub Elmhurst is opening this month. With those mental health teams, infant feeding support teams, SEND support teams, maternity care, primary care, health visitors and the voluntary sector all co-located in one place, families will be able to access the joined-up support that they need, whatever that might be. There is also such an important opportunity for the voluntary sector to dock in with other services on offer from the local authority and the NHS. Often, that sector is overlooked in these debates, but if we did not have such brilliant active voluntary and community organisations across our constituencies, a lot more women and families would fall through the cracks.

   Hansard source
5. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Laura Kyrke-Smith

   Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

   I agree, and my hon. Friend makes an important point. We see these pockets of good practice across the country, but too often they are not flagged up through the system. Certainly, we in this House do not become aware of them. Part of the potential of the Bill is that, through those reporting mechanisms, we will get a better sense of what works and what does not, with the potential to roll that out and scale it up. I pay tribute to the brilliant PANDAS group in my constituency, which offers tea and coffee, and toys for the kids, but is also a really supportive space for new mums to meet other mums who may also be struggling. There are such organisations across the country—Mothers for Mothers in Bristol does fantastic work along those lines. I went to a wonderful session by Breathe Melodies, which works across London to harness the power of community and singing to bring mums—and dads now—together and to provide that support. Sport in Mind is more about getting people out and walking, and also talking. There are fantastic voluntary groups, and we need to think about plugging them into the support that would be provided through the Bill. As others have said powerfully, a baby cannot tell us when they are struggling or when their family is struggling. They cannot navigate a complex and fragmented healthcare system or advocate for improved services. A baby relies on us, as legislators, to ensure that that support exists. That is why the Bill is so important. My ask as we consider this legislation is that we recognise that supporting perinatal mental health and, more broadly, the mental health of parents and carers, is fundamental to that ambition and such a key determinant of whether the infants, parents and carers at the heart of the Bill go on to thrive.

   Hansard source
6. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·John Grady

   Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

   I start by paying tribute to the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), who has served our family of nations in many different ways with real distinction. Ensuring that we are here discussing how we make sure that our society treats every baby with compassion and love and provides them with safety is his finest achievement. I welcome the fact that so many Members have come along to signal to our family of nations that this is such an important topic. As a Labour Member of Parliament, I am immensely proud of my favourite policy of the 1997 to 2010 Government: Sure Start. Being an MP and able to change laws is something precious, and being a Government MP—a Labour Government MP—is immensely precious to me I find it helpful, as a recovering lawyer, to road-test drafting against real-life examples of what might happen, and what we are seeking to do. One must ask, will this Bill work in the real world? I say it will. I have assessed the Bill against the serious safeguarding issues raised in the Glasgow Child Protection Committee’s learning review about Family C. The report pointed to catastrophic failures in the care of four babies and children in my home city. The neglect and abuse of the children was catastrophic, and the system that was meant to protect them did not do so. Against that, I turn to the first duty in the Bill, which is a duty on, and a power for, the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying the services that are relevant to good outcomes for babies. The Family C case points to an important issue when the Secretary of State comes to exercise her discretion: what services should be covered? That will need very careful thought. Consider homelessness services. The report shows that there were 12 occasions when housing and homelessness services came into contact with the family, and could have had the opportunity to identify and report risk factors. That did not happen. Another example of the sort of services that the Secretary of State will need to grapple with are health and dentistry services. This example occurred in 2010, when child A was three and child B was less than four months old: “In February, Child A was diagnosed with a squint and referred…but was not brought to the appointment. Child B was diagnosed with a small heart defect. By April he had missed three outpatient cardiology appointments.” For today’s purpose, that points to the importance of the careful exercise of the power in the Bill so that all relevant services for babies are captured. I also applaud the Bill for another reason: it signals to those involved in the care of children how important the care of babies is. It is Parliament speaking to the professionals involved. The Bill also provides for a duty on the Secretary of State to consult parents, carers and prospective parents and carers when making the assessment of the level of need of services, and to take those views into account. For all the reasons set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh), that is a very important requirement; however, I am anxious about one point. I appreciate that it is not possible to consult with babies, but while adults have a voice expressly specified in the statutory framework, babies and children do not have a voice in the Bill. Related to that is a central principle underpinning child protection law: that the law should act, and we should act, in the best interests of the welfare of a baby or child. The Children Act 1989, in relation to England and Wales, explains that when a court is considering these matters, “the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration.” The analogous Children (Scotland) Act 1995 provides that “the welfare of that child throughout his childhood shall be…its paramount consideration.” It naturally follows from the use of the word “paramount” that the child’s interests must be prioritised over those of any adults in the child’s life. A potential response to what I say is that all this is obvious, but even though it is obvious to all of us here, it is not always acted on—children are not listened to. A lesson from the learning review is that the staff in Glasgow did not ensure that they were listening to the children, and observing what the children were saying through not only their words. The learning review explains: “Indicators of distress, like headbanging and deliberately seeking eye contact with professionals were not considered”, and the children’s welfare was not considered paramount. When there was a conflict between the welfare of the children and what the adults were saying, the babies’ welfare was not prioritised. On page 28, we read: “Overall, professionals accepted the parents’ view of the children’s behaviours as being ‘challenging’. When staff raised concerns about the children’s care with the parents, they would effectively shift the issue to what it meant for themselves. Child A’s behaviour was generally described by staff from the parents’ perspective i.e. that her behaviour was “challenging”. I gently suggest that serious thought is given to ensuring that the operation of the Bill, and perhaps even the drafting, gives greater weight to the interests of babies and some sort of mechanism to give babies a voice in the assessment and the Bill’s process. I now wish to make some brief remarks on duty four. This is another important provision in the Bill and it requires the Secretary of State to assess an appropriate level of provision. I believe that that is critical in Scotland as well, and I hope the Scottish Government look at the Bill and consider whether something similar should be introduced in Scotland. What this very sensible provision calls for is an assessment not just of the number of social workers or the amount of money spent, but of the quality of the services—whether there are sufficient senior social workers, and so on. In that regard, one of the many questions left unanswered by the learning review is whether the overall level of service provision in Glasgow is adequate. The learning review does not address that, but it is a very important question, because what happened to those babies really points to a lack of appropriate resources. Child A was born in 2007 to an adult mother who had serious substance misuse problems. She was born with neonatal abstinence syndrome and as a result of that was placed on the child protection register. Despite that, there was no adequate scrutiny of the adults involved in the child’s life. No qualified social worker was allocated to child A—a baby at the time—from February 2008 to October 2009, when adult E was pregnant with child B. That was despite very many serious issues being identified. This is the important point about the Bill: it calls for an assessment about whether we are putting adequate resources into the safeguarding of babies. It is an essential question that must be answered in Scotland, too. The Bill is incredibly important. It forces this House—because it will result in reports being laid in this House and in the other place—to grapple with whether we are doing everything possible to give babies and young children the best possible start in life. It is underpinned by a critical point that I think each and every person in this House today shares: that our youngest children must be treated with love, compassion and safety. I have concerns and their voices should not be dismissed. For that reason, I am delighted to support the Bill.

   Hansard source
7. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jess Asato

   Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

   I also hugely thank the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) for bringing forward such an important and necessary Bill, which has my wholehearted support. I declare my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for children and as a member of the parliamentary advisory group for the 1001 Critical Days Foundation. I also proudly declare that, a decade and a half ago, I worked for Dame Tessa Jowell, who pioneered the transformational Sure Start programme that the spirit of the Bill echoes back to. When announcing the first Sure Start trailblazers in this very place, she said that we are not prepared to allow children’s opportunities to be set on the day that they are born. The nature of parental influence on babies was brought up with me recently, when my daughter stayed with a family friend, and on her return said, “Mum, she taught me a brilliant poem by a guy called Larkin.” It goes: “They”— mess— “you up, your mum and dad, They may not mean to, but they do. They fill you with the faults they had And add some extra, just for you.” As shocked as I was at hearing her use the vernacular, I was delighted that she had discovered Larkin, as “This Be the Verse” was also a favourite of mine as a teenager, but I know more now than I did when I was a teenager. We now have the brilliant research and evidence that shows that with support, parents can bond and love their babies. Breaking the stranglehold of intergenerational trauma is possible. There was a huge wealth of evidence that sat behind the need for Sure Start, so it was devastating to see that by the time I was having children, the strong political consensus built by the late 2000s around the value of investing in the early years had become undone. It is, after all, easy to make cuts to services supporting babies, given that they neither have a voice or a vote. It is also heartbreaking that the most recent evidence by the IFS, quoted today, shows that children who attended Sure Start had higher educational attainment, particularly those from the most-disadvantaged backgrounds. That was exactly the ambition and what underpinned the introduction of Sure Start by Tessa, David Blunkett and others, only to come to fruition after the whole programme had had the rug pulled from under it. However, I think Tessa would be delighted to see, through this Bill, the reforging of that cross-party consensus on the issue of support for babies and their parents. For that I thank Dame Andrea Leadsom, who co-chaired the 1,001 days all-party parliamentary group with Tessa, for her work on making the Bill a reality, and carrying the love for the smell of babies—which they regularly discussed in Tessa’s office—into her programme of work at the Department of Health and Social Care, alongside former Minister Will Quince. I also thank Jess Mills, Tessa’s daughter, and her organisation Start Strong, through which Tessa’s legacy lives on. It is our duty to not just to Tessa’s memory, but the lives of babies and parents across the country facing the stark inequalities at the start of life, to embed the principles behind the Bill in legislation, so that they can stand the test of time. I have a particular interest in safeguarding, and given that babies under the age of one account for a third of serious safeguarding reviews, and around three fifths of child deaths reviewed nationally, any Bill that makes babies more visible to multiple services is incredibly welcome. It is a stain on our idea of equality that so many babies in this country begin life already at a disadvantage, that babies in the top 10% most-deprived areas are more than twice as likely to die as those in the 10% least deprived, and that almost a third of parents cannot afford to provide balanced meals. The Bill will only succeed if it makes that scandal of inequality an issue that no future Government can simply ignore. It must be strong enough to hold successive Governments’ feet to the fire. For that to happen, the Bill must have the teeth to achieve it. I am slightly concerned that the strength of the accountability process set out by the Bill is undermined by the ability of any Secretary of State being held to account by it to define the scope against which they are assessed. To me, that is not strong enough. I would like to see in the Bill the specific outcomes that Governments must improve for babies and young children. There is precedent for that. The Childcare Act 2006, which helped establish the framework for Sure Start children’s centres, placed a duty on English local authorities to not only improve the wellbeing of children in their area but, crucially, reduce inequalities between young children across a number of named outcomes, including physical and mental health and emotional wellbeing. If we want successive Governments to work to improve outcomes for our babies, that requires us to be bold enough to say so in primary legislation. If we could place that duty on local government 20 years ago, surely we can ask the same of our national Government today. It is, of course, heartening to see the investment that the Government are providing and that they are rolling out more Best Start family hubs. I recently visited Kirkley Best Start family hub in Lowestoft to see its perinatal mental health support in action. While there, we met a mother who experienced a mental health crisis and found it difficult to bond with her baby. With support from the mental health worker, she and her husband were slowly able to build those blocks. When I met them, she said that things were still hard but she was able to love her baby, now a curious toddler, and she called her worker her rock. Relationships are the key. This is not just a service or intervention, but the very best of what Tessa would call the “relational state”. Perhaps man may not need to hand misery on to man, and this Bill can play its part in that.

   Hansard source
8. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Helen Hayes

   Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

   I congratulate the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) on coming top in the private Members’ Bill ballot and on his choice of Bill. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for her work to champion the needs of very young children and their families over many, many years. I thank the 1001 Critical Days Foundation for its work on the Bill. Its research so clearly demonstrates how critical the first 1,001 days—the stage from conception to the age of two—are for child development and the unique opportunity they offer to set every baby on a solid foundation for the rest of their life. There is a sign outside the wonderful Sheringham nursery and children’s centre in east London that captures the importance of the first 1,001 days perfectly: it reads “Building brains here.” During the first 1,001 days, babies’ brains develop at the most astonishing rate, forming over 1 million neural connections every minute and reaching 80% of their adult size by the age of two. The right support during this vital phase of development can bear fruit for a lifetime in terms of good emotional regulation, learning capacity, language and communication skills, and physical health. Conversely, without the right inputs in early childhood, the impacts of disadvantage can become embedded for a lifetime. Good support in the first 1,001 days involves a wide range of people. It means family, of course, but also midwives, health visitors, GPs, parenting support, breastfeeding and weaning support, and perinatal mental health care. It can also involve special educational needs and disabilities specialists, and, sadly, sometimes those in safeguarding and social services. This network of people involved in providing support for babies, parents and carers during the first two years gives meaning to the phrase “It takes a village to raise a child.”

   Hansard source
9. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Helen Hayes

   Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

   My hon. Friend is right. I mentioned the need for early access to SEND support, and I would include audiology in that category. Those services are vital, as are speech and language services, which we know are all too often not available at the earliest possible opportunity. In a moment, I will speak about the importance of that very early intervention. That network is the village, and the village should be available in every community for every family, right across the country, every single week of the year. One of the proudest achievements of the Labour Governments of 1997 to 2010 was the creation of Sure Start—a children’s centre in every community, bringing together a range of universal services for pregnant women, new parents and carers, and children under a single roof in local neighbourhoods. I once again pay tribute to my predecessor, Dame Tessa Jowell, for her pioneering work to establish Sure Start right across the country. The results of Sure Start were transformative, with long-term evaluations showing that integrated early childhood interventions significantly improved long-term health, especially for disadvantaged children; reduced hospital admissions; and improved GCSE results. The analysis also showed that investment in those services represented exceptional value for money and a positive financial return, with every pound spent on Sure Start delivering more than twice as much back in societal benefits. My own daughters were born in 2005 and 2008, and we experienced at first hand the benefits of that investment in the form of antenatal and early childhood support. It provided a gold standard in community midwifery services, excellent health visitors, good breastfeeding support, a drop-in speech and language therapy clinic when one of my daughters needed that, and a wealth of other services. All of this was delivered a very short distance from home in our local community, so we also got to meet other parents and babies at the same stage and to build relationships with them.

   Hansard source
10. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Helen Hayes

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    Later in my speech, I will make exactly that point about the importance of these services being available on a universal basis, for the reasons my hon. Friend alludes to. It was a tragedy that Sure Start centres were one of the earliest and most extensive casualties of the austerity of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition Government of 2010. The funding was not ringfenced; in many cases, the services were not statutory; and the integrated service design model was not mandated. In many ways, the strongest argument for the Bill we are debating today is the experience of just how easy it was for Sure Start to be dismantled, ultimately resulting in the closure of 1,300 centres and the loss of that precious and vital integrated network of support for babies and their families, which had been delivering so much. Those closures were compounded by the covid-19 pandemic, when access to face-to-face services in early childhood was very limited. We have seen the impact of that, particularly the increase in the number of children with speech, language and communication difficulties coming through the system in recent years.

    Hansard source
11. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Helen Hayes

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    I agree with the right hon. Member about the importance of face-to-face services. I mentioned the excellent community midwifery services that I was able to benefit from as a new mother. We have got ourselves into a terrible state with maternity care right across the country, with tragedies and a real challenge in turning those services around. One of the things I found so important and appreciated so much about that community midwifery service was that during the course of my pregnancies, I got to know the team of five midwives who worked in that service. One of those midwives took me through labour and the antenatal period. That was so important for building the trust that, in midwifery and maternity services in particular, has been badly damaged by service failures in lots of areas of the country. My second daughter has two middle names, one of which is Agnes. Agnes is the midwife who delivered both my babies through that excellent community midwifery service, about which I cannot speak highly enough. Those services have now largely gone; midwifery services are not delivered in that way anymore. On the delivery of online services, parents and carers—all of us—look for advice online all the time, so it is important that there are accredited, reliable, trustworthy sources of good information online. I do not dismiss the role of online services, but they cannot ever be a substitute for the delivery of in-person services. As our Labour Government seek to restore some of the provision that was lost as Sure Start was dismantled, and to respond to the challenges that families face by expanding Best Start family hubs, there are some vital considerations. The first, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) alluded to, is the principle of universality. None of us comes to parenthood for the first time knowing everything about what is best for our baby. For many new parents, irrespective of material resources, the experience is overwhelming. It is an incredibly vulnerable time of life: 10% to 15% of new mothers experience post-partum depression. We should therefore ensure that all new parents can access support and advice in the earliest years, and that it is easily accessible for everyone in their local communities. If support was delivered in that way, there would be no stigma associated with accessing it, and there would be the added benefit of helping to build community cohesion by giving parents from different backgrounds living in the same area an opportunity to connect with each other.

    Hansard source
12. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Helen Hayes

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    I agree with everything that my hon. Friend says. The role of fathers is so important, and they must have the opportunity to connect with each other and share their experiences. I will later talk about some powerful work on reading that involves fathers. Parenting support should be presented as something that absolutely everybody needs, not as something that people need only if they have a problem, because that is where the stigma creeps in. As well as making these services as normal as possible, we need to make them as accessible as possible. My hon. Friend also makes some important points about paternity leave.

    Hansard source
13. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Helen Hayes

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    I agree with everything that my hon. Friend says. It is important that Best Start family hubs are, like Sure Start centres, anchor institutions—anchor places in local communities—as well as places where individual services are delivered; then the whole will be more than the sum of its parts. The second principle I want to mention is the importance of the availability of SEND expertise in early years settings. The earlier that a special educational need or disability is identified, the sooner that appropriate support can be put in place. Early identification also enables parents and carers to understand their child’s needs and provide the support they need as they grow. Early intervention is not only the best for the child and the family, but much more cost-effective for the public purse. I therefore strongly welcome the Government’s commitment to put SEND specialists in every Best Start family hub. The third principle is the opportunity to participate in a range of activities together. My Committee recently published a report on reading for pleasure, which delivers such significant benefits for children’s development, educational attainment, empathy and mental health and wellbeing. Reading for pleasure should start as early as possible in a child’s life, with parents and carers reading to their babies. My Committee recommended a national reading guarantee that will embed opportunities to read for pleasure throughout every child’s life, from birth to the age of 18. This should start in Best Start family hubs. I pay tribute to the brilliant work of BookTrust and former Waterstones children’s laureate Frank Cottrell-Boyce in this area. They have modelled inclusive approaches to early years reading that engage and build the confidence of parents and carers, who themselves had negative experiences of reading at school and lack the confidence to read with their own children, by making reading together a fun and joyous experience for everyone. We heard some wonderful testimony about groups who do this work with fathers, grandparents, parents and carers, building the confidence back to do something that delivers such benefits both for children and for parents.

    Hansard source
14. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Helen Hayes

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We take a broad definition of reading in the report, including audiobooks, because this is about the stories and the connection. Any way that gets children and young people engaged in that is important. Frank Cottrell-Boyce makes the point so well that reading with babies often means books that do not have any words in them at all—it is about the pictures, the story and the engagement.

    Hansard source
15. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Helen Hayes

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    I was coming to that exact point. We must pay tribute to the legend that is the late Dolly Parton. We mourn her passing. Her extraordinary commitment through her Imagination Library means that children in my constituency, many other parts of the country and across the world can receive a book a month free of charge. We owe her a huge debt of gratitude for her generosity and leadership in this area. My Committee is undertaking an inquiry on the early years and will report shortly. I look forward to setting out our recommendations for the ways in which support in the first 1,001 days can be further strengthened to give every child the best possible start in life. In addition, we are working with the Work and Pensions Committee on a joint inquiry to scrutinise the Government’s child poverty strategy, because unless we tackle the scourge of child poverty, children will continue to experience the blight of disadvantage, which prevents them from fulfilling their potential. I welcome the Bill and I am pleased that the Government are supporting it. Placing early childhood services on a statutory footing will provide a better basis to ensure that these vital services are delivered consistently in every community across the country, making it much harder for a future Government to dismantle them, as previous Governments have been able to do. I welcome the requirement for an annual report to Parliament as the accountability mechanism for the new statutory duties. My Committee would welcome the opportunity to play our part in scrutinising the Government’s progress in this area. There is no more important task than giving every child the best possible start in life. It is important because every child is precious and deserving of love and security. It is important because the benefits to our society and our economy are huge. The Bill will play an important role in ensuring that we deliver for every single child, and I am proud to support it.

    Hansard source
16. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Peter Prinsley

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    The Kingdon review of paediatric audiology services demonstrated terrible shortcomings in that service throughout the country. Poor hearing leads to poor language development and poor brain development and is a catastrophic start to a child’s life. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that we must do all that we can to support audiology services? She mentioned a long list of health professionals; I would like to give a shout-out to audiologists.

    Hansard source
17. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Allison Gardner

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    I have spoken in this House before about Stoke’s rates of infant mortality, which consistently rank among the highest in the country. In the latest data, the infant mortality rate in Stoke-on-Trent was 7.6 deaths per 1,000 live births, almost double the national average. It is a stain on our society that in 2026 a child’s chances of reaching their first birthday can be influenced by where they are born. Infant mortality is explicitly linked to socioeconomic deprivation and is a consequence of deep-rooted inequality. Tackling our infant mortality rate is a goal that is deeply important to me, and I want to take this opportunity to tell the story of one of my constituents, Ashley Wilshaw—I will get upset—and the short life of her baby daughter, Chloe. It is upsetting, so if anybody who has experienced baby loss wants to step out, I am sure that Madam Deputy Speaker will understand. Chloe was born prematurely, just before 26 weeks, on 28 April 2011. That may sound like a long time ago, but it is not to Ashley. She was, in her mum’s words, “a settled, healthy and happy baby, a baby who knew what she wanted and fought so hard to be here.” As a premature baby, Chloe was at high risk of necrotising enterocolitis, or NEC, a serious bowel condition that can become life-threatening without quick intervention. Chloe had received blood transfusions and had been given formula milk, which are both risk factors for NEC. Chloe began to show signs that something was wrong. She became pale and quiet, her body temperature lowered, her heart rate rose to 200 beats per minute, she struggled to breathe, she began vomiting profusely and she refused feeds. Her abdomen became hard and distended, and blood appeared in her feeding tube—a clear sign of a perforated bowel, which leads to sepsis. Ashley did what any concerned parent should do—she asked questions, but she was not listened to. She was told that the blood was Gaviscon and that Chloe needed to continue being fed and medicated, causing Chloe agony. Ashley still was not listened to. When she persisted in raising concerns about Chloe, one nurse described her as an “over-the-top mother”. Chloe’s symptoms worsened. The investigations that may have identified the problem sooner were not carried out when they could have made a difference. Lactate levels were not checked. Blood gases were not carried out as appropriate. Scans focused narrowly on her lungs, and feeding continued despite signs of feed intolerance. Tragically, little Chloe died on 4 June 2011, aged just 37 days old. Leaving behind a very traumatised mum who, 15 years later, still struggles every day with her mental health to cope with the memory of the unnecessary pain and death of her precious baby girl.

    Hansard source
18. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Allison Gardner

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    I wholeheartedly agree. I have never experienced it myself, but I live in awe of how women keep managing to go, day to day, having had that experience. After fighting for answers, Ashley finally achieved an independent review, which identified missed opportunities to detect and treat Chloe’s NEC earlier, alongside multiple instances of sub-optimal care. That review came after four earlier investigations, fought for by Ashley, that, by the trust’s own admission, had not been conducted to the required standard. Finally, the Royal Stoke hospital has accepted the independent review and its conclusions in full. It has apologised to Chloe’s family and acknowledged that Chloe most likely would have survived had those opportunities to detect and treat her NEC not been missed. This is devastating, because at the heart of this case is a mother who knew that something was wrong; a mother who should have been listened to, and a baby girl fighting to live. I must state that the Royal Stoke has made considerable improvements to its maternity services in recent years. At the time of Chloe’s short life, the maternity service was rated as requiring improvement, with safety rated as inadequate. However, after much work, self-reflection, culture change and process improvements, the service is now rated good. I had the honour of visiting and seeing the work of the amazing midwives. I commend the hospital for turning things around.

    Hansard source
19. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Allison Gardner

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    My hon. Friend was with me on that visit, and I am sure he remembers how impressive it was. Importantly, one of the areas highlighted in that service improvement was communication with families and the way that feedback and concerns are now heard and acted upon. Listening to parents is not an optional extra; it is part of delivering safe and effective care. I ask only now, 15 years after Chloe died, that the hospital finally forward the agreed settlement to Ashley. She wants to provide a caravan holiday home by the sea for parents who have experienced the loss of a child, to allow them time to grieve and rest from the trauma. That brings me back to why the Bill matters. It calls for better support, guidance and information for parents and carers. In providing that support, we must recognise that parents know their children best. They know what is normal for their baby. They notice when something is changing. They may not always have the medical vocabulary to explain exactly what is wrong, but their observations are valuable. Their concerns should be acknowledged and considered and, where appropriate, incorporated into the clinical picture. Chloe’s case shows why that matters. Ashley saw that something was wrong; she raised concerns, she asked questions and she should have been listened to. Even while contending with the grief of losing her daughter, Ashley has sought to ensure that another family does not experience what hers did, and to ensure that Chloe’s legacy lives on. Ashley has developed recommendations for dealing with NEC, which show exactly what better support and guidance are needed—practical recommendations grounded in her lived experience. I ask the Minister to meet Chloe’s mother Ashley Wilshaw and me to discuss the recommendations and the lessons that can be learned from Chloe’s case. In the interests of time, I will not go through them now. I will never forget little Chloe Wilshaw or her brave mum Ashley. I hope Ashley has received some comfort from today. She has been listened to. I thank the Bill’s sponsor, the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), for bringing this crucial Bill to the House, and my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson). I am honoured to support the Bill. With it, we may create a brighter future for all our children.

    Hansard source
20. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Meg Hillier

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    Some Sure Start places in London were created before Sure Start was formally created, and having seen my children go through it, I saw its direct benefits. Sure Start was structured around hubs, and there was a desire to go out and visit people at home—indeed, many of us visit people in their homes. As the right hon. Gentleman says, Ministers will interpret this measure, but there is something about a home visit by professionals that reveals a great deal about the challenges that children face, whether before going to nursery or afterwards, and whether by a health visitor or a midwife. From his research in developing the Bill, does he have anything to say about the importance of that?

    Hansard source
21. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Meg Hillier

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    My hon. Friend and I have had similar experiences of the system. For me, one of the important things was that it did not stigmatise going to seek advice, whether it be about child psychology or speech and language. Does my hon. Friend agree that when Ministers start working on how to flesh out this Bill and put it into practice, it is really key that it must be universal?

    Hansard source
22. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Meg Hillier

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    My hon. Friend referred to the former Member for Nottingham North, Graham Allen. He not only had the idea, but implemented it through the Nottingham strategic partnership, which he chaired from 2005. He turned it into something that started pre-pregnancy, in order to tackle the high number of teenage pregnancies. He lived this, and set a real blueprint for what Government can do—I look to the Minister—when they take forward the Bill, which we hope will pass today.

    Hansard source
23. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Diana Johnson

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Government in support of the Bill. I congratulate the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) on securing first place in the private Member’s Bill ballot, and on bringing this important Bill before the House. In the 21 years that I have been in this place, I have never even got close to getting a private Member’s Bill, but I heard from the right hon. Gentleman that he had had to wait 30 years to get his, so there is hope for us all. It has certainly been worth the wait. The Bill reflects both careful thought, and a determination to ensure that babies, parents and carers receive the sustained attention that they deserve. I also recognise the valuable work of the 1001 Critical Days Foundation, and in particular Dame Andrea Leadsom’s long-standing commitment to that agenda. I served in Parliament with Dame Andrea, and I know that over many years she has helped to build understanding across Parliament, and beyond, of why pregnancy and the first two years of life matter so profoundly. Her leadership has kept babies and their families at the heart of the national conversation. I also commend the work of the CEO of the foundation, Will Quince, who previously served in this House and was a Health Minister, and of course I thank my distinguished colleague, the right hon. Lord Blunkett for all his work in this area. I want to refer to the late Baroness Tessa Jowell, who has been mentioned many times during this debate, and her pioneering work around Sure Start, which I will say a little more about later in my speech. I also thank Graham Allen, the former MP for Nottingham North, for all his work in this area. I am grateful to all the organisations, professionals, parents and carers whose advocacy and experience have shaped this debate. I acknowledge the many excellent contributions we have heard today, but I will start with the outstanding speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), who until this summer was an excellent Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care. In the 21 years that she has been a Member of Parliament, she has fought long and hard for the rights of babies and children, be that by promoting school food or free school meals or special educational needs, or in this case through all the work she has done to ensure Government support for the Bill. As she said, “Back our babies, back the Bill.” She has been campaigning on these issues for so long—indeed, as the right hon. Member for New Forest West said, “since God was a boy”. In my view it is “since God was a girl”, but I thank my hon. Friend for all the work she has done. We have had important and wide-ranging contributions from Members across the House covering many issues, and I will highlight a few. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), the Chair of the Education Committee, gave us the excellent phrase that is outside Sheringham nursery and children’s centre: “Building brains here”. I think that is very powerful. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) that raising children is a public good and we all have an interest in it. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) spoke about the important role of charities and the voluntary sector, of Home Start, and of the Extra Mile charity in her constituency. The hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer) talked about medical misogyny and domestic abuse, which are really important issues, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) talked passionately about her frontline experience of early intervention at Sure Start and, absolutely, the power of sitting down with a cup of tea and having someone to talk to. I also pay tribute to her role as the Government’s national maternity adviser, and her wise counsel in that role.

    Hansard source
24. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Diana Johnson

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    I will carry on, because I want to say something about other hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) spoke as a recovering lawyer and talked about safeguarding issues. I found his scrutiny of the Bill’s clauses interesting and important, and we will obviously reflect on that. I wish the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) well as a new parent—I think he is the newest parent in the House, so all the very best with that. He talked about maximising the potential of every child. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) talked about surrogacy and made passionate comments about the surrogacy laws, particularly in respect of international surrogacy. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) gave her personal reflections and talked about her community. The hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) talked with great skill and knowledge drawn from experience in her role on the APPG, and talked about the importance of support for mums. I add my best wishes to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) to Hallie on her first birthday. We heard about health inequalities. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) talked about how investing in babies will provide the fairer, stronger and more prosperous country that we all want to see. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) talked from the perspective of being a grandfather. My hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) talked about temporary accommodation. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) quoted one of my favourite Larkin poems—Philip Larkin was the librarian at the University of Hull for many years, and as a Hull MP, I know that poem very well—and talked about the importance of getting safeguarding right. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) spoke passionately on behalf of her constituent, Ashley, and baby Chloe. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend and Ashley, and I am pleased to hear about the improvements that have been made at the Royal Stoke hospital. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) brought her experience and knowledge as an NHS professional to the debate.

    Hansard source
25. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Diana Johnson

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    I know that my hon. Friend has a great deal of experience in this area. My door is always open to Members of Parliament to discuss issues within my portfolio, so yes, of course I would be happy to meet those Members. I want to say a little bit about the importance of the first 1,001 days. The Government have set out an ambition to raise the healthiest generation of children ever, and to give every child the best start in life. If we are to achieve that, we must begin at the very beginning. The 1,001 days from pregnancy to a child’s second birthday are a unique window of opportunity. During that short period, babies’ brains, bodies and relationships develop at extraordinary speed. The experiences they have and the care and support around them help to lay foundations for physical health, emotional wellbeing, communication and learning. I have seen that myself in recent weeks with the birth of my great-niece, Isabelle Diane. A baby does not develop in isolation: their world is shaped by the adults who care for them. Supporting a baby therefore means supporting the whole family, helping parents and carers to build confidence, protecting their mental health, strengthening the parent-infant relationship and providing practical help with feeding and child development.

    Hansard source
26. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Diana Johnson

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    I will carry on. That support must be accessible and compassionate. Parenthood can be joyful, but it can also be exhausting and isolating. Some families face the additional pressure of poverty, insecure housing, poor mental health or limited support networks. Early help cannot remove every challenge, but it can prevent difficulties from escalating and reduce inequalities before they become entrenched. That is why the child poverty strategy is also so important, alongside all that this Government are doing. Early intervention is not only the right thing to do for babies and families now; it is an investment in the future. When parents and carers receive the right help at the right time, children have a strong platform from which to grow, learn and thrive, and there is less need for costly crisis intervention later on. I want to say a few things about Sure Start. We all know that well-designed support can make a lasting difference. Sure Start, launched in 1998 under the previous Labour Government, brought health, early learning, childcare, parenting and wider family support together for families with children under five. At its best, it offered a trusted local front door, with professionals working around the needs of the child and the family, rather than expecting families to navigate a maze of separate services. The long-term evidence of the success of Sure Start is compelling. Research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that children with greater access to it experienced fewer hospital admissions later in childhood and adolescence, better educational outcomes, improved mental health and lower levels of school absence. That was felt even more profoundly by children growing up in disadvantaged communities. Very importantly, there is also a strong economic case. The central estimate is that Sure Start’s long-term financial benefits were about twice its up-front cost. That matters, because it shows that early support is not simply a desirable addition to public services, but can improve lives, reduce pressure on health and education services, and provide value for the taxpayer. The lesson is not that every aspect of the past should be reproduced unchanged. It is that trusted local provision, early help, joined-up services and a clear focus on families can make a measurable difference. Those principles run through the Government’s approach today. Through the Best Start family hubs and the healthy babies programme, we are building a more joined-up, prevention-focused system of support. As part of the wider best start in life agenda, Best Start family hubs are designed to give families a clear route to the help and support that they need, making it easier for them to find information, advice and practical help, from pregnancy through to childhood. They bring together health, early education and wider family services, and connect parents and carers with support with parenting, relationships, child development, special educational needs and disabilities and financial wellbeing, and with community support. Since April 2026, all 153 upper-tier local authorities in England have been delivering the programme. The healthy babies programme sits at the heart of the Best Start family hubs, providing focused help from conception to the age of two, particularly with infant feeding, perinatal mental health and parent-infant relationships. Those services support parents and carers to nurture their babies and promote healthy physical, social and emotional development. The Government are investing £200 million in healthy babies over three years as part of our wider £900 million package for Best Start family hubs and healthy babies. The healthy babies funding is helping 75 local authorities with high levels of deprivation to strengthen those services. The support is practical and preventive, and includes one-to-one and peer support with infant feeding, help with mild to moderate perinatal mental health difficulties, and evidence-based work to strengthen the relationship between parent and baby. The support also helps local areas to publish clear information and involve parents and carers directly in designing and improving services. Importantly, this is not a one-size-fits-all model. Local areas are responding to the needs of their own communities. Effective support is about not simply making services available, but ensuring that parents, carers and expectant families feel confident seeking help and can access it when they need it. It means building on the strengths already present in communities, creating opportunities for families to support one another, and developing trusting relationships so that no family feel that they must face challenges on their own. Through the 10-year health plan, we are committed to expanding healthy babies nationally over the coming decade. We want to create a visible local offer, rooted in neighbourhoods and designed around families. So why is the Bill needed? The Government are taking action to support babies and their families, but history shows us that effective early years support can be vulnerable when it depends mainly on time-limited programmes, non-statutory guidance or broad general duties. Priorities and funding arrangements change, and services that families value can lose visibility or become fragmented. As one of those who was around during the time when we had to fight to try to keep Sure Start in place, and who heard the warnings about how short-sighted it was to cut and dismantle the service, I know that the battle is really hard, so the Bill is very welcome. The Bill provides a focused and proportionate response. Its central purpose is to ensure that the needs of babies, parents and carers are systematically understood, reflected in relevant decisions and made visible to Parliament. Pregnancy and the first two years should not be treated as a passing policy priority; they should receive sustained attention over time. The Bill does not create a new individual entitlement to a fixed list of services, and it does not prescribe a single model of what these services should look like. Instead, it creates a durable national framework, so that decisions on infant support services are informed by evidence, assessed need and the lived experience of families. As we have heard, the Bill establishes five linked duties. First, the Secretary of State must make regulations specifying the publicly funded infant support services and relevant functions to which the framework applies. Secondly, the Secretary of State must assess the expected level of need for those specified services. Thirdly, in preparing that assessment, the Secretary of State must take reasonable steps to seek the views of parents, carers and those expecting to become parents or carers and must take those views into account. Fourthly, the Secretary of State must exercise the specified functions with a view to ensuring appropriate provision. Finally, the Secretary of State must report annually to Parliament on the level of provision and the contribution that those services make to positive outcomes. The Government support the Bill because it aligns with our priorities. It advances our ambition to raise the healthiest generation of children ever and reinforces the work that is under way through the healthy babies programme and Best Start family hubs. For those reasons, the Government are supporting the Bill this afternoon.

    Hansard source
27. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Diana Johnson

    Social Care and Mental Health Services: Hornsey and Friern Barnet

    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) on securing this important debate. I have spoken to the Minister for Social Care, who is happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss her concerns, including her concerns around standards of care in particular. We can arrange for that to happen. This debate is important because when we talk about social care and mental health services, it can be easy to talk in terms of systems, services, assessments and waiting lists, but behind every one of those words is a real person—someone who may be struggling to get through the day without the right support. It could be a family member who has reached breaking point in trying to care for someone that they love. Those are the people we must keep at the heart of the changes that we are making to our NHS and social care system. My hon. Friend has taken a sustained interest in these issues in Hornsey and Friern Barnet, particularly the pressures facing adult social care and mental health services, the importance of community provision and the importance of ensuring that people can access the right support at the right time. Let me be clear: it is unacceptable that anyone is left without the mental health care that they need, particularly when they are in crisis. Let me turn to the local picture in my hon. Friend’s constituency. There is clearly a variation in mental health need across north London. The prevalence of severe mental health illness is particularly high in Haringey, where an estimated 1.44% of residents are living with a severe mental illness—compared with 1.16% nationally—making it among the highest rates in England. Residents of Hornsey and Friern Barnet draw on mental health and social care services at some of the most difficult points in their lives. As my hon. Friend knows, the constituency is served by both Barnet and Haringey councils. There is a different picture in each area. Barnet was assessed by the Care Quality Commission as “good” in January ’25. Haringey was rated as “requires improvement” in February ’25, with the CQC highlighting concerns surrounding mental health discharge processes, communication and timeliness around hospital discharge, partnership working, and a shortage of move-on accommodation for people with mental health needs. I appreciate how important these issues are for people who are already facing considerable challenges, and how frustrating it is when services do not work together effectively. The Department has therefore supported Haringey through its improvement offer, and I am pleased that the council has engaged constructively with that process. In May, Haringey requested to be de-escalated from the Department’s formal reporting process, which was accepted. The council provided a voluntary update on its progress in August, and expressed confidence in its improvement trajectory. While that is encouraging, I want to be clear that de-escalation does not change the CQC rating, which remains at “requires improvement” until the CQC completes a further assessment. The CQC issued a notice of assessment on 3 August and we will now await the outcome. I hope that will provide a clear picture of the progress being made and, most importantly, help to ensure that people receive the safe, timely and joined-up support that they deserve. I want to say a few words about the national picture for mental health. I think we all acknowledge that the challenge is significant, but our ambition is significant too. The 10-year health plan sets out our ambition to reform the NHS, and we are already taking important steps to improve mental health services, including reforming the Mental Health Act 1983 to support better and more personalised care, and recruiting thousands more mental health staff. We are also making £473 million of capital funding available over the next four years, including community-based mental health centres and mental health emergency departments. That includes £343 million to establish 100 community-based mental health centres and 59 mental health emergency departments across England, building on the six centres already operating in Birmingham, York, Copeland, Tower Hamlets, Lewisham and Sheffield. One community-based mental health centre will be established in most places in England. That typically coincides with a borough in London. Mental health emergency departments will cover approximately 50% of type-1 A&E departments by ’29-30, and I am pleased to report that there is already a unit at Highgate mental health centre on Dartmouth Park Hill, which has been operational since 2024, but of course we recognise that we must go further. That is why we are developing a new mental health strategy for England, which will set out how we can transform mental health care so that people receive support earlier, face shorter waits, and are helped to stay active and participate in education, work, family and community life. On delayed discharge and in-patient capacity, my hon. Friend described how discharge delays can leave people with no choice but to remain in mental health in-patient settings for longer than is appropriate. The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that people can leave hospital as soon as they are ready, with the appropriate support in place, such as rehabilitation services. That provision requires effective joint working across health and social care services, which is why the better care fund has committed over £9 billion in ’26-27 to integrated care boards and local authorities. That pooled funding is intended to support services that help people to retain or recover their independence, and to prevent avoidable admissions. Funding recipients are expected to agree local goals for preventing avoidable admissions and reducing delayed discharge, and to work together to develop effective services. Let me address the point about social care, housing and community support at discharge that my hon. Friend made so eloquently. For some people, particularly those with more complex needs, being clinically fit to leave hospital is not the only condition required for a safe and successful discharge; the right social care, housing and community support must also be available to enable them to live well in the place they call home. In particular, autistic people and people with a learning disability can lack suitable supported housing options in their community, which can contribute to people remaining in mental health hospitals past the point of need. The Government are taking action to increase the availability of appropriate housing and support, including through the £39 billion social and affordable homes programme that my hon. Friend referred to, through which we want new supported housing supply across a diverse range of housing types, including for people with learning disabilities and autistic people. NHS England is also investing £13 million in 2026-27 through its housing capital programme, to support areas to develop housing for autistic people and people with learning disabilities outside mental health hospital settings, alongside additional funding to support the development of crisis accommodation. Supporting timely discharge incudes ensuring that suitable arrangements are in place. It is essential that people leave mental health in-patient settings safely, with appropriate support in the community and with their needs properly considered. Revised statutory guidance on discharge from mental health in-patient settings was published in 2024 under the National Health Service Act 2006. The guidance sets out how health and care systems can work effectively together to support discharge from hospital and ensure that the right support is in place in the community. It also includes best practice on involving patients and carers in discharge planning, as well as providing clarity on how health and care partners should work together effectively, including in relation to shared responsibilities and arrangements for funding section 117 aftercare. Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 places a duty on the NHS and local authorities to provide aftercare once they have left hospital to certain patients who have been detained under the Act. That aftercare should provide people with the support they need to live successfully and safely in the community, while reducing the risk of deterioration in their mental health and the need for further hospital admissions. Depending on an individual’s needs, aftercare can include accommodation, day services and other health and social care support. We know, however, that there can be a lack of clarity over which organisation is responsible for providing and funding aftercare and in which locality, which can lead to further delays in providing support to vulnerable people. The Government’s recent reforms to the Mental Health Act clarify which local authority is responsible for arranging an individual’s aftercare, by applying the existing social care rules on ordinary residents to people receiving aftercare under the Act. That should provide greater clarity and consistency for local authorities and ICBs, supporting more effective joint planning and better aligned aftercare services. I now turn to longer term adult social care reform and the Casey commission, which my hon. Friend referred to. We need to think ambitiously about the future of social care. At its best, social care is transformational. It can give people the support they need to live independently, maintain relationships, contribute to their communities and live the lives that they want. That is at the heart of the Government’s vision for a national care service: a system that is more person-centred, integrated with health services and preventive. The Prime Minister has been clear that he wants rapid progress towards that vision, working in partnership with the adult care sector. The Independent Commission on Adult Social Care, led by Baroness Casey, remains central to the Government’s ambitions to reform the sector. Baroness Casey’s Big Conversation on Care, launched on 29 July, gives people across England the opportunity to tell us what they want and expect from a future care service. This conversation will feed into the commission’s recommendations for the funding of adult social care, which will now be made in the summer of ’27. In the meantime, we will continue to put in place the building blocks of the national care service through improving support for the workforce and unpaid carers, and providing more than £4.6 billion of additional funding for adult social care in 2028-29, compared with 2025-26. I thank my hon. Friend again for raising these important issues and for shining a light on the experience of people who rely on mental health and social care services in her constituency. They are encouraging signs of progress locally, particularly Haringey’s engagement with the improvement process, but clearly there is more to do. The Government are determined to support local partners to make these improvements, while addressing the long-term challenges facing social care. Ultimately, this is about making sure that no one is left waiting unnecessarily for care and giving every person confidence that the services around them will work together when they need them most. Question put and agreed to.

    Hansard source
28. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Kane

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Opposition Members, but does he mean that both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats were involved in that?

    Hansard source
29. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Kane

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    I commend my hon. Friend and her Committee for the excellent “Reading for Pleasure” report. There is an irony that I am recommending the report—it is 130 pages—to everyone that I can. It said that reading for pleasure can include all sorts of things, such as manga books—my son likes those—and comic books. Reading for pleasure does not have to mean a novel, as we might think. Simply exposing children to the concept of reading and the choice to read is important. I certainly picked that up in the report, and it resonated with me. If Members have not read it, I commend it to them as very much worth reading.

    Hansard source
30. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Kane

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    I thank my hon. Friend for her compelling speech and for sharing so much about her own story. On the Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, we often get a sense that all this great operational learning is going on in communities, but it does not always turn into strategic learning back in Parliament. The Bill talks about a report of the year, but if the report comes back and no one reads it, we cannot learn how to do better. Does my hon. Friend agree that learning the great lessons that are going on in our communities is important for us, and that we should not lose sight of that in the Bill? We should learn at our level from the lessons going on in communities, to help what we do here.

    Hansard source
31. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Catherine West

    Social Care and Mental Health Services: Hornsey and Friern Barnet

    It is a real privilege to be awarded an Adjournment debate to discuss the profile of social care in decompressing the strain on mental health services in Hornsey and Friern Barnet. I begin the debate by emphasising how many improvements we have seen in society over the past 20 years when it comes to the position of people who suffer from poor mental health. I do not want this debate to be a counsel of despair. Rather, I want it to be an opportunity to push forward the work that Baroness Casey from the other House is doing, and to be positive about what can be achieved with the opportunity we have—with people seeing mental health services as part of a normal health condition—and how we can support people to have long and happy lives and live with a condition, and to support families and so on. I know that Members across the House will have constituents who get in contact time and again because they have fallen through the cracks of our porous health and care system. Navigating the endlessly complicated care pathways, from primary NHS care to social care, community support and housing, is not easy. The exponential growth in mental health referrals, coupled with the enormous pressures on local authorities to provide social care and social housing against increasingly constrained budgets, has created a perfect storm. That is being felt across the country, but most acutely in my community, where people are too often failed in their time of greatest need. Too many people are being left without the care, support and stability they desperately need to recover. A previous Labour Prime Minister emphasised that his priorities were “education, education, education,” but when it comes to mental health and social care, we need to talk about “early intervention, early intervention, early intervention”. The North London foundation trust, which covers Barnet, Camden, Enfield, Haringey and Islington, says that the financial challenges facing local authorities are really straining their ability to work together, as they are forced to consider more radical reductions in adult social care services. In particular, the reduction in investment in preventive and early intervention services is having a catastrophic effect, but local trusts are finding it hard enough to fund their basic statutory responsibilities. The lack of suitable housing and step-down care is also having a direct impact on in-patient services and contributing to much longer hospital stays. That is the system I will be focusing on today. The trust says that of the five local authorities it covers, Haringey is the most affected by the lack of suitable and affordable housing, and therefore has the largest number of delayed discharges. From January to July 2026, a total of 846 occupied bed days were unavailable to other patients desperate for care due to Haringey residents being unable to be discharged from mental health in-patient wards despite being clinically ready for discharge. In July alone, the trust had an average of 10 in-patients on their wards who were clinically ready to leave but could not be discharged due to lack of suitable housing provision or social care support, and 8% to 12% of the total adult in-patient bed base was unavailable to other patients who needed one. Healthwatch Haringey has highlighted the recurring barriers to gaining access to timely, co-ordinated and person-centred mental health support, such as lack of continuity between services, fragmented care pathways and inconsistent communication between providers. When services do not work together effectively, people experience poorer outcomes and are more likely to reach crisis point. This is precisely the cycle that we need to break. We need to protect organisations like Healthwatch and others that amplify voices so that we can understand the data behind monitoring service quality and amplifying patients’ voices. Someone who is clinically well enough to leave hospital can become trapped at the most expensive stage of the care pathway, unable to continue their recovery in the community. At the same time, someone desperate, experiencing an acute mental health crisis, may be unable to gain access to a hospital bed. This is not an effective use of public money; that public money could be spent on quality of care, which is desperately important for the families who are suffering due to issues around the particular care that their loved-ones have received. In March 2024, mental health trusts in England recorded 49,677 delayed discharge days—the highest level since national reporting began. Analysis of NHS data identified Barnet, Enfield and Haringey mental health NHS trust among the trusts with the highest levels of delayed discharge nationally. These figures demonstrate exactly the point I am making today: mental health cannot be treated in isolation from housing and social care. In order to fix one, we must fix all three. Disability Action Haringey, which does excellent work supporting disabled people to maintain their independence and freedom, has highlighted the combination of difficulties in accessing suitable housing, delays in obtaining social care, the financial hardship that so many suffer, social isolation and the challenges of navigating multiple services simultaneously. People experience poor housing or insufficient care, their mental health deteriorates, and they reach crisis point, requiring hospital treatment. We must break that cycle. In my constituency, the Safe Haven crisis hub provides a vital service, helping people to de-escalate during a mental health crisis and providing an alternative to accident and emergency. I know that this is the kind of example that Baroness Casey will be looking at. She is very welcome to come and visit Mind in Haringey, which hosts this particular crisis hub, because it shows the best practice. Staff there have seen people reaching out to their services with increasingly complex needs, often requiring co-ordinated support across health, housing, social care and the voluntary and community sector. That is why collaborative care and cross-body communication are so critical. We also have a rapidly ageing population across Haringey and Barnet, which will inevitably place additional pressure on social care. Haringey council’s older people’s needs assessment reported that Haringey had around 27,700 residents aged 65 and over in 2022, and that figure is projected to rise by approximately 40%. The pressure on our social care system is therefore going to grow, as we all know, and we need to ensure that the system is ready for it. The evidence is clear: mental health services cannot be considered in isolation from social care. Investment in social care is not separate from investment in mental health services—it is investment in mental health. Investment in supported housing is not separate from relieving pressure on the NHS, but part of relieving that pressure. Investment in community-based support is not simply about providing an alternative hospital, but about helping people to recover, maintain their independence and avoid reaching crisis point in the first place. I strongly welcome the Government’s commitment to address these enormous challenges, and was particularly excited to hear the Prime Minister talking about tackling social care in advance of 2028, which was when Baroness Casey was going to report back. I also welcome the Government’s wider action to improve mental health care through the NHS 10-year plan, and would like to ask for a meeting to discuss standards of care in the mental health service. I also invite Baroness Casey or the Minister to Mind in Haringey to see an excellent way in which the statutory and voluntary sectors work together. The Government’s actions meant that, earlier this year, we successfully reached the target of recruiting 8,500 mental health workers. That is a crucial step towards providing better and earlier care, closer to people’s homes. I welcome the £343 million to open 159 NHS mental health centres across England, which will give people access to specialist support away from A&E. These problems are not just about cash, but about the system being proactive and improving workforce morale so that we can improve outcomes for patients. Investment in housing is crucial, but the £39 billion earmarked for social and affordable housing has the potential to be transformative. Yesterday, we heard the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government lay out her vision for tackling rough sleeping, which is an element in the mental health jigsaw puzzle. If we want people to maintain their independence, they need appropriate homes and community support. If we want to prevent people from reaching crisis point, we need to address the circumstances that contribute to stress, worry and deteriorating mental health. Social care reform has been pushed down the road too many times, but now is the moment for it to come forward. We must invest further upstream to improve people’s lives, free up NHS capacity, reduce unnecessary hospital stays, support recovery and create a health and care system that is preventive rather than reactive. People living in Hornsey and Friern Barnet and communities across the country should be able to live safely, recover with dignity and get the right support. In pulling together my words, I thank the wonderful mental health staff at the North London NHS foundation trust, which sadly lost members during covid, because they were so close to patients—I feel that it has still perhaps not got back to where it was pre-covid. We need to support that workforce. I also thank Mind in Haringey, Safe Haven, Disability Action Haringey, Healthwatch Haringey, Haringey council, Barnet council and all the elected Members who care deeply about the future of social care in the UK.

    Hansard source
32. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Antonia Bance

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    I thank the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), who I think has just stepped out for a moment, and all my hon. Friends who have worked on this matter for so long, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson). I rise today to speak particularly on behalf of a group of babies who are particularly vulnerable and sometimes forgotten: babies who live with their families in temporary accommodation. There are 177,500 children living in temporary accommodation at the moment—a record level. We all wish that level to be brought down, and yesterday I listened to a statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, who set out plans as to how exactly we will do that. But for the moment, those 177,500 children remain in temporary accommodation, often in single rooms with shared facilities, living with damp and mould, and with no space to play, crawl or learn. They are often moved repeatedly, and are in a situation where their families lose touch with support networks; services struggle to keep in touch, as those families are far from their GPs, their health visitors and the hospital where their babies were born—multiple bus journeys away from the schools, early years settings and SEND specialists who were previously supporting them.

    Hansard source
33. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Antonia Bance

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. What a fantastic idea from our brilliant new Mayor of Greater Manchester—one that I will raise with our fantastic Mayor of the West Midlands to see if we can do something similar. I frequently argue with my Sandwell council to ensure that bus passes are provided to families in temporary accommodation. For some families, though, life in temporary accommodation can be even more devastating. Our friends at the all-party parliamentary group for households in temporary accommodation set out evidence showing that 104 children died in temporary accommodation between 2019 and 2025, and 75 of those were under the age of one. The Lullaby Trust, which does work on sudden infant death syndrome, sets out that temporary accommodation provides the ideal environment for unsafe sleeping. Often, these children are placed with their families in single rooms without cots; in 2023, 4,100 babies under one were placed in temporary accommodation by councils that provided no safer sleep advice to those families, and 903 babies were placed by councils in rooms without cots. This is personal. Babies in the 10% most deprived areas of the country are twice as likely to die as those in the 10% least deprived areas. My constituency is the 38th most deprived out of the 543 constituencies across England. I am always bound, when I say stats like that about Tipton, Wednesbury and Coseley, to say: we are proud, we are resilient, we care about our kids and we want the best for them. But, as our Prime Minister has set out, 40 years of deindustrialisation and 15 years of austerity has put us at the bottom of all the wrong lists, and it is our job to reverse that. Two hundred and twenty-two families are in temporary accommodation in my borough of Sandwell, with more in the bit of Dudley that I represent—that is 554 children. I am sure that other hon. Members will agree with me that there are some constituents who contact us who we worry about—and we worry about them constantly. We all have our lists. I know my families in temporary accommodation. Every one of them gets a call from my office every two weeks to find out where they are up to. Every one of them has been asked by my office, as soon as I know that they are in TA, “Do you have a cot for your little one?” Please ask families you come into contact with in temporary accommodation if they have cots, and please do your level best to find them a cot if they do not have one, because temporary accommodation is not safe for babies, and we should all be aware of that. I think of the families I have met. I met Katie in central Wednesbury, pushing her two sons through town, on the first day that I was a candidate. I do not think my agent thought that one of his jobs was going to be childcare for small children, but it was because I needed to speak to Katie. She talked to me about how the council had placed her two bus rides away in Walsall, and she was trying to keep her autistic son in his nursery setting, by hook or by crook, on two buses. Then, quietly, she rolled up her sleeve and showed me the insect bites from the infestation in the temporary accommodation that she was living in. She told me that she was ashamed to show me. The shame is not hers; the shame is all of ours that that was where she was living. It was not for long—we got her out—but there are still families in those situations. I think of Sarah—these are not their real names, by the way—trying desperately to cook, with three children, in a shared kitchen. How do you cook with three little ones around your feet? You cannot leave them in the single room that is your only private space. Steve, fighting for his family, called me at 20 past 6 about a month ago. He left a message: “Antonia, maybe you can help. We’re going to sleep in my car tonight—me, my missus and two kids.” They did not sleep in their car. I will not let people sleep in their car and my council, thankfully, will not let people sleep in their car, but I worry about our families in temporary accommodation. That is why I am here to speak on the babies Bill. Although the babies Bill cannot solve the housing crisis that we face for children in this country, it can ensure that babies caught up in that housing crisis are not forgotten. It will mean support for infants and parents put on a stronger statutory footing; a stronger assessment of need; and accessibility of services that families receive. It will help to make sure that our most vulnerable babies are identified earlier and supported better, especially our babies forgotten in hotel rooms, two bus rides away from where they usually live. The Bill will build on a measure introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 that councils must notify schools, GPs and health visitors when a child is placed in temporary accommodation. That means that better access to health visitors, stronger perinatal mental health support and earlier intervention to stop escalation will be more likely to happen for children in temporary accommodation. It means a better chance to thrive for some of our children, despite the challenges that their families face. I have to end by paying to tribute to my three family hubs—my Tipton family hub, my Wednesbury family hub and my Coseley family hub—because behind every statistic is a child and a family left devastated. We remember every one of the 76 babies who died in temporary accommodation between 2019 and 2025. They should not have died; they should have been safe. The Bill will protect services for all children, especially the most vulnerable, like our babies in temporary accommodation, and I am proud to support it today.

    Hansard source
34. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Amanda Martin

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    My hon. Friend is making some valid points about Sure Start, which I was able to use for two of my children; the service had disappeared by the time I had my third child. When we talk about involving all parents, does she agree that we need to make sure that fathers are involved? In the parental leave work that is going on, we have to ensure that self-employed fathers are not left out due to a lack of access to paternity leave. That would make it really difficult for them to attend these places that we are introducing and would cause stigma.

    Hansard source
35. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Amanda Martin

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    From the work that I have been doing, it is evident that 90% of parental leave is taken by the top 50% of earners in this country. That means that this is part of the class system; we are not allowing those lower-paid workers to take time with their babies. It is not that they do not want to be a good dad; they are literally priced out of being able to be a good dad.

    Hansard source
36. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Amanda Martin

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    I thank my hon. Friend for referring to the Labour Government’s initiation of Sure Start. Our Prime Minister, who was shadow Education Secretary, actually kept Sure Start going in Manchester while he was mayor. Even before coming to this place as Prime Minister, he continued to see the value of Sure Start in our early years education.

    Hansard source
37. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Amanda Martin

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    My hon. Friend is exactly right. Those places were a place for a cuppa, as we would say—somewhere to go along to without judgment. As someone who had been a teacher but had not had my own children, when I had my second child and did not know that I had post-natal depression, it was in the Sure Start centre that it was picked up, because somebody knew I was not being me; they were able to pick up on that. It was a really good working relationship with our midwives and local GPs, but also with the network of friends that you came to trust, whether you were talking about baby’s poo or about the fact that you did not feel yourself.

    Hansard source
38. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Amanda Martin

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    The hon. Member rightly highlights the fantastic work of kinship carers. One area that often goes unrecognised is siblings who take on their younger brothers and sisters. They may have experienced care themselves, and we have to make sure, when they hit adulthood, that the service wraps around them and provides them the opportunity to be successful in their life while caring for their brothers and sisters.

    Hansard source
39. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Amanda Hack

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    Breastfeeding is one of the reasons that this Bill is so important, because breastfeeding is about what happens before birth as well as in the first two years. When we look at the data, the trigger point for people not taking breastfeeding forward is about 16 hours after birth, so if they are given support before they have their baby, and they know where they can go straightaway, that will give them the confidence to breastfeed for longer. Does the hon. Lady agree that we have to make sure that this Bill covers both pre and post labour?

    Hansard source
40. 4 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Amanda Hack

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    I thank my hon. Friend for giving way in such an emotional debate. Does she agree that looking after mothers before, during and after having a baby is vital, particularly when birth trauma or, sadly, baby loss is suffered?

    Hansard source