Westminster Hall

Thursday 2 July 2026

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh in the Chair]

Backbench Business

Gentlemen may take off their jackets off if they wish.

I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of reducing levels of premature deaths from heart disease and stroke.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I thank hon. Members for attending the debate.

Cardiovascular disease remains one of the United Kingdom’s biggest killers and one of the greatest public health challenges facing our country. It devastates families, communities and livelihoods in every corner of the UK. It has touched countless families, including my own. My challenge is not cardiovascular disease but a congenital heart defect— a silent killer that was diagnosed last year following a routine health check. I am still completely symptom free, but will have to have open heart surgery to replace my aortic valve at some point. I am, however, in the very safe hands of the NHS.

Today is about ensuring that the voices of those living with cardiovascular conditions are heard in the House, but it is also about something even more fundamental. For the first time in more than half a century, we have seen progress on cardiovascular disease moving in the wrong direction. The question before us today is simple: are we willing to accept that, or are we prepared to tackle it? With the right political will and the right action, we can once again make the UK a country in which fewer people die young from heart disease and stroke.

The debate also comes at a significant moment for the British Heart Foundation. That charity, which was founded in July 1961, marks this month 65 years of funding lifesaving research. I am pleased that representatives of the foundation are here with us today, and I thank them all for the crucial support that they continue to champion and deliver day after day.

Let me move on to the scale of the challenge that we face. CVD is responsible for about 170,000 deaths each year in the UK—that is more than one quarter of all recorded annual deaths—with one life lost every three minutes. Put simply, while we hold the debate this afternoon, about 30 lives could be lost to CVD—let that sink in. More than 8 million people across the country are living with CVD, with many waiting for vital care, and many more living with conditions that increase their risk of CVD or a cardiac event. Yet much of that burden is not inevitable; it is preventable. About 70% of CVD cases in the UK are linked to modifiable factors such as obesity and smoking, alongside manageable risk factors such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol and diabetes.

While I am on the subject of diabetes, it is great to see one of my closest friends, Mr Jared Fox, sitting in the Public Gallery. This is also very personal for Jared, a type 1 diabetic who, back in 2018, suffered three heart attacks linked to his diabetes, resulting in his undergoing a triple heart bypass. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as the saying goes, and Jared is sitting with us now and smiling away, but I believe that, as a diabetic at higher risk, he should have undergone screening, not been left to get almost to the point of dying, unaware of the increased risks that he faced.

British Heart Foundation analysis shows that, despite decades of progress, premature deaths from CVD have been rising again for the first time in more than half a century. That should concern every single Member of the House. The cost is not just measured in lives; CVD also has a major economic impact, costing the UK an estimated £12 billion in direct healthcare each year and costing the wider economy about £30 billion.

CVD is also a stark reminder of health inequalities in the UK today as well. People in our most deprived communities are still far more likely to die prematurely from CVD than those living in the most affluent areas. That is just not acceptable.

My hon. Friend is making an important and passionate speech, especially in the light of the personal circumstances that he mentioned. I agree with him about deprivation. Does he agree that access to fresh, affordable food is incredibly important, particularly in the most deprived areas? In Castlemilk in my constituency, it is much easier to get a bottle of vodka than it is to get a banana. Does he agree that fixing that is part of the solution?

I absolutely agree. If we could get fresh food to more of our communities and young people, it would have a massive positive effect on dealing with CVD—that must be dealt with.

This debate could not be more timely. The Government have rightly identified CVD as one of the UK’s biggest killers, and have set a welcome ambition to reduce premature deaths from heart disease and stroke by 25% over the next decade. Parliament has a responsibility not just to welcome those commitments, but to scrutinise how they will be delivered.

The forthcoming CVD modern service framework for England, which Ministers have said will be published soon, presents a rare opportunity to reset our approach to heart health, but the real question is whether it will be equal to the scale of the challenge before us. This debate is also an important opportunity to press the Government on what the framework will contain, how it will be implemented and whether it will deliver significant improvements in prevention, diagnosis, treatment and care. Although the framework will focus on England, the challenge of CVD knows no borders. This is a UK wide challenge, and the lessons, opportunities and ambitions that we discuss today must resonate across all four of our nations.

Let me move on to the role of research and innovation. If CVD is one of our greatest challenges, research is one of our greatest opportunities. The remarkable progress made over the past six decades did not happen by accident; it happened thanks to charities such as the British Heart Foundation, great universities, researchers, clinicians and patients, who all worked together to transform outcomes. People like Jared are alive today thanks to research breakthroughs that were once thought impossible.

The life sciences sector plan recognises the UK’s potential to be a world leader in research and innovation. Cardiovascular health must be at the heart of that ambition. From artificial intelligence and technology that can prevent and enable early diagnosis to the development of cutting edge treatments and medicines, the United Kingdom has an opportunity not only to improve outcomes here at home, but to lead the world in tackling cardiovascular disease.

I respectfully ask the Minister not to simply restate the Government’s ambition, but to detail how that ambition will become reality for the 8 million plus people who are affected daily by cardiovascular disease. Let me ask some specific questions. First, when does the Minister think the modern service framework for CVD will be published? Secondly, how will the Government ensure that the framework is backed by clear delivery plans, accountability and measurable milestones, especially during a time of great challenge and change for the national health service?

Thirdly, what action will be taken to improve prevention, early diagnosis and management of major risk factors such as diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and atrial fibrillation? Fourthly, how will the Government ensure that action on CVD reduces health inequalities? And fifthly, how will the Government work with devolved Administrations, researchers, charities, clinicians and patients to deliver progress across the entire United Kingdom?

The UK has made significant progress on cardiovascular disease before, and we can do so again, but progress is not inevitable. It requires leadership, sustained investment and a laser focus on delivery. This is a pivotal moment, and we should all look to support the Government in their delivery of their cardiovascular ambition and to drive progress in heart health once more. I thank the Minister for setting out for us how the Government will turn their cardiovascular ambition into measurable action, tangible progress and, ultimately, the saving of thousands of lives.

I remind Members to bob if they wish to be called in the debate.

I call Mark Francois.

It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate about preventing premature death from heart disease and stroke. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster) on securing the debate and introducing it so ably. It is courageous of him to talk about the medical challenges that he has faced, and I am sure that the whole House wishes him the very best of luck on his journey. It is also nice to be with him in Westminster Hall, having spent five months debating with him in the Armed Forces Bill Committee. Stockholm syndrome kicked in, and we even started to like each other by the end, so it is doubly pleasurable to follow him in this debate.

It is great to see the shadow Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew)—a man I have always respected—in his place, and to see the Minister, whom I also respect. I have bumped into her in the Portcullis House lifts many times down the years, and it is wonderful to see her in a ministerial position.

I wish to declare two interests. First, I am a long time supporter of the British Heart Foundation, which does great work to research heart disease and improve the technology and techniques to combat what is still, I am sad to say, one of Britain’s greatest killers. I pay tribute to that wonderful charity. I also wish to pay tribute to my wife Olivia, who has worked in the NHS for some two decades now, and who revels in the title of lead neurointerventional radiographer. That is a bit of a mouthful, but if someone has a stroke, she is the girl they need. I say that because she works in the specialist neurointerventional radiography department at Queen’s hospital in east London. As the Minister will no doubt know, there are 26 specialist units around the country, and her team at Queen’s is very ably led by Mr Tufail Patankar, an internationally recognised surgeon and an absolute expert in his field. He has built up that team over time at Queen’s, and, from what I hear, he leads it very well indeed.

The technique that the team uses is called mechanical thrombectomy. It is an emergency procedure for treating acute onset stroke caused by a blood clot blocking a large artery in the brain—that is effectively what a stroke is. During the procedure, the interventionist neuroradiologist —the surgeon—passes a thin tube through an artery. It usually enters the body through either the groin or the wrist, goes up into the brain, finds the blocked blood vessel and then extracts the clot, which can sometimes be a couple of millimetres long—not an easy target to find. When it is withdrawn, blood flow is restored to the affected area of the brain, helping to reduce permanent disability, particularly if the procedure is performed quickly.

The department has a mnemonic: “Time means brain”—the quicker the operation can be performed, the more damage is averted and the greater the likelihood of recovery without complications. This was, admittedly, an exceptional case, but the team performed one of those operations on a man in his 20s within 90 minutes of the stroke occurring. He lived locally, and he basically walked out of the hospital a few hours after the stroke none the worse. That is what that relatively new technique can achieve.

As the radiographer, my wife guides the surgeon to the target. I call her the “bomb aimer”. Last year, Queen’s had a “bring your hubby to work” day, and I was taken to work. The hospital has two operating theatres back to back, with an observation area in the middle, so we could stand there and watch the operation taking place on a large screen. We could see the instrument going up into the brain towards the clot, at which point it attached itself to the clot and withdrew it. I have to say that it was not for the faint hearted; I was there with the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), and we stuck it out and saw the whole thing.

It is a very odd procedure to watch, because the patient is lying anaesthetised on the operating table. One would think that all the activity happens around their head, but it does not. The surgeon stands by their groin, where they have gone in, and then uses a very fine guiding device—almost like a gaming console—to control the instrument, taking their lead from the image on the screen that is provided by my wife, the bomb aimer. That is how it works.

Last year, the department at Queen’s performed something like 300 of those operations. It operates 24/7, so over the weekend the staff are on a cover rota, or on call, as they say in the NHS. If my wife is at home and the bat phone—as I call it—goes, she has an hour to get from our home to Queen’s, get scrubbed up, fire up all the equipment and be ready to receive the patients, some of whom may be coming from as far as Norwich and some of whom arrive by air ambulance. When the bat phone goes, there is no time to grab a cup of tea and a slice of toast; she is in the car and gone. Can I just say that the sooner they finally sort out the chronic mess at Gallows Corner, the quicker and easier that journey will become? But I digress.

There are only 25 hospitals in the country that perform the procedure. The reach of the department covers Essex and goes out some way into East Anglia, at which point it hands over to Addenbrooke’s in Cambridge. The department also has friendly rivals who do the procedure at the Royal London hospital in Whitechapel, which tends to cover Kent and south London, but that is on a rota. When the Royal London is off for a given week and Queen’s covers all the areas, it is responsible for a potential patient population of over 5 million. That is a tremendous responsibility, which is why we obviously need to have 24/7 cover.

The service is also growing. Anecdotally, I can say that the bat phone rings more than it used to. On one level that is a good thing, because the technology is advancing all the time and patients can now be treated who could not have been treated a few years ago. However, that obviously puts pressure on Olivia, Dr Patankar and the team.

I will make a plea to the Minister, if I may. I understand that the Government are evolving their strategy for stroke, as part of the 10-year plan for the NHS. Olivia and her team are keen to see that work evolve, but they are particularly keen to know what role there is for mechanical thrombectomy in the overall strategy. I have literally seen it at work for myself. It is a wonderful, lifesaving technology and technique that the NHS has been doing for barely a decade, and we are getting better and better at it all the time.

I pay tribute to the team at Queen’s, as well as all the other teams that do this work around the country, including, for the record, at the Royal London. Most of all—I hope the House will forgive my indulgence—I pay tribute to my wife. Being a Member of Parliament can sometimes be a time commitment, but being the husband of a woman who does this work can be a bit of a time commitment, too. Sometimes, when we are making plans to see people or go to dinner parties, I am not the long pole in the tent. I am very proud of what she does, I am very proud of what her team do, I am very proud of what all the people who work at Queen’s do and I am very proud of the national health service. For the record, I am also proud of the stroke unit at Southend hospital, which provides a very good service, although it does not do mechanical thrombectomy; it defers to Queen’s on that.

Well done to everyone who works in this area. I thank the House for its patience and indulgence. God bless all the people who work to save lives from stroke.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster) for securing this important debate and for his opening remarks on his own health. We all wish him well.

My speech today will focus on heart health. I am a former chair of the all party parliamentary group on cardiac risk in the young, where unknown heart conditions among young people are discussed. Keeping hearts healthy carries a broad message around prevention, lifestyle and early intervention, but what tools are we giving people? Diet is a key example, and it starts with our young people.

We cannot talk about reducing premature deaths from heart disease and stroke without talking about the environments in which people live. As an active member of the APPG on school food, where I was proud to serve alongside the Minister, I know how important it is for school food to meet nutritional standards and build healthy lifestyles and eating habits from an early age. Last year, 34% of year 6 children in my constituency were classed as obese. Meeting them where they are at with healthy habits when they are young is crucial. That is why I am so pleased to see free breakfast clubs rolling out across the country—I have two in my constituency—as well as plans to overhaul school food standards for the first time in over a decade.

It is now about convincing parents that school food is healthy and nutritional for their children, particularly when under 2% of packed lunches meet the current school food nutritional standards. Will the Minister outline what steps will be taken to change the perception of school food, in line with the valuable work the Government have been putting in to change it?

Meeting people where they are at with lifestyle changes is also crucial when we look at exercise. The majority of my constituents work in logistics, manufacturing and retail, doing physically demanding jobs that are often shift based, which can make it really hard to maintain regular diet and exercise routines. Will the Minister outline what steps the Department is taking to ensure that infrastructure in semi rural constituencies like mine can support walking, cycling and everyday physical activity, as well as allowing access to good, nutritious food? For example, my constituency is home to the heart of the national forest, a beautiful green space that encourages physical activity and exploration, but the only way to get there is by car, which seems counterintuitive.

On a positive note, the recently announced £8 million investment to improve community healthcare and access to weight management services across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland through the Government obesity pathways innovation programme is greatly welcome. Having served on the health scrutiny committee for five years as a county councillor, I have seen at first hand the impact that providing easier access to support can have on improving people’s health outcomes and reducing pressure on our NHS later in life. That investment will make it easier for people to access the support that they need in their own communities, whether that is advice on healthy living, behavioural support or clinical support where needed.

Like the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), I pay tribute to the service of our colleagues in the NHS. We are incredibly proud that the children’s heart health facility provided by Glenfield hospital is still in the east midlands.

Although ambulance times have improved nationally, the east midlands is still a little way behind national standards. As of May this year, we have the second highest average ambulance wait time across England for category 2 responses, which would include a suspected heart attack or a stroke, at 36 minutes. That is 11 minutes longer than the current national target, and twice as long as the target set pre pandemic. For those who are aware—I thank the British Heart Foundation for its continued support for me in my role here—every minute counts. Every minute that somebody suffering a heart attack spends away from crucial health advice can mean a 10% lower chance of survival. It should therefore not be a surprise that as of February last year, the survival rate among people who had an out of hospital cardiac arrest in the east midlands was only one in 14. Will the Minister set out what further action her Department is taking to bring down wait times, focusing on regions such as the east midlands, which is far behind the rest of the UK average?

As the former chair of the all party parliamentary group on cardiac risk in the young, I want to highlight the importance of cardiac health screening, of which I am an avid champion, as the Minister knows. Screening is a crucial way to target premature deaths. With the National Screening Committee consulting on whether to expand the recommendation of screening to people below 39, now is a pressing time to engage with it. In Italy, which introduced such screening in the 1980s, cardiac deaths among young people have dropped by 85%. We know that early detection through cardiac screening allows timely interventions that can save lives.

In my constituency, we have also been trying to build resilience. Rural communities are so much further away from main hospitals and health services, so we have been looking at how we can ensure that people know where their nearest defib is. We will now be doing an annual defib dash to encourage people to recognise where the defibs are. We have also been increasing CPR training and access in my community. The British Heart Foundation and the ResusReady campaign have been key to helping me deliver that.

Ultimately, reducing premature deaths from heart disease and stroke is about building a system and building the resilience that supports people at every stage, in every area of our country. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster) for setting the scene incredibly well on a subject that affects all of us. As always, I will give some stats for Northern Ireland, where unfortunately we seem to have a particular problem when it comes to premature deaths from heart disease and stroke. I declare an interest as the chair of the all party parliamentary group on vascular and venous disease, which has looked at the subject in some detail.

It is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I wish her well; she seems to be in Westminster Hall almost as much as I am, but with much more authority, I have to say. She and I have been friends for many years. I always start looking forward to her contributions the day before I hear them, because I know she will work incredibly hard to give us the answers we wish for; I thank her for that in advance.

It is also nice to see the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) in his place. He was a busy man when he was in Government and is now a busy man as a shadow Minister. He is always approachable, always dedicated and always dependable. We thank him for his commitment to the subject.

We cannot shy away from what the British Heart Foundation has rightly called a “ticking timebomb” on heart health. Across the United Kingdom, cardiovascular disease claims a life every three minutes. This debate will last for about an hour and a half, so the mathematics are quite clear: 20 people will have passed away between the start and the end.

I must do what I always do in this Chamber, which is to bring a specific perspective from Northern Ireland, where the crisis is acutely felt. It replicates the rest of the United Kingdom, in a way, but unfortunately the stats tell us that it is probably worse for us. The stats for Northern Ireland are indeed scary: an estimated 225,000 people are living with heart and circulatory diseases. To put that into context, because it is important that we do so in this Chamber, our total population is 1.95 million, so one in 10 of our citizens are fighting these conditions. When I walk up the high street in Newtownards in my constituency of Strangford, every 10th person I see will potentially be affected by heart disease, stroke or circulatory disease. That concerns me greatly.

The statistics from the British Heart Foundation’s Northern Ireland analysis are also deeply alarming. Cardiovascular conditions are responsible for 24%—nearly a quarter—of all deaths across Northern Ireland. That concerns me greatly, too. Even more heartbreaking is the fact that one in four of those deaths are premature, which means that the person could have been saved if they had had their checks or if help had come earlier. Because of my age, I can remember many occasions when someone has had a stroke or a heart attack and has died instantly. That includes some friends whom I have known over the years and who are not here any more.

It is also heartbreaking that those premature deaths are stealing the lives of people under 75. In a single year, we saw some 4,227 deaths due to cardiovascular disease. That means that every single month, 350 families in Northern Ireland are losing a loved one to a heart attack or a stroke. To put that into perspective, that is 350 empty chairs at the dinner table and 350 families left grieving. Sometimes, when we look at the stats, we think of the people who have passed away, but we must also think of the families on whom there is a significant impact.

The hon. Gentleman is, as always, generous with his time. We all fully appreciate the slant that he brings from Northern Ireland. Would he agree that there is also the issue of regional inequalities within England? We see in Yorkshire and the north of England some of the worst rates of survival when it comes to cardiovascular disease. Does he agree that we need to do more to close the gap when it comes to people from more deprived backgrounds and the poorer health outcomes that they face as a result of heart disease, stroke and other CVD?

The hon. Gentleman always sums up the thrust of the debate in his interventions; he has outlined that there is sometimes a postcode lottery. He is also right to underline that in areas with deprivation where the emphasis on health is probably less, the issues and the number of those with heart disease rise as well.

I must also declare an interest: I have lived with type 2 diabetes for over 20 years. To put that into perspective, I could call myself a big fat pudding—I was 17 stone at one time. I am now 13 and a quarter stone. I have done that through a bit of willpower, but also by trying to cut out the sweet stuff. I am not always successful, but I do try very hard. My diabetes is controlled by medication, and I thank God every day that we are able to control it that way. I know first hand how closely linked diabetes and high blood pressure are. I take a tablet for blood pressure; I cannot speak for anybody else here, but when hon. Members come to a certain age, they probably will as well. Along with high cholesterol, those two things increase the risk of a catastrophic stroke or heart attack.

I was recently at the diabetes event in the Churchill Room. The lady in charge told me that people with diabetes must always get a check at least once a year—have their heart checked and ensure that their blood pressure is under control.

As chair of the all party parliamentary group for diabetes, I should say that we have been pushing to make sure that, when people with diabetes have those diabetic care processes, those are better linked with other comorbidities and ancillary services. Does he agree that we need to see more of that to get better outcomes for people with those comorbidities?

I certainly do; the hon. Gentleman and I most definitely agree about that.

The tragedy is that so much of this premature loss of life is entirely preventable; if it can be prevented, then we should be doing more. The British Heart Foundation reports that half of all strokes and heart attacks are linked directly to high blood pressure. In his intervention, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) has again underlined that, as I have likewise tried to.

Right now in Northern Ireland, over 42,000 diagnosed hypertension patients are not being treated to clinical guidelines. That is unfortunate. Furthermore, 66,000 high risk individuals are missing out on statins to control their cholesterol. There are things that can be done and prevention strategies that we should focus on. My hope would be that those will improve. If we optimise care, we can save hundreds of lives almost immediately. Surely if we can do that, we should be doing it. If we can treat blood pressure properly over the next three years, we can prevent 380 strokes and 260 heart attacks in Northern Ireland alone—the place I am bringing the stats from.

The issue is not just about statistics, of course. It is about early detection, standardising care and addressing health inequalities. I look to the Minister to outline what direct, co ordinated action the Government are taking with their devolved counterparts: the hon. Member for South Ribble referred to that in his speech—I thank him for referring to the devolved Administrations, because this issue is about us all.

I know the Minister is always very responsive; has she had a chance to talk with the Health Minister in Northern Ireland, Mike Nesbitt, to ensure that the good things done here are exchanged with him? What can be done with devolved counterparts to tackle the missing patients? They are missing patients, but if they are missing then it is time to put them on the list, to ramp up the diagnostic screenings and, please, to defuse this ticking time bomb before it claims any more of us in this Chamber, or our constituents.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate my near neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster) on securing this important debate. I wish him well. I also congratulate the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) on achieving the childhood ambition of having his very own bat phone. I am, as they say, well jel.

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, not least as he is being so kind to me, but for the record it is my wife’s bat phone, not mine.

It will have been very important to place that on the record once the right hon. Gentleman gets home this evening, I imagine.

The Government’s aim to reduce premature deaths from heart disease and stroke by 25% over the next decade is welcome, ambitious and absolutely necessary. Cardiovascular disease remains one of the biggest public health challenges that this country faces. Across the country more than 8 million people live with cardiovascular disease. As has been mentioned, despite decades of progress, we now see a worrying reversal.

Premature deaths are rising again for the first time in over half a century. One thing I have personally been doing to reduce my chances of being a victim of cardiovascular disease is walking more. During the recent Makerfield by election, I was very lucky—not just to be part of the wonderful campaign to return a new Member to this House but to undertake almost half a-million steps around the streets of Wigan over the course of 17 punishing days. I am celebrating not only a new Member for Makerfield but having lost four pounds.

For those of us who represent communities in the north west, the challenges around cardiovascular disease are particularly acute. Health inequalities remain stark. People living in some of our most deprived communities are significantly more likely to develop cardiovascular disease and more than twice as likely to die prematurely from it. Behind every one of those statistics is a family changed forever. There is good news, though: many of those deaths are preventable. Up to 80% of premature deaths from cardiovascular disease can be prevented and 70% of cases are linked to modifiable risk factors such as smoking, obesity, poor diet and inactivity. That is why prevention should be at the heart of the Government’s approach.

We need to continue to drive down smoking rates, to make healthy food more accessible and to design our communities and the places where people live around cycling, walking and physical activity. We need to recognise—it is a cliché but only because it is true—that prevention is better and simply cheaper than cure. It keeps people healthier and more independent for longer, and allows people to fully participate in social life.

Early diagnosis is equally important. Millions of people are currently living undiagnosed with high blood pressure. We know that identifying and treating conditions such as hypertension, high cholesterol and the like earlier can prevent thousands of heart attacks and strokes. I particularly welcome the Government’s commitment to neighbourhood health services. Taking screening and checks into communities, making better use of pharmacies, using data more intelligently and increasingly using AI technologies are all real opportunities to narrow the health inequalities that can scar our communities.

We need to stop treating conditions in isolation. So many people with cardiovascular disease are also living with other long term health conditions. Patients do not just experience heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease or obesity separately; they experience them together. Our health system must increasingly treat the person rather than the condition.

Finally, while prevention is crucial, we cannot ignore access to treatment. There are long waits for cardiac care, and there are increasing and continuing pressures on ambulance response times, meaning that too many people are still waiting too long for an emergency response. The forthcoming modern service framework for cardiovascular disease represents a significant opportunity—it must be ambitious. It should be focused on prevention and early intervention, tackle inequalities head on and ensure that everyone, regardless of where they live, can access timely, high quality care.

If we get this right, we will not only save lives but reduce pressure on the NHS, strengthen our economy and create a fairer, healthier country. Even without a bat phone of my own, I look forward to supporting the Government in delivering their ambition.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster) on securing this important debate and thank him for sharing his story. Like so many families across the country, mine has its own history of heart disease, either with tragic, early death or, for my father, a triple heart bypass in 2012. He celebrated his 80th birthday this year.

Reducing premature deaths from heart disease and stroke is one of the defining public health challenges facing our country. It is also one of the greatest opportunities. We know what works and where the risks lie; the question is whether this Government are prepared to invest in preventing illness rather than simply responding to it once people become sick. Cardiovascular disease remains the second biggest cause of death in England; every day, around 390 people die from a heart attack or stroke. Heart and circulatory diseases are responsible for one in four premature deaths, while more than 6.4 million people in England are living with cardiovascular disease.

It is particularly concerning that progress has stalled. After years of improvement, premature mortality from cardiovascular disease has begun to rise again. The latest figures show that rates have returned to around where they were over a decade ago. Behind those statistics are families who have lost loved ones far too early; many of those deaths could have been prevented.

Perhaps the greatest injustice is that outcomes are not evenly distributed. People living in the most deprived communities are twice as likely to die prematurely from cardiovascular disease as those in the least deprived areas. If we are serious about reducing premature deaths, we have to be serious about prevention. Too often, prevention is spoken about warmly but funded poorly. We hear Ministers say that they want to shift healthcare from hospital to community and from treatment to prevention. Those are welcome ambitions, but ambitions alone do not reduce blood pressure, identify atrial fibrillation or prevent strokes.

The reality is that the NHS and local government continue to struggle to fund many of the programmes that are proven to save lives. Freedom of information data published earlier this year reveals that more than 70 local authorities are limiting the number of NHS health checks that GP practices can carry out because of financial pressures. The programme designed to identify people at risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes and kidney disease, which is credited with saving hundreds of lives every year, is being rationed because councils simply cannot afford it. That is the direct consequence of years of underfunding in public health.

A straightforward first step would be restoring the public health grant to its 2015 level, which would give local authorities the resources they need to expand NHS health checks and deliver wider prevention programmes that reduce smoking, improve physical activity and help people to manage the risk factors that lead to cardiovascular disease. The Liberal Democrats have also proposed widening access to blood pressure checks by making them routinely available in community settings such as pharmacies and libraries.

An estimated 7 million people are living with undiagnosed high blood pressure. Many of them have no idea that they are at increased risk of suffering a devastating stroke or heart attack. Detecting hypertension earlier is one of the simplest and most cost effective interventions available. However, prevention is about much more than screening alone. If we want to tackle heart disease properly, we must also be far more ambitious in addressing obesity and the wider causes of poor health.

The evidence is clear that obesity is closely linked to deprivation. A poor diet often begins in childhood, and families facing food insecurity are more likely to rely on cheaper foods that are higher in fat, salt and sugar. That contributes to stark inequalities in health outcomes later in life. That is why we believe that more children living in poverty should receive free school meals. We would also do more to protect children from the relentless marketing of unhealthy food, including supporting councils to restrict outdoor junk food advertising and maintaining stronger protections on television advertising.

For those already living with heart disease or recovering from a stroke, continuity of care is equally important. The Liberal Democrats want everyone living with a long term condition to have a named GP. Continuity improves outcomes, reduces unnecessary admissions and ensures that patients receive co ordinated care over many years, rather than fragmented treatment from multiple clinicians. Recovery following a stroke also deserves much greater attention. Around 60% of stroke survivors leave hospital with a disability. Rehabilitation cannot be treated as an optional extra. Every stroke survivor should have access to personalised, high quality rehabilitation services that help them regain independence and improve their quality of life.

Finally, I want to touch on emergency care. When someone has a stroke, every minute matters. Rapid assessment and treatment can mean the difference between a full recovery and lifelong disability. I pay tribute to Olivia, the wife of the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), for the work that she and her team do at Queen’s hospital. I pay tribute to all practitioners carrying out the same work across the country.

Ambulance delays and overcrowded emergency departments continue to place patients at unnecessary risk. We know that too well in my village, where, a few years ago, we lost a dear friend far too young as a result of a slow ambulance response time. We need action to reduce ambulance handover delays, expand staffed hospital bed capacity, improve social care so that patients can be discharged safely, and ensure that every A&E waiting room has a qualified clinician able to identify patients whose condition is deteriorating while they wait.

Preventing premature deaths from heart disease and strokes will require action across the whole health system. It means investing in prevention rather than allowing it to become the first casualty of financial pressures. It means tackling the inequalities that leave poorer communities carrying the greatest burden of disease. It means strengthening primary care, community services, rehabilitation and social care rather than focusing solely on elective waiting lists.

The Darzi review warned: “Care for cardiovascular conditions is going in the wrong direction.”

That warning should not be ignored. If the Government are serious about achieving their ambition to reduce deaths from heart attacks and strokes, they must match warm words with sustained investment in prevention, public health and community care. The best way to reduce premature deaths is not simply to become better at treating illness; it is to prevent people from becoming ill in the first place. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain.

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster) on securing this important debate and talking about his personal circumstances. It is always a very moving moment when colleagues talk about things that are so very personal to them. I also pay tribute to the wife of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for the work that she and her team do. It was fascinating to listen to my right hon. Friend. There may have been a bit more detail than I would have wanted to hear, but it told us a lot about the importance of that treatment.

I share an ambulance region with the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack), so I know exactly what she is talking about and how important it is. I thank her for her work with the APPG, and particularly for highlighting the issue for young people. It is important to remember that heart disease and stroke affect all age groups.

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his work on the APPG and for his kind words. I visited his constituency when I was a Minister. If only I could have as much love as he gets from his constituents—he is hugely respected.

I feel like we will all have to club together to get a bat phone for the hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley). He made some incredible points, particularly about smoking. I confess that I gave up smoking in February. It was hard, but I know how important it is.

I declare an interest. I, too, want to pay tribute to the British Heart Foundation, which was the first charity I worked for in my charity career. I saw at first hand the incredible work it does, particularly on research. I thank it and all the other charities and organisations that are active in this space.

As we have heard so often today, heart disease and stroke continue to take people from their families far too soon. The hon. Member for Strangford spoke so powerfully about the 350 people in his area who are no longer around the table. Behind every statistic is a life cut short and a family left grieving, in too many cases in the knowledge that earlier action might have changed the outcome. A person’s chances of surviving heart disease or stroke should not depend on their postcode, income, sex, ethnicity or ability to navigate the health service. If we are serious about reducing premature deaths, the focus must be on prevention, earlier diagnosis, timely treatment, reducing inequality and proper support after the patient leaves hospital.

We must begin with prevention, because high blood pressure and high cholesterol can exist without obvious symptoms. People may feel perfectly well while living with a condition that substantially increases their risk of heart attack or stroke. By the time somebody becomes seriously unwell, an opportunity to intervene may have already been lost.

Prevention cannot simply mean advising people to live healthier lives. It means identifying those at risk, ensuring that NHS health checks reach the communities that need them most, and making full use of GPs, primary care teams and community pharmacies. Those services need the workforce, the time and the technology to identify risk and manage it properly. Detecting and treating high blood pressure and raised cholesterol must be regarded as core NHS work. The Government inform us that the NHS health check programme prevents about 500 heart attacks and strokes each year, which really is welcome, but the question is whether it reaches those at the greatest risk, including people in deprived areas.

We must also recognise the close relationship between cardiovascular disease and kidney disease. Kidney disease affects an estimated 7 million people in the UK. About 60% of kidney patients are diagnosed only in the later stages, when their cardiovascular risk is highest. About 20,000 kidney patients die from cardiovascular disease each year. Early testing for people with diabetes, high blood pressure and cardiovascular disease can identify kidney damage before it progresses. Indeed, Kidney Research UK suggests that less than one in five patients with chronic kidney disease receive SGLT2 inhibitors, despite their potential to reduce major cardiovascular events. Will kidney disease therefore be explicitly included in the modern service framework? What action will the Government take to improve early diagnosis and equitable access to proven treatment?

Early diagnosis is just as important for heart valve disease. In the UK, 1.5 million people live with that condition. Again, however, symptoms such as breathlessness, fatigue and dizziness are too often mistaken for the ordinary effects of ageing. That can mean that diagnosis comes only after the disease has become severe, and after irreversible heart damage has begun. Listening to the heart with a stethoscope remains a simple and low cost first step. Where heart valve disease is suspected, patients need timely access and a clear route to specialist services. Will heart valve disease be explicitly included in the framework? And will the Government consider a single point of access for referrals to specialist valve services?

We must also confront the inequalities experienced by women. Cardiovascular disease kills more than 80,000 women in the UK each year, yet women are less likely than men to have their risk factors assessed, slower to receive a diagnosis, less likely to be referred to a cardiologist and also less likely to receive cardiovascular medicines or interventions. Women’s symptoms may simply be dismissed or attributed to stress, hormones or ageing, and women have been consistently under represented when it comes to cardiovascular research.

The Government’s renewed women’s health strategy recognises some of those problems, and the commitment that publicly funded research should properly consider sex based differences is really welcome. However, such recognition must translate into practice. Will the framework include measurable action to reduce sex based inequalities in prevention, diagnosis, referrals, treatment and outcomes? And will women’s specific cardiovascular risk factors, including pregnancy history, gestational diabetes, menopause and autoimmune disease, be considered more consistently in NHS health checks and other assessments?

As we have heard, every minute matters for stroke patients. The speed of recognition, ambulance response, brain scanning and access to thrombolysis and thrombectomy can profoundly affect a person’s chances of survival and recovery. However, 24-hour coverage has still not been achieved, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford mentioned. The Government say that progress is being made, but patients need to know when every part of England will have reliable access to this life changing treatment. Will the Minister set a firm date for that full 24/7 coverage, and will she explain how progress will be maintained while NHS England’s responsibilities are being transferred?

For many years, stroke units have had access to thrombolysis—or “the shot”, as it is known in the trade. However, that is a very rough way of doing it, and it can have side effects and impede a patient’s recovery. Mechanical thrombectomy is a far more accurate way of solving a stroke problem, and with far less risk of subsequent side effects. That is why we are so keen to see its use grow, and I second my right hon. Friend’s request to the Minister.

My right hon. Friend is so right. When he was describing its importance, I was thinking about one of my very dear friends who suffered quite a debilitating stroke. I thought, “If only that had been available for him, how different his life might be now.” I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that.

Care should not end when a patient leaves the acute ward. Someone who has survived a stroke might need to relearn how to walk, speak, eat and carry out other basic daily tasks. Rehabilitation and continuing community support are essential if people are to regain their independence and reduce the risk of another stroke. The same is true after a heart attack. Cardiac rehabilitation, medication reviews and support to manage risk factors can prevent further illness and save lives, yet access to rehabilitation remains uneven and too many patients experience a cliff edge between hospital and community care.

The Government have committed to reducing premature deaths from heart disease and stroke by 25% within a decade. That is a serious ambition, and, where they are taking practical actions to achieve it, they will absolutely have our full support, but it is important that that ambition is matched by a credible plan. In a letter dated 28 May, the Minister said that the framework we are expecting would be published in the spring. That deadline has now passed, so, like others, I again ask when that will be published. Will it contain clear milestones against which that 25% commitment can be judged? Will the Minister commit to regular, transparent reporting to Parliament so that Members can see whether earlier diagnosis, access to treatment and premature mortality rates are genuinely improving?

There is much on which Members across this House should agree. We all want fewer families to lose someone they love before their time; we all want patients to receive help before a manageable risk becomes a medical emergency; and we all want NHS staff to have the tools and capacity to provide the care their patients need. Reducing premature deaths from heart disease and stroke is achievable, but only through earlier identification of risk, faster diagnosis, timely treatment and rehabilitation that is available wherever a patient lives. Targets matter, but patients will judge success by whether they receive the right care in time, and that must be the measure of genuine success. They and their families deserve nothing less.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Dame Siobhain. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster) for securing this debate on such an important issue. I also commend him on sharing his own personal experience with his diagnosis of a congenital heart defect. I thought, as he was speaking, that it just goes to show that we should never judge solely based on how someone presents on the outside, because we never know what is going on inside; I know he served in the Royal Engineers, and he is also very fit and active. He rightly highlighted why this Government are determined to tackle cardiovascular disease head on through earlier prevention and diagnosis, because that is what is really going to make the difference.

I also thank all hon. Members for their valuable contributions this afternoon. It is clear that far too many lives are still being cut short by cardiovascular disease. In recent years, heart disease and stroke caused around 33,000 premature deaths per year, and it is the second leading cause of death in England after cancer.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) gave a powerful speech, bringing this issue into stark focus with regard to Northern Ireland. I have to say, I share his pleasure in spending so much time in these important debates in Westminster Hall; he and I are usually the common denominator. I want to refer to some of the things that he said, specifically about the ticking time bomb that cardiovascular disease can be. He mentioned that 225,000 people—one in 10—in Northern Ireland live with heart and circulatory conditions. That was very sobering; this is not a niche condition at all. He said that it accounted for 24% of deaths in Northern Ireland—one in four—and that most of those were premature. As always, I will commit to ensuring that key learnings and best practice are shared between both our health services and, indeed, with the other devolved Administrations. I always learn a lot from the hon. Member’s contributions, so I thank him for them. That is why, as part of our 10-year health plan for the NHS, we have committed to shifting from sickness to prevention and to ensuring that fewer lives are lost to the biggest killers, including cardiovascular disease.

I have made so many notes, but the trick is now whether I can find the right note for the right person and not just forget about them all; I am trying to be too clever for my own boots here. The hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) who speaks for the Lib Dems, spoke a lot about prevention and about the shift from treatment and sickness to prevention. She asked me whether the public health grant would go back to 2010 levels. I cannot commit to that. Obviously, something did happen in 2010 and, as much as I like and admire the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), there were big cuts to the public health grant—although I think the biggest cut was in 2015. However, we have provided the first three year public health grant settlement in over a decade. That will give surety and confidence to the local authorities and public health directors in all our areas for the three years.

For the record, my request was that the public health grant be restored back to 2015 levels, not 2010 levels.

Right, the hon. Lady said 2015. I am being too clever for my own boots. I wrote down 2010, but of course, as I said in correcting myself, the big cut was in 2015. I am pleased that the hon. Lady has corrected the record for us all.

As I say, we have set an ambitious goal to reduce premature mortality from heart disease and stroke in the under-75s by a quarter in the next 10 years. As part of the first wave of the new generation of modern service frameworks, we will publish a cardiovascular disease modern service framework soon.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble asked me about that, and I shall move on to answer his questions. He asked when; the answer is soon. The Department and NHS England have engaged widely to consider a range of conditions that are most likely to drive progress on the Government’s ambition and the CVD MSF—if Members do not mind me using the acronym to save words—will set out 12 high impact priority action areas, descriptions of how unwarranted variation should be addressed and a road map for the next 10 years. The framework will be backed by clear accountability and routine monitoring of progress using existing NHS performance and oversight arrangements.

To support the delivery of the framework across the system, we will launch a series of ambitious strategic partnerships between Government, the NHS, industry and the voluntary sector. We thank the British Heart Foundation for its support and participation as a task and finish group member for the CVD MSF.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble asked about type 2 diabetes. I pay tribute to and thank his friend Jared, who is with us today, and who I am aware is a type 1 diabetic. Type 2 diabetes is very prevalent in cardiovascular disease. We are taking steps to reduce overall prevalence of type 2 diabetes by supporting programmes such as the NHS health check and the highly effective “Healthier You” NHS diabetes prevention programme. I will talk more about obesity prevention and the obesogenic environment if I have time.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble asked me about cholesterol. We know that addressing raised cholesterol is key to preventing CVD. Statins cut CVD risk in just four to six weeks, and are readily available and quite cheap, as interventions go. As of December 2025, 85% of people with CVD were being treated with cholesterol lowering therapy, including statins, across England. He also asked me about arterial fibrillation. The Government recognise the importance of optimising arterial fibrillation treatment. As of December 2025, 92% of those with high risk arterial fibrillation were being treated with anticoagulants, which was an increase from 87% in March 2020.

There are indications that the weight loss injections and tablets available on the NHS are very effective, but there is some concern about the side effects of weight reduction programmes. Has the Department ever looked at addressing side effects for those who want to lose weight but face other problems because of it?

As with all medication, it is obviously up to GPs to consider side effects when prescribing. Some side effects might be apparent sooner rather than later, but they are definitely conversations that patients need to have closely and quickly with prescribers and GPs. I encourage all constituents to be cognisant of side effects and not just hope that they will go away or that they do not matter. They should always be raised with their GP.

The modern service framework, which is coming soon, will identify and set standards for the best evidenced interventions to support consistent, high quality and equitable care across the cardiovascular disease pathway. It will set out an ambitious vision for the future, identifying areas where further progress is needed to build the evidence base or to accelerate innovations to deliver best outcomes for patients. We know that there are unacceptable inequalities across CVD prevention, diagnosis, treatment and care. That is why the CVD MSF will set out strategic priorities and a clear direction on what health and care systems should focus on to drive improvement and outcomes and to tackle unwarranted variation.

A number of hon. Members have highlighted prevention issues and I will address their questions at this point. We know that around 70% of the CVD burden is preventable and due to risk factors that can be modified by behaviour changes, early identification and management, so the early detection of risk factors is key. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee), who is no longer in his place, made a short but colourful point about access to fresh food and food deserts. He mentioned that in some parts of the country, it is easier to get vodka than a banana. I have used a similar analogy with regard to blueberry vapes versus blueberries. We all know of places like that across our constituencies.

The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex, also mentioned access to healthy food for young people living in poverty and free school meals being extended to those children. The Government are extending free school meals to all children of families on universal credit from September, and that is very welcome. We are already extending breakfast clubs so that they are universal. That will be reaching all children; not all children take advantage of them, but there will eventually be access to them for all children in our primary schools.

A lot of the work that I have been doing in the Department since taking up this post has been around my passion. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) mentioned the work that we have done together in the all party parliamentary group on school food. That group was set up in 2010—I know the date, and I am not going to get it wrong, because I set it up. Healthy food is so crucial. As we are rolling out breakfast clubs and rolling out free school meals to all children of families on universal credit, we want that food to be as healthy as can be.

That is why we had the consultation on new school food standards, which closed in June. They will be in force from September 2027. They will be a lot better, a lot more stringent, than the current standards. I hope that, when they are made public, all hon. Members will be able to buy into them and therefore encourage the perception to change. I think my hon. Friend also said that the perception of school food needs to change, and I totally agree. Come next year, school food will be so much better—it already is in so many of our schools.

As a local MP, I am a bit obsessive about going into my local schools, or whatever school I happen to be in, so much so that it got a bit embarrassing—I will tell this quick anecdote, if I have time. I was visiting a school, and it said that it would get me some sandwiches from a well known store—I will not advertise the store, but this was pre packed sandwiches from a nice, upmarket supermarket—because my secretary had said, “Oh, make sure Sharon gets some lunch.” I had to point out to the headteacher that I did not want the nice sandwiches from Marks & Spencer, and that I actually wanted to stay for lunch with the children in the canteen.

I was there to visit and talk about whatever, or to meet the school council, but I would always do those things either side of the lunch break in order that, with my school food APPG chair hat on, I could stay for lunch. My lovely secretary at the time had not explained that bit, so the headteacher, on her way into work that day, had rushed to a well known supermarket to buy me a selection of sandwiches. I was mortified, so I say to hon. Members that, if they want to eat on their school visits, they should please ensure that they are clear that they do not just want any old sandwiches bought, and that actually they want to sit and eat with the children.

School food is important. I have seen the good, the bad and the ugly. There is more good, and I hope that it will continue to improve, because good habits need to start early. I am talking about the prevention that we all want to see and the healthier lifestyles that we want for the next generation. It is a manifesto commitment of this Government to have the healthiest generation of children ever. That starts in our health service, but it also starts with prevention, and the move from sickness to prevention.

I think the hon. Member for Mid Sussex mentioned junk food advertising, and the other thing that I have been working on is the new nutrient profiling model. The consultation on that has just closed. We are going to be using the new NPM when it is agreed and announced. It will be applied to the junk food ad ban, which is already in place, and we will set out next steps with regard to that in due course. We are also planning work on monitoring and reporting on the healthy food standards. All that is in train, and I am very keen on continuing to do that work, but who knows what might come?

I will now turn to points from other hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport mentioned walking and that he had lost 4 lbs during the recent by election; it seems to me that maybe what we all need is more by elections—or perhaps not. The serious point is that we all need to be walking more. If we are walking more, that is good, but we need to be walking briskly. We are supposed to get out of breath and a bit hot and bothered. It is also important that we are trying to eat healthier food.

I am sure that the potential new Prime Minister will have noted very carefully the commitment of the hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley), who mentioned that he lost 4 lbs during the by election; I have a pound coin, and I am happy to make it up to a round fiver to help him get his money back, if that helps.

Very good. I must apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) for getting his constituency name wrong. I cannot read my own writing—I do know that Southport and Stockport are very different places.

Walking is important, but we must work hard to tackle the obesogenic environment, our propensity to eat ultra processed food and the food deserts in our constituencies. Sadly, some of the most deprived areas are also the most health unequal communities as well. That is not a coincidence; one leads to the other. That is an area of the Department’s work I am massively focused on.

The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) spoke about his wonderful wife of two decades, who is a lead neuroradiographer—

Lead neurointerventional radiographer.

Very good. She works at Queen’s hospital in east London, and I was very interested to hear about the “bring your husband to work” day, although I am glad she did not keep the right hon. Gentleman there. What he described sounded fascinating, although not for the faint hearted, as he said. On behalf of the NHS and the Government, I thank Olivia and her team for the outstanding work they do every day and for their service and skill. It is such important work. He asked me about the role of mechanical thrombectomy, which he said has been used for less than a decade. The NHS is working to increase thrombectomy rates as a key intervention to improve patient outcomes, so hopefully Olivia is going to be as busy as ever. He is rightly proud of her, as I am sure she is of him.

Will the Minister give way?

We are having a love in here.

Yes—don’t tell my wife! I thank the Minister very much for what she says about Olivia, her colleagues and all the others who work in the NHS in that field. I will chance my arm and say that they are based about an hour from London; if ever the Minister had time to pop along and see what they do in person, I think she would be both very welcome and incredibly impressed.

My private office will have made note of that. I would be happy to pay a visit to the hospital and am interested to look at that work.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire asked about ambulance wait times. NHS England is working with East Midlands ambulance service to support improvements in response times, which will increase frontline ambulance availability, improve productivity and strengthen performance. I can assure her that that work is under way.

In England, the NHS health check for individuals aged 40 to 74 is designed to assess the top risk factors for cardiovascular disease and refer people to further support where appropriate. The NHS health check is wide reaching it engages more than 1.4 million people a year and, through behavioural and clinical interventions, prevents around 500 heart attacks or strokes a year. We know that there is more to do to improve uptake of the health check. As part of our efforts to make the shift from analogue to digital, we are developing the NHS health check online and increasing the flexibility of the programme so that people can complete it at home at a time more convenient to them.

Finding and supporting people with undetected high blood pressure early is, as a number of colleagues mentioned, critical to preventing heart attacks and strokes. I think we can all remember the former shadow Health Secretary, Jonathan Ashworth. He had undiagnosed high blood pressure and recently had a heart attack. We cannot just assume, from what someone looks like on the outside, what is going on inside. It is so important that we all take up those health checks when we reach the grand old age of 40, which I have not yet reached myself—I see my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) laughing; he must think I am over 40.

We have invested heavily in blood pressure checks in community pharmacy so that we take up those opportunities for detection in the community. Over the last year in England, 82% of pharmacies were delivering the service, with more than 3 million blood pressure checks taking place.

We are also committed to tackling obesity, and have made significant progress by restricting junk food advertising targeted at children on TV and online, along with banning volume price reductions on less healthy products. NHS England has expanded access to the NHS digital weight management service, doubling the number of people supported. Some 1 million adults in England with established CVD who are overweight or living with obesity are also now eligible for semaglutide—Wegovy—to reduce major cardiovascular events.

We have taken firm action on smoking, including the landmark Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026, which will protect future generations from the harms of smoking. To help people quit smoking, we have also ringfenced funding for stop smoking services in the public health grant, protecting at least £150 million per year.

Our work does not stop there. I have mentioned the shift from treatment to prevention, incentivising earlier identification and better management of CVD risk. The elective reform plan committed to modernising cardiology pathways, and we are working closely with clinicians to implement reforms, ensuring that care is delivered in the right place and at the right time. We have an ambitious target to reduce premature mortality from heart disease and stroke by 25%, and the CVD MSF will provide the tools required to achieve this.

The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Daventry, raised the women’s health strategy. He is right to mention the disparity in women’s diagnosis and treatment. The renewed women’s health strategy sets out how we will redesign services, improve diagnosis and embed women’s voices so that care improves across all conditions. Priority examples where women are most poorly served are included, and progress will be judged against three overarching measures of success, the main one being to reduce the amount of time that women spend in poor health.

I will finish here so that there is time for my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble to make some closing remarks. I again thank him for bringing this important matter to the House.

I call Paul Foster to wind up, very quickly.

I thank the Minister for giving me 50 seconds.

This is one of those very rare topics where we have cross party consensus from every party in the House: we all want the Government to be successful in what they seek to achieve, reducing deaths from stroke and cardiovascular disease by 25%. I thank the Minister for a very detailed response. I also thank the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) for giving up his time and again giving a very detailed response. I thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and join in the tributes to his wife Olivia. I thank all other Members, and I thank Jared for sharing his story with us; he is now in Hansard. Finally, I thank the British Heart Foundation—please keep up the good work—and I thank you, too, Dame Siobhain, for giving up your time to chair this afternoon.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the matter of reducing levels of premature deaths from heart disease and stroke.

[Clive Efford in the Chair]

I beg to move, That this House has considered Government plans to tackle air pollution.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. There is no safe level of air pollution. I will say that again: there is no safe level of air pollution. Of course, life is not risk free. Every year, almost 250 people die from knife crime and, rightly, people demand action. Every year, almost 1,600 people die in road traffic accidents and, rightly, people demand action. Every year, approximately 43,000 people die prematurely from air pollution, yet there is silence. Well, no more—the public are finding their voice about this silent, invisible killer. This morning in Parliament Square, doctors, nurses, academics, carers, mothers and babies came together with the Healthy Air Coalition, the National Heart and Lung Foundation, Mums for Lungs, trade unions, and Asthma + Lung UK to demand that Parliament act. Eighty two of them represented the 82 people whose lives are cut short by air pollution every day.

We have a public health emergency on our hands and the response from successive Governments so far has simply not been adequate. We have no co ordinated national plan to get key pollutants down to safer levels that are aligned with the World Health Organisation limit values. Sadly, the annual data released this week shows that things are going in the wrong direction. Two days ago, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published new air quality statistics for 2025; note the words “air quality”—it should be “air pollution” statistics. It found that “annual mean concentrations of PM2.5 showed an increase of 12 per cent at urban background stations and an increase of 14 per cent for roadside stations compared to 2024.”

It also found that “annual mean concentrations of PM10 showed an increase of 12 per cent for urban background stations and an increase of 8 per cent for roadside stations compared to 2024”

and that annual mean concentrations of nitrogen dioxide increased by “3 per cent at urban background stations”

although they did show a 1% decrease at roadside stations.

I hope that everyone notices the irony that DEFRA insists on calling this “air quality” instead of air pollution. Let us be clear about the health impacts of air pollution. Polluted air is linked to up to 43,000 deaths in the UK every year. Let us imagine the reaction if a new covid variant was having such an impact. Imagine if knife crime was linked to hundreds of deaths every week, or if we saw 82 deaths on our roads every single day. Air pollution is the second leading risk factor for death in children under five and it is the largest environmental risk to public health, yet it remains the silent killer—the invisible killer—because it is often masked by other diseases that it has aggravated. We have had just one case where the coroner’s certificate reports air pollution as a cause of death: that of Ella Adoo Kissi Debrah, where the coroner concluded that Ella had “died of asthma contributed to by exposure to excessive air pollution.”

He said it “made a material contribution” to her death. I pay tribute to Ella’s mother, Rosamund, and to all those who have campaigned for clean air as a human right. Rosamund was in Parliament Square this morning with all those campaigners. The work that she has done to bring this matter to public consciousness should be respected by everyone in Parliament.

Scientists have found links between air pollution, almost every organ system in the body and the major diseases that affect them. That includes the brain, lungs, cardiovascular system, kidneys, liver, gastrointestinal tract, bones, skin, reproductive system and even the central nervous system, where air pollution increases the chance of developing dementia. The current health evidence, based on more than 60,000 studies, links air pollution to more than 700 illnesses.

Although the scientific evidence base grows every year, we know more than enough to realise that current efforts fall far short of what is needed. Indeed, here is what we know about the state of air pollution in the UK: air quality targets and the legal air pollution limits are not sufficient to protect public health. There is no Government wide action plan to bring down levels of air pollution to below World Health Organisation guidelines. Funding and resources for local authorities to deliver air quality programmes are inadequate, and public awareness of outdoor and indoor air pollution is far too low.

Seventy years ago this month, when the UK published the Clean Air Act 1956—the first Act of its kind—we really were a world leader in tackling air pollution. We can no longer make that claim. After the great smog that killed 4,000 people in a week—with a total death count estimated at 10,000 to 12,000 in the penumbra—the Government passed the 1956 Act. Politicians then rose to the challenge. Today, they must do so again. Other jurisdictions are moving ahead with more ambition and urgency. Before we consider doing that, we should distinguish between a target and a limit value.

The Government are fond of setting targets. A target is something that is aimed for. A limit value is a threshold that should not be crossed. In 2021, the WHO updated its guidance for one of the key pollutants: PM_2.5. Its guidance is a level of no more than 5 micrograms per cubic metre. The UK’s legal limit value was set in the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010; it remains four times higher than the WHO value, at 20 micrograms per cubic metre—that is the legal limit.

The recent environmental improvement plan introduced a new date to achieve a target of 10 micrograms per metre cubed: 2030—it had been 2040. That sounds like good news, a target that will be achieved 10 years earlier, but do not be fooled. The target for PM_2.5—that is, the aspiration rather than the legal limit—is still double the WHO guideline. It actually represents no progress at all. In DEFRA’s 2024 monitoring data, all but one monitoring site just met the 10 microgram target. Those are the sort of targets that DEFRA loves: ones where nothing has to be done to achieve them and everything can be left as bad as it has always been, but it looks as though action is being taken.

We need not a target, but a legally binding limit value that is the same as the WHO’s guideline of 5 micrograms per metre cubed. We need a wider plan to get PM_2.5 exposure down across the UK to below WHO guidelines in the near future. The same and more can be said of the nitrogen dioxide target. On that, the WHO guidelines are 10 micrograms per cubic metre, but the UK lags behind with a legal limit value set in 2010 at an annual exposure of 40 micrograms. When it comes to nitrogen dioxide, the Environment Act 2021 did not even set a long term target, so action on that key pollutant is not included in the Act’s delivery plan.

It makes no sense for the Government to treat nitrogen dioxide any differently from PM_2.5. We should have a far tighter limit value and a far more ambitious plan for driving nitrogen dioxide levels down to below WHO guidelines. On our current trajectory, some parts of the UK will not be compliant with the current inadequate limit value of 40 micrograms until 2045. My right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) will be aware that the latest DEFRA figures show that Manchester has the worst nitrogen dioxide pollution in the country, with a level of 55 micrograms per cubic metre—more than five times the WHO guidelines. As a result, it is thought that air pollution contributes to one in 20 deaths in the region each year.

Moreover, national level statistics can mask local authority level data, as exposed by the work of Asthma + Lung UK. Its research found that local authorities are breaching the legal limits of nitrogen dioxide, even when national Government have determined them to be under such limits. That is because of the disjointed approach we currently take to air pollution, in which national data weirdly excludes local authority monitors despite local authorities being mandated by the Government to collect data.

So we have situations such as the one in my Brent West constituency, where three local authority monitors accurately record illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide despite the Government saying that Brent, and London as a whole, supposedly meet legal limits for nitrogen dioxide. At the corner of Wembley High Road and London Road, the annual mean for nitrogen dioxide was 40.92 micrograms per cubic metre; at the corner of Wembley High Road and Ealing Road, it was 41.76; at the junction of Forty Lane and Kings Drive, it was 43.5. Each of those is more than four times the WHO guidelines, and each is right next to or in walking distance of a school. This is toxic, illegal air pollution that my constituents are exposed to, yet if they read what the Government say, they would not even realise it.

This week, Nottingham University hospitals NHS trust declared a “critical incident” after prolonged extreme heat led to increased demand, with more patients suffering dehydration and heat related illnesses. As my hon. Friend will know, hot spells often go hand in hand with poor air quality. Does he agree that there is an imperative to address poor air quality, and that that imperative is growing as a result of the changing climate?

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and he is absolutely right. The heat dome that we have been experiencing interacts with pollution and gives us extra ozone and causes huge health problems. I do not know—perhaps the Minister can tell us, if his officials are on the ball on this—just when the number of excess deaths caused by last week’s high temperatures will be known at a disaggregated level; it would be extremely interesting to get those.

I did not want to interrupt the flow of my hon. Friend’s speech, but now that he has been interrupted, I might as well. He too is a west London MP, so he is aware that Heathrow, in my constituency, is one of the most persistent air pollution hotspots. In the previous Government’s assessment, any expansion at Heathrow would have a significant impact on air quality. The latest airports national policy statement says it will have “significant negative effects” on air quality. We are one of the worst areas for nitrogen dioxide pollution, so does my hon. Friend agree that Heathrow expansion cannot go ahead?

How did I know that my right hon. Friend would be introducing that subject? I excised it from my speech because I knew he would. He is absolutely right, and he will have seen the assessment that came out just 10 days ago, which said everything he and I have been saying about the pollution caused by the third runway expansion at Heathrow. Whatever we think about the economy—as he knows, the assessment was not too hot on that either—it is a disaster for public health.

I do not decry the real progress on nitrogen dioxide that has resulted from the ultra low emission zone expansion. What the mayor has done has been really significant; the correlated reduction in admissions to hospital has been huge, and we really welcome that. But air pollution action must be targeted at hotspots. Even if the hotspots dipped below the 40 microgram legal limit, that would still be four times the World Health Organisation guidelines.

My hon. Friend mentions the Mayor of London, who has made substantial strides, but I refer him to the matter of emissions from buses and the only partial electrification of the fleet in London and elsewhere. Pollutants from diesel buses are a continuing problem, especially when buses are allowed to idle at bus stands close to residential property. That is of particular concern to my constituent Kate Hollis, whose 12-year old son, Jack, tragically died from bone cancer, the spread of which the family believes was caused by pollutants from a bus terminus next to their house in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about these issues and who, like me, is a London MP, share my and the Hollis family’s concern that electrification is going too slowly, with potentially dangerous consequences?

I give my condolences to the Hollis family for the tragedy they have suffered. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the electrification of the bus system must go further and faster, but it is not just a London problem, as he knows: it affects areas across the country. It is absolutely vital that we roll out the electrification of vehicles. He knows—I will come to this later—that it is not simply the exhaust that is the problem with those large vehicles; it is also the particulate matter that heavier vehicles produce on the roads.

Although the focus is often on particulate matter and NO₂, we are falling behind on other pollutants. Ammonia, which is highly reactive, forms secondary PM_2.5. The UK is not projected to meet its 2030 reduction targets until at least 2035. We have made essentially no progress in ammonia reduction in 20 years. In the Netherlands, regulatory controls on agricultural ammonia contributed to a 64% reduction in ammonia emissions between 1990 and 2016. This is possible—other people are doing it— so the question is: why are we not?

Ozone—O₃—levels continue to be higher in rural and suburban areas, with long term objectives remaining off track. Alongside particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide, ozone is the biggest contributor to outdoor air pollution, with higher concentrations on hot summer days. Achieving long term objectives for ozone is not even legally mandatory.

There are two more categories of particulates that are of growing concern: ultrafine particulate matter—UFP—which comprises 90% of airborne particles, and black carbon, or soot, formed from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and biomass. There are currently no regulations on safe levels of UFPs, despite research linking them with an even wider array of health problems than PM_2.5 and PM10.

The current official advice from the UK Health Security Agency that the health effects of UFPs are “adequately covered” by the particulate matter air quality standards is simply outdated. Black carbon is a major contributor to climate change and poses a significant health risk as a universal carrier for a wide range of toxic chemicals that find their way into our bloodstreams. We need a comprehensive monitoring system and specific targets for UFPs and black carbon as the evidence of their severe health impacts grows.

However, it is not just what we pollute; it is where we pollute. The focus to date has largely been on outdoor pollution, yet we spend 80% of our time indoors—in our homes, offices and schools, or commuting between them. Indoor air pollution is poorly regulated, with no legally binding national standards, and its key sources, such as wood burning, are woefully under addressed. Indoor air pollution is absent from the recently updated environmental improvement plan, and we lack a comprehensive estimate of the health burden from indoor air pollution. Poor housing conditions that create damp and mould are deadly, as we know from the tragic death of Awaab Ishak. Far too many children experience prolonged exposure to black mould, and that can kill.

In some cases, concentrations of certain pollutants indoors exceed those outdoors. For example, biological aerosols, carbon monoxide and many volatile organic compounds are often present at significantly higher concentrations indoors. NO₂ levels can spike in homes because of gas cookers and poor ventilation. Approximately 36 million people in the UK are exposed to dangerous indoor air pollution from gas hobs and ovens that exceeds limits of pollutants permitted outdoors.

Around half of all homes in the UK still use gas hobs for cooking, which for most people will be the biggest source of NO₂ pollution in their home. Yet gas cookers and hobs have been left out of home decarbonisation policy, and are totally ignored in the warm homes plan. If we want to protect people’s health from air pollution in the home and fully remove their reliance on fossil fuels, we need a policy pathway to transition to electric cooking in the home, such as the one developed by Global Action Plan and CLASP in partnership with experts and academics.

Pollutants such as radon gas are linked to 1,000 lung cancer deaths annually. In not only our homes but our workplaces, we are exposed to dangerous levels of pollution, some of us much more than others. As it stands, the Health and Safety Executive’s workplace exposure limit for inhalable dust, which includes PM10, is 10,000 micrograms per cubic metre for an eight hour exposure. The WHO guidelines for PM₁₀ are 45 micrograms—not for an eight hour exposure, but for a 24-hour exposure. The Health and Safety Executive limit is more than 650 times higher than the WHO guidelines.

This is a matter of not just public health, but inequality. Let us be honest: who lives on the busiest, most polluted streets? Who works in the dirtiest factories? Who lives in poor quality housing? The answer is those who have no choice. They are trapped. Air pollution is an issue for this Labour Government because people who are poor are much more likely to die from it as they do not have the means of escape. It is a fundamental breach of their human right to breathe clean air.

Tackling air pollution is not just a DEFRA issue; it should span every aspect of our Government and every aspect of our lives, as air pollution does our homes, our schools, our travel and our work. We need a co ordinated national action plan. At present, action on air pollution is structurally skewed towards urban NO₂ sites, because those are where the Government have faced the strongest legal pressure. That means that progress on other pollutants, as well as indoor air pollution, has stalled.

We must bring forward legislative proposals on clean air that unify and update existing laws in a new clean air Act. That was recommendation 34 of the joint report, “Improving Air Quality”, by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the Environmental Audit Committee, the Health Committee and the Transport Committee. That report published nine years ago, in 2017. All those Committees made that recommendation—in 2017. If it had been taken on, imagine how much further on we could be in tackling this issue and how much more progress we could have made.

That recommendation stands today, in the year that marks the 70th anniversary of the very first Clean Air Act. Just as we have the Climate Change Act 2008, under which the Government produce and can be challenged on legally binding carbon budgets, we need a clean air Act under which the Government set out detailed, thorough and demonstrably achievable plans to bring down the levels of pollutants. With legally binding pollutant budgets, the Government could set a graduated timeline by which the UK would have to meet the WHO guidelines for a comprehensive list of pollutants, building on the 2030 targets and with limit values for perhaps 2035 and 2040.

The Clean Air Fund suggested to the Select Committees that our target for meeting WHO guideline levels for most pollutants should be 2040. I do not know whether that is the best target; I would like to see it brought forward. However, if we set that as the goal, just as we have set net zero by 2050 as the goal, we could at least be making progress towards it. Co ordinating a national action plan on air pollution under a new clean air Act would ensure that air pollution is no longer relegated to being just a DEFRA issue. In reality, it affects, and is affected by, every single Government Department.

Mr Efford, there is so much more in my notes that I could say, but I am getting exhausted and I can see that others in the Chamber wish to contribute. I welcome the fact that the Minister has stepped in for the Under Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy); she has spoken to me, so I know she was unable to be with us today for her own very good reasons, and I accept that. I am grateful to the Minister for stepping in for her today, but will he please go back to the Department with this message? I know he is a new Minister in the Department, but new Ministers come in with new ideas. They can come in and say to the boss, “For God’s sake, I’ve just been in Westminster Hall, and I can’t believe what it is that we are doing.” Will the Minister try to make the case for us and for the 43,000 people in our country whose lives are being cut short every year? Let us do something imaginative, something bold and something worth doing: let us pass a clean air Act.

I want to bring in the Front Benchers at 3.58 pm, so Members can work out for themselves that it is roughly seven minutes for each Back Bencher who is on their feet.

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I say a big thank you to the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for raising this issue and, as always, for his passion for it—well done. As the Democratic Unionist party’s health spokesperson, I am most interested in it, due to the serious and too often fatal effects that air pollution has on public health. It is great to see the Minister in his place. He was here last night in the fishing debate, and he is here again today, so well done. We thank him for his perseverance and his energetic commitment.

Air pollution is associated with 30,000 deaths a year across the UK. The question that we are all asking, and that the hon. Member for Brent West asked when he set the focus for the debate, is, what are we doing to prevent those deaths? The United Kingdom Government and the World Health Organisation have acknowledged that air pollution is the largest environmental threat to our health. Of course, its effects do not just stop at the lungs; the pollutants go on to be absorbed into the bloodstream and have the potential to harm every organ in the body. The harm is greater than just the breath we breathe; it can manifest itself as heart disease, cancer, dementia, stroke or diabetes—I declare an interest as a diabetic—and has even been linked to mental health conditions. In addition to the devastating human cost, treating the effects of air pollution is likely costing the NHS billions. The Royal College of Physicians estimates the cost at as much as an eye watering £27 billion annually.

Cars and vans remain among the largest sources of harmful air pollution, but we must also recognise the impact of indoor air pollution. Poor ventilation, damp, mould and emissions from domestic heating all contribute to poor health and can be particularly damaging for children, older people and those with existing and complex health conditions.

Alongside efforts to reduce emissions, targeted support should be provided to the most affected communities. It is often those living in the most deprived areas who experience the highest levels of air pollution, as the hon. Member for Brent West said. They are more likely to live close to busy roads or industrial sites, and, as a result, they face a greater risk of ill health. Clean air is not just an environmental issue; it is also one of health inequality. Quite clearly, across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, there is much inequality.

As the Member of Parliament for Strangford, a largely rural constituency, I must raise concerns about the effects of ammonia, a major emission from agricultural production. Although we can reduce emissions, we must accept that they are often a by product of farming and food production. It is essential that the farming community works with the Department to reduce emissions in a sustainable way. I ask the Minister whether there have been discussions with the farming community on reducing ammonia emissions in some way so that everyone in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can reap the benefits.

Evidence demonstrates that taking action can make a difference. In London, deaths linked to air pollution fell by an estimated 40% over five years from 2019. I put on record my thanks to the Government and the Mayor of London for that massive reduction over those five years—or seven years as it is now—which correlates with the introduction of the ultra low emission zone.

There is no safe level of air pollution, of course, but every improvement in air quality has the potential to reduce illness, relieve pressure on our health service and save lives. The hon. Member for Brent West set that out very clearly. The objective is to save lives; we are all greatly perturbed by the loss of life each and every year.

I know that the Minister will agree that more should be done to tackle air pollution, and particular attention paid to communities in the most deprived areas, whose health is at greater risk simply because of where they live—where pollution is particularly high, indoors and outdoors—and the houses they live in. This must be done hand in hand with the farming industry, not with a boot on its neck. There is work to be done, from industry and farming to individuals in their homes. Together, I believe that we must do the best we can to be good stewards of the world we live in.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for bringing forward this debate and for his powerful and passionate speech.

We know the effects of air pollution. In the previous Parliament, I was proud to serve my party as the shadow Minister responsible for air quality. As a consequence, I remain extremely passionate about this. Also, in a previous life—in my youthful life before this place—I was a physiotherapist, and I treated people with breathing conditions. I treated miners with pneumoconiosis and silicosis, people young and old with asthma, and patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Those are very real symptoms of the environments that we live in today.

Scientific studies have shown that air pollution is a major cause of disease and premature death. Those exposed to dirty air face an increased risk of heart disease, respiratory deterioration and even dementia. Fine particles can enter deep into the lungs, affecting blood vessels and respiratory function. The link between air pollution and poor respiratory health was laid out by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West in relation to Ella Adoo Kissi Debrah, who died back in 2013 aged just nine. I was privileged to meet her mum Rosamund a couple of days ago—again, after a long break. It was really good to see her, and I pay tribute to her for all her campaigning to get this silent killer back on the agenda—it is really important that that happens.

I appreciate that the Minister is standing in today. We know a lot about water pollution—a great deal is made about it, and that is fine—but it does not kill thousands, as air pollution does. Air quality is a key social justice issue, because it is not uniform; its impacts are often felt most among those who are already vulnerable. It is our most deprived communities, who already suffer from the worst social determinants of health, who experience the worst air quality.

If this Government are to be defined by their breaking down of barriers to opportunity, tackling social determinants of health, such as poor air quality, must be a priority. We know that poorer people live near dual carriageways and busy main roads, which contribute to poorer health—the evidence is clear. Certainly, as a shadow Minister, I went on a number of walkabouts with a personal air monitor on. I could see the results there and then, and they were stark. I am not even going to mention the tube; it was very frightening. However, we do need to know where pollution hotspots are, because then we can do something about tackling them.

The clear, detrimental health impacts of continued exposure to air pollution led the World Health Organisation to revise its guidance in 2021, to state that there are no safe levels of air pollution. That is a fact: there are no safe levels. That updated guidance now means that UK air pollution limits, first adopted in 2010, are significantly out of date, with targets for nitrous oxides and PM_2.5 emissions being four times those now adopted by the WHO. I therefore ask the Minister what consideration the Department has given the updated WHO guidelines, and what steps it is taking to align UK regulations with those standards.

This year marks the 70th anniversary of the UK’s Clean Air Act 1956. Given the ongoing and pressing health emergency posed by air pollution, there is a clear need to update it. We need a new clean air Act that is fit for the present day. We know that local authorities play a critical role in delivering local improvements in air quality, but they need the funding, enforcement powers and clear national backing to do so effectively. A new clean air Act would really help them in their challenges. I pay tribute to one of my local councils, Newport city council, for its fleet of electric buses. It is doing its bit, but it needs help to do even more.

What steps has the Department taken to update the Clean Air Act, drawing on national and international best practice? Will the Minister outline what conversations the Department has had with the Treasury and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on greater financial support for local authorities to take action to tackle air pollution hotspots?

This Labour Government are committed to protecting our environment, rebuilding our NHS and breaking down barriers to opportunity, but we cannot deliver on those targets if we continue to overlook the significant impact of poor air quality on people’s health, particularly the poor and the young. Tackling air pollution is an investment in the next generation. We cannot let our children continue to pay the price for continued inaction. We need a new clean air Act and we need it now. I look forward to hearing the Minister outline a timetable for its introduction.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for leading this debate and, as ever, for his gentle but decisive prose. Members will be pleased, I am sure, to hear that my remarks will be a bit shorter.

Toxic air is a public health crisis—it is also an environmental crisis, but the health element, especially for our children, is what concerns me today. Air pollution can stunt the growth of children’s lungs, hamper foetal development and contribute to cancer, heart disease, dementia and even mental health conditions. Our air can become an invisible killer, but sadly, because we do not see it, we do not quite understand it.

Every single year, an estimated 30,000 deaths are attributable to long term exposure to dirty air, and, at one point, in Newham—one of the boroughs I represent—1.7 in every 100 deaths were caused by air pollution. In 2013, one of those 30,000 was a nine year old girl. We have already heard her name today: Ella Adoo Kissi Debrah. She died following an asthma attack. Thanks to the tireless campaigning of Ella’s mum, Rosamund, who demanded answers and pushed for justice for her daughter, Ella became the first person in the UK for whom air pollution is listed as an official cause of death. I know Rosamund from my time working for the Mayor of London, so I saw her tireless work at first hand—her advocacy has been incredible. It was a landmark decision: Ella was exposed to excessive levels of pollution. The toxic air cut her beautiful life short, and robbed a family of their sister and a mother of her daughter. Their lives have never been the same since.

That is the price that our younger citizens paid for our inaction. If the air in Ella’s neighbourhood had been safe, and if she had not been exposed to toxic gases, she would have been in her 20s today—probably a trailblazer in her own right, but we will never know. That is the human cost of our negligence. No child should suffer as Ella did, and no family or mother should have to go through what they did.

We cannot repeat the mistakes of the past by failing this generation of young people. It is clear that, with political will, creativity and resolve, we can turn the tide. I was there for the inception of ULEZ, and I am proud to have been part of the team who worked on it from 2016 onwards. In the five years since it came in, the Mayor of London’s bold approach has reduced London’s nitrogen oxide levels by over 40%—that is no small feat. It has reduced fine particulate pollution levels by around 30%. These are not pie in the sky statistics. That work is driving down hospital admissions, protecting the health of children and pensioners alike, and easing the burden on our NHS.

In London, a large number of individual politicians, including the mayor, had a rough time introducing ULEZ. It is time that we congratulate him on that achievement and on the way in which he courageously faced down the opposition.

I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. For some Members on the right, particularly those representing outer London suburbs, that issue has become the newest punching bag. This should not be about party politics; it should be about cleaning up our polluted air.

In just five years, we have seen the difference here in London thanks to bold leadership from our mayor, Sadiq Khan. Dirty air is deadly, but the future is in our hands. We have shown that progress is possible and that we can turn the tide. This should not be a controversial thing. Breathing clean air should not be a privilege reserved just for children in postcodes in leafy suburbs. We would never expect anyone to drink dirty water, so why are we accepting the breathing of dirty air? That is the simple premise behind Ella’s law, which I am very proud to support as a signatory. That legislation, the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill, makes one clear claim: every person has the right to breathe clean air.

I welcome the fact that the Government have identified clean air as a priority for the 10-year health plan. In that spirit, I urge the Minister to take a fresh look at our national targets and our legal pollution limits, and to commit to introducing Ella’s law to tackle the serious air pollution challenges and cut down the causes of toxic pollution. Everyone has the right to breathe clean air, no matter where they live or who they are. That should be the thing that unites this whole House.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) on securing this important debate.

Clean air is not simply an issue about health and the environment, but a moral imperative of our time. It is a challenge that requires urgency, with current legislation and frameworks lagging behind the science, alongside more joined up thinking and action across agencies, Government Departments and devolved Administrations. I hope that the Minister can say something about the work that his Department is doing with others to take the issue forward.

Clean air is an environmental, health and social justice issue. Poor air quality is an environmental challenge. Many of our wild plants and much of our natural environment cannot tolerate high pollution levels, which can devastate grasslands, peatlands and moorlands, leading to a loss of pollinators and significantly harming biodiversity. That matters on a bigger scale, because the ecosystems that we depend on for air, water and a liveable planet are being damaged.

Poor air quality is a public health issue. It shortens lives and contributes to between 30,000 and 40,000 premature deaths every year. It increases the risk of diseases such as dementia, lung cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes. It affects all of us, but particularly the young, the old, pregnant women and their unborn children.

That brings me to air quality as a social justice issue. Clean air is an equity issue: those more likely to have underlying conditions are also more likely to live in environments that worsen them. The areas most exposed to pollution are often the poorest, where proximity to traffic and poor housing often go hand in hand.

That is why tackling the root causes is essential. Interventions can make a real difference. Air pollution was once widely associated with transport, but strategies—most notably, the shift away from diesel and the uptake of electric vehicles—have reduced transport’s impact. Alongside national action, local strategies matter. As has been mentioned, London’s ULEZ reduced NO₂ levels by 40% before lockdown, and, since the clean air zone was introduced in Bradford, it is reported that GP visits for cardiovascular and respiratory problems have reduced by 25%.

However, success in one area should not obscure challenges elsewhere. Wood burning affects air quality inside homes. There must be a focus on air quality indoors, where we spend up to 80% to 90% of our time, as much as a focus on air quality outdoors and on how we protect buildings such as schools, hospitals and community facilities. Yes, we need more ambitious targets and a stronger framework, but, just as importantly, we must secure buy in from local communities. Although national targets set direction, local needs are best addressed locally. That means empowering not only local authorities, important though that is, but communities themselves.

Clean air cannot be delivered from the top down alone; alongside funding, we need expertise and partnerships so that residents, schools and community organisations can lead change. Community led initiatives, such as local monitoring, clean transport and neighbourhood campaigns, would make the pollution issue visible, and give people a real stake in improving it. I hope that the Minister can say something about the involvement of communities in taking forward the important measures that are required.

Public engagement must be at the heart of our efforts. Clean air should be seen as essential to everyday health. By raising awareness, and giving people the opportunity to shape solutions, we can turn an invisible scourge into a shared priority. With national ambition and local action, we can become a world leader in air quality again.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for securing this important debate on the urgency and duty for policymakers to tackle air pollution—the silent killer in our towns and cities. I also thank all the Members who have contributed so passionately and movingly to the debate. Toxic, poisonous air threatens the community spaces that we all love and the people we care most about. It knows no boundaries, reaching our workplaces, homes, schools and other public spaces.

As other hon. Members have done, I would like to pay tribute to Rosamund Adoo Kissi Debrah, mum to Ella Roberta. For over a decade, Rosamund has campaigned tirelessly for cleaner air through Ella’s law. I had the privilege to meet Rosamund last month when, as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, I visited communities to understand the physical and mental health impacts of air pollution on their lives.

Ella was a happy, playful and bright child, and she lived not far from the South Circular Road in Lewisham with her family. By the age of seven, she was suffering debilitating asthma attacks, which would see her cough and wheeze so much that she would fall unconscious. A few weeks after her ninth birthday, Ella died. She had suffered a fatal asthma attack. A landmark inquest in 2020 ruled that toxic air from traffic emissions contributed to her death, marking the first time that air pollution was officially recognised as a cause of death in the UK. Ella’s death was preventable.

Among other measures, Ella’s law would enshrine a legal right to breathe clean air, requiring the Government to meet stricter air quality standards based on the World Health Organisation guidelines. We must not let children like Ella and their families down when turning our attention to this urgent problem, yet in the UK, an estimated 500 people die of disease related to air pollution each week.

Air pollution is an invisible and insidious enemy. According to a recent report by the Royal College of Physicians, air pollution has been linked to 30,000 deaths and, as we have heard, it costs our economy more than £27 billion per year. Long term exposure to emissions can cause heart and lung problem and increase the risk of a person developing cancers. Fine particulate matter from polluted air penetrates deep into the body, settling in our lungs. Recent research has also pointed to an increased risk of cognitive decline, Alzheimer’s disease and dementia from long term exposure to fine particulate air pollution, which can affect the heart and blood vessels.

The public health burden is not shared equally: the most vulnerable in our society, including the elderly, those already facing deprivation, and babies and children are most at risk. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists stated that a growing evidence base links maternal exposure to air pollution and adverse pregnancy outcomes. That is why the Liberal Democrats have called for the introduction of a new clean air Act, based on World Health Organisation guidelines and enforced by a dedicated air quality agency. The scale of the issue is such that we need strong, independent oversight to tackle pollution at its source and protect public health.

We must also transform how people travel, reducing dependence on the cars that spew noxious fumes into the air we breathe. The Government must work with local authorities to curb transport emissions. We need to invest in affordable, reliable public transport to ensure that fares do not rise above inflation, restore the £2 bus fare cap, and improve the passenger experience so that it is cheaper and better to travel by public transport. We must electrify our railways, embrace cleaner technologies and support active travel by creating safe cycling and walking networks across the country. For those who have no option but to rely on cars, especially those in isolated rural areas, we must make the transition to electric vehicles easier and more affordable by expanding charging infrastructure and reducing costs.

Finally, we must address the inequalities at the heart of the issue. By increasing the public health grant and empowering local communities, we can develop targeted solutions such as supporting healthier and better insulated housing, reducing traffic exposure and improving local planning. As some hon. Members have already stated, health experts recommend stronger controls on household wood burning and effective action to raise awareness of health harms from indoor air pollution, including damp and mould.

Children in the UK today have some of the worst asthma outcomes in the developed world. It is not right that so many lives are shortened by diseases that we can work together to prevent. Most importantly of all, there is no effective advice to help people to avoid air pollution if they have only one route to work or school, if they live near a busy road, if their care home or school is near air pollutant sources or if their house is poorly insulated. We call on the Government to recognise, in law, the human right to breathe clean air and to legally enforce air quality standards that meet WHO limits by 2030. We owe clean air to the baby born today, to the child coming out of school right now and to every child who will come after them.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I commend the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) on securing this important debate. He has spoken about the issue many times in this place, so I know it is one that he cares deeply about.

Air pollution is one of the greatest public health and environmental challenges facing our country today: it contributes to thousands of premature deaths every year, worsens respiratory diseases, harms our natural environment and, as was outlined in the contributions of many hon. Members, places an enormous amount of pressure on our NHS. All of that reduces productivity and participation in the workplace, costing the UK economy about £27 billion annually. That is largely due to healthcare costs, productivity losses and reduced quality of life. When wider impacts such as dementia are accounted for, the economic cost of air quality not being addressed may be as high as £50 billion.

Air pollution also disproportionately affects the most deprived communities—13% of people in the most deprived neighbourhoods in the United Kingdom live in the 10% of areas with the highest air pollution, compared with only 7% of people in the least deprived neighbourhoods. The health impacts of that are seismic, as exposure to air pollution can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease and cancer. It can also cause damage to the reproductive and central nervous systems, as has also been mentioned by several Members. In particular, exposure to air pollution in childhood can have lasting, lifelong effects and can affect cognitive development or increase the risk of developing a chronic disease. Health risks from exposure to air pollution should not be a postcode lottery. I would be grateful if the Minister could inform the Chamber what targeted action the Government will be taking to address that gap in exposure to poor air quality.

The Conservative party has a proud record when it comes to improving air quality, but there is much more to be done, as outlined in today’s contributions. Air quality in the UK has continually improved since 2010. The levels of all the key pollutants, bar ammonia, have fallen by over 70%, with levels of PM_2.5 and PM₁₀ falling by 27% and 20% respectively between 2014 and 2024. The previous Government’s 2019 clean air strategy was described by the World Health Organisation at the time as “an example for the rest of the world to follow”.

The strategy set out the comprehensive action required to meet the legally binding targets to reduce emissions of the five key pollutants by 2020 and 2030 respectively.

The previous Government also passed the Environment Act 2021, which introduced statutory targets for PM_2.5 to achieve at least a 35% reduction in population exposure by 31 December 2040. Furthermore, the previous Administration’s 2023 environmental improvement plan set out a direction to support clean air, with measures including reducing the maximum emissions for domestic burning appliances in smoke controlled areas by promoting best practices, challenging local authorities to rightly improve air quality, continuing to support the move away from petrol and diesel cars, and consulting on an extension to the existing North sea emission control area to cover the Irish sea, reducing emissions from shipping.

The roll out of any strategy, legislation, guidance or regulation that focuses on improving air quality must also take into account the economic, social and environmental impact, so that the best strategy is adopted and there is the best buy in from residents and businesses. Without their buy in, air quality is simply not improved at the rate that we would all like to see. It is no good bringing out legislation that then has a wider detrimental effect.

That is why, as the official Opposition, we oppose the Government’s restrictions on wood burning stoves. For many people living in rural areas, wood burners are an affordable, reliable and often essential source of heat where mains gas is unavailable and the alternatives are impractical and expensive to put in place.

We also committed to scrapping the zero emission vehicle mandate to reinvigorate the car manufacturing industry in Britain. There should still be a transition to cleaner transport, but it must be driven by affordability, practicality and technological progress. It should not be dictated by unrealistic mandates or the weakening of domestic manufacturing. Again, a balance must be struck if we are to improve air quality.

That is why a strategy of simply taxing motorists is just not the right approach. The Mayor of London’s expansion of ULEZ is having hugely damaging financial consequences on some of the poorest and most deprived residents and communities in London, as well as on many motorists and trade related businesses.

Will the hon. Member give way?

I would like to explore what the Mayor of London is doing for those travelling on the tube—the hon. Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) may be able to indicate this in her intervention, because I know she was involved—because there has been hardly any focus on that in the mayor’s strategy.

The Conservatives in City Hall called the whole of ULEZ “bewildering” and have objected to it at every turn. I read out the statistics earlier: there has been a 40% reduction in nitrogen oxide levels and a huge positive impact in London from ULEZ. The Mayor of London won two decisive elections after its introduction. London has also been recognised as a global leader by the United Nations. The Secretary General himself invited the Mayor of London to the United Nations to speak about ULEZ and London’s climate action. Should the hon. Member not congratulate London for its climate action and decisive air quality improvements, and actually support that good work?

I will specifically address that point, but I will use one further example before I do. The same approach as the ULEZ has been applied to the Bradford district, in which my constituency sits.

A clean air zone has been rolled out in Bradford, but it is a strategy that is again taxing motorists and some of the hardest working people in our communities—including some of the most deprived communities, who are simply not able to afford the levels of tax imposed on them. Of course there are other ways of doing it, but before I come on to them I want to address the fact that if a resident or someone with a business on the outskirts of Bradford wants to travel into Bradford in a light goods vehicle, it now costs them £9 a day. That has a detrimental impact on business growth. It costs a coach driver, a heavy goods vehicle driver or a bus driver £50 a day to take their vehicle into Bradford. That is also having a huge detrimental impact.

Since the scheme was launched in 2023, £26.7 million has been raised. Of that, £9.8 million was raised through entry fees but £16.4 million was raised through penalty charge notices, the vast majority of which were for people who could not afford to pay, and who therefore had to go to court for that money to be extracted from them.

My point is that we cannot simply have a strategy that charges people if we want complete buy in. That is why I use the example of the roll out in Manchester. It will be interesting to see what the strategy of the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) will be, because when he was Mayor of Greater Manchester he opposed a chargeable clean air zone tax across Greater Manchester. Indeed, at the time, all five local authorities that make up Greater Manchester also heavily lobbied the Government for a non charging approach to be adopted. Such an approach was therefore signed off, which resulted in investment in electrification, upgrade grants and traffic control measures. Those were all rolled out in Manchester—approved by the former Mayor of Greater Manchester, the right hon. Member for Makerfield—and they had buy in at the local level.

I would therefore simply say in response to the hon. Member for Stratford and Bow that there are other ways of doing it, rather than simply having a taxing approach. Will the Minister outline whether he has had discussions with the right hon. Member for Makerfield, who is likely to become the Prime Minister, about what the future clean air zone strategy will be under the new Administration? Will the Minister also outline the cost to the taxpayer of all the infrastructure that was put in place but not used for the roll out of that clean air zone—a tax to the motorist—across the Greater Manchester area?

It is therefore vital that when we consider how to tackle air pollution and improve air quality, the Government work across Departments to ensure that there are no unintended adverse impacts on businesses and indeed on our rural communities. I absolutely agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Brent West: we cannot have a siloed approach across Government. I therefore ask the Minister to provide an assurance that any forthcoming strategy will not be siloed just within DEFRA but will instead take a co ordinated approach across Government.

Communities across the country continue to breathe polluted air every single day. It is an unfortunate thing to say, but that is the reality. We must do much more, with buy in from businesses and residents, and only if it is not detrimental to driving local growth. Parents worry about children walking to school alongside congested roads and elderly residents and those living with asthma or heart disease face unnecessary health risks. Those are not abstract narratives; they are everyday realities for millions of people. We must, therefore, work together to ensure that all of our constituents breathe cleaner, healthier air.

To have a clean air strategy, we have to have buy in from all and not just use a one size fits all approach by taxing those in our communities who are most deprived. They are the ones who need to benefit from the clean air zone strategy because of where they live.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I congratulate all hon. Members for their thoughtful and wide ranging contributions. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for securing this important debate and for speaking with such characteristic passion about this issue.

There is clear consensus that air pollution remains one of the most significant environmental risks to public health and I welcome the strength of feeling expressed today on the need to continue to make progress. I also welcome the ongoing inquiry by the Environmental Audit Committee into air pollution. Scrutiny of that kind plays an important role in strengthening our approach and the Government have been keenly following the evidence received by the Committee. We look forward to engaging further with the Committee, and Ministers will give evidence to it in due course.

The issue goes beyond environmental policy. As many Members have confirmed, it is about fairness. The dirtiest air sits over the poorest neighbourhoods. Black and minority ethnic communities and those on low incomes are far more likely to be exposed to air pollution while contributing the least to it. That is exactly the kind of injustice the Labour party and this Labour Government exist to tackle.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) rightly mentioned, it is also about the NHS. We are the party that built it and protecting it means preventing illness, not just funding treatment. Dirty air contributes to about 30,000 early deaths each year, and it drives asthma, cancer, heart disease and dementia. An NHS fit for the future requires action not just inside hospital walls, but on the air outside their doors. I will certainly take the questions my hon. Friend has raised back to the Department.

This issue is also about pride in place. Clean air underpins better neighbourhoods, safer streets, greener spaces and thriving high streets. Making a visible improvement that people can feel is at the heart of our mission to restore pride in the places that people call home. Let me be clear: the Government recognise both the scale of the challenge and the need for sustained, co ordinated action. We have made substantial progress in recent years. Air quality in England has improved significantly and emissions of key air pollutants, such as nitrogen oxide, sulphur dioxide and particulate matter, have reduced and are projected to continue to fall.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brent West mentioned the DEFRA statistics that came out this week, and they all show long term improvement. The trajectory is promising, but, as I will go on to say later, we need to do much more. The improvements have been driven by major shifts in the United Kingdom, such as the transition from coal to natural gas to renewables in electricity generation, the tighter vehicle emission standards and improved industrial controls. However, there is much more to do to fully unlock the benefits for public health, the environment and the economy. That is why we are continuing to take action to reduce emissions at source, working closely with local authorities and partners across the health system.

A number of Members have made remarks about targets. In December, we set more ambitious interim targets for fine particulate matter, including a concentration target aligned with the level the EU is required to achieve. Overall, our national performance is broadly comparable with the EU for many pollutants. Areas in England are already meeting levels like those that the EU is aiming for by 2030. We will keep other targets under review, but real world improvements need tangible action. As set out in the environmental improvement plan, we are taking practical action in a range of sectors, and that will deliver real benefits for communities across the country.

A number of Members raised the issue of nitrogen dioxide, which remains a challenge, as we recognise. In 2024, five location zones exceeded the annual mean limit and some local hotspots persist. That said, committed policies to tackle nitrogen dioxide, such as increasing the share of zero emission cars and vans by 2030 and moving to all new sales being zero emission by 2035, will make a significant difference. We will continue to work closely with our partners in local government to deliver nitrogen dioxide reductions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brent West raised the matter of domestic burning. We recognise that it is responsible for a significant proportion of fine particulate matter emissions; it is comparable with road transport. We must act to reduce the impact of burning on the health of those in households who burn and their neighbours. However, we must do so in a way that does not put disproportionate costs on households or businesses. The policies consulted on earlier this year focused on reducing emissions from domestic solid fuel burning to ensure cleaner burning in the future, delivering health benefits. We received a significant number of responses, which we are considering, and the Government response will be published later in the year and will set out the next steps. We will continue to review our measures to reduce emissions from that source.

A number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), mentioned the importance of communication and engagement with communities. The issue of air pollution is complex and often invisible. The challenge is not just about reducing emissions but about making sure that people understand the risks, know what action to take and feel empowered to act. That is why clear, trusted and accessible communications are so important. We have already taken positive steps, including updating the health advice accompanying the daily air quality index, which provides the public with current pollution levels, five day forecasts and health advice based on pollution levels.

Through a new air pollution awareness coalition, we are working with health and non governmental organisation partners to deliver clean and credible messaging on air pollution. The coalition will deliver practical and trusted communications to improve public understanding of air pollution and support action to reduce harm. We have also commissioned a co design project working with local authority officers and directors of public health to create a new air quality communications toolkit, supporting local authorities to disseminate cleaner, clearer and locally relevant air quality information. New resources are due to be published at the end of the calendar year.

On the issue of messaging, I wonder whether the Minister could take a message back from this debate with regard to Heathrow: perhaps Ministers could read their own report on the health impact of airport expansion. I am particularly concerned about loss of life in my constituency. The Government’s own paper says that vulnerable groups in our area will suffer significant major adverse impacts from the expansion of Heathrow, which means that more of my constituents will die. The scheme will make things worse and therefore the message is: think again.

My right hon. Friend will know that the Government have launched a consultation on the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement, which includes the requirement that the development consent must meet measures on climate change and air quality. Likewise, the Government have been clear that any expansion proposals must meet strict environmental requirements on air quality. I will certainly take his concerns back to my Department.

In May, we launched the first iteration of a new alert system, allowing people to sign up for notifications when air pollution is forecast or measured to be high in their local community.

A number of Members, including the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), have made points about cross Government working. Air pollution is not an issue any one department can solve in isolation. It requires co ordinated action across transport, energy, planning, agriculture and health, and we are working closely with colleagues across Government to ensure that our approach is aligned, evidence led and deliverable. I can assure all Members that we recognise the importance of cross Government working, working with our devolved Governments and in partnership with local authorities on these matters.

On a clean air Act, the Government have no plans to implement new primary legislation at this stage, but we are committed to ensuring that there is cleaner air for everyone, backed by a strong legal framework that already holds Government to account and drives down harmful pollution. It is also important to recognise that as progress continues, the choices become more complex. Further reductions often require changes that carry wider financial implications for businesses, households and communities. Looking ahead, we will continue to work with a wide range of stakeholders as we consider the best approach to review our air quality strategy.

This is a complex challenge, but one where progress is possible and essential. The Government are working hard to deliver the commitments made in the environmental improvement plan, including through reforming our industrial emissions regulation, reducing emissions from domestic combustion and improving communications on air quality. We will keep progress under review.

The Minister is very brave to say that there will be no new clean air Act. I understand why he says that, but when the Clean Air Act was introduced, it saved thousands of lives; why would we not amend and update that Act?

My understanding is that there is already a legal framework to deliver on the targets that we are committed to achieving.

I welcome the scrutiny from this House and the Environmental Audit Committee. I know that the Minister responsible for air quality in DEFRA has been watching the debate and looks forward to contributing to future discussions, so that we can all work together to deliver cleaner air for communities across our country.

It has been a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. Thank you for giving me the nod earlier to curtail my remarks. It only goes to prove that we do not need to say everything: often, we think—at least I do—that we need to get everything in, but what was lovely about this debate was that I did not manage to get in everything that I wanted to say, but then all my hon. Friends did it for me.

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who mentioned the £27 billion impact that this clean air Act could achieve, which would have come later in my speech. That is a huge impact on our economy. He talked about public awareness. The Royal College of Physicians did a poll with YouGov in which 95% of people did not know there was a link between air pollution and diabetes, and 85% of people did not know about the link between air pollution and stroke, heart disease or poor foetal health. The hon. Member was absolutely right to raise the importance of public awareness; it was an important contribution to the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) spoke with deep knowledge from her days as a shadow Minister and as a medical practitioner, as she told us. She stressed the social inequality that toxic air brings, and the need for a new clean air Act with a national framework. That is really important—that it is a national framework for appropriate support to be delivered to local authorities. The point that she stressed was reinforced by what the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), said about the need to do this and bring it together.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran), who spoke of her work for the mayor and of the 40% reduction in nitrogen dioxide that has been achieved there. I am so pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), who serves with me on the Environmental Audit Committee, spoke of the impacts on wildlife and nature, because that is absolutely fundamental. He also raised wood burners, but of course the Minister will know—if he does not, his officials will—that the DEFRA labelling standards, by DEFRA’s own lights, will reduce pollution by only 2%.

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stratford on Avon (Manuela Perteghella), who spoke movingly about Ella Adoo Kissi Debrah. She mentioned the modal shift to public transport, and spoke about important things such as local solutions and school streets.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Can I give way in a winding up speech?

Order. Obviously, this is meant to be a brief summing up by the hon. Gentleman—

I just thought I had a wee bit of time.

There is certainly not scope for giving way in his couple of minutes for summing up.

Okay. I will be very brief, and I will not give way.

I really enjoyed it when the shadow Minister was on the Environmental Audit Committee with us. He made a very valuable contribution then, but he lost his way when he went over to the Front Bench. How can he at the same time extol the £27 billion that will be brought into the economy and then say, “But actually we can’t afford to do it”? He talked about a 35% reduction in population exposure—great, but he had no baseline when he did that, so he did not know what he was reducing by 35%.

I thank the Minister very much for standing in. The Secretary of State “may have failed, and be continuing to fail, to comply with relevant duties under the”

air quality standards regulations “to ensure that such plans are drawn up and implemented.”

That is not me, but the Office for Environmental Protection in January.

What is not to like? Clean air, less congested, safer, quieter roads, more active travel, better public transport, better insulated, less mouldy homes that run on cheaper energy, healthier workplaces, less cost to the NHS and £27 billion to the economy—for God’s sake, let’s just do it.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Government plans to tackle air pollution.

Sitting adjourned.