Backbench Business Committee

Representations: Backbench Debates

Tuesday 12 September 2023

Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 12 September 2023.

Watch the meeting 

Members present: Ian Mearns (Chair); Bob Blackman; Patricia Gibson; Chris Green; Wendy Morton; Kate Osborne.

Questions 1-8

Representations made

I: Helen Morgan and Olivia Blake

II: Kate Osborne

Helen Morgan and Olivia Blake made representations.

Q1                Chair: Good afternoon, and welcome to the Backbench Business Committee. We have two applications in front of us, the first of which is from Helen Morgan. Welcome Helen. The application you have is on the subject of Baby Loss Awareness Week 2023 and the implementation of the findings of the Ockenden report in Britain. Over to you, Helen.

Helen Morgan: Thank you very much for considering my application for a debate. As you will know, I am a co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss. We campaign to improve the support for parents who have been bereaved at the most difficult time.

Since 2016, Parliament has had a debate to mark Baby Loss Awareness Week, which runs annually and is traditionally in the final week of conference recess. That is why we have put in an application for the following week. It creates an opportunity not only to raise awareness of some of the issues that we are asking Ministers to improve on—such as support for bereaved parents and saving babies’ lives—but to provide support for bereaved parents and families. Recognition that they are not alone is a big part of their healing process and coming to terms with their grief.

              You will be aware that during the course of last year the Ockenden report on the failures of maternity care at Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital Trust was issued. That happened in advance of Baby Loss Awareness Week. One of the key recommendations that came out of that was on safe staffing. We debated that issue in the equivalent debate last year. We have had some positive commitment from the Government and positive feedback from Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital Trust, but because further issues have arisen at East Kent and Nottingham since then, we thought it might be worth reviewing the progress that has been made since the issuing of the report and the commitment to safe staffing, as well as ensuring that those learnings and benefits are being felt. We are not there yet on maternity care and on saving babies’ lives.

Q2                Chair: Thank you. You have asked for the week immediately following the conference recess. It so happens that we do have the second slot on Thursday 19 October. If I were to offer that to you, I take it you would be able to accept it? 

Helen Morgan: I would indeed, yes.

Chair: That is good to know. Any further questions from colleagues? Helen, it is an application we have just about had annually. Members have brought applications on this issue, and we have always been happy to try and accommodate such a debate on Baby Loss Awareness Week, if and when we are allocated time by the Government. We are very happy to do so.

Q3                Bob Blackman: The other debate that will be held that day is likely to be on birth trauma. Are you aware of whether there is any crossover between the speakers who may wish to participate?

Helen Morgan: I am aware of the birth trauma debate. I think there might be a little bit of crossover, in all honesty, but they are covering separate areas of concern over maternity services. Baby Loss Awareness Week is really to ensure that we are providing support to parents who have been bereaved, and to ensure that they realise that we take the issue seriously, both in supporting them and preventing unnecessary bereavement in the future.

Q4                Bob Blackman: Because that debate will hopefully get about four hours, it is about ensuring there are sufficient speakers to justify both debates happening. I have nothing against the subjects, but if there is a crossover it may be that people will only want to speak once in a debate, rather than in each of the two debates. It would be helpful if you had discussions with Theo Clarke, who is leading the birth trauma debate.

Helen Morgan: Yes. No problem.

Olivia Blake: From working with both APPGs, I think there are separate groups of Members who have different interests in that, so I think there would be enough speakers for both debates, to be honest, in my experience.

Chair: The good thing is that we can get the message out there and give plenty of notice to people so that they can prepare for the week after the conference recess. Thank you very much indeed—that is very much appreciated.

Kate Osborne made representations.

Q5                Chair: Next up we have one of our own Committee members, Kate Osborne. For those watching, I point out that Kate will not take part in the deliberations on whether this is a suitable application. Kate, welcome to the Committee again. Your application is on the subject of equality in IVF provision, and I understand that this is an application for a Westminster Hall debate.

Kate Osborne: Thank you, Chair, for allowing me to present this to the Committee today, given that it was put in at late notice. You will see that I have nine signatures. I know from my position on the Committee that that should be enough. I have had further interest and could forward more names if necessary.

This is a subject that constituents have contacted me about. I work quite closely with Stonewall, and it is quite keen for a debate on this. Without going into any detail here and now, it is something that I have personal experience of as well. It is about equal access to IVF treatment, particularly focusing on the LGBTQ community, because there are barriers that same-sex women couples in particular face when it comes to IVF. There is an insistence on going through what most would see as unnecessary fertility tests, and quite clearly there are different issues in those relationships from those that there would be in a heterosexual couple going for IVF, where you could understand why those tests might be necessary.

The reason that is an issue is that there is a cost involved. You could find that a couple were spending thousands of pounds before they are in a position where they are actually allowed to go for IVF. The other thing that I would like to mention is to do with the women’s health strategy. In the 2022 women’s health strategy, there was a commitment to remove the need for self-funded artificial insemination, yet it is a bit of a postcode lottery as to where and when that actually happens. Those are the main points for the debate, Chair, and I am happy to take any questions from the Committee.

Chair: Thank you very much.

Q6                Bob Blackman: To be clear, your application is principally aimed at the LGBTQ community rather than at the postcode lottery, which certainly exists for IVF for women anyway. Is it a specific debate, or is it general?

Kate Osborne: Some of the focus will be on the issues that are particular to the LGBTQ+ community, but I think it is an opportunity for Members to raise the postcode lottery, which impacts everyone.

Q7                Chair: Are there any further questions?

Kate Osborne: If there is an available slot on the morning of Tuesday the 24th, that would be very welcome. I am not in Westminster the first week after recess, and I believe that that might be the first week that is available.

Q8                Chair: I understand that you anticipate Health and Social Care to be the answering Department.

Kate Osborne: Yes, and I believe that it is one of the answering Departments on that day.

Chair: That is a useful insight. We will see what we can do to accommodate that. We will now go into private session.