Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Social Media Posts: Penalties for Offences
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 728715 relating to penalties for offences arising from social media posts.
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. As Chair of the Petitions Committee, let me say that it is always encouraging to witness public participation in politics. With more than 100,000 signatures, it is evident that this petition has engaged a large number of people all across the country.
This e-petition was created by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe). This is the first time that an elected Member of the House of Commons has the e-petition system in this way to garner enough support to secure a debate, making this a unique instance. He explained to me that he believes that this Government have taken a two-tier approach to policing, which needs to be urgently reviewed.
When I use the phrase “two-tier”, I am referring to the belief that police in this country are overtly lenient towards protestors in favour of progressive causes and racial minority protestors, compared with others. To put it simply, those who subscribe to this criticism of our justice system do not believe that citizens are being punished fairly or impartially. That is why the signatories of this petition believe the system needs to be reviewed. Specifically, they are calling on the Government to urgently review the possible penalties for non-violent offences arising from social media posts, including the use of prison. During our meeting, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth explained that it is his belief that, when it comes to punishing individuals for something they have posted on a social media platform, previous sentences issued for offences under this Government have risked encroaching on the individual liberty of the defendant, particularly their freedom of speech.
Freedom of expression has always been a cornerstone of our democracy. In the UK, people are free to demonstrate their views regardless of any discomfort caused to the majority. However, the freedom to express these opinions does exempt any criminal motivation behind them from being prosecuted. Just as we are a country that takes pride in our citizen’s liberties and freedoms, we also take pride in a criminal justice system that protects our citizens from harm. The former will never override the latter.
Under section 22 of the Online Safety Act 2023, a statutory duty to consider free expression protects the rights of users within the law. Crucially, the Act explicitly defines “freedom of expression” in terms compatible with the European convention on human rights. That is the right
“to receive and impart ideas, opinions or information…by means of speech, writing or images”.
However, section 59 of that same Act makes it clear that the boundary of that freedom extends only as far as the legality of the content. In other words, content is judged not just by whether it is unpopular, offensive or controversial but, crucially, whether it violates criminal law. Examples of such violations include—to name but a few—types of intimate image abuse, harassment or the incitement of hate crimes.
That brings us to the question of criminality and prosecution for such an offence, which I believe is the very crux of this petition. When I spoke to the Sentencing Council, it made it clear to me that intent matters a lot in many of these offences. The Sentencing Council’s definition of intent ranges from the highest culpability, for a deliberate intention to cause harm, to lower levels of culpability, for recklessness, knowledge of risk or sheer negligence.
The council considers an offender’s intent to be a key factor in determining the seriousness of an offence and the appropriate sentence, which will often be based on the level of harm that was intended even if it was not actually caused. In our modern age of social media, where communication is instant, rapid and far-reaching, the question of culpability, intent and widespread dissemination does indeed hold serious weight. It is reasonable to assume that all citizens realise that when using sites such as X, Instagram or Facebook.
When it comes to calling on the Government to review the penalties for non-violent offences arising from social media posts, it is imperative to clarify the particulars of existing sentencing guidelines. In the UK, the Government on their own cannot simply change criminal penalties, because the power to set or alter penalties is controlled by Parliament and the courts, not Ministers. Any change to maximum or minimum penalties for an offence must be made through primary legislation. That means that a new law or amendment must pass through the full parliamentary process: drafting, scrutiny, debate and, of course, approval by both Houses—the Commons and the Lords. The Government may propose changes, but they absolutely cannot impose them without Parliament voting them into law.
Even after Parliament sets the legal penalty ranges, the Government still cannot decide individual sentences, because those are often carried out independently by judges, who must follow the Sentencing Council’s guidelines and not—absolutely not—the preferences of Ministers. The Government also cannot order judges to give harsher or more lenient sentences in specific cases, because judicial independence, as we know, protects courts from political interference; indeed, I would suggest that it is a crucial pillar of our political and justice systems. Neither the courts nor Parliament stand alone; that ensures that balanced decisions are made independently in the public interest.
All of that is seriously complex, and addresses a large scale of harm and, in some cases, prejudice. That is to say that I am absolutely certain my colleagues will debate this question with respect, rationality and indeed nuance this evening. I can see that lots of them hope to speak, so I will bring my remarks to a close to allow as many as possible to participate.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
There appear to be other attractions in the main Chamber today, and a number of Members who indicated that they wished to participate are not present. For that reason, I have no need, I think, to put any time limit on contributions.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger.
The first duty of Government is to keep their citizens safe. We do that with the police and our court system; and, although they are not perfect, we could not do it without them. The online space is an integral part of our modern lives, and we need to treat it as such, because what happens online does not stay online.
Online safety naysayers want us to think that regulating the online space is a conspiracy to end freedom of speech. Some, such as the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), try to make that case, while his online followers send women and members of minorities death and rape threats when they speak freely, and that includes Members of this House—like many women MPs, I receive at least one a week.
Rather than taking away free speech and democracy, we are ensuring that everybody has a voice, so that people, including the alleged victims of Andrew and Tristan Tate, can one day have an online profile again, without getting their home addresses splashed all over the internet and being doxed, as young people like to call it.
Democracy should be about ideas and debates, yet the online environment that some Members of this House want is one where people can make deepfakes, misleading the electorate; where they can threaten women with rape, to shut up those they do not agree with; and where they can make £300,000 by making 128 Facebook pages, spreading racist and AI-generated misinformation, which is then amplified by members of the Reform party—monetising hate, as the piece in The Times exposed this morning. Without an extension of our election laws to online spaces, single platforms or platform owners with specific political or financial agendas can continue to spread lies and misinformation, even going so far as to incite violence in another country. That is not democracy; that is not free speech. It is up to this Government to ward against it and ensure that our laws and sentencing are appropriate. As I said, the first duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe.
In real life, a 12-year-old cannot go to the cinema to see a film if it is rated 15, and pornography is put on the top shelf at the newsagents, out of reach. Kids cannot buy a video game that is adult-only rated without identification. Online, however, our kids can find any kind of graphic or sexual content, of any level of extremity, as easily as they can text their friends.
The Online Safety Act is there to protect everyone. It is there to put porn back on the top shelf and out of reach of kids. It works to prevent 10-year-olds from finding graphic depictions of violence, being encouraged to become violent themselves or being groomed by strangers. Those who want to scrap the Act and the sentencing that goes along with it actually put at risk our free speech—the free speech of those who are intimidated every day for trying to express their views online—and, even more so, they put at risk our democracy. Let us bring back common sense and protect this country.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
As the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) said, this is the first time that an e-petition debate has been instigated by a Member of this House, so it gives me great pleasure to call the culprit, Rupert Lowe.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am grateful to the Petitions Committee for granting time for this extremely important debate, following our successful petition. Most importantly, I thank the more than 190,000 British people who signed the petition that we initiated, which calls for an end to the creeping use of prison as a punishment for what people say online. We would not be here today without their support, which is a credit to the petitions system, one of the better-functioning arms of Parliament.
I welcome Lucy Connolly and her husband, who are here today. She is one of the many ordinary citizens who has been swept up in the chaotic and inconsistent enforcement of our online speech laws. Her courage in speaking openly about her experience has helped to expose a growing problem: namely that the British state is now more willing to imprison somebody for a social media post than for a rape. That is not justice, that is not proportionate and that is certainly not the mark of a free country.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this petition to the House. On what analysis does he base his comment that people are more likely to be in prison for a social media tweet than for rape?
Rupert Lowe
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has heard of the Pakistani rape gangs, which are currently the subject of my crowdfunder. When he reads the report that is coming out in March, I am sure he will agree with me.
We are witnessing the steady expansion of what are essentially speech crimes—offences where there is no violence, no real threat of violence and, often, no identifiable victim at all. Yet people face dawn raids, criminal records, ankle tags and even lengthy prison sentences—for words, for arguments, for opinions that somebody somewhere claims to find offensive.
I had my own experience: a late-night police raid, initiated by false allegations from former Reform party colleagues, relating solely to words I had allegedly spoken—the party of free speech, indeed. The Reform leadership’s bitter attempt to see me in prison failed, but too many others do not escape the consequences of such vile misuse of the system. We now have laws being used to punish subjective offence, based on the most fragile interpretation of “harm” and enforced through discretionary and—far too often—politically skewed policing. A post that is deemed sharp criticism one month somehow becomes grossly offensive the next. It is arbitrary, it is inconsistent and it is fundamentally incompatible with a healthy democracy.
I receive multiple death threats, yet the police take no action. To take just one example, online influencer Shola Mos-Shogbamimu recently posted on X:
“I’m against the death penalty but for you @RupertLowe10 I’ll gladly make the exception.”
This post currently has 2 million views. The Met police have said no action will be taken. I do not want people in prison for social media posts; I also do not want such obvious two-tier policing. Shola walks free, yet Lucy Connolly was imprisoned for one foolish social media post, soon deleted. Where is the fairness in that? If these ludicrous laws are to be implemented, it must be done fairly, with no political bias. Evidently, that is not currently happening.
Is our prison system so efficient, so functional and so unoccupied that we have the capacity to put a young mother like Lucy in prison for more than 300 days? I think not. When rapists and murderers are walking free—even being released early—there is zero justification for imprisoning Lucy and the many others like her, particularly when the influence of such questionable legal aid is so heavily involved.
We must be clear: no free society can survive with a people afraid to speak. Democracy depends on robust argument, dissent and the ability to challenge orthodoxy. As George Orwell so presciently stated:
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
Parliament needs to draw a deep line in the sand: in Britain, nobody should ever be sent to prison for an offensive social media post—full stop. That requires legislative reform. We need clearer thresholds in law, a robust statutory requirement that prosecutorial decisions consider freedom of expression, and a prohibition on custodial sentences for pure speech cases.
The poison of two-tier justice must be forensically extracted from our judicial system. This debate is not about whether we are prepared to live in a country where liberty exists only for those who never cause offence—an impossible and undesirable standard. To Lucy and to every other person who has found themselves dragged through the system for a post online: you deserve better from your Government, and I sincerely hope today marks the beginning of a serious rethink in this House.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
I will come as no surprise to you, Sir Roger, to hear me say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairship.
I want to be transparent: I do not believe that the law has always got it right in these cases—there have been failures, and there must be room for scrutiny and reform. But I am compelled to speak in this debate because of the hypocrisy and double standards perpetuated by many on the Opposition Benches—those who brand themselves as defenders of free speech, yet who seem to confuse freedom of speech and freedom from consequence.
Something I taught my children from when they were very young was, “You are free to use your words, but you must be prepared to face the consequences of them.” People may think that writing an offensive post—which takes only seconds and is quickly forgotten—is inconsequential, but as we have seen over the past year, and especially in recent months, such words can have devastating effects. They can fuel radicalisation, target minority communities and make individuals feel unsafe in their own homes, schools and streets. Although some demand the right to speak without restraint, they ignore the reality that others lose their freedom to live without fear—a freedom that was hard fought for by those we pay tribute to on Armistice Day.
I find it genuinely astounding that parties such as Reform UK, and many in today’s Conservative party, espouse the importance of personal responsibility and accountability, yet are fundamentally unable to stomach it when individuals on their side of the political argument are held accountable for their words. My personal position —and, I think, that of many of my Labour colleagues—is clear: hate speech is hate speech; words have consequences. No matter whether someone passionately disagrees with someone else politically, if they use social media to call for the death of or harm to another, they should be held accountable by any means the law deems fit.
Regretfully, I do not believe that the same clarity exists on the Opposition Benches. It has been astonishing to watch some Members tie themselves in knots—on one hand decrying Britain under Labour as a return to Soviet-style communism, while on the other hand demanding the removal of the Oxford Union president-elect for comments made in a private group chat, not on social media. It seems that, for the right wing, free speech is not a two-way street: it is Schrödinger’s version of free speech.
Nowhere has the hypocrisy and knot tying been clearer than in the case of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who rightly disavowed, and welcomed the imprisonment of, an individual who used social media to threaten his life, but readily platformed during his party conference a woman who said:
“Mass deportation now, set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care...If that makes me racist, so be it”.
I am genuinely intrigued as to whether free speech is deemed acceptable only if it is used to threaten the lives of refugees and not the Reform party leader.
James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Ind)
Will the hon. Member give way on that point?
Mr Quigley
No.
My point is this: it is completely wrong to call for the death of the hon. Member for Clacton, just as it is completely wrong to call for hotels housing refugees to be burned down. In both cases, the law rightly intervened, and justice was served. What is deeply concerning is the warped suggestion that the law should be applied differently depending on who says something rather than what is said. That is not justice; it is politicisation. Our legal professionals are not the enemy. Our justice system, widely regarded as one of the foundational models of fairness and due process, is not the enemy. And our police, who enforce the law but do not create it, are not the enemy. We must defend the principle that the law applies equally to all, regardless of political affiliation, background or platform.
That should not be controversial. It is in fact one of the oldest principles in our democracy. Magna Carta, the cornerstone of our unwritten constitution, states:
“To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.”
That commitment to fairness and equality before the law is not just historical; it is foundational. Ultimately, if we in this Parliament believe that the law needs to change, we have the power and the responsibility to change it through the proper democratic process. Those who seek to twist justice, who argue that the law should be applied differently depending on who says something rather than what is said, should ask themselves this: are they defending the spirit of British democracy, or are they defending a warped version of it, shaped not by principle but by popularity on X?
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.
Freedom of speech is a vital right, but it must end where harm to another begins. Online freedom cannot mean the freedom to exploit, to encourage self-harm or to destroy lives. I appreciate that I am taking the debate in a slightly off-piste direction, but this is relevant to the debate we are having today, because suicide forums and other user-to-user platforms are also part of what Ofcom counts as social media. If this debate is about the proportionality of penalties applied to offences arising from social media posts, we must address the stark reality that the most harmful content online is actually the least likely to attract enforcement. Nowhere is that clearer than in the case of unregulated suicide forums, which The Telegraph recently described as a terrifying online world where users share methods, encourage one another to die, and prey on the vulnerable.
The Molly Rose Foundation, founded by bereaved parents after losing their daughter Molly, has exposed the scale of the threat. Its report “Missed chances, lost lives” links at least 133 UK deaths to a single pro-suicide forum that operates overseas. On that site, young people—many just teenagers—are encouraged, instructed and groomed into taking their own lives. The forum hosts detailed methods, promotes poisonous substances, shares advice on bypassing UK regulations and even enables suicide pacts between strangers, which facilitates the abuse of vulnerable women. That is not free speech, as the site moderators claim; it is the deliberate facilitation of harm—fatal harm.
I first became aware of the foundation’s work when I met a local family who had lost their daughter, Hannah. She had been on that forum, where she found links to poisons and guidance on how to obtain them outside UK restrictions. Her father, Pete, warned me that harm is out there waiting to be found by teenagers. No parent should ever have to bury their child because of an unregulated user-to-user forum or social media.
What makes this even harder to accept is how many missed chances there were to act. Coroners issued 65 prevention of future deaths reports to three Government bodies—65 formal warnings that the site and its content were putting people at risk. Had those warnings triggered action when they should have, many of those 133 people might still be with us today.
Ofcom eventually opened a formal investigation under the Online Safety Act, but only in 2025—long after families had begun sounding the alarm. Its own letter acknowledges serious risks to UK users, including children, yet despite that Ofcom initially accepted a voluntary geoblock, which could be easily bypassed with a simple VPN. It took the discovery of a mirror site, and determined, unrelenting pressure from bereaved families, to escalate the case to priority.
That goes to the heart of today’s debate: if we are examining how penalties are applied for offences arising from social media posts, we must ask why the quickest and toughest enforcement does not fall on those creating the greatest real-world harm. The Online Safety Act creates strong penalties for encouraging suicide and serious self-harm—up to 14 years’ imprisonment and up to five years’ imprisonment respectively. Those penalties must not be weakened; they must be used, and they must be supported by regulators who treat the loss of life due to online harms with the urgency it demands.
I have met too many parents, siblings, friends and loved ones whose lives have been shattered. Their message is simple: protect young people, target the real harms, and use the penalties to save lives. If proportionality is the principle, let it be proportional to harm, because our young people deserve a system that protects them, not one that leaves the deadliest corners of the internet untouched.
I thank the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), in part, for the debate today, which has enabled me to raise this part of the important conversation about penalties for offences arising from social media posts and user-to-user platforms.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
What a pleasure it is to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for so ably introducing the debate. Although the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) described her speech as being a little off-piste, I thank her for raising an important subject—she is welcome to raise it in any debate I am part of.
The only two-tier justice system I know of in the UK is between the rich and the poor, and between the powerful and the powerless. That is why I am so pleased we have been able to introduce the Hillsborough law. What we are not talking about here are posts that arise from differences of political opinion: whether rail should be nationalised, or whether we should invest more money in the NHS. What we are talking about are posts that contain elements of racial hatred, which is completely unacceptable and is not a political issue—unless we are arguing that somehow racial hatred is a political philosophy.
Last summer, we saw tragic violence right across the UK. I think Edinburgh was spared only through the hard work over many years of the Edinburgh Interfaith Association. We saw British people attacked because of their faith or the colour of their skin—utterly reprehensible. I spoke to parents who were worried about their children —of all ages—going to school or going to work. It was an horrendous time, and the violence was being amplified and accelerated online.
Many of those who carried out those violent acts argued that their actions were solely in response to the tragic events that occurred in Southport. But it is clear that the fury we witnessed was encouraged by online instigators, who stirred racial tensions and spread false information before the public had a true and complete understanding of what had occurred that awful day—just as we saw a couple of weekends ago after the attack on the London North Eastern Railway train, when people online were quick to link it to immigration and also to Islam, which I found utterly unbelievable. By the time a statement was made to the House of Commons, we knew there was no link to immigration or Islam, so there were no Reform MPs in the Chamber to talk about it—an utter disgrace.
As MPs, we have all had our fair share of online abuse and unpleasant comments, although I absolutely recognise the point made earlier about women attracting much more of that abuse than men. We know that the internet is a challenging and complex place, but when posts tip over into threatening communications, inciting violence against specific groups, provisions must be in place for prosecution. Opposition Members argue that prison sentences are given for comments that were maybe mistaken or intended as humorous. But we know that for some of the people who were imprisoned, this was merely one of many racially motivated comments that they had made over a period of time. Opposition Members called these posts foolish, clumsy or misunderstood, yet many of those people actually pled guilty to inciting racial hatred.
Let us be clear: the posts that led to prosecution were an incitement to violence and outright racial hatred, which is why those people pled guilty. The Crown Prosecution Service is clear that the state must act when there is a clear threat to public order and safety—online or in the real world. Employment law applies to online. Thankfully, we have procedures in place to protect children from online harm. Fraud is a crime online, as is defamation of character. So I do not understand why people argue that racially motivated hatred should not be covered by a law online, when it is in the real world. Why should we be able to say something online that we would not say in the pub? It is utterly unbelievable that people put that argument forward —it is unacceptable. It is right that these things apply across our society. The recent case of the man imprisoned for making threats towards the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) shows that our judiciary act when faced with criminal online threats of violence. Does anybody want to say that they oppose that gentleman being jailed for five years? Of course not.
Freedom of speech is central to our democracy. I understand that all our police forces face stretched resources, but those who incite violence on our streets against vulnerable people can never go unchallenged, whether it is online or in person.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger.
The text of the petition makes specific reference to “posts on social media”, as if this modern medium is somehow separate from every form of speech that came before. Social media posts take seconds to write and publish, and then they are everywhere. They are seen by our parents, grandparents and kids, with no fact check and no filter. Terrifyingly, a 2025 Ofcom study found that three quarters of 18 to 24-year-olds use digital platforms and social media to get their news.
The sort of reach once available only to professional journalists, filtered through editors and media owners, is now available to anyone with a phone. We can post with a moment’s thought during our morning coffee break, with the same ease as world leaders with armies of speechwriters, fact checkers and lawyers to craft their statements. One impulsive tap on an app can land in the timelines of tens, thousands or millions of people.
Let us be honest: who has not posted online something they later regretted? I know I have, and I challenge anyone these days to have an unblemished record online. The incredible reach that modern social media has enabled, compared with the guardianship and control of legacy media sources for centuries, has rightly been compared with the unleashing of the evils of the world from Pandora’s box. We must recognise that attempting to reverse the exodus is as futile for us as it was for the Pandora of myth.
To keep with an historical allusion, the story of the sword of Damocles described how a single hair of a horse’s tail held a sword over the head of King Dionysius, threatening to take away all that he enjoyed as a king, without notice. A second’s misplaced rage, or a misjudged reaction to somebody else’s message, can cause the thread to break and the sword to fall, with the nationwide media sent to a person’s doorstep, their career and life torn apart. That is the reality of casting our thoughts into the social media forum.
The fragility of the risk cannot be used to diminish the impact, and hence the responsibility that must be held by users who can reach millions around the world in seconds. The ease of posting cannot be allowed to dilute the seriousness of the impact. I return to my earlier argument: I invite us to replace “posts on social media” in the petition with “words in a national newspaper” or “speech on national television”. Would there be the same uproar or calls for clemency if a journalist or TV presenter had urged their audience to set fire to hotels full of people? I suggest not.
In the case of Lucy Connolly, her post inciting violence against a hotel full of people, as riots raged throughout the country, was seen by more than 300,000 people in the three and a half hours before it was deleted. That is roughly the same number as the combined daily circulation of The Daily Telegraph and The Times newspapers. I cannot agree with treating social media differently from incendiary violence elsewhere. There were 9,000 followers and it was viewed more than 300,000 times in three and a half hours.
We cannot keep pretending that what happens online stays online. The digital world is now shaping how people think, speak and act, and the consequences are now impossible to ignore. The very power that social media holds is exactly why so many people wield it with such vigour.
Let us not forget that it is a nice little earner for some, too. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) has earned over £40,000 from Twitter since his election, showing the huge potential of the site, and potentially why he is incentivised to defend so enthusiastically people’s right to say inflammatory and shocking things to drive engagement, clicks and views. The online world has become a place where hate speech—or, as the petition puts it, “opinion…speech”—is allowed to spread like wildfire. Too often, social media platforms shrug their shoulders and walk away from the responsibility of monitoring it or, worse, they actively encourage disinformation.
Twitter is the most obvious offender. I am told that, for those who still do, scrolling through Twitter feeds feels like stepping into the wild west. Abusive comments and dangerous posts are left to fester without consequence. A factual error is twisted and retold as the gospel truth before anyone has had time to draw breath. Communities are put at risk by conspiracies that proliferate like a virus.
Twitter must do far more to tackle the surge of hate speech that we see on our phones and tablets every single day. Since Musk took control of the company in 2022, Twitter has rolled back on safeguards designed to prevent misinformation and dangerous rhetoric. The same Elon Musk suggested that America should liberate the people of Britain and overthrow our democratically elected Government. Incidentally, the US customs and border protection guidelines for allowing non-citizens to enter the USA state that if an immigration officer knows or believes that someone would be entering the country to attempt to overthrow the US Government, they are inadmissible. If we applied that reasoning to Mr Musk’s next trip to our country, I wonder whether he might have complaints about his treatment. There is free speech, but not without consequences. This is a foreign billionaire, armed with his global megaphone, fanning the flames of division and calling for the overthrow of our democratically elected Government. We call that treason here.
We cannot allow tech oligarchs to set the rules for British society. Instead of allowing the world’s richest man to decide what toxic content floods national conversation, the Government must wake up and intervene. We Liberal Democrats call on the Minister to properly equip Ofcom to enforce tough regulations to clamp down on the spread of misinformation online. Online safety cannot rest solely on the shoulders of individual users, as algorithms push controversial content for views and shares. Legislation must be tightened to hold social media platforms accountable for the dangerous rhetoric they allow to thrive.
Social media is simply the latest chapter in humanity’s long history of communication, and vectors for incitement, from clay tablets to the printing press to broadcast news. Because it is so accessible, it arguably needs more accountability from its users and operators—not less, as the petition proposes.
Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society. We have always, and will always, stand up for freedom of speech. However, that does not mean no accountability for hate speech or speech that incites violence. Those who use violence, racist abuse or hate speech must face serious consequences. We do not support the suggestion in the petition that social media posts should be treated any differently from any other types of speech.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the Petitions Committee for enabling this debate, and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for opening it. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), who launched and promoted the petition. Like others, I thought it was the first time I had come across a petition from a Member, and it turns out that it is. The number of signatures that the hon. Member managed to secure shows that this issue is of great interest to our constituents, and it is right that we, as elected representatives in Parliament, debate these matters.
I want to begin by talking about something that was not given sufficient focus in the debate: priorities and choices. Police officers cannot and have never been able to investigate and solve all crimes, all the time. They will never be able to do that, so choices and priorities have always been at the heart of policing since it was introduced in this country. The Opposition would rather that our police officers prioritise catching burglars, car thieves, shoplifters and violent offenders, and it seems clear to me that the public agree.
It also seems clear that this is an issue on which the police, the CPS and the courts do not get it right all the time. As always, we cannot be led entirely by the worst examples, but they inevitably raise public concern. I will not focus overly on individual cases, many of which have been well publicised and often, thankfully, not taken forward in the end, but that begs the question: what would have happened to less high-profile individuals, or in cases that were less well publicised? The outcome may have been different, so this issue clearly needs our attention. That is not to say that there should never be any restriction on what people can put online. We need to find a balance akin to the one that we manage, as a whole—although certainly not perfectly—to keep more consistently in what we might call the real world.
The criminalisation of hate speech and incitement is not new; what has changed is the scale and immediacy of communication in the digital age. Social media allows anyone with a mobile phone to reach potentially millions of people within seconds, and their words are essentially permanent and traceable. It exposes individuals to a constant stream of content, often stripped of context, and sometimes designed to provoke. Social media also strips away the manner in which something is said and the demeanour of the person—details that are often key to the prosecution of these sorts of cases in the real world.
We have a responsibility to ensure that the law keeps pace with technology but remains fair, proportionate and grounded in common sense. Those who use social media to clearly and obviously promote hatred, threaten individuals or genuinely incite violence must not be able to act with impunity. But we must also ensure that sentencing reflects the seriousness of each case, that it distinguishes between genuine threats and offensive opinion, and that it maintains public confidence in both justice and freedom of expression.
The judiciary has discretion to consider the context, harm and intent behind each offence, and proportionality is key. Sentences must be transparent, consistent and seen by the public to be fair. We know that the vast majority of people in this country value free speech deeply, but they also expect accountability for those who cross the line into criminality. The balance is delicate and must be protected. Social media has created new forms of harm, but also new forms of expression, and the justice system must navigate these novel complexities carefully. However, when the response appears to some to exceed what is necessary to deter or rehabilitate, it is right that Parliament examines whether the framework that guides decisions remains appropriate.
There have been increasing anecdotal reports of the police arriving in disproportionate numbers to arrest children, parents and older people who may have said “the wrong thing”—as they might describe it—online. One example, widely reported in the press, was the arrest of Graham Linehan by five armed police officers at Heathrow in September. His alleged offence was a series of social media posts in which it seemed apparent to most dispassionate observers that he joked about punching transgender women in the genitals if they refuse to leave female-only spaces. That is a good example of the sort of joke that would not be welcome, and that many people would think was displeasing or inappropriate, but it should have been carefully considered before it was put forward as a possible crime. It was hardly worthy of the time of five armed police officers.
Such use of police time and resources was completely disproportionate when officers’ efforts could be focused on dealing with the crimes that our constituents care more about—such as knife crime, shoplifting and burglary—that regularly go unsolved and do not have the same level of attention in all circumstances. I welcome the fact that in response—and in clear support of the fact that there is an issue—the Metropolitan police announced that they will no longer investigate non-crime hate incidents. I direct those who think there is no issue to the decision by an independent police force to make a major change in how it polices these sorts of things and to
“focus on matters that meet the threshold for criminal investigations”.
We need to see that approach applied across the whole country. The Conservatives put that idea to a vote in the Crime and Policing Bill Committee earlier this year, but sadly the Government voted it down.
The National Police Chiefs’ Council, supported by the College of Policing, has reviewed the use and effectiveness of non-crime hate incidents. Subsequently, in September, the NPCC and the college wrote to the Policing Minister urging her to immediately scrap non-crime hate incidents in their current form, but the Government have not acted. They have ignored the authors of the review that they commissioned, and kicked the issue into the long grass. Will the Minister work with the Home Office to implement the recommendations of the NPCC and the College of Policing?
More broadly, the Government are not being transparent about this issue. They do not collect data on non-crime hate incidents and they do not publish data on the number of arrests made for online malicious communications offences. Accurate quantitative data on arrests and prosecutions for offences on social media are therefore hard to come by. Does the Minister agree that the Government should do more to assuage concerns by collecting and publishing data that might help to illuminate the issue?
We do have some data. In April, The Times published an article using data collated from freedom of information requests, setting out the number of arrests made in recent years under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. The newspaper reported that police officers are making more than 12,000 arrests a year under the legislation, equating to more than 30 a day. I remind hon. Members about the issue of priorities: police officers are going out and making 12,000 arrests a year for these sorts of offences. The paper also claims that the number of arrests in 2023 represented an almost 58% increase from before the pandemic, and that forces recorded 7,734 arrests in 2019.
Dr Arthur
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman’s summing up; he is doing a great job. Those numbers invite some further investigation. Thirty per day does sound like quite a lot of arrests, but in how many cases was the communication the sole reason for the arrest? Was it just a matter of there being many other factors combined, and that was just one point in the arrest schedule?
Dr Mullan
That is a good example of the sort of question we cannot answer. We have had to rely on a media organisation putting forward FOIs to get some information. If the Government took ownership of the issue and published proper data, which might be able to pick out the nuances, we could have a more realistic debate. The hon. Gentleman is right that that could be the explanation, but we are none the wiser.
We cannot simply blame this spike on rank-and-file officers. They are often only following orders from their superiors, who point to guidance from the NPCC and the College of Policing. Another key issue is that many people I have spoken to who perhaps thought that people such as Lucy Connolly had done the wrong thing and should be punished, but were concerned about the length of the prison sentence. At the same time as the Government will not budge on this issue, they are passing legislation that will let thousands of violent sexual offenders out of prison early. Very many thousands of them will serve only a third of their sentences. The Government say that there is not enough prison space, yet their proportionate response is to say that we have plenty of prison space to arrest other people.
Emily Darlington
Does the shadow Minister recognise that when his Government were letting out rapists and violent criminals, they put in place no protections whatsoever, whereas this Government have brought in protection orders and domestic violence orders to ensure that victims are protected in these cases? Does he also recognise that the prison crisis was caused under his Government?
Dr Mullan
It may come from a man, but it is just an explanation. The early release schemes that we used, and that the Minister was previously using, excluded all sexual offences. We excluded sexual offences, and the early release schemes that continued excluded sexual offences. The Sentencing Bill makes no exclusion for sexual offences—none. We would not let out rapists earlier, and the Labour Government initially would not let out rapists, but they are now going to do so. We would not let out people who raped children, and initially the Labour Government would not let out people who raped children, but they are now passing a Bill that will let out people who raped children.
Some people say that the scheme addresses a short-term crisis, but, again, there are existing schemes that could be used for short-term prison capacity issues, such as the ones that I have talked about, which exclude sexual offences. We agree that those should be excluded. Instead of carrying on using those schemes, this Government are legislating to let rapists, child rapists and paedophiles out of prison earlier on a permanent basis. Ninety per cent of people who go to prison for child grooming will be serving a third of their sentence. If that is something that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) thinks is defendable, I encourage her to go away and read the detail.
As I said, the Sentencing Bill will let out thousands of violent and sexual offenders, even if Government Members pretend that that is not what is going to happen. I would also point out that some Labour MPs understand that and would not vote for it. They understand what their Government are persuading them to vote for. They really should not vote for it. I hope the Minister will commit to looking again at the sentencing framework to ensure it better reflects the concerns that colleagues have laid out today. Otherwise, this will be a missed opportunity.
We are clear that we can restore democratic accountability to sentencing only through the abolition of the Sentencing Council and the restoration of its activities to the Lord Chancellor’s office. That is the sort of wholesale reform that is needed. We introduced an amendment to the Sentencing Bill to enable that, but Labour voted it down, proposing instead a halfway house that will not achieve anything like the radical change we need.
The right choices are there and a better way forward is available. It is true that this is a new area for our law and for society; perhaps we were always going to take time to get this right. I welcome the campaigners and individuals affected driving politicians of all parties to do so. We have had some clear proposals for reform, which are a start, but in the meantime it will sadly take more cases, more public concern and more demands for change for the Government to get this right.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. We are here to debate whether to review the penalties for social media posts, as put forward by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe). Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of our democracy, but so too is the right of every citizen to live free from abuse, intimidation and harm. The role of Government and Parliament is to uphold both—to protect rights and responsibilities online and offline.
It has long been a principle in this country that people are free to express their views even when those views are uncomfortable, unpopular, challenging or even offensive. However, we must also recognise that freedom of expression must be balanced against the need to uphold public safety and ensure that our laws are equipped to deal with the realities of modern communication. That balancing act is not set in stone or fixed; it is a constant challenge for our society, as it should be. Any tension or conflict between these principles must be carefully considered and monitored. This debate plays an important and symbolic role in doing that, and I welcome contributions from all different perspectives.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I will always defend freedom of expression, but one feature I am concerned about is the proliferation of disinformation content online—particularly by hostile states—that is designed to divide us and undermine our democracy. Will the Minister comment on that, and the approach the Government will take to tackling and enforcing against it?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Technology and social media have become more complex and difficult, but that does not mean we should shy away from attempting to ensure the principles that we hold so dear, including democracy. I will deal with that important point later in my speech.
This Government are committed to ensuring that penalties for these types of offences are proportionate and uphold freedom of expression. Sentencing is and must remain a matter for the independent judiciary. We all—particularly Government Ministers—have a responsibility to take extreme care when discussing individual cases. I will not be commenting on any, although we all take our own personal views on cases that capture the public imagination. But a sentence in the court of public opinion is not as rigorous as those imposed by courts of law. Each case is different, and the full circumstances are often not reported widely. Media stories of cases rarely convey all the information that the court had before it when deciding on its sentence.
Where an individual is convicted for an offence related to online speech, the independent judiciary is responsible for determining appropriate sentences, based on the facts of each cases and the relevant sentencing guidelines. An independent judiciary is vital to the rule of law and the functioning of a democratic society. It ensures that justice is administered fairly, impartially and critically, without political interference.
The independence of our judiciary from political influence is a vital part of our constitution, and I for one am determined to protect that in my role. The proposals by the Opposition to simply scrap the Sentencing Council amount to constitutional vandalism and have been described by previous Conservative Attorneys General as completely absurd.
Dr Mullan
Does the Minister accept that our proposals, which were not just to abolish the Sentencing Council but to create a number of bodies that advise the Department, are essentially exactly the same proposal that existed before the Sentencing Council was introduced by the Labour Government. Did he think there was constitutional vandalism prior to Labour’s reforms?
Jake Richards
The shadow Minister is completely incorrect. The Conservative party’s current proposals are not what was in place before the Sentencing Council was established. They propose to bring the sentencing of every type of criminal case into the Executive. That is a completely new, innovative and wholly dangerous proposal that has been criticised by Conservatives themselves. I remember when Conservatives used to stand up for our constitution and the separation of powers, rather than simply following the populist flame.
The sentencing framework is important, because it provides courts with a range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders in addition to imprisonment, including through discharges, fines, community sentences and suspended sentences. The law also makes it clear that imprisonment should only be imposed as a last resort and where no other sentence would be appropriate.
When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors. They have a statutory duty to follow any relevant sentencing guidelines developed by the independent Sentencing Council for England and Wales, unless they are satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice for them to do so. Therefore, differences in sentencing outcomes will be the result of a number of factors, including whether the offender has previous convictions or whether an early guilty plea was entered, as well as any particular aggravating and mitigating factors. They may also include circumstances surrounding the offence, as well as circumstances personal to the offender.
It is right that courts have the discretion to consider these factors and to tailor sentences accordingly, but that does not mean—and none of my argument should give the impression—that sentencing is not subject to democratic accountability. Parliament is sovereign. The Sentencing Bill, which we are taking through the House, makes changes to ensure that the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice agree to new guidelines before they come into effect, which is a new mechanism for bolstering accountability. We do not want politicians handing down sentences on each given case, leading to wild inconsistencies and unfairness. But of course, sentencing has a democratic function, and in my submission this change strikes the right balance.
The Government commissioned a comprehensive review of sentencing powers through the independent sentencing review, chaired by David Gauke, the previous Conservative Lord Chancellor. This was wide-ranging and evidence-led, examining the full spectrum of sentencing options. The aim of the independent sentencing review was to ensure that the framework is robust, proportionate and fit for purpose. The review was guided by three core principles: sentences must punish offenders and protect the public; sentences should encourage prisoners to turn their backs on a life of crime; and we must make greater use of punishment outside of prison.
The Government accepted the majority of the review’s recommendations in principle, many of which are now being delivered through the Sentencing Bill, which is currently progressing through the House of Lords. Our focus remains on ensuring that the justice system protects the public, upholds fundamental rights and uses custodial sentences only where they are necessary and proportionate.
The Government have made it clear that we need to focus our law enforcement efforts on preventing crime in our communities—more police on our streets, rather than more policing of our tweets. But the Government do not feel that there is any case for a change in legislation at this stage, as proposed by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth.
Freedom of expression is a right that must be protected, but it is not an absolute right; it carries a responsibility to use that freedom honestly and decently. Freedom used irresponsibly corrodes democracy; responsibility without freedom weakens it. The Government’s job is to protect both, and the Online Safety Act and our wider sentencing framework reflect that balance. They are designed to protect individuals, uphold justice and preserve the freedoms that define our society.
The Online Safety Act has been designed to safeguard legal free speech, uphold privacy and support innovation. It does not prevent adults from accessing legal content, nor does it restrict people from posting content that others may find offensive. It involves the regulation of systems and processes that platforms have in place for tackling illegal content and, critically, protecting children. There are also protections against the over-removal of content, where platforms take down content that they should leave on their sites.
As use of the internet has expanded, there has been an increasing awareness that online content and activity can cause serious harm to users. From disinformation to targeted harassment, what happens online now shapes lives offline. The public are right to expect protection online from abuse that would never be tolerated on our streets. There are some circumstances where the criminal threshold is met for genuinely harmful and dangerous material, whether that be online or through other forms of communication. That is why the Online Safety Act introduced three modern communication offences—harmful communications, false communications and threatening communications—ensuring that our legal framework is fit for the digital age.
We have now seen that the new offences introduced by the Act are being applied proportionately and effectively. Earlier this year, an individual was convicted under section 184 of the Act for encouraging a child to undertake serious self-harm through online grooming—the first case of its kind. We have heard about the real dangers that exist online for children, and we must clamp down on them. The case demonstrates the importance of having modern, digital-age offences that are capable of protecting the most vulnerable from genuine life-threatening harm.
The Act also delivered Zach’s law, named after a young epilepsy campaigner, which rightly makes it a criminal offence to send malicious flashing images intended to trigger seizures. It is a clear, common-sense and compassionate example of how the law can evolve to protect people with disabilities from cruelty and real, demonstrable harm online. We should remember that the Online Safety Act is not the only legislation that can lead to custodial sentences for online speech: recent convictions, including that of the individual jailed for issuing death threats against the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), show that existing laws on threats and harassment are being applied robustly where speech crosses into criminal intimidation.
Democracy cannot function when intimidation replaces debate. That is the balance we seek to strike in regulating an increasingly influential online world to protect the public—between freedom of expression and the safety of individuals and communities. I thank all Members for their contributions. This is an issue that is important not only to this House but clearly to many people across the country, and it is vital that we allow, and indeed encourage, rigorous debates about the relevant legal framework.
Jamie Stone
As colleagues are aware, the Chair of any Select Committee is elected by the House. Therefore, this evening I am rather more the servant of the House than of my party. I therefore speak, I hope, impartially— as I should as Chair of the Petitions Committee. We have heard some verbal jousting in this debate, but it is no bad thing to air an issue out in the open and in our democratic forum.
I thank the petitioner himself, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe); it is indeed a historical first—it has never happened before, that I am aware of, in the history of this place—that the petitioner is a Member. I also thank you, Sir Roger, and all the Members who have spoken.
I also want to thank the members of the public in the Gallery. I do not know whether they have felt this too, but I have felt a rather chilly draught behind me—I think we ought to offer Parliament a shilling for the meter, to get heating turned up a wee bit. But I thank them for coming; I think they have witnessed something rather special that we do in this place.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 728715 relating to penalties for offences arising from social media posts.
Parkinson’s Disease
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 713714 relating to funding and care for people with Parkinson’s.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. The petition calls on the Government to increase funding for people with Parkinson’s and to implement the five steps of the Parky charter. With more than 113,000 signatures, the petition is not just a call for change; it is the collective voice of a community that has waited too long for meaningful action.
Parkinson’s is one of the fastest growing neurological conditions in the world. It affects more than 116,000 people in the UK, and that number is expected to rise to 173,000 by 2030. These are not just statistics; they are our neighbours, friends and family members. Behind each number is a story of resilience, daily struggle and hope.
The Parky charter is a powerful five-point plan created by the “Movers and Shakers” podcast group. It is backed by Parkinson’s UK, and aims to improve the lives of those living with Parkinson’s. It calls for faster access to specialists; clear and immediate information; a Parkinson’s passport to ensure joined-up support; comprehensive support across health and social services; and renewed investment in research for a cure.
Paul Davies
There is a competition. I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore).
Baggy Shanker
Initiatives such as Derby County Community Trust’s Parkinson’s walking football programme are doing fantastic work to boost physical health and build a community for people with Parkinson’s. Does my hon. Friend agree that, by coupling investment in the Parkinson’s support workforce with such community initiatives, we can help every person with Parkinson’s to live with the dignity and support they deserve?
Paul Davies
I absolutely agree. The strength of the community around investment and specialist support is of key importance.
Chris Bloore
As the son of someone suffering from Parkinson’s—both my uncles have Parkinson’s and my grandad sadly died of Parkinson’s complications—I was struck by the fluctuating nature of the condition. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best parts of the Parkinson’s passport is that people will not have to go through reassessment, when we know that this degenerative condition will only get worse for many people?
Paul Davies
I will refer to that later, but I absolutely agree. The fluctuating nature of the illness means that we have to provide that.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Paul Davies
Oh, go on, before I start again—I will only lose my place otherwise.
Tim Farron
The hon. Gentleman is being incredibly generous, and I thank him for his excellent introduction. Given that the condition is often degenerative and that, tragically, people do not get better from it, it is not outrageous that a number of integrated care boards—including mine, Lancashire and South Cumbria—are reassessing people with Parkinson’s for continuing healthcare, and that many of them are losing that care? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is wrong, and that people with such conditions should be able to guarantee that they will get the support and healthcare they have had for many years?
Paul Davies
I agree. I will refer later to ICBs, which clearly have to ensure the full, necessary support, particularly for this community. I understand the pressures they are under—we all do—but taking away support from people is a much bigger issue than people not getting support in the first place. I am sure that all of us across the House would like to work on that issue.
This plan is rooted in lived experience and offers a practical road map for change, including renewed investment—I say that to give some context; otherwise we will lose track of where we are. In April, during World Parkinson’s Day, I attended the Big Sing for Parkinson’s. That uplifting event was quite amazing and inspiring; it was full of energy, music and community spirit. It was organised by the same “Movers and Shakers” group I referred to earlier, and brought together people living with Parkinson’s, and very importantly their families, in both London and Huddersfield.
I had the pleasure of speaking to Mark Mardell, the former BBC political journalist and the lead petitioner—he is sitting at the back of the Public Gallery, and I thank him very much for the petition and for the work he is doing. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] He shared his personal journey with me and emphasised the urgent need for reform. Like the charter, the Big Sing is a celebration of resilience and a call for action.
Since July 2024, the Government have taken the following steps. The autumn Budget last year included a £600 million increase in social care funding and an £86 million boost to the disabled facilities grant. In April 2025, the Government reaffirmed their commitment to improving outcomes for neurological conditions, through initiatives such as the RightCare toolkit, the Getting It Right First Time programme and the neurology transformation programme. Spending review 2025 also pledged £29 billion in additional NHS funding by 2029, including £10 billion for technology and GP training. This is just the start in addressing the needs of those living with Parkinson’s.
An estimated 253 people with Parkinson’s live in my constituency of Colne Valley. That is as per the previous constituency boundaries, but there will be revised figures in line with the new constituency boundaries, although they are hopefully not revised upwards. West Yorkshire NHS ICB plans and delivers care for people with Parkinson’s in the ICB area. In 2023-24, the spend on admissions to hospital in that area increased by 4.9%, and the cost of each admission was just over £6,000.
However, we face extremely serious challenges. The UK ranks near the bottom in Europe for the number of neurologists per capita. Neurology services meet the 18-week referral target only about half the time. Only 44% of patients in England have access to an occupational therapist, only 62% have access to a physiotherapist and just 40% have access to a speech and language therapist. Those professionals are essential; they are not optional. The Government are addressing that issue through the broader NHS workforce strategy, which includes expanding the number of training places and reforming medical education pathways to address shortages in specialist areas such as neurology.
However, the Parky charter also highlights the importance of timely medication. For people with Parkinson’s, receiving medication within 30 minutes of the prescribed time is not a convenience; it is an absolute necessity. Yet more than half of hospitalised patients report delays. The NHS’s medicines safety improvement programme, which runs from 2024 to 2027, is a step forward, but implementation must be consistent across all trusts.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Lewell. Earlier today, I was at the Parkinson’s event in the Palace, and I spoke to a surgeon who treats Parkinson’s patients every week. He told me that if more people were seen earlier, he could ensure better outcomes. Does the hon. Member agree that this battle is partly about funding that is needed now, rather than later down the line?
Paul Davies
Once again, I absolutely agree. I will certainly refer later to funding, which is a key issue. This is about resources and about making sure that that help is there as quickly as possible. Obviously, the longer it takes to provide that support, the more this disease hits people—the impact is far greater.
The Parky charter also addresses the personal independence payment system. As we know and as was said earlier, Parkinson’s is a fluctuating condition, and assessments often fail to capture its complexity. The Government are now working with Parkinson’s UK and individuals with lived experience to reform the PIP assessment, aiming to make it much more reflective of fluctuating conditions. The review is expected to report in autumn 2026, and the Minister has pledged that the voices of the Parkinson’s community will be central to the process. The Government have expressed a desire to return to routine face-to-face assessments, but have also indicated that for those with very severe conditions, full assessments may be waived if sufficient medical evidence is provided.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
In terms of treating those suffering from Parkinson’s, does the hon. Member agree that best practice should be shared across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland so that everybody gets the best treatment right across our United Kingdom?
Paul Davies
I could not agree more. I will speak later about the postcode lottery, although it is not just a postcode lottery; it is across the whole nation. The hon. Member is absolutely right: we should be doing everything we can to ensure consistency of support and adequate support across the nation.
Innovation also offers hope. Produodopa—I think I probably said that better today than the last time I was here—was approved for NHS use in 2024. Earlier today, I was at an event organised by Parkinson’s UK and I was talking to a specialist—a neurologist—who was talking about the impact of medication and how much difference that will make. It was fascinating, and that five minutes was of huge value in helping me to understand the impact.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
On the question of innovation, the University of Wolverhampton, in my constituency of Wolverhampton West, recently launched a new course, in collaboration with the British Judo Association, to enable those suffering with Parkinson’s to remain active and to increase their confidence with physical activity. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a multidisciplinary, comprehensive approach to Parkinson’s care, that this kind of support is crucial to supplement the specialist medical care he has spoken about, and that that is the best way to support those who are suffering from this awful disease?
Paul Davies
Again, I absolutely agree. I know from talking to one of my constituents, Liz Ryan, that that physical support and that ability to do something, get involved in activities and have help are of immense value. We absolutely have to have a holistic view of this issue; it is not a simple case of just medication or taking people into a clinical environment. We have to look at what we can do within communities, as was mentioned earlier, and at how we can support people with their lives and ensure that they live their lives to their full potential.
Some of the innovative medicines can certainly be life-changing for those with severe symptoms, but staffing and funding constraints mean that many hospitals cannot offer those solutions. Access to new treatments must not be a postcode lottery.
I want to take a moment to share some encouraging news from my constituency. We currently have a neurology registrar based in Leeds who is spending a significant amount of time seeing Parkinson’s patients in Huddersfield. He works alongside a dedicated doctor who also travels from Leeds to support patients at Huddersfield Royal infirmary. Just last month, they met the operations director at Huddersfield Royal infirmary, who shared some good news: in December, the trust will be advertising for a consultant neurologist with a special interest in Parkinson’s.
The role will be based in Leeds but will include a significant commitment to patients in Huddersfield. That is a direct result of our local campaign, and in particular the tireless work of our local Parkinson’s community group, led by Liz Ryan MBE and Dr Chris Ryan. It shows what can be achieved when patients, families, clinicians and elected representatives work together.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for leading today’s debate, and the Movers and Shakers for promoting both the debate and the Parky charter. My hon. Friend talks about working together. One of the issues I have heard from constituents in Stevenage is misdiagnosis at the outset, where GPs have not identified the condition or referred patients to the right pathway. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just about funding, but about training as well?
Paul Davies
Certainly. In the discussion I referred to earlier with the neurologist specialist, we talked quite a bit about that as well: the difficulty with diagnosis and the similarities between Parkinson’s and other neurological illnesses and issues. My hon. Friend is right: there is absolutely a need to ensure that GPs at least recognise some triggers or areas so that patients can get specialist support. Without early diagnosis, many people suffer unnecessarily for many years, and the support that could help to alleviate some of these issues is not getting to them.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
On early diagnosis, this is not just about GPs’ ability to diagnose, but about patients getting neurology appointments. Does the hon. Member agree that more people would be able to get the clinical care and support they need if they were able to get such an appointment within the first 18 weeks?
Paul Davies
Absolutely. One of our calls in the Parky charter is for that additional support. It is crucial that those specialists are available. We recognise that there is a shortage across the country, but we have to work hard to fill that gap as soon as possible. I totally agree with the hon. Member. Going back to the work being done in my constituency, I want to say a heartfelt thank you to everyone who has supported that effort.
Parkinson’s demands our attention, compassion and action. The Government have made some progress, but clearly the petitioners would like to see more done. I urge the Minister to work with the Parkinson’s community, particularly the petitioners, to implement the Parky charter, especially in the following areas: invest in the Parkinson’s workforce; ensure timely access to medication and specialists; and expand access to innovative treatments. I welcome the commitment shown by the Minister, who has recognised the urgency of improving care and support for people with Parkinson’s. Now is the time to turn that commitment into concrete change through funding, reform and compassion.
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
I will need to put a two-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I will keep my remarks brief because the debate is so well attended. It is a real privilege to speak in this debate on behalf of so many people in my constituency who have campaigned tirelessly to improve care and support for those living with Parkinson’s. Parkinson’s UK tells me that in Bexhill and Battle, around 377 people live with Parkinson’s.
I pay special tribute to my constituents Linda, Helen and Vivienne, who join us in the Public Gallery today. They are part of a fantastic local Parkinson’s group, which campaigns with energy, determination and an unwavering commitment to the community, and their advocacy has brought the realities of living with Parkinson’s to the forefront, highlighting not just the challenges but practical solutions. Their work has also been key in raising awareness locally around the Parky charter petition. I am immensely proud that Bexhill and Battle recorded 576 signatures, the highest number anywhere in the UK. That is a testament to the strength of feeling in our area and the dedication of campaigners who ensured every voice was heard.
The charter aims to highlight delays in diagnosis, fragmented care, failed benefits assessments and underinvestment in research as key areas where we need to do better. Delays in diagnosis can have irreversible consequences. Around 21,000 people in the UK currently live with Parkinson’s undiagnosed. Access to a full multidisciplinary team is another central pillar of good care, yet only 44% of people have access to an occupational therapist; 62% to a physiotherapist; and 40% to a speech and language therapist. Research is needed to create a brighter future for Parkinson’s sufferers. Currently, there is no cure and treatment options are limited. With someone diagnosed every 20 minutes in the UK and 25 million people affected globally, the need for new therapies is urgent.
Closer to home, we have seen some encouraging steps in local Parkinson’s services. Our local trust has signed up to Parkinson’s Connect, allowing direct referral at the point of diagnosis. The trust now supports around 800 patients and the specialist team has grown from one to four staff members over the past two years. Home visits and outreach clinics are planned, which could make a meaningful difference once fully operational, but progress remains uneven.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Parkinson’s, it is my privilege to take part in this debate. In May this year I was delighted to secure the first substantive debate on Parkinson’s held in the Chamber. It is fantastic to see that as a result of that tenacious campaign we have not had to wait long for this next opportunity. I want to start by noting the incredible feat of securing over 100,000 signatures on the petition raised by Mark Mardell on behalf of the Movers and Shakers.
In Scotland there are around 14,000 people diagnosed with Parkinson’s, and every single day another seven people are told they have this disease—one of the fastest-growing neurological conditions in the world. In my constituency there are 235 people living with Parkinson’s, each of whom are supported by carers, both paid and unpaid, family members and clinicians who work tirelessly to ensure they can live their very best quality life. But when we look at the health economics of Parkinson’s, people living with the condition are seven times more likely to be among the very highest users of health services, falling into a category defined as high-cost, high-need patients, along with approximately 5% of the general population. Meeting the needs of that accounts for more health spending than the remaining population put together.
We would expect that this group of people are able to access consistent gold standard care and support, yet they face some of the starkest postcode lotteries anywhere in the UK. In the NHS Forth Valley local authority in my constituency, people referred for neurological support are typically seen quickly, but in NHS Fife the median wait for the first neurology appointment is 31 weeks, stretching to 87 weeks for some. You can imagine not knowing that something is wrong and having to wait for almost two years before a specialist can help you to understand what is happening to you. Can you imagine the impact on your loved ones? We must always remember the emotional and social cost to people.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, while tackling Parkinson’s and highlighting the issue today is critical, we also have to make sure that we look at Parkinson’s with dementia and all the other challenges that come with such a complex set of health issues.
Graeme Downie
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the complexity of Parkinson’s itself and the other conditions it presents with is another reason why this is something we must tackle immediately. I want to make sure I am not using up other people’s time by repeating some of the information in the Parky charter. However, I think there is a need for speedy care and instant information, and I echo the point raised earlier about the Parkinson’s passport and making sure that that involves the devolved Administrations, so that touchpoints are truly connected and best practice is delivered wherever possible.
The financial cost of living with Parkinson’s is immense. On average it costs a household £21,986 per year, and people with Parkinson’s are 9% more likely to be incorrectly assessed for PIP or adult disability payment in Scotland, something I hope that the Minister will address in her closing remarks as well.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I will show people how to do a 30-minute speech in two minutes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on setting the scene, and thank him for that. I am the DUP’s health spokesman, so I know many people in my constituency suffer from Parkinson’s and I know about the devastating effects it can have on aspects of their lives. I give a big thanks to Parkinson’s UK. Many of them are in the Gallery today, and I thank them for all the help that they have sent to us.
I want to present some stats on three questions in the short time I have. In my constituency of Strangford there are 272 people living with Parkinson’s and a further 694 people in the South Eastern trust area. We expect that this year 98 more people will have Parkinson’s. Shockingly, around one in five people do not have proper access to a Parkinson’s specialist nurse—1,328 people in Northern Ireland. It is lovely to see the Minister in her place; I thank her for being here. My first request to her is to ensure that, as the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) said, the four regions—England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—work together. We can do it better together and we should always try to do so.
They say that, with adaptations, travel costs and additional energy payments, it costs almost £22,000 a year to have Parkinson’s. That is a salary. I want to highlight the issue of Parkinson’s and personal independence payments, which I deal with all the time in my office. I say this with respect: I am not quite sure whether the person who does the PIP checks has the knowledge to understand what Parkinson’s is and how PIP should be involved. That is my second ask to the Minister. There is no doubt that change is needed.
My third ask is research. We are aware of the motor and non-motor symptoms that come with Parkinson’s. We must have more research. Let us find a cure in our lifetime. They say that in 10 years’ time, they will find the cure for cancer—well, let us find a cure for Parkinson’s as well. That is my hope. Timely diagnosis, specialist care and community support remain inconsistent across the region, leaving many individuals and families navigating the condition without the full resources they need.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on securing this debate. I have had the honour in the past of being the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Parkinson’s, which is very forceful, and rightly so.
I want to address a couple of things, starting with the workforce. It is crucial to situate the point about shortages within the context of the forthcoming refreshed workforce plan. The Government have a golden opportunity to fix problems that have blighted Parkinson’s diagnosis and care for years. As with many other conditions, people rely on Parkinson’s diagnosis to access vital support. However, recent research by Parkinson’s UK suggests that up to 21,000 people are undiagnosed. The neurology waiting list stands at more than 226,000, and only half are seen with the 18-week target. At the root of that is our lack of neurologists.
However, for many patients, receiving a diagnosis is only part of the battle. Around one in five do not have access to a specialist nurse. There are also alarming shortages of occupational therapists, physiotherapists and speech and language therapists. Adequate access to specialists and multidisciplinary care is crucial for managing such a complex condition and preventing unplanned hospital visits.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
In advance of this debate, my constituent Tony contacted me to say that he had been diagnosed with Parkinson’s in 2019 but has only seen a specialist three times in the six years that have followed. Does the hon. Lady agree that access to a specialist is vital, not least for quelling anxiety, but also to help those with Parkinson’s to develop plans to help them to live independent lives?
Mary Glindon
The hon. Gentleman has eloquently described the very real problem of what happens after diagnosis.
Sitting alongside the Government’s workforce plan, a new, modern service framework for neurological conditions would set clear, evidence-based objectives and standards for care delivery.
Mary Glindon
Sorry—I do not know that I have time to give way. Too many people want to speak.
A framework would drive faster diagnosis and treatment, boost access to multidisciplinary teams and improve secondary prevention. I urge the Minister to consider introducing a framework for neurology in the Government’s first wave of national service frameworks in 2026. Will the Minister ask the Secretary of State to meet Parkinson’s UK and the Neurological Alliance to discuss how the framework could help to improve patient outcomes?
On financial support, Parkinson’s comes with a significant financial cost. People with Parkinson’s spend over £7,500 a year on average just to manage their condition. However, the personal independence payment system has failed the Parkinson’s community since its creation 12 years ago. Inaccurate assessments are far too common, and too often people must bear the physical and emotional strain of the appeals process. In the previous debate, the Minister offered to relay concerns about PIP to the ministerial team and the Department for Work and Pensions. Against the backdrop of the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper, and now that the Timms review has been launched, will the Minister make representations in the strongest possible terms that any reform of PIP must deliver fair and accurate awards for people with Parkinson’s?
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
In the interest of time, I will concentrate on PIP. The evidence of the past 10 years tells us that the PIP system copes very poorly with fluctuating neurological conditions. As a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, I constantly hear of people being denied PIP even when diagnosed with some of the most severe conditions.
Reports suggest that people with Parkinson’s are more likely to be inaccurately assessed than people with any other condition. I have seen that close up. One of my constituents in Horsham had Parkinson’s for 30 years, yet continued to be denied PIP. Nationally, over 430,000 people are stuck waiting for PIP reviews, causing delays of £24 million a month in essential support payments. We are seeing the opposite of overdiagnosis: almost 302,000 PIP decisions have been overturned on appeal in just two years. That is not an occasional error; it is evidence of a system failing on an industrial scale. I very much hope that the forthcoming Timms review will operate in a genuinely collaborative way, as promised, to put this service on a stronger footing.
When support is denied, people lose their mobility, their independence and their ability to keep working; they fall into crisis, end up in A&E, or even worse; and all of that comes at a far greater cost to the state than if we had supported them properly in the first place. Cutting support does not necessarily save money; it simply shifts the burden on to hospitals, social care, carers and families. People with Parkinson’s deserve dignity, independence and a system that understands their condition. Let’s give it to them.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak for Worthing West, where support for the Parky petition has been strong, particularly in our amazing local Parkinson’s group. Parkinson’s is one of the fastest-growing neurological conditions. Behind the statistics are many people coping with tremor, rigidity and “off” periods—and carers holding everything together. Too many constituents face long waits for diagnosis, inconsistent annual reviews and patchy access to specialist nurses and community rehab.
In West Sussex alone, more than 4,000 people are living with Parkinson’s. Most of them are over 65 years old, but there are also many younger people who have Parkinson’s and are trying to work and support their families. The Government have acknowledged the challenges, and we have already heard about the RightCare toolkit and the neurology transformation programme, but without targeted workforce and implementation funding, the guidance will not translate into timely care for patients, especially given the plan to restore the 18-week referral-to-treatment standard by 2029.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. She mentioned the Parkinson’s group in her constituency. In my constituency, the wonderful Mervyn Dunkley, Jane Hua and their team run brilliant weekly Parkinson’s move and shout classes at the Fairfield leisure centre in Dartford for people living with Parkinson’s disease. Does she agree that every community deserve a Mervyn and Jane and a roll-out of such classes? They are of huge benefit to people suffering from Parkinson’s across the country, and more people could benefit.
Dr Cooper
It is incredibly timely that we are talking about this issue in the context of the NHS 10-year strategy, which will provide a shift from treatment to prevention. A lot can be done in the preventive space for those with Parkinson’s, as with so many other neurological disorders. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; I can slow down slightly now.
The Parky charter asks for speedy specialists, instant information on day one, a cross-condition health conditions passport, comprehensive multidisciplinary care close to home, and a sustained quest for a cure. Alongside that, I ask the Minister to consider a near-term date to deliver 18-week neurology referrals for suspected Parkinson’s; to ensure annual specialist reviews for people with diagnosed Parkinson’s; to expand specialist nurse and multidisciplinary team posts in each area of the country—no more postcode lottery; to pilot the cross-condition health conditions passport, although I appreciate that there are links there to the upcoming NHS App work; to publish access standards and dashboards—
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
Order. I call Gregory Stafford. My apologies; we were having issues with the clock. It should be okay now.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on introducing this debate.
Every hour, two more people in the United Kingdom hear the life-changing words, “You have Parkinson’s.” As I have said before, for me, this is personal. A close family member was first diagnosed with Parkinson’s and later with progressive supranuclear palsy, a more aggressive condition, but my family’s experience is far from unique. Numerous constituents have contacted me about this debate—including Ellie from Farnham, who is in the Public Gallery today—and they all speak plainly about their daily reality, including mobility issues, speech challenges and the emotional strain that falls on individuals and their families. Their stories show extraordinary resilience, but also the gaps in support that remain.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the current pathway for innovative technology to be licensed is both costly and time consuming, meaning inventions that would help his constituents, such as BeechBand, which uses vibrotactile stimulation to decrease symptoms, face delays in testing and potential introduction, and that we need to find a way forward?
Gregory Stafford
I have also been approached by BeechBand. I hope the Minister agrees that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the Government must ensure that where there are new, innovative technologies that could help sufferers of Parkinson’s or any other disease condition, they can get to the frontline to help people as quickly as possible.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Does the hon. Member agree that early detection is key to fighting this disease? Is he, like me, encouraged by research from Moorfields eye hospital and University College London that found that a scan of the retina—the back of the eye—can detect Parkinson’s disease seven years before any symptoms present?
Gregory Stafford
I bow to the hon. Member’s experience on that. I hope the Minister is listening carefully, because these types of innovative technologies can make a significant difference and should be rolled out as quickly as possible.
Living with Parkinson’s brings real financial strain. On average, people spend more than £7,500 each year managing their conditions. That rises to £22,000 when lost earnings are included, so support is not just a clinical need, but an economic one.
In my Farnham and Bordon constituency, which includes Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages, 289 people are currently living with Parkinson’s. The fact that we are—I believe—the only constituency served by three integrated care boards of different sizes brings with it not only challenges but a chance for comparison. Despite their different sizes, some of their challenges are the same, including the increasing number of emergency admissions across all three ICBs. Those numbers lay bare the scale of need and the pressure on services, and underline the urgent requirement for earlier access to specialist care. I raised these concerns in May as the shadow Minister, but I sadly remain unconvinced that the current Government have identified Parkinson’s as a strategic priority.
The new 10-year health plan imagines neighbourhood teams of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, physiotherapists and social workers. It is a positive vision, but it will work only if Parkinson’s specialists are part of those teams. In the Health and Social Care Committee, we often hear about artificial intelligence, remote monitoring and wearable devices, all of which have the potential to transform care through early intervention and better monitoring. The Government must look at those things as well.
I will end with three clear questions. First, in May, the Minister committed to discussing support from the point of diagnosis with Parkinson’s Connect, the Parkinson’s UK programme designed to equip NHS professionals. Have those discussions taken place, and what actions will follow? Secondly, the Minister has said that Parkinson’s nurses are
“worth their weight in gold”—[Official Report, 1 May 2025; Vol. 766, c. 493WH.]
and I agree. What practical measures have been introduced to strengthen training and development for those nurses, particularly those who support patients with the most complex needs?
Thirdly, will the Minister commit to working closely with charities such as Parkinson’s UK to ensure that the 10-year plan gives patients, carers and frontline staff the support they urgently need? Members on both sides of this Chamber share one goal: to get better diagnosis, better treatment and better support for people living with Parkinson’s. Action is what brings progress, and action is what our constituents need and deserve.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for the way he introduced the debate. Given the time, I will focus on the particular challenges that the Parky charter, which I strongly support, addresses.
Parkinson’s brings additional financial challenges for people with Parkinson’s and their families. In particular, I want to highlight the prescription charges faced by many people with Parkinson’s. England is the only part of the UK where people with Parkinson’s still pay for their prescriptions because the NHS medical exemption list has barely changed since it was created in 1968. To put that in context, that is the year that the Beatles’ “Hey Jude” was the UK’s biggest-selling single, and it was before Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. Medical knowledge was far behind what it is today, and it was a long time yet before I would be born.
I gently suggest to the Minister that this is a very serious issue. People with Parkinson’s who cannot afford their prescription sometimes reduce their dose or skip medication, risking hospital admission and irreversible damage to their health. Many people with Parkinson’s already hesitate about taking medication—I think of my father, who had Parkinson’s—because they are worried about the side effects or have difficulty accepting their diagnosis. Having to pay for prescriptions simply creates an extra barrier or a reason not to start medication, but taking that medicine can significantly help with the day-to-day management of symptoms, and can prevent falls and hospital admissions.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I pay tribute to my constituent David Reid, who has done a huge amount of work to promote this petition, including by wearing his Parky charter T-shirt around the Scottish Borders. I met him most recently at the Border Union show, where he spoke about the petition’s importance and his hope that it would get enough support for us to have a debate, and here we are.
Parkinson’s impacts every aspect of people’s daily lives, from making a cup of tea to getting dressed, spending time with friends and family, and much more. According to Parkinson’s UK, around 14,000 people in Scotland have a diagnosis of Parkinson’s. Parkinson’s UK does outstanding work to support people with this terrible condition. In the Scottish Borders, I have met its teams many times, including recently in Galashiels, and have learned more about the helping hand it gives to people living with this terrible disease and to their families. I encourage anyone who is affected by Parkinson’s to attend one of its events if they need someone to talk to, need a bit more support, or simply want to get out and about to socialise. I thank everyone who volunteers for Parkinson’s UK in the Scottish Borders and across the UK. They do so much to ensure support for people living with the disease.
One in three people diagnosed with Parkinson’s are of working age, and more than 10,000 are under 50. We owe it to everyone with Parkinson’s to ensure they have the support they need and the best life they possible can.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
I want to thank my constituent Ruth, who attended my recent drop-in surgery and asked me to speak today about an issue that is personal not only to her, but to my family and thousands of other families in my constituency and across the country. Ruth was diagnosed with Parkinson’s in March 2023 after a long, fragmented and exhausting journey. She went from GP to GP, and from test to test, waiting months and years for appointments. As her symptoms worsened, she felt that she had no choice but to seek a private neurologist, and she finally received the diagnosis that changed her life.
Community, information and honesty are the things that have helped Ruth since. That is why the “Movers and Shakers” podcast and organisations such as Parkinson’s UK are so important. Public figures speaking openly about related issues such as depression, the fear of falling and navigating care have cut through the stigma and reached thousands who felt unseen.
The Parky charter sets out clear, reasonable asks: faster access to consultants and follow-up care; clear guidance on diagnosis; a Parkinson’s passport to ease access to support; and timely access to physiotherapies, speech therapies and wider services. Parkinson’s is the fastest growing neurological condition in the world. We need Parliament to act now. Families are asking for a system that does not leave them waiting, fighting or falling through the cracks.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Thank you for calling me, Ms Lewell, and many congratulations to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on securing the debate.
As many Members have already said, a huge number of families have acquaintance with Parkinson’s. My old dad, who served in this House until 1997, lived with Parkinson’s and I am hugely honoured to be the patron of the Royal Sutton Coldfield and North Birmingham Parkinson’s Group, which does so much good and hard work in the royal town and elsewhere.
I pay special credit to Movers and Shakers, which is led by people living with Parkinson’s. Some of them are in the Public Gallery today. Movers and Shakers was started by Rory Cellan-Jones and Sir Nicholas Mostyn. The “Movers and Shakers” podcast has made a huge difference to so many people, and I am extremely grateful to Sir Nicholas for agreeing to come to Royal Sutton Coldfield next April.
There are just two key points that I want to emphasise today. The first is that we need more specialists and better access to specialists. We do not have enough neurologists in this country. People are supposed to have to wait for only 18 weeks to see a neurologist, but there is clear evidence of people waiting for between one and two years to see one, and of course most of those people will not have any medication in that period. There are 720 neurologists in the UK. There are 4,400 neurologists in Poland, which has half the UK’s population.
The second point is that we need more support for research. Inevitably, that is about funding. We need to harness the private and public sector together to maximise that funding. These two points seem to me to be two of the five key points that we are discussing in this debate.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell.
Imagine being told that you have a progressive, incurable condition and then waiting over a year just to see a specialist. That is the reality for so many people with Parkinson’s and the number of people with Parkinson’s is set to double by 2050. When my constituent Carol was diagnosed with Parkinson’s in 2009, she was only 46 years old. Consultants told her then that they hoped a cure might come within a decade, but 16 years later there is nothing.
At this point, I must declare an interest. My daughter Molly is a PhD researcher with a brilliant team at the University of Southampton that is working to understand Parkinson’s, so that better treatments and cures can be found. As a member of the all-party parliamentary group on Parkinson’s, I know that great work is also happening elsewhere, particularly through the Brain Bank at Imperial College London. However, research alone is not enough; people living with Parkinson’s need care now.
Just before the general election last year, the current Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, then in his shadow role, admitted in the “Parky Politics in the Pub” podcast that there were not enough neurologists and committed to fix it. He said:
“We campaigned hard on workforce to get the last Government to commit to doubling the number of medical places so we can train up staff—especially in neurology, where we have shortages.”
He said he would deliver that workforce plan, yet today waiting times are unacceptably long—not just for initial appointments, but for ongoing care.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I pay tribute to the 459 constituents of mine who have signed this important petition. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as swift access to neurologists, access to specialist nurses is absolutely vital, as is having a named GP for long-term conditions such as Parkinson’s disease? One of my constituents who wrote to me said that her father has just had his medication changed and is having real problems with it, but he will not get to see anybody until March. We could reduce unplanned admissions by improving support.
Vikki Slade
I am so pleased that my hon. Friend has made that intervention, because I am just coming on to tell people about my constituent in Wimborne. He said that he, his brother and his nephew have all been diagnosed with Parkinson’s. When he was first diagnosed, he saw a Parkinson’s nurse every six months and then saw one annually. However, because there is now just one specialist Parkinson’s nurse covering my constituency, he has seen nobody for two years.
Karen, who is also from Wimborne, emailed me and said that she had an appointment with a neurologist and then one with a nurse, but now faces a 14-month wait for her next appointment. Across England, as we have heard, only half of patients meet the 18-week target, even though we know that early support—physiotherapy, speech therapy and clear information—keeps people healthy for longer.
If the Government are serious about transforming the NHS, they cannot allow people with progressive conditions who need a multidisciplinary approach to be forgotten. The NHS workforce plan is due in the spring. What assurance can the Minister give that neurology and Parkinson’s care in particular will feature strongly? It is great that the Government have expanded medical places, but what assessment has been made of how that will translate to neurology services? Given the training time required to generate such expertise, what is being done to bring consultants here from abroad to tackle the crisis now?
In my constituency, 333 people are living with Parkinson’s. On average, each one will be admitted to hospital at least once a year, two-thirds of them in an emergency, which will mean spending a week, unplanned, in an acute bed. That is simply not acceptable and we need to do better now.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
In Stroud, 295 people have Parkinson’s disease, yet we had 960 admissions for it. Although we have a good turnout for the debate today, I believe that Parkinson’s gets less attention than other degenerative diseases. That must change, because it is much more common. As a GP, I would say that diagnosis for the disease is difficult. It can present in a huge number of ways—40 different symptoms, often with rigidity. The tremor can be due to other things such as essential tremor. It can even present with constipation or depression, and indeed with dementia, where it is called Lewy body dementia, which is associated with Parkinson’s. A GP cannot make the diagnosis; they have to wait for the outpatient specialist to make it, which is why the wait is so criminal.
We need comprehensive and co-ordinated care. I believe that neighbourhood health centres will be fantastic at delivering this care. Parkinson’s specialist nurses are absolutely crucial, as are multidisciplinary teams with physios and occupational therapists. Social prescribing—signposting and getting the right benefits—is also incredibly important. Indeed, there is good evidence that dancing is really good for Parkinson’s disease—that is something a little innovative. We need timely diagnosis of patients with Parkinson’s disease, and a co-ordinated and comprehensive care plan; and most of all, we need to give them back their dignity.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. As we have heard today, Parkinson’s is a life-changing, degenerative and deeply debilitating condition. I am grateful that we are taking the time to debate the issue and give voice to people living with Parkinson’s—people such as Matt Eagles, who lives in my constituency. Unlike many Parkinson’s sufferers, Matt has lived with the condition for more than 50 years. He was diagnosed at just seven years old. Parkinson’s, however, is not the defining thing about Matt; what truly stands out is his positivity. He speaks openly about the vulnerability and heartache, along with the courage, resilience and optimism that has helped him to navigate life with Parkinson’s. Matt has done a brilliant job of promoting the petition today, and is a passionate advocate for improving Parkinson’s care. Today’s debate is not only about recognising and championing people like Matt, who face the adversity of Parkinson’s with such optimism; it is a call to action for us as parliamentarians to engage seriously with how we can improve access to care and work towards a cure.
The Parky charter highlights some important changes to consider. Ensuring that everyone suspected of having Parkinson’s can see a specialist promptly and then have regular follow-ups is vital for timely and effective care. We need to provide people with immediate access to clear, relevant information when they are diagnosed, while the ongoing quest for a cure offers hope for a future where Parkinson’s no longer imposes such a heavy burden on those affected. Hope, support and dignity are what people with Parkinson’s deserve. I am deeply grateful to the 313 constituents in Chester South and Eddisbury who signed the petition, and to all those working towards a better future for those with Parkinson’s.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell, in this very important debate. I thank Parkinson’s UK, Parkinson’s Care and especially the “Movers and Shakers” podcast, whose dedication and campaigning led to the huge number of people signing the petition. I am sure the Minister has seen how many MPs are in the Chamber and how many people are in the Public Gallery today. Lots of people will be watching at home as well.
In Putney, 163 people have Parkinson’s disease. Across the South West London ICB, 2,540 people were admitted with the disease in 2024-25. Overall, the NHS spends £325 million a year on unplanned admissions of people with Parkinson’s. This is a very big issue, which rightly deserves the attention it is getting today. I hope for some great answers from the Minister about what the NHS will be doing. First, we need more specialists for faster diagnosis. Many Members have mentioned the delays in diagnosis today, which is true in my constituency, but also in Northern Ireland, where one in 20 people wait more than five years for a diagnosis. Has the Minister spoken to the Northern Ireland Health Minister, Mike Nesbitt, about this issue? What steps are the Government taking to solve the Parkinson’s diagnosis crisis? Secondly, we need instant information. St George’s University has the vital Parkinson’s Connect resource, and it is using it, but can that be rolled out throughout the country?
Thirdly, we need the Parkinson’s passport on social security. As many Members have mentioned, it is a fluctuating condition. The PIP system is failing people with Parkinson’s and their families and carers. Has that been raised with the Minister for Social Security and Disability, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms)? Comprehensive care and more funding will allow us to deliver care, dignity and hope to everyone living with Parkinson’s and their families.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
I pay tribute to everyone in Wales and across the United Kingdom who has campaigned so hard for people living with Parkinson’s. In Wales, we expect the number of people living with Parkinson’s to rise to more than 9,000 by 2030. Yet too many people trying to access the most basic elements of care, from diagnosis to rehabilitation, still face a postcode lottery. Welsh health boards do not have reliable plans to replace specialist staff when they leave, which means long gaps in access to expert care. Given the ongoing shortages in neurology, people can wait far too long to see anyone with the right expertise. For a degenerative condition that demands regular and specialist review, that is simply unacceptable.
Wales saw some of the worst disruption to rehabilitation services during the pandemic, and many of those pressures have not fully eased. People with Parkinson’s still report difficulties accessing physiotherapy, speech and language therapy and occupational therapy. When rehabilitation breaks down, people deteriorate physically, mentally and socially, and carers are left to carry an enormous burden—many are older spouses whose health is already fragile, and they deserve a system that recognises and supports them. We must also fix the basics. In Wales, 73% of people with Parkinson’s in hospital say that they do not receive their medication on time. A delay of just 30 minutes can make the difference between going home or staying another week on a ward. That should not be happening.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on his excellent opening speech. In June this year, my father-in-law, Adrian Lawther, died after living with Parkinson’s for more than a decade. Adrian was a smart, decent and unassuming man, and very much lived the lessons of “two eyes and one mouth”. He did not miss a trick and spied everything, but only ever spoke when he needed to—a lesson he never managed to teach me, but one that I suspect quite a few of us around here would benefit from. He had an interest in the world around him and the world far overseas, and was incredibly kind and welcoming to me—which is no guarantee when marrying someone’s daughter. But for all the memories, the love, the grief and the sadness, we also saw up close the cruel impact of Parkinson’s on a person’s dignity and their quality of life, and on those around them.
Graeme Downie
I thank my hon. Friend for the moving way he has talked about his father-in-law. Does he agree that what he has said emphasises the need to make sure that families are also supported during Parkinson’s care?
Adam Jogee
I could not have put that better myself.
In Newcastle-under-Lyme, hundreds of local people live with Parkinson’s, and that number is rising. It is a life-altering disease that destroys personal autonomy; it affects someone’s ability to talk, swallow, move and write. Cruel is not the word. For those who are suffering and need treatment now, the lack of care provision and the inaccessible treatment is simply unacceptable.
I think of my friend Alderman Lizzie Shenton, a former leader of Newcastle-under-Lyme district borough council, who I saw just last week. She has been diagnosed with the early onset of Parkinson’s in her 50s. She is very healthy and still has much do to. Lizzie had to wait 10 months for a consultant appointment to make a formal diagnosis, and she has been waiting for her DaT scan for five months, without which no medication or treatment can be prescribed.
I pay tribute to the fantastic work being done by the North Staffs Parkinson’s UK branch—the chair, Lorraine, the treasurer, Councillor David Grocott and the whole committee who do wonderful things week in and week out. I thank the Dubb family from the Westlands in Newcastle-under-Lyme for their annual fundraising 5k run and a massive cookout at their home—which smelled very good—all raising money for Parkinson’s UK. My constituent Julie Hibbs has long campaigned to add Parkinson’s to the medical exemption list. The Minister knows that I support those calls—I have raised them with her and others, and I will continue to do so.
The funding and availability of care for Parkinson’s patients do not match the severity of this disease and the desperate need for proper treatment. Getting those suffering from Parkinson’s the right care at the right time is critical to ensuring that their quality of life is as high as it can be, and that the cost of providing that is used as efficiently as possible. As more and more of us get Parkinson’s, those who will suffer from it and their loved ones deserve to know that the question of getting the right treatment is not one they will ever have to worry about.
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
I am terribly sorry; we are not able to take any more Back-Bench speeches. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I would like to begin by thanking the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for securing this debate and for making such a well-articulated case for why more needs to be done to support people with Parkinson’s. I also thank him for mentioning the Big Sing, which brought to mind a brilliant event I went to in July: Picnic in the Park, hosted by the Parkinson’s UK Mid Sussex group. Their choir and their band were there, and we all had a brilliant singalong. I very much enjoyed it, and I pay tribute to the group for what it is doing—bringing people together and reducing isolation, both for those with Parkinson’s and their loved ones.
There are people like my constituent Sophie, whose mum Janet was diagnosed with Parkinson’s six years ago. Janet was active, spoke multiple languages and had an impressive career in business, but Sophie says that Parkinson’s has robbed Janet of much of who she is. Despite raising the loss of her sense of smell with her GP several times, as well as other symptoms such as increasingly small handwriting, it still took more than five years for Janet to get a diagnosis.
We know that Parkinson’s predominantly affects men, but much less is known or understood about Parkinson’s in women, including how symptoms might interact with menstrual cycles and the menopause. Sophie worries that the dismissive response Janet received when trying to get a diagnosis may be a very common experience for women across the board, and I think Sophie may be on to something here.
The e-petition bringing forward the Parky charter matters profoundly, and it makes a lot of sense. I will not spend time repeating many of the points that hon. Members have made in the past hour.
Rachel Gilmour
Does my hon. Friend agree that the challenges faced by those living with Parkinson’s are far from isolated, and that across neurological conditions such as Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis, ME or chronic fatigue syndrome, there are calls for a joined-up neuro-optimal care pathway? A coherent national strategy is what is required.
Alison Bennett
My hon. Friend makes her point very well, and I agree with it.
Rather than repeat what other hon. Members have said, I will move to identifying the three or four main areas that the Liberal Democrats want to highlight, hopefully giving the Minister more time to address the many points that hon. Members have raised so far in the debate. Those issues are mental health, social care, work and medicines availability.
On mental health—and I think this is a critical point—nearly half of people with Parkinson’s experience anxiety or depression, and up to 60% will experience psychotic symptoms as the condition progresses. Yet mental health support remains inconsistent and inadequate generally, and specifically for people with Parkinson’s.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
My hon. Friend is quite right to highlight the importance of mental health support for people suffering from Parkinson’s disease. Will she join me in paying tribute to my constituent Peter Cook, who is doing great work as a trustee of the Parkinsons.Me charity, and also to Paul Mayhew-Archer MBE, who, as well as having written “The Vicar of Dibley,” is now doing fantastic work campaigning for people suffering from Parkinson’s disease?
Alison Bennett
Of course I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Peter Cook and to Paul Mayhew-Archer for their campaigning.
The Liberal Democrats believe that people deserve regular mental health check-ups, access to walk-in mental health hubs and timely specialist dementia care. No one should have to fight the system while they are already fighting their condition. Social care is a crisis that cannot be ignored any longer. Parkinson’s is a progressive and fluctuating condition that affects every aspect of daily life, yet people are too often left without the support that they need to live with dignity.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that diagnosis is just the beginning, because too many people tell us that after receiving that life-changing news, they just feel abandoned? Nearly one quarter receive no information about Parkinson’s services and no adequate information about their condition, so does my hon. Friend agree that we need to ensure that they receive that?
Alison Bennett
I am happy to agree. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and it also applies to the loved ones of people receiving a Parkinson’s diagnosis.
We need better social care for all people when they are faced with a disability. We need there to be more respite breaks, paid carer’s leave and a system that recognises the specific needs of people with neurological conditions.
On work—here I am thinking in particular of my friend Rob, whom many of my hon. Friends will also know—we must ensure that people who have Parkinson’s and are of working age can live and work and participate in work with independence and dignity wherever possible. That is why my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are fighting for a new right to flexible working, and the right to work from home for every disabled person unless there is a significant business reason otherwise.
The Liberal Democrats also want to adopt a new accessibility standard for public spaces and embed in UK law the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. We want to ensure that support moves with the person and does not just stay with the original employer. That is why we are calling for adjustment passports—records of the modifications, equipment and adjustments that a disabled person uses—so that when they change jobs, their support goes with them. That seems to be plain common sense.
On medicines and their availability, we must speed up access to new treatments. It is simply unacceptable that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has seen its workforce cut.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I want to commend the Poole and District Branch of Parkinson’s UK but also, on that particular point, tell the story of Carla, whose husband was affected by a lack of access to time-critical medication. Does the hon. Member agree that it is critical that the Government do everything they can to speed up access?
Alison Bennett
I agree wholeheartedly.
The MHRA workforce has been cut by 40%, and that has slowed down the arrival of new therapies for people who desperately need them. We should be halving the time it takes for new treatments to reach patients, not lengthening it.
None of this is impossible. It requires us to listen to people living with Parkinson’s—really listen to their fears, needs, hopes and experiences. The Parky charter sets out a clear and achievable path. It demands dignity and fairness, and that the Government finally deliver the timely, specialist, compassionate care that every person with Parkinson’s—like Sophie’s mum, Janet—should be able to count on. Today, let us send a message to everyone living with Parkinson’s: we see you; we hear you; and we stand with you. I want to send an equally clear message to the Government and the Minister, whom I thank for being here today: the time for half measures and for excuses is over. The time to act—seriously, decisively and with compassion—is now.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for securing this debate and I thank the charities and organisations including Parkinson’s UK and the Royal College of Emergency Medicine for meeting me and sharing the insights into Parkinson’s that they have as patients and clinicians.
In the UK, 166,000 people have Parkinson’s. It is a progressive neurological disorder that can start with a tremor or muscle stiffness, sleep problems or a whole range of symptoms, and end in complications such as swallowing difficulties, falls and bone fractures. Like all degenerative conditions, it impacts not only the individual but their family. It is vital that our NHS has the neurologists and therapists to care for people with Parkinson’s, because they depend on them for world-leading care. Unfortunately, this is an area in which we could do better. The UK was ranked 44th out of 45 European countries for the number of neurologists per head of population. The UK has only one neurologist per 100,000 patients, compared with one for every 25,000 patients in France and Germany, and one in five patients here has no access to a Parkinson’s disease nurse.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
The real-world experience in North Norfolk is very much like that. It is a struggle to secure the care that people need. We have a shortage of specialist care and Parkinson’s nurses, and those are just some of the things that our rural health system struggles with. Does the hon. Member agree that those living with Parkinson’s in rural communities such as North Norfolk need support and care provided in a way that is equally accessible to them?
Dr Johnson
As I am a rural MP myself, the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I agree with him.
The problem is with wider specialisms, too. According to the 2022 audit by Parkinson’s UK, just 40% of people with Parkinson’s had access to a speech and language therapist, 45% had access to an occupational therapist and 62% had access to a physiotherapist. I want to particularly highlight that to the Minister because there are no treatments that slow down the progression of Parkinson’s disease, but evidence published last year suggests that exercise might do, so physiotherapy—making sure that people are doing the right exercises to help them—is important. What plans does the Minister have to recruit, train and retain the NHS Parkinson’s health workforce? For the benefit of charities, hospitals and patients, will she shed any light on how her delayed long-term workforce plan, when it is published, might assist in that mission?
As was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), Parkinson’s disease patients can live for many years, often with huge positivity. I was inspired to read of Neil Russell, a 65-year-old gentleman who ran from London to Barcelona—almost 1,000 miles—to raise money for Parkinson’s disease research. One in three of those living with Parkinson’s is of working age. It is crucial that they can get support, because many work as doctors, nurses, chief executives, scientists, journalists and in other professions. I was inspired by a meeting that I was privileged to have with Dr Acheson last week. He is not only working as an A&E consultant, after being diagnosed with Parkinson’s almost 10 years ago, but is leading work on a time-critical medicines project.
We have already heard that medicines for Parkinson’s are time critical. If people with Parkinson’s do not get their medication within 30 minutes of the prescribed time, it can lead to them being unable to walk, talk or swallow. Research by Parkinson’s UK has found that 58% of people with Parkinson’s—a clear majority—do not get their medication on time every time when in hospital. That will not only cost hospitals £65.8 million in excess bed days and readmissions, but cost over 150 people their lives this year. That is inexcusable.
Just half of NHS trusts provide staff with training for time-critical medication, and one in four trusts in England does not have policies allowing people with Parkinson’s to take their own medication in hospital. That leaves patients capable but unable to take their medication, and they suffer detriment as a result. I was pleased that last week—following repeated questions to the Minister, both in the Chamber and outside—that the Minister for Health Innovation and Safety, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), met me, Dr Simin Nikou from the RCEM, and Dr Acheson to talk about self-administration of medicines. I am pleased that the Minister was able to commit that the chief pharmaceutical officer will work with those individuals to ensure that there is a protocol for self-administered medicines in A&E for those who are capable of taking them, and to ensure that the protocols for time-critical medicines are enhanced.
NHS England launched a three-year national quality improvement initiative on time-critical medications that is not yet complete. I worried that the Minister’s eagerness to merge NHS England and her own Department may cause such ongoing initiatives to be simply lost. I encourage the Minister to correct me if I am wrong but, from conversations with her ministerial colleague, I understand that NHS England’s three-year initiative on time-critical medicines will be completed.
Research is important because, at the moment, treatment for Parkinson’s is symptom-relief treatment, not disease-modifying treatment. In fact, some of it is not symptom-relief; it is treatment to relieve side effects of the treatments that are providing symptom relief. Ramping up research is an important step towards finding better treatment, and hopefully chasing down a cure for Parkinson’s.
Between 2019 and 2024, the last Conservative Government invested almost £80 million into research for Parkinson’s disease, on top of a £375 million investment over five years for research into neurodegenerative diseases. Will the Minister confirm whether that funding commitment will be renewed as part of her Government’s spending review? What assessment has the Minister made of companies pulling out of billions of pounds of life sciences investment in the UK? How does she think that will impact critical research into conditions such as Parkinson’s? Is she working with her colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to resolve matters for the health sector?
Within the treatments that we have so far, Produodopa was approved in February 2024, and made available on the NHS, under the last Conservative Government, to around 900 people with Parkinson’s. As people with Parkinson’s often struggle with taking numerous tablets to manage fluctuating symptoms, delivering a continuous dose of medication 24 hours a day by a canula under the skin can be ideal to manage symptoms day and night. What assessment has the Minister made of the benefits of Produodopa so far? What steps is she taking to make sure that more people with Parkinson’s have access to that potentially life-changing treatment? More broadly, what is she doing to mitigate the supply issues for some Parkinson’s medications?
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way, particularly because I had a magnificent speech I was not able to make. She is speaking about health-related issues, but I want to draw attention to the personal independence payment assessment process for people with Parkinson’s, and to reference the adult disability payment in Scotland. Does the shadow Minister agree that there is a much better system for assessing people’s needs, and would she recommend it to the Minister?
Dr Johnson
The debate today is about the Parky charter. I am sure the Minister will answer that question in her speech—at least I hope she will.
The Government established the Neuro Forum, which was designed to address the gaps in treatment and care for people affected by neurological conditions, including Parkinson’s disease, but its achievements so far are unclear. Progress in this space demands clear action, not just empty roundtables, so will the Minister confirm how many times the Neuro Forum has met in the year since it was established, what budget and resources have been allocated to it, and what its successes have been so far?
The Government want to shift towards technology. New, affordable technology is available: focused ultrasound can help with tremor; at the most invasive, there are deep brain stimulators. There is also very simple technology. I recently met the former MP Steve Double, who gave me a device that shakes to put on my wrist for a few minutes. Apparently, people find that it helps with dyskinesia, rigidity, walking problems and speech difficulties. What assessment has the Minister made of the benefits of technology as a treatment pathway for people living with Parkinson’s in the UK? What is she doing to facilitate research so that, when someone has a good idea that may benefit patients, it is brought to the fore as quickly as possible?
I note the Minister’s response to a written question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking). Will she clarify whether NHS England’s neurology transformation programme will indeed be concluding at the end of this financial year? Will she reassure us that the conclusion of the programme, which includes Parkinson’s disease treatments, is not related to the Department’s abolition of NHS England? What will she replace it with?
The linchpin of the e-petition is that it asks the Government to consider implementing the Parky charter, which encompasses faster diagnosis, better support, welfare support, access to multidisciplinary care and investment in research—all things that I and others call on the Minister to give answers to today. Given the Government’s decision to do away with the major conditions strategy, I am concerned that Parkinson’s disease will not get the research and workforce it requires.
People can live with Parkinson’s for very many years. For the quality of life of the patients and their families, greater consistency is urgently required in the administration of time-critical medicines in hospitals. Parkinson’s is a condition that is time-critical by its neurodegenerative nature; the Minister’s actions must be equally urgent and time-critical.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for introducing the debate, as well as everyone who signed the petition for raising this important issue and the many hon. Members who contributed.
I acknowledge each one of the 18 Back-Bench speeches and numerous interventions, and particularly all the constituents and campaigners that hon. and right hon. Members mentioned. We also have a packed Public Gallery, which goes to show just how important this issue is. I will attempt to answer as many questions as possible. I am unlikely to answer all of them, but my officials have noted every question asked; anything that I do not cover in my speech will be covered in writing to the hon. Member involved.
Parkinson’s disease presents one of the most complex and growing challenges for our health and care system. Given an ageing population and the condition’s rising prevalence, Parkinson’s demands not only specialist clinical expertise, but co-ordinated social care, community support, and innovative approaches to treatment and management. The impact on those affected is profound, and addressing their needs requires a system that is integrated and responsive to both current pressures and future demands.
The Parky charter is a five-point manifesto created by the Movers and Shakers to tackle what are described as “systematic failings” in care. It calls on Government to deliver five commitments: speedy access to specialists, instant information for patients, a Parkinson’s passport to streamline support, comprehensive and co-ordinated care, and a renewed quest for a cure. The charter aims to ensure timely diagnosis, dignity and better quality of life for everyone affected by this fast-growing neurological condition. I had the pleasure of meeting some of the Movers and Shakers only a few weeks ago, along with Parkinson’s UK. I recognise the urgency of their calls. I shared with them my commitment to improving outcomes for people with Parkinson’s and their families.
I acknowledge the need to improve access to Parkinson’s specialists. Through the elective recovery plan, the aim is for 92% of patients to start consultant-led treatment within 18 weeks by March 2029, supported by millions of additional elective appointments across specialties, including neurology. Our recently published 10-year health plan for England sets out a vision for neighbourhood health services, bringing multidisciplinary teams closer to communities and ensuring that Parkinson’s expertise is embedded in care pathways. We will also publish a 10-year workforce plan, which will ensure that the NHS has the right people in the right places with the right skills for patients when they need them, including patients with Parkinson’s. Those measures, combined with digital consultations and integrated care models, aim to reduce waiting times, tackle workforce shortages and deliver timely, personalised care for people living with Parkinson’s.
As of August 2025, there are over 2,000 full-time equivalent doctors working in the speciality of neurology in NHS trusts and other core organisations in England. That is over 90—nearly 5%—more than in 2024. It includes over 1,000 full-time consultants, which is almost 50—over 5%—more than in 2024. We will soon publish a 10-year workforce plan to create a workforce ready to deliver a transformed service.
Sadly, Parkinson’s cannot currently be cured, but it can be managed effectively with the right interventions. That is why we have embedded Parkinson’s care with broader neurological strategies, including the neurology transformation programme and the RightCare progressive neurological conditions toolkit. Those initiatives aim to reduce variation in care, improve safety and deliver integrated services across the NHS. They set out what good treatment looks like and support integrated care systems to provide the right service at the right time.
We are also taking steps to ensure that people have better access to information. In the 10-year health plan, there is a strong emphasis on using technology and community-based services to provide joined-up care and practical advice closer to home. Initiatives such as Diagnosis Connect, partly inspired by Parkinson’s UK’s referral programme, will help newly diagnosed individuals to receive instant information and support from trusted sources. We are expanding access to digital health tools so that patients and carers can manage symptoms, access guidance and connect with specialist teams without delay.
Consistent and timely access to medicines is key to maintaining a good quality of life and good symptom control for people with Parkinson’s, as well as preventing the complications that could otherwise lead to unnecessary hospital admissions. A focus on time-critical medicines is a key priority for NHS England’s medicines safety improvement programme, which is seeking to reduce severe, avoidable harm associated with medicines. Work is currently under way involving 80 NHS trusts, with 48 of them receiving active support for innovation and improvement. Practical tools such as the RightCare toolkit and resources from Parkinson’s UK’s “Get It On Time” campaign are also helping staff and patients to plan for hospital stays and optimise medication schedules.
While we currently have no plans to offer automatic entitlement to benefits, reforms to the welfare system are intended to improve support for people with long-term conditions such as Parkinson’s. Proposals in our “Pathways to Work” Green Paper mark a significant step in that regard, by moving away from the one-size-fits-all approach, so that people receive the tailored help needed to live with dignity and independence, and to work if they are able to do so.
For those who cannot work, we will guarantee a strong safety net, so that those with the most severe lifelong health conditions have their incomes protected through an additional premium and are exempt from future reassessment. We have recently published our consultation response to the Green Paper recently, and we will set out detailed policy proposals in due course.
Any changes to personal independence payment eligibility will come after the Timms review—an ambitious and inclusive review that aims to ensure that we have a system that supports disabled people to achieve better health, higher living standards and greater independence, including through employment. To ensure that lived experience is at the heart of that work, the review will be co-produced with disabled people, the organisations that represent them and other experts.
There is currently no plan to review the medical exemption list of conditions. However, I assure all Members that I am acutely aware of the list, and that it has been added to only once since its inception in 1968, which was to add cancer in 2009. However, approximately 89% of prescription items are currently dispersed free of charge, and a wide range of exemptions from prescription charges exist, including free prescriptions for everyone under the age of 19—or 16 if they are in full-time employment—and over 60.
Innovative treatments are transforming the outlook for people with Parkinson’s disease. The NHS has recently rolled out—let me try to say it now—Produodopa. No, I did not do well on that, but it is helping patients with advanced Parkinson’s to achieve more stable symptom control and to improve quality of life. The technology uses a small, wearable pump to deliver medication under the skin, managing symptoms more steadily through the day and night than traditional oral tablets. The 10-year plan commits to make wearables standard in preventive, chronic and post-acute NHS treatment by 2035. We will provide devices for free in areas where need and deprivation are highest. Alongside such research, we are driving breakthroughs in cell and gene therapies, and large-scale trials testing multiple disease-modifying drugs.
Of course, future progress depends on research, which is why my Department invests more than £1.6 billion each year on research through its research delivery arm, the National Institute for Health and Care Research. In the financial year 2024-25, the NIHR has committed £6 million to Parkinson’s disease projects through its research programmes. In addition, last month, the world’s largest clinical trial for treatments to stop or slow the progression of Parkinson’s opened for recruitment. I encourage researchers to keep applying for funding through the NIHR. We would love to see more proposals.
We have set up the UK-wide Neuro Forum to work across the four nations. I will ask officials to explore a conversation specifically on Parkinson’s and how better to share practice across the four nations.
Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley for opening the debate, and all Members who have contributed to the actions I have outlined. The reforms echo the priorities set out in the Parky charter. By aligning policy with the charter’s five key asks, we can build a health and care system that delivers dignity, certainty and hope for every person with Parkinson’s and their families.
Paul Davies
I will be brief, Ms Lewell. First, many thanks again to the Movers and Shakers group—the work it puts in is absolutely fantastic and amazing. I also thank all hon. Members for their contributions; it has been an excellent debate. The Minister will have seen that the consensus across the Chamber is very clear on what we need to do.
During the debate, I was thinking of my constituent, Liz Ryan, whom I mentioned. She suffers from Parkinson’s, and she is an amazing individual. She just wants to have her independence, to be treated with dignity and to live life to the fullest she can with this condition. She is not alone, and I know from talking to other sufferers that that is exactly what they want too. Let us adopt the Parky charter. Let us do the work we need to do to give those people that chance.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 713714 relating to funding and care for people with Parkinson’s.