(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Westminster HallWestminster 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
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for securing this timely debate and wish her mother well in her recovery. It is not easy to channel personal pain for the greater good, but the hon. Member has done so, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) and for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy). They can be assured that their articulation in this place of their personal experience will prevent strokes and lead to their faster treatment. Often, debates such as this can increase awareness and reduce the threshold at which people contact the NHS and the ambulance service for help.
The hon. Member for Twickenham asked me to address a number of issues, and I will do so before I get into the bulk of my speech. One was about data capture. Although I am responding on behalf of the public health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), I am the Minister responsible for digital health and data, so I can assure the hon. Member that the interconnectivity of data among primary care, secondary care and social care is important to me, both for ease of access for the patient and for learnings and auditing. She can be assured of my personal commitment that that is the way forward in the new iteration of a modern health service.
The hon. Member also asked about physiotherapy and disability reduction. I can reassure her that, through the workforce plan and our upgrading of the digital architecture, we are working intensively to see how we can bring world-class physiotherapy to all and not just to some. Part of disability reduction is timely access to cutting-edge treatments, which no longer involves clot-busting; it now involves clot removal, in the form of thrombectomy. Thrombectomy services are planned to be totally universal in England by April 2026. I hope that answers some of the questions the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) asked about those services.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a plan in Scotland to install 24/7 emergency thrombectomy care across the country as soon as possible? I believe the objective is 2031, but we should be pushing the Scottish Government to go further and faster on that.
Dr Ahmed
My hon. Friend must have read my mind. As I was saying, our plan is only for England. Hon. Friends have already articulated the fact that in Scotland, despite the best efforts of clinicians in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee, there has not been the ability—or the intent from the Scottish Government—to bring forward a proper 24/7 stroke thrombectomy service. That means that the time of day that Scottish patients have a stroke determines the outcome. They are literally being dealt a roulette wheel of care: 20th-century care out of hours and 21st-century care within office hours. It is simply unacceptable, and the UK Government stand ready to assist the Scottish Government in any way, shape or form they require to make sure that access to the highest quality of care is as available to patients in Scotland as it is to those in England.
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill Committees
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
I am an officer of the responsible vaping all-party parliamentary group.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
I declare an interest as an NHS transplant and vascular surgeon. My wife is a lung cancer doctor.
Euan Stainbank
Q
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: Our view is that the benefits of preventing people who are not currently vaping, particularly children, from vaping through what is proposed in this Bill significantly exceed that risk. However, that risk exists; we all accept that. To go back to a previous point I made, that is why having these powers gives us the advantage that if, as a result of where we get to—remembering that this change will come after consultation and there will be secondary legislation going through Parliament—it looks as though we have gone too far, it will be possible to ease back. Our view, though, is that at this point in time, and subject to what the consultation shows, the net benefit in public health terms is positive for the prevention of children starting smoking, over any risk for adults.
The area of greatest uncertainty is on flavours. There is some genuine debate around that, with a range of different views from people who are quite seriously trying to wrestle with this problem—rather than doing marketing masquerading as wrestling with this problem—but in all other areas, most people think that the benefit outweighs the risk.
Dr Ahmed
Q
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I will give a view, and I think Sir Gregor will want to add to it. It will make a very substantial difference. The thing to understand is that not only does cigarette smoking cause individual diseases, but many people as they go through life have multiple diseases from smoking. They will start off with heart disease, for example, as a result of smoking, and will go on to have a variety of possible cancers, and they might have chronic obstructive airway disease, and they will end up potentially with dementia. All of these would have not happened at all or would have been substantially delayed had they not smoked. Of course, this is heavily weighted towards areas of deprivation, people living with mental health conditions, and other areas where I think most people would consider it really unjust in society. All of us, and anybody who has looked at this in public health terms, would say that if you could remove smoking from the equation, the chronic disease burden would go down very substantially, and be delayed, and the inequalities of that burden of disease would also be eroded. The arguments for this are really clear.
To give some indication of the numbers involved, we have thousands of people every year—millions over time—going into hospitals and general practices only because they are smoking. Had they not smoked, they would not have to use the NHS, and they would not have the chronic disease burden that disbenefits themselves, disbenefits their families and, of course, because of the impact on wider society, disbenefits everyone else as well. Undoubtedly this Bill—if it is passed by Parliament—will reduce that burden and have an enormous impact.
Professor Sir Gregor Ian Smith: Thank you for raising this as a question, because it is a very important point to understand. I will speak to the experience in Scotland. The Scottish burden of disease study published by Public Health Scotland suggests that from now to 2043 we are going to see a rise of 21% in overall burden of disease across our society in Scotland. That burden of disease is very much weighted towards a number of conditions such as cancer, dementia including vascular dementia, cardiovascular disease, and others. There is no doubt in my mind that smoking contributes to those.
Chris’s point about the multimorbidity that people experience is really important in this context. There are more people in Scotland who experience multimorbidity under the age of 50 than those who do over the age of 50, and much of that is related to smoking. Anything that we can do to reduce that burden of disease on people will not only make their own lives so much better, but make them more productive—they will be able to spend more time with their families, they will be economically active for longer, and they will also use health services less. So there is both a compelling health argument and an economic argument here on the preventive nature of stopping smoking and stopping people from beginning to smoke, which is really important to understand in the context of that projected increase in the burden of disease.
The last thing to remember is that our experience of disease can sometimes be cumulative. As Sir Chris alluded to, people who have developed diabetes for other reasons but who smoke as well, will have accelerated disease as a consequence. Removing as much as we can, step by step, the risks that are associated with the development of that accelerated disease—you will have seen it very clearly in your role as a vascular surgeon—has to be a step that we take to maintain both the health and the economic prosperity of our nation.
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: The numbers that I was looking for—